I’ve Looked at Clouds from Both Sides Now -and Before
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
…sometimes, the most powerful evidence is right in front of your face…..
I never dreamed that anyone would dispute the claim that cloud changes can cause “cloud radiative forcing” of the climate system, in addition to their role as responding to surface temperature changes (“cloud radiative feedback”). (NOTE: “Cloud radiative forcing” traditionally has multiple meanings. Caveat emptor.)
But that’s exactly what has happened. Andy Dessler’s 2010 and 2011 papers have claimed, both implicitly and explicitly, that in the context of climate, with very few exceptions, cloud changes must be the result of temperature change only.
Shortly after we became aware of Andy’s latest paper, which finally appeared in GRL on October 1, I realized the most obvious and most powerful evidence of the existence of cloud radiative forcing was staring us in the face. We had actually alluded to this in our previous papers, but there are so many ways to approach the issue that it’s easy to get sidetracked by details, and forget about the Big Picture.
Well, the following graph is the Big Picture. It shows the 3-month variations in CERES-measured global radiative energy balance (which Dessler agrees is made up of forcing and feedback), and it also shows an estimate of the radiative feedback alone using HadCRUT3 global temperature anomalies, assuming a feedback parameter (λ) of 2 Watts per sq. meter per deg (click for full-size version):
What this graph shows is very simple, but also very powerful: The radiative variations CERES measures look nothing like what the radiative feedback should look like. You can put in any feedback parameter you want (the IPCC models range from 0.91 to 1.87…I think it could be more like 3 to 6 in the real climate system), and you will come to the same conclusion.
And if CERES is measuring something very different from radiative feedback, it must — by definition — be radiative forcing (for the detail-oriented folks, forcing = Net + feedback…where Net is very close to the negative of [LW+SW]).
The above chart makes it clear that radiative feedback is only a small portion of what CERES measures. There is no way around this conclusion.
Now, our 3 previous papers on this subject have dealt with trying to understand the extent to which this large radiative forcing signal (or whatever you want to call it) corrupts the diagnosis of feedback. That such radiative forcing exists seemed to me to be beyond dispute. Apparently, it wasn’t. Dessler (2011) tries to make the case that the radiative variations measured by CERES are not enough energy to change the temperature of the ocean mixed layer…but that is a separate issue; the issue addressed by our previous 3 papers is the extent to which radiative forcing masks radiative feedback. [For those interested, over the same period of record (April 2000 through June 2010) the standard deviation of the Levitus-observed 3-month changes in temperature with time of the upper 200 meters of the global oceans corresponds to 2.5 Watts per sq. meter]
I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and understand in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but Danny Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, it’s going to take time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong, misused our model, and misrepresented our position.
George E. Smith; says:
October 10, 2011 at 9:59 am
———————–
Thank you. Your explanation was my understanding. Total confidence now.
BargHumer says:
October 10, 2011 at 9:05 am
——————————
A lot of us learn a lot from these discussions that is not available anywhere else. WUWT offers us that opportunity.
@eyesonu Oct 10 9:10pm
I love WUWT, and I think I have learned a lot too, but I am plagued by the question of whether I have learned what is true.
Each logical statement is followed by other logical statements with increasing depth and intensity borne of the convictions of the contributor. As it says in Proverbs 18:17 “The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.” ad infinitum.
Take the ongoing discussion about heat transfer from cold to hot. It seems silly to suggest that it is possible, yet radiation is emitted by anything above absolute zero as I understand it. Nevertheless, the issue is about heat and this is a net effect. Heat cannot go from cold to warm but a warm object in a cold environment, some distance from a cool but not cold object, will of course lose less heat, so………
The point is, there must be simple ways of defining what is true in the world of basic physics, and many other subjects. My guess is that many of us learn a lot from the blogs but we don’t know how much of it is true.
It is great that both sides of the debate can be seen on this blog, unlike the totally biased warmist blogs, but somehow some firm and true conclusions need to be drawn. Climate skeptics should not be in the business of creating new modern day myths to combat the myths of the warmists. Thr truth is what is needed and it needs to be made very clear.
I was shocked to see CNN broadcast the prediction of decades of colder weather coming. This was supported by their favourite weatherman and a Prof. from the UK. The weatherman clevery skipped the question about global warming from Becky, but the question was strong on the air all the way through. If CNN have finally realised that the global warming fox is dead, they may be changing their position and it is sure to be followed by the BBC and ABC in time albeit with much chagrin, but this could be a new phase in the whole debate.
125.LouN says:
October 10, 2011 at 8:55 pm
re: heat transfer from colder body to warmer body.
My 2c.
I believe it is “net” energy that flows downhill. Here is another perspective:
So, in any river flowing downhill there are drops of water spontaneously flowing uphill?
Consider the rate of cooling of a body at temperature T. Let Ta be the ambient temperature, less than T. According to newton’s law of cooling, dT/dt = -k(T – Ta).
Well, some might be able to consider the formula, you’ll have to write in English for me, in detail.
Imagine body A to be emitting photons (which is independent of its surroundings, only on its temperature and emissivity).
OK
The only way for A’s rate of cooling to decrease is when its emitted photons are replenished somehow from its cooler surroundings.
And how do they do that when heat always flows spontaneously from the hotter to the colder? The colder will continue to become hotter until equilibrium is reached.
In other words, there must be transfer of photons from the cooler surroundings to A. A similar argument could be made using EM waves instead of photons.
I can’t see an argument here. You’re just saying that it must happen if A’s cooling is to decrease. You don’t say how those photons from the cooler get to the hotter A to stop it cooling .
In the macroscopic view, heat still “flows” from hot to cold.
So you say, but then you contradict that. In the macroscopic world according to the law that heat always flows from hotter to cooler the photons from the cooler cannot flow to the hotter. The cooler is receiving not giving.
Where is the proof that the drops of water in a river are always spontaneously flowing uphill? And how is this stopped to get your ‘net’?
You need to provide a mechanism for this to be happening or drops of water flowing downhill can always spontaneously flow uphill until all the water is flowing uphill.
If it is the ‘net’, what is the mechanism in place which prevents the cold photons from overwhelming the hotter with photons and heating it up further which destroys the ‘net’?
BargHumer says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Each logical statement is followed by other logical statements with increasing depth and intensity borne of the convictions of the contributor. As it says in Proverbs 18:17 “The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.” ad infinitum.
🙂 The trick is to sit in the middle and not get pulled one way or the other, I had a very bad case of sea-sickness for a few weeks when I first began to compare the arguments..
BargHumer says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:34 pm
I love WUWT, and I think I have learned a lot too, but I am plagued by the question of whether I have learned what is true.
=====================================
I love WUWT too. This site gives you the opportunity to voice a point of view and get feedback. The feedback, some bad but mostly good, sets me off to research something I’ve got wrong, or misunderstood or something I didn’t know or to reconfirm what I already knew. Often the issue fizzles out leaving you with conflicting points of view but I find enough has been said to give me a direction to research it. Cheers.
