Why I Disagree with Roy Spencer on the so-called Re-radiation Issue

Humans are primary cause of global warming? Don't believe ...

Dr. Roy Spencer has commented on my research study about the IPCC’s greenhouse effect definition (March 12, 2020) . A link to my original paper is here.

This piece by Dr. Spencer has raised more than 570 comments to date. It appears to be among the most popular articles on WUWT.

When it is a question about the greenhouse gas effect (GH) most of the comments and counter-comments are always about the so-called re-radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface. It is the key feature of the GH effect because without this energy source to the Earth’s surface, there would be no GH effect.

There is a group of people – and only a few researchers – who claim that this is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot flow from a cooler body to a hotter body. Because these people are stuck to this statement wording, they cannot admit that in the case of radiative heat transfer, this statement must be applied to the whole heat transfer process and not to the half part of it.

I could call these people “climate deniers” because they deny the existence of a very essential feature of the climate and by doing so, they also deny a few other physical laws and empirical observations.

I think that many ordinary people reading these comments are utterly confused because they have no real knowledge and experience about these fundamental laws. That is why I have written this story to show that the re-radiation follows the physical laws, but the IPCC’s GH effect definition is against these laws.

The basic laws of thermodynamics

In this section I try to summarize shortly the basic physical laws as they have been written in textbooks of physics and how professors have taught them in universities worldwide for a century or more. I use some references to textbooks for those people who think that I have invented these matters.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems and it says that processes that involve the transfer or conversion of heat energy are irreversible. Heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies, and never the reverse.

black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. It does not only absorb radiation but can also emit radiation. Although a blackbody does not really exist, we will consider the planets and stars (including the earth and the sun) as blackbodies. Even we would keep them graybodies, it would not destroy these laws and equations.

There is three heat transfer mechanism in the universe: conduction, convection and radiation. Convection is an essential part in sensible heating and in latent heating of the atmosphere. The net heat transfer rate of conduction and convection has the same form

Q = U A (T1 -T2)                  (1)

where Q is heat transfer (W), A is heat transfer area (m2), T1 is higher temperature (oC), T2 is lower temperature (oC). In  heat conduction, U is a coefficient of thermal conductivity (W/(m^2K)), and in heat convection, U is convective heat transfer coefficient (W/(m^2K)). The essential feature is the temperature difference between the bodies.

Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law is in the focus of the GH effect. I quote a piece of text (italic) from the Indian textbook of physics therefore that its description is simple and univocal:  Nonlinear Systems in Heat Transfer, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812024-8.00003-5.   Start of a quote:

 3.1 Heat Transfer by Thermal Radiation

 

Heat transfer from a body with a high temperature to a body with a lower temperature, when bodies are not in direct physical contact with each other or when they are separated in space, is called heat radiation as schematically shown in Fig. 3.1. The Stefan–Boltzmann law of thermal radiation for a black body states that the rate of radiation energy from the surface per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature of the body:

 

(3.1) q=σAT^4

with q rate of energy emission from the surface, A surface area of the radiator and σ the Stefan–Boltzmann constant.

A black body is a perfect radiator. Real bodies, however, do not act like a perfect radiator and emit at a lower rate. To take into account the real nature of the radiant bodies, a factor ε, called emissivity, is introduced. Emissivity is defined as the ratio of the emission from a real “gray” surface to the emission from a perfect “black” surface. Then, the rate of radiation heat transfer from a real body at temperature T1 which is surrounded by a black body at temperature T2, is given by:

 

(3.3)  q=σAε(T1^4−T2^4)                              (End of quote)

Those people who I call “climate deniers” simply say that this equation is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But it is not. Equation 3.3 above shows that also radiative heat transfer depends on the temperature difference of the bodies but in the case of radiation it is proportional to the difference of fourth power of temperatures because the physical phenomenon is different. Equation 3.3 means that the net heat flow is from a hotter body to a cooler body (T1 is higher than T1). Deniers say that this equation is wrong because it shows that there is also heat flow from a cooler body to a hotter body.

Here I could stick to the word “heat”. Actually, it is not heat that flows between the bodies, it is energy. Energy has been transferred in the form of photons,  the workhorses of the universe. When a photon has been absorbed, it is transformed into energy. A photon cannot be absorbed partially.  Material has three options in treating photons: reflection, absorption, and transmission (transparent material).

Now I take in a way one step backward to explain what happens in radiative heat transfer between two bodies. Stefan introduced his law in 1979 and Boltzmann in 1884 but the law of S-B can be concluded from the more fundamental law of Max Planck published in 1901 by integrating his equation (1) over all wavelengths

E = ((8¶hc)/λ^5) * 1/(e^(hc/(kTλ))-1)                                              (1)

where E is the energy radiated per unit volume by a cavity of a blackbody, h is Planck’s constant, c is the speed of light, λ is the wavelength, k is the Boltzmann constant, and T is the absolute temperature. Planck’s law means that the material in emitting radiation depends only on the temperature of an emitting body and in the case of a grey body also emissivity.

Planck’s law can be used to explain what happens in the radiative heat transfer of three bodies as schematically illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig.1 shows that all three surfaces emit and absorb infrared (longwave) radiation according to their temperatures. It is a scientific fact that Planck’s law is the reality in the real world. Climate deniers say that it is not going to happen that a body with a temperature of 15 °C could absorb radiation from the body of 7 °C (black body temperature of the atmosphere emitting 345 W/m2 to the surface). According to the radiation laws, it will happen. A black body will absorb all radiation frequencies. In Fig. 2 I have other evidence.

In Fig.2 we can see that the radiation intensities according to surface temperatures vary significantly from 7 °C to 25 °C but the wavelength range is practically the same from 3 to 50 micrometers. What would be theoretical possibilities of the 15°C  surface to make a difference between photons arriving from the 25°C surface or the 7° surface?

The 15°C surface should have a capability to analyze the wavelength (frequency) and the intensity of each photon with a remarkable accuracy and then to have a capability to absorb or reflect a photon based on this rather complicated process happening with the speed of light. This all is impossible, and it has been stated in all textbooks of physics that a black body absorbs all photons.

Simple like that. But deniers deny all these facts. They have their own laws of physics and therefore the conversation is impossible – it is harping on both sides, because the common basis is missing.

All this confusion could have been avoided if the wording of the 2nd law of thermodynamics would be like “there is no net heat flow from a cooler body to a hotter body”. This wording would notify the fact that cooler bodies emit radiation and it will be absorbed by hotter bodies.

Reradiation – observation or calculation based?

Two comments based on the empirical observations. All people living in the countryside of Scandinavian countries have learned that in wintertime when the sky turns cloudy, temperature will increase. This is based on the fact that clouds absorb totally LW radiation emitted by the surface and this will increase the LW flux from the atmosphere to the surface.

In these countries, carports are popular because they prevent not only snowing on cars but also during cold cloudless nights the windows of cars will not be frozen even this happen to cars nearby without these open carports. The scientific explanation is the higher temperature of the roof above in comparison to the black night sky with very low temperature reading.

There is still an issue, which has been claimed to be fabricated by a few climate deniers and it is if the reradiation flux from the atmosphere is really 345 W/m2. The accuracy of this value is not an issue in this case but if this radiation flux is a real thing.

Here is a link to an article, which describes the ground-based network of measurement stations called Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN). This network with 59 stations (Fig.3 ) is hosted at the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven, Germany since 1992. Link: https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/286337/essd-10-1491-2018.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

Fig. 3 Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) in 2017 for measuring radiation fluxes at the surface.

Here is a link to an article published in 2008, where major flux values of the Earth’s energy balance are calculated utilizing the BSRN network: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2008JCLI2097.1. According to this study, the reradiation flux values have been 338.6 W/m2 and the surface emitted flux value 398.8 W/m2. The latter value is close to the black surface radiation value of 15…16 °C. The present-day values are little bit different, because of improved measurements and slightly changing solar insolation.

The definition of the greenhouse effect

I think that I have addressed all the major issues in this reradiation case. The comments following Dr. Spencer’s story were almost all about the issues introduced by “climate deniers” and those people trying to defend real science.

If I would have been somebody belonging to the inner circle of the climate society endorsing the climate change story of the IPCC, I would have been very pleased after reading the comments. I would have been thinking that these skeptical people are no real threat because these people have their own laws of physics and they have their own strange ideas belonging to conspiracy theories that the Earth’s energy balance is not based on the real measurements etc.

In doing so these skeptical people do not notice real tricks like the IPCC’s GH effect definition. That is what happened also in the story of Dr. Spencer. Therefore, I would like to analyze the GH effect definitions of the IPCC and mine, Ref.1.

Fig. 4 The Earth’s energy balance in connection to the GH effect.

Dr. Spencer wrote like this:

Dr. Antero Ollila, who claims that the energy budget diagram somehow violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, i.e., conservation of energy, at least in terms of how the greenhouse effect is quantified.

This clause has two inaccuracies. I have not written that this diagram violates the 1st law of thermodynamics but I have claimed that the IPCC’s GH effect definition violates this law. Somebody had misunderstood that Fig. 4 somehow represents the IPCC’s GH effect definition. No, it does not do so, because in this diagram is nothing against the laws of thermodynamics. Because of these inaccuracies, it looks to me that the whole conversation went on the backroad.

In this diagram of mine is a decisive difference in respect to all other energy balance diagrams. I have shown the existence and the magnitude of the LW absorption by GH gases and clouds. In other diagrams like those of Kiehl & Trenberth, Wild, and Stephens, this feature has not been shown and I come later to this issue. This absorption flux is essential thinking of the GH effect that is the most important feature of our climate.

The starting point in this GH effect definition is that of the IPCC. If somebody thinks that there is a generally accepted definition by the well-known climate researchers, it is not true. If you find any other definition, please submit an email to me. I have found that of Hartmann, and it is different. The definition of theIPCC’s  GH effect, according to AR5 / p. 126) is: “The longwave radiation (LWR, also referred to as infrared radiation) emitted from the Earth’s surface is largely absorbed by certain atmospheric constituents – (greenhouse gases and clouds) – which themselves emit LWR into all directions. The downward directed component of this LWR adds heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere and to the Earth’s surface (greenhouse effect).”  In a definition, every word has its meaning, and also words missing.

Just by looking at Fig. 1 it is clear to anybody with basic knowledge of physics that the IPCC’s definition means that the atmosphere by absorbing 155 W/m2 cannot emit the LW radiation flux of 345 W/m2 to the surface as stated by the IPCC. The IPCC does not introduce any other sources of energy for creating the reradiation flux of 345 W/m2. Somebody may ask, is it really so that the calculation basis of the GH effect by the IPCC is this 155 W/m2. There is no doubt about it; Schmidt et al. 2010, Ref. 2.

This is the reason, why the researchers of the climate establishment do not want to show this flux of 155 W/m2, because it would be too easy to notice this cheating. Another observation of mine is that hardly anybody has ever read the IPCC’s definition. If you have done so, please submit an email to me. The reason is simple. Those who know this cheating do not want to refer to it, and nobody else ever noticed. How come? Because there are only two-three contrarian researchers who have ever calculated the contributions of the GH gases needing this calculation basis. I have found only three names who have published studies both on energy balance and on the contributions of GH gases and they are Kiehl, Trenberth and me.

The total energy flux absorbed by the surface is 165 + 345 = 510 W/m2. The net solar energy flux absorbed by the Earth is 240 W/m2. The difference between two energy sources if 510-240 = 270 W/m2 that is the magnitude of the GH effect. The LW flux emitted by the atmosphere is 345 W/m and it includes 75  W/m2 of the SW radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, and therefore it is not a part of the GH effect.

Dr. Spencer did not approve of this definition of mine, so I understood. He wrote:

How can 240 W/m2 of solar input to the climate system causes 395 W/m2 of IR emission by the surface? Or 345 W/m2 of downward IR emission from the sky to the surface? ALL of these numbers are larger than the available solar flux being absorbed by the climate system, are they not? But, as I have tried to explain from the above, a 1-way flow of IR energy is not very informative, and only makes quantitative sense when it is combined with the IR flow in the opposite direction. If we don’t do that, we can fool ourselves into thinking there is some mysterious and magical “extra” source of energy, which is not the case at all. All energy flows in these energy budget diagrams have solar input as the energy source, and as energy courses through the climate system, they all end up balancing. There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.”

It looks like we both agree that there is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics in Fig. 4.  On the other hand, Dr. Spencer questions that how can 240 W/m2 of solar input cause energy fluxes of 395 W/m2  or 345 W/m2 in climate.

Because he raises this question and does not give any explanation, I could conclude that he does not approve of the existence of these two fluxes. In this connection, he also refers to a mysterious and  “magical” source of energy, which is not the case at all.”  

It is true that I have used the term “extra energy” in describing this energy flux of 270 W/m2 absorbed by the surface because it really exists and most of all, it is not part of direct solar insolation.

I need not start to defend if this “extra energy” flux exists or not because it is a part of 345 W/m2 and it has been measured and calculated by the leading researchers of the climate community without addressing the GH effect at all. Majority of climate research papers are neutral without addressing the issue of the global warming cause.

How we can explain this flux and why we have fluxes like 345 W/m2 and 395 W/m2 which are much greater than the net energy received from the sun? Dr. Spencer writes that this is too complicated to explain what happens in the atmosphere.

Yes, it is true that emission and absorption phenomena happening in the atmosphere are very complicated. But the end results are not complicated at all. Nobody (except a few deniers) denies the existence of the outgoing LW flux of 240 W/m2 emitted into space. It is the result of similar complicated phenomena. This applies also the 345 W/m2.

The phenomena and calculations may be complicated, but the results are observation-based and univocal. It can be said that the surface does not care, and it does not know what is going on above its surface; it reacts on the incoming energy fluxes and on the outgoing energy fluxes.

The most important thing affecting the surface temperature is the amount of total radiation which is 165 + 345 = 510 W/m2.  Dr. Spencer writes that

But, as I have tried to explain from the above, a 1-way flow of IR energy is not very informative, and only makes quantitative sense when it is combined with the IR flow in the opposite direction.” 

As we know the surface is in the energy balance meaning that the incoming and outgoing energy fluxes are the same. There are two things I disagree with Dr. Spencer. Thinking about the GH effect, the IR flow (LW flux upward of 395 W/m2) is only a part of the energy fluxes having its cooling impact on the surface.

There are also sensible and latent heating fluxes – totally 115 W/m2 – closing the overall energy fluxing leaving the surface. If these fluxes were not there, the surface temperature would increase continuously. Because the surface is in energy balance, the “opposite direction” energy fluxes have no role in calculating the GH effect, and they cannot be calculated to be a part of the GH effect magnitude.

The energy fluxes leaving the surface are the outcomes of the GH effect. In the end, when we consider the whole GH effect, it is a recycling phenomenon and therefore its magnitude depends solely on the incoming energy amount to the surface.

How do we explain that there really are greater energy fluxes than 240 W/m2 received from the sun? Has the energy created from the void? The violence of energy conservation laws? The essence of the GH effect is right here. This is my explanation.

Firstly, all energy in the climate comes from the sun (almost all, 99.97{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}). As we know, the received energy from the sun goes back into space, because the Earth is in energy balance. Also, this “extra energy” – which I called the GH effect energy (GHEE) – recycles between the atmosphere and the surface. It is in a trap. It cannot escape into space, because the TOA keeps the outgoing flux at the same magnitude as the incoming flux.

In the balance, the GHEE cannot either enter into land or into oceans or into space. It is in a trap. The magnitude of the GH effect depends on the three energy fluxes: LW absorption, sensible and latent heating. Because the climate is in balance, the magnitude of the GH effect is pretty much stable.

The final question is in which way this GH effect and the GHEE involved ever came into existence? I think that the answer is in the laws of nature and in the existence of the atmosphere and the oceans. Oceans provide water, which partially evaporated into the atmosphere and so clouds, and the latent heating came into existence.

