Presenting a No Nonsense Climate Debate
It is widely being recognized the man-made global warming debate is in fact a three-sided argument between alarmists, lukewarmers and real skeptics. Here we test the weak scientific arguments of lukewarmers. This group claim to be skeptics yet persist in defending the now discredited greenhouse gas theory (which claims CO2 is the climate control knob).
The more scientifically-educated lukewarmers (defending the faux science that carbon dioxide must cause “some” warming) have – for the past eight years – tried and failed to discredit the most forthright group of skeptics called ‘Slayers’ (a growing army of supporters of the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory‘).
Lukewarmers, despite empirical evidence to the contrary, insist carbon dioxide does “trap” heat in the atmosphere and/or “delays cooling.” Below we show a typical Lukewarmer versus Slayer discussion to better show the basic arguments.
Firstly, greenhouse gas theory believers will try to argue that Slayer/PSI science is intentionally overlooking that radiation goes where it wants and will impart a heating effect. But does it?
The GHE believer will seek to quote scientific laws to back their reasoning. They often say:
“Cold objects radiate according to the Stephan-Boltzmann law, same as warm objects. Radiation is a transfer of energy. Pretending it does not exist is not at all convincing.”
Unlike GHE promoters, PSI/Slayers do not pretend that radiation transport alone – in and of itself – determines how hot or cold the receiver (in this case the atmosphere and earth surface) will become. The receiver (earth surface) cannot absorb and convert such energy to heat if the receiver is already warmer than the emitter (atmospheric ‘back radiation’). ‘Back radiation’ heating is the junk science claim of the Standard Model Greenhouse theory (UN IPCC approved). On this matter our researchers employ the correct thermodynamics equations, which already accounts for hot and cold effects as follows:
Q’ = σA(Thot4 – Tcool4)
As Joe Postma insists:
“Do you see that the cold term is right there, right in the equation, labelled as the cold term, totally 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} accounted for, and that heat energy still doesn’t flow from cold to hot, and cold won’t make hot hotter still?”
Too often ‘Slayers’ have been wrongly accused that we pretend that the radiation from the cold object doesn’t exist at all. That we strictly apply the above equation in our calculations disproves that falsehood.
In our science the cold term above is always, always, there in the heat transfer equation, always indicating that heat flows only from hot to cold.
Now let’s consider the greenhouse gas effect analogy as a ‘heat trapping blanket.’ This is a typical GHE believer (GHEB) conversation with a ‘Slayer’ (SL):
GHEB: “GHE is real because, during the night, the heat at the earth’s surface will last longer because the air acts like a blanket. It is like insulation on a material without a heat source (the source is off). Just like you use a thermos bottle for a reason. The heat lasts longer. So the next morning it will be hotter than it would without the “blanket”. This means a hotter average temperature on earth.”
SL: “No, that is not how a greenhouse works (glass panes block convection only, not escape of radiation). Radiative “climate science” leaves out convection. Airflow is convection. Just because the bottom of the atmosphere is necessarily its warmest part does not mean that the planet is hotter. The bottom of the atmosphere is not representative of the entire planet. Humans think it is because that’s where we live, but our sensory context is wrong. The planet is neither hotter nor colder than what it is supposed to be, in the context of the planet. The bottom of the atmosphere is warmer than the average of the atmosphere for reasons which are not due to a “radiative greenhouse effect”, not the least of which reason is that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist and violates the laws of thermodynamics.”
GHEB: “The greenhouse gas effect is not about the whole planet, only the surface. Climate scientists accept the stratosphere will be cooler.”
SL: “No, there is no blanket in the atmosphere. Hence no insulation reasoning applies. There is no ‘greenhouse effect’ anything. Words have been misused and now it has confused everybody and created climate alarm from the confusion.”
GHEB: “But climate scientists have measured it, it is ‘settled science’ going back 150 years.”
SL: “No, they haven’t, and it isn’t. The radiative-driven CO2 GHE only exists in climate models, on computers. We know it isn’t settled because there are no ‘Laws of Radiative Greenhouse Effect.’
GHEB: “But what if you’re wrong and it is real? Surely we should play safe. Reducing carbon dioxide is still a ‘win’ for the planet because it is a polluting gas.”
SL: “No, that is a complete red herring and misconception of reality. The atmosphere is made up of gases, including CO2 which is one of the best coolant gases known in industry and applied science (it is only used commercially to cool, never warm). Cooling is what is occurring, and a fluid gaseous atmosphere is very effective at extracting heat from the Earth’s surface. Also, CO2 is the life blood of carbon-based life forms – it is plant food. Indeed, real horticultural greenhouses have CO2 pumped into them to levels more than 20X the 410 ppm that exists now in the atmosphere. This is why the global biosphere has been greening rapidly in recent years. More is better!”
GHEB: “But the atmosphere is delaying the exit of heat back into outer space, so it must therefore be an insulator and thus Earth is ‘warmer than it would otherwise be’ without CO2.”
SL: “No, if heat was being delayed and causing any difference we would see, from space, a difference between the energy entering and leaving the atmosphere. But there is no difference. What is measured coming in, equals what is going out. Thus, no heat trapping/delayed cooling shown in the empirical data.”
GHEB: “But when I put a jacket on I feel warmer!”
SL: “A jacket feels warm because you warm it up. It doesn’t emit radiation back to you thus warming you up further, because heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot. You warm up the jacket and then you carry around on your person, next to your bod,y a warmer local ambient environment. That’s why wearing a jacket feels warmer – because you create a warmer ambient environment in close proximity that is protected from convective heat loss.”
The GHE Requires a Colder Atmosphere to Make the Warmer Surface Warmer Still
PSI/Slayer science pivots on what we argue are the inviolable Laws of Thermodynamics. We haven’t tampered with them, we merely apply them strictly, which the greenhouse gas theory does not do. Scientific laws are applicable in every circumstance – no exceptions. Despite the post-normal ‘exception to the rule’ claims of misguided climate ‘experts’. Scientific laws apply in every scenario. Period.
When looking to explain to lay persons just what a travesty the greenhouse gas theory really is we avoid the complex equations we otherwise cite because, frankly, most alarmists and skeptics alike struggle with math. In the climate debate everyone likes using simple analogies, dammit, the ‘greenhouse effect’ per se is only an analogy and a mightily flawed one to boot.
You can often flummox a lukewarmer (or alarmist) by asking them this: “How many cooler objects do you have to place around a warmer object before the warmer object gets even hotter?” Do you see what nonsense it is claiming cool objects can somehow prevent cooling or make warm objects warmer still?
Below we apply logic and reasoning in such analogies to help lay readers spot the pseudo-science. As Joe Postma explains in http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
“To make the idea more intuitive, imagine a simple ice-cube. Even though an ice-cube is at zero degrees Celsius, it is still 273 Kelvin degrees above absolute zero and therefore has quite a bit of thermal energy inside it, which it does radiate away as thermal infrared energy. Of course, we don’t sense this radiation because we’re warmer than the ice-cube (hopefully!), and we don’t see it because our eyes aren’t sensitive to that low frequency of light radiation.
Could you then simply bring in another ice-cube which is also at 00C and of course also radiating its own thermal energy at that temperature, and thereby heat up the first ice-cube by placing this second one near it? Or could you heat up the first ice-cube by placing it in a freezer at -100C? In both cases, there’s lots of thermal energy from the secondary sources which falls on the first ice-cube, so shouldn’t this energy “go into it” and warm it up? Of course not!
You could only heat up the first ice-cube by introducing it to something warmer than it, like the palm of your hand, or a glass of water at 10C, or the radiation from the Sun.”
Heat does not flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface via radiation to add heat/delay cooling. Thinking it through reveals there is nothing in real physics that permits what is claimed CO2 does in the greenhouse effect theory.