WORDS HAVE MEANING !!!
“”””””Myrrh says:
October 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm
50.richard verney says:
October 9, 2011 at 8:12 am
My point is this. Merely because a low temperature object radiates energy, it does not follow that that energy can pass the threshold and get absorbed by a warmer object which is radiating energy at a higher state. may be it can, but may be it does not and this can be clarified only by properly constructed experimentation which to my knowledge has not been undertaken such that we simply do not know the answer to what is a very important issue in the climate science field.
This is a law, that heat always flows from hot to cold, because that is what is always observed, isn’t it? Like, rivers always flow downhill. It takes work to alter that. Sure locally, the river might hit a rock and some water forced back against the stream, but that is work done to change the direction. Heat always flows from hot to cold unless work is done to alter this. I thought this was basic knowledge. I really don’t know what to say about George E. Smith’s summary of what he thinks it is, but I too would like to see some real physical experiments proving it.. I hope he can provide these. “””””
This exchange between Myrrh and Richard illustrates, how easy it is to miscommunicate, when TECHNICAL TERMS are misused or used “loosely”.. Now both Myrrh and Richard may understand completely, exactly what each of them is saying, but that does not mean that everyone else, specially “lay” readers will, and nothing miscommunicates more than less than pedantic use of technical terms that have VERY SPECIFIC technical meanings, that may differ from colloquial usage.
So without being critical of either, let’s examine this exchange.
So in Richard’s second sentence, we get the following words:- (low) temperature, object, radiates, energy, energy, threshold, absorbed, warmer, object, radiating, energy, higher, state .
To this flow of words, (presumably), Myrrh responds with:- law, heat, flows, hot, cold, (flow) downhill, work, heat, flows, hot, cold, work.
Now in this context, I would not qualify as ” a lay person”, since I have both formal education in the subject matter, and a somewhat lengthy career of field application of such matters.
So I have no problem whatsoever in grasping exactly what Myrrh is saying; and I have NO great problem with exactly how Myrrh chose to state his response; and no-one with formal Physics training should be put out by Myrr’s statement; although some may wish for a more pedantic statement. A specific absence from Myrr’s statement is the word Temperature. “Hot” and “cold” are a little too colloquial, compared to “high(er) Temperature” and “low(er) Temperature”, WHEN ADDRESSING LAY FOLKS. The cognoscenti will simply roll with Myrr’s language, as perfectly satisfactory. We know exactly what he means; and also we feel confident, that HE knows what he means. Also absent from the statement is the word “energy”.
So Myrrh is clearly talking about the PROCESS of “heating”, which will often be described as “heat” flow, making “heat” a noun rather than a verb. He also does not use the words “object” or “medium”. And the process he describes clearly REQUIRES real objects or media to propagate the purely mechanical kinetic “energy” that is the signature of both Temperature and “heat” in its noun manifestation.
And the transport of that mechanical energy from place to place, is not possible without a real physical material medium or media between the “source” and the “sink”.
The process Myrr describes IS a process, which is constrained by the second law of thermodynamics. I like the exotic form as stated (English translation) by Rudolph Clausius.
“No cyclic machine can have no other effect, than to transport “heat” from a source at one Temperature, to a sink, at a higher Temperature.”
The necessary “other” effect to result in such a transport, IS, as Myrrh said, “work” which requires the investment of “energy”.
So now back to what Richard had said. He does use the word “Temperature”, which is uniquely a function of real physical materials, and he uses the colloquial “warmer”, and unlike Myrrh, he does use the word “energy”.
But Richard says NOTHING about “heating” or even “heat”, and he talks about RADIATING “energy”. He also talks of a warmer object radiating at a “higher state” , (presumably than his “low temperature” object.
Well here we have a clear misdirection. Higher “rate” would be accurate; “higher state” is simply incorrect usage, and can only confuse.
But Richard is quite accurate in suggesting that his “low temperature” object radiates at a lower rate (not state) than his “warmer object”.
What Richard is describing is the emission and propagation of “Electro-magnetic radiation” which is a form of ENERGY that is described in detail in Maxwell’s equations which govern “radio” and like emissions.
Also we are taught that EVERY “body”, that is at a Temperature higher than zero Kelvins, MUST radiate EM radiation. The basic radiation mechanism can be described as in Radio-Physics as a varying “electric current” flowing for some non-zero distance (antenna length); which we can also describe as an accelerating “electric charge”, travelling for some distance; or associated with some non-zero “electric dipole moment” (the antenna).
Either description with the application of Maxwell’s equations suffice to describe in some form the readiation and propagation of electromagnetic waves; which if we choose, can also be described in terms of photon emission.
And Planck’s radiation law, leads to the Stefan-Boltzmann 4th power of Temperature law for total emission in certain ideal cases.
Nothing in Maxwell’s equations limits EM wave transmission, propagation, and reception as a consequence of Temperature.
There is NO “threshold” for EM waves to surmount. They do interract with physical media, which can thereby absorb the energy, and convert it to some other form; which certainly could be simply waste “heat”, but could also be the release of an energetic electron, as in the photo-electric effect.
The point is Richard’s subject matter, and Myrrh’s response, are simply not related to one another. They are two entirely different subjects.
As for demonstrative experiments; a waste of time. The remedy is in a contrary result demonstration; not any finite number of supportive experiments.
The problem of a lack of pedantry was demonstrated by a recent post by Phil related to the “discovery” of Ozone on Venus. Phil noted the larger TSI for Venus, because of its closer solar distance; but he was mis interpreted to be asserting that closeness to the sun raised the photon energies incident on the Venusian atmosphere.
So we have to choose our words carefully, to avoid confusion of “lay” readers.
George E. Smith; says:
October 11, 2011 at 11:39 am
WORDS HAVE MEANING !!!
So Myrrh is clearly talking about the PROCESS of “heating”, which will often be described as “heat” flow, making “heat” a noun rather than a verb. He also does not use the words “object” or “medium”. And the process he describes clearly REQUIRES real objects or media to propagate the purely mechanical kinetic “energy” that is the signature of both Temperature and “heat” in its noun manifestation.
Myrrh is actually talking about heat on the move, such as the thermal energy of the Sun on its way to us, which is transfer by radiation and doesn’t require a medium.
There are three different ways heat, thermal energy, moves from one place to another: conduction, convection, radiation. This is bog standard traditional science that radiation doesn’t need a medium, it gets from A to B without one. It can be slowed down by different mediums it passes through, such as our atmosphere and even more slowed down by passing through the water of our oceans.
This is standard physics, and those who object to it need to show their workings. As it stands the above is a typical response; objecting, putting in some other explanation which makes nonsense of it and demanding that traditional physics changes to suit without being able to show any reason for such a change.
And the transport of that mechanical energy from place to place, is not possible without a real physical material medium or media between the “source” and the “sink”.