We can assume that this all started in the tropics where solar insolation is strongest.  The water vapor and other GH gases started to absorb the LW radiation emitted by the warm surface. And the warmed-up surface created a sensible heating phenomenon in the tropics. These phenomena created this GHEE and the atmosphere could not emit this energy into space.

We do not know in which order this all happened and how rapid what this formation of the GH effect but the crucial matter is that this GHEE was trapped between “the sky and the Earth” as it is now and it cannot escape. There is no mysterious extra source of energy, but it originates from the sun.

The name of “greenhouse effect” has been criticized that the analogy is no good at all. The criticizers say that the real greenhouse works on the different principle: cooling is largely reduced because the glass roof prevents heat transfer by convection (warmed air cannot escape).

The GH effect is also based on the reduction of the cooling effect but in this case, there is no roof. There is “an invisible roof” which totally prevents cooling by convection and conduction, and it is space. The only heat transfer mechanism working in space is radiation.

The third element restricting the cooling of the atmosphere and the Earth is the 1st law of thermodynamics: the amount of heat radiation into space must be the same as the incoming (240 W/m2 net). There is cooling also in a real greenhouse, and it is heat transfer by conduction through glass walls and roof. The analogy of GH effect is a very good one.

What are the processes creating the LW flux emitted by the atmosphere to the surface? It can be calculated by the spectral analysis method applying average global atmospheric conditions. I have carried out tens of calculations and as far as I know, I am now a days the only contrarian researcher still publishing these studies.

Miskolczi and Mlynczak has published several laudable papers about the LW fluxes in the atmosphere based on emission, absorption, and transmission processes. Only a few people understand or know that the LW absorption by GH gases is a very nonlinear process, Fig,5.

Fig. 5.  The total absorption by GH gases for the LW radiation emitted by the surface.

Absorption starts right after the surface and at the altitude of 10 meters already 34{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} has happened, at 100 meters 67{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, at 1 km 89{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, at 2 km 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} and at the tropopause 98{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} in the clear sky conditions. Spectral calculations show that the total absorption is about the same as the LW flux downward, and it is also according to the Kirchhoff’s radiation law.  Somebody could ask if this is true, where is the effect of latent and sensible heating if the LW absorption can explain the LW flux downward. All four energy sources – SW absorption, LW absorption, sensible and latent heating – maintain the temperature profile of the atmosphere. If the temperature would be lower, the total absorption would be smaller.

Wikipedia shows that the GH effect is the same as the total absorption, and its value is 350 W/m2 (coming from the energy balance of Kiehl & Trenberth). Why does Wikipedia want to show this value as the measure of the GH effect? People have no idea that they are cheated because this value is not the measure of the GH effect according to the IPCC. Researchers have used the value of 155 W/m2 in calculating the contributions of GH gases. In this way Schmidt et al. have calculated the contribution of carbon dioxide to be 19 {154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} and by using my definition the same contribution is only 7 {154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. Carbon dioxide is a weak GH gas. For hiding this fact, the IPCC has defined the GH effect in the wrong way violating the physical laws.

References:

  1. Ollila A. The greenhouse effect definition. Physical Science International Journal, 23(2), 1-5, 2019

https://doi.org/10.9734/psij/2019/v23i230149

  1. Schmidt GA, Ruedy RA, Miller RL, Lacis AA. Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. J Geophys Res 115,D20106:1-6, 2010. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014287.

++++++++++++++++++

For a serious request. Figures are in W/m2.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1,
Table 5.
– Solar insolation 340.0
– SH radiation up 97.1
– Net SW to the Earth 349.0 – 97.1

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2008JCLI2097.1
– Acronyms in Ch. 3, Vales in Table 1.
– SW rad.  To the surface 169.9
– LW rad.  To the surface 338.6
– LW rad. From the surface 398.8

These values have been updated continuously.

About the author: Dr Antero Ollila is Adjunct Associate Professor (emeritus), Department of Civil Engineering, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland


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.

Comments (232)

  • Avatar

    Richard Wakefield

    |

    A simple thought experiment shows this. Take a slab of dry ice and suspend it over a pot of hot water at 50C. The dry ice emits IR, including down to the hot water. Does the water temperature go up because of the IR it absorbs from the dry ice? No.

    Put the dry ice close enough it will make the hot water cool even faster.

    CO2 in the air transfers IR to the surface, but because the IR from the surface is far more, being warmer, the CO2 IR cannot make the surface temperature go higher than what the sun would heat it.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Barry

      |

      That’s a really good explanation Richard I can’t understand how learned people can believe this nonsense . If it were true we would have free energy, perpetual motion would give us all the energy we could ever use. And why can they not demonstrate this hypothesis in a real experiment.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Jan Sevenhans

      |

      Your experiment Richard is a mix up of
      1) latent heat absorption in the dry ice to sublimate and
      2) the 4th order radiation of the dry ice at -78°C
      Mixing up 2 physical effects in 1 experiment is the best way to confuse when you can not convince …

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Jan, the point Richard is making is valid. The ice can NOT raise the temperature of the hot water. You are trying to pervert reality to fit your erroneous beliefs.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Jan Sevenhans

          |

          Geran,
          You are talking about a feeling but not about a fact …
          Science says : radiation can heat everything but hot water not above evaporation temperature.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            You make no sense.

          • Avatar

            Richard Wakefield

            |

            Science says : radiation can heat everything colder than the heat source.

            Fixed it for you.

          • Avatar

            chris

            |

            You probably don’t understand the dry ice experiment. The premise of the ghe is that a little bit of co2 can reflect all ir light back to its source. So a lot of co2 should do the same. Thus the ir from a cup of coffee should bounce back to the cup of coffee keeping it hot. But it doesn’t work, because co2 does not have this property.

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      Richard, Barry:
      Your thought experiment is too simple and, therefore, not definitive. Moreover your interpretation of the results suffer from what I refer to as the slayer delusion. Allow me to demonstrate that when the proper details are provided your conclusion DOES NOT contradict Antero’s presentation.

      Here is the detail that you failed to provide without which it is impossible to make sense of your thought experiment: What is the temperature of the sky directly above the pot of 50 degree water before the slab of dry ice is placed over it?

      If the temperature of the sky directly above is cooler, let’s say it is absolute zero, then the dry ice–being much hotter than absolute zero–will slow the rate of cooling of the water. If the temperature directly above is hotter (which seems most reasonable) then the dry ice will increase the rate of cooling.

      Your interpretations suffer from the intellectual laziness of failing to incorporate a sophisticated understanding of absolute temperature–typical of ‘slayers’.

      James McGinn / Genius
      Ask Any Meteorologist
      https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Ask-Any-Meteorologist-ebuh5q

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        James, your desperate attempt to defend the GHE pseudoscience just adds to the hilarity.

        More please.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Geran, you got nothing, you vague nitwit. You slayers just lack the intellectual sophistication to couch your thinking in the context of absolute temperature.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            When your pseudoscience fails you James, you resort to juvenile name-calling.

            That just means you lose, as always.

            More examples of your incompetence and immaturity, please.

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            Go solve a tornado somewhere .. you obviously cannot grasp the concepts that dictate the Laws of Thermodynamics.

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Neither of you two morons can dispute my thinking directly, just like global warming advocates. You two demonstrate that when it comes to argumentive tactics there are more similarities between left wing ideologues and right wing ideologues than there are differerences.

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            You’re just a psycho …

        • Avatar

          Robert Kernodle

          |

          Good lord!

          If the temperature of the sky directly above is cooler, let’s say it is absolute zero, then the dry ice–being much hotter than absolute zero–will slow the rate of cooling of the water. If the temperature directly above is hotter (which seems most reasonable) then the dry ice will increase the rate of cooling.

          As I see it, the sky above the dry ice (at absolute zero) is, of course, cooler than the dry ice. The sky, thus, COOLS the dry ice to an even lower temperature. This now EVEN COLDER dry ice, thus, cools the water FASTER than before, because the dry ice was not as cold as it is now with the colder sky above it.

          The much colder sky does NOT slow the rate of cooling of the water — it SPEEDS the rate of cooling of the dry ice, which SPEEDS the rate of cooling of the water even more.

          If the sky is hotter than the dry ice, then the sky will speed the rate of heating of the dry ice, which will speed the rate at which the water comes into equilibrium with the sky, which is speeding the rate of the water’s HEATING. There is no way that a colder sky can “slow the rate” of the water’s cooling, therefore. No way!

          Reply

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            RK:
            As I see it, the sky above the dry ice (at absolute zero) is, of course, cooler than the dry ice.

            JMcG:
            Uh huh.

            RK:
            The sky, thus, COOLS the dry ice to an even lower temperature.

            JMcG:
            Not likely, but possible I suppose. The confounding factor is the fact that the dry ice is simultaneously being warmed by the atmosphere.

            RK:
            This now EVEN COLDER dry ice, thus, cools the water FASTER than before, because the dry ice was not as cold as it is now with the colder sky above it.

            JMcG:
            As I indicated above, the sensibility of what you are saying here is greatly limited by the fact that the dry ice is not only being influences by the (theoretical) absolute zero above.

            James McGinn / Genius
            Elasticity of Hydrogen Bonds Underlies Spinning of Polymerized H2O Molecules On Wind Sheer Boundaries Which Underlies Emergence of Vortice Plasma
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Elasticity-of-Hydrogen-Bonds-Underlies-Spinning-of-Polymerized-H2O-Molecules-On-Wind-Sheer-Boundaries-Which-Underlies-Emergence-of-Vortice-Plasma-e9jup2

      • Avatar

        Richard Wakefield

        |

        I assumed that most people would understand this experiment would be indoors in a climate controlled room temperature of 25C.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      RW:
      , , , being warmer, the CO2 IR cannot make the surface temperature go higher than what the sun would heat it.

      True, but not relevant. Nothing in Antero’s explanation contradicts what you are saying here. Feel free to quote anything from Antero’s presentation above that you think does contradict what Antero stated.

      James McGinn / Genius
      Ask Any Meteorologist
      https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Ask-Any-Meteorologist-ebuh5q

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Squidly

        |

        Anyone that has to declare themselves a “genius” clearly is not. Go back to “solving tornadoes”

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Joseph Olson

      |

      Complicated thought experiment > go take two semesters of Thermodynamics

      “On the Validity of Kirchoff” by Dr Pierre Robitaille, based on current tests, the 120 year old data was fudged. Planck, Kirchoff, Stefan, Boltzmann and Wien only applied to black bodies, not Earth. Spencer was wrong in 2010 > “Rocket Scientists Need Not Apply” at CanadaFreePress(.)com and he was wrong in 2014 > “Spencer Sorcery on Magic Gas” at FauxScienceSlayer(.)com

      Tony BlogBully Watts runs a corrupt site, deleting all comments about back radiation dogma, which is why he posted the article above. Don’t flatter yourself with wuwt approval.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Carbon Bigfoot

        |

        Go get’um Joe. Meteorologists are those that can’t pass Physics 102 ( Thermodynamics Lite ). Universities invented Meteorology for those that could not pass that Weed-Out course.so they could become TV Stars and can’t predict weather three days out—or decades out. We engineers understand Thermo because we take a full year and don’t become engineers if we don’t understand it.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Norman

      |

      Richard Wakefield

      Were you mad when your University Physics Professor gave you a failing grade?

      I do not know what physics you studied but it is not based upon real physics. Let me guess, was it blog physics? More than likely.

      If you heat the water the temperature of the surroundings will certainly affect the temperature the water will reach. This is well established physics. If you have a slab of dry ice over water that is being heated, the IR emitted by the dry ice (though small) will allow the water to reach a higher temperature than if the slab was replaced by a container of liquid nitrogen that would add even less energy to the water than dry ice.

      The energy emitted by GHG will certainly make the surface hotter than the Sun alone can heat it. You are wrong but that won’t matter you will continue to believe your incorrect conclusions are true.

      It is like telling a believer in the Flat-Earth they are wrong. There is not logical or rational thought that you will accept. Experiments or measured data will not alter you mental state. It is a religion with you guys.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Gosh Norman, all you have are your opinions and your pseudoscience.

        But, you’re still hilarious.

        More please.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Norman

          |

          Geran

          That is what you do. You reflect the failings inside you upon others as a defense mechanism against your ignorance and inability to understand real and established science. It takes work and effort to learn the material and that is something you are not willing to do. So you short-cut the system and create a defensive wall of delusion and you can only see things through your distorted lens.

          I give real physics (textbook style). You repay with nothing. You never have been able to support anything you say with science. But you do love to ridicule and put down the people that are much smarter than you. That is all you have.

          The author of this article is several levels above you but your only response is to ridicule him.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Those are just more of your ill-conceived opinions, Norman. Very funny, but let’s have some of your hilarious pseudoscience. That’s always a hoot.

            For example, why don’t you show us the derivation for the bogus equation (3.3)? You believe Antero knows physics, so support that bogus equation for him, since he has “left the building”.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            ” You believe Antero knows physics.”

            Yes he does. He has probably forgot more than you have ever learned. The equation IS NOT bogus except in your mind that is devoid of actual physics. Your declarations just show how little you know or understand.

            Your post also confirms that you are not a smart person and cover our ignorance by choosing to ridicule the people that did the hard work and learned the material. On this blog you may be a hero but you would flunk any actual physics course if you took it and told the professor he was using pseudoscience and his equations are bogus. Continue on and get the adoration of your fellow uneducated. I guess if you group together it makes you feel more intelligent and pass the nonsense back and forth.

            Easy to say an equation is bogus, much more difficult to understand and use it in real world applications like all actual engineers that design heat transfer equipment.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Norman, I notice you did not include the derivation of the bogus equation. But, you rambled hilariously.

            I’m not covering for your ignorance, I’m exposing it.

            More please.

      • Avatar

        Richard Wakefield

        |

        “If you have a slab of dry ice over water that is being heated, the IR emitted by the dry ice (though small) will allow the water to reach a higher temperature”

        Cover a pot of water you are about to boil will boil sooner than without the lid. Why? Nothing to do with IR from the lid back to the water. It’s the prevention of convection that does it. It’s the same reason a greenhouse heats up when none of the vents are open.

        CO2 in the air cannot prevent convection.

        “The energy emitted by GHG will certainly make the surface hotter than the Sun alone can heat it.”

        Nope impossible. Only a heat source can increase temperature. CO2 is not a heat source.

        “It is like telling a believer in the Flat-Earth they are wrong.”

        You are creating a non rotating flat earth by using average temperatures, average energy transfers.

        And you accuse me of failing physics…

        Reply

      • Avatar

        TEWS_Pilot

        |

        The temperature of the surroundings should only affect the TIME it takes the water to reach its maximum temperature even if the surroundings are cooler, not the actual temperature it will eventually reach in a steady state condition. Would placing a container of liquid nitrogen over the heated water prevent it from boiling (assuming the heat source is capable of providing sufficient energy to boil water) but the dry ice would not prevent it from boiling?

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Robert Kernodle

        |

        If you have a slab of dry ice over water that is being heated, the IR emitted by the dry ice (though small) will allow the water to reach a higher temperature than if the slab was replaced by a container of liquid nitrogen that would add even less energy to the water than dry ice.

        Noooooooooooooooooooooo!

