I have been asked by Doug Cotton to draw attention to the paper he has written. I’m happy to do so, despite some personal reservations regarding some of the inferences drawn from observations. I request that all comments are polite, and kind-hearted. Everyone is learning about radiation, the process is ongoing.
Radiated Energy and the
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Douglas Cotton, B.Sc., B.A., Dip. Bus. Admin
March 12, 2012
ABSTRACT
The transfer of thermal energy by radiation is discussed in the context of the Earth’s
surface and its atmosphere. When considering what happens as the Sun is warming
the surface each morning, it is noted that its radiation is being directed onto the land
surfaces and some distance below the surface of the oceans. So, additional radiation
supposedly transferring further thermal energy from the cooler atmosphere to the
warmer surface would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law must
apply (on a macro scale) between any two points at any particular time. An apparent
violation cannot be excused on the basis of “net” radiation, because “net” radiation has
no corresponding physical entity and is meaningless and useless for determining heat
flow in situations when other processes are also involved.
It may be deduced that none of the radiation from a cooler body (and only a portion of
the radiation from a warmer body) has any thermodynamic effect on the other body.
All such radiation from a cooler source is rejected in some way, and it can be deduced
that resonance and scattering occurs without any conversion to thermal energy. The
radiation continues in another direction until it strikes a cooler target, which could be
in space.
Furthermore, the stability of sub-surface temperatures will tend to maintain the
observed close thermal equilibrium at the interface between the surface and the
atmosphere. Hence other heat loss mechanisms are likely to adjust, in order to
compensate for any reduced radiation.
Some commonly raised questions are answered in the Appendix, where there is also
discussion of temperature trends and climate cycles, as well as counter arguments for several possible objections to matters raised herein.
Full pdf here
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“This law must apply (on a macro scale) between any two points at any particular time.” Sez who? The Second Law is a pragmatic observation about the behaviour of pools of energy interacting with each other. It has nothing to say about quantum events; that’s all mere detail, that comes out in the macro wash.
P.S. Your use of the words “any two points” is the issue. Points are dimensionless locations, and the attempt to treat blobs and photons as similar is at the core of the confusion.
No matter how often repeated, or how rephrased, the statement that “the absorptivity of spontaneous radiation from a cooler source to a warmer target must be zero” is false. The entire edifice of the paper is a circular repetition of this one claim, “supported” by misapplied macro phenomena extrapolated to quantum events.
I suspect that it would be possible to construct a test apparatus directing a far IR beam from a laser from a considerable distance, such that the subtended angle of the laser’s lens was vanishingly small, at glowing red-hot metal plate and measure a heat/temperature increase. According to your “theory”, would it not just bounce away without effect, no matter how intense or prolonged the beam?
Nice picture on the pdf 🙂
I’m concerned that it seems to be assumed that retaining solar energy within an atmosphere for a little longer than it would have been retained without an atmosphere for a net warming effect is somehow supposed to be a breach of the Laws of Thermodnamics.
That is the difficulty I have had with the proposals put forward by the so called ‘Slayer’ group.
Whether one relies on the radiative greenhouse theory of the consensus or the pressure induced ATE of N & Z (and general science of more than 30 years ago) or indeed my own “Hot Water Bottle Effect” it is just such a delay in energy transmission that invalidates the application of the S-B Law within an atmosphere.
Does Doug deny that the flow of energy through a planet and its atmosphere is slowed down by the mass of a gaseous atmosphere or of a transparent liquid medium such as water ?
Does he then deny that such a slowing down results in energy accumulation within the planetary system for a higher average temperature than would be the case for a planet without an atmosphere or oceans ?
Does An Atmosphere Warm Or Cool a Planetary Surface ?
It is clear that a planet without an atmosphere shows extremes of heat and cold with the coming and going of solar input to the surface as the planet rotates. When there is no atmosphere the solar energy goes straight in and straight out via radiation alone giving extreme highs and extreme lows of temperature but little energy storage in or on the planet.
The average temperature will be between the two extremes and the question is whether adding an atmosphere makes the average temperature higher or lower than it would be without an atmosphere.
An atmosphere does two things:
i) It diffuses energy across the surface and around the planet and ALL mass in the atmosphere participates, not just GHGs. That must be so because all the non GHGs are at or near the same ambient temperature as the GHGs at every level in the atmosphere. The non GHGs acquire their energy via conduction from the solar heated surface assisted by convection causing an air circulation plus conduction from each other and from GHGs in the atmosphere.
ii) It introduces a time delay between energy arriving at the surface and that energy subsequently leaving to space from the top of the atmosphere.
In view of that time delay the planet will be warmer than the average of the extremes for a planet without an atmosphere.
An atmosphere WARMS a planetary surface.
How is that a breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics ?
Stephen,
I think you are reading something into Doug’s paper that is not there. The atmosphere as a blanket and therefore retaining heat due to its mass is not what Doug is arguing against as I understand this paper. His argument is more about radiation coming from CO2 or similar IR opaque molecule further warming the surface that is already at a higher temperature. This is an argument that you have made in the past as well if I have understood you correctly.
My issue with Doug’s paper is that it is lacks empirical observations or repeatable experiments. His theoretical framework may be consistent (or not), but until an engineer uses it to build something that works in the real world, or a repeatable experiment is defined that delivers the results predicted by this theoretical framework, it is speculation.
I accept that, technically, “points” are dimensionless and I used the term colloquially, but I would also say that what I am talking about can be physically a very small volume of matter. I suggest, some such volume with only perhaps a million molecules would be quite sufficient for the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be applicable.
Wikipedia puts it this way: In classical thermodynamics, the second law is a basic postulate applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer …
It is all based on probabilities, of course, but we just need radiation with the full range of frequencies indicated by the Planck curve.
Let me be honest and say that I too do not necessarily agree with everything that every author in Slaying the Sky Dragon has written. There are some subtle contradictions in fact between authors. I do however, agree with Prof Claes Johnson’s general concept that radiation from a cooler blackbody merely resonates with molecules in a warmer blackbody, without any of its energy being converted to thermal energy. And Claes also read my paper prior to publication and commented that I was one of only a few who understood his Computational Blackbody Radiation and that he fully endorsed my paper. (I understand that Claes is not a member of the Slayers.) But I chose Principia Scientific International because they have a growing number of scientists joining their ranks who participate in “open review” of the papers they publish on their site – six in total now. PSI comprises many more scientists than the few authors of the book.
May I ask that people do in fact read the paper before commenting. You will find, for example, that I explain why lasers, microwave ovens and microbolometers do not disprove the hypothesis. Whilst I don’t mention it, I anticipate that there will be experiments published later this year using spectrometers to demonstrate that warm gases do not absorb emission from cooler sources.
It is not appropriate to assume, for example, that I am discussing thermal energy accumulating in the atmosphere somehow warming the whole Earth system. That concept, I understand, has been dismissed by the IPCC who now argue that it is all about “backradiation” slowing the rate of cooling of the surface. Thermal energy is not transferred from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface (nor to warmer layers of the lower atmosphere where we live) by any physical process, radiation or otherwise.
Thus the slowing of the cooling process is not due to the addition of thermal energy to the surface.
Rather, it is due to resonance of the radiation itself, which does not involve absorption in the usual sense involving conversion of radiated energy to thermal energy.
Radiation from a cooler source merely undergoes what I call “resonant scattering” when it strikes a warmer target. As I have said, there is no conversion of its radiated energy into thermal energy, which is quite a different thing. If the radiation from the cooler (macro) source is (close to) that of a blackbody it will have frequencies across the appropriate Planck curve. Most radiation from the atmosphere will not have all these frequencies, but it will (to some extent) oppose equivalent radiation from the warmer surface while it experiences resonant scattering by the surface.
When it is scattered by the surface, it becomes a part of the emission of the surface, but, because it already has its own energy, it does not need energy from the surface itself. Thus it slows the rate of cooling of the surface because it “uses up” some of the potential radiation frequencies which the surface would otherwise have used to dispose of its own energy.
However, carbon dioxide does not radiate like a blackbody, so its few spectral lines are relatively ineffective compared with even water vapour radiation, let alone a blackbody.
So water vapour is the major contributor, having probably at least 100 times the effect of carbon dioxide when you take into account its greater presence and greater effectiveness per molecule.
Even so, only the radiative cooling process is affected by radiation from the atmosphere, not all of which is actually “backradiation” as such, because it may have originated from energy carried up by convection.
Now, there are other processes, mostly evaporative cooling and diffusion (sometimes called conduction) which involves molecular collision between surface and atmospheric molecules.
These other processes are not affected by radiation from the atmosphere.
Yet they probably account for more than half the thermal energy transfer between surface and atmosphere, and they will tend to compensate by increasing their rate if the radiation rate decreases. There are reasons for this explained in the Appendix.
Finally, some don’t realise just how much of the incident solar radiation is actually in the near infra-red. Some of this is absorbed by water vapour and, to a small extent, also by carbon dioxide. This SW-IR radiation has much more energy per photon than does the LW-IR radiation from the surface. Some will be absorbed and this helps explain why the thermosphere gets very hot, often well above 400 degrees K in fact. By sending backradiation to space a cooling effect results, which is almost certainly greater than any warming effect due to carbon dioxide.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to adiabatic systems — systems that do not gain or lose heat. Obviously the Earth is not such a system, nor is the atmosphere considered separately, nor is the ocean considered separately.
My issue with Doug’s paper is that it is based on a false premise, as noted by Brian H. The blackbody formula for w/m2 radiated at any given temperature in degrees K is:
P(w/m^2) = 5.67 * 10^-8 * T^4
This formula doesn’t care one whit where the outgoing photons wind up, nor does it care one whit what the source of the photons being absorbed by it is. A photon in transit doesn’t care what the temperature of the object that emitted it is, nor does it care what the temperature of the body it is absorbed by is.
A body at equilibrium in close proximity to a cooler body will, when the cooler body is removed, arrive at a new LOWER equilibrium temperature, proving that the cooler body in fact was (before being removed) providing energy flux to the warmer body to sustain its equilibrium temperature.
This has been verified by experimentation, and examples from the real world, which I have supplied to Doug Cotton many times, abound. The use of blackbody equations on the basis that the formula describes a NET energy flow, and that energy flux from cooler to warmer does in fact occurr, is the basis for designs of everything from refridgerators to nuclear power plants. If Doug Cotton was correct, then none of these things would even come close to working as designed. But they do.
The climate debate is complex and confusing enough as it is without this type of nonsense. Sorry, but that’s what it is. Nonsense.
In regard to Stephen Wilde’s comment that an atmosphere warms a planetary surface, it is more correct to say that it helps to slow the cooling process.
Temperatures on the Moon (without an atmosphere) vary from about -153°C at night to +107°C during the lunar day. Over 40% of solar insolation is either reflected or absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere, so our atmosphere keeps the surface cooler than the Moon’s in daylight hours, by reducing incident solar radiation. Then, both day and night, the atmosphere slows the rate at which solar radiation (which was absorbed by the surface) then exits back to into the atmosphere and to space.
What does not happen is any transfer of thermal energy from cooler regions of the atmosphere to warmer regions on the surface, for any such heat transfer would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For example, radiation from the atmosphere does not penetrate even 1cm below the surface of warmer water and add thermal energy to that sub-surface water. If it did, such warmer water could then rise to the surface by convection and its thermal energy could then get back into the atmosphere by evaporative cooling. Hence we would have had a stand-alone process transferring thermal energy from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer sub-surface layer of the water and warming it even more. Such a process would violate the Second Law.
Over the course of 4 billion years an approximate equilibrium point has been reached at any particular location on the Earth’s surface. Even though the atmosphere is roughly similar at the South Pole, the equilibrium temperature is very different from that at the Equator, due to different mean solar radiative flux over the course of each year. This clearly indicates that the temperature is mostly determined by the Sun’s radiation, not so much the properties of the atmosphere.
In regard to experiments, some are being arranged. My own “backyard” experiments with sand and soil in wide necked vacuum flasks indicated no difference in cooling rates between the contents of the flask which was shielded from backradiation at night, and that which was not. Try it yourself using a digital meat thermometer and a sheet of plate glass with an additional shield on top of it, all about 20cm above one flask and at a 10 degree angle to the horizontal to allow convection.
I suggest the onus should have been upon the IPCC to produce evidence to the contrary with a similar obvious experiment. I suspect it has been tried and failed, thus never being published. Correct me if I’m wrong anyone, and link me to any experiment showing backradiation warms anything.
I am the first to agree that it can slow that component of the surface cooling which is by radiation. However, in the context of anthropogenic effects, the role of carbon dioxide is miniscule because of its limited radiation frequencies and the fact that it is only one molecule in over 2,500 other molecules. Because it also has a cooling effect radiating energy to space, it is highly improbable that it causes any net warming at all.
All matter radiates photons that can can be absorbed by other bodies regardless of what temperature the receiving body may have.
To take a simple example, the sun radiates energy with a spectrum that peaks around 500 nm consistent with a surface temperature of ~5,800 Kelvin. The sun radiates about 56 MW/square meter of its photosphere.
The universe has an average temperature of ~2.735 Kelvin which means that the sun receives 0.18 Watts/square meter of energy from the universe. How much of that energy is absorbed by the sun depends on its Bond albedo in the microwave region as the peak wavelength is around 2 mm.
Notice that I have not mentioned thermodynamics.
This whole thing about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT) is a red herring, a straw man. Climate scientists do not claim that colder objects heat warmer objects (except possibly when using rather sloppy handwaving arguments for public consumption). That is something that certain, minority, elements within the sceptic ranks claim that they say. Climate scientists, and most sceptics, know perfectly well that it is the sun that warms the oceans and the atmosphere and every other part of the earth. What is claimed is that certain gases slow the rate of cooling. Now if something has a constant supply of energy, as the earth does from the sun, and you slow the rate of cooling, then it will get hotter. There is no contradiction of SLoT there, and that is physics that we have all tested ourselves.
Also the idea that an individual photon carries a marker of some type indicating the temperature of the object that radiated it, and that materials somehow sense that temperature when deciding whether to absorb said photon or not, is just plain nonsense.
Doug Cotton;
What does not happen is any transfer of thermal energy from cooler regions of the atmosphere to warmer regions on the surface, for any such heat transfer would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For example, radiation from the atmosphere does not penetrate even 1cm below the surface of warmer water and add thermal energy to that sub-surface water.>>>>
Good lord. The two issues have nothing to do with one another. Aside from your first statement being totaly and completely falsified every single day by thousands of engineers world wide, how deep LW from the atmosphere penetrates water has nothing, zero, nada, to do with the laws of thermodynamics and this discussion.
Please.
Stop.
The.
Nonsense.
Doug Cotton;
For example, radiation from the atmosphere does not penetrate even 1cm below the surface of warmer water and add thermal energy to that sub-surface water>>>
If it penetrates sir, and is absorbed sir, then the water warms because of it. Sir.
Doug Cotton;
In regard to Stephen Wilde’s comment that an atmosphere warms a planetary surface, it is more correct to say that it helps to slow the cooling process.>>>
…and can you explain how that happens? Do the photons being radiated out by the planetary surface say to themselves, hey, there’s an atmosphere here…we should go slower. Or do they decide to never leave the surface in the first place? Exactly how do the photons, which leave the surface at a rate of:
P(w/m2) = 5.67 * 10^-8 * T^4
know that there is an atmosphere there? The only variable in the equation is T. So, for a given T, what causes the photons leaving the surface to do so at a different rate, or a different speed, or a different anything, that results in the surface cooling more slowly?
How, exactly, does that happen Doug?
B_Happy;
Also the idea that an individual photon carries a marker of some type indicating the temperature of the object that radiated it, and that materials somehow sense that temperature when deciding whether to absorb said photon or not, is just plain nonsense.>>>>
Exactly!
David and others; It would be appreciated if you would actually read the paper and the above comments in full.
Even though you clearly believe what has been the “usual” explanation involving heat transfer in both directions, it should be apparent that Prof Claes Johnson and myself disagree with this and are putting forward a hypothesis that there is another mechanism that explains what actually happens and yet still gives the same quantitative result as does application of SBL.
I really do not need to hear again the “standard” explanation of photons supposedly transferring thermal energy to everything they collide with – and “not knowing” the temperature of the source. You will find all these matters are addressed in the paper.
But, as I politely asked above, either please read the paper before commenting or consider refraining from joining the discussion herein.
It might be useful for you (Doug) to present an actual definition of the SLoT, preferably with a mathematical statement or derivation. As it is, we just have a semi-qualitative statement which can’t be applied to any particular situation. Worse we have a reification (or worse deification) of the SLoT. Thermodynamics is a statistical subject while quantum actions like absorption or emission of electromagnetic radiation, or molecular collisions, occur between individual photons and / or molecules. Therefore we need some way of stating exactly what might happen that could allow statistical properties of a volume of gas or physical body to impinge upon a electromagnetic field or individual photon. Myself, I can’t see it happening, but I don’t want to pre-judge the situation until I see what you might suggest.
At the molecular level, cold object heat hot objects all the time. Be it via radiation or conduction. However the probability of this is less than the probability that warm objects will heat cold. This probability gives rise to the 2nd law at the classical level.
An example of this occurs in conduction between gas molecules. In a gas at a constant temperature, the molecules do not have the same kinetic energy (temperature). They follow the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution. Even if all molecules start out at the same kinetic energy, they will change to follow the M-B distribution. Some will increase in energy and some will decrease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution
If energy between molecules only flowed from hot to cold, then over time all molecules would end up with the same kinetic energy. (the hottest molecules could only get colder, the coldest could only get hotter). They don’t which is proof that cold molecules can heat hot molecules. Thus, the 2nd law does not apply to individual molecules.
This distribution can be readily re-created via the elastic collision between spheres using Newtonian mechanics. In Newtonian mechanics a slow moving ball can increase the speed (kinetic energy) of a fast moving ball, in the process further slowing its own motion. This is equivalent to a cold molecule heating a hot molecule.
Doug Cotton;
David and others; It would be appreciated if you would actually read the paper and the above comments in full.>>>
What would be even valuavble is if you would answer the questions being asked of you.
Doug said:
“What does not happen is any transfer of thermal energy from cooler regions of the atmosphere to warmer regions on the surface, for any such heat transfer would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics”
I don’t see that the consensus Greenhouse theory ever said that a cold object heats a warm object. Only that it reduces the rate of cooling which Doug concedes.
The so called greenhouse effect however described has always been a slowing down of energy loss whilst energy continues to come in at the same rate thus leading to an accumulation of kinetic energy at the planetary surface.
As B_Happy says, it is a complete straw man and negates the main contentions of the ‘Slayer’ group including Claes Johnson whether he is a member of that group or not.
Doug Cotton;
so… I took your challenge and started reading your paper. I skipped the first few totaly and completely wrong statements in the first few paragraphs, and picked out this one:
“All such radiation from a cooler source is rejected in some way, and it can be deduced
that resonance and scattering occurs without any conversion to thermal energy.”
That sir, is not just total tripe, if that were the case, them the laws of thermodynamics WPULD be broken. Shattered in fact. It is bad enough that you peddle triped up malarky dressed up as science trying to refute well known process proven via experimatation and claiming that they break the laws of the thermodyamics, but then you compound the sin by presenting an unreal process that is easily falsified by experimenttation and ITSELF breals the laws of thermodynamics as an alternate explanation.
And (funniest of all), where, exectly, does the rejected photon go? Have you discovered some unknown law of the universae that causes photons to make a right angle turn when approaching a surface warmer than they came from? How is this force transmitted? How does the force know which direction to push the photons? Or does it send them message by telepathy? Email? parcel post?
The only thing that gets rejected is your ridiculous notion that something gets regected on some basis that experimentation easily falsifies. Your “theory” isn’t a theory, it is cobbled together rejected notions.
For any planet in equilibrium whether with or without an atmosphere solar energy in equals longwave radiation out when measured from OUTSIDE the system.
Within an atmosphere it matters not whether the net flow of purely radiative energy is from a warm object to a cold object or vice versa.
The fact is that any imbalance in radiative energy flows within an atmosphere is cancelled out by other forms of energy transfer until equilibrium at the top of the atmosphere is achieved.
Any discussion limited to radiative transfers alone is therefore dead in the water.
The whole point of an atmosphere is that it supplies non radiative energy transfer processes that are absent on a planet without an atmosphere.
It is those non radiative processes interfering with the simple in/out radiative flow that gives rise to a build up of kinetic energy within the system and most particularly at the interface between atmosphere and surface.
Any discussion which is limited to radiative transfers of energy is akin to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
It is an utter fantasy with no practical utility whatever and both AGW proponents and those who argue with them on the basis of radiative processes alone are guilty of a gross abuse of the scientific method.
Indeed, any discussion by either camp which ignores non radiative processes is by definition bound to result in an apparent breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics because it leaves out the most important part of the INTERNAL system energy budget.
Ridiculous.
The Warmists and the Slayers (including Doug and Claes) should be locked away together.
In Section 5 of my paper I wrote ..
As quantum mechanics tells us, the electrons in molecules of matter can have various discrete energy levels. When they “drop” from a higher level to a lower one they emit a burst of radiation, referred to as a photon, which will now have the energy which the electron shed. But radiation has a wavelike nature with a frequency which increases with the energy of each photon. Large numbers of molecules acting like this in a blackbody will emit radiation with a distribution of frequencies as we saw in the plots in Section 3. The peak frequency indicates the temperature of the emitting body. Hence, although one photon is not enough to determine the temperature, the frequency distribution of all the radiation does do so.
In the paper I link to the Wikipedia item on the Second Law of Thermodynamics which should serve as a sufficient description thereof. My reason for demonstrating that the Second Law would be violated if radiated energy from a cooler atmosphere were converted to thermal energy in a warmer surface is to show that the resonance described by Prof. Claes Johnson can be the only mechanism ensuring that the Second Law is in fact not violated because there is no conversion to thermal energy.
There is no “force involved.” What I believe happens is described in the italic 10th paragraph in my first post above at 12:58am.
It may be appropriate to quote from Prof. Claes Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation at this point …
A blackbody acts like a transformer of radiation which absorbs high-frequency radiation and emits low-frequency radiation. The temperature of the blackbody determines a cut-off frequency for the emission, which increases linearly with the temperature: The warmer the blackbody is, the higher frequencies it can and will emit. Thus only frequencies below cut-off are emitted, while all frequencies are being absorbed.
A blackbody thus can be seen as a system of resonators with different eigen-frequencies which are excited by incoming radiation and then emit radiation. An ideal blackbody absorbs all incoming radiation and re-emits all absorbed radiation below cut-off.
Conservation of energy requires absorbed frequencies above cut-off to be stored in some form, more precisely as heat energy thus increasing the temperature of the blackbody.
As a transformer of radiation a blackbody thus acts in a very simple way: it absorbs all radiation, emits absorbed frequencies below cut-off, and uses absorbed frequencies above cut-off to increase its temperature.
For those who doubt that this resonance occurs, may I suggest you consider why it is that spectroscopy only appears to show absorption lines when the spontaneous emitter is warmed to a temperature above that of a gas between it and the instrument. While it is cooler, the absorption lines disappear. This was first brought to my attention by DeWitt Payne. If you google spectroscopy “cooler gas” you will see that this is commonly known.
So, if correct, why is it so? It would appear that only Prof Johnson’s explanation provides an answer.
The target does not have to “know” the temperature of the source. If you study the graphic in Section 3 you will see that the frequency distribution of the cooler body is fully contained within that for the warmer body. So the warmer body will always have matching frequencies (or resonators) which will be temporarily assigned to equivalent frequencies in the radiation from the cooler source. This process “blocks” emission of some of the warmer body’s energy, so it cools more slowly than it would have in the absence of the cooler body.
But you now need to read the rest of the paper, including the Appendix, to understand why carbon dioxide almost certainly has a net cooling effect.
Douglas, and I am trying to be kind here, can you not see that some might find it irritating that a man in his 60s would be as rigid and dogmatic in his point of view as you seem to be? Let’s imagine for a moment that your out-of-left-field radiation theory is correct. Would it not be more persuasive to say: “I have my own theory which I believe to be correct, please consider the ‘proofs’ I offer without prejudice.” And leave it at that, not repeat the same thing over and over in different ways.
If people point out flaws in your theory, you should be prepared to accept that you were wrong. Some of the best scientists, like Richard Feynman, have an innate quality of humility that serves them well. Something like: “Yes I have convinced myself, via the scientific method, that this theory is proven, but what else don’t I know abut this subject?”
I think that a problem for you may be a crusading attitude that your theory will blow CAGW out of the water by itself. Well reality check here Douglas, no one can save the world by himself. The truth on climate will prevail, eventually, and many thousands of people, including an array of credible commenters on climate blogs, will have contributed to the demise of CAGW and the IPCC.
I don’t intend to comment any further in this post.
I am having trouble with this blog, as quantum mechanics are being mentioned and Photons which are apparently a quanta. Question one, what is a photon.
Question two. If it is a Quanta what is it made out of?
Question three. What speed does it travel at?
Question four. If its speed is constant does its weight vary
Question five. If its weight is constant does its speed vary.?
Any clues toward any of these answers would go a long way toward understanding what a photon could actually achieve. One hundred years and counting and quanta’s are still elusive, have the gnomes at Cern found their philosophers stone ?
Using convoluted science that uses complexities to cover its failings for a hundred years to prove other complex science does not achieve anything.
Stephen Wilde says:
“I don’t see that the consensus Greenhouse theory ever said that a cold object heats a warm object. Only that it reduces the rate of cooling which Doug concedes.
The so called greenhouse effect however described has always been a slowing down of energy loss whilst energy continues to come in at the same rate thus leading to an accumulation of kinetic energy at the planetary surface.”
How the terms “settled science” or “consensus” ever became part of the lexicon of climate change is beyond me. There doesn’t even seem to be a consensus as to what the greenhouse effect is. Where do you get the notion that the “consensus” greenhouse hypothesis ever said that warming was due to a reduction in the rate of cooling and not downdwelling radiation from the atmosphere warming the surface of the earth?
Here, copied directly from AR4, page 115 frequently asked queston 1.3, “What is the Greenhouse Effect?”
Click to access ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf
“Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.”
I understand perfectly why people might want to get away from that ludicrous idea, and for lack of a better description “make up” more plausible mechanisms by which the greenhouse effect might work, but the fact remains that the idea that the atmosphere beams down radiation which the surface already emitted and further warms the original source of the radiation is the cornerstone of the foundation of the “consensus” greenhouse hypothesis.
I have yet to see much evidence that authors of any of the above comments have actually read the whole paper and made an attempt to understand what Claes and I are saying. There are two points I make in this regard …
(1) I have asked in my last post for any alternative explanation anyone can offer as to why a warmer gas does not appear to demonstrate absorption of emission from a cooler source when analysed by spectroscopy. I have also mentioned proposed experiments regarding this phenomenon which supports what Prof Claes Johnson and I are saying.
(2) I have also pointed out that there appear to be no experiments demonstrating that backradiation at night does in fact have any detectable effect on the rate of cooling of the surface.
Perhaps before anyone makes generalised statements implying Claes and I are wrong, they might like to discuss one or both of the above points which appear to prove us correct.
Regarding individual points made above, all of which are covered in the paper …
BrianH: Your statement about zero absorptivity is just saying Claes and I are wrong. That needs to be supported, I suggest, by appropriate response to the above two points. I have discussed lasers in Appendix Q.5.
B_Happy: You seem to think that the paper does not discuss the well known fact that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the radiative rate of cooling of the surface (though not the evaporative cooling rate nor the diffusion cooling rate) whereas that point is made at the end of Section 5 and discussed in more detail in Appendix Q.7.
Stephen Wilde: See Section 1 – para 6 ff where I explain that radiated energy is not automatically converted to thermal energy when the radiation strikes a target. Yes, such radiation can indeed travel from cold to hot targets, but if it were converted to thermal energy in a warmer target there would be a violation of the Second Law. This is explained in great detail in the paper. You will also find plenty of reference to other processes such as evaporation and diffusion.
Truthseeker: Whilst I have done my own experiments confirming for myself at least that backradiation does not slow the rate of cooling of the surface at night, I did not consider such to be “professional” enough to include in the paper. However, Prof Nasif Nahle has posted two experiments on the PSI site and is doing more this year which I am confident will confirm the two points made above. But I would make the point that the whole of the IPCC conjecture about backradiation is not supported by any such experiment showing backradiation actually slowing the rate of cooling of the surface, even though there may appear to be theoretical reasons why it could do so. It seems that, at least on a relative dry night, not even any effect can be detected from water vapour, let alone carbon dioxide. Only when relative humidity is high might there be an effect, but that’s weather, not climate, and it’s been happening since the formation of the Earth.
David Appell: Regarding the Second Law, Wikipedia says it is applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer, A “system” can be any two bodies (including a small volume of the atmosphere, or a small part of the surface) and the Law then relates to processes of potential transfer of thermal energy between such bodies. Of course, one “body” could also be a part of the Sun and clearly the Law applies between the Sun and the surface. You need to read my paper.
davidmhoffer: Basically everything you have said has a response in the paper. I refer to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the standard calculations between two parallel plates, for example, and I do not dispute the mathematical result obtained. If you are short of time, at least read Sections 3 & 4 and Appendix Q.7
gallopingcamel: Neither Claes nor I have any disagreement with you regarding the fact that radiated energy from the Sun is indeed converted to thermal energy in the much cooler surface. But not radiated energy from the cooler atmosphere. Maybe you should also consider the two points made at the top of this post.
gregelliott: I totally agree that the Second Law does not apply for individual molecules. I have not claimed that it does, and have been careful to explain this in the paper. I always speak of “macro” situations and the probabilities of which you speak are in effect incorporated in the frequency distributions. Please read at least Sections 1 to 5.
Chris M: I have, I believe responded to the people to whom you refer. Certainly, as is to be expected, some will claim Prof Claes Johnson and I are incorrect. So, if you are one, then you too may wish to discuss the two points at the top of this post. I do not consider being in my 60’s any disadvantage. If anything, I avoided the Greenhouse Era in my education and was thus not drilled into accepting it. I certainly read and studied it all, devoting more than 1,000 hours’ of study in the lead up to writing this paper.
Wayne Job The concept of a particle nature for photons left even Einstein pondering till the end of his days. Those who suggest they need a force to turn them around should remember they have no mass, so F = ma = 0. It is not necessary to assign a particle nature to them when a wave nature is sufficient when considering radiation on a macro scale, which is what I do here, whilst not neglecting excitation and relaxation between energy levels.
Steve B said:
“Here, copied directly from AR4, page 115 frequently asked queston 1.3, “What is the Greenhouse Effect?”
Click to access ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf
[b]“Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.”[/b]”
I’ve always taken that as meaning that there is a reduction of cooling rather than an actual warming but those particular words are open to either interpretation. As you say, the idea of there being net warming rather than slower cooling would be a ludicrous idea and a breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics which is why I don’t think that interpreation was ever intended.
In my view any re-radiation that does occur is only from the molecules in direct contact with the surface or just above it (in a dynamic two way exchange) and the bulk of the atmospheric column has no effect on the surface for reasons that I gave in another thread.
Doug Cotton said:
“I explain that radiated energy is not automatically converted to thermal energy when the radiation strikes a target. Yes, such radiation can indeed travel from cold to hot targets, but if it were converted to thermal energy in a warmer target there would be a violation of the Second Law.”
Radiation from a cold target to a hot target MUST add to the kinetic energy of the hot target and therefore MUST be thermalised BUT it is offset by the greater amount of radiation becoming
de- thermalised when leaving the hot target. So the consequence is simply a reduced rate of cooling for the hot target and no need to distinguish between radiation that is ‘thermalised’ and radiation that is not ‘thermalised’.