Well, you really must do better than this if you are arguing against bog standard traditional physics which teaches what radiation is, the missing link from your strange, to traditional physics, ideas, to appreciating the reality of the world around us as we so far know it. The Sun’s heat, its thermal energy, radiates out and flows from hotter to colder, it affects matter it meets in various ways, depending on the matter. That heat is thermal energy on the move, thermal infrared, heat in transfer.
I don’t know what would meet George’s idea here that this requires a medium, I’ve speculated that this must entail some supernatural wagon train of a conveyor belt from the Sun to Earth run by the gods to bridge the emptiness of space. But seriously, what I think the problem is that there’s no appreciation of the differences in properties of the various wavelengths. The meme ‘all energy is the same and all creates heat’ has done away with all that until as we have here, the actual reason for science has been lost, the exploration of how our universe really works which is examination of the detail of differences and so we get statements which contradict known tried and tested traditional physics bandied about as if they are fact, without any connecting logic or empirical proof.
Since there’s interest in this, here’s what traditional physics has to say:
_____________
Italics in the original. The heat is in transfer whether you can feel it or not. It doesn’t come into existence because you feel it, you’re not creating it ‘out of electromagnetic energy’, it already exists. All energy from the Sun is not the same, gamma rays are not radio waves, there are distinct differences between them, they have properties different from each other as well as some having like properties which others don’t have. You’d need to use sets or something to build a picture of this as categories overlap, for example, in ionising and non-ionising UV is in both. Ionising means the radiation is energetic enough to knock an electron out of its orbit, non-ionising moves the electron into higher energy state but isn’t strong enough to move it out of its orbit, rather the reverse, it is bounced back out by the electron and an example of this is visible light reflected/scattered by the electrons of the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen in our atmosphere. The more highly energetic the smaller the wavelength, these highly energetic actions on meeting matter are known as electronic transitions, they work on the electron scale of the molecule. Heat energy is bigger and slower, less energetic, but that does not mean it is less ‘powerful’ than the ‘highly energetic’. Heat energy moves the whole molecule into rotation/vibration, which is what temperature is, the movement of atoms and molecules of matter. As above, the simple “thermal energy comes from the movement of atoms and molecules in matter” is created in land and oceans by the thermal energy direct from the Sun, infrared radiation which is heat on the move, which is powerful enough to do this, just as the mechanical energy of rubbing hands together does this and results in what we feel, heat.
I’m not going to put my tuppence worth in on all the examples you give from Richard, but where it impacts what I’ve said: “So now back to what Richard had said. He does use the word “Temperature”, which is uniquely a function of real physical materials, and he uses the colloquial “warmer”, and unlike Myrrh, he does use the word “energy”.
But Richard says NOTHING about “heating” or even “heat”, and he talks about RADIATING “energy”. He also talks of a warmer object radiating at a “higher state” , (presumably than his “low temperature” object.
Well here we have a clear misdirection. Higher “rate” would be accurate; “higher state” is simply incorrect usage, and can only confuse.
The misdirection isn’t coming from us, you have erased the transfer of thermal energy by radiation.. 🙂 I do use the word ‘energy’, when I find it appropriate to use. But one doesn’t really have to be so tied up in knots over the use of words, different systems may use these words in ways specific to their system, but the basic meaning is still the same as long as all know what the basic is. ‘Heat’ is actually the easiest to use, if you mean heat.., but only if you begin by heat and radiation and energy meaning what traditional physics says these mean, so we all know we’re on the same page.
Nick, try this interpretation of the conclusion from Dessler
“6. Conclusions
These calculations show that clouds did not cause significant climate change over the last decade…”
If Clouds didn’t cause significant climate change over the last decade then logically variations in cloud must have been caused by climate change. Alternatively you might argue that Dessler is saying that there are no variations in cloud cover despite climate change…but I doubt Dessler is implying this…
“…(over the decades or centuries relevant for long‐term climate change, clouds acting as a feedback can indeed cause significant warming)….”
…because here Dessler is very clearly implying there are variations in cloud cover with climate change and those variations will have a net positive effect on temperatures. He is meaning as a feedback.
“…Rather, the evolution of the surface and atmosphere during ENSO variations are dominated by oceanic heat transport.”
And here Dessler is saying that variations were caused by the short term changes in the ocean. And therefore is suggesting that clouds play no part in those ocean variations. Unless you want to argue that Dessler is being pedantic about saying that “clouds dont force temperatures directly” whilst obfuscating the possibility that clouds “force” the ocean which in turn force clouds which alter temperatures.
So its quite clear to me that Dessler is saying that temperature causes cloud variation which, over the longer term feeds back with increased warming. So now we can re-examine the original claim by Spencer
“But that’s exactly what has happened. Andy Dessler’s 2010 and 2011 papers have claimed, both implicitly and explicitly, that in the context of climate, with very few exceptions, cloud changes must be the result of temperature change only.”
And this is indeed what Dessler is saying. Please break down his conclusion with an alternative interpretation if you still think otherwise.
“”””” Myrrh says:
October 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm
George E. Smith; says:
October 11, 2011 at 11:39 am
WORDS HAVE MEANING !!!
So Myrrh is clearly talking about the PROCESS of “heating”, which will often be described as “heat” flow, making “heat” a noun rather than a verb. He also does not use the words “object” or “medium”. And the process he describes clearly REQUIRES real objects or media to propagate the purely mechanical kinetic “energy” that is the signature of both Temperature and “heat” in its noun manifestation.
Myrrh is actually talking about heat on the move, such as the thermal energy of the Sun on its way to us, which is transfer by radiation and doesn’t require a medium. “””””
Well Myrrh; I’m going to let you have the last word on this. I have a rule to never get between a man and the cliff he is racing towards to jump off..
“objects” and “media” need no introduction. They comprise some form of the 92 elements of the periodic table of the elements (you can also have all the transUranics too; be my guest.
They transport mechanical (thermal) energy the same way a car conveys mechanical energy to a bridge abuttment; through collisions, which is the process of “Conduction”.
You could list the ten most common of these elements that fill the space between the sun and the earth to transport “heat” from the sun to earth.
EM radiation doesn’t do it,, it conveys EM energy. What the earth does with that energy is a function of the materials of the planet. Yes a good part of that energy is eventually wasted in the mechanical form some call “heat”. Strangely PV solar cells convert only a portion of the EM energy to “heat”. A significant part of it is converted to electricity instead. Some of it is even converted to “light” by the human eye.
But as I said, I’ll stand aside, and let you charge on. My apologies to all of the innocents who jump off the cliff with you.
Myrrh
I don’t know why you are talking about rivers, our topic is radiative heat transfer.
A1. All objects emit photons (or EM radiation) independent of its surroundings.
A2. An object may absorb a photon regardless of where the photon came from.
A3. When a body emits photons, it loses energy.
A4. When a body absorbs photons, it gains energy.
Scenario #1: Two objects in a vacuum separated by a small distance, object A and object B at temperatures Ta and Tb, Ta > Tb.
Q. Why does the net radiative energy flow between body A and body B depend on the temperatures (among others) of both bodies?