        Liquid nitrogen is going to COOL that water much faster than a slab of dry ice. How on Earth is this “heating” by dry ice? There is no heating by dry ice or by liquid nitrogen. There is COOLING. Cold cools hot. Cold does NOT heat hot by any amount whatsofriggin’ ever! [note the proper scientific use of the word, “whatsofriggin'”]

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi Antero,
    Please explain which statement is false.
    All matter absorb radiated energy.
    O2 and N2 are matter.
    The wavelength of energy matter absorbs is a function of its structure.
    O2 and N2 do not absorb visible light or longer wavelengths.
    O2 and N2 absorb shorter uv wavelengths.
    The shorter the wavelength of light the have the energy it has..
    The O2 and N2 in the atmosphere are absorbing more energy than the surface of the Earth.
    The uv light absorbed by O2 and N2 create the thermosphere.
    The thermosphere is hotter than the surface of the Earth.
    Colder matter does not add heat to hotter matter.
    The thermosphere is radiating energy.
    Radiated energy goes in all directions.
    The thermosphere is radiating energy into space and to the surface of the Earth.
    Herb

    Reply

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Antero, thank you for another adventure into your rambling, confused pseudoscience. It’s always an hilarious example of tangled illogic.

    Your equation 3.3 is invalid. Although it is common to see it on the internet, and pseudoscience clowns want so dearly for it to be valid, it has a bogus assumption that makes it useless. The assumption is that all the photons from the cold surface will be absorbed by the hot surface. That’s the same pseudoscience that means you can bake a turkey with ice cubes.

    Again, thanks for the hilarity. We all need a good laugh these days, and clowns provide that service.

    More please.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      Exactly Geran !!!

      Reply

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      Geran:
      The assumption is that all the photons from the cold surface will be absorbed by the hot surface.

      James:
      This is a really dumb objection. Why would we not assume it is absorbed. We assume the colder one is absorbing from the hotter one.

      Geran:
      That’s the same pseudoscience that means you can bake a turkey with ice cubes.

      James:
      Does it? How? Explain.

      James McGinn / Genius

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        James, you’re the “genius”.

        Explain how you can bake a turkey with ice cubes.

        We’re waiting, “genius”.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      So, when you look in the mirror, does your “back radiation” burn your face?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Jan Sevenhans

        |

        Nice word game Squid but …

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Squidly

          |

          But what? … according to you, if I were to stand in front of my mirror I should get warmer and warmer .. to the point were I would eventually spontaneously combust. If I surround myself with mirrors I could solve the problem of free energy.

          Stupid is as stupid does – Forest Gump

          Reply

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Squidly:
            according to you, if I were to stand in front of my mirror I should get warmer and warmer .. to the point were I would eventually spontaneously combust. If I surround myself with mirrors I could solve the problem of free energy.

            James:
            How so? Explain.

            James McGinn / Genius

  • Avatar

    Ken

    |

    Let’s make this very simple. If I have an iron block at 7C and an iron block at 25C, is there any way the cooler block can make the other block 26C? Play with relative sizes, distances, cooling rates, ambient temperature, presence of atmosphere or in a vacuum…anything you like.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jan Sevenhans

      |

      Radiation does Ken

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Jan, are you studying to be a clown?

        If so, Antero is a great teacher.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Squidly

        |

        Radiation does what?

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Ken,
      Yes. Temperature is a function of both mass and energy and objects only radiate energy.. If the mass difference between the two blocks is great enough the 7 C block can have more energy than the 25 C block and transfer energy to it. Objects radiate energy, not mass.
      Herb

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Nice try Herb, but more mass does not mean higher temperature. You can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes, even if you have a millions tons of ice cubes.

        Now you can deny you were trying to imply “cold” can warm “hot”.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Geran:
          mass does not mean higher temperature.

          JMcG:
          True.

          Geran:
          You can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes, even if you have a millions tons of ice cubes.

          JMcG:
          True. But, if a turkey is surrounded by absolute zero you can surround the turkey with ice and it will cool more slowly.

          Keep in mind, relative to absolute zero ice is hot.

          James McGinn / Genius
          Ask Any Meteorologist
          https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Ask-Any-Meteorologist-ebuh5q

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            James, ice is a good insulator. That’s why igloos work. But ice cannot raise the temperature of a warmer object. And atmospheric CO2 can NOT raise the temperature of Earth’s surface.

            But your failures to learn about physics are hilarious.

            More examples, please.

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            First off, “genius”, “cool more slowly” is not “heating”

            Second, the only reason why it would cool more slowly is because you provided resistance in the form of an insulator .. exactly as you would with an electrical circuit.

            Sorry to point out the obvious “genius”, but you’re a dumbass.

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Geran:
            ice is a good insulator.

            James:
            Makes no difference what it is.

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Squidly:
            First off, “genius”, “cool more slowly” is not “heating”

            James:
            Don’t put words in my mouth, you dishonest right wing ideologue.

            Squidly:
            Second, the only reason why it would cool more slowly is because you provided resistance in the form of an insulator .. exactly as you would with an electrical circuit.

            James:
            Actually, the reason it works is because ice is hot in comparison to absolute zero.

            Squidly:
            Sorry to point out the obvious “genius”, but you’re a dumbass.

            James:
            It’s got nothing to do with insulation. You slayers don’t understand absolute temperature.

            James McGinn / Genius
            Ask Any Meteorologist
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Ask-Any-Meteorologist-ebuh5q

          • Avatar

            rick

            |

            how does “cool more slowly” mean the ice cubes radiating energy TO the bird

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            Thanks James “Genius” Dumbass .. you proved my point .. I rest my case.

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Squidly:
            Thanks James “Genius” Dumbass .. you proved my point .. I rest my case.

            James:
            You got nothing!!!

            James McGinn / Genius

      • Avatar

        Richard Wakefield

        |

        James. Adding more energy, IR for example, does NOT mean always higher temperature. It’s not additive.

        Take a torch and have the flame impinge on a length of steel. The steel will reach a temperature lower than the flame. Now add a second torch, twice the energy being imparted onto the steel. Will the steel’s temperature double and be higher than the temperature of the flames? No. In fact, no matte how many torches you impinge on the steel, the steel will NEVER get hotter than the temperature of the flames.

        The other flaw in AGW is assuming the same energy from the sun that is bounced around, absorbed and re-emitted can continuously make temperatures go up at every encounter, regardless of the temperature of the object encountered. Nope. Not possible.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          I don’t disagree. And I don’t think Antero would either. So I am not understanding what I said (or what Antero said) that made you (and Ken) assume otherwise.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Jan Sevenhans

    |

    Radiation is the 4th order of temperature and obviously very non linear
    Absorption is very non linear because of the hard non linearity in the temperature versus heat curve of H2O with the latent heat flat temperature at melting point in the pole oceans and at evaporation point in he atmosphere.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi PSI Readers,

    Antero wrote: “The 15°C surface should have a capability to analyze the wavelength (frequency) and the intensity of each photon with a remarkable accuracy and then to have a capability to absorb or reflect a photon based on this rather complicated process happening with the speed of light. This all is impossible, and it has been stated in all textbooks of physics that a black body absorbs all photons.”

    Richard Feynman (a Nobel Prize Winning Physicist) wrote (taught): “But then Einstein [a Nobel Prize Winning Physicist] went further, and by comparison with the classical theory and by other arguments, concluded that emission is also influenced by the presence of light [radiation]–that when light of the right frequency is shining on an atom, it has an increased rate of emitting a photon that is proportional to the intensity of the iight, with a proportionality constant … . Later, if we deduce that the coefficient is zero, then we will have found that Einstein was wrong. Of course we will find he was right. Thus Einstein assumed that there are three kinds of processes: an absorption proportional to the intensity of light [radiation], an emission proportional to the intensity of light, called induced emission or sometimes stimulated emission, and a spontaneous emission independent of light.” (The Feynman Lectures On Physics, 42-9)
    I have read elsewhere that this ‘spontaneous emission’ is that described by the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law relative to the emitting matter’s Kelvin temperature.

    So, one has to chose to accept what .Antero wrote or what Feynman taught about what Einstein assumed.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Tom Anderson

    |

    I would like to comment quickly, and rather superficially, on an old omission from radiant energy science that has cast the argument into a foreshortened jumble. Shortly following the Planck-Einstein explanation, Joseph Stefan and his student Ludwig Boltzmann developed an ensemble of principles based on their individual and joint formulation of laws. One critical basic law has disappeared from view and certainly from understanding. Essentially it has disappeared, indispensable though it still is.

    It was still imperfectly known in 1965. I refer you to page 376 of “Fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics” (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1965) R. Reif, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley. Professor Reif correctly derives Stefan’s constant but erroneously calls it S-B, which he also works out and correctly labels on page 388.

    It is Stefan’s Law and Constant, which is NOT the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and Constant. Scan the internet though one does, every reference to Stefan’s constant conflates it with S-B. Stefan’s Law measures radiant ENERGY density, rather than radiant POWER, which is the S-B subject. Without Stefan’s limitation on energy density, radiant power can be unlimited. Stefan’s law is that radiant energy in an enclosed radiant space e is the Stefan constant a times temperature to the fourth power — and no more. EVER. That is e = a T^4. Working through NASA and allied energy budgets, one discovers that e many equal 1.82aT^4. It could be anything, which leaves plenty over for radiating where you will.

    This bit pf buried knowledge may not settle the question, but it should be sufficient to cast a little new (and one would hope resurrected) light on the subject.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Tom, why would you spend time and effort to put out such nonsense? Just in your second sentence, you get the facts completely reversed: “Shortly following the Planck-Einstein explanation, Joseph Stefan and his student Ludwig Boltzmann developed an ensemble of principles based on their individual and joint formulation of laws.”

      By the time Planck and Einstein worked together, both Stefan and Boltzmann had been dead for years!

      Does reality not mean anything to you clowns?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Squidly

        |

        “Does reality not mean anything to you clowns?”

        Geran, therein is perhaps one of the most astute observations .. in other words, not it does not .. nothing these idiots put forth has anything to do with “reality”.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Tom Anderson

        |

        Well, it was stupid to miss the dates – a damning slip. Still, I believe that if there is not a Stefan’s Law limiting a system’s radiant energy there needs to be one, if only to satisfy the First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy comes from a source and cannot just “be fruitful and multiply,” by any device or artifice. I am searching older references to confirm or deny my sense of it.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Tom Anderson

    |

    Sorry to have written this in place. It needs editing it didn’t get. The main point is that constant is gone. It appears to have been inadvertent or negligent, but no one could have better sabotaged the subject on purpose than by removing this critical step in radiant energy analysis..

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    I went on a family picnic.
    I took a tub full of dry Ice.
    I put my beer into the tub of dry ice.
    When i went get a beer was it colder or hotter?
    Case closed…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    chris

    |

    These are the laws as they apply in fantasy land. Heat only transfers from hotter to colder. You show us that you don’t understand the first law of thermodynamics. Heat energy is always changing in the universe. It is not a constant, it cannot be created means it comes from somewhere. It cannot be destroyed means that it goes somewhere. It can be generated, just rub your fingers together. What experiments exist that shows that demonstrate that flux adds? We are not climate deniers, that’s just stupid. You just don’t understand thermodynamics. If the atmosphere reflects an equal amount of heat to the earth as what comes in from the sun then we could not feel heat coming from the sun. It would simply feel as though it is coming from the sky.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Chris,
      The empty space between the Earth and the sun is very cold. It contains all the energy that heats the Earth. Objects radiate energy, not heat. Heat is produced when that energy combines with matter to produce kinetic energy. Energies V^2. Kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times V^2. The temperature of an object is determined both by the energy it receives and the amount of mass that energy is distributed to.
      Herb.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        chris

        |

        No arguments here.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Squidly

        |

        “Objects radiate energy, not heat”

        Finally, someone pointing out the painfully obvious!! .. “Heat” is not a “thing” that can be moved from place to place. “Heat” is a result of “energy”. You can transfer and even transform “energy”, you cannot transfer or transform “heat” however.

        Thanks Herb, it is refreshing to see you point this out. I wish more people would understand this.

        As such, because the only way a Molecule A can transfer “energy” to Molecule B is if, and only if, Molecule A is of greater energy than Molecule B .. there are no exceptions as this is described by the Laws of Thermodynamics.! .. This means that no Virginia, a cooler object cannot, under ANY circumstances make a warmer object warmer still! … Take note of this Spencer!!

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Squidly,
          The confusion is the equating energy with kinetic energy. Kinetic energy (temperature) is a combination of mass and energy.
          A “cooler” object is one with a lower temperature not necessarily lower energy. Examples: A CO2 molecule and an O2 molecule have the same kinetic energy. When they collide since the O2 has more energy (less mass) it will transfer energy to the CO2 molecule. Objects transfer/radiate energy not mass. A gamma ray (no kinetic energy) strikes a moving molecule (kinetic energy) transferring energy to the “hotter” object.
          Herb

          Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Squidly:
          . . . the only way a Molecule A can transfer “energy” to Molecule B is if, and only if, Molecule A is of greater energy than Molecule B.

          James:
          False. (We just went over this. And you are still confused.)

          Squidly:
          the only way a Molecule A can transfer “energy” to Molecule B is if, and only if, Molecule A is of greater energy than Molecule B

          James:
          True.

          Squidly:
          Take note of this Spencer!!

          James:
          Can you quote Spencer directly?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Squidly:
            a cooler object cannot, under ANY circumstances make a warmer object warmer still!

            James:
            This is what I meant above. This is true.

            There is more to science than slogans.

        • Avatar

          Norman

          |

          Squidly

          You don’t seem to know much physics and you don’t have a clue about thermodynamics. You sound about as thoughtless as Geran. All talk but no knowledge. Neither of you know what you are talking about but you sure like to talk.

          YOUR IGNORANCE “As such, because the only way a Molecule A can transfer “energy” to Molecule B is if, and only if, Molecule A is of greater energy than Molecule B .. there are no exceptions as this is described by the Laws of Thermodynamics.! .. This means that no Virginia, a cooler object cannot, under ANY circumstances make a warmer object warmer still! … Take note of this Spencer!!

          Roy Spencer is correct and knows physics. You are wrong and do not know physics.

          I will easily prove your statement is ignorant and false I am also certain you will not accept your error and change but continue on as usual.

          HERE:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision

          This is a reality your mind will not accept but it is correct regardless of your inability to learn.

          Scroll down to the four animations.

          In the second one it shows what happens when a moving object exchanges kinetic energy with a motionless one with the same mass. All the energy of the moving object is transferred to the non-moving object .

          In the third animation of the 4 you have your situation. The slower object (less energy) transfers its energy to the higher energy object in the exchange.

          It is why conduction is temperature based. The temperature of the colder object changes how much energy it transfers to the hotter one based on its temperature.

          https://study.com/academy/lesson/heat-transfer-through-conduction-equation-examples.html

          The closer the cold object gets to the hot object temperature the less heat that is transferred and it would only do that if the energy from the cold object were being transferred to the hotter object.

          If you put an ice cube in a cup of coffee the reason the coffee cools faster is because the ice has less energy to contribute. If you put dry ice in the coffee it cools faster and to a greater degree because the dry ice has even less energy to contribute.

          You can learn physics or pretend you know it like Geran does. I hope you work to get your ideas correct because the one you posted is not.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Norman, you’ve messed bad, again.

            You stated: “In the third animation of the 4 you have your situation. The slower object (less energy) transfers its energy to the higher energy object in the exchange.”

            The higher energy molecule (one on the left) is transferring its energy to the slower one. That’s why it returns with half its original energy.

            You’re not able to understand the graphic.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            No I did not mess up at all and I understand the animation.

            The two objects (black and blue) both possess kinetic energy.
            This is a perfectly elastic collision so all energy is exchanged.

            The higher energy black object transfers all its energy to the slower moving blue object and the blue object moves off with this energy while the blue object transfers all its energy to the black object and it moves with the same speed as the blue object was moving. Exchange of energy took place in the collision both ways.

            You fail in logical thought. Your ignorant assumption is that only the black object transfers energy in the exchange rather than the logically correct thought that the exchange of energy is mutual. Your illogical thought process (Spock where are you?) would require the black block to know to exchange just have it energy when the blue object is moving but all its energy when the blue object is standing still. It is a bizarre world you live in to form such illogical thought patterns.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Norman, your link, and statement, were your failed efforts to prove Squidly wrong. Now, you’re off on one of your spinouts, because you got caught spreading your pseudoscience.