Indeed, the idea that a photon striking a target could somehow fail to be thermalised makes no sense to me.
It would be a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics if a photon did fail to thermalise on striking a target because energy would have simply disappeared from the universe.
Furthermore that disappearing energy would then not be available to participate in the two way dynamic energy exchange so on that basis it would be as if the atmosphere were not present at all which is clearly contrary to the observation that atmospheres DO warm planetary surfaces.
All we need to decide is HOW atmospheres warm planetary surfaces and it seems obvious to me that more densely packed molecules of ANY composition will interact with incoming solar radiation AND the heated surface more than will less densely packed molecules to generate a higher temperature at the surface.
With your unphysical convolutions trying to discredit AGW theorists on the basis of something they never said (despite some silly wording in AR4 as pointed out by Steve B) you are just playing their game.
The entire debate has descended into farce.
Pressure (resulting in higher density at a surface) and solar input explain it all perfectly well and all else is chaff.
To get a more complete picture one then has to add the effect of atmospheric pressure on the energy cost of evaporation from the ocean surface and then add the circulatory changes in the air that keep the system stable.
This site, in my humble opinion, now has the best available suite of plausible climate descriptions available.
Stephen WIlde:
My response in contained primarily in Section 5 and also Appendix Q.7. It would be preferable if you could also read Sections 2, 3 & 4 as well, if you have the time.
Please understand that no brief summary of my argument in a post like this would do justice to the point being made by myself and Prof Claes Johnson, whom I have quoted in an earlier post. Besides, it is 12.15am here.
I think it might be important to differentiate from the processes between day and night.
For one thing, certainly, clouds do seem to behave as a sort of ‘insulation’ at night, the effect there is clear, the surface is usually warmer than the atmosphere above it, so an increase in cloud cover at night simply allows the surface and lower atmosphere to come closer to equilibrium, manifesting as an ‘initial’ rise in the temp of the lower atmospere…as the lower atmosphere can retain more of it’s energy conducted via the warmer surface…not that the colder radiating cloud is warming the atmosphere below it while the surface continues to cool. I think what is truly important is to determine whether or not this ‘insulation’ effect, (just using this as one example), has any significant effect on the Earth’s surface temp…and the rate at which it cools, before determining anything else regarding the GHE. I highly doubt there is much effect on the Earth’s surface temp, if any, after adjusting for the anomalous temperature of the airmass present above the surface, which various airmasses vary, hence so does the operation of thermodyamics.
As for the Earth as a whole, I believe that the net ‘GHG’ effect is close to zero. Hypothetically take H2O out of the atmosphere, and there are no clouds at all, the only reason we have them in abundance is via the GHE. But even more silly is thinking that applying the S-B constant to the Earth system has ANY meaning whatsoever, and that you need a ‘GHE’ to warm above the S-B constant…when really all you need is an ocean/atmosphere system.
You cannot take the solar value from 1/2 the global surface (the ‘lit’ half), based on the Earth’s spherical shape, ‘average’ that value equally across the globe, and then use that value to determine what the temperature ‘should be’ in a system with an atmosphere/oceans. With or without GHGes, the oceans/surface/atmosphere will not lose all their radiation to space overnight because of the mere fact that there is an atmosphere/ocean system in existance. They’d therefore be able to more efficiently reach a temp the next day closer to equilibrium to the SW vector at peak value (noontime)…peak heating is reached at ~3PM rather than 12PM for a reason…no given point on the Earth’s surface is ever warmer than the peak SW incoming vector.
Gases like H2O, CO2, etc, are both coolants and insulators, the day/night variation is reduced with their presence, the net global effect is probably near zero though.
B_Happy says:
March 14, 2012 at 2:54 am: “…Also the idea that an individual photon carries a marker of some type indicating the temperature of the object that radiated it,…”
In general they do. The frequency of the radiation can tell us what the temperature maybe. Wiens displacement. The 15 micro of CO2 is at a temperature of around 210K.
Doug Cotton says:
March 14, 2012 at 11:14 am
gregelliott: I totally agree that the Second Law does not apply for individual molecules. I have not claimed that it does, and have been careful to explain this in the paper.
Doug, what I read in your paper was that radiation from a cold object cannot increase the thermal energy of a warm object. However, it is plain that a cold molecule can increase the kinetic energy of a warm molecule, which violates this notion.
The problem in AGW theory lies in the dogmatic belief that only GHG radiation can increase the surface temperature, while ignoring the role of evaporation, convection and conduction. This overstates the role of GHG in determining temperatures, leading to doomsday scenarios.
The basic idea that only GHG can block outgoing radiation is completely false. If radiation from the sun is absorbed by the surface and then conducted to a nitrogen molecule, it is no longer available to radiate to space, and the outgoing radiation from the planet has been reduced.
The planet must warm as a result to restore the radiation balance. this occurs when the energy stored in the nitrogen molecule is conducted to the cold parts of the planet, for example the night side of towards the poles.
Mr. Cotton here is a link to a paper on IR heat transfer in the atmosphere you maybe interested in.
Please note his treatment of CO2 on page 23 if I remember correctly.
Stephen Wilde says:
“I’ve always taken that as meaning that there is a reduction of cooling rather than an actual warming but those particular words are open to either interpretation. As you say, the idea of there being net warming rather than slower cooling would be a ludicrous idea and a breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics which is why I don’t think that interpreation was ever intended.”
I don’t think that there is any room for “interpretation” in those words at all. When you look at the basis for saying them, ie, the KT global energy flow diagram, it is clear that they mean exactly what they say. The Kiehl/Trenberth diagram of global energy flows (2009) states explicitly, and in no uncertain terms that 333 watts per square meter of backradiation from the atmosphere is reradiated back to the surface of the earth where it is absorbed.
As I said, I understand perfectly why you, and others might want to “interpret” those words to mean something other than what they explicitly state but the KT global energy budget upon which the above explanation of the greenhouse effect is based makes it clear that they say what they mean and any interpretation whatsoever deviates from their intended meaning.
Am I mistaken in my understanding that the IPCC AR assessments represent “consensus” science” even though it is substantially different from the explanation of the greenhouse effect you have given?
Mr. Wildesays:”Indeed, the idea that a photon striking a target could somehow fail to be thermalised makes no sense to me.
It would be a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics if a photon did fail to thermalise on striking a target because energy would have simply disappeared from the universe.”
Sir, reflection is a perfectly acceptable action for a photon. It does not have to thermalize and it does not have to disappear from the universe.
davidmhoffer says:”…The use of blackbody equations on the basis that the formula describes a NET energy flow,…”
Sir, would you be so kind to tell me what you definition of NET is.
mkelly says:
“Sir, reflection is a perfectly acceptable action for a photon. It does not have to thermalize and it does not have to disappear from the universe.”
I don’t want to open up the “do photons exist” can of worms, but giving a nod to wave particle duality, viewing a photon as a quanta of energy in an EM field, one could easily visualize that bit of energy radiated from the cooler object expending itself against the EM field radiated by the warmer object and in doing so, reducing the magnitude of the greater field by the amount of energy it represented. Conservation of energy is maintained and no energy is transferred from the cooler object to the warmer object.
Doug Cotton;
1. The reason I and others are not reading your paper in itz entirety is because the opening paragraphs contain a half dozen or more fallacies upon which the balance of the paper is based. When one begins with the assumptiont that 2+2=7 and 3*3=13, any conclusions drawn after that amount to smearing lipstick on an airplane window and declaring it evidence that pigs fly and that they wear liptstick.
2.You have not addressed any of the direct questions I asked you in this or any other thread where we have debated this matter.
3. To your question excerpted as follows:
“”(1) I have asked in my last post for any alternative explanation anyone can offer as to why a warmer gas does not appear to demonstrate absorption of emission from a cooler source when analysed by spectroscopy.””
The answer is that a gas has lines of absorption and lines of emission. That has nothing, zero, nada, not one darn thing to do with how a solid surface absorbs energy emitted by a gas. It has nothing, zero, nada, not one darn thing to do with calculating energy balance. The only question in an energy balance is how many watts get emitted by what, and how many watts get absorbed by what. BTW, a gas at ANY temperature does not demonstrate absorption from a temperature source of ANY temperature except at the known lines of absorption and it matters not one bit if that energy source is a solid surface or another gas.
4. The only explanation one needs to balance the laws of the thermodynamics is to apply them to net energy transfer. Period. Why you insist on coming up with convoluted half baked ridiculouse notions based on total and complete fallacies that are easily falsified by experimentation, in fact ARE falsified by experimentation by thousands of design engineers every single day to explain how to balance the energy equations without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics is beyond me. Simply apply the equations to the net difference and you are done.
Please.
Stop.
The.
Nonsense.
mkelly says:
March 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm
davidmhoffer says:”…The use of blackbody equations on the basis that the formula describes a NET energy flow,…”
Sir, would you be so kind to tell me what you definition of NET is.>>>
100 watts going one way and 60 watts going the other way = 40 watts going the one way.
Steve B;
I don’t want to open up the “do photons exist” can of worms, but giving a nod to wave particle duality, viewing a photon as a quanta of energy in an EM field, one could easily visualize that bit of energy radiated from the cooler object expending itself against the EM field radiated by the warmer object and in doing so, reducing the magnitude of the greater field by the amount of energy it represented.>>>>
Visualize away. Visualizing something that doesn’t happen, has been prove by experimentation not to happen, doesn’t make visualizing it of any value. Thousands of design engineers apply formulas every single day predicated upon what you just described NOT happening and the formulas work…because that’s not what happens.
Wait, so is the debate here centered around the ‘AGW violates 2nd law of thermodynamics’ thingumajig? Or is it whether or not this ‘GHE’ actually has a net warming impact on the surface, all things considered?
AGW theory doesn’t have to violate the second law of thermodynamics to be wrong…knowing that conduction via N2/O2 would occur with or without GHGes, and that atmosphere would cool less efficiently without GHGes, you really do NOT need any GHE to get the 33C warming over the S-B threshold.
If anything, the GHE cools the lower atmosphere via cloud cover, which would not exist without H2O.
At night the radiative GHE is obvious when a cloud passes over, for example. It isn’t the cloud that is doing the warming, it is the warmer surface. Once the surface and atmospheric temperatures reach equilibrium (if they do), there can be no additional thermal gain in the atmosphere.
I’m with David M. Hoffer. Sir Roy has not only slayed the slayers and slayettes, but has sliced and diced and made julienne fries in two easy steps:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/
mkelly says;
Sir, reflection is a perfectly acceptable action for a photon. It does not have to thermalize and it does not have to disappear from the universe>>>
Which is why we remind everyone repeatedly that earth surface is not a perfect black body and that when calculating to precision we must take into account factors such as emissivity, albedo, relaeigh scattering, and what have you. But those factors accounted for make no difference to the end result which is that the laws of thermodynamics are intact simply by calculating the net energy fluxes involved, and this is done every single day by thousands of engineers all over the world bbuilding everything from steam turbines to easy bake ovens.
Steve B;
Am I mistaken in my understanding that the IPCC AR assessments represent “consensus” science” even though it is substantially different from the explanation of the greenhouse effect you have given?>>>
IPCC estimates the magnitude and direction of effects both direct and secondary (feedback). They claim a consensus in regard to the magnitude and sign of these. Their “consensus” position doesn’t meet with real world observation. None of that has diddley squat to do with the fundamentals of radiation absorption and emission being distorted out of recognition from actual physics by Doug Cotton.
Mr Cotton, please stop. Let’s fight CAGW with facts and science. Just because they can make their own up and try and get away with it doesn’t mean we should too.
Phil;
AGW theory doesn’t have to violate the second law of thermodynamics to be wrong>>>>
A sane comment! Thankyou Phil!
Crikey, the scope for semantic disagreements and drifting away from the essential points is too great here.
Focus on net energy flows. Nothing else matters a damn.
mkelly;
In general they do. The frequency of the radiation can tell us what the temperature maybe. Wiens displacement. The 15 micro of CO2 is at a temperature of around 210K>>>
Bull. You can tell how many w/m2 of energy will be carried away by photons at at given temperature and you can determine what he distribution by wavelength will be. But once emitted, the only information you have about THAT photon is itz CURRENT wavelength. That fact alone tells you ZERO about the temperature that it was emitted at, it tells you ZERO about being emitted by a solid or a gas, and it tells you ZERO about where it is heading and it tells you ZERO about what it is heading toward, because NONE OF THOSE FACTORS MEAN DIDDLEY SQUAT ONCE THE PHOTON IS IN| FLIGHT.
Further, should the photon impact another surface is will be either reflected or absorbed based ONE HUNDRED PERCENT on the wavelength it is at, and the absortption characteristics of the surface being impacted. THE TEMPERATURE OF THE SURFACE BEING IMPACTED IS NOT ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT EFFECT ABSORPTION AS WAS PROVEN BY STEPHAND AND BOLTZMANN BY EXPERIMENTATION WHICH IS HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THE SB LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Gawd. How can something quite simple, proven over and over and over again by the very scientists who developed the equations in the first place be turned upside down and backwards by those who want to explain how those equations work differently than the people who developed them and verified them by experimentation thought, be turned into such a total mess?
[…] with the exception of one cartoon by Josh, I have refused to do so since I view the work (and its derivatives) as pointless and fatally flawed. In his latest essay, Sir Roy has not only slayed the slayers and […]
Stephen Wilde says:
March 14, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Crikey, the scope for semantic disagreements and drifting away from the essential points is too great here.
Focus on net energy flows. Nothing else matters a damn>>>>
Hooray for some more sanity!
Calculate against net energy flows and all equations, SB Law and Laws of Thermodynamics included, balance.
“Calculate against net energy flows and all equations, SB Law and Laws of Thermodynamics included, balance.”
Correct, if one applies S-B from a point outside the atmosphere and applies the Ideal Gas Law within the atmosphere.
No breach of any Law of Thermodynamics and as a bonus it fits the opbservations, complies with basic physics and screws the AGW theory too.
Non radiative processes within the atmosphere dominate over radiative processes and always configure the energy flows to achieve energy in equals energy out at equilibrium at top of atmosphere.
Otherwise no atmosphere because it either boils off to space or freezes to a frigid surface.
Keep it simple, stupid.
If Doug makes takes into no consideration the physical vibrational modes of the CO2 or H2O molecules, which are linked to the EM spectra each respectively posses, he is in denial of large part of not just theory, but practical engineering application of science …
Davidmhoffer says:…..
March 14, 2012 at 1:34 am A body at equilibrium in close proximity to a cooler body will, when the cooler body is removed, arrive at a new LOWER equilibrium temperature, proving that the cooler body in fact was (before being removed) providing energy flux to the warmer body to sustain its equilibrium temperature.
Minor nit pick required here …..not always!
The surroundings must be included.
There are really 3 temperatures to consider.
Th = Hotter object’s temperature
Tc = Colder object’s temperature
Ts =Temperature of surroundings
If Ts > Tc then Th will drop
If Ts < Tc then Th will drop more slowly
If Ts = Tc then Th will behave as if Tc did not exist.
Doug, I wanted to congratulate you on an excellent paper.
Your critics either have not read the paper properly or do not understand it.
For example;-
“I suspect that it would be possible to construct a test apparatus directing a far IR beam from a laser from a considerable distance, such that the subtended angle of the laser’s lens was vanishingly small, at glowing red-hot metal plate and measure a heat/temperature increase. According to your “theory”, would it not just bounce away without effect, no matter how intense or prolonged the beam?”
Yes, that is exactly what would happen! Far IR is of too low an energy to heat the earths surface let alone a red hot metal plate. Such examples are pure nonsense, as is the Green house effect from back IR itself.
Neither the intensity of the radiation nor the time matters, if the frequency of the radiation is too low, then on a quantum level, electrons and bonds cannot be excited by these photons and no heat transfer from a cold object to a hotter object is possible!
Doug’s paper is not a straw man argument, it is the best and clearest explanation I have seen of why the greenhouse effect from back IR is impossible.
“Doug Cotton;
1. The reason I and others are not reading your paper in itz entirety is because the opening paragraphs contain a half dozen or more fallacies upon which the balance of the paper is based. ”
No, not fallacies! Read the rest of the paper, think about it and you will see!
“Wayne Job says:
March 14, 2012 at 9:10 am
I am having trouble with this blog, as quantum mechanics are being mentioned and Photons which are apparently a quanta. Question one, what is a photon.
Question two. If it is a Quanta what is it made out of?
Question three. What speed does it travel at?
Question four. If its speed is constant does its weight vary
Question five. If its weight is constant does its speed vary.?
Any clues toward any of these answers would go a long way toward understanding what a photon could actually achieve. One hundred years and counting and quanta’s are still elusive, have the gnomes at Cern found their philosophers stone ?
Using convoluted science that uses complexities to cover its failings for a hundred years to prove other complex science does not achieve anything.”
“Quanta” here refers to the discrete excitation levels of electrons in atoms and molecules and their interaction with photons/ em waves of certain frequency. If radiation of sufficient energy strikes an electron, the energy is absorbed, the electron moved to a higher excitation state (orbit, if you like) and in the case of electron pairs in a bond, such as the double bonds in CO2, this excitation causes increased vibration, or heat.
If the radiation is not of sufficient frequency then this cannot happen, except in the case of statistical quantum variation, so the photon is momentarily absorbed then ejected without heating, thus the ground merely back scatters the far IR because the earths surface is already at this excitation level and cannot be heated by the back IR.
in radiation, the higher the frequency, the more the energy each photon has. This is because, simplistically the radiation waves in the photon packet/wave are packed more tightly together in a photon/ wave of higher frequency.
“stephen Wilde says:
March 14, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Crikey, the scope for semantic disagreements and drifting away from the essential points is too great here.
Focus on net energy flows. Nothing else matters a damn.”
true, but heat always flows from a hot object to a cooler one, NEVER from cold to hot. Doug’s article and my comments explain why. The explanation in more detail is needed to refute all these “net” heat flow arguments. You people are still confusing radiation with heat. They are not the same thing and radiation impinging on a body does not always heat it.
Bryan;
Minor nit pick required here …..not always!
The surroundings must be included>>>>
Agreed!
More sanity!
davidmhoffer says:
March 14, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Mr. Hoffer what exactly was it that you disagreed with.
A photon has associated with it via its frequency an energy E=hv and a temperature via Wiens displacement. I never said anything, in the quote you use, about the temperature of the emitting object nor some of the other things you say. If you disagree with E=hv or Wiens displacement please say so and let’s move on.
davidmhoffer says:
March 14, 2012 at 4:04 pm
mkelly says:
March 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm
davidmhoffer says:”…The use of blackbody equations on the basis that the formula describes a NET energy flow,…”
Sir, would you be so kind to tell me what you definition of NET is.>>>
100 watts going one way and 60 watts going the other way = 40 watts going the one way.
Thank you. So when 100 watts one way and 100 watts the other way then zero energy is going anywhere per your example?
I do not believe my thermo or heat transfer books tell it that way. We may have a differing definition of NET.
mkelly says
“In general they do. The frequency of the radiation can tell us what the temperature maybe. Wiens displacement. The 15 micro of CO2 is at a temperature of around 210K.”
Sorry, but no. Wiens’s law tells you the peak energy in a distribution of the many, many energies in a large sample of photons emitted by an object. To use this to estimate temperature you actually have to measure the energy distribution. You cannot do it with one photon. Nor can you do it from one emission line.
mkelly says:
March 14, 2012 at 6:12 pm
davidmhoffer says:
March 14, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Mr. Hoffer what exactly was it that you disagreed with.
A photon has associated with it via its frequency an energy E=hv and a temperature via Wiens displacement. I never said anything, in the quote you use, about the temperature of the emitting object nor some of the other things you say. If you disagree with E=hv or Wiens displacement please say so and let’s move on
>>>>>>>>>>>
B_Happy answered your question. Just to elaborate, a surface emmits photons at ALL frequencies. The hotter the surface, the greater the percentage of higher frequency photons. The colder the surface, the greater percentage of lower frequency photons. But any given photon at any given frequency could have originated from a surface at ANY temperature. Hence, any given photon tells you NOTHING about the temperature of the surface that it was emitted by.
mkelly;
Thank you. So when 100 watts one way and 100 watts the other way then zero energy is going anywhere per your example?
I do not believe my thermo or heat transfer books tell it that way. We may have a differing definition of NET.>>>>
Of course not because that isn’t what I said. 100 watts one way and 100 watts the other way is NOT zero energy going anywhere! It is a total flux of 200 watts. 100 watts going one way and 100 watts going the other way.
The NET of these two is zero. Claiming that a net of zero means that no energy is going anywhere is preposterous.
Doug: Your key paragraph says:
“But how does this tie in with the Second Law of Thermodynamics? It cannot do so unless the
absorptivity is a function of both the source and target temperatures. Furthermore, the
absorptivity must reduce to zero whenever the temperature of the source no longer exceeds
that of the target.”
There is no mechanism that allows the “target” or absorbing surface to know the temperature of the emitting source. Photons don’t come with a little sign on them that says: “I was emitted from a source at 280 degK; do NOT absorb me if you are warmer than 280 degK.” Photons do have a wavelength, but objects with a given temperature emit a range of wavelengths, not a single wavelength that is characteristic of a given temperature. A 285 degK surface can’t tell a 280 degK photon from a 290 degK photon.
The problem is that you are attempting to apply the laws of thermodynamics (physics on a macroscopic scale) to events occurring on an atomic scale (one emitting molecule, one photon, one absorbing molecule, usually separated by a large distance). The laws of thermodynamics do NOT apply to the molecular world – that is why quantum mechanics had to be invented! (You do believe in quantum mechanics, don’t you?) However, you can apply the laws of quantum mechanics to predict the behavior of large numbers of molecules. That field is called statistical mechanics, and it explains why large numbers of molecules will obey the laws of thermodynamics even though individual molecules and photons do not.
If you believe in the Boltzmann distribution of molecular velocities and the shape of the blackbody emission spectrum, you already know that some collisions transfer energy from slower-moving molecules to faster-moving ones. (If they didn’t, collisions would distribute kinetic energy until all molecules were moving at exactly the same speed.) Don’t such collisions appear to violate the 2LoT? So if a slower-moving molecule can transfer energy to a faster-moving molecule by means of a collision, why can’t it do so by means of a photon?
The reason neither of these processes officially violate the 2LoT is that individual molecules do not have a “temperature”. Temperature is property of a GROUP of molecules that collide often enough to create a Boltzmann distribution of kinetic energies. With such a GROUP, temperature is proportional to the mean kinetic energy of the group. The atmosphere can be colder than the surface, but an emitting MOLECULE in the atmosphere is never “colder” or “warmer” than a MOLECULE on the surface. With single molecules, we must use the words slower- or faster-moving, not warmer or colder. The 2LoT applies to energy transfer between hot and cold, not to faster- and slower-moving molecules. Fortunately, when you consider energy transfers between LARGE NUMBERS of faster- and slower-moving molecules, heat will always flow from hot to cold.
So your hypothesis that absorptivity varies with source and target temperature becomes even more absurd:
Step 1) The emitting molecule can’t tell the local temperature from its own internal energy. Therefore it must “talk” to all of its neighbors to find out their average kinetic energies and CALCULATE the local temperature. “Talking” might be done by averaging the momentum received recent collisions (using an iPhone app).
Step 2) The molecule emits a photon wearing a sign that tells the rest of the universe what the local temperature was when it was emitted.
Step 3) The photon arrives at a molecule on a surface capable of absorbing the photon, but that surface molecule doesn’t know the local temperature from its internal energy. So this molecule also must “talk” with all of its neighbors and calculate their average kinetic energy, before it can decide whether to absorb or reflect the photon.
It took some great scientific minds to understand how the familiar physics of the macroscopic world can arise from the strange behavior of individual molecules and photons. It also took some great minds to figure out that the earth was a sphere, not a plane. If you only go a few hundred kilometers from home, it doesn’t make any difference whether the earth is a very large sphere or a flat plane; but if you want go further, you will run into trouble continuing to believe the earth is a plane. Thermodynamics and Newtonian physics work great in the ordinary macroscopic world, but if you want to understand what happens to individual photons and molecules, you must understand something about quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics. (Or you can simply accept that two-way photon transfer must exist, just as you must accept the loss or gain of a day when you cross the international dateline. You don’t have to like it, you may think it’s crazy, but this IS the way the world works.) Otherwise, you may as well join the flat-earth society! Here is the link:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
davidmhoffer says:
“Visualize away. Visualizing something that doesn’t happen, has been prove by experimentation not to happen, doesn’t make visualizing it of any value. Thousands of design engineers apply formulas every single day predicated upon what you just described NOT happening and the formulas work…because that’s not what happens.”
Which experiment, exactly has proven that it does not happen? It is well known that EMR takes the form of waves in vacuum or matter. The interference properties of EM waves is also well known and those interference properties can result in the amplification, reduction, or cancellation of one or both waves or result in an entirely new wave pattern.
Every radio tower, microwave transmission dish, every satellite reception dish, or optical/IR link is designed based on the principle of the very thing that you say experimentation has proven doesn’t happen.
Why do scientists always look at the earth from a six foot human’s point of view? The Sun’s energy is also warming the atmosphere way above the six foot level. In fact it does not even start to warm the last six feet before it has affected twelve miles of troposphere above.
A recent article by Roy Spencer,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/
is relevant to this discussion.
.
Climate Realist says:
March 14, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Doug, I wanted to congratulate you on an excellent paper.
Your critics either have not read the paper properly or do not understand it…..
Doug’s paper is not a straw man argument, it is the best and clearest explanation I have seen of why the greenhouse effect from back IR is impossible
_________________________________________
Thank you for that. I hope your comment encourages others to actually read the paper.
To everyone:
I realise that it does take significant time to read and digest over 6,000 words in the paper and I appreciate that many will be starting from a different viewpoint. I have woken this morning to see all the above comments since my last one at 12.15am Sydney time. I will only have time to discuss matters raised by those who have clearly read at least most of the paper.
There is an Appendix containing my response to frequently asked questions. These questions have been raised in forums such as this where I have made literally thousands of posts. People in posts above are still raising issues such as lasers and microwaves, all of which are clearly discussed in the Appendix. So, if you are one of those, please respect the fact that I do not have time to repeat here what is already in the paper, and will thus not respond to you individually. Nor will I respond to people who steadfastly refuse to read the paper and merely use this thread to repeat the “standard” viewpoint that when radiation strikes a target its energy must be converted to KE or thermal energy.
For those who have not yet had the time to read it, I thought it may be best to outline the key thought processes in the paper in a bit more detail than that in the Abstract, so here goes .
The whole point of both Prof. Claes Johnson’s paper (Ref [3]) and mine is that we are explaining that there must be an alternative process which is neither (1) reflection, nor (2) absorption that leads to a conversion to thermal energy. Claes explains that there are “resonators” which absorb and immediately re-emit without any conversion to thermal energy. I prefer to introduce a coined term “resonant scattering” explained in detail in Section 5. I do this simply because use of the words “absorbed” or “absorption” tends to make people assume there is automatic conversion to thermal energy. Claes and I are describing the same process, just using different terminology. The key point is that no energy is left behind when the target is warmer than the source of spontaneous emission.
At all times I am talking “macro” – meaning that I am discussing a ray or beam of radiation which has a frequency distribution which lies within a Planck curve. This is of course a statistical distribution based on probabilities. The important point is that the peak frequency (mode) is proportional to the absolute temperature. This peak becomes what Claes calls a “cut-off” frequency. Some of the radiation which has a peak greater than the peak (cut off) for the target will be absorbed and converted to thermal energy.
I postulate that, when radiation leaves an object it makes numerous “trips” from one object to the next, each time being, in effect, scattered in random directions. When it strikes an object which is “warmer” none of its energy is left behind, so the result, energy-wise, is the same as diffuse reflection. However, if the object is cooler, then some of its energy will be transferred and converted to thermal energy in that object, this being quantified by the area between the Planck curves for the two objects. The remaining energy continues in what is now lower energy radiation until it meets the next object.
However, when such radiation meets a warmer object the resonating process temporarily occupies one of the “resonators” which would otherwise have been used to emit some of the object’s own thermal energy. The radiation brings its own energy and the energy it then departs with would have been radiated by the object itself if it had not received the incident radiation. Hence the object cools more slowly than it would otherwise have done. This is an observed fact.
In the Introduction I briefly dismiss the “old” GH concept of any physical transfer of thermal energy to the surface from energy “trapped” high up in the atmosphere by any process other than radiation. However, the “newer” IPCC explanation is based on “backradiation” slowing the cooling process in some way which they do not explain in detail. It could mean (and is usually assumed to mean) that the radiation is first converted to thermal energy in the surface.
In reality, I show that this cannot happen without violating the Second Law. If it did happen, that new thermal energy would be free to exit by other means such as evaporation or diffusion (conduction-like) processes, at any time, sooner or later. You cannot assume that there would be immediate compensating re-radiation excusing any violation of the Second Law. That is why I discuss whether or not backradiation from a cooler layer of the atmosphere penetrates any small distance below the surface of warmer water and warms a sub-surface layer even more. It can’t and it doesn’t. Such has never been observed in any physical experiment, as best I can determine. Tell me if I’m wrong. Instead, it undergoes resonant scattering right at the surface.
Now the focus turns to carbon dioxide and thus whether there is any validity in the AGW conjecture. Carbon dioxide obviously only radiates in a limited number of frequencies compared with a true blackbody. So, when radiation which last left a carbon dioxide molecule strikes the surface it does not resonate with many of the potential frequencies which the surface can emit. Hence it has very little effect on the rate of cooling of the surface compared with the effect that a blackbody at the same temperature would have. Water vapour will have a somewhat greater effect per molecule, because it has more frequencies, and that is why we can just detect warmer temperatures when the relative humidity is high at night. This does not mean that carbon dioxide will have an equivalent effect.
Furthermore, whatever effect there is only relates to the rate of cooling by radiation. If that slows then there will probably be compensating increases in the rate of cooling for evaporation and diffusion. This could well be the case because of the stabilising effect of the very constant temperatures not far under the surface. This mechanism is discussed in Q.3 in the Appendix.
The last nail in the AGW coffin comes when we realise that there are cooling effects due to both water vapour and carbon dioxide as they radiate to space energy rising from the surface and also some of the Sun’s radiation which is in the IR band and which they do absorb – a fact conveniently overlooked by the IPCC.
Also in the Appendix Q.1 is a discussion about whether there is any indication of additional non-natural warming in recent times, and in Q.2 a discussion of the proverbial 255K temperature and that 33 degree difference supposedly due to a greenhouse effect. Other FAQ’s are answered in the Appendix as well, so please look there for answers before raising such questions here.
May I encourage those who have made comments contrary to any of this to please read the paper and get back if they find fault in the logic. The paper is about to be subjected to “open peer-review” by potentially dozens of members of PSI. Don’t get me wrong – I do want to hear of any valid objections to what the paper actually says.
Mr. Hoffer says: 100 watts going one way and 60 watts going the other way = 40 watts going the one way.
Of course not because that isn’t what I said.
Sir your example of NET says nothing about total flux. I quoted you exactly. And again I never said a photon can tell you anything about the surface that emitted it only that you “maybe” able to tell its temperature via Weins displacement. You and Mr. B-Happy really need to read what is written not what you want to read.