A. Because _both_ bodies emit and absorb photons, albeit at different rates and energies. (direction of _net_ energy transfer: from A to B)
Scenario #2:Object A in a vacuum at temperature Ta, no energy source. It will cool down as it emits photons. Introduce object B near A at temperature Tb, Ta > Tb.
Q. Do you think object A will decay at the same rate as before? If not, why?
If you cannot accept that warmer bodies can accept photons from colder bodies then you cannot explain why net energy transfer between two bodies depends on the temperatures of both bodies and why the rate of energy loss is affected by the presence of nearby objects.
I refer you to the heat transfer textbook freely available in the web : http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html
In page 44 of pdf or page 32 of book, it says:
“Suppose that a heated object (1) radiates only to some other object (2) and that both objects are thermally black. All heat leaving object 1 arrives at object 2 and all heat arriving at object 1 comes from object 2. Thus the net heat transferred between object 1 and object 2 is …”
In page 553 of pdf or page 541 of book it says:
For two bodies:
Qnet = Q12 – Q21. where Qnet = net heat exchange, Q12 = heat exchange from 1 to 2, Q21 = heat exchange from 2 to 1. for radiative heat transfer:
Qnet = k (T1^4 – T2^4), where k = a factor for area, emittance, stefan-boltzmann constant, etc..
This book has no problem with objects _exchanging_ radiative heat.
note: the authors’ email address are on that page.
addendum:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thermo.html
quote:
“Thermodynamics is a branch of physics which deals with the energy and work of a system. … Thermodynamics deals only with the _large scale_ response of a system which we can observe and measure in experiments.”
George E. Smith; says:
October 11, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Well Myrrh; I’m going to let you have the last word on this. I have a rule to never get between a man and the cliff he is racing towards to jump off..
“objects” and “media” need no introduction. They comprise some form of the 92 elements of the periodic table of the elements (you can also have all the transUranics too; be my guest.
They transport mechanical (thermal) energy the same way a car conveys mechanical energy to a bridge abuttment; through collisions, which is the process of “Conduction”.
You could list the ten most common of these elements that fill the space between the sun and the earth to transport “heat” from the sun to earth.
EM radiation doesn’t do it,, it conveys EM energy. What the earth does with that energy is a function of the materials of the planet. Yes a good part of that energy is eventually wasted in the mechanical form some call “heat”. Strangely PV solar cells convert only a portion of the EM energy to “heat”. A significant part of it is converted to electricity instead. Some of it is even converted to “light” by the human eye.
But as I said, I’ll stand aside, and let you charge on. My apologies to all of the innocents who jump off the cliff with you.
? As I’ve tried to point out before, you are taking all em energy to be the same and have created a world in which matter takes this and in some unspecified way creates stuff from it.. Where do you see this happening?
The energy from the Sun has different properties. It is these properties as distinct attributes which on meeting matter will act in certain ways particular to that energy and the matter it meets. Heat is the thermal energy of the Sun, that is what moves out from the Sun, it is the same thermal energy on the move and it doesn’t need a medium to move through, it travels through space to reach us. This is not the same as UV or gamma or radio or xray, which have properties distinct to themselves and from each other. Visible light doesn’t penetrate you body the way xrays can. They are different from each other. They are different sizes etc. Photo-voltaic cells don’t convert visible light to heat, that would mean visible was moving the molecules of the photo-voltaic cells.. If they’re getting a tad hot it will be from the thermal energy of the Sun heating them up.
Anyway, what I see you’re doing is junking well understood physical properties as still taught in traditional physics, and replacing it with concepts which you have still failed to back up with any rational explanation let alone empirical evidence. Saying ‘it must be this’ doesn’t cut it in real science. Why don’t you deal with this aspect I’ve asked you to produce?
LouN says
October 11, 2011 at 10:05 pm
[examples] If you cannot accept that warmer bodies can accept photons from colder bodies then you cannot explain why net energy transfer between two bodies depends on the temperatures of both bodies and why the rate of energy loss is affected by the presence of nearby objects.
Ah, the ol’ ‘it must x because we don’t know what else it could be’ clincher..
Because heat always flows from hotter to colder. The real net here is in this exchange between the bodies in that principle. As heat flows from A to B, A will be losing heat at the same time as B is gaining and if there is a hotter C around it will have an effect in the exchanges happening. The REAL net is in this exchange, as can be visually better understood in convection, say of a hotter liquid being poured into a colder. That’s how we get weather in our atmosphere, which is a fluid gaseous ‘ocean’ above us, convection currents. It doesn’t need any such ‘scenario’ as ‘photons’ flow from colder to hotter – photons, if such a thing actually exists.., are not all equal.., they are the product of the body emitting them. A colder body is not emitting the same ‘photons’ as a warmer body, and these will be restricted to behaving depending on their properties and the properties and states of whatever matter it meets, such as for example visible light being slowed down by our fluid gaseous atmosphere and fluid liquid water oceans.
“Suppose that a heated object (1) radiates only to some other object (2) and that both objects are thermally black. All heat leaving object 1 arrives at object 2 and all heat arriving at object 1 comes from object 2. Thus the net heat transferred between object 1 and object 2 is …”
In page 553 of pdf or page 541 of book it says:
For two bodies:
Qnet = Q12 – Q21. where Qnet = net heat exchange, Q12 = heat exchange from 1 to 2, Q21 = heat exchange from 2 to 1. for radiative heat transfer:
Qnet = k (T1^4 – T2^4), where k = a factor for area, emittance, stefan-boltzmann constant, etc..
As I said earlier, you’ll have to spell out in detail in English what you mean if you post maths formulae as answers to me. I don’t know what you’re mean by it.
Again, it doesn’t require any such construct as you give, it is more than adequately explained by the real 2nd law.
As you said:
A1. All objects emit photons (or EM radiation) independent of its surroundings.
A2. An object may absorb a photon regardless of where the photon came from.
A3. When a body emits photons, it loses energy.
A4. When a body absorbs photons, it gains energy.
+
A5 All these move relative to their surroundings. If you block visible light by using a filter for example.
addendum:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thermo.html
quote:
“Thermodynamics is a branch of physics which deals with the energy and work of a system. … Thermodynamics deals only with the _large scale_ response of a system which we can observe and measure in experiments.”
Proof?
You’re all (generic) claiming known tried and tested traditional physics is wrong and will not provide one iota of rational explanation for disagreeing with it nor provide one iota of evidence that what you’re replacing this with is even possible!
Why don’t you for an experiment, if you’re able, put aside what you think you know about all this and try to objectively understand what traditional physics teaches. If you can do that you will find that traditional physics is internally consistent, the parts all fit together, it already has answers for these so called ‘questions’, you don’t have to introduce unknowns to answer them.
What, sadly, I see happening, is that with these strange ideas about properties and processes we will end up with a generation who not only have lost the knowledge we’ve gained in the last few centuries about the physical world around around us, but who will have no way of building on that solid foundation when we meet something new to us.
