Baldness & the Greenhouse Gas Theory
Here is a question – Why did the man’s bald patch on the top of his head get hot? Why indeed do any sunbathers get hot?
Curiously, the Sun does not send heat through space but radiation – and radiation has to encounter mass to produce heat. So a man’s bald patch gets hot when out in the sun because he is substantial – he has mass. Since to the best of my knowledge I have never met the bald man in the photo above, I have no idea whether he is fat or slim, tall or tiny. No matter, every single one of us are mass, so we warm up under the Sun.
What is the proof? We all know that the Earth is surrounded by space. What is space? It is empty, it is a vacuum. The Sun sends its radiation through over 90 million miles of space. If the Sun sent heat then space would be a raging furnace. But it is the opposite. Since it is empty there is nothing to get hot. One cannot heat nothing. One can only heat something that has mass.
In fact we all know this very well. We also know that the air gets thinner and colder at altitude. We see snow on the tops of mountains. Since the mountain tops are nearer the Sun why are they so cold, relatively speaking?
When the radiation from the Sun encounters the sands and rocks of the Sahara, say, intense heat is produced, and this raises the temperature of the air immediately above. But as hot air rises it expands and cools, so 100 feet up the air is cooler. So we see clearly that Sun heats Earth and Earth heats atmosphere, from the bottom up.
It is the same with the oceans. As they are warmed by the Sun, so also is the air above is warmed by the waters. And as the warmed air rises and expands, so it also cools.
This is just a matter of simple observation. We all know that the air at altitude gets progressively colder, just from simple hill walking in the Lake District, for example. But more particularly from Air travel, where a monitor will show minus 50 centigrade at 30,000 feet.
So now can heat be trapped? Well we can trap a mouse, because even a tiny mouse is substantial. We can trap a bear or a crocodile because they have mass. But can anyone on this wide Earth trap heat? The answer is a resounding No. It is utterly impossible. Why? Because heat is defined as a transfer of kinetic energy between one system and another. It is utterly impossible to trap a transfer.
Does this correspond to ordinary common or garden observation? Absolutely. Hence all the business about emissions of Carbon Dioxide is simply Codswallop. It is not only that it is not true, it is simply impossible. The Warmists claim that mankind is making the Planet hotter through emissions of Carbon Dioxide. This is simply wrong. It is risible. All the gases of the atmosphere without exception cool the Planet.
What is interesting is the following. Radiation from the Sun encounters the mass of the Earth and Oceans, producing heat. This heat is transferred to the atmosphere by Conduction, that is by touching. Then the heat rises up and cools by Convection. Here we see the truly glorious use of the three methods of heat exchange – Radiation, Conduction and then Convection. Once this becomes clear it is like a beautiful revelation of the Almighty powers of Great Nature.
Finally, dear Mr Bald Man, what is Carbon Dioxide? Buy a bottle of sparkling water and pour it into a glass. Those little bubbles that rise up are Carbon Dioxide. You and I and all the human race emit carbon dioxide 24 hours a day. What then is smoke, blue smoke, grey smoke, black smoke? Look it up, don’t believe me. Google the composition of smoke. What about exhaust fumes? Do the same. Don’t allow yourself to be scientifically illiterate.
Sure we must do all we can to clean the air, to avoid pollution. That goes without saying. But Carbon Dioxide is a clear gas that is food for green plants, which in turn produce Oxygen for all mankind. The greening of the Sahel has been the result of an increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. And 30,000 Skeptical Scientists lead the big parade!
How have the Black Magicians succeeded for so long in the biggest hoax mankind has ever known? Well it was ever thus. When mankind believed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe the Church fiercely opposed the ideas put abroad by Copernicus, who died conveniently, while Galileo was humiliated while being threatened with the rack, and my special hero, Giordano Bruno the Dominican Monk, was imprisoned for seven years before being burnt at the stake.
But the truth triumphed in the end, against all the money and the power of the Material forces, and will do so again.
Trackback from your site.
Keir Watson
| #
This is not good enough. If you want to debunk climate change (and I think you should) you need to avoid red herrings like the ones in this article.