It bears repeating: Heat energy does not flow from cold to hot either by conduction (diffusion), or radiation. As such, the mechanism alleged to be the greenhouse gas effect is unphysical. It is junk science and should be abandoned as the accepted explanation of how our atmosphere works.
John O’Sullivan is CEO of PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY to help our non-profit mission to defend the scientific method
Trackback from your site.
William
| #
The simplicity of this argument seems extremely compelling. Ergo there must be a very false equation at the heart of those so-called models!
Reply
geran
| #
Exactly, William. It’s the bogus Arrhenius CO2 “forcing” equation.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Nice article John!
If the GHE existed, we could not! … Our universe as it presently is, is incompatible with the GHE. They cannot coexist!
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Squidly, Actually it seems we are also including in that chapter the analogy of the bicycle wheel that you conceived and posted on Joe Postma’s blog. I see from the manuscript we have shown it as being attributed to you. Nice one! You get a mention in the new book,
Reply
Squidly
| #
WOW! .. Thank you very much sir! .. much appreciated! … anxious to read your new book.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks Squidly, the article is a test run, an excerpt from one of the chapters in the new ‘Slayers’ book we are polishing up before publication.
Reply
Peter
| #
Adiabatic compression of an atmosphere with 90 times the pressure of earths, by Venus’ gravity. A compression ratio of 16:1 in a diesel engine is hot enough to ignite diesel.
Simple and true. Much simpler than GHE handwaving smoke & mirror theory anyways, go study any thermodynamics book. I’m surprised these books haven’t been banned.
Reply
Joseph A Olson
| #
I attended the Heartland ICCC-9 in Las Vegas, in June 2014 and was surrounded by 600 fake skeptic Lukewarmists. My review at FauxScienceSlayer(.)com
“Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami”
I attended the Heritage Crossroads Summit, in Sep 2014 in Houston and was surrounded by 300 fake skeptic Lukewarmists. My review at FSS
“Spencer Sorcery on Magic Gas”
Reply
geran
| #
John, would you please consider posting this about every 4-6 weeks?
It needs to get the widest viewing possible.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Geran, Thanks for the suggestion. Have made it a ‘sticky’ so it stays the top post for now and we shall see how it goes. Ideally, we would appreciate everyone cross posting on Facebook, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, Reddit, etc to help spread the word. Thanks again.
Reply
Lloyd Adam
| #
For this retired LEO non-scientist, it seems to me that the theory of clothing is to hold out body heat IN, so as not to waste it in cold climates like Minot, ND, where I was stationed at one time. So, it there was a level of pollution or types of gasses/particles that reduced the release of heat out from the Earth/lower levels of the atmosphere. would that lead to a slight rise in heat? Please explain. 🙂
Reply
geran
| #
Lloyd, your honest question reveals why this AGW/GHE hoax has lasted so long. Many people just don’t have the background to understand the basics.
The short answer is “No”.
For someone to claim that CO2 can raise the temperature of Earth, they need to describe the basic physics that would allow such. They cannot.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Different paradigms use the same words differently. We could say that they are incommensurable.
I highly recommend taking a look at the two videos I posted below.
Humanities – Leiden University
https://www.youtube.com/user/leidenhum/videos
Chapter 2.1: Thomas Kuhn, normal science
Chapter 2.3: Thomas Kuhn, incommensurability and progress
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Lloyd Adam
| #
But could any other atmospheric pollution cause that? I know that during an extreme volcanic action, “The Year Without Summer” can happen. But is there any such function that will raise temperature??? Some details, please.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Lloyd,
The very short and direct answer … NO … you can only increase temperature by adding energy. No gas in the universe can do this by itself.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Yes sun spots,…..
Nothing else.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
If there were no infrared absorbing (ergo emitting) gases in the atmosphere then the surface of the Earth, in the absence of sunlight, would radiate IR and cool rapidly. If, however, it was receiving IR from a lower temperature source, say from CO2 activated molecules in the atmosphere, then the surface of the Earth must absorb some part of this energy which will be thermalised in the process. This supply of IR energy will, therefore, reduce the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface. The surface then cools to some equilibrium temperature. If the rate at which IR is received from the source was greater, say by increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, then the surface temperature would fall more slowly and not so far until it reaches a higher equilibrium temperature. Your use of equations confuses the terms heat, energy and temperature, and ignores the significance of nett flow. Back radiation does not, as you falsely put it, raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface, but merely slightly reduces the rate at which it cools and would marginally raise any equilibrium temperature. This is the viewpoint of a lukewarmist such as myself. In what manner are the Laws of Thermodynamics broken? Or any other laws or basic principals of physics?
Reply
geran
| #
“If, however, it was receiving IR from a lower temperature source, say from CO2 activated molecules in the atmosphere, then the surface of the Earth must absorb some part of this energy which will be thermalised in the process.”
John, there is no “must absorb”, except in Lukewarmer and Warmist pseudoscience. Photons get bounced all the time.
The net transfer of heat energy is from the surface to the atmosphere. The atmosphere can NOT warm the surface, except in micro-atmospheric weather events.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
I did state that SOME of the IR emitted by activated CO2 must be absorbed by the Earth’s surface and thermalised and so it must unless you are suggesting that the Earth’s surface is a perfect reflector. I am still waiting for one of the Dragon-Slayers who deny the possibility of lukewarmism to counter these thought processes. Am I missing something? Is it wise to deny so-called greenhouse gases can have any effect on cooling rates and equilibrium temperatures when logical reasoning suggests otherwise? The argument must surely be that the effect from rising CO2 concentrations will be minimal and negligible when compared to the effect of water vapour. There is abundant evidence to strongly suggest that this is the case.
Reply
geran
| #
John H., it’s just basic physics.
Atmospheric CO2 emits 15 µ photons. A 15 µ photon corresponds to a Wien’s Law temperature of about -80 ºC. You couldn’t even melt ice with so little energy.
So yeah, I guess you’re missing something.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Geran, please credit me with some intelligence. I clearly stated “if there was zero absorbtion”
John Harrison
| #
Now you are getting there! The effect is real but is very small. Now you are a lukewarmer too 🙂 Congratulations
John O'Sullivan
| #
John, Great to have you speak on behalf of lukewarmers. As we know, settled science says there should be one agreed version of a theory. Could you please provide us with the agreed lukewarmer version of the GHE? I anticipate this will be impossible insofar as from my own understanding, the two most prominent lukewarmers, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, each have their own mutually contradictory versions. Lindzen has his ‘iris’ hypothesis (i.e. the atmosphere heats the surface) while Spencer has it the opposite way. So, as the person who has come here to help us understand the theory, can you explain whether Spencer or Lindzen (or both are wrong).
You see, we feel you lukewarmers are as bad the alarmists in claiming ‘settled science’ when you can’t even find agreement among your top experts.
John Harrison
| #
The argument from we lukewarmers has never been that the atmosphere warms the surface of the Earth. Many lukewarmers are accomplished scientists and are fully aware of the limitations imposed by the Laws of thermodynamics. Dragon Slayer’s are not listening. If IR radiation impinges on the surface of an object which is warmer than it’s surroundings then some of these IR photons will be absorbed and this process will reduce the rate of cooling of that object. Equilibrium temperature will result when the rate of absorbtion is equal to the rate of emmission but this will be higher than if there were no IR photons to absorb. In essence, if there were zero absorption then the equilibrium temperature would be approaching absolute zero, all other means of heat transfer excepted. This reasoning is 100% sound and is in full compliance with all principals of physics. Come on Dragon-Slayers, time to give lukewarmers some credit and don’t emulate the behaviour of climate alarmists.
Reply
geran
| #
“In essence, if there were zero absorption then the equilibrium temperature would be approaching absolute zero, all other means of heat transfer excepted.”
