Why can't radiation from a cold body make a hot body hotter?
This is another error showing a fundamental error in the whole green house theory.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
There is so much of this type of 'garbage' throughout Climate Change 'science', that brings into question the credentials and intelligence of any science or tech type that pretends to support their nonsense.
of industry and its causing "pollution" as previously.
Let those elitist environmentalists have to go through some of the deprivation that their ideology
(or idiotology) would cause, and then maybe,
just maybe, they'd shut up. (But that's a foolish
dream; they'd just find a way to turn it around
and escape the blame for what they had promoted).
I do not have the patience to study this in enough detail to give a considered opinion.
I'd like to see experimental results.
I do observe tho' that the hot-spot has not been found despite extensive search.
If greenhouses gases are warming the planet, such warming will happen first in the upper troposphere, the cold blob of air 8-12 km above the tropics. It is real cold up there, but it ought to be slightly less cold thanks to greenhouse gases. All the alarmist climate models predict warming there first— it is the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming as opposed to warming by some other cause.
The fact that no hot-spot has been found, is strong evidence against the proposition of a greenhouse effect, either from human activity or from nature.
The alarmists are seriously worried by this as can be seen by convoluted explanations of the kind- more snow due to global warming.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/new-...
http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-...
I have now found several of these articles and they make perfect sense to me - statistical mechanics is not my strongest area. Bottom line the whole radiative green house effect is nonsense. The hottest possible temperature on Earth would be the blackbody temperature on the surface.
I have been collecting the information and thinking about reformatting it in the way I think is the most logical and persuasive. If I ever write that post perhaps I should run it past you first.
I thought the article got a little glib here
"How does a photon from a cool spectrum source “know” not to travel to and warm up a warmer source? It is because a photon is effectively outside of space and time.
Start thinking of what life as a photon must be like, if you were a photon, travelling at the speed of light, and wrap your head around that."
One of the most interesting lectures on light I have seen Hans Schantz, who is an Objectivist. He talks from the perspective of ElectroMagnetics, but his ideas have implications for the pilot wave theory of light. He is an technology entrepreneur in the antenna space. I think this is the lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ns2J...
1. The photons and electromagnetic energy released by a cold object have less energy than a worm body. Think of it in terms of light. a bright light has more energy than a dim light. When this energy (photons, EM waves) impact on the warmer body) they receive energy from the hot body, thus cooling the hotbody and slightly increasing the energy of the cold body particles and EM waves. This has the effect of cooling the hotbody and potentially increasing the energy (heat) of the cold body depending upon the backscatter and reflection of the photons and EM waves.
Just a guess mind you, but perhaps close enough.
I found these ideas so important I have started double and triple checking them and will probably write an article on point, which I hope is even more clear.
When one speaks about "warming" the use of temperature as an indicator is only useful in certain situations. Heat content or enthalpy, as represented by heat / mass, is the more accurate and proper measurement to be used especially when talking about relative warming or cooling. Temperature can be a proxy for heat content when used in a well mixed system. But the atmosphere is anything but a well mixed system. Most significantly, in addition to temperature, there are constant variations in composition and pressure. And of those, water content, aka humidity, is the most important. For example, if you look at given mass of air at 50F and 50% RH its heat content is actually greater than the same mass of air at 55F and 25% RH. And yet, if you compare just temperatures in this example, you would conclude a massive 5F increase in warming has occurred.
In relating this to climate change, I've searched the NASA and NOAA sites for information on how they account for humidity in any of their data sets but I have found nothing.I've been in touch recently with a Professor of Atmospheric Science.who confirmed that RH is not accounted for in various models except as estimates on a global scale.
As such, every time I see one of those global depictions I shake my head and wonder what kind of education you need to become a "Climate Scientist." Certainly not one that involves basic Thermodynamics.
energy transfer = (e-hotsigmaT_hot^4 - e_coldsigmaT_cold^4) where energy is transferred in both directions. Since the Earth's system is open, energy enters from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere's gasses return some of the absorbed energy from the Earth back to the Earth, so the Earth's surface may end up slightly warmer during daylight than without the green house gasses because of the return of some energy. The N2, O2, and Ar mostly have affects in the upper atmosphere and little due to their temperature in the lower atmosphere since they radiate mainly in the microwave and radio wave lengths, so cooling of those gasses is mainly done by interacting with the green house gasses which then radiate energy away from the atmosphere. As far as I can see, green house gasses are necessary to remove energy from the atmosphere so that it does not warm too much due to conduction and convection from the Earth's warm surface.
Climate scientists would have training in all the necessary sciences but for many belonging is more importance than having personal integrity.
The original point was that talking about temperature alone is entirely misleading. Using my original example, the 50F 50% RH air has 16.28 BTU/lb. The 55F 25%RH air has 15.77 BTU/lb. Yes, I've assumed other values constant in this example, but for atmospheric conditions, they are not consequential. As previously stated, the energy contained in the 55F air will melt less ice than the energy from the lower temperature 50F air. But if all you're using to determine "atmospheric warming" is temperature, you will be coming to the wrong conclusion.
Regarding the training of "Climate scientists", a while back I looked at the required course work to get a degree in this area from a number of respected universities. What I found lacking were courses in hard science and engineering. Specifically lacking were foundations in physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, chemical reactions and kinetics, to name a few. All of which would be necessary to even begin to understand something as complex as the heat balance for the entire world.
the heat required to raise the temperature of the unit mass of a given substance by a given amount
For the same reasons speaking of the global average or mean temperature is nonsense.
And the main point was that a given mass of the 50F air would melt more ice than the same mass of the 55F.
Q = k1T1^4 - k2T2^4 is exactly the radiative heat transfer between two objects.
The Greenhouse Effect has to do with a frequency shift from a high frequency that is transmissible to a low frequency that is reflected. This works just fine in greenhouses.
This guy is about as good at getting to the point as the AGW people are at explaining their correlation theories.
How greenhouses work:
Heat comes in from the sun, it warms the internal air, the pressure of this warm air increases with temperature.
The volume is constrained, the air 'tries' to expand but is prevented by the glass roof from escaping.
Radiation out to space from this warm air is negligible,
there is no so-called back-radiation from the glass roof.
Thus, greenhouses retain heat as the physical barrier allows radiant heat from the sun to enter,
but prevents hot air dissipating.
A hotter cold thing can make a hot thing even hotter though. I don't follow what assertion the climate zealots have made that he rebuts.
The NASA website on this is a big confusing mess.
Because the effect is to the fourth power and the variable is absolute temp, it takes a real difference to show up because there is 273 degrees before you get to freezing.
Those coefficients in front don't help much either.
I see what this guy is getting at now, but good lord he could make a simpler case.