Yes, radiative forcing does misuse the term heat. Technically heat is the energy transferred from a hot to a cold object, so no, the air does not heat the land – in that you are right. However, that does not debunk radiative forcing it just means they are being sloppy with their terminology.
All objects emit thermal radiation. The hotter they are the more they emit. Short wave IR Radiation from the sun is – as you say – absorbed by the Earth’s surface which warms it. The Earth emits long wave radiation, and so the suns rays will increase its temperature until the power emitted by the Earth is equal to the power received from the sun. At which point you have steady state, energy in = energy out. Now add an atmosphere. Some of the IR emitted from the Earth will be absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere is also an emitter, but radiates in all directions, so some of that radiation goes down towards the Earth. Hence the total radiation arriving at the Earth is higher than it would be without the atmosphere, so the Earth’s temperature will rise until again the power in and out again balances.
In otherwords, strictly the atmosphere is not ‘heating’ the Earth, but rather it is insulating it, and one way in which insulation works is by reducing the rate at which IR can escape. That’s what the theory says.
Now we have got that straight, by all means pick holes in it!
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Exactly right. What puzzles me is why the effect of the long wave radiation from the extensive spectrum of the Sun never seems to feature as it would certainly saturate the excitation of atmospheric greenhouse gases during much of the day and neither is the half-life of the “decay” by IR emission of the activated GHG molecules which should affect the lag intervals. Have I missed or misunderstood something
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Anthony and Keir,
First, Anthony, you wrote a very good essay about which I have a couple critical comments. But Kerr, unless Anthony’s red herrings are similar to yours, I do not find any in Anthony’s essay.
In their preface to the reader, the publisher of Galileo’s book—Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences—wrote (as translated by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio): “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times; or, as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” Hence, Galileo’s two new sciences are restricted to observations and sloppy terminology has no place in his two new sciences.
Anthony, you wrote: “We also know that the air gets thinner and colder at altitude.” And, “We all know that the air at altitude gets progressively colder.” However, when I go to http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html I find many examples where the opposite, from a cold surface the atmosphere warms with increasing altitude for some altitude. Of course, most of us are familiar with ‘natural’ atmospheric temperature inversions which need to be explained if we do not overlook (forget) what we know that has been observed. But Anthony, I find many like you who repeat the precept of a theory without regard to the broader precept that what goes up must eventually come down as it cools at the bottom.
Keir, in your second paragraph you wrote: “Yes, radiative forcing does misuse the term heat. Technically heat is the energy transferred from a hot to a cold object, so no, the air does not heat the land – in that you are right. However, that does not debunk radiative forcing it just means they are being sloppy with their terminology.” And it appears you condone this sloppy terminology which has no place in Galileo’s two new sciences.
And you yourself sloppily wrote: “All objects emit thermal radiation. The hotter they are the more they emit. Short wave IR Radiation from the sun is – as you say – absorbed by the Earth’s surface which warms it.” Is not thermal radiation a specific radiation and not a general radiation? Is short wave IR Radiation from the sun the only solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s surface which warms it? And I reread Anthony’s essay and he never wrote “short wave IR Radiation” is absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
A year or so ago Anthony had written: “So who are the real deniers? Who are the supporters of phony science? I ask you, whatever their faults—and all human beings have faults.” I did not complete Anthony’s comment because I considered what followed distracted attention from all human beings have faults. We are all at fault if we do not try to restrict our science to observation and to accurately define as we ponder and write.
Having written the preceding I must ask: What are my faults? Having asked this question I quickly identify two. I accept the precept that atmosphere would be a layered cake with the heaviest molecules at its base and the lightest at the top if not for vertical convention. I accept this because I ignore (overlook, disregard) the Ideal Gas Law.
R. C. Sutcliffe wrote Climate and Weather which was published in 1966. He wrote: “We generally say that the air can hold no more than a definite maximum amount of invisible gaseous water, more or less according as the temperature is high or low, but the statement is acceptable only with reservations. In the first place, the presence of air—that is the unpolluted mixture of pure permanent gases—has little to do with the process. It is the amount of vapour in the available space that matters, the number of molecules of H2O per cubic centimetre, and the presence of other gases is not directly relevant. In this respect, it might be more correct to say that the space and not the air is more or less saturated with vapour, but in meteorology insistence on this distinction would be quite unnatural and confusing.” Hence, in meteorology sloppy terminology is acceptable.