            Watching you spin in circles is hilarious.

            More please.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            No I did not fail. You put your unsupported ignorant opinion in a post. Your point is without valid support. You make up a point and then declare me wrong. No evidence I am wrong but I guess your adoring fans will think you are a genius.

            You should write a book “How to be a Genius for Dummies”
            No work required, not math or science needed. You don’t study you just post authoritative declarations on blogs (no supporting data required) and get simpletons to tell you how smart you are and suddenly you think you are a Genius. Simple isn’t it. You did that on Roy Spencer (who told you that you needed to study some physics) and you do it here and other blogs. You fool the simple-minded. People with actual science knowledge quickly become aware that you don’t really know any physics but that never stopped you from posting.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Wrong Norman, you failed! Your failures are always indicated by your subsequent long, rambling rants filled with your opinions and devoid of reality.

            Hilarious.

            More please.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            I have a long history with Norman. He has no meaningful background in physics, so he accuses others of the same thing, He uses the same tactics: False accusations, misrepresentations, and insults. He used to challenge people to “do an experiment”, but he no longer uses that tactic since he failed to follow his own advice when I suggested he could purchase a cheap toy that would prove him wrong.

            And, learning that Swanson’s “experiment” was bogus also messed up that tactic for him.

            He can’t learn due to his closed mind. He’s uneducable.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHUffman

            The major point is I have considerably more actual physics knowledge than you do. That is quite a difference. Also I can read and study textbooks now, something you can’t do. So I can continue to learn and expand my knowledge. Again something you are unable to do.

            When you can actually learn real physics, let me know. You would be more interesting to communicate with. At this time you do not attempt to learn and grow and are content to ridicule those that do not have your inability to learn.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Norman, every one of your sentences is false.

            You get a 100% grade, in depravity.

            Nothing new.

    • Avatar

      CD Marshall

      |

      1st Law of Thermodynamics
      The First Law of Thermodynamics simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy). Thus power generation processes and energy sources actually involve conversion of energy from one form to another, rather than creation of energy from nothing.

      Funny how you changed that to heat energy absolutely not the same thing. Energy cannot be destroyed or created, “Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon.” You can find a variation of that in just about any thermodynamics manual. Heat is a form of energy but not all energy is heat.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Squidly

    |

    Dr. Roy Spencer is a moron who believes a cooler object can make a warmer object warmer still, despite the Laws of Thermodynamics prohibiting such a thing. Spencer is an idiot.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      John Harrison

      |

      I see that we have Geran and Squidly banging on about IR radiated from a cold substance. They have not yet sussed out that CO2 which has absorbed IR with a wavelength of say 15nm and raises its INTERNAL ENERGY will emit radiation of the same wavelength regardless of its temperature. The Earth’s surface has emitted that IR and cools in doing so. However, it is receiving back and absorbing some of that radiation from the CO2 and therefore does not cool as quickly as it would in the absence of that back-radiation. Therefore, at any one instance the average temperature of the Earth’s surface is higher than it would otherwise have been. Has the back-radiation raised the temperature of the Earth’s surface? No it hasn’t, it just does not cool as quickly. Has any LoT been contravened? No. Is the effect of back-radiation significant, it doesn’t seem to be anywhere near as great as alarmists would have us believe, with or without feedbacks.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Richard Wakefield

        |

        “However, it is receiving back and absorbing some of that radiation from the CO2 and therefore does not cool as quickly as it would in the absence of that back-radiation. Therefore, at any one instance the average temperature of the Earth’s surface is higher than it would otherwise have been.”

        This is the false argument I see all the time. Slowing the rate of energy loss, slowing temperature drop, DOES NOT INCREASE TEMPERATURE!!!

        Day time gets to 35C, the next night goes to 20C. The next day, temp gets to 35C, but that following night drops only to 25C. Is that hotter because it’s 5C more difference between the two nights?

        ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

        The only way temperature can increase is if a heat source imparts energy to make the temperature increase. There is no heat source at night. There is no energy being added to increase the night temp by 5C. CO2 is not a heat source, so CO2 CANNOT have added that 5C temperature.

        What has happened is there is less energy loss between the two nights, that is all. That is not heating.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          John Harrison

          |

          Richard.
          “Day time gets to 35C, the next night goes to 20C. The next day, temp gets to 35C, but that following night drops only to 25C. Is that hotter because it’s 5C more difference between the two nights?”
          Are you really suggesting that this does not result in an increase in the average temperature? What has happened to your maths? The so-called GHEt is not a case of raising the temperature directly, it is a case of increasing the average by reducing the cooling rate.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Richard Wakefield

            |

            “it is a case of increasing the average by reducing the cooling rate.”

            Average temperature is not a temperature. It’s a calculation. There is no “average temperature” measured for the plant.

            Reducing the rate of energy loss, reducing the rate of temperature DROP, is NOT increasing temperature!!!

            Here is a question for you. Can the average temperature increase while the highest values of temperature recorded are dropping?

          • Avatar

            Richard Wakefield

            |

            Go look down at my comment about different rotating planets.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Harrison, I see the clowns have taught you how to pervert actual science with GHE pseudoscience.

        Here’s the reality they omitted:

        Earth’s surface emits a full electromagnetic spectrum, that includes a 15μ photon. Such a photon can be absorbed by a CO2 molecule, and may even be re-emitted back to the surface. But a 15μ photon has the energy equivalent of a homogeneous surface at -80 ºC (- 112 ºF).

        So now ask the clowns that taught you the GHE pseudoscience how such a weak photon can warm a surface that has an average temperature of 15 ºC (59 ºF).

        (Hint: They’ve lied to you.)

        Reply

        • Avatar

          John Harrison

          |

          German. Let’s start by getting the wavelength correct at 15nm. The Earth cools by emitting IR over a wide range of wavelengths we agree it seems. If less energy is lost in any part of that spectrum then cooling rate is reduced because the total rate of energy loss is reduced. I do wish you could get past the idea of raising temperatures per se. It is just a matter of reducing energy losses leading to a higher average temperature. It is the Sun which raises the temperature. We all know that.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Harrison, let’s start by correcting your incompetence. CO2 mainly absorbs the 15 micron photon, NOT 15 nanometer! You’re off by 1000.

            But, I appreciate your pompous “certainty”. It’s hilarious.

            The “higher average temperature” is already established by the oceans and atmosphere. Adding more CO2 can NOT increase surface temperatures. Nor can adding more CO2 reduce energy losses. More CO2 just means more radiators to space.

            After you finish learning units, the next step is learning some physics.

          • Avatar

            John Harrison

            |

            Geran. I was a little reluctant to log on tonight as it meant that I had to own up to a very basic error which I came to realise this morning as I was enjoying my morning coffee and first cigarette of the day and examining the water-cooling system on a CO2 laser. Where I got the figure of 15nm from I have no idea. My only excuse was I was tired and somehow I had that figure firmly in my brain. However, I should have checked my figures before posting them. As expected you had not overlooked my “small” error and quite rightly pointed this out and in the manner I have come to expect 😉 The principal emission of CO2, I think we can both agree on lies at approx. 10um. My only solace was that the line of reasoning still holds. I am putting together a pop quiz for deniers of the GHE, which are admittedly becoming fewer in numbers as time goes by, and you seem to be a likely candidate to try it out on as one of the few remaining dinosaurs. It’s too late now to put it into it’s final form and I am in need of an early night, you know how us oldies are, but if you are interested watch this space. The clue, coincidentally, lies in the operation and effects of the CO2 IR laser.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            That’s okay Harrison. I’m used to clowns trying to find errors in my comments, even if they have to make them up. Here’s another example of you doing just that: “The principal emission of CO2, I think we can both agree on lies at approx. 10um.”

            We do NOT both agree on 10 μ. That’s just another attempt by you to include me in your false science, as you strive for some credibility.

            The fact that clowns must always pervert reality is evidence they know their beliefs are false. That’s why forums such as PSI are so important. People that are interested in truth get to see what is going on.

            What deceptions do you have planned with your CO2 laser? I’m sure they will be hilarious. Clowns must deceive because their science is bogus.

            I’ll be waiting for more of your hilarious pseudoscience.

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2.

        • Avatar

          Antero Ollila

          |

          Geran. You do not know that CO2 absorbs radiation having the wavelengths from 12 to 19 micrometers. It is ridiculous that you talk about the wavelengths of 15 micrometers alone. You do not have even the basic knowledge about the LW radiation by GH gases.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard Wakefield

    |

    Here is another thought experiment.

    Heat a length of steel with a torch so the steel reaches 100C. Doesnt matter how long the torch is imparting energy to the steel, it stays at 100C. Now let it cool by removing it from the flame to 25C. Put it back to the torch and reheat back to 100C. Now remove it again, but only let it cool to 50C then back to the torch again. You now start 25C higher than the first cooling, will the steel’s temp now go to 125C?

    Nope. 100C. The only difference between the two is how long it takes the torch to return the steel to 100C.

    Energy to temperature is not additive.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Good analogy, Richard. The peak capability of the torch is 100 ºC. Even with the surface starting at 50 ºC, the torch cannot warm the steel past 100 ºC. I use the analogy of trying to radiatively bake a turkey.with ice cubes, which emit about 300 W/m^2. But folks with little understanding of flux get confused. Everyone can understand a torch!

      I may have to “borrow” your analogy sometime. 🙂

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      That is a wonderful analogy Richard .. and so true!

      Another one I like, just because I drink far too much coffee, it doesn’t matter how much 130F coffee I pour into my cup, my coffee can never rise above 130F .. and to YOUR point, if I drink half of that cup of coffee with the remaining coffee still as 120F .. not only can I not raise the temperature above 130F by pour 130F coffee into the cup, I can’t even get it to 130F !!! .. no matter how much coffee I pour into it.

      The problem is, these people think you can just continue to add and add and add without consequence, no matter where the “energy” actually disperses to. They just don’t get the fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics, which are so very fundamental to the behavior and very existence of our entire universe!

      Thanks for the analogy, very well thought!

      Reply

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    I’m a little disappointed Antero hasn’t returned to defend his nonsense. He returned after his last failures. Maybe he’s learned.

    It is April First in Finland….

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Anterro demonstrated he learned nothing from our conversation.

    ‘Here I could stick to the word “heat”. Actually, it is not heat that flows between the bodies, it is energy.’

    No! Energy can not transfer from cold to hot.
    Energy flows from hot to cold, and we call that transfer ‘heat’. Energy flows where there is a potential for it to flow and there is no potential for it to flow from lesser to greater. The same thing goes for pressure.

    Neither Boltzmann or Planck support you, you merely assert what you want to believe.

    There is no such thing as NET heat flow, and you certainly didn’t demonstrate it, merely asserted it.

    And again you failed to realize that downwelling radiation is nothing but upwelling-from-measurement-instrument IR. It is nothing but Upwelling IR minus Net IR (conductive heat ‘loss’ through instrument), and that’s why it’s ~345 W/m^2.

    If you had a hot pan radiating 600 W/m^2 to the atmosphere, climate cranks (i.e. mainstream) would tell you Downwelling IR was 600 W/m^2, and that’s why the pan is hot.

    You still don’t see the fundamental error because your profession is contaminated with stupid dogma.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      “The Second Law of Thermodynamics* is about entropy and makes no mention of temperatures or heat.”

      You masked what entropy is dependent on: heat and temperature! It is mentioned, but you masked it, effing retard.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      chris

      |

      The definition of heat says that it moves only from warmer to colder. This is because there is no experiment that disproves this.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Chris:
        The definition of heat says that it moves only from warmer to colder. This is because there is no experiment that disproves this.

        James:
        Sorry but you are wrong. What you stated is not a definition, its a slogan. Regardless of whether you use the word energy or the word heat, it does not only move from hot to cold. It moves in all directions simultaneously. However, in order for the measured temperature of one thing to increase it must be cooler than the thing that is “heating” it. So, increase in measurable temperature is the ONLY THING that moves from hot to cold. Heat (or energy) does not move only from hot to cold. It is people repeating this brain-dead slogan that is the cause of a lot of confusion.

        What Causes Streaming in the Atmosphere
        https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/What-Causes-Streaming-in-the-Atmosphere-eai2jq

        James McGinn / Genius

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          James, Chris is correct and you are clueless.

          The thermodynamic definition of “heat” has two parts–“ehergy transfer”, and “from hot to cold”.

          Without BOTH parts, there is no “heat”. Energy by itself is NOT heat.

          Learn some physics.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Geran:
          James, Chris is correct and you are clueless.

          James:
          You have a slogan that you wield like a scientific principle. There is no scientific principle that says energy or heat only goes from hot to cold. Energy and heat always goes in all directions simultaneously. It is only the MAGNITUDE of the exchange that goes from hot to cold–the NET exchange..

          Geran:
          The thermodynamic definition of “heat” has two parts–“ehergy transfer”, and “from hot to cold”.

          James:
          You are paraphrasing to produce a communicable slogan, which is just fine, but then you are extrapolating from your slogan to arrive at a completely inaccurate conceptualization of what is actually happening. Energy really does move in all directions simultaneously.

          You say you have a definition. I say you have a slogan. You have a description, not a definition. Slogans are not principles. You can’t extrapolate from a slogan or a descriptions to arrive at a scientific truth. That’s not the way it works. Semantics are not physical, empirical.

          Geran:
          Without BOTH parts, there is no “heat”. Energy by itself is NOT heat.
          James:
          Semantics.

          Geran:
          Learn some physics.

          James:
          Learn some reason.

          James McGinn / Genius
          Wells vs Rancourt on Greenhouse Thermodynamics
          https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Wells-vs-Rancourt-on-Greenhouse-Thermodynamics-eabrts

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Richard Wakefield

          |

          ” it does not only move from hot to cold. It moves in all directions simultaneously.”

          You are confusing heat with energy.

          [heat ] does not only move from hot to cold. It moves in all directions simultaneously is wrong.

          [energy ] does not only move from hot to cold. It moves in all directions simultaneously is correct.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          “Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system (or the surroundings) at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference between the two systems.” (Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, Van Wylen, Sonntag, page 73)

          Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Richard:
          ” it does not only move from hot to cold. It moves in all directions simultaneously.” You are confusing heat with energy.

          James:
          You are just belaboring semantics to no useful end. Some people use the words heat and energy interchangeably, some don’t. There is a lot of ambiguity built into the language and it isn’t practical or possible to force everybody to agree to the same semantic conventions. Don’t be dogmatic.

          Richard:
          [heat ] does not only move from hot to cold. It moves in all directions simultaneously is wrong.

          James:
          Not by my definition. By my definition the only thing that moves from hot to cold is INCREASE IN MEASURED TEMPERATURE. By my definition–and I am a real physicist–heat moves in all direction simultaneously.

          Richard:
          [energy ] does not only move from hot to cold. It moves in all directions simultaneously is correct.

          James:
          For me (and again, I am a real physicist) anytime you have movement of energy you have heat. So, I reject your semantics that say that when energy moves from cold to hot (which we know it does do, as you just stated) that this is not heat. So, Richard, what do you call the movement of energy from colder to hotter if we can’t use the word heat? What word would you suggest?

          James McGinn / Genius

          Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          James, quit making up your own definitions. You sound like Norman.

          Learn some physics.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Geran:
          James, quit making up your own definitions. You sound like Norman. Learn some physics.

          James:
          I’m a physicist, you evasive POS. You need to leave science to scientist and stop trying to reinterpret what doesn’t need reinterpretation. I use the correct terminology. You don’t. You are creating your own version of semantic confusion, base on slogans.

          For me (and again, I am a real physicist) anytime you have movement of energy you have heat. So, I reject your semantics that say that when energy moves from cold to hot (which we know it does do, as you eventually admitted) that this is not heat. So, Geran, what do you call the movement of energy from colder to hotter if we can’t use the word heat? What word would you suggest?