Anthony Watts
Roy Spencer has not in any way addressed the issue of resonant scattering which Prof Claes Johnson and I are talking about. He does not appreciate the fact that backradiation only slows the radiative cooling process, not the evaporative cooling and diffusion processes which can increase and thus compensate for slower radiation. He also avoids mention of backradiation of Solar IR sent to space by water vapour and carbon dioxide. The latter almost certainly has a greater cooling effect than the very slight warming effect of surface-bound radiation from the atmosphere.
Note also that, whilst Johnson’s papers were in the Slayers’ book, I understand he is not a member thereof, and nor am I. There are many more scientists (including another 17 new ones) who have PSI membership. See http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
I have responded on Roy Spencer’s thread thus …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/#comment-38250
There seems to be some confusion relating to Wien’s Displacement Law. You can of course refer to Wikipedia, but a better graphic is the one in my paper from http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/WiensDisplacementLaw.html because it uses frequency for the horizontal axis and makes it clearer that the peak (mode) is proportional to absolute temperature. You can see the proportionality relationship in their last equation there.
See Sections 3 & 4 of my paper, and also Section 5 – para 1b …
But radiation has a wavelike nature with a frequency which increases with the energy of each photon. Large numbers of molecules acting like this in a blackbody will emit radiation with a distribution of frequencies as we saw in the plots in Section 3. The peak frequency indicates the temperature of the emitting body. Hence, although one photon is not enough to determine the temperature, the frequency distribution of all the radiation does do so.
The resonant scattering (Section 5) relates to the temperatures of source and target because the temperatures determine the Planck curves, and then these curves determine which frequencies (and how much radiation with each frequency) can actually resonate without being converted to thermal energy.
As I explain in the paper, the only transfer of thermal energy is represented by the additional area between the Planck curves because radiation with this extra energy from the warmer body cannot resonate with the cooler one.
Climate Realist,
Am I correct is suggesting an object turns from black to white to infinity with temperature from the perspective of incoming excitation? Put differently it can be considered to have dispersive reflectivity. Both terms involve lamda.
If this is true it is is yet another reason for the widespread cross purposes.
I think it is compatible with a flux balance so that fits.
Question: is there really a zero absorption or is this just a curve?
@gallopingcamel says:
March 14, 2012 at 2:16 am:
That´s the power which runs the universe!…and all those gadgets we use.
This is how curves should be plotted all together, log-log. Computed by me, errors yada yada.
E490 is a solar reference curve
Doug Cotton wrote: “It may be deduced that none of the radiation from a cooler body (and only a portion of the radiation from a warmer body) has any thermodynamic effect on the other body.”
I agree completely. It has been my sense, ever since the “one-way” versus “two-way” heat flow arguments began coming up on Claes Johnson’s site, that radiation from a cooler body–or cooler “point” (I don’t see much sense in arguing this word, myself)–that radiation from a cooler body obviously reaches an unobstructed, nearby warmer body, but that “cooler” radiation cannot be absorbed by the warmer body, on the macroscopic (and deciding) level. “Two way” heat flow doesn’t imply two-way heat transfer. And the simplest way I have been able to state the fallacy of “backradiation”, is that it has to be re-emitted by the surface AT THE HIGHER TEMPERATURE OF THE SURFACE, which to me clearly requires a non-existent, free energy pump.
Off topic, I have added an update to my Venus: No Greenhouse Effect article, with explicit equations showing the physical correctness of my original analysis, and the definitive facts (both empirical and logical) I have tried to stress ever since.
Steve B;
Which experiment, exactly has proven that it does not happen?>>>
The ones done by Stefan and Boltzmann to arrive at the SB .Law equation in the first place.
mkelly;
mkelly says:
March 15, 2012 at 12:05 am
Mr. Hoffer says: 100 watts going one way and 60 watts going the other way = 40 watts going the one way.
Of course not because that isn’t what I said.
Sir your example of NET says nothing about total flux.>>>>
I laid out the numbers and you interpreted them incorrectly. I pointed out the correct way to interpret them.
Doug Cotton;
He does not appreciate the fact that backradiation only slows the radiative cooling process,>>>7
Once again, exactly how?
How are photons emitted from the atmosphere dissuaded from impacting the surface and being absorbed? How are photons being emitted from the surface pursuasded to leave at a slower rate?
Doug Cotton;
The resonant scattering (Section 5) relates to the temperatures of source and target because the temperatures determine the Planck curves, and then these curves determine which frequencies (and how much radiation with each frequency) can actually resonate without being converted to thermal energy.>>>>
tallbloke – you banned Joel Shore but you allow this poppycock?
[Reply] There are some people posting here who know their stuff around radiative properties of matter and their interactions. Those of us who are not specialists in this area can learn from their exposition in respect of points they believe to be incorrect. As I said at the top of the post, we can all learn more about this subject.
Is it suggested here that energy radiated from a cooler object and which strikes a warmer object somehow bounces off it leaving no effect behind? Because if that is the case then we are very close to the perfect conductor, perpetual motion, over unity power sources, and 100% albedo.
Let’s try this since every one else seems to be arguing simple energy flow without regard to the mechanics involved at the (important) molecular level.
1. The ‘motion’ of Electrons and Protons can be affected by applied fields. Computer CRTs are an example with the electron beam forced towards the phosphor-coated screen and under the back and forth influence of the deflection cols (called ‘the yoke’ in the trade).
2. Conversely, when Electrons or Protons move, they create fields and then perhaps (propagated) ‘waves’ as well. Electromagnets and antennas are examples.
3. Molecules, such as CO2 and H20 are comprised of atoms the components of which are Protons and Electrons (we ignore the Neutron). This is elementary; consult any HS text for a refresh.
4. Many molecules such as O2 (and even CO2 and H2O) have specific mechanical resonances, at specific frequencies (or wavelengths if one prefers).
5. These mechanical resonances are like miniature tuning forks. The vibrational modes get a little intricate and differ from molecule to molecule on account of the ‘atomic relationship’ of the member atoms.
6. During these vibrational modes, certain ‘member’ atoms can move more than others, and some ‘parts’ are electrically charged … referring to 2. above this will create a ‘field’.
7. Should a particular frequency EM field pass by a resonant molecule, the molecule, like a resonant dipole antenna will ‘pick up’ (the field will induce into the molecule) energy from the passing field .. refer to 1. above.
8. The actual resonant frequencies of resonant molecules is affect by pressure; this means more collisions between atoms, and sometimes vibrational energy can be absorbed in a collision while sometimes energy is given off. ‘Broadening of spectral lines’ is the basic effect.
9. Any vibrational modes amount to ‘stored energy’,
10. Said ‘stored’ energy is also continually being re-radiated (refer to 2. above) in basically all directions (any given molecule will have a given radiation pattern, but in the aggregate among all randomly oriented molecules this yields an ‘omni’ directional pattern).
11. A increased amplitude ‘Vibrational mode’ (no matter how arrived at) amounts to a ‘higher temperature’ locally.
12. From insolation (incoming sunlight), to heating of the earth’s surface, some convective heating of the air near the surface (consult a meteorology text; the MAJORITY of the heating of the air is in the boundary layer), to radiation of LWIR from the earth’s surface, some LWIR is captured’ (excites or is EM induced into) various GHG molecules e.g. CO2 and H2O … and that ‘captured’ EM energy is re-radiated in all directions, *including, and this is very important: BACK to earth … some term this ‘back radiation’, perhaps after the close radio term, ‘back-scatter’ (as used in RADAR to identify energy ‘reflected’ or scattered off a target).
And so there you have it.
The 12 easy steps to understanding the minor but important (as to moderating the surface temperature) GHG effect.
.
_Jim, this basic idea is known but it isn’t so simple, although the current discussion might be off track. I particularly want to know why all the official explanations omit the awkward items.
I’ll go back to leaning on the farm gate. Watch thems putting wagon where it wunnit go.
davidmhoffer:
How are photons emitted from the atmosphere dissuaded from impacting the surface and being absorbed? How are photons being emitted from the surface pursuasded to leave at a slower rate?
For the final time, you will find answers to all your questions (such as the above) in the paper which you refuse to read, yet comment on prolifically. If you still fail to understand what Prof Claes Johnson and I are saying about radiation resonating and its energy not being converted to thermal energy, then you may find some of my comments above helpful, as it seems you have not read much of them either. You could also read Johnson’s paper (Ref [3]) and maybe discuss the matter with him on his blog. I’m sure other readers here are by now aware that you are merely posing questions that have already been answered.
I have spent over 1,000 hours, not only studying the climate change literature, but also thinking for myself about it and changing my mind from the early times when I too fell for the hoax. There has also been extensive discussion between myself and the other scientists reviewing the paper in the final three weeks before its launch. It is now subject to the new “open review” system involving dozens of members of PSI – see http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf.
It doesn’t concern me what you choose to believe, but I suggest others following this thread have had about enough of your comments.
_Jim and others
You will find in my paper that I totally agree with the fact that some radiation from the cooler atmosphere will in fact reach the warmer surface. And there it will resonate and be scattered.
But the scattered radiation still contains all the energy of the incident radiation. You might argue that the energy in the radiation temporarily resides in the molecule during, say, the first half of the wave cycle while it excites a molecule, and then that energy exits again in a new photon with the same energy in the second half of the cycle. I would not disagree.
But Prof Claes Johnson and I are making the point that there is no extra energy left behind to go through the process of being converted to thermal energy. If that happened, then thermal energy could also exit the molecule by diffusion when it collides with other molecules. Apply this on a macro scale (ie the same process in numerous molecules) and you have a violation of the Second Law. It’s a question of whether any temporary increase in KE is actually be used for anything other than immediately emitting another photon, or whether it can avoid emitting and be converted to thermal energy. If the target had been cooler than the source, this would in fact happen to the extra energy above that which is involved in the resonating, thus producing “heat” transfer.
The resonance does however “occupy” resonators in the surface molecules which would otherwise have emitted other energy already in the surface. Thus the radiative cooling process is slower. But because there is no conversion to thermal energy, the other cooling processes, mainly evaporation and diffusion (conduction-like) are not affected and will in fact increase to compensate, for reasons explained in the paper. The slowing of the radiative cooling is well established in physics in the “two parallel plates” experiment, and of course is reflected in standard SBL calculations which derive the difference between the areas under the two Planck curves. From here on you will have to read my paper for the rest of the argument regarding why there is no net effect from carbon dioxide.
Doug Cotton said:
“The concept of a particle nature for photons left even Einstein pondering till the end of his days. Those who suggest they need a force to turn them around should remember they have no mass, so F = ma = 0. ”
The above statement is a half truth and half truths are often worse than lies. Physicists say the the rest mass of a photon is zero, yet the photon has both mass and momentum. These quantities are related through the following equations:
p (photon momentum) = mc = h(frequency)/c = h/(wavelength) = E/c
Please accept my apologies for not being able to insert the Greek letter “nu” to represent frequency or the letter “lambda” to represent wavelength. “E” is the energy of the photon, “m” is the photon mass, “h” is Planck’s constant and “c” is the speed of light.
Why am I so sure about this and why do I care? I spent many happy years bouncing photons off relativistic electrons with masses >2,000 times the rest mass.
When a photon with an energy of 2 eV hits a 1 GeV electron head on, it is “turned around” and significant force is involved in spite of what Doug Cotton says. Dramatic changes of mass, energy and momentum occur. The photon ends up with an energy of >8 MeV which means that it is a gamma ray. Here is a paper explaining what was done and how we did it:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/papers/gamma_ray_production_1997.pdf
I am proud to find that ex-colleagues from the Duke physics department such as Nicola Scafetta and Robert G. Brown are speaking out on climate issues. This is a field that will benefit from more “hard” science.
Doug Cotton,
You keep saying that people rare not reading the paper, and that all the answers are there. Unfortunately, people do seem to be reading the paper and not finding the answers…… which is why the same equations keep coming.
Now what you are describing is mostly an exotic (and incorrect in parts) way of thinking about elastic scattering.
So here are some questions for you:
1) what about inelastic scattering?
2) what about collisional deactivation, which dominates in the denser part of the atmosphere?
3) do you realise that in real molecules you do not get ‘pure’ transitions that are just one type? so that electronic transitions are always accompanied by vibrational ones, and vibrational transitions have associated rotational components, and there are even more minor parts after this
Big fleas have little fleas,
Upon their backs to bite ’em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas,
and so, ad infinitum.
4) what about intramolecular vibrational redistribution?
5) do you realise that if a molecule absorbs a photon it does not have to emit one of the same frequency? Do you realise what that means for your ‘resonator’ theory?
I think that you, and Prof Johnson, could do with getting a book on Molecular Spectroscopy and learning what is really observed.
@ Doug Cotton says: March 15, 2012 at 12:09 am
Regarding “PSI” aka Principia Scientific International membership: sir the organization is just repackaged Skydragon 2.0, with the same players, managed by the same guy, John O’ Sullivan, and gussied up to look like a “journal”. It’s just another thing he made up out of thin air, sort of like Malte Humpert’s “Arctic Institute” that he runs out of his apartment in Washington DC.
PSI’s website a self parody.
Anyone who takes this outfit seriously needs some self examination of their own principles.
IMHO, and the opinion of many others, this stuff on PSI is garbage, and it isn’t going to help anyone or any skepticism by embracing it.
I gave up on John O’ Sullivan two years ago when he tried to turn a sensor degradation aboard a NOAA satellite into a “scandal”, when it was nothing more than the sorts of usual end of lifetime failures that happen with such technology. He wouldn’t listen.
By linking your self to this group, you absorb their reputation, and as many have shown you above, your paper is fatally flawed. But you’re in denial.
Mr. Cotton, please tell me, why, on a completely calm night, did the air temperature at my house warm from 61.3F at 8PM to 63.7F at 11PM, as a cloud deck moved overhead? The cloud is colder than the mass of atmosphere surrounding my neighborhood, yet the atmosphere warmed…the reason is pretty obvious, from my humble perspective…
I think you need to seperate the surface itself from the atmosphere right above it. Because the cloud slowed the rate of IR loss, the atmosphere surrounding my neighborhood could retain more thermal energy from the WARMER ground before losing it to the upper atmosphere. It is not the IR re-emission by the cloud that is doing the warming, it is IR re-emission from the warmer surface that can be retained to a higher thermal degree by the colder atmosphere as a result of the slowing of IR loss.
There-for, there is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because the IR re-emission from cloud is directly not warming the surface, but rather is slowing the cooling of the surface in allowing more thermal energy to remain in the atmosphere…this is achieved via conduction superimposed on the resulting change in the RATE of transfer between the surface and the cooler atmosphere above it.
None of this changes the fact that the GHE may indeed have no effect on a globally avged scale, or may even cool the planet as a whole, because there would be no clouds without a GHE, and without the GHE, the conduction to Oxygen and Nitrogen from the solar heated surface would still allow thermal energy to stagnate overnight, perhaps even more-so than would be the case with the greenhouse effect. The observed surface temp doesn’t prove anything about the GHE.
It is clouds, clouds, clouds, which are actually greybodies to an extent. Our system is open, not closed….so neither the physics behind the AGW theory or the Ideal Gas Laws can be proven 100% viable in a quantitative sense. For all we know the Ideal Gas Laws could be part of a large combination of various physical laws/processes involved in the climate system, to get us where we are…simply because in a complex, open system such as this, conventional thinking goes out the window to an extent.
gallopingcamel:
Yes I accept that, using Einstein’s E=mc^2 one could say a photon has potential mass because it has energy. I don’t understand how such mass could actually be created without using up its energy, though. Maybe that’s what you are describing in your experiment which I’m sorry i haven’t the time to study right now. If you feel it has relevance to spontaneous radiation in the surface or atmosphere, let me know.
Do you say, for example, that it requires work (thus energy input) to reflect radiation? The resonant scattering process is very similar energy-wise to diffuse reflection, I suggest. On a macro scale I can’t see that such considerations have any significant thermodynamic effect. If there were any energy required for the surface to reverse the direction of incident radiation (in a way similar to reflection) then it would amount to an additional cooling effect anyway, wouldn’t it?
Phil and others:
The base of a cloud can be warmer than the surface in the evening hours because it will have absorbed IR radiation from a somewhat warmer surface during daylight hours and just simply retained that thermal energy for a few hours.
There will also be more radiation from water vapour going back to the surface and, yes, slowing the radiative component of the surface cooling. If the base of the cloud is warmer than the surface, or even just the air you are standing in, then it can of course transfer thermal energy to such cooler surface or atmosphere below it. Such weather situations are relatively rare, but do happen.
Water vapour has many more frequencies than carbon dioxide, and these will resonate with the surface and be much more effective (per molecule) in slowing the radiative cooling rate than are carbon dioxide molecules. And there are many more WV molecules also. So, yes, as I have said before, we can expect slightly warmer evenings when the relative humidity is high and/or there are warm low clouds. These, as you say, are weather events, not climate, and they have been happening since the formation of the Earth. Carbon dioxide could not have anything like the same effect unless perhaps there was more than (very approximately) 100 times the current levels. And if there were such levels, the cooling effects which I have mentioned would also be much greater.
Phil (cont’d): Another factor which could cause actual warming of the air you stand in could be due to the well known fact that the moist adiabatic lapse rate is less than the dry one. There is normally a “step” down in temperature at the interface of the surface and the air. If that had been, say, 3 deg F before the clouds came in and perhaps relative humidity increased, the change in lapse rate may have reduced that to about 1 deg F. But I’m guessing a bit here, I admit. Did you measure any ground temperatures with a meat thermometer, for example? Do you have any details on relative humidity that night? Did you measure cloud temperatures with an IR thermometer?
There are so many possible factors though in weather, including warmer air currents that may hardly be noticeable as wind, but do act slowly over a few hours. You really can’t deduce too much from such anecdotal evidence.
Anthony Watts (March 15, 2012 at 5:51am)
You point out that the warmists use ad-homiem attacks on the sceptic position and proceed to an indirect ad-homiem attack on your own suggesting that Doug’s choice of publication outlet is less than reputable and somehow his arguments are lessened by that.
Have you addressed the science presented in his paper? No.
You publish a post on your site pointing out a counter argument by Dr Roy Spencer, but refuse to post anything on Doug’s or “the Slayer’s” position on the issue. Is that balanced? No.
Yes you have made the Dr Roy Spencer post a “no comment” post, but to be balanced, you should do the same and link to this post and direct interested parties to here. It is not as if the Tallbloke’s Talkshop is a blog that you have not promoted in the past.
I enjoy your site on a daily basis, but please do not fall into the same “I’m right and since you disagree, then you must be wrong” style of argument that the Team and the warmists use.
Everyone benefits from free speech. Promoting free speech is not just promoting what you agree with, it is also promoting what you disagree with.
[Reply]
Free speech is a complex issue that we won’t be dealing with on this thread. Nor will we be discussing the way different blogs are run by their owners. Anthony has a ‘banned list’ just as I do. These do not reflect any general approaches to the issue of free speech but are pragmatic choices made on a case by case basis.
What effect those choices has on the overall tenor and direction of the blogs is for individuals to judge for themselves. There is no profit in engaging in point scoring about which specific topics or individuals are excluded. Variety is the spice of life, and ensures that everyone can find a venue where they can express their opinions. Anthony’s moderation team can deal with, for example, Joel Shore’s rapid, voluminous and provocative output, and I frequently allow posts on controversial issues which are not on the menu at WUWT. Between us, we have it pretty well covered in my opinion.
I chose to give Doug a thread of his own here because I restrict the extent to which I allow him to carpet bomb other threads. That is my pragmatic choice and my sense of balance and fairness in my blog’s particular circumstance. If Anthony chooses to do things differently, that’s his affair, and I don’t want anyone making judgements here concerning his choices.
I thank Anthony Watts for similarly refraining from editorialising about the choices made here. We are both bloggers doing our best to run our sites in such a way as the best possible quality of debate and openness is preserved as best we can manage it. Anyone who wants to have a go at running a blog which is a complete free-for-all is welcome to try. In my experience they soon become unreadable noise pits.
I have a somewhat proffessional vantage pro 2 station, and have been recording the various effects daytime and nighttime clouds have on the temp, because I want to be sure all observations match my hypothesis. There have been times where they have not supported my hypothesis, and I had to go back to the drawing board…fighting off denial is tough, we all want to be right.
1) There was little to no wind
2) The dewpoint rose by 1 degree, but the 1-2 degree variations seem to occur regularly without statistically significant effect.
3) I’m pretty sure the ground temp was warmer than the atmosphere, as it usually is.
In the daytime, clouds (which only exist beacause of the GHE) seem to have the opposite impact, blocking a large portion of SW from the surface, though it also seems to depend on their height, thickness, and the temp of the airmass relative to the sun angle+the surface temp that results. The surface on a global scale is cooled during the day via cloud cover, but clouds have the opposite effect at night in slowing the release of IR, slowing surface cooling, affecting it’s distance from equilibrium the following day. This is not in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, from what I know.
I still have not been able to figure out whether the clouds on the heated side of the globe can, on their own, reflect enough solar SW to counteract the effect of the clear-air GHE that created them…but if one merely takes the effect of daytime clouds on surface temp vs nighttime clouds on surface temp, the effect in the daytime period is certainly stronger.
What bothers me is the assumption that the GHE is the mechanism behind the S-B law ‘diversion’ at the surface…there is no reason to apply the S-B law to the climate system, really what is the point in that?
Phil; I think the main thing missing in your data is the temperature of the underside of the clouds and the actual difference between ground and air temoeratures. Are you far from the coast or inland areas where warmer air might flow from? Have you checked that temperatures decline fairly uniformly on similar but cloudless nights. It’s always interesting to compare the rates of cooling of the air and the ground to see if you get the same as Prof Nahle did, with the air cooler and also cooling faster.
Anthony Watts says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:51 am
Your post has no science but does have personal attacks and the d word.
You say “By linking your self to this group, you absorb their reputation, and as many have shown you above…”. The first part is criticism by association.The second part is an argument of consensus and authority.
This is not up to the standard of your own blog, which I have enjoyed for many years.
In your own words, how is Doug Cotton’s paper ” fatally flawed “?
I live in MD, and I have no idea regarding the temp of the underside of the cloud, but the surface temp was in the low 60’s so I find it hard to believe that the base of a mid-level cumulus deck would (as a whole) feature a higher thermal threshold than the atmosphere near the surface. But since I don’t know I cannot make any claims either way.
Remember that clouds actuall radiate more like greybodies because you’re not talking single molecular specifics of H20 any longer.
Tallbloke, you are correct that free speech is a complex issue and the Anthony has the right to comment here or anywhere else as I do. Yes, it is his blog and he can publish what he likes and not publish what he doesn’t. But to denigrate a science paper on the basis of where it is published is the same irrelevant argument that he rightly chastises the warmists about. My point is merely that he continually and correctly points to the way the alarmists are trying to silence opposing ideas and then acts in a similar manner.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for what Anthony has done and is continue to do and, as I said, I enjoy his blog on a daily basis. He has earned every bit of the popular recognition that his blog has achieved and long may it continue. However to try and dismiss a scientific argument based on a supposed membership of group (in this case the “Slayers”) is just as bad as the warmists dismissing WUWT posts because they are “Deniers”.
Also, Mr. Cotton, I want to say that while I for the most part disagree with your hypothesis, I think that the insults you have been dealt in this thread are a bit over the top, the whole Galileo thing comes to mind.
I feel that insults, smear campaigns, etc, are not healthy for the improvement of science, nor the gain of valuable knowledge that results from successful science. Much of the Pro-AGW movement seems to thrive off these methods, which is why both public opinion and the field of climate science itself are currently in a state of malnourishment, in my opinion at least.
Since I’m rather unsure about many Mr Cotton’s statements in the “Abstract”, I thought it only fair to study the paper a point out exactly where he must have gone wrong.
SInce he confidently states that these things “may be deduced”, surely there must be an error in some of his equations to come up with the claimed discrepency against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
So I duly read the document. And kept reading. To the end. And found no equations in it whatsoever. None. Zilch.
Not only does he provide no proof of his theories in any form beyond handwaving arguments he doesn’t even present the equations of the real scientists with whom he apparently disagrees.
You see, that’s the trouble with the internet. In the old days, we could have said “it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on” – nowadays, I guess “it isn’t worth the photons used to read it” – except of course some folk don’t beleive in photons, do they.
Really, Roger, why are you going here?
davidmhoffer says:
“How are photons emitted from the atmosphere dissuaded from impacting the surface and being absorbed? How are photons being emitted from the surface pursuasded to leave at a slower rate?”
How does a golf ball crisply struck with a 1 wood know which way to go? It isn’t a matter of disuading it to impact the surface of the warmer object, it is a matter of a lesser EM field opposing an EM field of greater magnitude propagated from the opposite direction.
Bu the way, the experiments by Stefan and Boltzman proved no such thing.
Stephen Wilde says:
“With your unphysical convolutions trying to discredit AGW theorists on the basis of something they never said (despite some silly wording in AR4 as pointed out by Steve B) you are just playing their game.”
Silly wording indeed. It says what it says and is an accurate description of the energy flows described by the K/T global energy flow diagram. I agree that it is silly wording, but then any wording describing such a silly hypothesis is going to be silly, by definition.
What Doug’s paper does, is to bust open the science behind the K/T diagrams for heat from “back radiation” and show this science to be false (or most likely even faked!) False, because it is impossible for the cooler atmosphere to heat the warmer earth’s surface. K/T diagram falsified means that every Global warming computer simulation that shows warming from CO2 is false- garbage in/ garbage out and we can all put the whole CO2/ global warming scare to bed.
IPCC pronouncements- all rubbish as is “The Inconvenient Truth” film.
Carbon trading and so-called “”green”” taxes are actually fraud.
Global warming scare?? gone, forever!
Doug Cotton,
On other blogs, you stated that your paper was going to be “peer reviewed”. Also, your paper appears to be self published (vanity published?) instead of being published in an established scientific journal.
Can you explain how you accomplished peer review outside of an independent process for selecting reviewers and arbitrating reviewer comments?
Thank you.
steveta: I have linked to Prof Claes Johnson’s paper and been happy to leave the “equations” to him. So perhaps you will prefer his proof rather than my approach which comes up with the same result that the energy in spontaneous radiation from a cooler source is not converted to thermal energy in a warmer target. I guess if you only believe results derived computationally then you will no doubt understand and be convinced by the “equations” documented by Claes Johnson, a well -published Swedish Professor of Applied Mathematics.
I have also linked to other sites with relevant physics and I consider those sufficient as I am not stepping outside the standard physics for such equations as SBL and WDL for example. But if I say (as Claes proved with “equations”) that radiation from a cooler body is not absorbed and converted to thermal energy in a warmer target, then it seems reasonable to me to “deduce” that the absorptivity under such circumstances is 0 (zero) wouldn’t you say?
The word “deduced” appears twice only, both times in the Abstract where you would hardly expect the full explanation which is to be found in the main text. May I suggest that some things can in fact be deduced by logic as distinct from computation. Never-the-less, if you could be more specific about whatever it is that you don’t agree can be deduced, then I am happy to enlarge upon it here for the benefit of all.
Doug Cotton said:
“If you feel it has relevance to spontaneous radiation in the surface or atmosphere, let me know.”
We were discussing photons which have great relevance as they are essential to the understanding of Stephan-Boltzmann and all the other equations describing the transfer of energy by radiation.
I apologise for my grumpiness which stems from my bullshit detector being activated by several of your statements. My research field is quantum electro-optics so it upsets me when people choose to misunderstand the simpler aspects of the physics.
You raised the subject of reflection although I only touched on it indirectly. This is an interesting subject in itelf given that high power lasers and fiber optics depend on Fresnel reflection. Maybe we should stop now before we get into the serious physics which is central to the courses I teach. I usually get paid for this, so please feel free to contact me “off line”:
http://www.bdidatalynk.com/PeterMorcombe.html
Getting back to the mass/momemtum of photons the illustration I sent earlier was based on the somewhat exotic Inverse Compton Scattering but the same physics applies to the humble Crookes radiometer. Ask yourself why the vanes rotate and which side of the vanes (dark or reflective) should move towards the illumination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
Phil:
Tonight, after last writing, I decided to repeat my earlier experiment, but this time with water rather than soil. I have two identical wide necked vacuum flasks, a digital meat thermometer (measuring to 0.1 C degree accuracy only) ,a sheet of plate glass (off a small coffee table) and a (folded) car windscreen shield (reflective silver.) The glass is mounted on 4 bricks standing on end and in each corner, and the shield is on top of the glass with two extra paver bricks on top. The glass should absorb most radiation from the surface without reflecting much onto the shielded flask. The glass is at a slight slope – about 10 degrees, because my back lawn is sloped. This allows for air to escape by convection.
I started with water at the same temperature that had been in an open container outside for over two hours. I observed the following temperatures in degrees C: ..
Time Covered Uncovered Ambient Cloud cover
10.55pm 21.7 21.7 21.1 some at about 45 degrees – none overhead
11.55pm 21.5 21.5 21.5 light cloud – full cover overhead
So, yes, the ambient temperature did rise slightly when the clouds came over, but there has been no detectable effect yet on the rate of cooling due to radiation from the atmosphere. I will try to get up during the night for one or two more measurements, but it’s 12:40am now.
See above
Time Covered Uncovered Ambient Cloud cover
10.55pm 21.7 21.7 21.1 some at about 45 degrees – none overhead
11.55pm 21.5 21.5 21.5 light cloud – full cover overhead
12.58pm 21.4 21.1 19.6 some at about 60 degrees – none overhead
No sign of backradiation slowing the rate of cooling. The cover might be preventing some convection.
Time to lighten up.
Wayne Job, March 14, 2012 at 9:10 am, asked some good questions about photons and energy. I wanted to answer without making it sound like a physics lecture. So here goes:
Does light consist of particles or waves? Short answer “We don’t know”, so physicists have been tying themselves in knots trying to reconcile Huygens’ slit experiment that says “Waves” with Compton Scattering that says “Particles”. Fortunately, professor Gilbert Stead was able to bring some humor to this situation almost 100 years ago:
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/cavendish/hv.htm
gallopingcamel
Inverse Compton scattering is not unlike the resonant scattering I talk about in Section 5, in that the radiated energy is not converted to thermal energy. However, we are not talking about radiation in the radio or the x-ray spectra.
Also a Crookes radiometer does not demonstrate radiation pressure because it spins due to physical molecular pressure – effectively warm air rising against the angled vanes. The air is warmed mostly by diffusion once the vanes have been warmed by the radiation, more so for the black vane, of course. The opposite happens when they are cooling after the radiation is switched off.
It’s not that I dispute the existence of radiation pressure. It’s just that I consider it can be explained by wave motion and the motion of charges, as distinct from any actual assignment of mass or momentum to a photon “particle.” In any event, the energy involved is not significant in the macro arena, and that is what I have been talking about. You can of course only apply the Second Law where temperature is measurable.
Let me know if you disagree with anything in Sections 2 to 5.
Doug (2:07) I’ve repeatedly acked you how the “shield” in your experiment is supposed to mask “back radiation” but you never answer.
The shield is either allowing downwelling IR thru, or is reflecting IR from the local environment, which is probably warmer than the DLR source, or is itself a radiator, again probably warmer than the DLR source, or some combination of these three.
In all cases, your experiment will not work.
Doug Cotton;
If you still fail to understand what Prof Claes Johnson and I are saying about radiation resonating and its energy not being converted to thermal energy>>>
Oh I understand exactly what you are saying. The problem with what you are saying is that it is a) impossible and b) if it were possible, it would violate the laws of thermodynamics which you claim to be trying to reconcile!
Further, I HAVE read enough of your paper to know that it is based on so many fallacies that the criticisms would run longer than the paper itself. As gallopingcamel said upthread, it contains many half truths, the debunking of which is often more complex than dealing with an outright lie. But conclusions based on a collection of half truths are, nonetheless, wrong.