John H., you seem to be forgetting the Sun. The Sun guarantees Earth will be absorbing photons.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
CO2 can only add temperature in proportion to its contribution to atmospheric mass. This is the small effect you’re trying to verbalize. -Zoe
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran and John,
“John, there is no “must absorb”, except in Lukewarmer and Warmist pseudoscience. Photons get bounced all the time.”
I have read this debate again and again. What I cannot remember reading is what Richard Feynman taught his students about Einstein’s laws of radiation. (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, pp 42:8-10) I do not pretend to understand the physics but I can read. And I read: “Thus Einstein assumed that there are three kinds of processes: an absorption proportional to the intensity of light, an emission proportional to the intensity of light, called induced emission or sometimes stimulated emission, and a spontaneous emission independent of light.” I have read that this spontaneous emission is that which is described by the S-B law. I can understand why the physics which is debated seems to be limited to classical physics.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran and John and anyone else,
Having written I see a possibility which I had not seen before.
In the case where there is downwelling IR which is absorbed by the surface, the upwelling IR being emitted from the surface would be composed of the absorbed downwelling IR plus the S-B emission according to the surface’s temperature. Hence, the net radiative cooling is that of the S-B emission according to the surface. Now, to simplify I am considering this is what is occurring during the nighttime when there is no downwelling solar.
Since I have gotten this far by imagining what might be according Einstein’s laws of radiation I will take another step, perhaps a dangerous one. But words cannot kill me, it takes something more physical than words.
Because it is a common observation that the nighttime atmosphere cools very slowly (only slightly) when there is a dense overcast. I consider is because cloud droplets intensely scatters nearly all the upwelling IR back toward the surface. If one studies the data of NOAA’s SURFRAD project one can frequently see cases when the values of the upwelling IR and the downwelling IR are equal or nearly so. So there cannot be any, or very little, net cooling.
You two must decide if what I read, observe, and imagine have anything to contribute to your debate.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Jerry, clouds are not a part of the GHE discussion. Clouds are a localized phenomenon. The IPCC AGW/GHE nonsense is about CO2 raising Earth’s surface temperature. Avoid being confused by clouds.
Another common mistake is assuming that all downwelling IR is always absorbed. It is NOT.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
“Jerry, clouds are not a part of the GHE discussion.” I thought the theory of the GHE concerned the earth-atmosphere-solar radiation balance system. Today as I had a picnic lunch outside it was uncomfortably warm but as soon as one of those localized clouds passed between the sun and myself it was uncomfortably cool. So it is hard to convince me that clouds, even if localized, have no role to play in the earth-atmosphere-solar radiation balance system.
Have a good day, Jerry
geran
| #
Jerry, sit on a block of ice and hold your hand 1 cm over a candle flame.
You may notice the localized effects, but then do the calculations on the effect to Earth’s average temperature.
Carl
| #
Hi John,
What you are describing in your post is quantified within what is called the “net radiation heat loss” formula:
q = (ε σ Th4 )- (ε σ Tc4) Ac ( https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html)
where:
ε = emissivity
σ = Stefan/Boltzmann constant
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ac = area of the object (m2)
In your construct the ground is the “hot body” and the atmosphere is the “cold surroundings”. What “greenhouse gases” do is raise the ε of the “cold surroundings,” which within the formula necessarily reduces the rate at which the hot body loses heat via IR radiation.
You then reason that this should result in the equilibrium temperature of the ground—let’s say the yearly average surface temperature—being more than it would be if the “greenhouse gas” concentration in the air were lower. You thus assert that the equilibrium temperature of the surface (the hot body) is directly proportional to the “greenhouse gas” concentration in the atmosphere (the cold surroundings.) That is, as the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere goes up so does the yearly average surface temperature.
The physical observation that falsifies this assertion (it does not falsify the “net radiation heat loss” formula because, indeed, it is an observable phenomenon that high humidity decreases the rate at which the surface cools via IR radiation) is the fact that the yearly average surface temperature in a climate system is inversely proportional to its humidity level–said to be the most powerful of the “greenhouse gases.” That is, as the yearly average humidity level goes up in a climate system the average yearly surface temperature goes down. This is visible both within publicly available temperature and humidity records and within weather balloon soundings. You can yourself, for example, compare the average yearly surface temperature in arid Desert Rock, Nevada to the average yearly surface temperature in humid Goodwin Creek, Mississippi both of which lie roughly along the same latitude and therefore receive the same amount of sunlight throughout the year. Were you to do this you would see that the arid climate has the higher average yearly temperature. (Goodwin Creek is even slightly lower in altitude.)
I experienced this very thing about a week ago where I live. The average daily temperature was running ~75 F until a storm system blew in and raised the absolute humidity from 2.2 gm/m^3 up to 13.2 gm/m^3. This resulted not in an increase in the average daily temperature, as the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis saids should have happened, but rather a 10 F drop in the average daily temperature. It is, of course, not a mystery as to why this happened. As you know water vapor is only one element of the Earth’s water cycle which has a cooling effect on both the surface and the lower several km of the Troposphere.
a. The surface is cooled when water evaporates into water vapor and the thermal energy thus used to do the evaporation is carried up the atmospheric column by the water vapor.
b. The presence of water vapor in the air increases it emissivity , which enhances the rate of intra-atmospheric heat flow via IR radiation up the atmospheric column.
c. Since highly emissive matter (humid air) cools via IR radiation at a faster rate than does matter with low emissivity (dry air), humid air cools faster via the emission of IR radiation out into space than does dry air. Both “a” and “b” reduce the temperature of ground-level air.
d. When ascending skyward humid air cools adiabatically . Therefore, when water vapor reaches a certain altitude it condenses into clouds. These clouds shade the surface cooling it even further.
e. Clouds dwell within air that is cooler than the surface so when it rains that rain is typically cooler than the surface. This cooler-than-the-surface rainwater absorbs even more of the surface’s thermal energy.
f. This rain water then re-evaporates into water vapor, which starts the cooling cycle all over again.
So, whatever affect water vapor has on inhibiting the ability of the surface to cool via IR radiation, that effect is completely obliterated and reversed by the powerful cooling effect of the entire water cycle. As a result humidity levels are inversely proportional to the equilibrium temperature of the surface. In short, as the average yearly absolute humidity level goes up the average yearly equilibrium surface temperature goes down. What we see in nature is water vapor causing a “swamp-cooler effect” not a “greenhouse effect.”
Reply
Mark
| #
Carl, Great post.
Also worth mentioning, CO2 will share it’s new found heat from the surface with the 2500 surrounding molecules before it has a change to radiate. More CO2, more sharing.
Since your on the subject of humidity, could you please explain the science of night time temperatures. Temperatures in Desert Rock, Nevada drop lower at night then Goodwin Creek, Mississippi.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Mark
It is easy to explain the warmer nighttime temperature at Goodwin Creek MS than at Desert Rock NV. Maybe you were testing Carl’s knowledge about humidity because you know the answer. The answer is that the air temperature has never been observed to lower than the atmosphere’s dew point temperature. For as the air temperature decreases decreases to its dew the water vapor in the atmosphere will begin condensing. Thus, the latent heat of the phase transition will drastically slow the rate of cooling.
Read more at http://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Carl. The thought process I have outlined is highly simplistic but designed to illustrate that the presence of a cold surface in proximity to a warmer surface will reduce the rate at which the warmer surface cools and will elevate it’s equibrium temperature compared to its behaviour in isolation. In other words, the IR emitted by the cold activated CO2 molecules can similarly influence the warmer surface of the Earth. Such is undeniable yet appears unacceptable to skeptics who are not lukewarmists.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
John, your science-free reply to Carl is hand-waving doubletalk. Carl offered you hard, empirical data that demonstrates the GHE theory does not operate in the real world. You reply with a cop out dodge declaring you only rely on “highly simplistic” proofs! Really?