          Answer my question, you evasive POS.

          James McGinn / Genius

          Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Child Jamie, you are no physicist. You are a psycho. Look up the difference.

          Energy radiated from cold to hot is called “energy”. Energy is NOT heat.

          Learn some physics, when you grow up.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Geran:
          Child Jamie, you are no physicist. You are a psycho. Look up the difference. Energy radiated from cold to hot is called “energy”. Energy is NOT heat.

          James:
          Geran, consider how stupid you appear to our audience. When energy moves from hot to cold it is heat. But when it moves from cold to hot it is energy.

          Geran:
          Learn some physics, when you grow up.

          James:
          Now go over to CoS and explain to them that you just got your ass handed to you by a real scientist–again..

          James McGinn / Genius
          Correcting Common Misconceptions About Energy in the Atmosphere
          https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Correcting-Common-Misconceptions-About-Energy-in-the-Atmosphere-e9moua

          Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Whatever you say Jamie, psycho, genius, clown, water boy.

          We appreciate your original comedy.

          More please.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          chris

          |

          James- you said that the net flow is from hot to cold. You’re almost there. Net flow means the amount of flow. Two pumps are connected together at their outputs. Pump A outputs 50 psi and pump B outputs 100 psi, the flow will only be in the “net” direction B to A even thought both pumps are pushing the water towards each other.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Chris:
          James- you said that the net flow is from hot to cold. You’re almost there. Net flow means the amount of flow.

          James:
          No it doesn’t. It means NET flow. It means A to B minus B to A.

          Chris:
          Two pumps are connected together at their outputs. Pump A outputs 50 psi and pump B outputs 100 psi, the flow will only be in the “net” direction B to A even thought both pumps are pushing the water towards each other.

          James:
          You left out one detail that is necessary for you assertion to begin make sense. You failed to indicate that there is only one pipe in your example. Then one flow would block the other. But that is not the case. Nor is that the case EVER with EME. So your examples is invalid.

          James McGinn / Genius

          Reply

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Olav Ankjær
            April 3, 2020 at 12:28 am | #
            Sorry James
            Heat is the transfer of energy, not the transport of energy.

            James:
            Like it makes any difference what word we use, transport or transfer. You goons just make this up as you go along.

            Olav:
            “It moves in all directions simultaneously.”
            Not heat, but energy.

            James:
            You convoluted morons are easily confused by semantics. If movement of energy is heat and energy moves in all directions than heat moves in all directions.

            The laws of thermodynamics tell us that the FUCKING INCREASE IN MEASURED TEMPERATURE can only go from hotter to colder objects. The laws of thermodynamics do NOT tell us that the colder objects cannot heat warmer objects. This is just a misunderstanding championed by slayer goons.

            James McGinn / Genius
            Ignorance About Water Begets Ignorance About Storms
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Ignorance-About-Water-Begets-Ignorance-About-Storms-ea4fmi

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Olav,

            “Remember: “very little is proven by physical experiments.” If such evidence existed (accepted by all), we would not debate.”

            Why did you qualify: “(accepted by all)”? Are you really saying that if you (Olav) say, I don’t accept the evidence, that not valid?

            A scientific law, to qualify as a scientific law, need to predict something not yet known (observed). The prediction of the the theory termed the GHE of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other similar gases is that the earth’s average air temperature should be about 33C less than observed if there were none of these greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere.

            But an observation is the measured air temperature has never been observed to be less than its measured dew point temperature at the same place and time.

            And the atmosphere’s dew point temperature has nothing to do which the fact that water vapor (molecules) are a greenhouse gas.

            Hence, these measurements absolutely refute the prediction and do prove the theory of the Greenhouse Effect of all greenhouse gases is absolutely wrong without one word of debate.

            So, will you respond: Based on this evidence I accept there is no GHE of any greenhouse gases???

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            olav ankjær

            |

            Hi Jerry
            I think we should all try to read a little between the lines when someone comments, otherwise the comments will be very long.
            But of course, sometimes we might write so unclearly that new explanations are needed.

            “Why did you qualify:” (accepted by all) “? Are you really saying that if you (Olav) say, I do not accept the evidence, that is not valid?”

            Of course not. When I say “accepted by all” I mean of course the different scientific institutions (big / small) the rest of us base our opinions on.
            If one or more institutions protest and come up with validated protests for what is claimed to be evidence, I would normally say the evidence is not good enough.
            In the climate case, I would say that there are completely wild conditions regarding alleged scientific facts.

            “So, will you respond: Based on this evidence I accept there is no GHE of any greenhouse gases ???”

            On the basis of all the different ways (theories) GHE is described to be, both physically and chemically, I will answer no to your question.
            For me to agree, I demand of myself to be able to defend the claims I make and not just refer to others. My scientific knowledge / understanding of GHE is not good enough to make too strong claims.
            I say this despite my strong conviction that the sensitivity to CO2 is greatly exaggerated and that there is no danger of catastrophic climate change.

            Have a good night you too Jerry.
            Yours sincerely, Olav

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Olav,

            Thank you for responding. I do not read between the lines because that requires I make an assumption. And I have a history of making too many wrong assumptions. And I consider I was successful in what I wanted to read instead of assuming.

            For to my question: “So, will you respond: Based on this evidence I accept there is no GHE of any greenhouse gases ???” And you did respond.

            “On the basis of all the different ways (theories) GHE is described to be, both physically and chemically, I will answer no to your question.”

            The reason I previously quoted your statement was “Remember: “very little is proven by physical experiments.”

            I hope any reader of our conversation does not miss that you failed to comment about my reference to the necessity of a scientific theory to have a prediction and then you failed to question the evidence I presented to refute the only prediction of the GHE of carbon dioxide etc. theory of which I am aware.

            So, I am convinced by your words that you seem to not be aware of these most fundamental principles of SCIENCE.

            I let Einsteinsu state this fundamental principle in other words. “No amount of experimentation can every prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” (Einstein)

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Olav,

            If you are writing as a scientist should, there would be no reason ‘to read between the llnes’. For I accept the wisdom of Louis Elzevir, publisher of ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’ which he wrote in the preface to a reader of this book. “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” I may often fail to achieve this standard.of accurate definition but I am always striving toward it.

            Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          olav ankjær

          |

          Sorry James
          Heat is the transfer of energy, not the transport of energy.

          “It moves in all directions simultaneously.”
          Not heat, but energy.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          olav ankjær

          |

          “Geran, consider how stupid you appear to our audience. When energy moves from hot to cold it is heat. But when it moves from cold to hot it is energy”

          Stupid, let’s see.
          When energy goes from something hot to something cold, energy is transferred, this transfer is called heat.
          When energy goes from something cold to something warm, no transfer of energy . Therefore not something we can call heat. Nothing has been heated

          Reply

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Olav:
            When energy goes from something cold to something warm, no transfer of energy .

            James:
            Surreal. So transfer from hot to cold is transfer but transfer from cold to hot is not transfer. This is a blatantly stupid statement.

            Therefore not something we can call heat. Nothing has been heated

          • Avatar

            olav ankjær

            |

            You can call it what you want James, but we have to agree that there is a difference between transport and transfer. If there is transport of radiation from one body to another, no transmission has occurred if the radiation is reflected. No energy is transferred.
            It is precisely this that is the disagreement, no transfer of energy from a cold to a warm body. Some would then say “no violation of the second law of thermodynamics”.
            You can call this “blatantly stupid”, I would call it having different opinions on a topic where very little is proven by physical experiments.
            You must also swallow, the right terminology in physics is to describe the transfer of energy as a change of temperature.

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Olav:
            You can call it what you want James, but we have to agree that there is a difference between transport and transfer.

            James:
            No, I don’t have to agree. You are just playing word games, to no good effect. There is no difference between transport and transfer as regards this subject.

            Olav:
            If there is transport of radiation from one body to another, no transmission has occurred if the radiation is reflected. No energy is transferred.
            It is precisely this that is the disagreement, no transfer of energy from a cold to a warm body. Some would then say “no violation of the second law of thermodynamics”.
            You can call this “blatantly stupid”, I would call it having different opinions on a topic where very little is proven by physical experiments.

            James:
            Your argument is semantic. We both have the same empirical understanding.

            Olav:
            You must also swallow, the right terminology in physics is to describe the transfer of energy as a change of temperature.

            James:
            I know the right terminology. I am a physicist. The problem with you amateurs is that you are choosing semantics by way of reflecting off the equation, forgetting that the two way aspect has already been incorporated in to the equations–this ignorance being the basis for your confused belief that heat only moves from hot to cold.

            James McGinn / Genius
            Simple Experiment Proves Moist Air is Heavier (not lighter) Than Dry Air
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Simple-Experiment-Proves-Moist-Air-is-Heavier-not-lighter-Than-Dry-Air-eabt10

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Olav,

            About the results of physical experiments you again wrote: “You can call this “blatantly stupid”, I would call it having different opinions on a topic where very little is proven by physical experiments.”

            Olav, it is a truth that if one ignores the results of physical experiments they can never prove a WRONG scientific idea (theory) to be absolutely WRONG. Just as an experimental result which does not prove a scientific idea (theory) to be absolutely WRONG ‘cannot’ prove any scientific idea (theory) to be an absolute TRUTH.

            I repeat the fact that Einstein stated: “No amount of experimentation can every prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” And I believe he qualifies as a Scientist whose wisdom should be considered and not simply be dismissed because you have a different opinion.

            Clearly, you do have opinion that is different than Einstein’s wisdom. Isn’t that a bit arrogant? Why not simply state: ‘It is my opinion that doing experiments is a waste of time and effort’.

            Than Geran and readers and I would clearly understand that you are philosopher and not a scientist.

            Have a good day, Jerry..

          • Avatar

            olav ankjær

            |

            Hi James
            I do not comment (do not use) the language of use to seem interesting or scientific, but as a clear answer to where the disagreement lies. I would still say there is a difference between transport and transfer. And to explain this, I mean energy and heat are different phenomena.
            Science describes GHE in different ways. It is claimed that the lower part of the atmosphere loses heat more slowly due to the greenhouse gases, without utilizing surface effects (back radiation to the surface). Energy in the form of radiation is absorbed by the greenhouse gases and this causes heating of the atmosphere in all layers.
            Some claim the surface is not heated, but GHE causes the surface to lose heat more slowly. Thus, the surface will have a higher temperature over time than it would otherwise have, thus greater / longer time to transfer heat via conduction to the atmosphere. This is similar to your explanation, I think. etc. etc.

            Okay, here’s my problem.
            The temperature of atoms and molecules is a description of how powerful they vibrate and how fast they move, I think.
            To increase the temperature, these phenomena must increase. This requires energy supply. Can radiation from a lower energy object cause increased vibration in the atoms of a higher energy object, I would say no.
            How this radiation should slow down the body losing heat may be possible, but I do not understand it.
            And if there is such an effect, especially of CO2, this effect is constantly reduced, ie the sensitivity of CO2 is reduced.
            I think this is confirmed by the discussion between Spencer and Ollila, which I wrote earlier. 7% versus 19%. Heating by doubling CO2 will be low. How low, do not these 7% say either, since science does not actually agree where the doubling of the CO2 calculation starts. Is it at 20ppm or maybe as most claims, at 60ppm.
            When this logarithm starts, describes a problem, it also causes problems in calculating the feedback effect of increased CO2 for water vapor, etc., etc.
            All these possible discussions regarding GHE are probably due to our lack of understanding and questionable evidence for one or the other.

            I therefore think we should stop ridiculing each other’s opinions, and rather accept that there are more opportunities for what may be right.

            You say I’m most likely an amateur, that’s right, but maybe not completely.
            I have dyslexia, and when you also have to write in a language other than my own, I hope you try to understand to the best of your ability

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Olav: Hi James
            I do not comment (do not use) the language of use to seem interesting or scientific, but as a clear answer to where the disagreement lies. I would still say there is a difference between transport and transfer.
            James: Hi Olav,
            You are right. I have no idea how difficult it must be to communicate in another language. My apologies.
            Olav: And to explain this, I mean energy and heat are different phenomena.
            James: Entropy always increases. Energy can’t be created/destroyed. However, it can be unleashed and harnessed to useful ends as it spreads, increasing entropy, producing “heat”.
            Olav: Science describes GHE in different ways.
            James: The term “greenhouse effect” is just a marketing jingle. It isn’t science.
            We know for a fact that the way an actual greenhouse “increases” the temperature of the air therein is by stopping it from being mixed with the cooler air above. We also know that CO2 does not form into layers and does not act as a barrier of any kind. Consequently, drawing parallels between CO2 in the atmosphere and a greenhouse is nonsensical, irrational.
            When factions maintain a nonsensicality it isn’t because they are not smart enough to realize that the notion is nonsensical. It is because political support for the notion is so great that they cannot afford ($) to dismiss it. I don’t’ need to worry about that. I reject GHE because it is nonsense. End of story, for me. I don’t use the phrase.
            Olav: GHE causes the surface to lose heat more slowly. Thus, the surface will have a higher temperature over time than it would otherwise have, thus greater / longer time to transfer heat via conduction to the atmosphere. This is similar to your explanation, I think. etc. etc.
            James: No. Not at all. I dismiss it altogether as being nothing more than a somewhat cartoonish myth rooted in a false analogy. As I indicated above, I think it is plainly irrational to draw parallels between CO2 and Greenhouses.
            And, otherwise, there is no reason to impart any thermal drama to CO2 whatsoever, in my opinion.
            Olav: Okay, here’s my problem. The temperature of atoms and molecules is a description of how powerful they vibrate and how fast they move, I think. To increase the temperature, these phenomena must increase. This requires energy supply. Can radiation from a lower energy object cause increased vibration in the atoms of a higher energy object, I would say no. How this radiation should slow down the body losing heat may be possible, but I do not understand it.
            James: The radiation from the cooler object doesn’t interfere with the radiation coming from the warmer objects. Rather it is simply absorbed by the warmer object. Consequently the rate of cooling of the warmer object is less than it would be without the radiation coming from the cooler object (all of this assumes a cold background).
            Olav: And if there is such an effect, especially of CO2, this effect is constantly reduced, ie the sensitivity of CO2 is reduced. I think this is confirmed by the discussion between Spencer and Ollila, which I wrote earlier. 7% versus 19%. Heating by doubling CO2 will be low. How low, do not these 7% say either, since science does not actually agree where the doubling of the CO2 calculation starts. Is it at 20ppm or maybe as most claims, at 60ppm.
            James: I recon the thermal influence of human caused CO2 is miniscule, about a hundredth of a percent. Meaningless. The notion is just convenient marketing that provides a framework of a narrative that allows people to pretend to understand what actually doesn’t make any sense any which way you approach it. Ultimately it is just gibberish.
            Olav: When this logarithm starts, describes a problem, it also causes problems in calculating the feedback effect of increased CO2 for water vapor, etc., etc. All these possible discussions regarding GHE are probably due to our lack of understanding and questionable evidence for one or the other.
            James: The greatest truths about the atmosphere are hidden to academia because of the mistakes made with correctly characterizing hydrogen bonding in water back in the 1940s. I refer to this error as Pauling’s omission.

            James McGinn / Genius
            Nobody Wants to Have to Rewrite the Textbooks on H2O
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Nobody-Wants-to-Have-to-Rewrite-the-Textbooks-on-H2O-e9kfdq

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    “q=σAε(T1^4−T2^4)

    Those people who I call “climate deniers” simply say that this equation is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But it is not. Equation 3.3 above shows that also radiative heat transfer depends on the temperature difference of the bodies but in the case of radiation it is proportional to the difference of fourth power of temperatures because the physical phenomenon is different. Equation 3.3 means that the net heat flow is from a hotter body to a cooler body (T1 is higher than T1). Deniers say that this equation is wrong because it shows that there is also heat flow from a cooler body to a hotter body.”