Well as I said, Myrrh, I’m standing out of your way, so go for it. Just DO NOT go claiming that “I” said ANY of those things that YOU cited in your post after the word “Proof ?” I did not; I suggest you read what I did say, including at the start “Words have meaning”.
Myrrh
No one has implied that the 2nd law is wrong. It is just a matter of interpretation i think. In all the examples the net heat transfer is still from higher temperature to lower temperature.
I did not imply that the cooler object can increase the temperature of the warmer object higher that its temperature before the event. Even though the colder object can transfer heat to the warmer object, this heat is not enough to warm the warmer object to its temperature before the transfer. This is because the warmer object will cool down when it transfers heat to the cooler object at the moment of transfer. When it receives heat (q) from the cooler object, it has already given up a larger amount heat (Q). The amount of heat it receives from the colder object is less than the heat it has given up (Q > q). The result is that instead of cooling by Q amount, it will cool by (Q-q) amount. The net effect is the warmer object will not warm at all, but cool down less slowly. (The analysis assumes no external sources)
Also, consider two bodies at T1 and T2, T1 > T2. Assuming the amount of heat transferred from T1 to T2 is dQ, the net change in entropy of the system is dS = dQ/T2 + -dQ/T1 (the change in entropy of body 2 plus the change in entropy of body 1). dS (change in entropy of system) is a positive number (because T1 > T2) as required by the second law. But, if you consider the bodies individually, the second body (T2) increased entropy (heat gain) while the first body (T1) decreased entropy (heat loss). It is a mistake to invalidate the process by saying that body 1 violated the second law of thermodynamics (because its entropy change is negative). the system must be considered as a whole.
I might be mixing things up (signs are confusing) but let me just say that the second law must be applied to the whole system, the sub-systems may violate it. The only requirement is the change in system entropy must be positive.
“”””” LouN says:
October 12, 2011 at 10:50 pm “””””
And like you LouN; nothing I have said implies any problems with either the second law or ANY other Physical laws.
ALL that I have said (using other words) is that just as “heat” cannot travel through the vaccuum of an ordinary thermos bottle; (but can slowly be CONDUCTED around the low conductivity (continuous) glass envelope), nor can it travel through the even sparser vaccuum of space to get from the sun to the earth; and in that case there IS no continuous glass conductive path like in the thermos bottle.
So for all practical purposes, “heat” CANNOT propagate from the sun to the earth. And it doesn’t need to, because we are perfectly capable of making ALL of the “heat” that we need right here on earth.
The sun can and does send us copious supplies of energy in the form of Electromagnetic Waves, which can propagate over infinite distances without ANY intervening medium containing ANY real matter. Those waves range in frequency and/or wavelength from near zero to near infinity; excluding both end points; and ANY of that Radiant energy can be converted into “heat” by common processes right here on this planet; so we don’t need to get ANY “heat”
from the sun, and can’t anyway.
Fortunately for us, not all of that solar EM Radiant energy gets turned into “heat”, which is the lowest from of energy there is.
Solar energy, is also converted into light, bio-materials, either for food, or stored chemical energy, other living organisms, and via the various weather processes, into snow and ice, and stored water gravitational potential energy, and a Myrriad of other forms.
As for what the standard teachings of Physics might be; I am perfectly capable of picking up a copy of the Quran, in its original Arabic, and perusing it; even repeating what it says on a blog; even WUWT.
But lacking an understanding of the Arabic language, either written or spoken, I am quite unable to convey any ideas or wisdom or knowledge from that text.
Likewise, anyone can read and cite from any Physics text book; but unless one also understands what it is that you are reading; then one still can’t convey any ideas or wisdom from that text either.
http://www.giggle.com is not an automatic entre into learning or knowledge.
I’m retiring while I am still sane LouN; you might consider that also, instead of beating your head on the wall.
George E. Smith; says:
October 12, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Well as I said, Myrrh, I’m standing out of your way, so go for it. Just DO NOT go claiming that “I” said ANY of those things that YOU cited in your post after the word “Proof ?” I did not; I suggest you read what I did say, including at the start “Words have meaning”.
? I realise you think you’re giving me real physics, but you’re going against real physics, as traditionally taught, and so, it does apply to u, because “You’re all (generic) claiming known tried and tested traditional physics is wrong and will not provide one iota of rational explanation for disagreeing with it nor provide one iota of evidence that what you’re replacing this with is even possible!”
You seem to think I’m coming up with something new, how many times do I have to tell you I’m giving you “traditional” physics – words mean something, I mean something by using the word “traditional”. You’re the ones giving un-traditional science explanations. And I keep asking you to prove them and you keep not replying with proof.
#
LouN says:
October 12, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Myrrh
No one has implied that the 2nd law is wrong. It is just a matter of interpretation i think. In all the examples the net heat transfer is still from higher temperature to lower temperature.
I have stated quite clearly that your ‘interpretation’ of the 2nd law is wrong, because within this “net heat transfer” you include heat from the colder to the hotter. There’s nothing wrong with the 2nd law, except that you’re breaking it.
I did not imply that the cooler object can increase the temperature of the warmer object higher that its temperature before the event. Even though the colder object can transfer heat to the warmer object, this heat is not enough to warm the warmer object to its temperature before the transfer.
Why can’t it increase the temperature of the warmer object? This is what I have asked you to explain, you have not given any mechanism for this ‘heat flow from the colder to the hotter’ ever stopping. You have not shown any proof that the real 2nd law as taught in traditional physics is wrong and it contradicts you here. You are claiming that heat flows from the colder to the hotter. This is breaking the law. Either show and explain how, logically and present proof that such a thing is happening, or admit that you have broken the real 2nd law.
All both of you here are doing is just making claims contradicting traditional physics and not presenting any proof of your claims.
This is because the warmer object will cool down when it transfers heat to the cooler object at the moment of transfer. When it receives heat (q) from the cooler object, it has already given up a larger amount heat (Q). The amount of heat it receives from the colder object is less than the heat it has given up (Q > q). The result is that instead of cooling by Q amount, it will cool by (Q-q) amount. The net effect is the warmer object will not warm at all, but cool down less slowly. (The analysis assumes no external sources)
Again, all you’re trying to do here is incorporate something of what I have described happens in the real net exchange, but you’re still including the claim that ‘heat flows from colder to hotter’, which breaks the second law.
And until you come up with something actually proving that this is happening you’re not being scientifically rational here. And you still have to come up with a rational explanation of why it comes out ‘net’ hotter to colder.
The claim that “heat flows from colder to hotter” is NOVEL to traditional physics. I do understand that you are surrounded by people who teach this and think it real physics, but it is novel. You have to prove that traditional physics is wrong first.
And if you’re confused by the following maths you posted…
I might be mixing things up (signs are confusing) but let me just say that the second law must be applied to the whole system, the sub-systems may violate it. The only requirement is the change in system entropy must be positive.