If you believe that the answers to my questions are in fact contained in your paper, then all you have to do is cut and paste the relevant sections.
Further still, you have not answered the specific examples that I provided to you in other threads, each one of which debunks your theory. Here are a few:
Igloos keep their inhabitants warm, despite being made of snow and ice. How?
I can pile snow against the sides of my house, and despite it being much colder than the house, my heating bills go down. Why?
In a cold room, I can don a sweater that is at room temperature, and I warm up as a result. How?
Two thin blankets together will keep me warmer at night than a single blanket as thick as the two thin ones combined. Why?
The temperature in a blast furnace is many many degrees higher than the walls of the furnace. Why?
The center of a log fire, where access to oxygen is weakest, is the hottest part of the fire. The outside of the logs, with maximum access to oxygen, are the coolest. Why?
I could give you many many many more examples of the same thing from everyday life where the temperature of something is raised by the energy radiated to it by surfaces that are cooler than it is. These are just a few examples, they do not defy the laws of thermodynamics, they are the very observations of the real world that led to the formulation of the laws of themodynamics in the first place. They do not defy SB Law, they confirm it.
Occums Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the most likely. The simplist explanation for these things is that the laws of thermodynamics are satisified by considering the net transfer of energy rather than the gross transfer of energy. Nothing else is needed to explain these phenonemena. Your explanation may be dear to your heart because you are emotionally invested in it, but it explains none of the issues that I have raised, is complex to the point of being incomprehensible, and is based on many half truths that simply discredit the entire notion.
CAGW is total bullshit in my opinion. But not for the reasons you raise.
Hi Roger, I find it surprising that you give space to an article by someone who has to resort to having his article published by the nondescript publishing company Principia Scientific International rather than in a recognised scientific journal. Anyone interested can find out more about this on Professor Judith Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-184339).
You may recall that I made reference to that discussion in my comment on the “Christopher Booker: Is the global warming scare the greatest delusion in history?” thread (https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/christopher-booker-is-the-global-warming-scare-the-greatest-delusion-in-history/#comment-9963).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
[Reply] Many of the articles posted here are not published in any scientific journal. I gave my reasons for making this post above. Additionally I’ll say that people who contribute here are not discriminated against on the basis of wherever else they might have had their article posted. This is open debate on the internet, not a formal scientific process, and this is a ‘citizen science’ article. It has flaws and hopefully some merits. We are discussing them. Relax and enjoy.
I have not read Doug Cottons paper. Partly because I don’t feel I need any lessons in thermodynamics and partly because I don’t want to read anything released by PSI. I have had first hand experience of the agenda of the individuals behind PSI and incase anyone is unsure of what that agenda may be then simply review the comments by such people as Watts, Mhoffer and Brian H et al.
For while they all appear to be attacking Doug Cottons paper, they are in-fact actually attacking the second law of thermodynamics and convincing themselves (and others), that they appear credible in doing so.
They are actually arguing against the law of entropy.
The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis with its “back-radiation” meme, violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which can also be called the LAW of Entropy. Any violation of this law, as most intelligent people will be aware, is a “perpetual motion machine”. An impossible concept.
The most critical point is that radiation, regardless of its frequency, is just potential energy. It is the thermodynamics of the environment that determines what happens to that potential energy. A point that was well made above by Brian:
Bryan says:
March 14, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Davidmhoffer says:…..
March 14, 2012 at 1:34 am A body at equilibrium in close proximity to a cooler body will, when the cooler body is removed, arrive at a new LOWER equilibrium temperature, proving that the cooler body in fact was (before being removed) providing energy flux to the warmer body to sustain its equilibrium temperature.
Minor nit pick required here …..not always!
The surroundings must be included.
There are really 3 temperatures to consider.
Th = Hotter object’s temperature
Tc = Colder object’s temperature
Ts =Temperature of surroundings
If Ts > Tc then Th will drop
If Ts < Tc then Th will drop more slowly
If Ts = Tc then Th will behave as if Tc did not exist.
(this last one should be: If Ts = or is greater than) as is obviously the case with regards to Roy’s “back-radiation”.
To which Mr Mhoffer had to concede,
davidmhoffer says: March 14, 2012 at 5:56 pm Bryan; Minor nit pick required here …..not always! The surroundings must be included>>>>
Agreed! More sanity!
Need I say more?
A further blow to the gatekeepers of the “greenhouse effect” fallacy, this paper is well worth a read.
Click to access Earth-s_Climate_Engine.pdf
[ problem post formatting edited by co-mod –Tim]
Doug Cotton said:
“Let me know if you disagree with anything in Sections 2 to 5.”
I pointed out the fundamental fallacy of your section 2 which arose from trying to apply thermodynamics to the transfer of energy by radiation. Apparently you missed the point of my closing comment:
“Notice that I have not mentioned thermodynamics.”
You then proceed through your sections 3 through 5 based on the faulty science in section 2.
It would be pointless to offer a detailed critique as it would merely repeat what others have said.
In the spirit of fairness I offer you the opportunity to do a hatchet job on my musings:
Will says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:42 pm
I have not read Doug Cottons paper. …
A further blow to the gatekeepers of the “greenhouse effect” fallacy, this paper is well worth a read.
______________________________
Not at all. This well known fact is discussed in Section 5 of my paper. You might find my paper “well worth a read” but if you think not, please bear in mind that it is the subject of this thread.
As I have asked before, it would be appreciated if only those who have read the paper make comments. Will is yet another who admits he has not done so.
Click to access radiated_energy.pdf
Live experiment now completed
I will repeat my post above and now add the remaining measurements …
Tonight, after last writing, I decided to repeat my earlier experiment, but this time with water rather than soil. I have two identical wide necked vacuum flasks, a digital meat thermometer (measuring to 0.1 C degree accuracy only) ,a sheet of plate glass (off a small coffee table) and a (folded) car windscreen shield (reflective silver.) The glass is mounted on 4 bricks standing on end and in each corner, and the shield is on top of the glass with two extra paver bricks on top. The glass should absorb most radiation from the surface without reflecting much onto the shielded flask. The glass is at a slight slope – about 10 degrees, because my back lawn is sloped. This allows for air to escape by convection. (There’s a link to photos below.)
I started with water at the same temperature that had been in an open container outside for over two hours. I observed the following temperatures in degrees C: ..
Time, Covered, Uncovered, Ambient, Cloud cover
10.55pm 21.7 21.7 21.1 some at about 45 degrees – none overhead
11.55pm 21.5 21.5 21.5 light cloud – full cover overhead
12.55am 21.4 21.1 19.6 some at about 60 degrees – none overhead
1.54am 21.1 20.8 18.0 – no cloud
5.08am 20.3 19.5 19.0 – some at about 45 degrees – none overhead
Conclusions
(1) It is noted that, although the air temperature (about 15cm above a grass lawn) rose when clouds came over, the water continued to cool. It is generally accepted that the moist adiabatic lapse rate is less than the dry rate. We can probably assume that the wind which moves the clouds also brings moist air that moves between the clouds and the surface. There would be a lower lapse rate in this body of air and that would tend to reduce the usual small step down between the surface and the air. For example, at 11.55pm with full cloud cover there was no step down at all, but by 1.54am under clear skies this step was 2.8 C degrees
(2) The water exposed to “backradiation” actually cooled faster than the shielded water. The glass cover collected moisture due to condensation, and both the glass and the drops of water would have radiated onto the water in the flask and, as would be expected, slowed its rate of radiative cooling. The glass and water drops would also have reflected some upwelling radiation.
(3) Even though the energy diagrams show only a little more upwelling radiation from the surface than downwelling “backradiation” (about 7% more usually) it is clear that the effect of upwelling radiation and convection on the glass was far greater than the effect of all the downwelling radiation. This is to be expected from my hypothesis, because the effect on the rate of cooling depends on two aspects of the radiation – the temperature of the source and the number of frequency bands under the Planck curve for the source. The Earth surface has virtually all the expected frequency bands, compared with carbon dioxide having very few. And both the surface and the glass were of course much warmer than the mean temperature of the various sources of radiation in the atmosphere.
(4) So not all radiative flux is “equal” when it comes to any affect on temperatures, this being in keeping with the hypothesis. There was no indication that downwelling radiation from the cold atmosphere was significantly affecting the rate of cooling of the exposed water, but radiation from the wet underside of the much warmer glass cover clearly had a significant effect on the rate of cooling of the water shielded from most backradiation .
Photos; http://earth-climate.com/expt_photos.jpg
davidmhoffer says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:57 pm
The problem with what you are saying is that it is a) impossible and b) if it were possible, it would violate the laws of thermodynamics which you claim to be trying to reconcile!
Igloos keep their inhabitants warm, despite being made of snow and ice. How?
________________________________________________
Reflection does not violate laws of thermodynamics, and neither does “resonant scattering” as in Section 5, for the resulting energy in the scattered radiation is the same as that in the incident radiation.
All your igloo and blanket examples can be explained very simply by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics. If you increase the effect of insulation you will slow the rate of energy flow by conduction through the insulated walls, the single or double blanket or whatever. However, the plot of the temperature gradient (at least within known limits) is not a function of this rate, but is a function of the temperatures at the boundaries – ie the inside and outside of the wall. If you place snow against the outside wall and it is colder than the air, then you will increase the temperature gradient through the wall, just as the Earth system, if it became warmer at the surface, would have to increase the gradient of the temperature plot all the way from the core to the surface, this requiring a huge amount of energy and taking perhaps hundreds of thousands of years.
You cannot assume that the Earth’s atmosphere acts in the same way as a solid. The atmosphere has a pressure gradient which means convection normally goes up not down. There is a resulting adiabatic lapse rate, the effect of which is discussed in my paper.
Keep warm under your blanket. It won’t raise your body temperature – you just won’t feel such cold air against your skin.
gallopingcamel says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:01 pm
I pointed out the fundamental fallacy of your section 2 which arose from trying to apply thermodynamics to the transfer of energy by radiation.
__________________________________________
If this statement implies that you don’t believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to radiative heat transfer, then I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree.
That the Law does apply is indeed a fundamental assumption in my paper, and one which i suggest is well confirmed by traditional physics. So it is understandable that you would consider the rest of my writings to be invalid because of what I consider to be a false belief on your part. I am not being critical: everyone is entitled to their beliefs and I respect that. I am just stating a logical deduction that can be made if you are in fact of such persuasion.
2nd request…
Doug Cotton,
On other blogs, you stated that your paper was going to be “peer reviewed”. Your paper appears to be vanity published instead of being published in an established scientific journal.
Can you explain how you accomplished peer review outside of an independent process for selecting reviewers and arbitrating reviewer comments?
Thank you.
wermet and others
I quote from http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
“What is unique here is that the pioneering “peer review in open media” (PROM) requires
authors to be responsive to real time criticisms and suggestions from fellow scientists who,
as reviewers, share notes and suggest improvements while third parties can watch as it
happens.
“”Cotton’s paper was put online and discussed among a panel of reviewers from various
diverse disciplines for several weeks. This is the key to PSI’s more robust assessment. “It’s
far better when outside experts add their voice to the review process, as was recommended
by the Oxburgh Report (2010).” For those who don’t recall, the British government
commissioned a panel of experts to evaluate evidence of misconduct by climatologists after
the “Climategate” scandal. The Oxburgh Report recommended more reviews by outside
experts.
“The PROM system addresses that need and encourages a real-time dialog between author
and reviewers ensuring that feedback is heeded and acted upon. “This is the way more
science should be done in this age of instant high-speed document transfer,” adds
O’Sullivan. “The author got invaluable input from his reviewers and he acted upon the
feedback he got, plus the reviewers were able to satisfy themselves of the validity of
Cotton’s research because they saw precisely how the author collated his evidence and
substantiated his findings.”
“In a series of email exchanges the four reviewers, Dr. Matthias Kleespies (environmental
scientist), Alan Siddons (radiochemist), Hans Schreuder (analytical chemist, ret.) and
Professor Claes Johnson (applied mathematics) ensured that expertize from various
scientific disciplines was applied constructively and thoroughly, unusual for the assessment
of climate science papers.”
DC
We can probably assume that the wind which moves the clouds also brings moist air that moves between the clouds and the surface.>>>
Unless you made measurements to confirm same, you can assume nothing.
DC
(2) The water exposed to “backradiation” actually cooled faster than the shielded water.>>>
Since you did no measurements of the exact spectrum that passes through the glass, the spectrum absorbed by the glass, and the spectrum reflected by the glass, you actuall have no idea whatsoever what warmed the water and what cooled it. Further, while your sheet of glass and shield may have allowed for convection, it would have intercepted LW from the ground below and both reflected and re-radiated it back down, some of which would have been absorbed by your container of water. FURTHER, the sheet of glass is sitting on BRICKS and is held down by BRICKS which are MASSIVE heat sinks that would have warmed the glass by conductance and the glass would then have radiated LW toward your flask of water. FURTHER STILL, you state that moisture collected on the glass, meaning that moisture was building up in the air beneath the glass, and this would have slowed cooling via evaporation. OF COURSE the water beneath the glass cooled more slowly! Look at all the factors that would have led to that!
DC
(3) Even though the energy diagrams show only a little more upwelling radiation from the surface than downwelling “backradiation” (about 7% more usually) it is clear that the effect of upwelling radiation and convection on the glass was far greater than the effect of all the downwelling radiation.>>>
You have no idea what you exposed the covered water to because you didn’t take into account radiance of the apparatus itself (glass and bricks) into the water, you didn’t measure what wavelengths were and were not transmitted, and you blocked cooling via evaporation. You’ve no clue what you measured, and no idea what you are doing.
DC
(4) So not all radiative flux is “equal” when it comes to any affect on temperatures,>>>
w/m2 is w/m2. If you get anything other than that then either your experiment is flawed, or you have just demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics are completely wrong. In your case, we can safely assume that your experiment is so ridiculously flawed that you ought to be embarrased just for presenting it, and that the laws of thermodynamics are safe for the time being. Soft minded sycophants who believe your drivel, not so much.
DC
If you increase the effect of insulation you will slow the rate of energy flow by conduction through the insulated walls>>>>
The people inside the igloo are the only heat source, and they are not in contact with the walls of the igloo for the most part. The warming that occurrs inside an igloo is entirely the result of radiative effects. No, people’s breath is insignificant so don’t bother with that one, the hole in the top of the igloo to promote circulation ensures that there more energy is lost from circulation than is gained by people’s breath. In a poorly insulated house, the snow will melt back from the walls until there is a gap between the snow and the walls, so no conduction occurrs, yet the heating bill is still reduced. In the example of logs on the fire, exactly how does conduction work in reverse in order to create the hot spot in the centre of the fire? Nothing you have said explains the effects of two thin blankets versus one thick one.
As for suggesting that I have assumed that the atmosphere acts like a solid, I have done no such thing. You claim that cooler objects cannot radiate energy to warmer objects, and I have just given you a series of examples showing that is complete bunk. You’ve posted the results of an experiment which I’ve also shown to be complete bunk. Your theory and your paper fall into the same category. Complete bunk/
DC
If you increase the effect of insulation you will slow the rate of energy flow by conduction through the insulated walls>>>>
BTW, hollow walls don’t insulate as well as walls filled with fiberglass. fiberglass is actually a better conductor than air. Yet, putting fiberglass in the walls results in lower heating bills.
Explain that one with your bunk. er, theory. Nah. bunk.
Insulation is a surprising subject with counter-intuitive effects and plenty of it simply doesn’t work, a nice instance being roof insulation with a reflective coat. What is going on seems little understood. (long story)
For some fun try the following. A strangeness is a remarkably high vacuum is needed to stop convenction and odder, a small gap is better to stop conduction, at least under imperfect vacuum.
http://www.technifab.com/cryogenic-resource-library/cryogenic-insulation.html
Addendum to experiment
In order to check that the apparatus did indeed shield atmospheric radiation successfully, I took further readings at 1:53pm (Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time) today, March 16, 2012. It is a clear day with hardly any cloud, none directly overhead. The ambient temperature in open shade was 31.9 deg.C and the air under the shield was 32.3 deg.C. The water in the flask exposed to sunlight was 29.1 deg.C and that in the shielded flask was 20.5 deg.C, being only 0.2 C degree above the 5:08am reading taken before sunrise.
I would comment that, considering the energy diagrams show comparable radiation leaving the surface to that from the Sun reaching the surface, then, allowing for the Sun only shining a bit more than half the time at this time of the year in Sydney, then why would not the backradiation have demonstrated something like half the extra 9.6 C degrees which the Sun has warmed the exposed water in a similar time? Clearly the backradiation is not doing what the IPCC claims it does.
davidmhoffer
w/m2 is w/m2. If you get anything other than that then either your experiment is flawed, or you have just demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics are completely wrong.
______________________________________________________
Even if the water under the shield received all the energy in the surface radiation from the whole area it certainly showed no warming, only a slower rate of cooling, the reasons for which are in my paper, and discussed in the conclusions in the first “experiment” post above. Of course it did not cool quite as fast as the exposed water.
The issue is, should the exposed water have cooled as fast as it did? The shielded water is just an approximate control, after all.
And the exposed water continued to cool at a rate which one would hardly expect to be significantly greater when compared to the ambient temperature which also cooled of course. All this when we are supposed to be receiving nearly half as much “w/m^2” as we do in bright sunlight.
Now compare what (supposedly only about twice as much) Solar radiation did in comparison, as in the Addendum I just posted.
There’s air in the igloo which transfers thermal energy by diffusion from the near 40 deg.C human bodies to the inner surfaces of the walls. This is all transfer from warmer to cooler, so I see no problem or breach of SLoT. What difficulty do you have with this and what do you think the relevance is to climate considerations where we are disagreeing about transfer of thermal energy from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, which i say in my paper, does not happen.
DC;
then why would not the backradiation have demonstrated something like half the extra 9.6 C degrees which the Sun has warmed the exposed water in a similar time? Clearly the backradiation is not doing what the IPCC claims it does.>>>>>
Because what you were measuring was not exclusively a difference due to backradiation alone.
[Moderation note] Hi David, I’ve lower-cased your response because all caps responses raise the blood pressure level too much. -TB
Doug Cotton,
Thanks for accepting my invitation. As Ghengis pointed out we are on the same side so I will try to curb my pedantic tendencies in future.
Doug Cotton said:
“If this statement implies that you don’t believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to radiative heat transfer, then I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree.”
Yes it does, so let’s respect each other’s opinions.
Yet I am a fan of the “Second Law” that so impressed Albert Einstein.
davidmhoffer
I do accept that the points you raised could have a very small influence. However, note that the shield was working quite effectively as can be seen in the Addendum post above. So the bricks and much warmer glass and surrounding air show that even when these were about 10C warmer, they only caused 0.2 C increase in the temperature of the water under the shield in sunlight hours. (When ambient temperature was around 32 C the water had only warmed 0.2 C to 20.5 deg.C between 5:08 am and 1:53 pm, whereas the unshielded water was 29.1 deg.C).
There is just no way that the effect of the backradiation could have made a difference of the order of half the 9.6 C which the Sun warmed the water. Sure, accurate calculations would be difficult, but see the big picture: the radiation is not being converted to thermal energy.
gallopingcamel
Perhaps you might consider my overnight experiment described above in two posts (one being an addendum) and the comment about it to davidmhoffer just above.
I suggest that it is pretty obvious that backradiation is not having anything like half the effect of the Sun, and that means its radiated energy is not being converted to thermal energy when the surface is warmer. Instead the radiation is undergoing resonant scattering as Claes and I (and quite a few others) are saying.
davidmhoffer
Regarding the igloo, you said The warming that occurrs inside an igloo is entirely the result of radiative effects.
This is just not correct. A significant proportion (possibly more than half) is due to diffusion between the humans and the air. You can read about diffusion in the second paragraph of Wikipedia “Heat Transfer.” You can also test for it yourself with a simple experiment like the lamp holder one photographed on my first climate site early last year: http://earth-climate.com/
This is very relevant to climate, because much of the transfer of energy from the surface is by diffusion (and also evaporation) leaving less than half to be radiated. This is another reason why the surface would not have been 255K in the absence of GHG’s. There are mnay more reasons in the Appendix.
.
gallopingcamel says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:01 pm
In the spirit of fairness I offer you the opportunity to do a hatchet job on my musings:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/unified-theory-of-climate/
Hi GC. That’s a very interesting article. Would it be ok to repost it here with Verity and Tony’s agreement?
Doug: firstly, well done for attempting experimental work, even if there are issues with how well it is controlled for other variables which there has been no attempt to quantify.
Have you considered the possibility that the effect of long wave radiation on water might be very different to its effect on other types of material?
Would it be possible to repeat the experiment with say a black painted aluminium disc to see what difference in result you get?
I ask because I would consider the possibility that since long wave radiation doesn’t penetrate water beyond a few nanometres, the flux absorbed (if it is absorbed rather than scattered/diffused as you hypothesise) in the few molecule deep layer it can penetrate would cause the water molecules to rise in temperature very quickly, causing evaporation, which would have a strong cooling effect on the water surface.
Thanks for at least putting in the effort to the experiment, Mr. Cotton, though I believe radiative contamination may have played a role in some of the readings you got, I cannot prove this so I will not claim it necessarily so.
Mr. Hoffer, are you sure an igloo is a good comparison to processes in the atmosphere? If thats what you were implying? I believe much of the warming inside the igloo without the humans inside it results from actual GHG behavior with an absence of conduction…radiation from the warmer ground UNDER the snowpack (snowcover is an insulator to the ground beneath it), emitting through the snowpack, warming the initially colder air inside the igloo. Problem is the temperature of the snow surface may determine the conductive potential of the O2/N2 that do not absorb or emit IR, and though the air inside the igloo will not warm to a threshold above that of the ground under the snowpack, I don’t know if conduction can be blamed for the heating inside the igloo, at least not for the most part, but rather GHGes that exist in the igloo.
In the REAL atmosphere (open system), I do not believe the process is anything like what happens inside an igloo. In the real atmosphere, the O2/N2 molecules would attain heat via conduction from the Earth’s surface with or without GHGes…which if we remove all GHGes, you remove all cloud cover which would allow ~ 30% more Solar SW to reach the surface of the planet (thats pretty huge), and the atmosphere also would have no possible way to cool to space since the atmosphere itself would not emit IR at all…the planet would be very hot due to increased thermal conductive interaction between the atmosphere and the surface and the lack of any albedo whatsoever. Dry convection would exist but it would be inadequate at decreasing the radiative budget of the atmosphere. With GHGes in the atmosphere, you not only create albedo, but the GHGes that collide with various O2/N2 molecules in the atmosphere help them shed a portion of their thermal load to space that otherwise would not have taken place. This is why I believe the GHE, in our case, leads to a cooling of the atmosphere and surface of the planet.
Phil;
Mr. Hoffer, are you sure an igloo is a good comparison to processes in the atmosphere? If thats what you were implying?>>>
No, that is not what I was implying and stated so elsewhere. The issue raised by Mr Cotton was his assertion that energy radiated by a colder body could not be absorbed by a warmer body, which is total and complete bunk.
As to your point regarding ground heat warming the igloo, yes, that is a factor, though not one I had intended to get into in any depth. The effect varies depending on a whole bunch of factors. When building an igloo or quinzee, one actually should avoid exposing the earth at the bottom of the structure. The amount of heat that comes out of the earth is actually pretty marginal in my experience (when you actually go and do these things you get a better picture of how they actually work). But when you put a body or two inside for the night, the temperature rises enough that any exposed earth will start to melt and turn to mud. Not good for sleeping in.
Bottom line is that the primary driver of warmer temps inside the igloo is radiative processes. Shelters like igloos and quinzees are constructed to promote convection from the entrance through to the vent in the top in order to ensure air remains fresh. Most of the heat captured by conduction from both ground and human bodies into the air gets lost as a result. The primary driver of warmth for the winter camper is not conduction, but radiative effects, regardless of source. That was my point.
Further, Mr Cotton responds with his arm waving about igloos for whatever reasons, while ignoring the rest of my examples.
Doug Cotton says:
March 16, 2012 at 6:28 am
davidmhoffer
Regarding the igloo, you said The warming that occurrs inside an igloo is entirely the result of radiative effects.
This is just not correct. A significant proportion (possibly more than half) is due to diffusion between the humans and the air>>>
Apparantly you missed my original comment in which I explained that air exchanges due to convection between the entrance and the vent at the top negate this. You’ve ignored most of the rest of my examples or tackled them with arm waving or started yelping that they aren’t representative of the atmosphere. That wasn’t the issue. The issue was your assertion that energy radiated by colder objects could not be absorbed by warmer objects, which is complete and total bunk.
tallbloke
I have been reading the thread where they are talking about long wave radiation entering water. On that thread here https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/gaelic-dancing-part-two-arms-the-missing-half-of-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-19974 there is yet another commenter pointing out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does in fact apply for radiation, just as much as for conduction, evaporation or diffusion between solids and gases. If radiation were singled out as an exception then the whole Earth system, and the universe I guess, would go crazy because there is so much radiation around.
The oceans and sea ice hold about 90% of all energy above the inner crust, the atmosphere about 4% and the land surfaces and other ice and snow about 6%. So it has to be that the oceans dominate, and what is being said about that on the other thread is true, (though the role of pressure is overstated, as it is only one of several factors that affect the rate of energy transfer from the oceans by evaportation, diffusion or radiation.) Watch the temperatures in Singapore, for example, and see how the surrounding oceans totally control them so that maximums are 31 or 32 deg.C and minimums around 25 to 26 deg.C every day and night of the year. So this is why I tested water.
Basically I know that, whether the LW radiation penetrates the ocean surface very far or not, its energy does not get converted to thermal energy. It will be scattered around even underwater until it happens to exit to the atmosphere again without leaving any energy behind anywhere.
The LW radiation can, however, slow the rate of radiative cooling, but not the other main two, namely evaporation and diffusion. These two will increase to compensate because of the stabilising effect of the land and ocean temperatures deeper down, even under the outer crust. These are the key points in my paper being discussed on this thread of course. And this is why my experiment showed no unexpected slowing of the rate of cooling of the unshielded wide necked vacuum flask of water. I remind people that I tested the insulation of the shield today as noted in the Addendum comment above. These measurements today showed that the Sun could heat the unshielded water 9.6 degrees, but LW did next to nothing. I have done a similar experiment with soil before, so it’s not the fact that I’m using water. Any of you could try this with different matter in the flasks. I even thought of cement powder which would confirm if it had rained, but they were such nice flasks (at $14 each) that I thought I’d keep them for holidays. (There are photos linked on the above post.)
Phil There’s no significant effect of radiatve contamination, I suggest. The fact still remains that backradiation did not have any significant unexpected observable effect on the unshielded flask of water, whereas the IPCC figures in their energy diagrams (also NASA and KT) clearly imply that backradiation even at night should have close to half the effect of the Sun in day-time. Backradiation certainly did not have half the effect of that 9.6 degree C rise caused by the Sun today.
Doug Cotton says:
March 16, 2012 at 6:01 am
davidmhoffer
I do accept that the points you raised could have a very small influence.>>>
Really? Since you measured none of them how could you possibly know the magnitude of the influence? Science is about measuring and quantifying, not guessing. The biggest blunders in science history have been from guessing instead of measuring. Most of the bunk in CAGW is from guessing instead of measuring, or substituting guesswork for measurement when the measurements conflict with the guesswork.
Which is EXACTLY what you are doing with this experiment. Guessing and asserting your guesswork as data.
Bunk, total bunk. That’s not science anymore that the CAGW guesswork (computer models in their case) is. You are making the exact same mistake as they are, substituting what you BELIEVE to be true for ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS. That’s not science, that’s bunk.
The fact is that you do not know, you do not have a clue, as to what the order of magnitude of those factors is BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT EITHER MEASURED THEM NOR CONSTRUCTED AN EXPERIMENT THAT ELIMINATES THEM.
BTW, I missed one. I accepted at face value your assertion that convective processes were at play. They are, but they are not equal. At a 10% inclination, convection will still happen, but it will be considerably constrained compared to an air mass that can rise straight upwards. Again, you’ve introduced a factor that constrains the cooling mechanisms of the water beneath the glass, and you have no way of quantifying these effects.
Your experiment proves nothing other than a flask of water beneath a sheet of glass cools slower than one without a sheet of glass over it.
DC;
Basically I know that, whether the LW radiation penetrates the ocean surface very far or not, its energy does not get converted to thermal energy>>>
Bunk.
It either gets reflected at surface or absorbed. The notion that photons can whiz around beneath the surface of the water without being absorbed (thermalized) is total, complete, bunk.
To be more accurate, I said:
Bunk.
It either gets reflected at surface or absorbed. The notion that photons can whiz around beneath the surface of the water without being absorbed (thermalized) is total, complete, bunk.>>>
Which was in reference to LW. SW can in fact penetrate considerable quantities of water, and even reflect off of surfaces at the bottom and exit upwards. That’s why you can see the bottom of a clear lake in the first place.
But we’re talking a straight line down, reflection, and a straight line up. LW either gets reflected at surface or absorbed. The fact that it cannot penetrate other than a very thin layer of water ensures that only two things can happen to it. Reflection, or aborption. The notion that LW can penetrate the surface and then simply whiz around at random without being absorbed it total and complete bullshit. If it WASN’T absorbed, then it could travel to the bottom and be reflected back out again just like SW.
But it is either reflected at surface, or absorbed at surface. There’s no such thing as being absorbed without being thermalized. Well, unless you want to invent your own special brand of physics for that too.
davidmhoffer Made both these statements regarding igloos ….
The warming that occurrs inside an igloo is entirely the result of radiative effects.
air exchanges due to convection between the entrance and the vent at the top negate this
_______________________________________________
You’re also hand waving a bit here. It’s a combination of things. What if they mostly blocked the door for a few minutes in a blizzard? What if some people are not standing in the air flow from the door to the vent? Where does their body heat go? What about more sophisticated huts in Antarctica that have doors? There is diffusion in any gas which “spreads out” the thermal energy quite independently of whether or not any air (or gas) actually moves, as it has to in convection processes. There is diffusion and radiation (and sometimes evaporation under the arm pits) between any solid (a human body) and a gas adjoining it but at a different temperature. If you close outside doors and windows, temperatures in an insulated hut will “even out” regardless. If only convection were involved all the warm air would hang around the ceiling.
DC;
You’re also hand waving a bit here. >>>
OK, we’ll take all my winter camping first hand experience, throw it out, and say that you are right.
Now explain the rest of my examples.
davidmhoffer says:
March 16, 2012 at 9:26 am
DC;
You’re also hand waving a bit here. >>>
OK, we’ll take all my winter camping first hand experience, throw it out, and say that you are right.
Now explain the rest of my examples
>>>>>>>
Actually, forget it. You win. I accept that the density of certain materials, grey matter in particular, prevents the conductance of facts and logic.
dropping this thread.
Everyone:
This thread is dedicated to discussion of my paper which has undergone peer-review and is now subjected to “open peer-review” by potentially dozens of people, as explained here http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
Discussion of igloos has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the paper, and such topics are closed as far as any response from me is concerned. Let’s have genuine “open review” here too.
May I remind people that, as Wikipedia says, The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a basic postulate applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer. Wikipedia makes no exception for transfer of thermal energy by radiation..
Now, please, no more comments of an assertive nature that are based on what you think I might have said, rather than what is actually in the paper in black and white. To help others, please quote Section numbers or FAQ numbers from the Appendix,
I trust you consider all this a reasonable request.