A reason that the precept that the atmosphere’s temperature decreases with altitude is the action of gravity on the random motion of gaseous molecules which (the random motion) we understand is related to temperature. But this random motion of gaseous molecules also depends upon the mass of the molecules as also does the action of gravity upon the individual molecules. But the motion of gaseous water molecules, according to the Ideal Gas Law does not depend upon the presence of nitrogen molecules or oxygen molecules or anything else that might be present in the earth’s atmosphere. Now, because these gas molecules are so tiny, one most really ponder to imagine that the action of gravity upon the motion of each individual molecule is the same as the action of gravity upon a baseball thrown upward. Most of us understand that gravity will slow the upward motion of the ball until its upward motion stops and then the ball begins falling at an increasing rate back toward the surface. But I wonder how many of us consider the same action of gravity applies to a tiny gaseous molecule? But it is this action which causes the density of the atmosphere to ‘always’ decrease with altitude, even when its (the atmosphere’s) temperature increases with increasing altitude.
Sutcliffe used the term ‘permanent gases’ without defining for a reader what a permanent gas was. And I am quite certain he never wrote that gaseous water vapor is not a permanent gas. And once I begin to consider that gaseous water vapor is not a permanent gas I must acknowledge that this a critical factor if we are to understand our weather and climate.
But the issue here is not weather and climate; it is we all have faults at the same time we individually get somethings right. James McGinn is a pain because he will not except ‘gaseous water vapor’ is composed of individual, independent, molecules of water. But I cannot remember any other author who writes that water molecule hydrogen bond to each other. And I am reasonably certain that many people have no idea of what hydrogen bonding might be and why it is such an important natural phenomenon. It (hydrogen bonding) is what gives the genetic matter, DNA, its critically important physical structure. It (hydrogen bonding) is the reason that ice (solid water) floats on liquid water.
The bottom line of science is we all, with our faults and rights, must work together to eliminate our faults as we gather together our rights.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
Jerry,
Wow. That was some tirade. And so off topic.
I wish this website would stick to proper debunking instead of random and spurious attacks on irrelevant aspects of the subject. John’s points appear relevant to agw theory, but yours just seem to obfuscate the issues.
The purpose of my arguing against attacks on agw based on the use of the term ‘heat’ is because it is a pedantic not a substantive attack, and as such will have little impact in meaningfully changing minds. Sorry Jerry, but your comments seem to fit into the same category. Can you show me something of direct relevance to agw?
Reply
Rosco
| #
Keir Watson – January 10, 2018 at 8:04 pm – says “This is not good enough.”
Sorry Keir but your comments fall way short of the mark.
“Technically heat is the energy transferred from a hot to a cold object, so no, the air does not heat the land – in that you are right.”; and,
“At which point you have steady state, energy in = energy out. Now add an atmosphere. Some of the IR emitted from the Earth will be absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere is also an emitter, but radiates in all directions, so some of that radiation goes down towards the Earth. Hence the total radiation arriving at the Earth is higher than it would be without the atmosphere, so the Earth’s temperature will rise until again the power in and out again balances.”
So “the air does not heat the land” BUT “the total radiation arriving at the Earth is higher than it would be without the atmosphere…”.
So the air DOES heat the land – you say so explicitly.
Seriously, you have just debunked yourself.
The relationship between temperature and radiative flux involves the fourth power of temperature and therefore there is no such thing as a “steady state” based on energy in = energy out and especially not for something as complicated as the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.
There is absolute indisputable proof that this nonsense of energy in = energy out based on the Stefan-Boltzmann calculations of temperatures is completely bogus.
Firstly energy in never results exclusively in a simple increase of temperature of the irradiated object – NEVER.
Secondly the radiation from a cooler object does not cause any increase in the temperature of a warmer object !
A scientist called Pictet established that beyond doubt by experimental proof more than two centuries ago !