Rubbish according to the second law. You are simply claiming such a thing which breaks the second law and then twisting out of the conundrum you’ve created by postulating a ‘requirement’ without showing the mechanism, any logic, in how that ‘requirement’ can come into existence. Can you see that’s what you’re doing? All you’re saying is that heat flows from colder to hotter and somehow the net turns out as per the 2nd law, but you’ve broken the second law. It only comes out ‘net hotter to colder’ per your new version of the second law, which begins with the premise that heat flows from colder to hotter and you can’t show how it becomes ‘net hotter to colder’.
You have no way of stopping heat flowing from colder to hotter ad infinitum.
You don’t have a ‘different interpretation’, you’ve broken the 2nd law.
All your reasoning about the subject is based on your new version.
When you have a new version of anything in physics, you are required to prove it.
#
George E. Smith; says:
October 13, 2011 at 12:02 pm
And like you LouN; nothing I have said implies any problems with either the second law or ANY other Physical laws.
Not for you.. For me you’re talking gobbledegook. You can’t see that because you really haven’t taken on board what I’ve been trying to tell you here, that you are giving scenarios based on first breaking the second law and other things you claim which are contrary to traditional physics.
I’m going to take one more look at this with you, and then I’m quitting this discussion, there is still plenty of information from traditional physics available, but you’ll have to first be objective enough to take on board that what you are saying contradicts it.
ALL that I have said (using other words) is that just as “heat” cannot travel through the vaccuum of an ordinary thermos bottle; (but can slowly be CONDUCTED around the low conductivity (continuous) glass envelope), nor can it travel through the even sparser vaccuum of space to get from the sun to the earth; and in that case there IS no continuous glass conductive path like in the thermos bottle.
So for all practical purposes, “heat” CANNOT propagate from the sun to the earth. And it doesn’t need to, because we are perfectly capable of making ALL of the “heat” that we need right here on earth.
The sun can and does send us copious supplies of energy in the form of Electromagnetic Waves, which can propagate over infinite distances without ANY intervening medium containing ANY real matter. Those waves range in frequency and/or wavelength from near zero to near infinity; excluding both end points; and ANY of that Radiant energy can be converted into “heat” by common processes right here on this planet; so we don’t need to get ANY “heat”
from the sun, and can’t anyway.
Heat is an electromagnetic wave.
Who told you it wasn’t?
And from that misinformation you’ve been given, comes the scenario that matter takes this ‘new stuff which can travel through space and creates stuff out of it’
Now, please, this really is the last time I’m posting on this thread, you can’t understand what I’m saying because you believe this, but, I’m telling you that you are saying something that is not in traditional science which teaches that heat, thermal infrared, thermal energy of the Sun on the move, is an electromagnetic wave, part of the electromagnetic spectrum:
Please, do take time to read this, and to re-read what I’ve posted before on heat. Really, what I’ve posted is bog standard traditional physics. You keep coming up with all kinds of claims about things that are utterly different, that contradict traditional physics. You’re not arguing against me, you’re arguing against tried and tested and very well known traditional physics basics. That’s why the scenarios you present don’t make any sense in traditional physics. Words mean something to me too, please do take on board what I mean by traditional, I’ve given you more than sufficient examples, the rest is for you to explore.
One last example:
This contradicts you. It’s not just me, it’s not just these, there’s a whole body of people who have been teaching this and using the knowledge of it, applied science. You’re contradicting this, in the last couple of decades it’s become ubiquitous.., but it’s the real knowledge of traditional physics about light and heat which could created photo-voltaic cells to capture visible light to turn it into electricity, because it knows that that’s visible light isn’t capable of directly heating water and earth…
Now, one word of warning, be careful how some things are written, here in the middle of talking about heat in a traditional explanation, UV and visible have been thrown in, and remember what I’ve said about that. These are not thermal energies, they do not move molecules which is what is necessary to creat heat. Therefore, they do not heat the land and oceans of Earth as claimed in the ‘energy budget’. He does explain that heat moves the molecules. But if you didn’t know that UV and visible can’t do this, you might think that is how they worked and/or they were creating heat, by heating up objects.
These “novel” ideas, claims, which you are both presenting here are the “memes” created by those who created the AGW scare. That these are now taught in schools as if they are traditional science and real basic physical fact shows how successful they have been in taking over the education system.
As an example, one of the AGWScience Fiction Inc’s memes you keep repeating George is that ‘all electromagnetic energy is the same’, and so you come up with the novel idea of matter taking this and creating different things out of it, rather than as traditional physics teaches, there are differences between the different wavelengths, and it is these differences as the properties of the wavelength which impact matter interacting in various ways, the processes. It might appear that matter ‘creates’ out of a bog standard same energy if that’s what you’re taught to believe is basic physics, but it doesn’t, in reality it utilises or is affected by the differences in the properties. Electromagnetic energy has distinct properties just as matter has.
The electromagnetic wave thermal infrared, heat, thermal energy, will move molecules to heat, the visible light energy can’t do this because it doesn’t have enough power to move molecules, but gets to be a pin ball in the atmosphere bouncing off electrons or used in photosynthesis, its energy used to create chemical energy, the creation of sugars, which is not creation of heat.
Anyway, I hope at least that you can see that I’m giving you traditional physics and it’s consistent. The arguments about this are not about ‘interpretation’, but about the fact that AGWScienceFiction has introduced memes about physics basics that contradict traditional science, and you don’t realise that you’re repeating them, but think they are real physics.
I can only hope that if and when you do take that on board, examine it for yourselves, that you will be as annoyed as I am that such a deliberate confusion has been introduced into science education.
http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/heatflow.htm
One p.s. re meaning of words, traditionally “radiation” refers to heat, as traditionally the category division is between Light, reflective, and Heat, absorptive, where absorptive specically means how heat is produced by moving the molecules. See my post above and the extract which explains that there is no real confusion about heat when you know that you are talking about the same thing. But, as above, you’ll have to explore the differences, and watch out for sleight of hand from those knowingly pushing the AGWSF memes, wiki can be very confusing..
Well Myrrh, thank you for all those highly informative treatises on Physics.
When I graduated in 1957, with two majors in Mathematics (pure and applied), plus three majors in Physics, (plus Radio-Physics and Mathematical Physics) I was Senior Scholar in Physics that year.
And over 50 years ago, I was teaching (pre-med freshman) Physics to a class of two hundred students. The least competent, of the 35 or so students who were just there for the social life, could easily blow you out of the water, with half their brain tied behind their back.
For one last time “heat” IS NOT an “Electromagnetic Wave”, even if one accepts it as a noun rather than a verb; please note the RadioPhysics major mentioned above; half of which related to the generation, Propagation and detection of ELECTRO-MAGNETIC WAVES per Maxwell’s Equations.
“Heat” is the process of raising the Temperature OF A COLLECTION OF PARTICLES (matter) by increasing the mean Kinetic energy of that collection of particles; by any of a variety of processes; such as placing in contact with another collection of particles that have a higher mean kinetic energy per particle, which is the mechanism commonly called conduction.
Absent the collection of particles there is NO kinetic energy, so NO “heat” (noun) and also NO TEMPERATURE.