Doug Cotton says:
March 16, 2012 at 8:54 am
tallbloke
I have been reading the thread where they are talking about long wave radiation entering water. On that thread here https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/gaelic-dancing-part-two-arms-the-missing-half-of-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-19974 there is yet another commenter pointing out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does in fact apply for radiation,
There is so much sloppy terminology used in these debates I despair of ever getting them resolved. Let’s stick to the idea of the presence of cooler radiating masses slowing the rates of cooling of nearby hotter radiating masses, provided the cooler masses are warmer than the ambient surroundings.
I find arguments around the resonant vibrations of individual particles way too esoteric and subject to disagreement. Though having said that, I’m more inclined to take notice of people who have worked in the field for many years doing real controlled experiments like Galloping Camel has, rather than the conceptual thinking of maths professors.
According to Wiki’s entry on heat:
“The second law of thermodynamics requires that the transfer of energy from one body to another with an equal or higher temperature can only occur with the aid of a heat pump by mechanical work, or by some other similar process in which entropy is increased in the universe in a manner that compensates for the decrease of entropy in the cooled body, due to the removal of the heat from it.[14] For example, energy may be removed against a temperature gradient by spontaneous evaporation of a liquid.”
the reference [14] is to Planck 1922-27 p89.
Clearly the transfer of energy from a cooler body to a hotter one is compensated by the transfer of energy from the hotter body to the cooler one. So I don’t see any problem with energy being transferred from cooler to hotter by radiation. Obviously, the radiation from the cooler body isn’t going to make the hotter body any hotter than it was, it will slow its rate of cooling according to Planck’s scheme. This is because the hotter body won’t be losing total energy as quickly as it would if the cooler body weren’t there. Again, the above is subject to the proviso that the cooler body is warmer than the ambient surroundings.
This is a comment i recently placed on Spencer’s blog. Doug has suggested I repeat it here;
‘Climate science has some serious problems in its understanding. Instrumental scientists tend to be technicians and fail to do the science bit, which is to identify exactly what an experiment proves.
Once case in point is your TOA IR spectrum. What this measures is the radiation falling within the view angle of the detector. This correctly shows the attenuation in the IR absorbing bands over the absorption depth. However, the ‘missing energy’ isn’t missing.
The conventional GHG theory is that it is directly thermalised in dribs and drabs to increase the kinetic energy of the N2 and O2. This can’t happen because the IR energy is quantised by resonance and can only be transferred as a whole. Instead, another excited GHG molecule emits the same energy quantum in a random direction restoring Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium.
The reason is that thermalisation takes a long time so a new emission is preferred kinetically. Climate science has forgotten the most basic theorem of statistical thermodynamics, indistinguishability, [see the ‘Gibbs Paradox’].
I have written more on this in a recent Tallbloke post but in essence, molecules have no memory. The pseudo-scattering means the atmosphere acts as a heat transfer medium with most thermalisation probably at heterogeneous interfaces: cloud droplets and bare aerosols.
This converts GHG-specific IR energies into non-specific thermal emission [clouds tend to be grey bodies]. Thus the IR spectrum you show is part of a much bigger picture.
Of course, my suggestion that the whole of climate science is wrong and I am right might be considered controversial. However, go the the text books and you will see climate science has been extraordinarily naive in its treatment of the IR issues. Will Happer pointed this out in 1993.
I believe the energy in an IR photon absorbed near the earth’s surface appears at an interface or heads to space at near the speed of light with the intermediate process being controlled by the statistical thermodynamics of the assembly, the whole atmosphere even over the horizon. The TOA spectrum is a measure of the few 10s of km in the final path and the real detail is in the non-GHG region from ‘energy transmutation’ you can’t get from direct thermalisation!’
tallbloke and others
Clearly the transfer of energy from a cooler body to a hotter one is compensated by the transfer of energy from the hotter body to the cooler one
____________________________
With respect. the whole point of my paper is to prove the above statement must be incorrect. If, for example, IR from a cooler atmosphere is converted to thermal energy, (say going from A to B) then there is absolutely no physical reason why there has to be a “compensating” or greater transfer at that time or between those points, ie back from B to A.
Physics down through the ages has never said this could happen. Each movement of thermal energy has to stand alone and satisfy the SLoT in its own right. Movement of radiation does not necessarily mean movement of thermal energy between the same two points.
This is vital in consideration of atmospheric physics
(1) It eliminates the possibility of any particular “parcel” of thermal energy going from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface and then back out by evaporation or diffusion.
(2) It restricts the effect to one of slowing the rate of radiative cooling, but not the other rates of cooling by evaporation and diffusion followed by convection.
(3) Furthermore, when the physical process is understood (as is explained in the paper) then it is obvious that carbon dioxide can have far less effect per molecule because it emits far fewer separate frequencies (wavelengths.) All the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must have less than 1% of the effect of all water vapour. So, just because it gets warmer on a humid night, does not mean carbon dioxide can create the same effect.
Doug Cotton says:
March 16, 2012 at 10:47 am
… there is absolutely no physical reason why there has to be a “compensating” or greater transfer at that time or between those points, ie back from B to A.
Well, I don’t think Planck or anyone else insisted that the law of entropy had to be satisfied instantaneously.
These things are treated statistically. If you want to do bean counting on individual quanta, you’re going to need equipment more sophisticated than a flask and a sheet of glass.
Anyway, where’s the proof that each individual movement of energy has to obey SLoT?
Spontaneous evaporation can go against the thermal gradient as Wiki says. That’s in contravention of your demands.
Nature has a habit of obeying its own laws, rather then the ones we cook up to describe it with.
Mydogsgotnonose says:
“The conventional GHG theory is that it is directly thermalised in dribs and drabs to increase the kinetic energy of the N2 and O2. This can’t happen because the IR energy is quantised by resonance and can only be transferred as a whole. Instead, another excited GHG molecule emits the same energy quantum in a random direction restoring Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium.”
This is an interesting point that I would like to see resolved.
Tom Vonk did a post on WUWT about this topic a year ago.
His post agrees with MDGNN but was generally disputed by sceptics.
De Witt Paine did a post and calculation for the Air Vent blog.
His calculation showed that the relaxation time for spontaneous re-emission was much longer than the probability of collision de-excitation.
Point being that thermalisation occurs => convection results => LTE and Kirchhoff no longer hold => less radiation of 15um to cause backradiation.
I tend to agree with De Witt on this point.
Either possibility does not advance the case for greenhouse theory.
[Reply] Links man, links! 🙂
Bryan: what my post does is to point out that in any assembly of molecules, there are sufficient excited GHG molecules that immediately a non–excited GHG molecule absorbs a photon, another one emits the same photon in a random direction thus restoring LTE. Thus pseudo-scattering dominates thermalisation which has a much longer delay period.
That in turn means there is in principle no possibility of direct thermalisation of absorbed IR by non GHGs but there may be some set by the statistics of GHG-GHG collisions.
The condition for this to be true is that the number of IR photons entering the system is << average natural emission frequency.. This will almost always be true because of the low IR absorption probability compared with the emission probability for the ~5% of CO2 molecules that are excited at room temperature.
The background to this is that the Tyndall and PET bottle experiments have been seriously misunderstood. Not only were they at constant volume so much temperature rise was from adiabatic pressure rise, there is an increase of absorptivity as temperature increases, plus the real heating is probably from scattering causing more absorption at the walls. Nahle has done experiments in Mylar balloons proving this.
Mydog says:
“immediately a non–excited GHG molecule absorbs a photon, another one emits the same photon”
Cool! How does it smuggle the photon from the first GHG molecule?
I love this microscopic stuff, so many unexpected surprises. 🙂
Tallbloke and Bryan
Bryan, your mention of DeWitt Payne reminds me that he explained how spectroscopy can be used to prove what Claes Johnson and I are saying. If you have a blackbody at the end of a tube filled with air and the body is cooler than the air you do not see absorption lines. Then start warming the body and as soon as it passes the temperature of the air you start to see the lines. I’m sure DeWitt will confirm that, and it’s mentioned on various websites in instructions for using spectroscopy that the gas has to be cooler than the emitter. So there is empirical evidence that Claes is right for gases, at least.
Tallbloke, the Second Law is never stated in a way that says there can be compensation at some later time or later date, or on the other side of the World. In the earth system some thermal energy might well stay in the ocean or even land surfaces from summer till the next local winter. Are you seriously going to think that that energy is then going to remember its “debt” and exit the surface, thus compensating for something that happened six months earlier? Where and when do you start balancing the books? It would make a farce of physics, and in fact some “climate science” is a travesty of traditional physics and quantum mechanics.
Every morning while the Earth is warming in any particular hemisphere or location there is net inflow into the surface. But it obeys the Second Law because it all comes from the Sun. All the radiation from the cooler atmosphere is physically “rejected” and sent back by the surface, just like diffuse reflection, morning, evening or whenever.
That’s what happens, guys, whether you choose to believe it or not.
And the ramifications are huge because it then follows automatically that carbon dioxide can have absolutely minimal effect in slowing radiative cooling and nothing else that leads to warming. It can in fact have a greater cooling effect sending upward backradiation of Solar IR back into space.
I know it’s going to take a few years for this to get around and be understood, but you have the opportunity to be among the first to understand it, as is explained in over 6,000 words of peer-reviewed, carefully explained physics in my paper, which was carefully considered, enlarged and improved in consultation with other scientists over the final three weeks before launch.
Doug, I think you are making a reductio ad absurdum out of my point but I’ll let it go.
If you read my article on Gaelic dancing carefully, you’ll see I’m in agreement that the GHG’s primary role is in cooling the planet rather than reheating it, if my hypothesis concerning surface pressure is correct. I also hinted at it in this earlier thread:
If you are correct, it means all of the extra warmth above grey body temperature at the Earth’s surface is likely due to the effect of pressure on the ocean surface as outlined by Stephen Wilde and myself, plus the atmospheric pressure effect outlined by Nikolov and Zeller, Hans Jelbring, and Loschmidt, Laplace and Lagrange. the Loschmidt paradox would be resolved, the carbon dioxide scare would be over and we could all drive our v8’s to our heart’s content.
So I hope you are right. Certainly there seems to be some support or at least some room for further development judging from Mydog’s comments and from a couple of others here who know some esoteric stuff about vibrational modes, statistical quantum mechanics etc.
But,
You have a mountain to climb still. You need to take on board what people here are saying and tighten up your work, explain where it needs empirical support, admit the areas of uncertainty more clearly, and create a roadmap for development.
Good luck.
Hi Tallbloke; in any assembly of CO2 molecules, about 5% at any one time are thermally excited at room temperature to emit IR photons.
So long as many more of these are being emitted per unit time than are being absorbed from an external energy source, the delay time from absorbing a photon to the next spontaneous emission may be low enough for there to be no net local energy storage.
Because the absorption probability is low, this seems to me to be a reasonable prediction.
Nasif Nahle has shown that if you reduce the container effect by heating CO2 in Mylar balloons, there is no detectable warming, suggesting that most of the heating in other experiments has been constrained pressure rise and heterogeneous thermalisation.
I believe experiment more than theory and modelling, which is what has dominated the work in the past.
tallbloke
It should be clear that MyDog means another photon with identical energy, and thus identical frequency. That’s why he calls it pseudo-scattering.
When radiation meets a warmer target than the source of the radiation, all its frequencies are contained within the frequencies of the warmer body, and the intensity at any given frequency never exceeds that for the same frequency which is able to be emitted by the warmer body. This is a mathematical fact easily seen from the shape and location of the Planck curves when plotted against frequency rather than wavelength, as in my paper.
Because of this this radiation from the cooler body can always resonate with molecules in the warmer body.
All this means is that a molecule is excited in one half of the wave and immediately a new photon is emitted in the second half of the wave. So it looks just as if the original radiation has been scattered or undergone diffuse reflection. It still has the same energy. I call the process “resonant scattering.” This is why no thermal energy is transferred from cold to hot. But, for radiation the other way, the surplus between the Planck curves will be thermalised in the cooler body, and weaker radiation will be scattered and take with it the remaining energy until it reaches the next target.
It’s really not hard to follow, but perhaps better explained with graphics in the paper.
New “live” experiment
Tonight I’m placing one flask under the kid’s cubby house which has a floor 2400mm x 2400mm nearly 1 metre above. This will avoid the condensation problem.
Time ……… covered….. uncovered…… ambient………… cloud cover
9:15pm……… 24.2……….. 24.2…………. 24.2……………. very light high cloud
11.00pm……. 23.6…………/ 23.3………… 23.0…………….. very light high cloud
You really couldn’t expect the uncovered one to have cooled any more compared with ambient cooling. It’s obvious carbon dioxide is having no effect and nor is water vapour tonight as cloud is light and high. There would be a bit less convective cooling under the cubby house, easily explaining why it’s a little warmer. I put a light coloured cloth over some of the ground where the flask is under the cubby house to reduce upward radiation from the ground.
There is no way that backradiation is having the effect of nearly half the Sun’s radiation, as the energy diagrams postulate. The backradiation is undergoing resonant scattering, there’s no two ways about it.
Tom Vonks post
De Witt Payne’s calculation
The TOA “bite” in satellite looking down spectra is good evidence of CO2 absorption.
It not good evidence for symetrical CO2 emission, rather the 15um emission band is partially transferred to the much more probable H2O bands at longer wavelengths .
The second law is not contradicted.
Sun heats Earth Surface,Earth surface heats atmosphere,atmosphere radiates to space.
The quality of radiation in all three transfers is degraded.
It really does not matter whether IR is thermalised or immediately re-emitted when CO2 captures it.
I say this because, any particular photon size quantity of radiated energy will in fact make many (maybe hundreds,maybe millions or trillions) of trips between molecules in a random path up and down in the atmosphere. The surface molecules will be no different to other warmer molecules in the atmosphere – they will all just scatter it. But if it gets to cooler regions of the atmosphere it may strike a molecule that can thermalise some or all of its energy. I don’t know and it doesn’t really matter. We know it all gets to space eventually, where “eventually” is probably less than a second for the whole process.
They cannot accurately determine if there is a TOA imbalance, for that would require simultaneous measurements all over the world, and regular ones at that. We don’t need that information either, because we can assume that such long term imbalances will correlate with long term temperature trends. These long term trends are based on natural cycles which are discussed in my Appendix.
The main thing is to rid the world of all this unnecessary worry about carbon dioxide. There is nothing humans can do about climate except try to predict it from analysis of natural cycles, as Nicola Scafetta is doing and as you’ve no doubt seen on WUWT. He is nearly right, but he needs to reduce his estimates of the gradient of the long term trend. This is also explained in my Appendix.
That’s about it. I’m turning in for an early night at 11.45pm. I’ll try to pull myself out of bed for an extra measurement during the night. Cheers.
Bryan, many thanks!
Mydog, forgive me for my flippant jest.
Doug, you need institutional access to journals and some time to research supporting conclusions from previous papers. No-one listens to home grown theories. containing newly coined effects unless they cite established physics.
That’s friendly advice, not a put-down.
Climatologists love to talk about energy being trapped by carbon dioxide and thus not exiting at the top of the atmosphere (TOA.)
It is nowhere near as simple as that. All the radiation gets to space sooner or later. Carbon dioxide just scatters it on its way so you don’t see radiation in those bandwidths at TOA. The energy still gets out, and you have no proof that it doesn’t.
In the hemisphere that is cooling at night there is far more getting out, whereas in the hemisphere in the sunlight there is far more coming in. This is obvious.
When I placed a wide necked vacuum flask filled with water in the sun yesterday (with the lid off) the temperature of the water rose from 19.5 deg.C at 5:08am to 29.1 deg.C at 1:53pm while the air around it rose from 19.0 to 31.9 deg.C.
What did the backradiation do at night? Well from 9:15pm till 12:05am the water cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 23.4 deg.C while the air cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 22.7 deg.C.
According to those energy diagrams the backradiation, even at night, is about half the solar radiation during the day. Well, maybe it is, but it does not have anything like half the effect on the temperature as you can confirm in your own backyard.
This is because, when radiation from a cooler atmosphere strikes a warmer surface it undergoes “resonant scattering” (sometimes called pseudo-scattering) and this means its energy is not converted to thermal energy. This is the reason that heat does not transfer from cold to hot. If it did the universe would go crazy.
When opposing radiation is scattered, its own energy replaces energy which the warmer body would have radiated from its own thermal energy supply. You can imagine it as if you are just about to pay for fuel at a gas station when a friend travelling with you offers you cash for the right amount. It’s quicker and easier for you to just pay with the cash, rather than going through the longer process of using a credit card to pay from your own account. So it is with radiation. The warmer body cools more slowly as a result because a ready source of energy from incident radiation is quicker to just “reflect” back into the atmosphere, rather than have to convert its own thermal energy to radiated energy.
The ramifications are this:
Not all radiation from the atmosphere is the same. That from cooler regions has less effect. Also, that with fewer frequencies under its Planck curve has less effect again. Each carbon dioxide molecule thus has far less effect than each water vapour molecule because the latter can radiate with more frequencies which “oppose” the frequencies being emitted by the surface, especially the oceans.
Furthermore, it is only the radiative cooling process of the surface which is slowed down. There are other processes like evaporative cooling and diffusion followed by convection which cannot be affected by backradiation, and which will tend to compensate for any slowing of the radiation.
This is why, at night, the water in the flask cools nearly as fast as the air around it. The net effect on the rate of cooling is totally negligible. The backradiation does not affect temperatures anywhere near as much as solar radiation, even though its “W/m^2” is probably about half as much.
And there are other reasons also why it all balances out and climate follows natural cycles without any anthropogenic effect. This is explained in detail in my peer-reviewed publication now being further reviewed by dozens of scientists.
tallbloke
You don’t seem to realise that you yourself are applying the Second Law incorrectly. This is no “home-grown” theory. It’s just long-established traditional physics which leads to only one possible conclusion, namely that thermal energy cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. There is scientific evidence, and much more to come from Prof Nahle this year, that, for example, warm gases do not absorb radiation from cooler sources. It’s easier to prove with gases because you can use spectroscopy. I have inside info on what’s coming, and it’s going to prove beyond any doubt that Claes and I are right about this. You have only to think about why the water in the flask didn’t react to the backradiation, but sure did to the Sun. People just have to think.
The PHYSICS of Heat Flow
What is colloquially called “heat” is technically the movement or transfer of thermal energy from one body to another. Body A “heats” Body B if A is hotter than B.
We are all comfortable with the fact that thermal energy flows along metal barbecue tongs from the fire to our hand, not the other way. But, physics tells us that the temperature gradient is determined by the temperatures at the ends of a metal rod, or the boundaries of a wall, for example.
How does the energy coming from the hot body “know” what the temperature at the other end is going to be so that it starts out following the correct temperature gradient? This is what happens as thermal energy flows from the Earth’s core to the surface. The temperature plots from boreholes as deep as 9Km all extrapolate from deep underground to the surface temperatures.
The mechanism by which it knows does in fact involve two-way molecular transitions, even though the thermal energy can only be observed going from hot to cold. There is a similarity between conduction and radiation: there’s a two-way signal, but one way energy transfer.
As you can read on Wikipedia the Clausius statement:… No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.
Physics tells us that you cannot send thermal energy from cold to hot unless you “pump” it there with extra energy, as in a blast furnace for example. So, if it went by itself it would have to create energy. And it cannot create energy even for a small fraction of a second in the “hope” that some future event will send at least as much energy back to the cooler source. That’s just not physics.
Just as the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to conduction, so it must apply to radiation, for if it didn’t, you could create energy that way.
The mechanism by which it happens with radiation is really quite simple. If a body receives radiation with familiar frequencies which it can emit itself then it just “rejects” that part of the radiation and effectively sends it on its way. But if the radiation it receives has higher frequencies or a greater intensity of the frequencies it can handle, then the extra radiated energy is converted to thermal energy because it’s too much to handle with resonant scattering, sometimes called pseudo scattering because in fact new identical photos are created in lieu of the old ones.
Thus “heat” appears to flow from hot to cold, but in fact what moves is two-way radiated energy which is not thermal energy, and which is not necessarily going to be converted to thermal energy in full or in part the first time it strikes an object. It all depends how hot or cold that object is, relative to the temperature of the source of the radiation. Such is well-known physics, nothing else.
My paper is primarily a review of established physics and an explanation of where and why climatologists without a correct understanding of physics, have misapplied it.
.
tallbloke says:
March 16, 2012 at 10:57 am
“Well, I don’t think Planck or anyone else insisted that the law of entropy had to be satisfied instantaneously.”
With 6 * 10^23 molecules in a mole of air each colliding 10 billion times a second with another one it will be as good as instantaneously.
“Anyway, where’s the proof that each individual movement of energy has to obey SLoT?
Spontaneous evaporation can go against the thermal gradient as Wiki says. That’s in contravention of your demands.”
With phase changes it’s not just about thermal gradients, but the entropy differences between the phases.
tallbloke
Remember that the Second Law refers to things on a macro scale. Wikipedia makes it quite clear that the second law is a basic postulate applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer…
So, when the Sun warmed the water in my flask by 9.6 C I was able to measure that and we know that the energy radiated from the Sun is going to hang around in that warmer water for a finite time, probably most of it for hours. No such energy is ever observed from cooler backradiation.
Besides, just because radiation goes from a finite but small “point” A in the atmosphere to a similar point B in the surface, does not mean that other radiation will necessarily go from exactly the same set of molecules on the surface back to the same set in the atmosphere, as an automatic consequence of the first transfer, does it? If thermal energy transferred even for a nanosecond, energy would have been created and would then have to be destroyed again if you are correct.
Furthermore, if the radiated energy from A to B did go through the relatively long physical process of being converted to thermal energy then it can do other things, rather than just get radiated back to point A. Any professor of physics would confirm this.
In fact, you could harness the energy in the thermal energy thus created and you could make a perpetual motion machine. That’s how distorted the “physics” of climatology has become.
The onus is on climatologists to get physicists to agree (which they won’t) with their invention of “post physics” as it has been called by many. It is a travesty of physics. You can’t point me to any professor of physics who would not agree with what I have said here.
Not one of about 20 scientists who have now reviewed my paper in “open review” have come up with any fault therein.
Neither you nor anyone can demonstrate radiation transferring thermal energy from a cooler source to a warmer one.
And yes, as Hans says, the Law really applies to entropy, so phase changes mean that we need to consider the sum of what is thought of as “heat” energy and “latent heat” though neither term is technically correct, but hopefully understandable to those not well versed in atmospheric physics or associated applied mathematics. There is also other energy involved, notably potential energy which can interchange with the “heat” component of thermal energy. In other words, a gas can get cooler as it rises against the force of gravity. That’s why the adiabatic lapse rate is a function of the acceleration due to gravity, and that’s where pressure comes in – they are both a function of g.
All this points to why people need to read the much more detailed explanation of standard physics which is in the first four sections of my paper, by way of introduction.
‘Don Pablo de la Sierra’ commented on Irony fail:
Doug Cotton
I prefer to put it:
“You can’t boil water by putting ice into it unless you are Harry Potter.”
More easy for the Climate Scientists™ to understand. I also helps if you say it slowly. 🙂
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/February/04021002.asp
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10586.html
Now, this is strangeness, wouldn’t surprise me if supercooling happened in the atmosphere, with crazy effects, including nucleation… cosmic ray thing?
“Not one of about 20 scientists who have now reviewed my paper in “open review” have come up with any fault therein.”
There have been a considerable number of scientists here and on Roy Spencer’s site and probably on other sites too who, in “open review”, have found something wrong. But I suppose they do not count, just as the photons that you wish to ignore do not count.
Do you think that the SLoT applies to the transfer of energy, by any means, of any kind, between individual atoms and molecules?
Then either a) if yes, provide proof
b) if no, can we assume you hold to the view that SLoT is an expression of the average behaviour of billions and billions of individual interactions between billions of molecules?
B_Happy:
Some people may think they have refuted what they think I have said, but in general they have not read the paper, like yourself, and display, like yourself, complete misunderstanding.
In general you will find my responses on Spencer’s blog, but if I have missed some post and left it unanswered, you are welcome to draw it to my attention on that blog.
I am not responding here to questions that do not relate to, nor reflect what I have said in the paper, because, as stated in an earlier post, this thread is about what is written in my paper..
So you don’t know the answer then?
By the way I have read the ‘paper’ (or more accurately blog entry published on a mate’s web site)
So, in the last paragraph of Section 3 where do I refer to individual atoms and molecules and what is not clear to you about what is said in Reference [2] about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it relates to any system involving measurable heat transfer.
If you are interested in the peer review process I went through over a period of three weeks or more before the launch with people I had never known and have never met, being as they are on the other side of the world, you may read here: http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
“Net” Second Law considerations?”
Some climatologists seem to think that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated if the net effect of several processes is such that there is a net heat transfer from hot to cold. They dispute my statement (and Wikipedia’s) that it must apply to each process.
So they say that if we have,for example, three processes:
(1) 7 units of thermal energy from a cold atmosphere to a warm surface
(2) 5 units transferred between two locations on the surface
(3) 10 units sent back from the surface to the atmosphere
then all is OK. Or is it?
Well, suppose you have two small containers of water at 98 deg.C.
(1) Put 10 ice cubes in container one,
and simultaneously …
(2) boil the water with 7 ice cubes in container 2.
All must be OK because more energy has gone into 10 ice cubes than has come out of 7 ice cubes in order to boil the water.
It’s not a silly example. The atmosphere is mostly colder than the ice cubes, and the tropopause and mesopause can be close to 100 deg.C colder than some surface areas on hot days.
Do you still believe that “net” transfers excuse violation of the Second Law?
Well Doug,
I have been trying to get a clear statement from you. Problem is that in your section 2 of your paper it states , without proof, or any reference except a Wikipedia page (I mean, come on, A Wikipedia page?????), that
“The Second Law must apply between any two points for each and every separate transfer of thermal energy at any given time.”
The problem is, and this is at the heart of the misapprehension in your paper, this statement is not correct – it is not even in the Wikipedia page! So, why exactly do you believe this – references to standard physics texts please, not web pages.
I’m sure you can use Google: Start here http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm# 21txt
If you are going to make any more hand waving statements without explanation, proof and references that clearly contradict anything I have written, such will be ignored.
[Reply] Interesting article. The section Doug is referencing is “The Refrigerator and the Universe”
Well, whether it is an interesting article or not is irrelevant, because it contains no confirmation of the statement that Doug Cotton claims i.e there is no confirmation that SLoT applies on every transaction down to the molecular level. So can someone provide one. This is important because if it does not hold on every single micro transaction – if it is instead what is commonly taken to be the case, namely that is just an expression of the average, then there is no need whatsoever molecules must reject photons from a warmer source , because they only have to, on average, emit more than they absorb.
You get it now – see why it is at the heart of the problem? So once, more – can Doug Cotton backup his claim? And, please, find a real textbook this time – not a web site devoted to panspermia.
How about reading the paragraph in the “interesting article” which talks about the confusion between micro and macro. This was why I recommended the article, but the book The Refrigerator and the Universe will also help you if you wish to buy it.
In my first comment on this thread I clarified the issue of using the word “point” so I won’t repeat myself.
What do you think the words “The law must apply (on a macro scale).. ” in the very first paragraph of my Abstract mean?.
What do you think the words in Wikipedia “applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer” mean? How can you measure heat transfer without measuring temperatures?
What is temperature? Is it commonly measured on a micro (atomic) scale? Hardly.
These particular Wikipedia explanations of this well-known physics are in no way inaccurate and are quite adequate for those without a background in physics who would not wish to go and buy a textbook.
Temperature is a physical property of matter that quantitatively expresses the common notions of hot and cold. Objects of low temperature are cold, while various degrees of higher temperatures are referred to as warm or hot. Heat spontaneously flows from bodies of a higher temperature to bodies of lower temperature, at a rate that increases with the temperature difference and the thermal conductivity. No heat will be exchanged between bodies of the same temperature; such bodies are said to be in “thermal equilibrium”.
Just exactly what education do you have in physics and/or applied mathematics? Would your background stand up to that of Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics? Do you understand his derivation of what I am talking about in this document of his – http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf
There seems to be much confusion flying around. On one hand what heat is or is not. On the other hand what classical thermodynamics is or is not.
The main issue here seems to be what the process of exchange of thermal radiation is or is not.
From Wikipedia, the Clausius statement that says that (quoting Wikipedia as a source is kind of crazy, but it seems to be the standard here…)
“No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.”
The problem here seems to be that there is confusion about what heat transfer, temperature and a process is. Simply don’t use this in connection with radiation, there are to many loose ends to make sense of this which is obvious from the current discussion.
Is it possible to sort out this mess? Fortunately yes, and there is no need to go beyond classical thermodynamics, it is sufficient in this case. For all the details, read Planck’s ‘The theory of Heat Radiation’.
*****************************************
STEP 1 – Model setup
*****************************************
There is no need to look at more than
*****************************************
1) A black body (called B), in the sense a body that absorbs perfectly and emits perfectly by DEFINITION, at thermal equilibrium, due to contact with a heath bath with temperature T_B.
*****************************************
2) Incoming black radiation (called R), that is radiation that follows the Planck distribution, at temperature T_R.
*****************************************
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
STEP 2 – Exchanged heat
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Next step, what heat are exchanged at the system border that is taken as the surface of B exposed to R.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) It gives away Q_B = -ac/4 * T_B^4
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) It receives Q_R = ac/4 * T_R^4
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=> Q = Q_B + Q_R = -ac/4 * T_B^4 + ac/4 * T_R^4 = ac/4 * (T_R^4 – T_B^4)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do note that T_B is fixed by the heath bath and that T_R is arbitrary. It can be larger, smaller or the same as T_B.
################################
STEP 3 – Entropy involved
################################
What amounts of entropy changes are involved?
################################
From STEP 2:
S_BQ = Q / T_B = ac/4 * (T_R^4 – T_B^4) / T_B
###############################
From radiation leaving B and adds to R:
S_Br = ac/3 * T^3
###############################
Entropy leaving R into B:
S_Rr = ac/3 * T_R^3
###############################
=> Change in radiation entropy
S_radiation = ac/3 * (T_B^3 – T_R^3)
###############################
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
STEP 4 – The 2nd law
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
The second law states that in a process
¤¤¤¤¤–The 2nd law of thermodynamics–¤¤
THE TOTAL CHANGE IN ENTROPY (DS) MUST BE GREATER THAN 0 FOR AN IRREVERSIBLE PROCESS, OR EQUAL TO ZERO FOR AN REVERSIBLE PROCESS.
&&&&&&&&&&&
DS >= 0
&&&&&&&&&&&
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
In the present case it is easily verified that
DS = S_BQ + S_radiation = ac/4 * (T_R^4 – T_B^4) / T_B + ac/3 * (T_B^3 – T_R^3) >= 0
FOR ALL T_R,
EQUALITY WHEN T_B = T_R
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STEP 5 – Conclusion
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We learn two things, TWO WAY RADIATION EXCHANGE between a blackbody (here called B) and incoming black radiation (here called R)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
##############################
IS ALWAYS AN IRREVERSIBLE PROCESS AS LONG AS THE TEMPERATURES ARE DIFFERENT, NO MATTER IF THE INCOMING RADIATION TEMPERATURE ARE HIGHER OR LOWER THAN THE BODY B’S TEMPERATURE
AND
THE RADIATION EXCHANGE IS REVERSIBLE WHEN THE TEMPERATURES ARE EQUAL.
##############################
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The case should now be closed.
Interestingly enough there is a corollary regarding a one-way energy transfer.
Assume that T_R < T_B and that there is no energy transferred from R to B, that is we have a one way transfer from the hotter B to R since the radiation from R is reflected back.