There are a whole host of examples where you can throw as much energy as you like at an object without increasing its temperature. To list a few:-
Melting ice or indeed any substance.
Boiling water or any liquid.
How about the fact that boiling and melting points change with pressure ?
The viscosity of viscous liquids changes markedly as one “pumps” more energy in while the temperature remains steady.
The high energy wavelengths of the solar radiation causes electrons to split from the atoms of certain metals in solar panels thus generating electric current – absolute proof of a non thermal result from high energy input.
The photo-electric effect requires wavelengths above a “cut-off” level to generate current establishing that the spectra of radiation is absolutely relevant.
Your assertion that low power infra-red can add to the high energy shortwave solar and induce temperatures higher than the solar can on its own is nonsense.
The only way this can happen is if the source of the radiation is hotter than the “receiving: surface.
At this site the lecturer says exactly the same nonsense you write in the paragraph I quote above
https://atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
They say that without an atmosphere 239.7 W/m2 solar radiation is balanced by 239.7 W/m2 IR from the surface at a temperature of 255 K.
They add an atmosphere and add 239.7 solar plus 239.7 IR which anyone who went to primary school can tell you equals 479.4. From this 479.4 W/m2 they calculate the temperature must be 303 K.
I agree the calculations are correct algebraically – the problem is the whole concept is gobbledygook.
The image here summarises the claim:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ttav7beax4iac8/Greenhouse.png?dl=0
If 239.7 solar induces the emission of the same value of 239.7 W/m2 from the Earth’s surface with no atmosphere the temperature calculates to 255 K. (Thus the surface acts like a “transformer” of radiation – shortwave input to longwave output)
The solar shortwave input ALONE will result in the surface emitting 239.7 at 255 K with or without the atmosphere. The additional 239.7 W/m2 atmospheric radiation adds to this to cause the surface to emit 479.4 W/m2 at 303 K.
It is simple to prove this is absolute rubbish.
Plot Planck curves for 255 K and 303 K. No-one can argue that both the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and Planck’s equation give the result of 239.7 and 479.4 W/m2 respectively.
Then plot a third curve for the algebraic sum of 239.7 + 239.7 and observe this curve does not equal the curve for 303 K.
Indisputable proof the whole concept of radiative forcing is gobbledygook.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c7qcn7t9b7240wn/239.7%20%2B%20239.7.png?dl=0
“Now we have got that straight, by all means pick holes in it!”
DONE !
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
Quote [So “the air does not heat the land” BUT “the total radiation arriving at the Earth is higher than it would be without the atmosphere…”.. So the air DOES heat the land – you say so explicitly.. Seriously, you have just debunked yourself.]
No. You are mistaking transfer of radiation with heating. In physics only the net transfer of energy from a hot to a cold body is heat. If, in a vacuum, you place a steel ball A at 20C next to a steel ball B at 19C They will both be emitting radiation. The radiation transferred from A to B will be higher than the radiation transferred from B to A. For example 40W might go from A to B whilst 30W will pass from B to A. This means that A is heating B, with a power of 10W of heat (40 – 30). This also means that A is only losing heat at 10 Joules per second. If you take away B, then A would be losing power at 40W so would cool down quicker. The presence of the ‘back radiation’ from B is reducing the rate of heat loss from A, this is NOT the same as heating A.
To make the point another way. If you take a potatoe out of the oven it will cool down. If you wrap it in silver foil it cools down slower, because it reflects back some of the outgoing radiation. This is not the same as heating the potato as the foil is cooler than the potato at all times.
Reply
Rosco
| #
I am not mistaking transfer of radiation with heating.
You explicitly stated that the extra radiation from a cold atmosphere raises the temperature of the surface irradiated by the constant solar flux !
” Some of the IR emitted from the Earth will be absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere is also an emitter, but radiates in all directions, so some of that radiation goes down towards the Earth. Hence the total radiation arriving at the Earth is higher than it would be without the atmosphere, so the Earth’s temperature will rise until again the power in and out again balances.”
The University of Washington’s “greenhouse effect” lecture says exactly the same thing and they calculate the temperatures using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which I show is incorrect in the Planck curves I plotted and linked to.