Another way of raising the Temperature (mean kinetic energy per particle) is through the absorption of Electromagnetic Waves (of virtually any wavelength or frquency) through the Einstein relation ; E = h (nu) or hf if you prefer or hc/lambda..
Such EM waves might come from the quartz “radiator” across your room, or from the sun 93 million miles away; but NO “heat” (noun) accompanies the latter; and only a miniscule amount in the former case, because of the intervening atmosphere in the room.
But as I have said many times at WUWT; Ignorance is not a disease; we are all born with it; but stupidity has to be taught, and there are many willing and able to teach it; and you are one of the better practitioners of that.
Well George, since you’re clearly teaching such nonsense, against all known applications actually derived from real physical knowledge as I’ve given traditional science, and you show elementary ignorance even about photo-voltaic cells as well as all the other gobbledegook you’ve come up with in descriptions, then your science education was sadly lacking in reality, …whenever you acquired it.
If you hold up a 16 ounce bottle of drinking water at about room Temperature, it will radiate (EM radiation) in all directons, at about 400 W/m^2, and some of that LWIR emission will eventually escape from the earth and proceed through space to the moon. let’s say we have a half moon, half in dark, and half in daylight. The day side is much hotter than your water bottle, while the dark side is much colder. Both halves will receive, and absorb the same amount of the LWIR from your water bottle.
Meanwhile, in a different direction, the same solid angle cone of EM radiation will proceed towards the sun, which is much higher Temperature than either side of the moon, as well as your water bottle. The sun will also receive and absorb the same amount of EM radiation as the moon did..
As Richard said:
richard verney says:
October 9, 2011 at 8:12 am
My point is this. Merely because a low temperature object radiates energy, it does not follow that that energy can pass the threshold and get absorbed by a warmer object which is radiating energy at a higher state. may be it can, but may be it does not and this can be clarified only by properly constructed experimentation which to my knowledge has not been undertaken such that we simply do not know the answer to what is a very important issue in the climate science field.
I add, you really don’t like giving me the last word do you?, that since George in pushing this AGW science fiction meme can show no way that heat in their scenario can stop going from colder to hotter and thereby heating the hotter further to get their claim that there is a ‘net effect of hotter to colder so complying with the law’, they have made no attempt to provide the mechanism merely claiming it exists, then this breaking of the 2nd law can’t be taken seriously. Until George and his ilk can provide evidence that thermal energy from a colder to a hotter object is absorbed by the hotter as he claims, then they are claiming against traditional tried and test physics which says it can’t. And as Richard notes that none can be found from his looking for it, there is no attempt made to prove. See if you can find any.. They begin by breaking the 2nd law and build their scenario of the physical world around us on that broken law. Gobbledegook ensues as a matter of course, the law of gigo.. 🙂
And, lest any reading think that such a mechanism could be discovered to give a ‘net’ complying with the 2nd law, there are some of this ilk who claim that there is no such mechanism but that in reality this flow of heat from colder to hotter has no way of stopping, Spencer argues for this. This is said in support of the fiction meme that ‘back-radiation’ continually bounces back to earth from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which bounces it back again ad inf thus heating the world into runaway tipping point catastrophic global warming, and so with no such mechanism in existence this is what will happen. So bear in mind that there are two varieties of scenarios bandied about from the ‘hypothesis’ that begins with the premise that the 2nd law is broken by the unproved (unprovable or they would have provided it by now) claim that heat also flows from colder to hotter. Our energy problems would be solved if this were our physical reality…
And on the other claim he makes about electro-magnetic waves and heat: for George an x-ray doesn’t become an x-ray until it reaches matter which converts his ‘electro-magnetism with no distinct differences in properties’ into an x-ray and a plant takes some of that energy and converts it to blue and red light to use in photosynthesis, and an unknown something is converting some of it to green light to bounce off the plant, or maybe there’s no such thing as reflection at all and the plant is also converting some of it to green light to radiate out, and so on.
So for me he also has to prove, show his workings, that energy in the material state has the ability to do such a thing. If this were really standard known physics such descriptions and applications would be basic observable and fully explained physics in use in countless applications, but there’s nothing that I can find.. Only such claims in isolation, repeated ad nauseum by some who never provide one iota of real proof. He can’t provide it because it doesn’t exist, and does what all such claiming to be greatly educated in science while pushing these science fiction memes do, he avoids admitting he is not providing it. Instead relying on repetition of these memes from this brand of science fiction to confuse and distract from the fact that he has never provided any. And when he meets someone who knows enough to call him on it he goes into overdrive to distract from the ludicrous descriptions he gives as examples as if they prove his point when they do no such thing, such as above with photo-voltaic cells.
Light does not heat, Heat heats. Heat on the move is the thermal energy of the Sun travelling from hotter to colder, the thermal infrared electro-magnetic wave is that heat of the Sun travelling to us through space. It is invisible, but we can all feel it, it has the power to move atoms and molecules into rotation/vibration heating them. Light, visible electro-magnetic waves, is not thermal, it is not hot, it does not heat land and oceans, because it cannot move the atoms and molecules of matter into rotation/vibration. It is tinier, it doesn’t have the power but affects and is affected by the electrons of the atoms and molecules. Some of these electrons absorb its energy and bounce it back out as in our atmosphere by the electrons of the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen, this is called reflection/scattering, and some electrons it doesn’t even reach because the atoms and molecules keep it out, water does this, this is called transmission when the energy is simply passed on through a transparent medium, because water is a transparent medium for visible light.
So, to any reading this exchange and trying to follow the arguments, ask for proof that the 2nd law is broken and don’t be fobbed off by the distraction/sleight of hand of the claim that it doesn’t break the 2nd law because it is ‘net’ exchange of hotter to colder and colder to hotter – ask for the mechanism which accomplishes this. And ask for the mechanism in organic matter which converts ‘all electro-magnetism is the same’ into the different properties electro-magnetism really has as distinct properties from inception according to traditional physics. Is it one such mechanism common to all organic matter which enables different substances to convert this ‘same energy’ into whatever it is required by matter to affect a noted change in it – or is every substance working to its own recipe for such conversions so where are the recipes – or how does matter decide what it will do with this memed ‘all electromagnetic energy is the same’, free will – etc.?
And good luck.
George E. Smith; says:
October 13, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Well Myrrh, thank you for all those highly informative treatises on Physics.
When I graduated in 1957, with two majors in Mathematics (pure and applied), plus three majors in Physics, (plus Radio-Physics and Mathematical Physics) I was Senior Scholar in Physics that year.
And over 50 years ago, I was teaching (pre-med freshman) Physics to a class of two hundred students. The least competent, of the 35 or so students who were just there for the social life, could easily blow you out of the water, with half their brain tied behind their back.