We need to change DS and remove the term ~T_R^4/T_B since no energy goes from R to B, and also remove the term ~ T_B^3 since the radiation from R is fully reversed back to R.
Hence we have
######################
DS = – ac/4 * T_B^4/T_B – ac/3 * T_R^3 THIS PROCESS IS FORBIDDEN BY THE 2:ND LAW
######################
Something got wrong when I posted.
The conclusion should of course read
DS = – ac/4 * T_B^4/T_B – ac/3 * T_R^3 T_R > 0
THIS PROCESS IS FORBIDDEN BY THE 2:ND LAW
And I managed to invert the inequality in the correction… Never post when in a hurry 🙂
The correct conclusion is
DS < 0
and therefore forbidden by the 2nd law.
Doug,
just for the record, I have skimmed your text.
There are many issues but none of these issues are important since the most important one, that one way energy transfer is non-physical since it violated the 2nd law, do take full precedence on so many levels.
You should not quote Wikipedia in this manner.
You should give the explicit form of the version of the 2:nd law you intend to use. From the discussion here in the comments it becomes obvious that you use Clausius statement, do remember that there are several equivalent formulations. Some are more suitable than others in different settings.
Further, let me quote you from a recent comment here. You write,
“Heat spontaneously flows from bodies of a higher temperature to bodies of lower temperature, at a rate that increases with the temperature difference and the thermal conductivity.”
Ask yourself, what is the thermal conductivity of a classical vacuum. This should instantly raise a warning bell in you where you question if it is reasonable to use a temperature gradient and Fourier’s law on radiation that has the ability to propagate through a vacuum that has zero thermal conductivity.
It’s is quite remarkable if 20 scientists have viewed this text in an “open peer review” and not one of them bothered to do the calculation to see if the claim is plausible. The calculation is by all means something suitable in a late 1st/ early 2nd year undergraduate course on thermodynamics and statistical physics.
Kind regards,
/Åskguden
Right Doug,
So after a lot of prevarication, and after my asking several times, you finally agree that the law applies on a macro scale, not on the micro scale. Remember, I was not asking for proof that it held for macroscopic objects. I knew that. I was asking whether you thought it held at the molecular level. So when you talk about confusion between micro and and macro, I am afraid it is you that is confused. I actually know how to derive the SLoT from first principles from statistical thermodynamics and quantum theory.
So, here’s the problem – your theory (or rather Johnsons’s) implicitly requires that it holds at the molecular level, because you use it to invent some new physics concerning ‘resonance’ and molecular energy levels. Why don’t you go and read your own work more carefully and think about that. Then, when you have thought about, ask whether you real need to make that assumption.
By the way, as it happens, my level of education is entirely adequate. But that is irrelevant, as you should be judging arguments on merit, not though appeals to authority.
By the way, there are several other major problems. For example you do not know how molecular spectroscopy actually works. But here is one that you might be able to see- to use the SLoT you have to be able to define what thermodynamic system you are applying it to – what is yours? Remember the SLoT only applies to the whole system, not every individual part, otherwise refrigerators would break it.
Douglas Cotton:
I’m reading your ‘paper’ as I write this and came across this statement….
“In the atmosphere are numerous radiation beams for
radio broadcasts and television transmissions, but they do not affect each other. So radiation
with different directions and different wavelengths does not appear to combine into any “net”
radiation with a net radiative flux, transferring a net amount of thermal energy.”
I spent a good many years designing antenna (arrays) with focused beams that were based on the wave combinations you claim do not exist. Funny I always got paid for my junk science.
You might want to change that bit.
Douglas:
Came across this as well…..
“The Second Law must apply between any two points for each and every separate transfer of
thermal energy at any given time.”
Could you cite where the second law speaks to time? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such a discussion.
For example, by this proclamation, I am myself a violation of the second law since during my lifetime my entropy is decreased and it is not until I die that my entropy increases. It would seem that, with your definition, when I eat a cookie, thereby increasing my energy this violates the law. Is that right?
Douglas:
Sorry to keep asking questions but this statement has me confused….
“Adding thermal energy to the surface
while it is cooling would indeed slow the rate of cooling, but any such “transaction” would be
an independent process which would have to occur prior to that energy transferring back to
the atmosphere by another process. Hence any such transfer of thermal energy from the
atmosphere to the warmer surface must be in violation of the Second Law.”
Are you saying that if my pool warms up in the sun, by getting excited by incoming short wave radiation, and then expels all that energy increase after sunset, this violates 2nd law?
It sure sounds like you’re saying the temporal consideration trumps the eventual return to original conditions.
Douglas:
You say….
“The only logical conclusion to draw from this is that the radiated energy from a cooler body to
a warmer one is not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer one, so that the effective
absorptivity must be zero. Only a portion of the radiation from the warmer body to the cooler
one has any effect, and does all the “heating” work.”
If the absorptivity is zero this means the albedo is 1, correct? Since all the IR whizzing around the atmosphere-earth system originates as an emission from that system. Your theory seems to imply that a wave of frequency x emitted from body y, encounters an albedo of 1, should it dare to return from whence it came. I thought emitting at x from y implies ipso facto that y will be equally happy absorbing x.
Douglas:
I have no clue what you mean in section 4. Would you be able to restate that somehow? It seems like you are making the counter case to your own theory here while riding cleanly along the fence.
Douglas:
You say in section 5 (resonant scattering)…….
“As this resonating process is taking place, a photon in the incident radiation excites an
electron to a higher state, let’s say at the crest of the wave, and then immediately lets it relax
back to its original state at the trough. As it relaxes it sends an equivalent photon off in a
different direction, thus seeming to scatter the initial radiation.”
This seems to be how you account for incoming ‘lower’ energy photons exciting a molecule in a ‘warmer’ target and the implication (I’m putting words in your mouth here) is that this is a non-thermalized emission when the photon leaves in the trough.
If I’ve got that piece correct could you explain how the energy released by the electron collapse to a lower state by your resonant scattering is different than the energy released if that same molecule is excited by, let’s say, incoming shortwave radiation? They both go up. They both go down.
More importantly, I would claim that it is a distinction without a difference and that absent that incoming low energy photon that molecule may have lasted for a few pico seconds at a lower energy level, hence the body containing it must experience at least a half wave of energy increase when it gets hit by the photon.
Douglas again in section 5…
“If we have two large plates close to each other in parallel planes, then, near the centres of the
plates, there would be significant radiation from the cooler plate to the warmer one. So this
“backradiation” prevents the warmer one cooling below the temperature of the cooler one.”
This is a complete contradiction (which I happen to agree with) to the rest of your paper isn’t it?
Douglas:
Two paragraphs later you state….
“Hence, while the surface remains warmer than the base of the atmosphere, any radiation from
the cooler atmosphere will undergo resonant scattering and this process leaves no additional
thermal energy in the surface.”
I’m getting dizzy. Cool to warm radiant transfer can occur between two plates but not between atmosphere and earth and the reason is because the atmosphere is cooler.
Douglas:
In section five you grapple with the ‘shrinking difference between warm and cold areas under the curve’ by conceeding some rate effects …
.”In fairness, there would be a slight slowing of the rate of cooling when the temperatures approach each other,…..”
I would have you consider this… Take two bodies in a vacuum, one warmer than the other. If you are correct, the incident ‘cool’ IR does nothing to the warmer body until the two have equal temperatures. So if you slowly heat the cool body you get a discontinuous absorption into the warm body that only starts when the two bodies have equal temps.
This is an albedo machine, actually a switch. Could this happen?
Douglas:
And there is the albedo machine right in section 7…
“But how does this tie in with the Second Law of Thermodynamics? It cannot do so unless the
absorptivity is a function of both the source and target temperatures. Furthermore, the
absorptivity must reduce to zero whenever the temperature of the source no longer exceeds
that of the target.”
And then there is the conclusion that ‘cool’ radiation can’t transfer energy to warm stuff because the sun comes up or something….
“Consideration of the effect of the processes involved when the Sun is warming the Earth’s
surface in the morning leads to the logical conclusion that each such process must stand alone
and not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus radiation from a cooler
atmosphere cannot transfer thermal energy to a warmer surface.”
This puts so many engineers out of work. I’m stunned.
Everyone
No, Tor, my paper does not present any different quantitative result than standard physics (using S-B2 – S-B1) regarding the thermal energy transferred. This is because the difference in the areas under the two Planck curves (which is what S-B determines by integration) is the area under the larger curve minus the area under the smaller one. So no one is going to “do the calculation” and prove me wrong on that point.
And, no, B_Happy, I am not inventing “new physics” about “molecular energy levels.”
And no, PB, I am not saying the Sun does not heat cooler water in a swimming pool, though I am saying that radiation from a yet cooler atmosphere does nothing but slow the pool’s radiative cooling rate – not its rate of evaporative cooling which would increase to compensate. The Sun warmed the water in my vacuum flask by 9.6 C by 1:53pm DST. This is an elementary example of a “process” between the Sun and the pool, such process taking about 8 minutes due to c.. When I say “at any particular time” I am referring to the fact that the Second Law applies to a “process” and that process of course takes a time which depends on the speed of light in the case of radiation.
There is a huge difference between …
(1) a photon being re-emitted when it resonates with the frequency of the wave motion in the radiation, and
(2) its radiated energy being converted to thermal energy, which can then have an effect on other molecules.
This is because, once it is converted to thermal energy, and the process repeated in millions of molecules until it can be measured as temperature, then, if the energy from a cooler source caused extra thermal energy to be deposited in the warmer target (thus increasing the observable temperature) then you would have a violation of the Second Law. Hence this does not happen.
Although mathematically it is possible to compound two or more rays of radiation, it requires seven (7) dimensions to do so. Such 7D has no physical reality in 3D. So only thermal energy can be compounded in the real world. But this does not happen in two-way radiation situations, because any conversion of the cold to hot radiation would be a stand alone process in a closed system which would violate the Second Law. Such new thermal energy in the surface could stay there for six months, for example, between summer and winter. When does the “process” begin or end?
Which reminds me, someone said energy has to balance at all interfaces. But that does not have to take place immediately. There are also interfaces at the floor of the ocean, for example, where energy can be transmitted each way and hang around in the crust for decades or more.
Imagine the target having lots of resonators (see Claes Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation) these resonators being like small catapults. Then imagine photons (like stones) arriving at just the right frequency to resonate with a particular catapult. The stone has just the right energy to extend the catapult to full stretch, and the catapult then fires it out again and captures another stone on the next backswing, repeating the process. Other resonators handle other frequencies in the incident radiation. While they are doing so, they are occupied scattering the energy in the radiation and so not needing to use the other energy in the surface. Thus the process slows the rate of radiative cooling. The target “knows the temperature of the source” by the range of frequencies and the Planck distribution of these, simply because they are what resonates.
Every blackbody sends out its full spectrum under its Planck curve, but the emitted radiation uses some of the incoming radiation. However, iff the source was warmer, then that radiation from the source which corresponds to the area under the cooler target’s Planck curve can and will resonate and be scattered, and only that energy corresponding to the extra area between the Planck curves gets converted to thermal energy, because there is no catapult available to re-emit it.
Now, according to NASA energy diagrams showing net radiation (excluding backradiation) the radiation from the surface is just over 40% and the evaporation and diffusion (conduction as they call it) is just under 60%.
In the paper I explain why that 60% will increase its rate of transfer to compensate for any reduction in the radiative rate. Hence the net effect will be zero. Even if you don’t accept this point, the effect of each CO2 molecule is far less than the effect of each H2O molecule because CO2 has fewer frequencies under its Planck curve. Its effect falls far short of the effect of a blackbody as it is rather like a picket fence with many pickets missing, standing up against a full blast from the surface with all frequencies, some of which we know get through the atmospheric window. The fact that this happens, proves that not even H2O and all other gases in the atmosphere can block what is about 29% of the radiation.
Water vapour molecules outnumber CO2 molecules (say, 20 to 50 times) and the effect of each molecule in slowing just the (40%) radiative component of surface cooling is far greater than the effect of each carbon dioxide molecule. And even then, the other 60% of the cooling processes is not affected and probably increases its rate so as to compensate for any slower radiative rate. So carbon dioxide’s effect is as good as zero. In fact, it probably has a net cooling effect shielding us from some Solar IR.
The paper is linked here: http://climate-change-theory.com
The energy diagram used is on this page: http://earth-climate.com
PB and others
It should be clear from my paper that radiated energy is not completely converted to thermal energy unless the target is at 0 deg.K.
That radiation from the warmer body which is represented by the area between the Planck curves is converted, whilst the rest (corresponding to that under the smaller Planck curve) continues, after scattering, until it meets the next target. If that target is warmer than the first (such as the Earth surface) the radiation is all scattered, but if the second target is cooler than the first, then a similar splitting of the energy occurs. The process is repeated many times, perhaps, until it gets to space and meets, maybe years later, a target much cooler again. It probably never finds a target at 0 deg.K, this explaining why there is a lot of radiation in space corresponding to a low temperature just above 0K.
Doug
You wrote,
No, Tor, my paper does not present any different quantitative result than standard physics (using S-B2 – S-B1) regarding the thermal energy transferred..
Well, standard physics just showed that the one-way transfer that you advocate is non-physical since it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It has nothing to do with areas under Plank-curves.
Of course you are allowed not to agree, then you need to point out exactly where in my calculation you think a mistake is made.
And of course, if there is anything you don’t understand, feel free to ask.
Tor
Is there anything you don’t understand about Sections 2, 3 and 4 of my paper which is basically showing why Planck was wrong in assuming two-way thermal energy transfer when radiation travels between hot and cold objects.
You don’t have to agree, of course, if you prefer Planck’s explanation. Only the heat transfer corresponding to the energy between the Planck curves can be observed. So observations confirm both his and my hypotheses, (Obviously there are further refinements necessary when phase changes are involved, or any other changes in entropy, but let’s keep the discussion limited to thermal matters for the moment.)
Maybe you might follow Prof Claes Johnson’s paper. He and I are in agreement on this matter and you will find a link to his paper as Ref [3].
Doug
Is there anything you don’t understand about Sections 2, 3 and 4 of my paper which is basically showing why Planck was wrong in assuming two-way thermal energy transfer when radiation travels between hot and cold objects.
Did I stutter?
Don’t change the subject.
I am a working engineering physicist (MA theoretical physics), and I have kindly put aside time to read your material and give my view on what basic physics says about this theory.
What I showed above is a serious violation of a basic physical law.
In the calculation two things are tested. First if a two way energy transfer violates the second law of thermodynamics, conclusion, it does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Next the situation you are advocating, a one way energy transfer is tested to see if it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics,conclusion, it does violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics
So I ask you once again, point out exactly where the calculation is wrong. If you can’t do this, please say so.
Tor
“Heat transfer” is calculated using radiative flux, the latter coming from S-B which itself comes from integrating over all frequencies under the Planck curve. This integration gives the area under the whole curve. In the two parallel plate example the “standard physics” calculates the difference between the S-B calculations for each of the two temperatures involved. So, mathematically, this is precisely the same as calculating the area between the Planck curves because the curve for the cooler body is always fully contained within the curve for the warmer body.
I don’t disagree with the result obtained by standard physics, dating back to Planck and Co. But Prof Johnson and I are stating that we believe there is no physical reality attached to the areas under the curves in so far as “heat transfer” is involved between the two plates.
The only thing that relates to any physical reality involving just the two plates is the area between the curves, because it represents the only radiative flux from hot to cold which is converted to thermal energy in the cooler plate. Thus the “heat flow” and consequent temperature changes are brought about by this physical flux that really does distinguish itself by being the only flux, out of all that going each way, that is actually converted to thermal energy.
Nothing in anything I have said in my paper would violate any physical law.
But tw-way “het flow” does violate the second law, because there is no reason for it to happen simultaneously, and, in any event, about 60% of the energy going back into the atmosphere would exit by other processes.
So, you would have 100% radiation to the surface from the cooler atmosphere and 40%* of that going from the surface back to the atmosphere. Then what?
This comment is continued here and in the following comments of mine thereon, and there is a more detailed explanation in Sections 1 to 5 in my paper. Please stop telling me Planck said otherwise. I know that.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/#comment-38960
Doug Cotton says:
March 18, 2012 at 2:55 am
“I am saying that radiation from a yet cooler atmosphere does nothing but slow the pool’s radiative cooling rate”
That’s what is being said by everybody that is pushing on your theory. Hello?
ANYTHING that slows a radiative cooling rate IN THE PRESENCE OF a constant source of input energy, say the sun for example, will have to heat up in order to restore radiative balance. It’s not the SLOWING THINGY that’s heating things up, it’s the constant source of input energy.
So yes, incoming ‘lower’ energy IR INFLUENCES the temperature of the body.
Take a barefoot walk on the beach on a sunny day and experience it first hand. In the dry sand you will burn your feet as the surface attempts to restore a balance. Then go cool your feet at the tide line where the wet sand is defeating all the restoration attempts, sucking the energy down to keep your feet nice and cool.
The dry sand didn’t heat itself up but the moisture content sure influenced the temperature.
Regarding your ref. [3].
I have some time ago read the relevant sections in the extended version called Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.
The conclusion is that this model really does not say anything. It is an over simplistic phenomenological model that assumes, on philosophical grounds, that the universe must evolve according to a classical computation. That is his justification for an ad hoc introduction of a precision parameter that is chosen so that it effectively cuts off the spectra.
So far he has failed to provide an ab initio justification, either from Maxwell’s equations or from quantum mechanics, for introducing this precision parameter. Until such a parameter and accompanied viscous term can be derived from first principles the theory says jack squat about physical reality. It is only a mathematical model that mimics a measured blackbody spectra.
It’s the chicken and hen problem. He needs the parameter for the model that claims to explain physical reality. At the same time, he can only get a value for this parameter from physical reality in an ad hoc insertion.
Here’s the essence of what I would like to hear from you Douglas. Take a walk with me for a bit….
If I launch something into interstellar space, let’s start out with a temperature of 300K, it will cool to 3K, right? Now it won’t do it right away because it takes time to conduct energy from the interior to the surface where it can radiate away. So you could build a curve of body energy content versus time and it would look like an exponential, 4th power decay, asymptotically approaching 3K.
The fact that it never gets below 3K is due to the influence of cosmic background radiation, i.e. the body is influenced by a very low energy radiation bath. Now in your theory I would have to build the curve in two steps. The early part of the curve, before the temp hits 3K would be a fourth power exponential decay with boundaries of 300K and (asymptotically approaching) 0K (since the 3K CBR has no effect), then when I hit a temp of 3K the curve flat lines because the body can now ‘accept’ CBR.
The meat of the issue is whether or not that ‘influence’ is homogenous or not. You and Claus should build these curves if you want to proceed.
Now take this scenario back to earth and for the sake of argument lets say the earth’s surface is bathed with IR, at say a temp signature of 270K. Under your theory the surface energy decay is an exponential that flat lines at 270K. This is a very iffy proposition on its face. I know of no natural processes that behave that way. Nature hates discontinuities!
Please let me know if you agree with these descriptions.
I would be astounded if experiments like this have not already been done. IF not then you should do one and write a book. You’d be famous. I personally would love to see how the curves work out.
While it’s in my clipboard, this comment posted elsewhere relates to Section 6 of my paper …
Sunlight at zenith provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation
____________________________________________
Firstly, thank you for confirming that the SW infra-red portion of solar radiation is about half. This is why water vapour and carbon dioxide have a cooling effect as they each absorb some of the Sun’s high energy SW-IR radiation – see Section 6 of my paper.
You might care to think about this. Suppose the mean solar flux increases when the Earth’s orbit becomes more circular (ie lower eccentricity) and the Sun’s mean distance reduces. We could still have zero net radiative flux at TOA but the climate would be warmer than present situation when there is no net flux at TOA – as for the period 2003 to the present, I would suggest. Sure, as the solar flux is increasing we would see net positive flux. But which is the cart and which the horse?
Net flux at TOA is a result of natural climate cycles, not a cause.
PB My response to your post is in
(1) Abstract – Para 3
(2) Section 5, last paragraph and
(3) Appendix FAQ 3 which relates to the stabilising effect mentioned in (1).
Tor
I am not here to argue about other matters that Claes has introduced in other papers. Consequently I have not referenced the paper you quote.
The point you made has no relevance to the issue pertaining to this quote from my reference [3].
“1.3 Blackbody Radiation in Words
“A blackbody acts like a transformer of radiation which absorbs high-frequency
radiation and emits low-frequency radiation. The temperature of the blackbody
determines a cut-off frequency for the emission, which increases linearly
with the temperature: The warmer the blackbody is, the higher frequencies
it can and will emit. Thus only frequencies below cut-off are
emitted, while all frequencies are being absorbed.
“A blackbody thus can be seen as a system of resonators with different
eigen-frequencies which are excited by incoming radiation and then emit
radiation. An ideal blackbody absorbs all incoming radiation and re-emits
all absorbed radiation below cut-off.
“Conservation of energy requires absorbed frequencies above cut-off to
of different frequencies in the form of radiation or light, and incoherent
high-frequency vibrations or noise, perceived as heat.
“A blackbody thus absorbs and emits frequencies below cut-off without
getting warmer, while absorbed frequencies above cut-off are not emitted
but are instead stored as heat energy increasing the temperature.
A blackbody is thus like a high-pass filter, which re-emits frequencies
below a cut-off frequency while capturing frequencies above cut-off as
heat.A”
There is no violation of any physical law, and no evidence to the contrary regarding the above statements. Whereas, the fact that a warm gas can be shown by spectroscopy not to absorb absorb spontaneous radiation from a cooler emitter does disprove the classical concept that there is heat flow in both directions – wherever radiation travels.
See this comment on my paper:
http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf…
Ok, let me address the most serious flaw in the reasoning concerning your section 5.
It seems as if you are trying to deduce by logic how electrons interact with an electromagnetic field.
You invoke quantum mechanics and at the same time you make some peculiar claims.
But radiation has a wavelike nature with a frequency which increases with the energy of each
photon.
This isn’t true, unless you mean something else and just wrote this wrong.
The amplitude of the electromagnetic wave at a certain frequency increases with additional photons with energies of that certain frequency according to the relation E = h * f.
Then you try to explain some strange version of a semi-classical description how an electromagnetic wave interacts with electrons.
Just don’t try to mix it.
Either stick to quantum mechanics and use Einstein coefficients (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EinsteinCoefficients.html).
Or stick with an strictly classical description and then you have to model the interaction as a dipole moment or something more advanced.
PB My response to your second post is in Section 5 – para 4.
The mean of the coolest targets the radiation is likely to meet in space is about 2K to 3K, so that’s why, as my theory explains, the radiation “cools” no more and there is thus a lot of radiation in space around that mark.
You must have misunderstood my explanation – or perhaps not read it. There was also another post I wrote on this very point earlier today, either here or on Roy Spencer’s site, I forget – and it’s sign off time for today, being nearly midnight, so I’m not going looking for it.
I am not here to argue about other matters that Claes has introduced in other papers. Consequently I have not referenced the paper you quote.
The text I have read has identical chapters with his model as those you refer to. It contains the same model.
You still haven’t showed that the calculation above is wrong.
Please point out the exact spot in the calculation that is wrong in your opinion.
Tor
The energy associated with each photon is proportional to the frequency of the associated radiation.
Didn’t you know that?
I presume you do know that the peak (mode) of the frequency distribution is proportional to the absolute temperature of the (spontaneously) emitting blackbody. (WDL)
I’ll leave if to you to look up these points if you do not know such. I have explained these matters to others in the past, including references, but now I’m just getting tired of going over it all again. It’s all in my paper..
I’m signing out for the night now, being midnight in Sydney.
The energy associated with each photon is proportional to the frequency of the associated radiation.
Didn’t you know that?
Exactly what do you think the relation,
E = h * f
that I wrote above means?
My objection was that you wrote that the frequency of the wave increased when adding photons. That’s not true, the amplitude increases.
An electromagnetic wave is a superposition of many frequencies.
Doug
I think it’s in everybody’s interest that you write down the mathematical expression of the electromagnetic wave you had in mind.
The following points are made in my peer-reviewed paper now published on at least four sites and linked from my site http://climate-change-theory.com
(1) Radiation from cooler parts of the atmosphere to warmer parts of the surface cannot transfer thermal energy, but can slow just the radiative component of surface cooling, which is less than half the cooling, probably about a third.
(2) When radiative cooling is slowed, the rates of evaporative cooling and diffusion (conduction) followed by convection will increase for reasons explained in my paper.
(3) The energy in each photon is proportional to the frequency of the associated radiation.
(4) Short wave (high frequency) infra-red radiation (making up about half of the total solar radiation) thus has far more energy per photon than does long wave (low frequency) infra-red radiation from the atmosphere, which is mostly well below freezing point.
(5) The effect which radiation from the atmosphere has on radiative cooling of the surface depends upon both the temperature of the region from which it originated and the density of frequencies in that radiation.
(6) Carbon dioxide radiates far fewer frequencies than water vapour, and each radiates fewer than a blackbody.
(7) Hence each carbon dioxide molecule has far less effect on the radiative rate of cooling than each water vapour molecule, of which there are usually about 20 to 50 times as many.
(8) So carbon dioxide is like a picket fence with most of its pickets missing, standing up against full blast radiation from the surface.
(9) Any warming effect of carbon dioxide is cancelled because of the reasons in (2) and, because of those in (4) there is a significant cooling effect as it sends back to space at least half of the high energy photons it captures from solar radiation.
(10) Hence carbon dioxide has a net cooling effect, but such is absolutely minimal compared with the effect of water vapour which also has radiative cooling effects, but possibly some warming effects also about which we can do nothing.
Doug
I’m trying to follow your reasoning here.
Do you mean that the frequency of the radiation increases when energy from photons are added?
Doug
One more question.
In your opinion, is the absorptivity dependent on the absolute temperature or the temperature difference?
Hi Roger, thanks for the clarification on content and herewith my revised submission.
PB (ref. 18th March at 11:32 am) I don’t expect Doug to understand that point about “ .. ANYTHING that slows a radiative cooling rate IN THE PRESENCE OF a constant source of input energy, say the sun for example, will have to heat up in order to restore radiative balance. It’s not the SLOWING THINGY that’s heating things up, it’s the constant source of input energy .. ”.
I made this very point to Doug on 31st Jan. at 1:54 pm. using the simple analogy of a Thermos flask with an electrical heating element inside (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-164480 then again on 8th, 9th & 21st Feb. then again on 12th March at 6:44 am (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-184792).
Doug’s response “ .. What do you expect to prove by the contents of a vacuum flask getting hotter because it has an electric element adding thermal energy faster than such energy can escape? .. ”
Perhaps if he had read my comment there on 4th Nov. 2011 at 4:05 pm (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-132932) about my “ .. simple electrical analogy of this, with the incoming solar energy represented by a constant current source and the global system by a variable resistor with a capacitor across it, discharging through another variable resistor .. ” he might have understood.
Way back on 27th Jan. 2011 I had a similar discussion with John O’Sullivan, CEO and Legal Consultant for publishing company Principia Scientific International on his “Top Scientists in Heated Debate over ‘Slaying’ of Greenhouse Gas Theory” thread (http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/100-top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory). I used another simple analogy of the warming effect of a duvet. John chose not to discus it on his thread, instead responding by E-mail with “ .. Thanks for your comment on the Slayers site. I suggest you answer your own question by imagining putting a duvet over a corpse and measuring how much heat is generated- there’s your answer to that strawman .. ”.
I then gave him a hint “ .. Why does the corpse cool down, even with a duvet over it, whereas the hot live body heats up the duvet? (hint – think in terms of energy absorption and emission rather than about heat or temperature, but to keep it simple ignore any energy transformation due to decomposition) .. ”.
John still didn’t understand my point.
I don’t understand why they can’t grasp that if greenhouse gases reduce the rate of cooling then the incoming solar energy must warm up the earth to a level that restored balance between incoming and outgoing energy. Like Doug and John, I am not a scientist so I may be using inappropriate analogies because I misunderstand the process but if so, can you or any other scientist here point out where I’m misleading myself?
Hi Tor, regarding Doug’s response to you in his comment of 18th March at 12:34 pm “ .. from my reference [3] .. ” is his Ref. 3 to the “Slayers” pseudo-science publication “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. ”, Professor Johnson’s contribution “Chapter 19; Computational Blackbody Radiation” from Page 283 onwards (USA version) or a similar publication by Professor Johnson?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
This whole thread shows the futility of the “open peer review” approach. If the author does not understand the questions raised he just ignores them.
You can take an author to a question, but you cannot make him think.
On a different topic. Doug, I notice that you are doing copy-and-paste of whole posts from here to Roy Spencer’s site. This means that you are putting some responses (inadequate though they are) to my questions here, on Roy’s site. Please stop that as it will just confuse people.
Meanwhile, you still have not understood why I keep pointing out that the SLoT is a collective, average behaviour of a large number of molecules, and that accordingly your claim that
““This law must apply (on a macro scale) between any two points at any particular time.”” which was objected to by Brian H in the very first post, in simply incorrect. In fact it is even worse than you think. Have you ever heard of the Fluctuation Theorem? It points out that SLoT is a time average as well as an average over states.
Nor have you answered my question about what thermodynamic system you are attempting to apply this to. What is it?
Look guys, I have not written (as Tor claims) that the frequency of the wave increased when adding photons. The effect of increasing temperature is shown in the graphic in Section 3 which has frequency on the horizontal axis. I have written what is in the paper and has been comprehensively reviewed by others over the last month. There is a very brief summary in the 10 points above. Anyone is welcome to publish a peer-reviewed rebuttal, but they would be wise to make an effort to understand what the paper is saying, and not to misquote me like this. I suggest they would also be hard pressed, in view of my climate analysis, to prove me wrong in saying that there is no evidence of additional anthropogenic warming above the obvious natural cycles which I discuss in the Appendix.
And later this year you will see compelling empirical evidence that warm gases do not absorb emission from cooler emitters – demonstrated over a wide range of temperatures. If it’s true for gases, I suggest it’s true for solids and liquids too..
Gases like carbon dioxide do not emit like blackbodies – their radiation has fewer frequencies but is still limited by the Planck curve – it’s like a picket fence under the Planck curve, but with lots of pickets missing. So it does not have much effect in slowing radiative cooling of the surface which radiates a much fuller range of frequencies because of its wider range of virtually all elements.. Whatever little effect carbon dioxide does have in slowing radiative cooling is more than compensated for by increased evaporation and diffusion, as well as by cooling effects resulting from its sending “backradiation” from much higher energy Solar SW-IR back into space.
>b>Not only does all the carbon dioxide have well under 1% of the warming effect of all the water vapour, but it also has greater cooling effects.
I am not going to argue here. It’s all in 6,600 words in the paper. Is that fair enough?
B_Happy “macro scale” means “a large number of molecules”
“measurable temperature” means you must have “a large number of molecules.”
All of Pete Ridley’s “examples” regarding vacuum flasks, igloos, refrigerators or whatever clearly obey the laws of thermodynamics, and so does everything in my paper.
He seems to think he is somehow proving me wrong using the same laws that I am using.
The best thing I can do is suggest that he, and any others like him, actually read and try to understand the 10 points above, and then read the paper in order to try to understand how I support these points.
Perhaps a key point in his misunderstanding relates to the well known fact that a blackbody cools more slowly when another cooler blackbody is in its vicinity. I discuss this in the 10 point summary above and in more detail in the paper.
PS The initial review was not “open” – it was a very comprehensive process over more than three weeks prior to the launch and it involving four scientists. The reviewers included Prof Claes Johnson and others named in the Acknowledgements.
Doug could you cite this…..