You thus are precluding us having any kind of an in-depth scientific debate reliant on facts and evidence.
If you won’t address the empirical data offered and instead expect us to dumb down to your level of “simple” non-science “illustrations” how is that helpful in reaching a scientifically-valid conclusion?
Do you not see how unphysical is your statement that the “presence of a cold surface in proximity to a warmer surface will reduce the rate at which the warmer surface cool?.”
If adding cold to warm further delays cooling, please tell us how many additional cold surfaces we need to add to stop the rate of cooling all together.
If your lukewarmer concept were true, you should rewrite everything our PhD experts in thermodynamics ever learned
Reply
John Harrison
| #
John. You do not need complex mind bending equations. In this instance logic should suffice. Consider this experiment, thought only I’m afraid but hopefully you will understand the analogy. A plate is heated to 100C and suspended in an evacuated flask which is immersed in a melting ice bath. It will cool rapidly to 0C, the equilibrium temperature, when it will be absorbing IR photons from the background radiation at the same rate as are being emitted. The experiment is repeated but with cold plates maintained at 10C in close proximity either side of the hot plate. Will the hot plate cool to 0C at the same rate as previous? The answer is no on two accounts. Although emitting IR as previously, it will now be absorbing IR photons emitted by the neighbouring colder plates at a greater rate than previously so the hot plate cools more slowly and also, therefore, achieves a raised equilibrium temperature in the region of 20C. Significance of this? By extension, the IR photons emitted by activated CO2 molecules in a cold atmosphere will, when absorbed by the Earth’s surface, reduce its cooling rate and raise it’s equilibrium in comparison with the results achieved in the absence of CO2. Any comments?
geran
| #
John H., are you indicating the two 10 C plates will cause the 20 C equilibrium temperature?
Zoe Phin
| #
Harrison,
Reducing heat loss is not a heat gain.
Less negative is not positive.
Children understand this. I can’t figure out why lukewarmers can’t.
Take care
-Zoe
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Hi Zoe. Lukewarmers do not claim that reducing the rate of heat loss is a heat gain. That would be silly but that is how “Sky Dragon Slayers” choose to interpret it. What is actually being described by lukewarmers is that, for want of a better phrase, “back radiation” (the IR emission from gas molecules which have previously absorbed IR photons, sometimes referred to as GHG, and which subsequently are incident on the Earth’s surface) simply reduces the rate at which the surface temperature drops due to absorption of this IR and it’s consequent thermalisation. This also has implications of a raised surface equilibrium temperature compared with that in the absence of GHG. Hope this helps.
geran
| #
John H., you sure go a lot of effort building your mountain, only to then fall off it.
“This also has implications of a raised surface equilibrium temperature compared with that in the absence of GHG.”
But, it’s fun to watch.
Zoe Phin
| #
Harrison,
Lukewarmers claim that GHGs add 33C beyond what the sun can provide. So you are claiming reducing loss is a gain. Please don’t insult my intelligence.
lifeisthermal
| #
2nd law:
“Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
According to the first law only heat and work can increase temperature. ∆U=Q+W
Heat is defined as energy in transfer:
heat flows spontaneously from the hotter to the colder system
Heat never flows the other way.
So you broke both laws, because heat can’t flow from the 33 degrees colder atmosphere, and ghg:s does no work on the surface. Only heat and work can change temperature, and heat is one way.
It seems like it’s you who confuses the concepts of heat, work energy and temperature.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Lifeisthermal,
I find it interesting that you made no comment about my comments about second law debates relative to Einstein’s laws of radiation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Good comment Jerry. The fact that IR is radiated from the hot and cold surface in opposite directions is often ignored. When IR photons are absorbed by both surfaces their energy will be thermalised. Nett energy flow is obviously from high temperature to low due to the greater rate of emission in that direction.
Reply
Squidly
| #
absolutely wrong … molecule A cannot increase the energy state of molecule B unless, and only unless, molecule A is of greater energy state than molecule B
There is nothing in the LoT that states that a surface (material) must experience “thermalization” just because some energy imparts it.
Again, I will state the absolutely irrefutable. Given Molecule A and Molecule B … Molecule A can increase the energy state (further excite, impart thermalized energy) of Molecule B, if, and only if, Molecule A is of greater energy state than Molecule B. This is absolutely irrefutable. For if this were not fact and a physical law of our universe, our very universe could not exist!
The GHE (any creative for of it) cannot exist in this universe!
Case is close .. move along .. there are more important things in this world to discover and discuss. The entire AGW / GHE scam is over !! … go home now!
Claudius Denk
| #
JH:
“When IR photons are absorbed by both surfaces their energy will be thermalized”
Yes. This is absolutely correct.
Slayers don’t understand the concept of “net.”
So they are stuck on this silly feedback loop.
Pity
Gary Ashe
| #
however, it was receiving IR from a lower temperature source, say from CO2 activated molecules in the atmosphere, then the surface of the Earth must absorb some part of this energy which will be thermalised in the process.
No it will not be absorbed, which makes anything you further say based on this very wrong assumption mute,……..
The light, the photons are deflected, the same as if you put an ice cube next to a hot plate,…….
Thats what the top of the atmosphere is,, a dry radiating to a hotplace.
Reply
John Doran
| #
A non-scientist, semi-retired, I looked into the man-made global warming/climate change/weather disruption fiasco & found a huge political con job backed by nonsense pseudo science.
The scam is sustained by the fake news MSM, the fraud factory UN IPCC, employing a tiny coterie of political activists posing as climate scientists, loudly & falsely touted as a 97% consensus, greedy, ignorant & power hungry politicians & the Bankster 1%s who know their attempt at global hegemony via their fiat money from thin air tricks is failing.
The main aims behind the con are a Totalitarian World Govt, huge depopulation & deindustrialisation.
John Doran.
TBC.
Reply
John Doran
| #
Some books to back my claims:
1) Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball’s smashing little book Human Caused Global warming, the Biggest Deception In History, correctly reveals both science & politics & names names. Has a follow up list of reading, http://www.drtimball.com
2) Geology Prof. Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth, global warming: the missing science. A work of considerable scholarship, which contains over 2000 refs to peer-reviewed papers etc….
3) Merchants of Despair, by PhD nuclear engineer Robert Zubrin, who has 9 patents to his name, or pending. Progress through clean safe nuclear power is impeded & populations are attacked by the inhuman Malthusian policies of the Brit & US Empires.
4) Pawns In The Game, by WWII Canadian naval intelligence officer, William Guy Carr, 1955.Every war & revolution since the 1640s English Revolution has been provoked & funded by the Banksters, for profit & power.
5) The Creature From Jekyll Island, G. Edward Griffin, brings Carr’s thesis more up to date. His website: http://www.needtoknow.news
John Doran.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
John. Thank your comments. Your comments about controversy among lukewarmers surprise me as the science is certainly not settled and that is a healthy attitude. Skeptics must not claim such, nor claim a consensus, nor pass derogatory comments on the alternative views of skeptics or alarmist. The political, idealist, religious, populist views can be ignored but the views of intelligent scientists skeptical or otherwise should not. Science can only approach the truth by open and honest debate. I have proposed a mechanism whereby the presence of gases in the atmosphere which can absorb and emit IR can and will influence the temperature of the surface of the Earth to a greater or, far more likely, lesser degree. I have yet to hear a valid critique. You chose, instead to pass adverse comments on specific leading proponents of lukewarmism and on lukewarmists in general which is not good. Perhaps you could instead explain why you believe I am mistaken using sound scientific logic.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
John, I will tell you what is “not good” and it’s your utter hypocrisy. Either you are ignorant of the gatekeeping, misrepresentations and censorship operated by your fellow lukewarmers or you are lying. Let me give you just one example: comments posted on WUWT by Slayers or our supporters have been systematically deleted for SEVEN YEARS. Watts has a policy of calling us ‘cranks’ and thus encourages his readers to also stoop to name calling and debate dodging. What are you people so scared of? Open and honest debate? Your “leading proponents” are cowards. We have repeatedly challenged them all to openly debate us but they play dumb. Could you explain to us the logic and sense in that, John?