All of the examples I quoted with respect to the transfer of energy causing effects other than increasing temperature are totally correct and valid.
Radiation can be absorbed by various materials in many circumstances where there is no increase in temperature – you are explicitly claiming that power in = power out and power out determines the temperature.
You are wrong in this and have zero evidence other than the same tired analogies we see all the time.
From the cavity radiation experiments data was collected. This data led to the 4th power relationship of temperature and total power emitted. It wasn’t until Planck’s solution that the value of sigma could be calculated.
The emissions from the cavity oven experiments established that P = some constant x T(oven)^4.
An object emits radiation in proportion to its temperature !
Other than the assertion that this must occur what evidence do you have for this ?
Thus instead of the “consensus science” that the back radiation “greenhouse effect” heats the Earth’s surfaces to a temperature higher than it would be without an atmosphere or that the soar radiation is capable of based on calculations involving the Stefan-Boltzmann equation you are joining the “greenhouse effect” isn’t heating the surface but slowing down its cooling.
Just how does that occur and result in a surface temperature 33°C higher than Earth’s minus 18°C emitting temperature by slowing down the rate of radiation loss. This is the fundamental claim for the “greenhouse effect” – the ONLY model taught at Universities – shame on them.
Are you claiming the solar radiation can induce temperatures higher than minus 18°C ?
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
QUOTE “The relationship between temperature and radiative flux involves the fourth power of temperature and therefore there is no such thing as a “steady state” based on energy in = energy out”
That makes no sense whatever. BB radiatiation P=AsT^4 simply gives the power output of a black body at a certain temperature. It in no way violates conservation of energy. What are you going on about?
Reply
Rosco
| #
I am saying that a blackbody emits power calculated by P = A.sigma.T^4.
The “net” form of the SB equation is just a thought bubble.
You are the one asserting that the back radiation from a cooler atmosphere causes the Earth’s surfaces to increase in temperature – “” Some of the IR emitted from the Earth will be absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere is also an emitter, but radiates in all directions, so some of that radiation goes down towards the Earth. Hence the total radiation arriving at the Earth is higher than it would be without the atmosphere, so the Earth’s temperature will rise until again the power in and out again balances.”
You do appreciate that there is another consequence to a blackbody increasing in temperature do you not ?
Using the University lecture I cited it states exactly what you claim – the additional radiation from the atmosphere at 239.7 W/m2 causes the surface emitting 239.7 W/m2 at 255 K in equilibrium with the solar radiation of 239.7 W/m2 to heat to 303 K and emit 479.4 W/m2.
The Planck curves establish this is completely wrong.
The algebraic sum of the radiation fluxes is indeed 479.4 and the SB equation gives a temperature calculation of 303 K for the emission of 479.4 BUT the Planck curves show this is wrong.
As is obvious the wavelength of the peak emissions for 303 K is shifted to the left in the plot – to a significantly lower value. Further the 303 K BB is emitting more shortwave energy than the 255 K BB and emitting wavelengths the 255 K BB cannot.
The photoelectric effect establishes beyond doubt there is a “cutoff” wavelength below which the phenomenon is not observed. Einstein’s and Planck’s equations involve quanta in calculating the effects their equations describe.
This is accepted physics whilst your assertions are based on the discredited calculations which lead to the ultra-violet catastrophe.
I don’t pretend I know how this stuff works unlike people like you who keep asserting the same disproved mantra.
I simply show that real science shows the assertions you make cannot be substantiated.
I’ve never argued against conservation of energy.
YOU argue that conservation of energy means that things must heat up to emit the same energy incident upon them.
I simply say there is no simple in = out relationship in the laws of physics involving radiant emission and the ones that were proposed in the late 19th century failed spectacularly.
There are myriads of degrees of freedom in systems.
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
Quote: There are a whole host of examples where you can throw as much energy as you like at an object without increasing its temperature. To list a few:- Melting ice or indeed any substance. Boiling…”
Sigh! You keep muddling up heat and temperature. Now you are veering off into internal energy and work. It’s no good shaking a whole bunch of red herrings you are still just plain wrong…
What we are really talking about is the internal energy of a system. DQ = DU + DW states that the net heat transfer (DQ) is equal to the change in internal energy + the work done by the system.