“Although mathematically it is possible to compound two or more rays of radiation, it requires seven (7) dimensions to do so. Such 7D has no physical reality in 3D”
Have you ever heard of phased array antennas?
B_Happy “macro scale” means “a large number of molecules”
“measurable temperature” means you must have “a large number of molecules.”
Doug, I am well aware of that !
What I keep trying to point out is that you have in your theory assumptions which require that every molecule in every part of the atmosphere and surface acts the same way !
In other words they all accept radiation, or reject radiation, and they do this instantly – this is NOT what the SLoT says, but you just do not get the point.
SLoT actually describes the AVERAGE behaviour and does not forbid some molecules absorbing radiation while others are emitting it, as long as the balance comes out right, and it does not have to come out right instantly. Do you not get this?
Oh, and what is the thermodynamic system to which your theory is applied?
B_Happy I have nothing of the kind in my theory. Read what I do say in my paper instead of assuming.
PB Yes, but phased array antennas are yet another red herring – natural things are not like many man-made things, to put it simply. Someone else wrote about the 7D – three for spacial dimensions, one for time, and three more for wave characteristics. If you have two rays of radiation at an angle to each other, they don’t produce one in a different direction, as would be the case if two such forces were compounded, eg two ropes at different angles pulling a boat across a river.
Both of you please note the new post below …
.
.
Study the graphic on this page http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic
There you will see just how much of the solar radiation is absorbed by water vapour compared with how much less terrestrial radiation is absorbed by it. Yet, according to the IPCC, water vapour is supposed to have a significant positive feedback, amplifying any effect of carbon by a factor of about 2.5.
You will also see the carbon dioxide absorption of Solar near IR (as on the graphic in my Section 6) at just over 2μm.
Note that carbon dioxide does not absorb much of the majority of the surface radiation in the 7.5 to 11μm range, only that which in the 16μm range which is equivalent to about -90 deg.C – colder than anywhere in the troposphere or the surface.
So you would only get significant radiation from carbon dioxide up near the mesopause at the top of the mesosphere (above the stratosphere) where temperatures just about get down to -100 deg.C. And what it absorbs up there would be minimal.
Furthermore, photons emitted at -90 deg.C (183 K) each have only about 13% of the energy of those at 2μm which are radiated by parts of the Sun that are about 1450 K.
So, when carbon dioxide does most of its capturing and emitting at about 16μm (and -90 deg.C – way above the stratosphere) each photon captured has only 13% of the energy of each of the photons it captured from the Sun, at least half of which it radiated back to space, thus preventing that energy reaching the surface, and so having a cooling effect. How much of the radiation from layers at -90 deg.C do you suppose gets back to the surface?
This information has always been readily available, and there is no excuse for the “cover up” of absorbed solar IR and the focus on terrestrial emission only.
Doug
I have read your paper. You just don’t understand the consequences of what you propose.
For example you say this:
“But the radiated energy in each photon is proportional to the frequency of the associated radiation, and that energy will be just the right amount to excite an electron to a particular higher state, but not enough to go the extra distance required for any the radiated energy to be converted to thermal energy.
As this resonating process is taking place, a photon in the incident radiation excites an electron to a higher state, let’s say at the crest of the wave, and then immediately lets it relax back to its original state at the trough. As it relaxes it sends an equivalent photon off in a different direction, thus seeming to scatter the initial radiation.”
which is not true anyway (LWIR has nothing to do with electrons, and there are other ways to get rid of the energy apart from re-radiating, and if you do re-radiate it does not have to be immediate, nor does it have to be at the same energy…etc etc), but ignore that, as the description is quite clearly intended to describe the interaction of one photon with one molecule. i.e it is definitely a molecular level description
In the very next paragraph you say
“However, if one body is warmer than the other, then only that portion of the radiation which corresponds to the area under the smaller curve will experience resonant scattering, whilst the surplus (corresponding to the area between the curves) will be converted to thermal energy in the cooler body, thus warming it.”
which is quite clearly a macroscopic description because it involves temperatures and (black-body) distributions of energy.
So you are definitely confusing the two. You are definitely assuming that everything that is true ON AVERAGE in the macroscopic description is true INDIVIDUALLY at the molecular level. You must be, because if even one photon from a cooler environment were absorbed, it would falsify the entire concept. But as I keep saying, the SLoT is a statistical, probabilistic theorem, and it does not have to be true for every interaction individually, nor do those interactions have to be synchronous. If you think they do then, as I have asked several times, produce a standard text that says so.
B_Happy
LWIR has nothing to do with electrons,
Well. maybe, but excitation due to capture of photons does.
The important point I am making is that resonating radiation does not go through the relatively long time consuming process of having its radiated energy converted to thermal energy, which could then escape to another molecule or maybe get re-radiated by itself if additional thermal energy raised the KE of the molecule back above the threshold at a later time. Resonating radiation merely resonates and is immediately re-radiated on the next heart beat so to speak, or maybe I should say heat beat, as determined by the frequency of that particular radiation. There can be near resonance also, where extra energy is converted to thermal energy in a cooler target, thus splitting the original radiated energy. Eventually, after lots of collisions and then escaping to space, the remaining radiation ends up equivalent to BB radiation from a body at around 2K to 3K somewhere in space, because that is about as cold as any objects, meteorites etc get, due to the radiation already there.
I thought I made it clear that I am talking about a spectrum of radiation – that is, radiation with a distribution of frequencies on the macro scale. We can think of such radiation coming from a small pocket of air for which it is in fact possible to measure the temperature. And, likewise, we can think of a small piece of the Earth’s surface, or something like the water (representing the oceans) in my wide necked vacuum flask experiments.
Then I consider what happens when individual photons with any particular frequency in that particular spectrum of radiation collide with individual molecules in a target. Such target, if cooler, has a spectrum for which the Planck curve lies under that for the warmer body and is fully contained within it. But we are just looking at one molecule as an example, not assuming all molecules or all photons involved are all alike.
It should be clear that I am talking about such, not saying that one photon acts like all others or has the same frequency (and thus energy) as all others in the emission. That is the very reason why I include a graphic of the distribution of frequencies in Section 3. The only confusion seems to be in your mis-interpretation of what I understand and am trying to explain.
I am very willing to answer genuine enquiries where the commenter has obviously misunderstood what I have written. Feedback will help me explain things better in future. I can accept criticism of my ability to explain something, but what I have in mind as to what happens is certainly very clear to me, and I am confident that it is the only way the real world of radiative heat transfer could operate.
Let me put this way …
(1) Radiation sets out on its journey from an object with a frequency distribution represented by the appropriate Planck curve for its temperature.
(2) Not all the possible frequencies may be present if the object is not “composite” but is, perhaps, a single gas or several gases with limited emission bands. If this is the case, this radiation will have less effect on the radiative cooling rates of warmer composite bodies than would perfect blackbody radiation with the full range of frequencies that are allowed by the Planck curve
(3) When the radiation strikes a blackbody target, that target, if cooler, will only be able to match and resonate with a portion of the emitting source’s radiation. The extra source radiation, corresponding to the energy between the Planck curves will be converted to thermal energy, but the rest will undergo resonant scattering. So the radiation is split.
(4) If the target is warmer, all the radiation from the source undergoes resonant scattering.
(5) When radiation strikes a target, that portion that resonates (be it all or part) takes the place of radiation for which the target would have had to use its own energy. Hence the target, even if warmer, will cool more slowly, as is observed.
(6) The target becomes a new source. It, like the original source, still radiates all it can under its Planck curve, but it is using some or all of the energy it received from the original source. Hence “new” radiation sets out which may be thought of as containing some or all of the energy of the original source, plus some of its own it it was warmer than the source.
(7) If you were to follow the passage of any particular parcel of energy, some of it would be “dropped off” at each target that was cooler than the last, but not targets which were warmer than the last.
(8) So the surface also just scatters “cooler” radiation from the atmosphere, and all radiation gets to space eventually. There it continues in the same way, striking targets perhaps every few years or centuries or whatever, until its energy gets down to the base level of about 2K to 3K I understand, as is observed in background space radiation. This means nothing much is colder than that out there.
The above process overcomes the problem of assuming two-way radiation is associated with two-way heat transfer, including transfer from cold to hot. The latter would violate the Secon Law, and so cannot happen.
Hence the above postulate is a far more likely alternative.
.
No you still don’t get it:
“I thought I made it clear that I am talking about a spectrum of radiation – that is, radiation with a distribution of frequencies on the macro scale. ” <<<<< macroscopic description
"Then I consider what happens when individual photons with any particular frequency in that particular spectrum of radiation collide with individual molecules in a target." <<<<< molecular level
"Such target, if cooler, has a spectrum for which the Planck curve lies under that for the warmer body and is fully contained within it." <<<<< macroscopic description (the next sentence no less! the target is a molecule – it does not have a Plank curve))
"But we are just looking at one molecule as an example, not assuming all molecules or all photons involved are all alike." <<<<<<< back to molecular level (no, but you are assuming they all have a way of telling the temperature of the source)
So you keep confusing the two levels of description.
But what you keep missing is that the SLoT DOES NOT APPLY TO INDIVIDUAL MOLECULES
(sorry for shouting but you just do not seem to get this point)
Mind you, even though you have a totally weird way of looking at it, you do still get to this
"Hence the target, even if warmer, will cool more slowly, as is observed."
which is exactly the same result as conventional theory without the need to invent new physics – so why are you bothering at all?
By the way, what is the thermodynamic system you are applying this to?
The molecules themselves do not have to “tell the temperature of the source.” They have natural frequencies as you must know. Those natural frequencies determine if and how they resonate.
I have never ever assumed or implied that SLot applies to individual molecules. Do you thnk I was born yesterday?
You’d be best to read Claes Johnson – my Ref [3] as you really have a way of misinterpretting myself that is starting to make me shout back.
It’s all about probabilities. For example, when radiation from a blackbody comes out with a Planck distribution, do you think each molecule “knows” what all the others are doing and somehow works out what frequency it should send out so as to ensure there is a nice Planck distribution?
Neither does it have to “know” the temperature of the source of some other Planck distribution of frequencies that is heading its way from another blackbody or whatever. It just “knows” it can dance with some particular frequencies. And other molecules do likewise with other frequencies. It’s all to do with statistical probabilities, just like temperature.
If you can’t grasp these concepts, I’m sorry, but I can’t explain them any better. Claes and I and all the reviewers had no trouble with them. See if you can get reviewers to review a rebuttal and get it published yourself. I’m eagerly awaiting the first such published rebuttal in fact.
“It’s all about probabilities. For example, when radiation from a blackbody comes out with a Planck distribution, do you think each molecule “knows” what all the others are doing and somehow works out what frequency it should send out so as to ensure there is a nice Planck distribution?”
No I don’t think that….
“Neither does it have to “know” the temperature of the source of some other Planck distribution of frequencies that is heading its way from another blackbody or whatever. It just “knows” it can dance with some particular frequencies. And other molecules do likewise with other frequencies. It’s all to do with statistical probabilities, just like temperature.”
And yes it is all about statistical probabilities… (somehow I think that is what I am saying)
So how do your molecules tell the difference between a photon of frequency X emitted by a source at a given temperature, and a photon of the same frequency X emitted by a source at a different temperature?
“I have never ever assumed or implied that SLot applies to individual molecules. ”
You may think that, but you keep making statements like this,
“Then I consider what happens when individual photons with any particular frequency in that particular spectrum of radiation collide with individual molecules in a target. ”
But that individual photon, and that individual molecule, has no knowledge of the whole spectrum. At that point it is just one photon. So you cannot ascribe to that photon any property of the Planck distribution as a whole, nor can you assume that the molecule has any knowledge of all the other photons in the spectrum that it is not seeing. So you cannot give that photon a temperature…..
Doug
Ok, you have now stated that there is different frequencies, but it is far from clear how you envision an electromagnetic wave.
Look at this exact quote,
As quantum mechanics tells us, the electrons in molecules of matter can have various discrete
energy levels. When they “drop” from a higher level to a lower one they emit a burst of
radiation, referred to as _a photon_, which will now have the energy which the electron shed.
But radiation has a wavelike nature with a frequency which increases with the energy of each
photon.
But the radiated energy in each
photon is proportional to the frequency of the associated radiation
Can you see that it is not clear how you imagine these electromagnetic waves since you here state that the frequency increases with the energy of each photon.
That’s why I ask you to give your mathematical description of your electromagnetic wave which is the same thing as the radiation we are discussing here.
Pete Ridley
Yes, I think that the ref. 3 is the same as in the Slaying…
Although the same model appears in more than one texts.
Doug
There is one other thing I want you to ask you.
If the molecules emit frequencies in various discrete energy levels. How come the resulting electromagnetic spectrum is continuous, containing all frequencies in the band of thermal radiation?
So how do your molecules tell the difference between a photon of frequency X emitted by a source at a given temperature, and a photon of the same frequency X emitted by a source at a different temperature?
__________________________
They don’t have to. It all balances out with probabilities.
________________________
If the molecules emit frequencies in various discrete energy levels. How come the resulting electromagnetic spectrum is continuous, containing all frequencies in the band of thermal radiation?
__________________________
You need to read up on how and why the Planck curve is “filled out.” This is all covered in physics, but I’m not going to get into that here. If you accept it from the IPCC, then accept it from me. The whole S-B Law wouldn’t work if it didn’t, because that is just an integration over the Planck curve. Note however, that a full “filled out” distribution only comes from a perfect blackbody. Surface radiation gets pretty close, but not atmospheric radiation, let alone that from just carbon dioxide. That’s why CO2 radiation is so ineffective “standing up against” a filled out “Planck curve” from the surface.
This discussion is closed. Anyone can feel free to publish a peer-reviewed rebuttal. Has anyone seen one of Claes Johnson’s paper yet? If there’s no published peer-reviewed rebuttal, then,maybe true until proved false?
.
“They don’t have to. It all balances out with probabilities.”
Good grief…. all this messing around and we end up back where standard statmech says we are.
They don’t have to – in fact they cannot – it all balances out with probabilities – exactly – the warmer object absorbs any photons it sees because it cannot tell their temperatures – and emits any photons it feels like emitting – and it all balances out with more photons emitted than absorbed.
Well thank you for conceding that – you may leave now that you have stopped wasting everyone’s time.
There is no need for anyone to write a rebuttal – you have just rebutted your own paper – congratulations.
No B_Happy Molecules in the surface scatter virtually all of the lower energy radiation from the atmosphere because none of it has a Planck distribution big enough to match that of the surface. And none gets converted to thermal energy. It’s all explained in my paper.
Carbon dioxide (radiating around 16 microns) has to do so from where the atmosphere is about -92 deg.C. Yes … 281K! Perhaps just below the mesopause – above the troposphere, above the stratosphere, above nearly all of the mesosphere. Check it out. Blackbodies at -92 deg.C radiate at 16 microns.
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/p_thermo/wien
Now, changing the subject to some other material in my paper …
You guys seem to have been going around and around here. Let me just throw in a few points.
Doug, your comments suggest that you see absorption of a photon as being something that lifts an electron to a higher energy level. However, the GH gases are all multi-atom molecules and there is a whole other dimension here, a whole different process by which a molecule can and does absorb energy.
Molecules aren’t the rigid sticks and balls figures we may all be familiar with from high school chemistry. The bonds between the atoms in a molecule are flexible so the molecule is able to wobble, wiggle and vibrate in many different ways. And the main process by which absorption of IR by GH gases occurs is through the fact that the frequency of the photon aligns with a resonant frequency for many of the different vibrational modes. So a molecule that absorbs a photon in one of its resonant frequencies will then vibrate more strongly at that frequency and type of wiggle.
How long it takes before that molecule then spontaneously re-emits a photon at that frequency depends on the frequency involved. For visible light this is of the order of nano-seconds. Whereas for far IR it is of the order of 10’s of milliseconds – Einstein worked on this and developed a lot of the basics.
As a result of the time delay before re-emission is likely for IR frequencies, any molecule in the atmosphere will have undergone millions of collision in the time before that re-emission is likely. Therefore there are massively more oppurtunities for a recently energised molecule to loose its additional energy through collisions rather than re-radiation. So effectively, once a photon has been absorbed by a GH gas, its energy gets spread around as part of the general kinetic and vibrational energy pool of the atmosphere. Eventual radiation of some or all of that packet of energy will then be part of the general thermal radiation of the gas mixture, and is likely to be emitted by a different molecule..
Then Doug this idea of a cut-off frequency. For any particular emission temperature the Planck curve has a long tail down to lower frequencies while it has a sharper decline at higher frequencies. Not zero but practically so. A body at 37 DegC could still emit an X-Ray. But the probability of this is incredibly small. So for all practical purposes, there is an upper cut-off frequency.
However your description of what happens after absorption of a photon is rather strange. Planck’s Function was derived for an idealised substance and did not consider atoms and molecules. You seem to be considering atoms and what happens within them and trying to build a case from that. However, if you are moving beyond an idealised substance, some ‘stuff’, to consider more real world descriptions of matter, then you need to consider ALL the attributes of real matter.
Just as in the example I cited above for gases, so too liquids and solids involve phenomena that aren’t just at the atomic level – Van De Waals forces between molecules allow vibrations etc. And all solid materials, crystaline structures etc also involve vibrational energy.
So, absorption of a photon by a liquid and a solid is also not just an intra-atomic phenomenon. It is actually an inter-atomic and even inter-molecular phenomenon. So using arguments about something like Resonant Scattering may be missing the point. The absorbed energy from that photon that goes into the general pool of energy in that substance that may be manifested as Kinetic Energy, Vibrational, Chemical, Potential etc. How this added energy might re-emerge as radiation for example is not constrained by the frequency at which it was initially absorbed. Your focus on intra-atomic processes might lead you to think this but you are ignoring the vast domain of the inter-atomic and inter-molecular. And these will predominate. The first thing an incoming photon encounters are the processes at this level. It has to run the gamut of all of them to then possibly interact at the intra-atomic scale.
Finally, regarding the SLoT. The original statement of it was from Clausius and was in terms of temperatures, hot vs cold etc. As with much discovery in science, the early pioneers used simple (sometimes primitive) observations to postulate laws. But they didn’t always understand the deeper reason why their law was valid. Then later workers, using better understanding of the world and better mathematical tools were able to formalise the earlier persons postulate.
So it is with the SLoT. The formal definition of the SLoT, derived from statistical mechanics, is that the Entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. And Entropy is fundamentally a measure of the information content of the system. Entropy increase is totally valid in an open system. And ultimately sub components within a closed system are open systems
Clausiuis’s formulation is then a derivative consequence of this and his statement of the law as being based on NET energy flow is the ultimate consequence of the Statistical Mechanics approach and its Closed system requirement. The thermal version of SLoT being about NET energy flow derives from the Closed System requirememt of the Statistical Mechanics version. And the SM version takes priority in our understanding since it is derived, not just postulated.
APPENDIX FAQ #1.
If the temperature records are analysed and weighted in accord with the ratio of …
thermal energy in the land : thermal energy in ocean = about 1:15
then we can get a good approximation from sea surface temperature trends. Land (at about 6%) is almost insignificant, and the atmosphere at about 4% even less so.
Now, there is a link to what I suggest is good evidence of a natural cycle of about 1,000 year periodicity (maxima in Roman & Medieval warm periods and maybe next between 2058 and ~2200) and also, as you can see in the Appendix, a superimposed 60 year cycle.
When we remove the effect of the 60 year cycle by the method I used there, we see that the rate of increase in the long term trend was about 0.06 deg.C / decade early last century, but is declining and is now about 0.05 deg.C / decade for sea surface temperature data. The decline is to be expected as the 1000 year cycle is approaching a maximum by 2200 at the latest.
Everything points to future extrapolations as indicated in the paper, which I do not thus need to repeat here.
My point is …
there is no evidence of any anthropogenic effect – not 0.01 deg.C / decade, just zero.
Comments are welcome from any who have studied the Appendix FAQ 1
I shall discuss subsequent FAQ’s one per day over the next week. Please stay OT.
Doug
You need to read up on how and why the Planck curve is “filled out.” This is all covered in physics, but I’m not going to get into that here.
I know why the Planck curve is continuous, it is unclear that you do yourself, that is why I ask.
Why do you mention IPPC? My only interest is in the basic physics, and your description about interaction between radiation and matter is quite remarkable. Remember that I have a master degree in theoretical physics and have taken several courses in quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and quantum field theory that is on a graduate level.
I do feel a bit sad that you take such an unscientific stance that you don’t want to discuss the basic physical mechanism that is the foundation for your reasoning. Do you really understand Claes Johnson’s model? Because his model is taken to a continuous limit with no discrete structure what so ever, that is, there are no photons at all in his model.
The feasibility stands and dies with the physical foundation. Do you disagree?
Correction – a typo – 281K should be 181K of course in the post before last.
Sorry Doug, you are gone. As soon as you said “They don’t have to. It all balances out with probabilities.” the discussion was over. The reason I kept on about the difference between the macro and micro representations was that there had to a contradiction. And there was – the SLoT is inherently probabilistic but you had replaced probabilities with certainties i.e. the claim that every photon from a cooler source had 100% certainty of being rejected. That breaks the whole of statmech – over a century’s worth back to Boltzmann.
So that’s it.
(except that you are still making the same mistake by assigning a temperature to an individual spectral line)
Bye.
Tor, I am not here to answer exam questions testing my knowledge of physics gained over a somewhat longer period than yourself I suspect. If people ask questions I will assume they are making genuine enquiries because they don’t understand. I’m not playing games here.
Time, hours orr years of study, degrees or whatever mean nothing if all you do is use equations without thinking about the physical consequences and implications.
You cannot have two-way heat flow between hot and cold without violating the Second Law. I really don’t care if Planck and Co said you could – physics is advancing and you need to catch up by thinking about the consequences. Professors (at least two at PSI) agree totally with me, so why should I believe your hand waving?
I suggest IQ is probably a better guide than degrees. They say Einstein had a bit up there.
Anyway, that subject is closed. Either follow carefully what I have explained in my paper, or stay in the dark. It’s your personal choice and prerogative.
>b>The subject is changed.
I will now only be discussing the FAQ’s in the Appendix, one per day.
Go back to
“I will now only be discussing the FAQ’s in the Appendix, one per day.”
Now you are just doing (fingers in ears) LaLaLa I can’t hear you.
Without the basic premise, which has now collapsed, the rest of the ‘paper’ is valueless.
Final answer to a post I hadn’t seen: B_Happy 100% certainty of being rejected
Yes, because the mathematics of the Planck distribution is quite 100% definite that the curve for a cooler source is totally underneath and fully contained within the curve for a warmer emitter. That is quite clearly discussed, along with a graphic, in Section 3.
So, putting aside unusual weather conditions, and assuming the atmosphere is always and everywhere cooler than the surface below, there can be no radiative transfer of thermal energy from such a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, because such energy could transfer to other molecules, thus leaving behind a completed process which violated the Second Law..
**************************************************
NOW EVERYONE – I am open to discussing FAQ 1 which attacks the issue from the empirical side and shows that there has been no anthropogenic effect at all from carbon dioxide, as my hypothesis indicates ought to be the case..
You will need to read the first page of the Appendix in order to be able to join in on this discussion.
why should I believe your hand waving?
Did I [snip –moderator] stutter?
Exactly where in the derivation of the involved entropy was I hand waving??
And you mention Einstein and his IQ, explain to me the implications of the Einstein coefficients and acceptance or rejection of radiation.
You get serious questions about the physical foundation of you theory, refuse to answer in a coherent manner and then run and hide with the tail behind your legs. And you talk about hand waving. Pathetic…
[co-moderator: please keep ice cold, you are being provoked but Doug Cotton is not behaving with the maturity I expect, both of you are guests writing on the public record. –Tim]
Doug
I started to think about it.
If I under stand it right, you are of a higher age. Do you feel that it is appropriate to implicitly insult other peoples intelligence in a scientific debate?
In the light of the scientific integrity. Do you feel that it is appropriate to implicitly insult other peoples intelligence in a scientific debate?
[ note moderation comment above ]
Glenn Tamblyn I’m sorry I missed you post somehow until I just noticed it now …
.
Whilst i am aware of the points you made, because I have studied all this stuff in great detail, I am not in agreement with certain aspects of the statistical approach which in many ways is “post normal” science. I have quoted examples in my paper which demonstrate the “farce” of so called “net” flux between two bodies, when there can be more bodies – eg in a triangle – and time frames can extend to many months in the Earth / atmosphere system.
Logic poses the question: where is the starting point in a triangle, for example. Suppose backradiation did warm a layer of water just below the surface. Then hours later that energy exits by evaporation and floats around in a cloud for a few days. When it rains there is some warming of the atmosphere and maybe even the surface if the rain falls on snow for example.
Where is the balance in all that? Are you going to tell me the initial process (backradiation from -50 deg.C atmosphere warms water) is not in violation of the SLoT? Garbage!
And if you accept it is garbage, because it obviously does violate SLoT, then you have to accept that absorptivity of the water was zero for that radiation from a cooler atmosphere.
So whether you call it scattering or reflection, there is no transfer of thermal energy from cold to hot. Hence, whenever thermal energy is transferred, it must physically go from hot to cold only, not both ways. Hence there must be some rejection process before any inter-molecular processes or whatever. And Planck and Co were wrong.
The resonant scattering happens when the molecule(s) is/are about to emit a photon with their own energy, but suddenly other energy is supplied by incident radiation with just the right frequency. Hence radiative cooling rate is slowed, but thermal energy is never generated from the radiated energy. It looks like, and is often called pseudo-scattering because it really is new equivalent radiation. (I am not the only one talking about this.) But no thermal energy is left behind in the process, and there was never a transition stage in which thermal energy was generated and then the process reversed to produce the outgoing photon. In no way can the energy be made available so that it could diffuse to independent molecules, perhaps of a different gas or solid. The molecule never relaxes from its excited state before emitting. There is some doubt I agree that it even does go up a level or more. The process may be more like reflection.
It doesn’t make any difference to the end result, provided it does slow radiative cooling but not get converted to thermal energy.
In general, I am talking about surface absorption here. But regarding CO2 absorption, there is considerable doubt about the possibility of all the immediate collisions you refer to when CO2 does in fact absorb IR from a warmer surface. There is also doubt that it would diffuse energy to O2 and N2 molecules, or even vice versa. It is apparent that O2 and N2 may be able to radiate in the IR after all, possibly as electrons are accelerated in grazing collisions. I don’t really need to get into this. We know the air cools by radiation to space, and CO2 plays a part in that cooling process, and also sends upward backradiation of ~2 micron solar radiation which it captures on the way in, bringing about further cooling.
It would be appreciated if you could read the paper, but I really want to move on to the topics in the Appendix now, starting with FAQ.1 for the next two days or so.
Doug,
You are getting too aggressive.
“I suggest IQ is probably a better guide than degrees. They say Einstein had a bit up there.”
In which case you do not understand IQ, few do, big subject. You are correct there are serious problems with signs as a measure of anything but the quoted is still bad thinking. You citing Johnson is just as much using a sign, oh yes, you call them professor. Why? See the problem?
Intelligence is not coming to the attention of moderation.
Just to back up Tim’s point, a couple of house rules need to be set up on this thread.
No argument by assertion.
No appeal to authority
Non-responsiveness is regarded as concession of the point
Keep it polite
Doug has not responded to Tor’s point, which he should do, or admit he is unable to. (No shame in that).
I do apologize.
Never meant any disrespect, it was pure frustration getting out of my system.
To be honest, when there is talk about peer review and serious science, and the contributor of the theory refuses to answer very basic questions to clarify the foundation of his thoughts. Or refuses to discuss a serious stringent counter-example. Well, let’s just say that it feeds frustration.
So, one more time, my sincere apology.
Douglas:
Your following quote is precisely where you have a misconception….
“You cannot have two-way heat flow between hot and cold without violating the Second Law. I really don’t care if Planck and Co said you could – physics is advancing and you need to catch up by thinking about the consequences. Professors (at least two at PSI) agree totally with me, so why should I believe your hand waving?”
There is absolutely no violation of the second law. I think you have made a fundamental assumption here based on applying a static analysis to a dynamic process. Please here me out and please isolate your thinking to a very narrow situation. Don’t bring in black bodies or molecular behavior or anything at all except a pure energy analysis.
In a static case you are quite correct. You can’t INCREASE the energy of something without doing work and if you do you are violating the second law.
HOWEVER (and it’s a big however on purpose) this does not imply that you can’t INSERT energy into something without doing work provided that a larger amount of energy is removed DYNAMICALLY. The earth’s surface is quite dynamic. On average it is always losing it’s energy by several mechanisms, one of which is obviously radiation.
If we were able to isolate the surface in such a way as to prevent any energy exchange except radiation we would see X amount of IR radiation exiting with Y amount of IR radiation impinging. As long as X is bigger than Y, I can insert Y all day long and never violate any 2nd law considerations. ON net the energy of the target is continuing down. I am INSERTING energy (I am deliberately avoiding the potentially loaded concept of ‘adding’) while dynamically and continuously REMOVING MORE than what was inserted. The entropy increases, information decreases, as required.
Build yourself a little spreadsheet to play with the concept and see if you don’t agree.
Also the whole idea that you can have a little ‘safe sex’ where energy gets inside a body and leaves without leaving a baby behind is inconsistent with thinking about consequences isn’t it? Once you say a photon is ‘in’ the body, it’s energy is part of the kinetic energy budget of the body. It doesn’t matter if it’s there for a picosecond or nine months. It’s still pregnant.
If it doesn’t do anything at all then by definition it was either perfectly reflected (scattered if you will) or perfectly traversed (with a scattered path if you please), the very essence of a perfect reflection and/or perfect transparency, eh? If you can’t concede this point then you have to realize you are inventing a brand new physics where individual molecules ARE allowed to violate the 2nd Law while the structure they live in can not.
Sorry, ‘here’ should be ‘hear’. All that sexual talk made me forget to proof read.
I am sorry if I have offended Tor or anyone else. Reference to IQ perhaps should just have been a suggestion that we all need to think instead of just plugging in formulas or repeating what lecturers taught. I suppose I was annoyed by Tor’s repeated one-upmanship about his Masters degree etc, when all this needs is perhaps a degree in Physics and some intelligent thought. As you can read in the Acknowledgements I was fortunate to have a team of three “thinking” professors teaching us in the Physics Dept of Sydney University (1963-1967 inclusive) and encouraging us to question, as Julius Sumner Miller used to say “Why is it so?
I have carried that message through life, and wish to share it with others.
For example, PB implies that it’s OK to expect energy from a cold source to warm up a warmer object provided there is a compensating cooling off that is greater than the temperature rise. If there’s is a physical connection between the two processes that cannot be broken, such as in a siphon, then that can apply. But there is no such connection. Thermal energy is free to go, whereas the water in a siphon is restricted by the hose.
So PB’s statement (without any “siphon-type” restricting mechanism) is just like saying water will run up a hill by itself provided it loses more height on the other side of the hill. I trust you can see the analogy,and the difference a syphon makes.
If you choose to believe it happens, then I have to leave you to your beliefs. But I am telling you that I don’t, and never will believe such nonsense.
Once the radiated energy goes through the (one-way) process of being converted to thermal energy, then that thermal energy is free to go wherever it can. The initial process is irreversible, and because of this very fact, the Second Law would have been violated. Hence it cannot happen. All this is in my paper with examples.
So you will all have to accept that this is my starting point. Water does not run uphill and thermal energy does not transfer by itself from cold to hot.
So from that starting point, I have thought night and day for months about just what does happen to bring about the known fact that the radiative rate of cooling is affected somehow. I concluded that the radiation (which really comes and goes in random directions) could not combine in some way before it struck the target, so there had to be a direct effect on the radiating ability of the target.