On your own admission you say you’ve put to us yet another variant of the GHE. Can’t you just give a link to where we can all read a clear, unambiguous statement of what your agreed theory is? We know you can’t because it doesn’t exist. There are no fewer than 64 contradictory iterations of the GHE theory cited by NASA, universities and other bodies. It is all junk, John. At what point are you prepared to accept CO2 is not the climate control knob and thus the CO2-driven radiative GHE, under the maxim of climate sensitivity’ is pseudo science?
Reply
John Harrison
| #
John. Your combative tone is what I would expect from many alarmists and therefore most disappointing. I clearly outlined my thought experiment which is quite self explanatory requiring no advanced knowledge of physics and would have welcomed a valid critique. Instead I receive an aggressive tirade; is not such a response generally indicative of insecurity of conviction on the part of the aggressor not unlike the behaviour of so many alarmists?
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
John, Now you’re diverting and insulting me by inferring I’m unfit mentally to debate you. Your comments are carbon copies of everything put to us by your ‘experts’ for the past 8 years. Just admit you are out of your depth and retire graciously.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Oh dear. I was hoping for scientific debate but got abuse instead. Please get back to me when you’ve achieved my Chartered Physicist status when hopefully you will have a greater command of good old fashioned logic and we can then have a meaningful discussion.
John O'Sullivan
| #
John Harrison pulls the old ‘appeal to authority’ trick when he says “get back to me” when we are also a Chartered Physicist..This is the classic cop out of a debater who knows he’s losing.
John probably hasn’t even got a PhD or he would have told us, but may have a masters’ degree and worked a couple of years. In John’s mind that counts for a great deal.
Of course, if John would rather debate one of PSI’s experts with PhD’s in Physics and other ‘hard’ sciences he is hereby invited to take up our challenge. PSI’s select members list has plenty to choose from, John. Take your pick from the list here: https://principia-scientific.com/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic/
John Harrison
| #
John, you complain that an appeal to authority on my part was OTT but was merely to persuade you to remember that just because someone disagrees does not make them an ignorant retard. I did not refer to those links provided as I put years of experience, a good working knowledge, an open mind and sound commonsense as far more valuable than paper qualifications. To that end I have taught engineering and physics for 40 years upto and including postgraduate students, was a Principal Lecturer and sadly recently retired as Head of Physics due to ill health. So, bearing this in mind could you cordially reply in answer as to why does a hot plate, suspended in a vacuum cool more slowly when the container is warmed and does this raise the equilibrium temperature. How is this different from the effect that increasing IR emission from activated water vapour and CO2 molecules on the temperature of the Earth’s surface, at night to make things simpler. No equations please, rebuttal by logical, reasoned argument is preferred 😉
geran
| #
John H. displays his deficiencies: “So, bearing this in mind could you cordially reply in answer as to why does a hot plate, suspended in a vacuum cool more slowly when the container is warmed and does this raise the equilibrium temperature.”
John H., if you increase the temperature of a system, the system temperature will go up.
Duh….
Zoe Phin
| #
I’ve been preaching slayer physics on youtube for nearly a year. Keep up the good work!
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks Zoe, much appreciated. You are most welcome to sign up as a member – it is entirely free. If you want us to help promote your youtube videos let me know.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
When you wrote: “Jerry, clouds are not a part of the GHE discussion. Clouds are a localized phenomenon.”, you proved you were clueless as you edified anyone who pondered what you wrote. It is true that as soon as one begins to calculate the average temperature of the earth one is assuming there is no localized phenomenon. Temperature is the central issue of the GHE and as soon as Arrhenius calculated his average air temperature of the earth there was no localized temperature which was important.
Yet, ‘climate’ classifications is all about localized differences of mainly temperatures and precipitations during the seasonal year. Clearly there is no such thing as a global climate. What more observation evidence does one need to have to declare that the global greenhouse effect is a bogus theory? The truth is weather is a very localized phenomena and climate is merely the long term average of various factors of weather at a given location on a given day of the year.
Geran, about this you cannot claim I am confused. And I do not claim you are confused, you and many others are merely clueless. However, I excuse you and them because I knew I had been clueless until your comment prompted me to finally see the obvious. Which is one of the more difficult things to observe (see). And I accept that science is a method of learning based solely upon what can be observed.
Have a good day, Jerry
:
Reply
geran
| #
Jerry, before I knew you were going to “excuse” me, I was really nervous.
“What if Jerry wouldn’t excuse me”, I asked myself.
But now, I see you have excused me!
Such relief.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
What you just wrote, has nothing to do with what I had written. What you wrote is an example of how you avoid addressing an issue–the dismissal of cloud because they are localized–that you introduced into our conversation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Sorry Jerry, but it had everything to do with what you wrote. I was graciously acknowledging your excusing me.
Try to stay on subject, next time.
Have a fabulous day.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
I had never been taught how to debate and win debate points. But I am of the opinion that Aristotle and his fellow philosophers proved several times it (debate) was not the path to truth. This because experiments have proven several of their long accepted ideas to be wrong.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Jerry, it gets even worse with blog commenters. Some just want to ramble endlessly.
Ever notice that?
Have an exemplary day.
Squidly
| #
Oh man Geran, you hit the nail on the head. This is what the entire GHE thrives on. The only reason why the AGW / GHE topic is even a topic at all is because so many people are engaging in trying to baffle the other with bullshit (endless rambling). Equations this, equations that. My equations our rank your equations .. etc.. etc.. whereby 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of those equations are nothing but baffling bullshit. Few of their formulas adhere to their created intent, few are used properly and most are simply used to obfuscate and baffle people in attempt to convince people that the author knows what the hell he/she is talking about. As Joseph Postma puts it .. sophistry .. and he is correct!
I can (and have), simplified this entire topic down to 2 molecules and an irrefutable law of our universe (see comment reply above – https://principia-scientific.com/presenting-a-no-nonsense-climate-debate/#comment-19807). I challenge anyone to simplify it further .. and I further challenge anyone to successfully refute it.
As far as I am concerned, unless and until someone can successfully refute and prove that refutation through repeatable empirical experimentation, the entire AGW / GHE case is closed, and in the meantime, I just laugh at the alarmists and lukewarmers alike as I view them as utter imbeciles. I have yet to see one try to simplify anything. They purposefully complicate things in order to hide the truth.
geran
| #
Go Squidly!
Nick Schroeder, BSME,
| #
Science does not care about credentials.
Science does not care how many initials are in front and behind your name.
Science does not care about the number of your publications and citations.
Science cares that the rules are followed.
Science does not waive those rules based on who you are, who you know or your noble cause.
288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with an atmosphere does not follow the rules.
396 W/m^2 LWIR upwelling from a BB surface powering a GHG energy loop does not follow the rules.
These two broken rules invalidate RGHE theory.
RGHE theory failure negates any role for CO2 and mankind in the behavior of the climate.
Reply
geran
| #
Go Nick!
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Squidly. Please tell me that you are not saying “the science is settled” We scorn alarmists for claiming this I hate to hear skeptics make a similar claim. You’ll be telling me that you have the consensus next.
You seem to be saying that IR emitted by a cold surface cannot be absorbed by a warmer one. Have I understood correctly? If this were the case what why would a heated object, suspended in a perfect vacuum cool more slowly when the temperature of the container is raised and does this not also result in a higher equilibrium temperature?
You cannot apply single molecule behaviour to multi molecule situation as the molecules on an extensive surface will have a virtually infinite number of energy states. Temperature reflects only the average kinetic energy.