But this has nothing to do with your misconception about back radiation.
Reply
Rosco
| #
I have no misconception about back radiation !
You are the person asserting that back radiation from a cooler BB, which has not only lower “photon” power calculated as E =hv or E = hc/lambda AND ALSO emits significantly less “photons” than a BB at a higher temperature, can cause the BB to increase in temperature AND emit MORE photons at shorter wavelengths and at wavelengths where it previously emitted none.
This is asserting that a lesser number of longer wavelength photons can not only replace the number the hotter BB is emitting but can cause it to increase in temperature.
The hotter BB loses more photons but the lower power numerically smaller number can cause it to heat up ?
I assume you won’t like that analogy so I will return to one you have explicitly stated !
A BB emitting 239.7 in “equilibrium” with the solar radiation absorbing 239.7 from the atmosphere increasing in temperature to where it emits 479.4 ?
This is exactly what you are saying !
Just where does the higher energies required for the emission of shorter wavelength “photons” come from ?
At 303 K there are an appreciable number of 4 micron photons emitted whilst at 255 K there are 1/10 th of the number.
”Some of the IR emitted from the Earth will be absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere is also an emitter, but radiates in all directions, so some of that radiation goes down towards the Earth. Hence the total radiation arriving at the Earth is higher than it would be without the atmosphere, so the Earth’s temperature will rise until again the power in and out again balances.”
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Sutcliffe used the term ‘permanent gases’ without defining for a reader what a permanent gas was. And I am quite certain he never wrote that gaseous water vapor is not a permanent gas. And once I begin to consider that gaseous water vapor is not a permanent gas I must acknowledge that this a critical factor if we are to understand our weather and climate.
JMcG:
There is zero gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere. Some scientific models depend on this dumbed-down notion in order to facilitate easily digestible models to streamline the education process. As explained below, all of this stems from the mistakes of Pauling and Bohr.
Sutcliffe wrote textbooks for his consituents. And his constituents wanted a simple model that had the appearance of truth. Because that is what makes teaching easy. If he was to explain the truth–that H2O has all of these anomalies that nobody can explain–nobody would have bought his textbooks.
Jerry:
But the issue here is not weather and climate; it is we all have faults at the same time we individually get somethings right. James McGinn is a pain because he will not except ‘gaseous water vapor’ is composed of individual, independent, molecules of water. But I cannot remember any other author who writes that water molecule hydrogen bond to each other.
JMcG:
I am not a sheep. I don’t care what other authors recognize. I am only concerned with what the empirical evidence indicates. Belief in ‘cold steam’ is based on empirical ignorance and educational convenience.
Jerry:
And I am reasonably certain that many people have no idea of what hydrogen bonding might be and why it is such an important natural phenomenon.
JMcG:
It’s not taught. And the reason it’s not taught is because the subject is convoluted. And the reason the subject is convoluted is because Pauling and Bohr screwed up about 80 years ago when they failed to realize that each H bond neutralizes 25% of the polarity of both of the H2O molecules that participate in the bond. (And each H2O molecule can participate in up to 4 H bonds with four other H2O molecules.) This is the reason nobody knows about it. So, it’s kind of an chicken and egg thing. Nobody teaches it because it is convoluted and it remains convoluted because nobody teaches it.
As a teacher, Jerry, you should be able to recognize the difficulty of teaching a subject that is convoluted.
Sheep follow sheep.
Watch this video:
James McGinn
Reply
Rosco
| #
Keir Watson on January 10, 2018 at 8:04 pm says:-
“All objects emit thermal radiation. The hotter they are the more they emit.”
I should have debunked this arrant simplistic nonsense in the previous comment but I will now prove you really are simply parroting junk science claims you read somewhere.