I have spent over 1,000 hours reading the climate literature and asking questions on climate blogs. Only Claes Johnson’s resonance made good sense, and from that the concept of matching frequencies from source and target resonating with each other appeared to be the most likely mechanism. It agreed quantitatively because the heat transfer is based on the area between the Planck curves – as Boltzmann also stated. So there you have it, as in the paper.
Now, I’m not in any way persuaded that any other arguments herein provide a better solution.
Not one of you has explained why a completed process of transfer of thermal energy from cold to hot would not violate the SLoT.
And not one of you has proposed a physical mechanism such as I have, which describes exactly how the rate of radiative cooling is affected by the radiation from a cooler source.
This issue is critical, because if my suggestion is valid, then the effect also depends on the density of frequencies being emitted, and of course carbon dioxide just has a few emission lines, nothing like a blackbody. In fact, the strongest emission corresponds to temperatures only found at the top of the mesosphere which is above the stratosphere.
Unless anyone has some suggestion regarding the above two points, then let’s move on to Appendix FAQ #1 because we’re only half way through the paper, and I really don’t want to go over the SLoT issue.
Douglas:
Consider…..
“For example, PB implies that it’s OK to expect energy from a cold source to warm up a warmer object provided there is a compensating cooling off that is greater than the temperature rise.”
I never mentioned the T word in my reply. You are changing the goal posts. I spoke to energy insertions and removals.
The essential question, forgetting everything else is this….
*//——————————————
If I insert energy into a system on the one hand while removing more of it with the other, have I increased the entropy of the system?
——————————————–//*
This is a fundamental question that YOU must answer or your statement….
“Not one of you has explained why a completed process of transfer of thermal energy from cold to hot would not violate the SLoT.”
is nonsense.
And by the way I notice you have chosen not to respond to my critique of the internal energy that isn’t internal. Have you conceded that point?
BTW Douglas, you also say….
“If there’s is a physical connection between the two processes that cannot be broken, such as in a siphon, then that can apply. But there is no such connection. Thermal energy is free to go, whereas the water in a siphon is restricted by the hose.”
I would argue that two bodies in view of each other do have a radiative connection that can’t be broken. I’m not sure I get the siphon analogy though.
PB: I would argue that two bodies in view of each other do have a radiative connection that can’t be broken. I’m not sure I get the siphon analogy though
__________________________________
No I don’t concede “internal energy that isn’t internal” exists as such. My response and explanation is in the paper. The above “radiative connection” is not relevant once the radiated energy is converted to thermal energy. As I keep saying, that thermal energy is free to go off to a third body.
Did you ever read my example of cold radiation supposedly warming water beneath the surface. The warm water rises and, hours later, evaporates (with say half the original energy) and also radiates about half the original amount it had received. The evaporated energy hangs around in clouds fro days, and then warms the atmosphere when it condenses and also rains onto snow, thus warming or melting the snow. We can assume the warmer atmosphere then sends more radiation to warm the water below the surface etc. Where does the cycle begin and end? There’s more radiation into the surface than out of it, because energy is leaving by evaporation. So what balances what?
My point is, all processes involved are completed processes if they are irreversible. So nothing has to balance out anything else. There is no constraint on what happens next, whereas in a siphon the water only goes uphill because the hose imposes a constraint that it must then go downhill. I know it’s all explained by pressure differences, but I’m pointing out that with a siphon the “uphill and downhill” are one process that cannot be broken. But make a hole in the hose at the top of the hill and the constraint is brokem, so that you then have two separate processes. And, what do you know? The first process would violate the Second Law, so the water stops running uphill.
So do you see why I say you have to think intelligently about what is really happening. If you say it’s just energy in the molecule temporarily and if, as I say, there is a constraint due to the resonating process, which dictates that the energy must be used only for sending out new radiation (photons) then that’s fine and we are saying the same thing. There has been no conversion to thermal energy so of course the Second law is not violated because there is no heat transfer from cold to hot.
But then you have to work out why, and what the difference is when one body is hotter than the other.
So you see, there is a Catch-22: If, as has been assumed by Planck and Co, there is thermal energy transferred each way then it;’s all nice and easy because thermal energy can be compounded as we all know. But if we have to rule that out, then it all gets a lot more complicated and physics does not have a viable answer unless you accept what Claes and I are saying.
Crickets….
*//——————————————
If I insert energy into a system on the one hand while removing more of it with the other, have I increased the entropy of the system?
——————————————–//*
PS
Everyone should note Turnedoutnice’s comment at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-39322
Roughly 60% of the thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere does not transfer by radiation. Only about 40% is radiated back. So, if radiation from a cooler atmosphere really did transfer thermal energy to a warmer surface (and the Sceond law of Thermodynamics really could be thus violated) then only 40% of that thermal energy would then exit (a second time) by radiation. So you have much more radiation into the surface than out of it. You have expected water to run uphill by itself and fill a water tank at the top of the hill, just because you know the water is going to flow down pipes to people’s homes sometime in the future.
Thermal energy does not transfer both ways between hot and cold as Planck and Co originally claimed. Botzmann got the right result mathematically, but he did not guess the right physical process. I suggest that is what is in my paper.
Click to access jo120314.pdf
If you think you can better explain how radiation from a cooler source does in fact slow the radiative rate of cooling of a warmer body then please put forward your ideas. But any ideas which depend upon compounding thermal energy, some of which is assumed to result from the radiation from the cooler body to the warmer one, will not wear with me.
,b>PB: If water flows up a hill by itself and then into a water tank, and then down through pipes into people’s homes you have indeed witnessed an increase in entropy.
The only thing you haven’t done is think about what it means.
Next time try using a pump to get the water up into the tank.
I am happy to discuss just the second point above now, namely
And not one of you has proposed a physical mechanism such as I have, which describes exactly how the rate of radiative cooling is affected by the radiation from a cooler source.
Remember that you cannot assume radiated energy from a cooler atmosphere is converted to thermale energy in thewarmer surface. If it were, then only 40% would exit out again by radiation.
if anyone wishes to address this one issue, that’s fine. Otherwise let’s move on to …
Climate evidence. indicates that carbon dioxide is having no effect, as outlined in Appendix Q.1 and so this also shows something is wrong with IPCC models based on radiative warming.
Gordon Robertson has wriiten a couple of good posts about the Second Law and other things that I suggest all read here …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/#comment-39517
Hi Doug.
Following my suggestion that you either answer Tor’s post containing the formulaic demonstration or state you are unable to, you have only referred to Tor in the context of a waffle about qualifications. I’m going to assume therefore that you concede that Tor is correct about the classical physics and your theory being in breach of the second law as he defines and uses it there:
I further assume that this is ok with you since you state that ‘Planck and co got it wrong’.
As Tor requested earlier in this thread, it would be a good idea if you told us which formulation of the second law you are working from. Good science papers begin with definitions. Please tell us.
Thanks
Doug
Not one of you has explained why a completed process of transfer of thermal energy from cold to hot would not violate the SLoT.
That is just not true. See
If you do not agree, show at what point the calculation is wrong. If you don’t understand the calculation, don’t be afraid to ask.
Just to clarify. Thermal energy is random kinetic energy stored inside a system, do you agree?
And not one of you has proposed a physical mechanism such as I have, which describes exactly how the rate of radiative cooling is affected by the radiation from a cooler source.
What is it that you are unsure about? In the macroscopic regime this is a question about how electromagnetic waves interact with matter. In this case the radiation are electromagnetic waves. And also condensed matter theory which models macroscopic properties in this kinds of interactions.
In the microscopic regime, this is described by Quantum Electrodynamics which models how a spin 1 field, the photons, interact with spin 1/2 fields, the electrons.
Your model seems to lack at least five important features.
1) Stimulated emission
A photon can stimulate a bound excited electron to de-excite a similar photon.
2)Lifetime
Either a relaxation time for de-excitation in the macroscopic sense, or a transition probability in the microscopic.
You lack a description for a lifetime for excited states.
A typical lifetime is of the order of 10ns = 10^-8s.
3) Thermalisation
Since excited states has a lifetime atoms or molecules can share this energy through collision with other atoms or molecules.
4) Radiation from accelerating charges
An accelerated charge must send out radiation.
5) Phonons
For solids, photons can also interact with quantized vibrations, that is phonons.
Tor
Minor nit pick with
“4) Radiation from accelerating charges An accelerated charge must send out radiation.”
With the exception of orbital electrons.
Bryan
Nit picking is perfectly fine.
The statement should of course exclude bound charges.
Thank’s for the catch!
Tor
I’m sorry if I merely expected you to see why you are in error (not in the calculations, but in the physical interpretation) by reading Sections 2 to 4 of my paper.
I’ll summarise here with numbered points for your convenience in replying..
(1) In the paper I clearly state that the results of calculations that are based on S-B equations, and subsequent calculations of heat flux (and temperature changes) from radiative flux are all correct numerically. I have never disputed this, and have clearly stated this in para 1 of Section 4.
(2) I have gone on in the paper to show that, because the S-B equation is derived by integrating the Planck function over all frequencies it is of course deriving total radiative flux as is represented by the area under the Planck curve.
(3) Now, as your derivation shows (when you subtract the two temperatures each ^4) you are first getting the difference in radiative flux by subtracting the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body from the area under the curve for the warmer body. OK so far?
(4) So you end up with the area between the Planck curves. OK? Then you can calculate heat flux from radiative flux.
(5) Boltzmann, Planck and Co then tried to explain why radiation from a cooler body slows the radiative rate of cooling by the warmer body. (We all agree on this fact which I mention in the last paragraph of Section 5.)
(6) But they weren’t very imaginative and, because empirical measurements fitted with the results derived mathematically, they wrongly assumed that there is two-way heat transfer whereby all the radiated energy from each body is converted to thermal energy in the other body. We all agree that thermal energy can be compounded, so it’s a simple calculation to just get the algebraic sum of thermal energy in each body. The cold one warms because it receives more energy than it radiates (though it can cool if it radiates more to its surrounds of course) and the hot body appears to cool more slowly because “heat” is supposedly being added from the cold one, thus reducing the rate of cooling. All this is correctly observed just as the calculations indicate.
(7) But (and this is the main reason for the title of my paper) the above description of the physical process must be wrong because the transfer from cold to hot is a separate completed process and thus would violate the SLoT. How do I verify this claim? The thermal energy, if it did “appear” in the hot body would then be free to transfer anywhere, that is to a third body. That body could shed some energy by conduction, diffusion or, if liquid, by evaporation. It does not have to radiate it all back to the original source. For several hours each sunny morning there is net radiation into the surface because it is warming. How could further energy transfer from the cooler atmosphere?
(8) The distinction between a single process and separate processes can be understood this way (not in the paper as I thought of it later.) Consider a siphon which I can use to empty my swimming pool (yes I actually do it this way) using a hose which goes over a small cliff down into bush in my backyard (actually the backyard of my old house which I rent out.) The hose extends well below the level of the pool floor. I have to apply energy to start the siphon working. So I temporarily attach another hose from the tap to the end of the siphon under water. This fills the hose with water (because the tap water has suitable pressure) and, when I disconnect it the siphon keeps running for days. The siphon is a closed system in the sense that there is only one process. So the water which runs uphill must also run down more into the bush. I know it’s all a matter of pressure difference. But suppose I made a hole in the hose at its highest point. The siphon would stop because there would now be two processes. The water no longer has to run downhill after going up. This is what happens in the surface and atmosphere. If the radiation is converted to thermal energy, it can escape to a third “body” and is not forced to go back where it came from or to some cooler place (further down the cliff) enforcing a net effect in the other direction.
So you see, use of S-B equation and anything derived from its use gives the right mathematical results, but that does not have to mean that there is any physical significance that can be related to two-way heat flow. My hypothesis says only that energy represented by the area between the Planck curves is converted to thermal energy in the cooler body. The mathematical result is obviously the same. The energy from the hot body is thus split and that which is not deposited in the cool body continues as new radiation from one target to the next, only depositing energy in bodies which are cooler than the last. Eventually it escapes to space and hits more targets, but only cools to around 2K to 3K I understand because of the background radiation in space. The latter is hardly surprising when you consider all the hot stars warming meteorites and the like.
As I said at the outset, you really need to read the whole paper because it is new stuff which you won’t anticipate. I find that everyone who has not studied it makes erroneous assumptions that I say something quite different. See, for example, my latest response to Dr Strangelove on Spencer’s “Slayers” thread where he was way off track in his assumptions about what I was saying – as can be seen comparing his post with my response there.
..
Tallbloke and everyone else
Firstly, please read the above reply to Tor.
Please also understand that I don’t have time now to virtually re-write the paper, as I have just about done for the early sections in my reply to Tor.
I am happy with any definition of SLoT which says entropy cannot decrease in any spontaneous process in a closed system. There’s a link in my paper at the end of Section 1. In considering the atmosphere to surface radiation I kept the discussion to just thermal energy and, to be more precise, the thermal component of total energy, other components being assumed constant, or any changes insignificant or irrelevant to the argument. So, basically I’m saying it says thermal energy cannot be transferred from a cooler source to a warmer target by any spontaneous process in which no external energy is added to the system. Of course, when talking about water in a siphon I’m discussing gravitational potential energy.
In response to Tor’s second post I have to ask you to read the full page in Section 5 “The concept of resonant scattering.”
After reading it (hopefully before reading the rest of this post) you probably also may need to read at least those sections of Ref [3] which relate to resonators.
The important thing to understand is that resonant scattering (which some are starting to call pseudo scattering, because it is really new radiation replacing identical incident radiation) does not involve thermalisation, let alone stimulated (induced) emission (as in lasers,) radiation from accelerating charges or even the normal lifetime. There will no doubt be much discussion among scientists in the future as to just exactly what happens, but it is certainly different from reflection (though similar to diffuse relection, energy wise) and different from “normal” electron capture. It has to enforce the continuation of the process in which some or all of the incident radiation continues beyond the target. There has to be some such continuing radiation because nothing in the earth system is as cold as 2K to 3K or whatever the exact temperature is for background space radiation. The energy in the radiation is used by the target in new emission which it would otherwsie have used its own energy for. Thus its rate of radiative cooling is reduced.
My paper, together with Claes Johnsons’s, serves to demonstrate that there must be some process whereby radiation sets out and “deposits” some energy in cooler targets (not warmer ones) and the remaining energy continues in automatic enforced scattered radiation from target to target. The previously believed concept of two-way heat transfer cannot be not valid. The postulated physical mechanism is explained in Section 4 with a graphic, so please refer to that Section which is also about a full page in length.
Doug
The important thing to understand is that resonant scattering (which some are starting to call pseudo scattering, because it is really new radiation replacing identical incident radiation) does not involve thermalisation, let alone stimulated (induced) emission (as in lasers,) radiation from accelerating charges or even the normal lifetime.
Elastic scattering of light is not unknown in physics.
It even has a neat name, Rayleigh scattering.
(There is also an unelastic scattering process called Raman scattering, but Rayleigh scattering is very dominating in strength)
But Rayleigh scattering is only interesting in transparent gases, solids or liquids. That is matter that are not opaque.
Doug
But (and this is the main reason for the title of my paper) the above description of the physical process must be wrong because the transfer from cold to hot is a separate completed process and thus would violate the SLoT.
The calculation tests if a two-way flow of energy violates the 2nd law. The conclusion is that it isn’t violating the 2nd law.
You say it yourself, you accept the 2nd law as I state it.
I am happy with any definition of SLoT which says entropy cannot decrease in any spontaneous process in a closed system.
The system is closed since there is no mass transfer in or out of the system. The process is also spontaneous.
The calculation shows that entropy increases.
You need to show where the calculation is wrong, based on correct theory, not assumptions how nature should work.
Do remember that we are talking about electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves follows superpossition. If two waves are incident upon each other, they do not interact at all.
Tor, Tallbloke and all others
Firstly, you don’t need to “teach” me about any of the physics which you have quite correctly quoted. I have been “teaching” it myself to students ever since the late 1960’s.
You will not yet find reference to “resonant scattering” or, as some are starting to call it, “pseudo scattering” because it has not yet got into the textbooks. It is certainly not the same as Rayleigh scattering. It is what Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics (very similar to physics) postulated and which I find, from extensive research, to be the most plausible explanation.
I have always totally agreed with the standard equations which Tor originally reproduced in the post in question, My paper confirms that such equations give the correct result – see Section 4.
The whole point of the paper is to discuss the fact that there can be totally distinct ways in which physical processes can be postulated which each give the same mathematical result, No one who has studied the paper could possibly miss this point, which I suggest some here have missed. The area between the Planck curves = the difference in the areas under the Planck curves – an elementary fact, but the reason why the results are the same. Hence, the fact that the result is confirmed empirically, does not differentiate between the two possible processes (two-way or one-way heat transfer) which lead to the same mathematical result.
The siphon sucking water out of my swimming pool did so in a single process but if I put a hole in the hose at the top (or cut it in half if you like) there are then two separate processes. The water that had already got past the top continues to run down into the bush, but the water on the pool side drains back into the pool. It can no longer go upwards as it could when the two processes were one and net entropy did in fact increase because the hose in the bush went lower than the bottom of the pool.
There is a direct analogy with absorption which leads to conversion to thermal energy. When this happens there are two processes involved. The first gets us to the point where we have radiated energy now appearing as thermal energy. But the second process, which can transfer that thermal energy by various means (including radiation, but also including conduction, convection etc,) is an independent process which is not linked to the first. It is not “dictated” that it must lead to reverse radiation. The hose has been cut. The water coming up no longer has to go down into the bush.
Resonant scattering, whatever it is physically, must exist and, like diffuse reflection, it does not involve conversion of radiated energy to thermal energy, just like reflection, energy-wise. But, unlike reflection, it does affect the rate of cooling by the target.
We have to accept that there must be such a process, even if science cannot yet explain it physically. We know its properties, even if we don’t know its exact mechanism, though that mechanism must affect the rate at which the target uses up its own energy to emit what it can.
I do believe that I have explained this clearly enough in the paper, because those who have read and understood what I am saying (like the original reviewers) have not found any valid reason to disagree.
In that this paper is the subject of this thread, I would ask once again that commenters stay on topic and discuss what is actually said therein (in context) rather than reiterate the physics which I am saying is incorrect and has never been proven empirically, because another explanation (which does not disagree with other physics, namely the SLoT) is much more plausible than the original process of two-way heat flow proposed by the early scientists, the latter violating SLoT.
Doug,
The laws of thermodynamics I was taught to work with were all written in terms of energy, not heat. It’s been like that in engineering textbooks for the best part of 100 years.
Doug
So you say that my calculation is correct in principle. But it is not valid because there is another physical mechanism postulated, that you call resonant scattering, that has not been measured, observed or theoretically derived up until this point, that further says that “my” process of two way energy transfer must violate the 2nd law.
Are you serious?
With theoretically derived I mean from first principles. Not as a speculative phenomenological model like Claes Johnson’s.
tallbloke
That’s why I talk about energy in the paper entitled “Radiated Energy … With 50 years of physics behind me, I do understand the SLoT and the conditions under which it is applicable. It seems most climatologists are rather vague about such conditions and try to stretch them where they cannot be stretched – just like Tor and others posting here. Please keep reading what I have written below, because this is serious and it is time for a few climate sites such as yours to change their tune to what is the truth, rather than participating in a lie.
Tor and others
Yes Tor, I am indeed very serious, because the hoax is a very serious matter involving money and lives, and it is time that people stop promulgating such fiction. Water does not run uphill by itself except in a siphon that goes lower on the other side – a single process as required by SLoT. Thermal energy is not transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. Now that physicists are waking up to the travesty of physics that has been propagated by the IPCC et al, they are starting to speak up all over the world about the violation of the SLoT. If you were as widely read as I am on this topic, you would have come across papers such as that linked below and this would not sound so “new” to you.
So I say to you, are you serious in expecting energy to flow from cold to hot by itself and being a part of a conspiracy that is trying to convince governments and the public that it does.?
The SLoT is evidence enough that the concept of two way heat transfer is invalid, as my paper explains and the siphon further illustrates.
This paper shows there is an abundance of observed evidence …and I have already quoted several times that it is well known in spectroscopy that the gas has to be cooler than the emitter.*
http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still
* Spectroscopy requires cool gas for absorption …
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/glossary/spectroscopy.shtml
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ir_tutorial/spec.html
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~jbattat/a35/cont_abs_em.html
http://paul-a-heckert.suite101.com/spectroscopy-and-atomic-structure-a19903
and many more – just Google spectroscopy “cooler gas”
Tor
You said there is another physical mechanism postulated ,,,, that further says that “my” process of two way energy transfer must violate the 2nd law
____________________________________
No! That is not what I said.
It is not my postulated mechanism that “says” two-way energy transfer violates the second law. It is the fact that two separate heat transfer processes are involved, one of which violates the SLoT. The siphon is one process but, when I cut the hose at the top I have two separate processes very analogous to assumed two-way heat transfer. We don’t have two way water transfer (up and down) in two separate processes, only in a single process in a siphon. Two-way heat transfer between the atmosphere and surface is never a single process. And the SLot requires a single process, which, frankly, is very obvious in real life. Surely I have made this very clear to you by now.
So climatology has to go back to square one and admit it was wrong to assume radiation from a cooler atmosphere transfers thermal energy to a warmer surface.
In fact, some climatologists now recognise this, so we have had three broad AGW theories ….
(1) Assumed heat gets trapped in atmosphere and slows convection
(2) Assumed heat gets radiated back to the surface
(3) Assumes both the above are not correct, but radiation from atmosphere slows the rate of radiative cooling by the surface without transferring heat.
Of these, only (3) is correct. They have “graduated” to this, but it still does not lead to AGW, because other heat transfer mechanisms (accounting for 60% of transfer from surface to atmosphere) merely speed up to compensate for any slowing down of radiation.
They never investigated this possibility of evaporation and diffusion speeding up.
Nor did they investigate the cooling effect of water vapour and CO2 when they absorb incoming IR solar radiation.
This shows why you should be very careful in using analogies.
The water in the pool is in a potential well, it can not run uphill unless there is a force applied. A pressure gradient does the trick.
Light is something completely different than water. Where is the potential that binds a photon? What is uphill for a photon? What is a hose for a photon?
And regarding spectroscopy. Ask your self why the gas need to be both cold and not to dense?
You referred to
http://paul-a-heckert.suite101.com/spectroscopy-and-atomic-structure-a19903
Under the section Emission lines
If an electron in an excited state jumps down to a lower energy level, it releases that energy as a photon. The wavelength is determined by the energy difference between the two levels.
The electron can get to the higher energy level by absorbing a photon, but that is not the only way. In a hot gas the atoms are more likely to collide. During a collision, some of the heat energy of the gas is transferred to the electrons, so they jump to higher levels. When they jump back down, they emit a photon. So hot transparent gasses have emission line spectra.
An emission spectra for a gas is the complement to an absorption spectra. So if you take the union you get a continuous spectra.
Just to clarify,
that it says everywhere that you need a cooler gas – in opposite of an hotter gas – to see an absorption spectra is that if the gas is to hot, then it will emit an emission spectra that fills in the gaps.
Tor
Of course I know the siphon functions because of pressure differences. But it doesn’t matter what the mechanism is, the Second Law cannot be violated in a single process. No one has invented a perpetual motion machine, and the siphon is not one either.
Thermal energy has to obey the same law as gravitational potential energy. After all, they are interchangeable. That’s why the Second Law is now worded in terms of entropy. The analogy with a siphon is perfectly valid.
I really don’t know why you can’t just observe what happens around you. You cannot construct any process which can operate spontaneously and decrease entropy. Sure, I apply initial energy to get the siphon running. I do this with another hose temporarily connected beneath the water line for about a minute or so. Then the siphon runs for days if I am completely emptying my 13 metre pool as I did when my now 5 year old son was born, keeping it empty for 4 years for safety reasons.
Regarding gas absorption the experiment we are talking about at PSI will demonstrate this over a wide range of temperatures with an emitter just a little warmer and cooler at each gas temperature. Will that satisfy you?
A thermodynamic process is any change a system undergoes from one equilibrium state to another. The process is described by an initial and a final state and the path it follows, preferably described by statefunctions and also interactions with the surroundings.
So in your pool example.
One process is if you let your pool empty fully. Another process is if you after time t cut a hole in the hose big enough for the pressure gradient to drop so much that the flow stops leaving the system in a different final state.
In the example of radiating bodies.
You can empty the pool fully, that is letting the temperature equalize, that is one process. But you can think of other processes to. Put in a screen filter that only let a few wavelengths through, that will result in another process with the same final state as the unfiltered process.
Regarding gas absorption the experiment we are talking about at PSI will demonstrate this over a wide range of temperatures with an emitter just a little warmer and cooler at each gas temperature. Will that satisfy you?
Impossible to answer in advance.
If it is reproducible then it would be accepted of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
If spectroscopy really behaves as you claim you could probably already find experiments showing this behavior.
Scirus is your friend, http://www.scirus.com/
Tor A thermodynamic process is any change a system undergoes from one equilibrium state to another.
______________________
(1) Where did you get taught that? I’m just curious.
(2) Can I ask also if you have read my publication in full yet, because this thread is about that.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Thermodynamic+Process
“Thermodynamic Process
“a change in the state of a physical system because of heat transfer and performance of work.
“If a thermodynamic process occurs so slowly that at every moment the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, the process is called an equilibrium process; otherwise it is said to be a nonequilibrium process. A process that can proceed in either direction through the same sequence of intermediate states is said to be reversible; such a process must be an equilibrium process. All real thermodynamic processes are irreversible, since they occur at finite rates and with finite temperature differences between the heat source and the system and are accompanied by friction and heat losses to the surroundings.
“A thermodynamic process may occur at constant pressure (isobaric process), temperature (isothermal process), or volume (iso-choric process). A process that occurs without heat exchange with the surroundings is said to be adiabatic. These four types of processes are compared in Figure 1. In a reversible adiabatic process the entropy of the system remains constant—that is, the process is isentropic. An irreversible adiabatic process is accompanied by an increase in entropy. A process in which the enthalpy, or heat content, of the system remains constant is said to be isenthalpic. A process in which the initial and final states are the same is called a cycle; such processes may be used to produce power, heat, or cold.
I. N. ROZENGAUZ”
And I showed that two way energy exchange is an isochoric irreversible process.
So, Tor, if we know all the data such as rates of increase or decrease in temperatures etc, then, if we take a slice of time and make measurements at the beginning and end of that time slot, or we integrate between appropriate limits with out theoretical equations, then you would be saying we really don’t know if the SLoT is being violated or not because we haven’t reached equilibrium. Like I don’t know if my cup of coffee is cooling until it reaches equilibrium at room temperature, or maybe later if the room is warming in the Sun and cooling off that night.
We could have the cool atmosphere warming the oceans with radiation, (or so you think,) then winds from the ocean carry energy over land and some goes into the atmosphere by diffusion and convection and some by radiation so the cycle starts again. There’s no equilibrium, so the whole World can get away with violating the Second Law because the “process” never reached euilibrium, and so never stopped. And even if the Earth is destroyed the remaining matter wouldn’t reach equilibrium, so who needs any Second Law?
Do you remember me mentioning once that I felt you ought to think about what happens in the real world, not just what your equations seem to tell you?
It is clearly stated that the blackbody and the black radiation is in contact with heat baths. So we do know it is an equilibrium.
Does the entropy function have a positive or negative derivative?
It is implicit that the system is observed for a short time, in the limit Dt -> dt, DS -> dS, dS > 0.
To those who have read the paper:
Do you agree with the first item in the Appendix which shows why there is absolutely no empirical evidence of any effect on climate by carbon dioxide, and that natural cycles exist, with a long-term upward trend at a decreasing rate, currently about 0.05 degrees C per decade? Such trend could be expected to reach a maximum within 200 years.
If you have any comments on how I came to this conclusion in the paper I would be interested to hear, because the data would appear to support the hypothesis in the main part of the paper.
Do you remember me mentioning once that I felt you ought to think about what happens in the real world, not just what your equations seem to tell you?
This starting to be dangerously on the border of pseudoscience.
You are constantly shifting the ground for the discussion about the basic physical principals. I do think I mentioned that I am only interested in the basic physics that you have as a ground for your hypothesis.
If this basic physics is asserted woo-do physics then your reasoning is a logical fallacy.
To be honest, what exactly is your beef with the established physics.
Energy is transported in a 2 way exchange. At the system surface heat has the direction to cold, that is if we draw the system surface between the bodies.
There is an alternative look at what is happening. You could see it as the two system does work on each other through electromagnetic interaction, then there is no heat at all.
Tor
The Earth’s surface does not act anything at all like a radiating blackbody because the surface is not insulated from the atmosphere or the crust beneath,
The surface loses about 60% of its thermal energy by processes other than radiation and there is no reason why any particular “parcel” of thermal energy has to go back to where it started out from. Besides, some energy gets stored for months or years in the oceans.
The SLoT must apply for every such “transaction” involving heat transfer: as my paper says, each transaction (or process) must obey the Law in its own right and each process has only one direction, for reasons explained in my paper. Furthermore, it must apply even for every small finite time slot – on a macro scale of course.
This is why I cannot observe my coffee warming and cooling and warming and cooling on its way to equilibrium with the air conditioned room at a constant temperature. This is why water doesn’t run uphill to the town water tank, just because it “knows” in advance it will come down further on its way to all the houses in the valley. Net entropy would increase, but it is not one process. If you claim it is one process (similar to your radiation warming the surface which then cools more) then you can’t say the water would not run uphill.
Can’t you see that the thermal energy which would enter the atmosphere is unconstrained in where it then goes, just like the water in the tank, but unlike the water in the (uncut) siphon which had to go down the other side? If there were no water going down then no water would rise from the pool. That does not apply regarding radiation from the atmosphere to the surface. When the Sun is warming the surface in the morning there is already “net” radiation into the surface. If you can’t see the analogy, then you are beyond help from my standpoint.
We’ll have to agree to disagree I’m afraid, because it seems we live in different worlds. I have other things to do tonight.
Have you read the full paper yet?
______________________________________
Everyone:
I’d like to move on now to discussion of the various other topics in the Appendix which is nearly as long as the main section.
We are starting with Q.1 in the Appendix as mentioned in my last post.
More evidence of natural cycles
Today we have seen peer-reviewed published evidence of natural cycles, mostly relating to the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn – just as I explained in the Appendix of my paper.
Doug,
If you look through the archives of this blog, you’ll find a lot of posts and discussion of the role the planets play in climate change, solar variability and changing orbital parameters.
Nicola Scafetta has in the past cited this blog in his work, e.g. in the submission he made to the EPA he gave a hyperlink URL to the Talkshop in the bibliographic section of the document.
This from Douglas…….
“The SLoT must apply for every such “transaction” involving heat transfer: as my paper says, each transaction (or process) must obey the Law in its own right and each process has only one direction, for reasons explained in my paper.”
Are you really saying that every single portion of an energy transaction must obey 2nd law?
This would mean I can’t lift a weight from the ground because the part of the system consisting of the ball and gravity violates the second law. Potential energy was created from nothing. A perpetual motion ball.
How do you interpret the phrase ‘sole result’ in the many 2nd law statements?
Or the step in the Carnot cycle where entropy decreases…
Q.E.D.
A photon raising an electron to a higher energy band violates the 2nd law. Who knew?
The intake cycle on an internal combustion engine violates the 2nd law too then, right?
How about putting another log on the fire; clearly adding low energy to high.
Then there’s accumulating charge in a thunder cloud, and eating cookies, and actually life itself.
All examples of 2nd law violations.