    This is such an unbelievable strawman.

    The equation shows HEAT FLOW from hot to cold, it does NOT show “NET” HEAT FLOW.

    You never demonstrated two way energy (“heat”) exchange, but merely a one-way exchange, that is Q.

    Those who you call climate deniers properly assert that the mainstream use the cold 345 W/m^2 to explain why the surface is ~390 W/m^2. The mainstream DO claim that cold warms hot.

    In reality, all those cold downwelling measurements have flipped (Upwelling IR – NET IR). They flipped geothermal minus conductive heat ‘loss’ into a “Downwelling” IR force.

    You will probably never understand this.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Anterro, another fundamental lesson for you:

    Solar Energy In = Solar Energy Out

    Earth Energy Out != Solar Energy In or Out

    The Earth is not in energy balance with the sun, but there is a place ~5km above the surface where that can be true.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      “have NO EXPLANATION for the global mean surface temperatures of Earth or Venus just for starters.”

      Actually I do. You know I do, and you lie about it to promote your stupid upside-down entropy defying theory.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Daelan Draco

    |

    The greenhouse effect (GHE) is predicated on the belief that one can add different radiation fluxes together, plug them into the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) equation and then solve for T.

    Are you with me so far?

    My contention is that this constitutes use of the equation in a way that was never intended. I can explain in physical terms why that is the case, but first it’s easier to just illustrate by way of an example that shows a rather catastrophic failure of that belief:

    Suppose we have two identical candles, both of temperature T. By the SB equation, we have that each candle has temperature:

    T = (J / s)^(1/4).

    Two candles have twice the radiant flux as compared to just one candle, and therefore, if we do precisely as is done in GHE theory, the temperature resulting from two candles would be:

    T_2 = (2 J / s)^(1/4).

    (Notice the “2” next to the “J”, denoting twice the radiant flux as compared to one candle).

    Now, if we divide the two temperatures you get:

    T_2 / T = 2^(1/4),

    which says that the temperature resulting from two candles is 2^(1/4) times the temperature of one candle, which is like saying we can add two candles together to heat something up to about 20% higher than by one candle alone!

    I hope you’re laughing right about now and see my point, because it’s clearly impossible to increase the temperature of anything by multiplying the number of candles one shines on it. All that does is lower the time it takes to heat that something to the candle’s temperature T. But this is precisely how GHE uses the SB equation. That in itself disproves the GHE theory conclusively.

    I hope that’s clear. But if you still don’t see what I mean, suppose that instead of two candles we have two rocks, all else being the same. Now it’s maybe a bit easier to see that two things of the same temperature cannot possibly result in a higher overall temperature.

    If you still don’t see what I’m saying, consider two open flames that are different in color. One is blue and one is yellow. Obviously the blue one is hotter (has higher temperature) than the yellow one. And if the flames are of the same size (i.e., burn the same rate of fuel, but the fuels are different such that one flame is hotter/bluer), the blue one naturally radiates greater energy per unit area per unit time, because bluer photons have more energy. Now, if we increase the size of the yellow flame––say by increasing the fuel feed rate––we can find a point where they both radiate the same amount of energy per unit time per unit area (energy flux).

    Do you see what I mean? We now have one energy flux corresponding to two different temperatures. In other words, there is not a on-to-one correspondence between flux and temperature in real life.

    But the SB equation clearly relates algebraically temperature with flux! It treats flux and temperature as though they had a one-to-one correspondence! Do you see the problem here? [Now, I don’t believe there is anything incorrect about SB theoretically; I think the issue is that it derives from a kind of normalized distribution which gives T-to-flux one-to-one correspondence only in a kind of normalized context not practicable in the real world. Thus SB is effectively only useful in comparison between identical things at different temperatures. For example, if I double the temperature of a pebble it radiates 2^4 times the amount of energy per unit time per area as it would in its original temperature, and that’s what the SB can say; but it can’t tell you what the temperature is based on the flux, or even what the flux is for a real life object given its temperature, but I digress…]

    The larger point is that temperature maps to color distribution, not to energy flux. So, because the SB equation does not hold color information at all it cannot possibly be used to deduce temperature from flux. Unfortunately, GHE theory tries to do precisely that with the SB equation, which, in one fell swoop, renders GHE completely false.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Richard Wakefield

      |

      Yep, same thing I noted with torches on a length of steel. AGW Greenhouse effect is not only false, but a scientific fraud.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    John Harrison

    |

    Daelan. SB can only be applied to thermal radiation spectrum. For example when energy is emitted as a result of a reduction in internal energy such molecules falling from a higher energy state to another resulting in emission of photons of cold light in chemo- luminescence, a rearrangement of nucleons producing gamma radiation from an atom of cobalt-60 or in the case of CO2, switching from one mode of vibration to a lower energy resulting in 15nm IR all have nothing to do with temperature. Be sure that you learn when to use SB equation.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      “molecules falling from a higher energy state to another resulting in emission of photons”

      Yes and such a fall can only occur where there is a potential for a fall, i.e when presented with colder molecules. This is what two-way net heat flow retards still can’t understand.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Jonas

    |

    Look at equation 3.3 and apply it to the radiation exchange between the sun and earth.
    It does not make sense if you put in sun temperature and earth temperature. The equation is missing something important – in this case you can say that it is the distance between the objects.

    I do not really understand why people object to the concept of radiation pressure. It is basically the same thing as pressure in a gas. Radiation pressure is real and it exerts a force. The radiation law would then be Flux= 3/4c(P1-P2). It is the same law but more physical (my opinion). P2 would in case be the radiation pressure of the incoming solar light = poyntings vector / c.

    I think it make a lot of sense to use the same logic for light as for gases, meaning that you consider light as a boson gas.

    One could say that the gas ouflow from a tank is proportional to the tank temperature, which is correct. The flow law would be Flux= kons * Tank Temperature. But it is conceptually better to say that the flux is proportional to the pressure, and the pressure is proportional to the temperature.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Bevan Dockery

    |

    Analysis of the Mauna Loa monthly CO2 concentration data supplied by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in their file ‘monthly_in_situ_co2_mlo.csv’ providing concentration values through to January 2020 compared to the UAH satellite lower troposphere temperature for the Tropics zone showed the following:-

    Correlation CO2 concentration vs Land temperature: 0.048 with a 33% probability that the value was zero by the Spearman Rank test.

    Correlation CO2 concentration vs Ocean temperature: 0.057 with a 18% probability that the value was zero by the Spearman Rank test.

    Correlation CO2 concentration vs Tropics zone temperature: 0.058 with a 20% probability that the value was zero by the Spearman Rank test.

    Correlation Annual Average Land temperature vs Annual rate of change of CO2 concentration : 0.40 with a probability of the order of 10^-18 that the value was zero by the Spearman Rank test.

    Correlation Annual Average Ocean temperature vs Annual rate of change of CO2 concentration : 0.36 with a probability of the order of 10^-16 that the value was zero by the Spearman Rank test.

    Conclusion: Temperature is independent of the CO2 concentration, there is no CO2 induced global warming. However the temperature determines the rate of generation of atmospheric CO2, that is, Climate change determines the rate of generation of CO2, not the reverse.

    Analysis of the Mauna Loa weekly CO2 concentration data supplied by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in their file ‘daily_flask_co2_mlo.csv’ providing concentration values for the period 30 March 1960 through to 22 October 2019 resulted in an Amplitude Spectrum for the Fourier Transform of the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration which revealed periods corresponding to the motion of the Moon and the planets relative to the Sun and Earth. In particular:
    the peak at 27.17 days represents the Moon draconic period of 27.21 days,
    the peak at 28.94 days represents the Moon synodic period of 29.53 days,
    the peak at 1308 days represents the average El Nino period.
    These indicate that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration is determined by the Sun’s irradiance of the Earth, that is, life responding to the changes in the warmth provided by the Sun.

    The Greenhouse gas global warming thesis has been a massive fraud.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    I know from experience that those people their own physics never change their minds but hopefully there are other readers who might do so. I do not start to defend the textbooks of physics or what I have already written in my story.

    Quote from Richard Wakefield: “This is the false argument I see all the time. Slowing the rate of energy loss, slowing temperature drop, DOES NOT INCREASE TEMPERATURE!!!”
    I use this analogy once again. Let us have a small house in a cold climate with a constant heat source of 5 kW. The main heat transfer mechanism is conduction through the walls and windows. Let us assume that the inside temperature has been +15 C when the outside temperature has been –25 C degrees during many days (reached a balance). Then we increase the heat insulation significantly. Then everybody (but not perhaps Richard and Geran) knows that the inside temperature will increase significantly.
    What did we do? We slowed down the rate of energy loss, and we increased the inside temperature? How come?? The same energy source inside and the same outside temperature but the inside temperature increases. The same thing happens when the cooling rate of the Earth’s surface has been slowed down by the GH effect of the atmosphere. The mechanism is different but the results is the same.

    Actually you need not know anything by heat transfer mechanisms but they needed to find explanations of what happens. Just look at the energy balance of the surface. Three radiation fluxes are based on observations: SW radiation 165 and LW radiation upward 395 W/m2. It does not match. But if you consider all the energy fluxes, there is a perfect balance.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Antero Ollila

      |

      Please copy the sentences in my comment, what you think are not right, or you want to comment.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Richard Wakefield

      |

      “Then we increase the heat insulation significantly. Then everybody (but not perhaps Richard and Geran) knows that the inside temperature will increase significantly.”

      Nope. There is a thermostat keeping the temperature at a maximum that is not exceeded, regardless how much insulation you have. The more insulation you have, the less energy is needed to keep the temperature constant.

      This is the same false assumption all AGW proponents make: The sun is imparting constant and non ending energy to the planet. NO IT IS NOT!!! The planet has a thermostat that prevents the temperature from rising beyond a maximum.

      That thermostat is the planet’s rotation. Not one place on the planet gets constant sun energy 24/7/365. Hence as the sun heats in the morning, there is a maximum temperature reached, which then the sun drops way from that heated location, and it cools.

      The concept of this is simple to understand. Have a planet like earth that has a 48 hour rotation. The sun would heat the the surface for more hours, and make for a hotter day time temperature. Night would cool longer and make for a colder night time temperature. Like Venus, life would be impossible.

      Now take a 12 hour rotating earth like planet. The sun would not have time to heat any part of the planet, hence the day time would be colder. That ice ball planet would be uninhabitable.

      Both the 12 hour and 48 hour rotating planets would have the same average temperature as us.

      This is akin to running your hand over a candle flame. Do it slow you burn your hand. Do it fast, you dont even feel it.

      Stop assuming the planet is a non-rotating flat disk of constant energy input with no upper limit to how hot it can get.

      BTW, the hottest temperature ever recorded was in 1913. If CO2 is making us hotter, how come that hasnt been breached since?

      Second, not one place on the planet is TMax increasing. In fact, for all of Canada, summer TMax has been DROPPING since the 1930s. How does your CO2 do that?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Antero Ollila

        |

        Try again, and this time read my text first again. I wrote that there is a constant heat source meaning without any temperature controller. I stopped reading your explanation right there. I understand that one of your problems is to understand the written text.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Antero, you are confusing radiative energy loss with conductive energy transfer. The atmosphere is a huge radiator. The ONLY way thermal energy leaves Earth’s system is via emitting photons to space.

          Trying to compare the atmosphere to home insulation just reveals, once again, your lack of understanding of the issues.

          Are you avoiding my comment and the problem?

          https://principia-scientific.com/why-i-disagree-with-roy-spencer-on-the-so-called-re-radiation-issue/#comment-34404

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Richard Wakefield

          |

          ” I wrote that there is a constant heat source meaning without any temperature controller.”

          Which then does not apply to the planet.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Richard Wakefield

          |

          Plus, no matter how much your heat source cranks out energy , it will reach a maximum temperature and go no higher, and be below the temperature of the heat source, no matter how much insulation you have. Again, you are thinking energy input always results in temperature increase. It doesnt.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          “Then we increase the heat insulation significantly. Then everybody (but not perhaps Richard and Geran) knows that the inside temperature will increase significantly.”

          Anterro,

          Entropy = Heat / Temperature

          If temperature goes up, entropy decreases. 2nd law states that entropy must increase, and therefore you violated 2nd law.

          The entropy formula is so easy to understand, that only an ideologue could believe their nonsense asssertions constitute science.

          When will you learn?

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    For some reason, I hardly ever get any explanations from Zoe or Geran for the working method of the carports in the cold climate. I see with my very own eyes every winter that after the cold (typically -5….-25 C degrees) the windows of my car are covered by ice under the open sky but the car of my neighbor under the open carport has ice-free clear windows. If you think that only you know the laws of physics, now you have a possibility to show your skills.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Richard Wakefield

      |

      The car port is slowing convection, hence the energy loss is reduced. It’s the same reason why the Sahara can get to 45C in the day, but -5C at night, but the jungle not far away stays a nice warm night time temp.

      BTW, cities close to large bodies of water, like one of the Great Lakes dont cool down as much at night as do cities an hour drive away in the country which get to lower night time temps. Why is that? I know, do you?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Antero Ollila

        |

        This explanation does not match the facts. The temperature of my car’s roof is clearly below the ambient air temperature. The convection does not work that a cold surface could cool down the surface temperature below the surrounding air temperature. Your own physical laws again.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Richard Wakefield

          |

          You think IR from the canopy is heating the car?????

          Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Antero, I wouldn’t attempt such a trap without knowing all of the details, such as how much dew there was during the night. You probably don’t realize a cover can reduce dew formation.

      But, here’s one for you:

      If you use your (3.3) equation to solve a simple example correctly, then your pseudoscience blows up in your face.

      So, here’s a simple example. (Better put your face shield on.)

      Equation (3.3)  q=σAε(T1^4 − T2^4)

      A sphere (A =1m^2 , ε = 1) is maintained at a temperature of 255 K, emitting 239.7 W/m^2, and enclosed in, but not touching, a spherical shell (ε = 1). Find the temperature of the shell, at equilibrium.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      There is no tall column of condensed water vapor dropping out of the sky onto your car windows when you have a car port above them.

      I like how you dismiss most of what I said, and attempt a stupid “gotcha” that ia eaay to disprove.

      Anterro, don’t be a useless scientist repeating other people’s narratives.

      If you learned your physics from climate “science”, then it is you who do not understand real physics. Fortunately I learned physics from physicists and engineers. I got A’s.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Antero,
      As the temperature drops the atmosphere contracts and the amount of water it can hold decreases. The water in the atmosphere will coalesce on the first cold surface it encounters, the carport roof or your car.
      Herb

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    A quote from the paper referred to:”It may be deduced that none of the radiation from a cooler body (and only a portion of the radiation from a warmer body) has any thermodynamic effect on the other body. All such radiation from a cooler source is rejected in some way, and it can be deduced that resonance and scattering occurs without any conversion to thermal energy.”

    This author has the physical laws that a black body or grey body radiation has been rejected by a hotter body in some way. So I ask in which way it has been rejected? This is nonsense. No meaning to continue.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    I noticed no explanation.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Because you’re blind due to ideology.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    chris

    |

    The corner stone of the greenhouse gas theory is that co2 can reflect or reradiate back to the Earth, heating it up some more because of the flux hitting the Earth. There are no experiments that shows that this can happen but lets evaluate it as though it could.

    Even if this could happen the amount of flux will be very minimal. The Earth gives off 340 W/m2, I believe (I’ll use this number). Lets ascribe a property to co2 that it doesn’t have, sends the energy that reaches it back the way that it came. This means that it will reflect/ reradiate 100% of the light that reaches it back. The air has about .04% co2. So the max amount that the atmosphere could send back is (340 * .0004 = ) 0.136W/m2.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Anterro,
    Please consider this:
    You got hot molecules emitting radiation to cold molecules forcing their electrons to jump to a higher energy level, AND you think the cold molecule electrons will jump to a lower level and force emission of photons. WHY? HOW?