When IR photons are absorbed by a surface the energy is thermalised. Only “White Body” surfaces do not absorb IR but all those in nature do to a greater or lesser degree.
Reply
geran
| #
John H., the “science IS settled”!
CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT heat the planet.
CO2 can NOT “trap heat”. It emits as much as it absorbs.
CO2 can NOT “slow the cooling”.
Your pseudoscience is a bust.
Get over it.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Oh dear, Geran. “settled science” is anathema to proper science which demands an open mind, honest and open debate, essential in the pursuit of truth. I notice that you presented no logical or scientific rebuttal to a proposed mechanism; sadly just empty propaganda, akin to that from so many alarmists and activists.
Reply
geran
| #
John H., you “noticed” a lot.
But you provided zilch.
The first thing I stated as “settled science” was “CO2 is NOT a heat source”.
Now, if you have evidence you would like to present to refute that, please submit.
Waiting….
Reply
John Harrison
| #
So where do you stand on H2O vapour does that too not absorb IR photons momentarily and then emit them
Reply
Carl
| #
“why would a heated object, suspended in a perfect vacuum cool more slowly when the temperature of the container is raised and does this not also result in a higher equilibrium temperature?”
I presume that a heated object, suspended in a perfect vacuum would cool more slowly when the temperature of the container is raised because the object’s “net radiation heat loss rate” would decrease, but then the Earth’s ground and sea surface are not heated objects suspended in a vacuum and the atmosphere is not a single layered container that is separated from the surface by a vacuum.
In reality there are perhaps a dozen or so thermodynamic variables that determine what the Earth’s surface’s equilibrium temperature will be. Only one of them is the surface’s “net radiation heat loss rate.” Having been a Principal Lecturer, I assume of some branch of science, certainly you understand that changing one variable in a multi-variable algebraic equation only produces a predictable outcome if the other variables remain constant.
When people talk about the “greenhouse effect” they are primarily talking about a “water vapor effect” because water vapor not only absorbs and emits IR radiation at many more frequencies than does its distant competitor carbon dioxide, the amount of water vapor in surface-level air dwarfs in volume all other “greenhouse gases” combined–not uncommonly there is >20 times more water vapor in surface level air than all other “greenhouse gases” combined.
When the humidity level goes up one cannot assume that this will necessarily result in an increase in the surface temperature, because raising the humidity level triggers changes in some of those other variables–cloud cover is higher, precipitation is higher, evaporation must increase to produce that humidity, the emissivity of the atmosphere increases which enhances the atmosphere’s ability to cool via emitting IR radiation out into space–all of which have a cooling effect on surface level air temperatures.
The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis assumes that one can change the surface’s “net radiation heat loss rate” variable by changing the humidity level without changing any of the other variables present in the multivariable algebraic equation that yields as its output the surface’s equilibrium temperature. In other words, the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is based on a single variable algebraic equation whose only variable is the “net radiation heat loss rate.” Ergo, your “hot object in a vacuum” analogy.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
I am sorry but yes the surface of the Earth, because it is not a “White Body” will indeed absorb IR from any source; and yes that IR which is absorbed will be thermalised. However, what you do not seem to understand is that this does not raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as it will, in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, be emitting IR faster than it is absorbing. It does mean, however, that it will cool more slowly and achieve a higher equilibrium temperature than in the absence of IR emitting gases in the atmosphere.
Reply
geran
| #
John H., saying two different things just makes you another “climate clown”.
“…this does not raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface…however, that it will cool more slowly and achieve a higher equilibrium temperature than in the absence of IR emitting gases in the atmosphere.”
I think you are ready for the big time. Consider Spin-cer’s blog, or WUWT. They love climate comedy.
.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Try to actually understand what is being said instead of projecting a load of garbage about what you think it says. IR does not raise the temperature Earth’s but only reduces its cooling rate and the amount by which it can cool. Nothing there contravenes the laws of thermodymics. Open your mind a little.
Reply
geran
| #
John H., the “load of garbage” is your own. I just quoted you.
Hilarious.
More, please.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
I have described the hypothesis in full detail using detailed logic and including an explanation of why it conforms with the laws of thermodynamics. I have been waiting for any reasoned arguments to refute the logic and am still waiting. It is too easy to put your own (false) Interpretation of my explanation and then decry that. Too many minds are closed.
Reply
geran
| #
John H., what is it with you guys. One believes in “heat creep”. And you believe that CO2 is warming the planet, but it isn’t warming the planet.
You guys should form a club. Maybe name it “Pseudoscience-R-Us”.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
I have been waiting for you to reply to my comments.
You previously said:
“Lukewarmers do not claim that reducing the rate of heat loss is a heat gain. That would be silly but that is how “Sky Dragon Slayers” choose to interpret it.”
You then want on to say:
“simply reduces the rate at which the surface temperature drops due to absorption of this IR and it’s consequent thermalisation. This also has implications of a raised surface equilibrium temperature”
You need medical mental help, John Harrison?
Or do you enjoy lying and denying?
Still waiting for your response to my comment:
“Lukewarmers claim that GHGs add 33C beyond what the sun can provide. So you are claiming reducing loss is a gain.”
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Hi Zoe. The Earth’s surface will absorb IR regardless of the temperature of the source. Black Body surfaces will absorb all of incident IR and Grey Body surfaces, like that of the Earth, will absorb a proportion of all incident IR. The electromagnetic energy of absorbed IR photons is converted into heat energy. When the rate of emission of IR energy is greater than the rate of absorption then cooling will result as is the case with the Earth’s surface receiving IR from IR activated CO2 and H2O molecules in the atmosphere. If, however, the rate of incidence of IR photons is increased, say by increasing the concentration of IR activated CO2 and H2O molecules in the atmosphere the the rate of cooling will be reduced and equilibrium temperature will be higher than that achieved in their absence. Fully consider this question. Why does a warm metal plate (at 100C say) , when suspended, in a vacuum, cool more slowly when the the temperature of the the container is raised (from 0C to 10C say)?Try it then explain it. Then, what will be the equilibrium temperatures of the plate before and after the increase in container temperature? Finally examine the analogy with respect to the Earth/atmosphere system. The question Slayers should be tackling is not whether or not this mechanism is feasible, because it undoubtedly is, but whether or not it is significant with respect to “global warming”, which, for CO2 at least, undoubtedly is not. To suggest that CO2 concentration can be a controlling factor in global temperatures is, quite frankly, laughable. This is where the equations so beloved by the principles can come in useful, provided the correct assumptions are applied in each instance.
Reply
geran
| #
John H. claims: “The Earth’s surface will absorb IR regardless of the temperature of the source.”
FALSE
John H. asks: ‘Fully consider this question. Why does a warm metal plate (at 100C say) , when suspended, in a vacuum, cool more slowly when the the temperature of the the container is raised (from 0C to 10C say)?”
Because you’ve added energy to the system.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Dumb dumb, the 100C plate will never be more than a 100C, yet you claim that GHGs add 33C to what the only power source (the sun) can provide!
You should quit while you’re behind.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
The effect of water vapour because of the latent heat involved in changes of states complicates, enormously, the difficulty of determining its possible effects on surface temperature. I am perfectly happy to accept your explanations. The possible role of CO2 is much simpler. Yes it will absorb some miniscule part of surface emission of IR and will re-radiate an even smaller part back again to be absorbed. The process is thermodynamically feasible and will happen. This effect should not be denied by the application of false logic but instead dismissed as being so infinitesimally small in effect as to be irrelevant.
Reply
Claudius Denk
| #
***comment removed for deceptive use of sock puppet alias ***
James McGinn please desist in using your sock puppet, Claudius Denk to shamelessly attempt to fool readers. If you persist expect a ban.
Reply
Nick B
| #
Dr Cotton, I presume?
Reply
Claudius Denk
| #
You got nothing!!!