As anyone who can understand graphs from real scientists – “7. Knudsen J. G., Bell K. J., Holt A. D., Hottel H. C., Sarofim A. F., Standiford F. C., Stuhlbarg D. and Uhl V. W. Heat trans-mission. In: Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook Sixth Edition (R. H. Perry, D. W. Green and J. O. Maloney, Eds.)McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, p. 10.1–10.68, 1984.” – we see that your simplistic statement “All objects emit thermal radiation. The hotter they are the more they emit.” is wrong.
Apparently you do not even appreciate emissivity. Here are some graphs on emissivity versus temperature for CO2 and water vapour:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1afsawnuitduaas/Emissivity%20of%20Gases.png?dl=0.
As is easily evidenced from these real measurements both the emissivity of CO2 and water vapour decrease significantly as temperature increases.
This proves your statement as quoted is completely wrong.
For example at 400 K a blackbody emits 1451.52 W/m2 whilst a grey body with 0.8 emissivity emits the same 1451.52 W/m2 at ~423 K.
Emissivity is rarely constant and gases do not emit continuous spectra which is a requirement for application of the laws of blackbody radiation such as the Stefan-Boltzmann law – after all these equations were derived from the data from the cavity oven radiation experiments – blackbody radiation.
Bang goes ALL of the nonsense you spruik that temperature is determined by energy in = energy out and that the flux emitted determines the temperature rather than the reality that temperature determines the radiation emitted.
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
OK, now we are getting somewhere. So I agree, yes, the atmosphere cannot be treated like a black body radiator. It will not have a continuous spectrum, and as the graphs you supplied show emissivity can decrease with temperature.
But I still don’t get why you object to back radiation increasing the steady state temperature of the Earth’s surface. If I use the following analogy, please explain where I am wrong:
If you embed an electric heater in a solid sphere in a vacuum, supplying a steady power, the temperature of the sphere will rise until it radiates at the same rate as the heater. (Steady state, power in = power out).
If you then arrange a partially reflective shell around this sphere some of the radiation (say 10%) will be reflected back, so less will be escaping into space. This means it is effectively radiating less power net, so is no longer in steady state. With more heat in than net radiation out, it’s temperature will rise until it is radiating approx 10% more, such that the amount radiating into space again equals the power of the internal heater.
My claim all along is to ascribe the rise in temperature to ‘heating’ by the back radiation – which I agree is an incorrect terminology – it is the internal elecitric heater that is heating the surface.
Reply
Rosco
| #
Your analogy of a heater inside a sphere isn’t reality with respect to the “greenhouse effect” or back radiation heating.
Here is a mathematical analysis of a concentric sphere and shell problem from a textbook for PhD students in Physics and thermodynamics.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lqnro8jligbbwm8/1026.pdf_page_1.jpg?dl=0
OR – what about this ?
Sphere and Shell analysis.
R(Sphere)^0.5/R(Shell)^0.5 times T(Sphere) = T(Shell). (The square root of the radius of the Sphere divided by the square root of the radius of the Shell times the temperature of the Sphere equals the temperature of the Shell.)
This is simply the inverse square law.
This ALWAYS has the emissions from the Shell lower than the Sphere and this ALWAYS applies.
If, as in the ridiculous “steel greenhouse” proposition R(Shell) is ~equal to R(Sphere) then the inevitable consequence of this is that T(Sphere) ~equals T(Shell).
According to the “net” form of the SB equation there is ZERO HEAT FLOW between to BBs at the same temperature and the back radiation cannot cause any heating – FULL STOP.
P(net) = sigma( TSphere)^4 – T(Shell)^4) = 0 when T(Sphere) = T(Shell).
In the stupid “steel greenhouse” proposition the Sphere emits 235 W/m2. “Experts” INSIST fitting the Shell causes it to increase to the same temperature as the sphere initially.
If this is true then the Sphere emits 235 out, the Shell emits 235 out, and the 235 back radiation causes the Sphere to heat up to 303 K and emit 470 W/m2 – where is the energy conservation in that ???
They say this must happen because the Shell must emit 235 to space YET if it is at the same temperature as the Sphere initially IT IS EMITTING 235 to space !
In case you find my equations or working or my correct applications of real science wrong look at this :-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnqw0wq81aqlau5/Inverse%20Square%20Solution.docx?dl=0
This is why I don’t believe you are right.
Reply