    Don’t just fall back onto dogma of “all objects emit radiation”. No! That is not true, and Boltzmann and Planck only detected radiation from hot to cold, hence being able to measure it. The quoted dogma came much later, and honestly I can’t find who originated it. Where does it come from? It doesn’t come from experimental physics.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      Zoe Phin:
      Don’t just fall back onto dogma of “all objects emit radiation”. No! That is not true,

      James:
      It is true. It is not dogma. All objects (that are at temperatures above absolute zero) emit radiation constantly.

      Zoe:
      and Boltzmann and Planck only detected radiation from hot to cold

      James:
      This is not even possible. You are confused. You misinterpreted somebody, somewhere.

      Zoe:
      hence being able to measure it. The quoted dogma came much later, and honestly I can’t find who originated it. Where does it come from? It doesn’t come from experimental physics.

      James:
      You are not thinking straight, Zoe. The fact is that all objects radiate constantly. No part of thermodynamics fails to confirm this fact. ALL EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THIS. NO EVIDENCE FAILS TO CONFIRM THIS. Like Geran and Postma, you have fallen into the trap of mistaking your assumptions for empirical evidence.

      Do you have evidence of matter that does not emit radiation constantly? Present it or otherwise stay silent.

      James McGinn / Genius
      Soon We Will Stop Hurricanes

      https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Soon-We-Will-Stop-Hurricanes-e9g5fn

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    Quote:”Don’t just fall back onto dogma of “all objects emit radiation”.

    That is a fact and Max Planck introduced the second famous equation showing how to calculate this radiation. S-B law is based on this fact. Because you have your own physical laws, you always come to this point in the question of radiation and heat transfer that you have to deny this basic law of Planck. It does not make sense to continue because we are going in a circle.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      I agree. The slayers have argued themselves into a corner in which they have no choice but to evade the realization that there model is plainly refuted by Planck’s Law. I realized as far back as 2013 that PSI and the ‘slayers” are amateurs who actually misunderstand the fundamentals of thermodynamics.

      Be aware that this whole stupid argument has been repeated multiple times ever since 2013 when these idiots started repeating the mantra of “cold cannot heat hot.”

      As we can see, there are many morons that mistake their slogans for scientific principles.

      James McGinn / Genius
      Soon We Will Stop Hurricanes
      https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Soon-We-Will-Stop-Hurricanes-e9g5fn

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        James, psycho, genius, clown, water boy, I’m glad to see you holding hands with Antero and Norman. A comedy trio attempting to pervert reality makes for great entertainment.

        More please.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Anterro,
      “That is a fact and Max Planck introduced the second famous equation showing how to calculate this radiation. ”

      Uhm, Planck’s 2nd equation shows how hot heats cold. It doesn’t show two way “heat” flow as you claim. You can cite all the diagrams you want that pretend otherwise and it won’t make a difference to reality.

      What of I told you that when you walk 4 km/h, you are really walking forwards 12 km/hr and backwards 8 km/hr at the same time?

      How can you walk forward and backward at the same time? Doesn’t matter, the math works out, so it “must” be true.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Neogene Geo

    |

    Hi Dr Ollila,
    I’m a bit surprised to see you here, you certainly would have a lot more in common with Dr Spencer than the dragon slaying types at PS I. Not too many sympathetic ears I imagine.
    How many times have I heard people on this site say stupid things like “Fluxes are not additive”. Maybe a quick trip to your local heliostat solar generator in Nevada might help, where flat mirrors alone can cause temperatures in excess of 700 Kelvin at the receiver. From an input of say 200 W/m2 at the mirror! The temperature at the mirrors are a lot less than that! You guys crack me up!

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Moff

      |

      QED is an abbreviation of the Latin words “Quod Erat Demonstrandum” which loosely translated means “that which was to be demonstrated”. It is usually placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate that the proof is complete.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      chris

      |

      What experiments show that the fluxes add? If they do add then why is it that when two mirrors are facing each other their temps do not increase until the mirrors melt? If fluxes add then this would be a reality.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        People, that do not understand the relevant physics, do not understand this issue. And, this specifically applies to believers in the GHE, and believers in the “cold Sun”. They believe that infrared from the atmosphere adds to the incoming solar flux. Those fluxes do NOT add. Different fluxes do NOT add.

        Then, the ones that do not understand resort to examples like the solar collector in Nevada. What they do not understand is that that flux is from the same source! The fluxes do appear to add in that case. It’s the same as a magnifying glass being able to burn wood. The source is the sun. All that is happening is restoring the original flux density emitted by the sun. The flux is not adding, it is being restored due to the loss from the inverse square law. But no matter how many magnifying glass you have, you could NEVER raise an object above the emitting temperature of the sun, about 5800 K. Fluxes do NOT simply add arithmetically. Atmospheric infrared does NOT add to solar.

        Chris gets it correct, again.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          chris

          |

          Thanks Geran. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how to cook food using ice cubes. They just don’t want to tell me the experiments that prove how these things work. I’m also waiting for them to tell me that freezer burns is evidence that cold things make warmer things warmer.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Bevan Dockery

    |

    Take a look at a real world situation, namely, the tombs of the pharaohs lying beneath the Egyptian pyramids for thousands of years before being reopened by archaeologist.

    Every single item in a tomb would have been received radiation from everything else in the tomb, the walls, ceilings, floors, the offerings for the afterlife, the cask and more, all at about the same constant temperature over all of that time. As I understand the Greenhouse Effect, that radiation should have caused everything to slowly increase in temperature until, given the great passage of time, they would have spontaneously ignited and destroyed all of the content.

    As far as I am aware, excluding tomb robberies, the contents of the tombs were in remarkably good condition with no sign of heating. Nor were there any reports of a blast of hot air when the tombs were opened.

    To my mind this proves that there is no such thing as a Greenhouse Effect outside of a garden greenhouse.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Correct, Bevan.

      And the reason the tomb did not get hotter by itself is due to the First Law. Energy cannot add to itself. And energy cannot organize itself, by the Second Law.

      First Law: A glass of water at 40 degrees, poured together with another glass of water at 40 degrees, does not result in 80 degrees! The combining only results in a volume at 40 degrees.

      Second Law: Two glasses of water at 40 degrees will NEVER result in one glass at 80 degrees and the other at 0 degrees, without outside help.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Anterro,
    Stop acting like a child.

    You got hot molecules emitting radiation to cold molecules forcing their electrons to jump to a higher energy level, AND you think the cold molecule electrons will jump to a lower energy level and force emission of photons. WHY? HOW?

    The question is open to other retards. If you can’t answer it, …

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Geran,
    The whole premise of Planck’s Law is that you can add intensities of 6,7,8,9,10,11,etc. micron radiation. But should 0.5 micron enter the picture, suddenly you can’t add its intensity?

    That’s crazy.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      The different photons make up the flux density. The photons do not add together, they main their individual properties. Emitted fluxes from differing temperatures do NOT simply add.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Geran,
        Then Planck wad wrong, you’re saying.

        P.S. I’m talking about two different RAW sources of energy, not backradiation originating from one source.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Zoe, first you try to mis-characterize my words.

          Second, you changed to “TWO different” surfaces. Planck’s Law, which is where you started, deals with ONE surface. You got caught with your confused physics, so you try to change your own starting point.

          Both are clown tactics.

          You can’t admit you’re wrong. So you can’t learn. Like Norman, you just have to keep pounding on your keyboard, arguing to be arguing.

          That’s not very original comedy, but these days, it will have to do.

          More please.
          .

          Reply

      • Avatar

        Antero Ollila

        |

        Quote: “Emitted fluxes from differing temperatures do NOT simply add.

        If you look at Fig.2, you should understand that the absorbing surface of 15 degrees cannot make any difference if a photon is emitted by the surface of 7 degrees or 25 degrees. They may have exactly the same wavelength and slightly different intensities. How could a non-intelligent surface make a difference, when a very complicated instrument could not do it. It means that arguing with you is the same always. It does not make any sense.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Bevan Dockery

    |

    Dr Ollila, your study overlooks two essential parts of the energy budget as does all of the UN IPCC pronouncements, namely, the gravity induced temperature pressure gradient in the atmosphere and the fact that there is a massive heat engine at the Earth’s core. I suggest that this means that your thesis is incomplete so it is not appropriate to draw any conclusions therefrom.

    Also your insistence that radiation from a colder body can warm a body of higher temperature contradicts statistical thermodynamics. This tells us that all of the molecules in a body are vibrating across a statistical distribution of frequencies leaving no place for a photon of one of those frequencies to transfer additional energy into the system. The radiation pressure from the body simply reflects the photon back into space.

    Radiation from a hotter source will increase the temperature of the body because it is providing photons of higher energy than those emitted thereby causing molecules in the body to vibrate at a higher frequency than previously, that is, raise the temperature of the body.

    This is particularly relevant in the case of the so-called greenhouse gases as they only absorb and re-radiate in select bands so they are not even returning the full spectrum emitted by the Earth’s surface. If there was a Greenhouse Effect then the Earth would cool as the concentration of Greenhouse gases increased because of back radiation of the Sun’s incoming radiation out into space. Do not forget that 51% of the incoming Sun’s radiation is in the infrared spectrum.

    I suggest that an energised Greenhouse gas molecule can release its energy in a number of ways not simply by re-radiating at the original photon energy. It may also drop to a lower vibrational state on collision with another molecule passing the difference in energy levels on to that molecule as kinetic energy of motion or it may not re-radiate at all, passing all of the vibrational energy on as kinetic energy in a collision there raising the atmospheric temperature and increasing the rate of convection, that is, cooling the Earth.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      “the gravity induced temperature pressure gradient in the atmosphere”

      True, but it runs backwards, from hot surface to cold atmosphere, not vice versa.

      Venus has smaller gravity than Earth, so that can’t be a good explanation. But Venus has high geothermal, and this provides enough kinetic energy to convert to potential energy to create a thick atmosphere.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        John O'Sullivan

        |

        Zoe, Please don’t feed the troll.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi John,
          You cannot get Zoe to shut up. She believes that she has the last word, no matter how stupid it is, she is right and wins the argument.
          Herb

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Bevan Dockery

    |

    It is a fine sunny day with a clear blue sky above here in Perth, Western Australia, with a temperature of 19.3 deg.C at 11:20 in the morning. To reassure myself that I am not mistaken, I have been outside and, with the palm of my hand, checked the temperature of the surroundings. Items in the shade are cool, at the local ambient temperature. Items in the sun are distinctly warm. When I faced the Sun I could feel the warmth from the Sun’s rays. Look away from the Sun and there was no warmth. Surely this is clear and unambiguous evidence that there is no Greenhouse warming coming down from the sky above, said to be double the heat per square metre as that arriving from the Sun.

    It defies comprehension that the World’s leaders and the population at large should be so completely in denial of their own senses.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      Hi Bevan.
      An old saying (truth) is “seeing is believing” which is pretty close to the observations you have recorded here. I then read “your senses are fooling you” as one of Geran’s clowns suggests the effect of cloud cover at night in an arctic winter refutes observations of direct sunlight and then shade at near mid day in sub tropical Perth.

      I was out working in the high country during a moderating tropical cyclone ( hurricane, typhoon ) one time. Standing on a barren ridge a small tree went flying past. “Unusual! Where did that come from?” I considered.
      Down in the low country the Wairoa river came close to rising within it’s gorge to road level. (flooding)
      And an American from Texas decided to fly a helicopter from Napier to Gisborne at the height of the storm. I considered he must have thought a lill’ ol’ Noo Zealand storm was nuffin compared to a Texas storm. They found some helicopter wreckage in the ocean off Gisborne but never the body of the Texan.
      While all this was going on the local radio puts out a weather report, “light winds, clear skies”. The clown reading the weather forecast was saying “your senses are fooling you there”. Fools can endanger lives.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        WhoKoo

        |

        Correction! Fools endanger lives.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    To Bevan Dockery. Your senses are fooling you there down under. When I go out here up close to Arctic Circle in Finland in a cold winter night I can feel right away if there is a cloud cover above me keeping a reasonable temperature reading or is the cloudless sky letting longwave radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface to escape into space and causing an arctic low-temperature reading.

    A practical example during the last three days. My wife’s hobby is garden work and she loves flowers. As in many other countries we like to have daffodils during Easter time. We have daffodils in four different pots on our stairway. During the last two nights, I had to move the pots inside into my carriage, because there were cloudless nights forecasts and this precaution was correct; the night temperature fell below – 5 centigrades and I could save the daffodils.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Bevan Dockery

      |

      Dr Ollila,
      Could it be that the cloud cover on a cold winter night is slowing the escape of the heat rising to the Earth’s surface that you have ignored in your presentation? The very heat that kept the frost off your neighbour’s car when under his car port. I suspect that when the windows on your car are frosted over, there would be frost on the surrounding ground but not underneath the car due to the warmer Earth surface below.

      In Finland you have the experience of snow that I never have here in Perth. As your snow thaws at the end of Winter, I predict that it first happens on the South sloping terrain due to the low angle of the Sun on the Southern horizon. The last to thaw will be in the gully’s and North sloping terrain for the simply reason that there is no Greenhouse radiation of double the energy per square metre to melt the snow. It has to wait until the ambient temperature, generated by the Sun, is sufficient to warm everywhere.

      Try standing out in the open on a sunny day and judge from whence the heat it coming.

      Alternately you may wish to inform me as to my mistakes in my analysis of climate data as shown on my web site. This is the result of 4 decades of a career in exploration geophysics where I have applied my experience and knowledge to the analysis, in the past decade of my retirement.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Antero, low clouds at night help to reduce heat transfer from the surface. They act as insulation.

      During the day, the same clouds are reflecting more energy from the sun, so they are reducing solar heating.

      But clouds are not CO2. So, once again, you’re grasping at straws trying to promote the bogus GHE.

      And, also once again, you are avoiding your own pseudoscience:

      https://principia-scientific.com/why-i-disagree-with-roy-spencer-on-the-so-called-re-radiation-issue/#comment-34404

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Hans Meijer

      |

      @Antero Ollila. If supplemented with the clause “if T1 > T2” your Equation (3.3) becomes a valid expression of the second law of thermodynamics, as described by prof. Claes Johnson in Equation 16.1 of his “Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation”. This effectively does away with any bidirectional transfer of thermal radiation between two bodies of different temperature. There is no physically meaningful thermodynamic concept like ‘net heat’ (or gross heat for that matter). Thermal radiation can exclusively flow from the warmer to the colder body. Yes, there will also be radiation the other way around. But the latter should never be called thermal. For its photons will not be absorbed by the warmer body, but be repulsed by its surface, conserving the photons’ relativistic energy. Radiation, thus also photons and their microscopic processes in interacting with matter, strictly obey(s) the macroscopic laws of thermodynamics. In fact it is surprisingly easy (though it takes some effort) to prove this for local situations from applicable real-life meteorological data. It can thus be shown that the solar flux is solely responsible for heating the Earth’s surface. After the first sunrise it takes hours before the solar flux becomes intense enough to heat the surface. In the meantime the flux can reach intensities of hundreds of watts per meter square, while the surface stoically cools down further. It is hardly imaginable that any back-radiation of the same intensity would show an opposite behaviour. Facts show that also the last hours before sundown the sun no longer contributes a joule of heat. During all these hours the concept of albedo is thermodynamically irrelevant.