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Can this cotton clone Harrison do than handwave.
Show us the science.
Show us the Thermodynamics.
Show us the proof that the LWIR light/spectre from a sqare metre of ice is being absorbed by a candle flame beside, it.
Shows how that back-light from the ice is thermalising in the flame making it hotter brighter
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
oops square
Reply
Claudius Denk
| #
GA:
Show us the science.
Show us the Thermodynamics.
Show us the proof that the LWIR light/spectre from a sqare metre of ice is being absorbed by a candle flame beside, it.
Shows how that back-light from the ice is thermalizing in the flame making it hotter brighter
JMcG:
It’s comical how you have to put words in Harrison’s mouth in order to dispute him.
What do you think this indicates?
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Thank you Claudius, some normality at last. Logical debate seems surprisingly lacking on such an excellent website.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Hi Gary. Please read my post to Zoe above. Please review your thoughts on what does and does not contravene the Laws of Thermodynamics and how the Stefan-Boltzman equation etc. relate to net flow of energy. IR can pass from cold to hot surfaces and there be absorbed and thermalised but more energy will pass from hot to cold. Consider the truth of this if the surfaces were Black Body and then explain why the same truth cannot be applied to Grey Body surfaces like that of the Earth. Then, still considering Black Body surfaces if you wish, explain how a hot surface which is receiving energy via the absorption and thermalisation of IR photons could cool at the same rate as it would if there were no incident IR.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Doug.
Waffle and handwaving, all so terribly polite and helpful.
Well show me, tell me what happens at the macro-level when a LWIR photon of inferior resonance meets a molecule vibrating at a far superior frequency. LWIR photon from cold meeting molecule of warm ?
How does the none physical transform to the physical process of heat,
How does it slow cooling without adding electron voltage
.How does energy that does not thermalise [increase voltage ] delay cooling. ?.
All energy is not equal.
All that matters is the quality of energy, solar energy, its never solar twice.
If you do another verbal tip toe through the tulips, i am going to vent my spleen on you.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Hi Gary. You seem to be assuming that all of the virtually infinite number of molecules on an extended and hot surface will all be at exactly the same energy levels and all capable of rebuffing absorption of IR photons from cooler surfaces. I’m sure you know that this is statistically impossible. You have to think beyond single atom interactions. The electromagnetic energy from those photons that will be absorbed does not just vanish and instead is converted to thermal energy. For the hot surface to cool at the same rate as before would require a more rapid emission of IR and that would be in contravention of the Laws of Physics
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
You worthless bastard,….
The source of the LWIR are optically active gases always minus C in the GHE Hypothesis.
And if the environ on the surface is below the emitted ”temp” then where is it.
Every molecule operates at a higher frequency at the surface than co2 emits at.
If it does exist at the poles, what miniscule effect can that have, on air temperatures that cause the environ to be that cold, what can re-radiated 15 micron spectra warm, it is -80c light, how does that energy transform into the physical and delay cooling ?
What is the process.
Gary Ashe
| #
You must have more names and more email address’s than AT&T.
Go back to your latest incarnation and answer my questions on process at the macro of delayed cooling.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Go back to your latest incarnation and answer my questions on the process/s at the macro level of delayed cooling.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Deflection.
The weaker frequency photon’s the cold object being scattered by the atoms of the higher frequency molecules of the warm object.
Are you going to claim thermalisation of the LWIR from the ice in the flame ?.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Eh?? Sorry, I don’t understand what you are trying to say or what you think is faulty in my logic.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Claiming absorption is claiming an increase at the heart of the molecule, an eltron voltage increase, and a raised frequency, energy state and temperature.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
fecks sake Electron.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Eh?? And you are asking me for the science. This is garbled nonsense. Sorry, get back to me when you’ve sobered up a little. I’m only too pleased to debate the issue but I have to understand why you feel my logic is faulty.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Sorry Gary. Still don’t understand. Is this relevant to the discussion?
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Carl. This posting is excellent and I believe that we are almost in complete agreement. I do not wish to hear the idea of “back radiation” being absorbed by the Earth’s rubbished as contravening the second law of thermodynamics because it most certainly does not. What is rubbish, however, is the claim by warmists and alarmists that this effect due to CO2 can control global warming by any significant degree any effect, for the reasons you describe along with many others, will be infinitessimal. Hence, if I had to classify myself, it would be as a lukewarmer but only because I can’t think of an adjective describing a temperature much less than lukewarm. If you can understand my position and wave my logic through then we are in complete agreement. Thank you for your succinct post.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Zoe. Wrong on both counts. Think on how energy is getting to the cooling plate.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Doug. Just trying to demonstrate to some that back radiation can occur and can slow down cooling, if it is radiative, without contravening the Laws of Thermodymics. With black bodies surfaces this is patently obvious, with Grey Bodies less so. The inclusion of non-radiative heat transfer makes the situation far more complex.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Harison all my replies were to 3 different I.D’s claidius who i assume is not you,
Doug your main i.d.
You claim all radiation is absorbed and utilised in the process of delayed cooling.
The back radiation has to go somewhere you say.
Well it does space, scattered by the atoms orbiting the surface molecules
Those atoms at the surface are always of a higher energy state than the deflected/scattered down welling redundant LWIR,
Your claim of delayed cooling relies on a thermal process taking place.
What is that process, how does the spectra from co2 maintain heat in the surface.
By what order of macro process does the none physical energy [ light ]become physical in mass
Delaying cooling how ?.
Reply
Claudius Denk
| #
This whole continuing controversy over the noncontroversial notion that exchange of EME between the ground and the atmosphere is a two way street is all a consequence of the democratization of science to the lowest common denominator of brain-dead science consumers to whom for which science is their religion and the dumbed-down models their bread and butter of pretending to understand what they do not.
Much of the foolishness in the natural sciences started with Linus Pauling, about 60 or 70 years ago, when he made a conceptual error and the rest of the scientific community blindly followed. I refer it as Pauling’s Omission:
Pauling’s Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=iIQSubWJeNg
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Theres nothing there
https://www.youtube.com/my_videos?o=U
Reply
Claudius Denk
| #
Pauling’s Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Theres nothing at that link CD.
Reply
Claudius Denk
| #
Hmm. Works for me.
Try going to YouTube and doing a search on:
Pauling’s Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
Gary Ashe
| #
I will read that now CD.
1st para makes perfect sense to me.
2nd one brings me back to 1973/4, the ever more hype of global cooling, as our teacher sat through tv doco’s about the looming ice age.
Co2 ofcourse the sky dragon.
See more co2 meant more radiating molecules per million.
Except the suns energy remained constant both in and out.
However more radiating molecules radiating energy to space meant a faster cycle until a new lower equilibrium is reached right down to the surface, as the drains faster.
Back radiative heating or the macro process- less delayed cooling sophistry wasnt heard off then, it was fossil fuels are evil,……..
Peak oil bs is what it really was, Hanson a main anti-coal protagonist.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Well it all makes sense to me Dougie lad.
I was taught the speed of the flow of thermalising energy threw the mass of the planet by sensible means, dictates surface temperature, or any layer of mass, 83% of the solar energy absorbed by the mass of the planet travels by sensible means to the TOA, where it is transferred kinetically to, and emitted away by optically active molecules.
Increasing the power in is the only way to keep more energy in the earths system long term.
Only highly charged electron volts .. solar power photons heats the mass of this planet.
That makes the mass too warm for recycled fragments of electron volts in LWIR photon form to ”work”
To transform the minute voltage into physical energy anywhere except above the emitter in a colder environ., it is redundant energy to any molecules below its emitting molecule and is scattered by an orbiting atom…………. theres nothing controversial about the scattering of weak light by emitters of a much brighter light.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Have you ever been out in the sun Dougie.
Reply
Claudius Denk
| #
GA:
I will read that now CD.
1st para makes perfect sense to me.
2nd one brings me back to 1973/4, the ever more hype of global cooling, as our teacher sat through tv doco’s about the looming ice age.
JMcG:
Gary, with this second sentence you are going off on a tangent. That’s the problem. Not you specifically, but science in general. Pauling made an error and that caused us (science) to misunderstand and minimize the central role of H2O in atmospheric flow and that lead to some cartoonish models of atmospheric flow and storm theory. And that BS set the stage for climatology and global warming hysteria.
IOW, this whole confusion could have been avoided if Linus Pauling wasn’t such a putz.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Jim, i dont need to know how ”exactly” the climate works, i don’t even need a clue.
I know beyond any reasonable doubt it doesn’t work as stated in the RGHE.
And co2 is a political tool.
I’ve read with great interest the concepts and the visualisations of both photon molecule and atom.
I know from reading about the macro level energy transfers/transforms.
that the RGHE is bollocks,……
I dont even care which opposing model is right or wrong.
I care that Mann et al are exposed.
And these lukewarm and activist trolls gets their asses handed to them by whoever is right, i know not being on the RGHE side, is correct.
Reply
Claudius Denk
| #
*** comment removed for deceptive use of sock puppet alias***
James, if you continue to use the sock puppet name ‘Cladius Denk’ in an attempt to fool readers you are two separate individuals rather than one zealot pushing a pet theory, you will be banned permanently.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Direct solar energy is around 1200 W/m^2, less 30% at the earths surface.
Over 50% of the planet 24/7 .
Thermal expansion to the 3 coldest places on the planet distribute the thermal flows, creating our weather system,……
You are a fantisist.
You make your own strawman, then burn him down,………
The solar radiation (averaging 168W/m^2) to the surface of Earth CANNOT make the mean surface temperature hotter than 233K which is -40°C
Where sunlight is bathing the earth it is doing so with 4 the power per sqm than your hypothesis allows for.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
I’ve come to realize that climate science is as fake as boob jobs.
Albedo, I think, only applies to the visible light spectrum, and completely ignores sun’s IR.
For example, snow has a high albedo (reflects a lot of light), and a high absorptivity (absorbs lots of IR).
I feel 30% is misleading in some way.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
I Believed ice at the poles could only melt from underneath when in the ocean,…
Antarctica has to calve to melt.
I thought Zoe that the sub zero air temps prevented melting, even by solar radiation.
Any rise in the temperature of the ice wicked away by conduction by the sub-zero air-temps.
I always think the 30% was plucked out of their asses to make their figures work.
If you reduce it, you simple adjust the suns distance further away from the earth.
Trenbreths original IPCC model had the sun 160 million miles away, to make sunlight so weak.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Douglas. I think you may have misunderstood which so far has not been uncommon. However, most of the misunderstanding has been deliberate. To summarise the logic involved:
1 the Earth’s surface emits LWIR.
2. Some is absorbed by CO2 and H2O
3. That which is absorbed will be emitted in all directions.
4 The LWIR which is emitted downwards will impinge upon the Earth’s surface.
5. Some of the incident radiation will be absorbed and thermalised.
6. Unless the emission of LWIR from the Earth’s surface then speeds up to counter the effect of absorbing this “back-radiation”, which is thermonamically impossible, then the Earth’s surface will cool more slowly.
7. If only radiative heat transfer is occurring (which of course is not the case) then the equilibrium temperature of the Earth’s surface is raised.
8. All the above are possible within the constraints of of the laws of thermodymics. A very crude analogy would be that of a Dewar flask where some of the heat radiated by the inner silvered surface is reflected back and slows down the cooling of the contents. To continue the analogy with respect to the effect on equilibrium temperature the contents would entail the presence of a small heat source in the flask so is not a good analogy.
9. The effect of back-radiation from CO2 would be real but I would suspect it to be infinitesimal and totally irrelevant to any global warming.
10. I believe any attempt to rubbish the mechanism as thermodynamically impossible is doing the skeptics cause a disservice.
Your comments, provided they are civil, would be welcome.
Reply
geran
| #
John H., you’ve done it again.
You’ve built a huge mountain, only to then jump off the top.
Your mistake begins at your point #6.
There would not be enough from atmospheric CO2 to ever help with warming.
It’s like you saying you could drink the oceans dry. So you fill a glass with ocean water and drink it down. To you that is “proof” you could drink the oceans dry. But there is a lot of ocean water left.
If you think my analogy is invalid, you might want to do some calculations comparing atmospheric CO2 heat capacity to solar energy.
If you then want to drink the oceans dry, let us know. It would be fun to watch.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Harrison,
Why do you think there is no such thing as backconduction?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Harrison,
Let’s have some more fun with your “logic”.
Sun rays strike the upper layer of surface molecules, which then transfers heat to the next layer of molecules, which reflect back on the first layer and make it even warmer. There is now no room for your GHGs, because we can do the same garbage with the ground as you do with the atmosphere. See? No GH effect! Only Ground Effect ™ – Patent Pending!
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Yeah Harrison ”handwaves what is theoretically possible in him mind, without proof as factual and happening.
Then hides behind,…..”but is is undectable,……..unlike his sophistry
Ask him to explain the mechanism by which his evidence- less claim works, the actual nutz and bolts mechanics of the macro-event/s taking place in his claim, and our highly qualified ‘physics professor” ”who doesn’t want to get to involved with the physic’s defaults back to his broad brush abstract of……
Delayed cooling.
Where all radiation is heat.
It isn’t, all solar radiation is heat.
Very little system LWIR is ever heat, it is redundant radiation inconvenienced a nano second.
There is only ever radiation without Thermalisation if identical 2 objects are in a sealed environ at equilibrium, in an environ with zero energy loss, the objects radiate
LWIR to each other for eternity, But stay in the same energy state [temperature] for eternity, without there being one photon of heat.
Back radiation for eternity, no warming, no delayed cooling, just worthless redundant LWIR photons for eternity.
However
Put those LWIR photons in a cooler environ, and they are heat.
Put those LWIR photons in a warmer environ, they are worthless, redundant, and will have zero effect in the environ otherwise that would be cold making warm, warmer still.
All EMR is not equal, You cannot stack weak photons into piles and then claim the pile has x watts per sqm of thermalising potential the same as solar radiation.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Take a square metre of black carpet
Subject it to 1 million electron volts of energy in the IR solar photon wavelengths.
Now subject an identical square metre of carpet to 1 million electron volts of LWIR photon wavelengths from sub zero atmospheric emitting temps between -1c and -100c.
Subject both examples for exactly the same amount of time, and start both at 0c.
Are the 2 million volts the same, does each million volts ”heat” both squares to the same energy state.
It is the same amount of energy per square metre, delivered the same way.
The LWIR consisted of trillions and trillions of weakly charged photons.
The solar photons only a fraction of that.
So what happens.
Are both 1 million electron voltages when delivered by photon equal.
Photons are suitcase for a pair of electrons, life is dependent on the superior electron voltages in solar suitcase….
Not voltage ”particulate” in LWIR form being emitted from the earths system.
Adding up all backing welling long wave radiation and treating it as solar input, is fraud.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Dougie.
This thread is not about alternate climate theory…….. your theory.
It is about the ”’radiative” greenhouse effect, none of us need come up with alternate theory or model.
The RGE hypothesis is Mathematician sophistry, a mathematical nonsense that treats all radiation with equal potential.
I is just nonsense to add up watts of LWIR, and give then the same thermalising potential as the exact same amount of solar watts per sq/m.
And delayed cooling without thermilisation,….. again utter nonsense.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Douglas. I do hate to be rude but your comments can only be classed as totally unscientific drivel and you appear to be unable to put together any cogent arguments. Let us not continue this discussion for to do so would simply be a waste of my time.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
???
Reply