      Any heat contribution from back-radiation would demand a flux having a greater intensity (and, yes, radiation pressure) than the sun’s. Which is physically impossible. In this unthinkable case the back-radiation would prevail as the sole heat source, leaving the solar flux unemployed. For Poynting vectors do definitely not add up. If so, this would be disastrous for radio communications. And if so, they would also subtract. Imagine the consequences of a strong back-radiation, like the one proposed by K&T, counteracting, and effectively almost cancelling, the solar flux. In such a calculation the sun’s 168 W/m² should be doubled. K&T distributed the solar flux statistically over the whole planet’s surface, while the sun only serves half the planet at a time. Whereas the assumed back-radiation is a 24/7 phenomenon. If adding/subtracting algorithms would be physically valid, the sun’s ‘net’ average specific power would be reduced to ridicule: (2 × 168 – 324) W/m² = (336 – 324) W/m² = 12 W/m². (Outside climatology, referring to intensity, specific power, or power density, in terms of energy is a mortal sin.) It is not relevant whether or not back-radiation exists, at least not for Global Warming or Climate Change. Or whether or not is was competently measured. One way or the other it can simply never do the assumed trick. So much for the Greenhouse Effect. Which can only ever become a real physics text book effect when it is unambiguously defined and established by experiment.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Hans:
        @Antero Ollila. If supplemented with the clause “if T1 > T2” your Equation (3.3) becomes a valid expression of the second law of thermodynamics, as described by prof. Claes Johnson in Equation 16.1 of his “Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation”. This effectively does away with any bidirectional transfer of thermal radiation

        James:
        it doesn’t do away with it. It incorporates it such that it is factored out of the equations. The equations of the laws of thermodynamics HAVE ALREADY INCORPORATED THE TWO WAY ASPECT.

        You “one-wayers” have mistaken your equations (which have already incorporated the two way aspect of thermodynamics into the equations) for reality.

        This is a huge amateurish mistake. It’s the kind of mistake we expect from engineers but not the kind of mistake we expect from scientist.

        The problem is that the slayers are engineers who have mistaken their equations for reality.

        James McGinn / Genius
        How We Know Water Has Been Systematically Misunderstood By Science
        https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/How-We-Know-Water-Has-Been-Systematically-Misunderstood-By-Science-e9c1e9

        between two bodies of different temperature. There is no physically meaningful thermodynamic concept like ‘net heat’ (or gross heat for that matter). Thermal radiation can exclusively flow from the warmer to the colder body. Yes, there will also be radiation the other way around. But the latter should never be called thermal. For its photons will not be absorbed by the warmer body, but be repulsed by its surface, conserving the photons’ relativistic energy. Radiation, thus also photons and their microscopic processes in interacting with matter, strictly obey(s) the macroscopic laws of thermodynamics. In fact it is surprisingly easy (though it takes some effort) to prove this for local situations from applicable real-life meteorological data. It can thus be shown that the solar flux is solely responsible for heating the Earth’s surface. After the first sunrise it takes hours before the solar flux becomes intense enough to heat the surface. In the meantime the flux can reach intensities of hundreds of watts per meter square, while the surface stoically cools down further. It is hardly imaginable that any back-radiation of the same intensity would show an opposite behaviour. Facts show that also the last hours before sundown the sun no longer contributes a joule of heat. During all these hours the concept of albedo is thermodynamically irrelevant.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Hilarious James, the “genius”!

          And repeating the comment downthread makes you even more incompetent.

          More please.

          Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Anterro,
      You got causality backwards. Because it’s warm, there are clouds over you. If it wasn’t warm they would never form, or would have rained out.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Neogene Geo

    |

    Why do you keep referring to yourself in the third person?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Bevan Dockery

    |

    Dr Ollila,
    I am disappointed to see that you have made no attempt to explain my results listed above at April 1, 2020 at 7:59 am yet you tell me that “Your senses are fooling you there down under”.
    Some justification would be appreciated.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Matt,

    Thank you for sharing your experience(s).

    Now, given Bevan’s comment can you explain why PSI readers like him made no comments (October and November 2018) relative to the conversation which Peter C ( an Australian sailplane pilot) and I had about actual quantitative data and his experiences?.

    Have a good day and say Hi to WooKoo, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    For believers in absolute two-way photon emission between cold and hot …

    I repeat:

    You got hot molecules emitting radiation to cold molecules forcing their electrons to jump to a higher energy level, AND you think the cold molecule electrons will jump to a lower energy level and force emission of photons. WHY? HOW?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Hans:
    @Antero Ollila. If supplemented with the clause “if T1 > T2” your Equation (3.3) becomes a valid expression of the second law of thermodynamics, as described by prof. Claes Johnson in Equation 16.1 of his “Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation”. This effectively does away with any bidirectional transfer of thermal radiation

    James:
    it doesn’t do away with it. It incorporates it such that it is factored out of the equations. The equations of the laws of thermodynamics HAVE ALREADY INCORPORATED THE TWO WAY ASPECT.

    You “one-wayers” have mistaken your equations (which have already incorporated the two way aspect of thermodynamics into the equations) for reality.

    This is a huge amateurish mistake. It’s the kind of mistake we expect from engineers but not the kind of mistake we expect from scientist.

    The problem is that the slayers are engineers who have mistaken their equations for reality.

    James McGinn / Genius
    How We Know Water Has Been Systematically Misunderstood By Science
    https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/How-We-Know-Water-Has-Been-Systematically-Misunderstood-By-Science-e9c1e9

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Great comedy, James, “genius”, water-boy.

      And incompetently placing the comment TWICE, just adds to the humor.

      More please.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Geran:
        Great comedy, James, “genius”, water-boy.

        James:
        You engineers should leave science to scientists.

        James McGinn / Genius
        Why Meteorologists Will Not Discuss or Debate Their Convection Model of Storm Theory
        6https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Fifth-Episode-Why-Meteorologists-Will-Not-Discuss-or-Debate-Their-Convection-Model-of-Storm-Theory-e9a20l

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi PSI Readers and Commenters,

    I have tried to avoid getting involved in these endless arguments for once I see a figure similar to Figure 4 I tend to ignore anything that has been written. However, in my comment March 31, 2020 at 3:24 pm I tried to support Antero’s comment by calling attention to what Feynman wrote about Einstein’s assumption. And, of course, I now see that I made one of my habitual mistakes (chose instead of choose) as I concluded: “So, one has to chose to accept what .Antero wrote or what Feynman taught about what Einstein assumed.”

    I can now see what I wrote was not clearly stated. For Einstein’s assumption explained how absorbed photons did not ‘heat’ the matter which absorbed them. And this is clearly Antero’s point. So there seems to me to be no choosing between Antero’s statement and Einstein’s assumption.

    “Two comments based on the empirical observations. All people living in the countryside of Scandinavian countries have learned that in wintertime when the sky turns cloudy, temperature will increase. This is based on the fact that clouds absorb totally LW radiation emitted by the surface and this will increase the LW flux from the atmosphere to the surface.

    In these countries, carports are popular because they prevent not only snowing on cars but also during cold cloudless nights the windows of cars will not be frozen even this happen to cars nearby without these open carports. The scientific explanation is the higher temperature of the roof above in comparison to the black night sky with very low temperature reading.”

    Now a fact is Feynman, (The Feynman Lectures On Physics) asked his students: Why (or how) is it we can see clouds when we cannot see the water molecules which condense to form the cloud droplets?. This to introduce his theory of cloud scattering, or colloidal (Tyndall) scattering. Which I believe is based upon Einstein’s assumption. Hence, instead of cloud dropletss absorbing photons they scatter photons. This is only my understanding of what Feynman taught. For I consider the observed fact that high, cold, cirrus clouds scatter visible solar radiation, which is commonly observed, clearly establishes the fact the tiny ice particles do not even absorb and ‘heat’ these tiny ice particles.

    The influence of the car port is entirely a different case. The upper surface of the carport’s is cooled by emitting photon toward space. And on these surfaces the frost forms. Thus, the latent heat of condensation of water molecules to ice prevent this upper surface from cooling further (or greatly reducing the rate of cooling). And the lower surface of the roof blocks the transmission of the radiation to space. And because the roof is a solid, for any energy from the underside to the upperside of the roof requires a temperature gradient to ‘support’ the conduction. Hence the underside of the roof must be warmer than the upperside and anything under the roof like the car, must be warmer than the upperiside of the roof, which must be colder than the air temperature or not frost would form upon it.

    Given Antero’s two common observations, we must admit there is nearly nothing in a cloudless atmosphere to hinder the transmission of long wavelength IR radiation to space.

    And it really does not matter of how we explain these observations. Which I do believe Stefan, Boltzmann, Planck, Einstein, Tyndall, and Feynman have done..

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Mikkel Kaastrup

    |

    Given that you claim to be explaining some basic knowledge of thermodynamics, it would behoove you to have it yourself. You write that:
    “There is three heat transfer mechanism in the universe: conduction, convection and radiation.”
    There is a 4th: Evaporation/condensation. It happens a lot in the atmosphere with water, and it happens a lot in fridges, which uses CFC-like gases to transport heat from the fridge to the outside of it. And don’t tell me this is just a variety of conduction, for it so, then convection is also a variety of conduction.
    Also, heat DOES in fact only flow from colder to hotter bodies, and this also goes for radiative heat exchange.
    Postma explains it here:
    https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/03/20/heat-flow-cold-to-hot-when-both-conduction-radiation-occurring/
    but MUCH BETTER here:
    https://climateofsophistry.com/2015/05/26/the-sophistry-of-backradiation/

    And it follows directly from the Clausius statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why is there are group of 2nd law of thermodynamics deniers online here?!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Mikkel Kaastrup

    |

    You write of the equation for radiative heat transfer.
    “(3.3) q=σAε(T1^4−T2^4)

    Those people who I call “climate deniers” simply say that this equation is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”

    They absolutely do not, you are BABBLING. The equation is parallel to the equations for conduction.
    Heat is energy in motion. And the amount of heat in that equation is Q.
    It follows directly from the equation THAT HEAT WILL ONLY FROM FROM T1 TO T2 IF T1 IS HOTTER THAN T2.
    If you cannot see that you are IMMENSELY STUPID.

    But it is not. Equation 3.3 above shows that also radiative heat transfer depends on the temperature difference of the bodies but in the case of radiation it is proportional to the difference of fourth power of temperatures because the physical phenomenon is different.”
    Ya, it does.
    “Equation 3.3 means that the net heat flow is from a hotter body to a cooler body (T1 is higher than T1). Deniers say that this equation is wrong because it shows that there is also heat flow from a cooler body to a hotter body.”

    No the equation meas that there is only a HEAT FLOW – not a “net heat flow” from T1 to T2 is T1 is hotter than T2. And you obviously ARE immensely stupid, as your post makes clear.
    UNBELIEVABLE! Your amount of ignorance is so stunning it boggles my mind.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Mikkel Kaastrup

    |

    To clarify: a “heat flow” is a “net flow of energy” which is always from hot to cold, as shown by both the equations for conductive and radiative heat transfer.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Mikkel,
      Temperature (hot and cold) is a function energy and MASS. Objects only radiate energy. Roll a bowling ball down a bowling alley. Shoot it with a pellet gun. The pellet will add energy to the bowling ball even though the bowling ball has more kinetic energy than the pellet.
      Herb

      Reply

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    The pellet would subtract energy if it hits the ball counter to the direction the ball is moving. What happens to those two exact twin blocks of iron at the same temp in a vacuum in a box? If the night temp is 20 C one night and 25C the next night….and day 1 temp is X degrees….what is day 2 temp? Is day 2 also X degrees or X+ degrees?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      HiT.C.
      I was using the pellet and ball as an analogy for molecules. In the case of the pellet and ball there is a conversion of motion into increasing the heat of the objects which doesn’t occur on a molecular level where there is perfect elasticity.
      In the second example you are speaking of the radiation of energy. With radiation the energy of object is equalized with the surrounding electric/magnetic field not with each other.Instead of two irons blocks with the same temperature what if the blocks had different temperatures and were made from different substances where the wavelength radiated by a block was not a wavelength absorbed by the other block? Would the two blocks equalize or always have different temperatures?
      Herb

      Reply

      • Avatar

        T. C. Clark

        |

        Two identical spheres of red hot iron at the same temp in a vacuum box are observed to cool down unevenly…..the hemispheres facing each other glow redder longer than the two hemispheres facing away….is this true? Why?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi T.C.
          Yes it true. It is because they are absorbing energy emitted by the other sphere (even though they are the same temperature.)
          It is also why they can never equalize with each other. They radiate energy in all direction but absorb it from one direction. Since they will never return the same amount of energy to the other sphere that that they absorb from it they cannot equalize with the other sphere, only the electric/magnetic field they are in.
          Herb.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            T. C. Clark

            |

            Herb. I think we are getting closer…but the spheres being identical at the same temp means by definition they both emit and absorb the same amount of energy….and the same amount of conduction is going on within the spheres from the hot side to the colder side due to the uneven amount of IR photons being received which creates the hot and cold sides.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi T.C.

            You wrote: “and the same amount of conduction is going on within the spheres from the hot side to the colder side due to the uneven amount of IR photons being received which creates the hot and cold sides.”

            For you have made a critical observation. It establishes the fact the thermal conductivity of the matter limits its emission surface temperature.

            What you have not yet pointed out to Herb is the purpose (my opinion) of this thought experiment is that the absorption of all (shorter to longer wavelength–Figure 2) photons by an emitting surface slows the cooling of the surface.

            Your thought experiment includes a ‘vacuum box’ which must have sides at some temperature unless you state the side’s temperature is 0 Kelvin. But than it seems the matter of the sides must be assume to be perfectly transparent to the radiation being emitted by the ‘hot’ iron spheres. Which, because this is a thought experiment, is possible.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi T.c,
            If at anytime the spheres stopped radiating energy they would be in equilibrium, so they radiate energy, not until they ate in equilibrium with each other, but when they are in equilibrium with the field around them..
            Herb

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Herb,

          You wrote: “If at anytime the spheres stopped radiating energy they would be in equilibrium,”

          No, If at anytime the spheres stopped radiating energy they would be at 0 K (absolute zero).

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

          • Avatar

            T. C. Clark

            |

            Jerry, I think you are correct about the twin…mirror image spheres that are in a box with walls at a much lower temp than the initial red hot iron spheres….the walls being constructed to have little effect and symmetrical effect on the spheres so the walls can be ignored. The spheres initially had the same amount of energy each and cooled at the same rate…it’s just the cooling was different for each hemisphere due to the proximity of the other sphere. Each sphere emits and receives the same amount of IR photons overall but it is uneven . And, I must add that I have never heard anyone anywhere maintain that you could cook a turkey with ice cubes…must be some kind of red herring thing.

  • Avatar

    john williams

    |

    The Clausius statement is a corollary of the Second Law applicable in a horizontal plane, not in a vertical plane in the troposphere for non-radiative heat. Learn why by studying Cotton’s brilliant paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      “John Williams”, watch out for that guy. He loves his confused physics.

      Did you know he often comments posing as someone else?

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Lloyd

    |

    All I know is if I dump cold water into hot water, I can now get into the bath without singeing myself. If I dump hit water into cold, I stop shivering in the bath. If I radiate heat onto my skin, my flesh heats up. If I blow cold air over my flesh long enough, my temperature can drop. Other objects seem to react in a similar manner. I also know that when people who claim to be intellectually superior scientists start name-calling and tooting their own horns, the demonstrate they are NOT intellectually superior nor scientists. 30 years in Law Enforcement have taught me people who talk the most usually have done the least but want people to believe the opposite. Sad. Now, you can start calling ME names. 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Lloyd,

    I believe you are an astute observer of human nature!!! And you are therefore a good, if not great, scientist after the founders of SCIENCE such as Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Newton, Robert Boyle, and especially the school teacher John Dalton who finally gave us the ATOM. Of course, these men were not theorists like Einstein who demonstrated how imagination and the study (analysis) of simple, actual, systems could lead to amazing, but simple, knowledge like E=mc^2.

    Have a good day, Jerry.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via