Yeah George, I’m really impressed – it was early on when I was puzzled by the AGW claims made for carbon dioxide and found that none was discussing the questions I had that I asked such a ‘well educated PhD in physics pushing AGW memes’ who taught the subject, tested on this, “how can carbon dioxide stay up in the atmosphere when it is heavier than air and will therefore always sink displacing air unless work is done to change this?” First of all he refused to acknowledge that carbon dioxide could separate out, until I provided real world well-known tried and tested examples, breweries, volcanic venting, mines etc., and then he edited out his claim where he said it didn’t, but he kept arguing, this is what he taught as real physics, that carbon dioxide was an ideal gas and with a mangled mix of ideal gas descriptions, which have no volume, and including Brownian motion, which assumes gases have volume, he said that if carbon dioxide had pooled on the floor in a room then without any work being done, no window opened, no fan put on, no change from the conditions which existed when the carbon dioxide pooled, the carbon dioxide would spontaneously rise from the floor and mix thoroughly in the atmosphere of the room because it was an ideal gas and so moved rapidly and randomly knocking all the other molecules in elastic encounters in empty space around them until they all became thoroughly mixed and couldn’t be unmixed without work being done.
Your qualifications don’t impress me, your lack of understanding of our physical reality in the areas you claim to have knowledge is testament that your qualifications are based on pseudo science or that you have since acquiring them changed the traditional physics basics your original qualifications were examined on. If the latter, it means that you know you are promoting a different physics. Even less reason for me to be impressed if so, because you are not admitting it and so making it appear that your claims here are traditional, and one then has to wonder, why? So which is it? Were you taught this pseudo science? You must have quite a collection of text books from that time teaching it..
For one last time “heat” IS NOT an “Electromagnetic Wave”, even if one accepts it as a noun rather than a verb; ….
“Heat” is the process of raising the Temperature OF A COLLECTION OF PARTICLES (matter) by increasing the mean Kinetic energy of that collection of particles; by any of a variety of processes; such as placing in contact with another collection of particles that have a higher mean kinetic energy per particle, which is the mechanism commonly called conduction. etc.
As before:
Ignorance and Learning.
Totally off topic Chasmod, so erase at will. This post is unrelated to weather or climate in any way.
Ignorance and learning are a couplet, in that either one counterracts the other. Some would argue that the counter to ignorance is “teaching”; this is simply incorrect, because no amount of teaching can combat ignorance; the recipient has to LEARN.
I recently posted some minor details of my own learning experience from over half a century ago. “I’m really impressed” was one comment; just as quickly retracted.
Quite irrelevent; impressing anybody at all, was NOT the intent.
I had been asked for “proof” or other support of statements I had made in earlier posts. So I gave that; my own learning experience is the origin of virtually everthing I have ever posted at WUWT, or anywhere else for that matter.
I went to school in an era, when students were actually supposed to learn something in school; well something other than how to fill in one of five randomly chosen open circles with a number two pencil, as evidence of knowledge.
I’m related to a kindergarden teacher; and the first thing she teaches in her class, is how to fill in selected lined areas of some picture with crayons,and keep the color within the lines. This is the preparation for the subsequent number two pencil exercises, that can get you a drivers licence, or even US citizenship later in life.
From the time I stepped into my first “primer one” (first grade) class, until 20 years later I closed the doors of academia behind me; to go and apply my learning in industry, I can say that I never once took part in any “shared experience” or “joint project”, or “focus group” encounter along with some other student(s). They were also there like me to learn; not to socialize, and we were all competing with each other from day one at school; just as we do in real life. No group think, where one person does the work, and the whole group gets the same grade.
So virtually everything I have posted is simply assembled in my own brain from my learning. It is of course ALL available in thousands of public domain text books that anyone can consult for his own edification.
I have never published ANY peer reviewed paper in any journal; and I virtually never read such literature. 99% of it is of little practical use to anybody, other than specialists in the specific field of the paper’s authors. It is mostly for academic brownie points rather than for communication of knowledge. Anything of wide use, will eventually make it into the standard textbooks.
One month’s issues of SCIENCE journal contain more information than any one person can assimilate and become fluent in for the rest of their life. Most of it, just like today’s top ten rock hits, will have a similar longevity to the “music”.
Once in a very great while, I will cite some SCIENCE paper or from other sources; and in every such case, there is always an authorship name I can reference.
I almost never bother to click on somebody’s posted link to some supposed wisdom. Most often when I do so; I get routed to some blog or other; and virtually never to the subject that was under discussion when the link was posted; a total waste of time.
I pay very little attention to what anybody says, that they are ashamed to attach their own name to; they of all people, know what their anonymous stuff is worth.
Anybody can click on dubdubdub wikipedia (or google), and post something from there; either just by link, or in their own words.
Some people who do that are so ignorant, that they don’t even realize, that in putting their great “find” into their own words; they change it so that what they say is total rubbish. Like I said at the outset; if you don’t LEARN from what you read, but simply parrot it in what you think is equivalent language; you simply send up a signal proclaiming how ignorant you are.
But not to get too far off track. My posts at WUWT, are virtually always straight out of my head. There is always standard textbook backup; because that’s how I learned much of it; and anybody can readily consult those texts for themselves.
Those who choose for their own reasons to dismiss something I have posted; can always demonstrate my error, by citing their own counter evidence; just don’t post a wikipedia “authority”, or somje othe blog unless you include the author’s name from that citation. And remember Einstein’s admonition that NO amount of evidence, can “prove” anything in science; yet a single counter example can disprove it.
So the burden falls on the challenger; you don’t believe something; simply give a contrary example.
If you need the internet to back up your claims, you clearly haven’t learned your subject.
But not to get too far off track. My posts at WUWT, are virtually always straight out of my head. There is always standard textbook backup; because that’s how I learned much of it; and anybody can readily consult those texts for themselves.
So bring the textbooks here, to this discussion, answer my questions, prove your claims.
You can’t. Because AGWScience Fiction Inc doesn’t have any proof for any of your claims. It is science fiction, fantasy, and the proof it is fiction not real world physics is in your replies, or rather lack of them…
So, how does matter convert this “electromagnetic energy” into heat (thermal infrared, thermal energy), light, x-rays, radio waves, gamma, UV..? How does a plant create blue and red light out of this “electromagnetic energy” to enable it to use the energies to create sugars? What is creating the green visible light out of these electomagnetic energies which the plant reflects?
What is the mechanism which stops “and heat travels from colder to hotter” to make the outcome obey the 2nd Law that Heat always travels from hotter to colder..?
Show me evidence that visible light heats water. Show me any textbook which explains how it does it.
Etc.
You’re full of misinformation. You have never provided one rational explanation for all your claims. You continually use ad hominem instead of giving rational, logical, proven physics. You continually avoid producing evidence or rational physics as your last post shows. You are merely posturing. You cannot be taken seriously.
But not to get too far off track. My posts at WUWT, are virtually always straight out of my head. There is always standard textbook backup; because that’s how I learned much of it; and anybody can readily consult those texts for themselves.
Bring them to this discussion. This, for any wondering, is an oft used ploy to distract from not being able to produce any such textbook.
Enough prevarication, interesting though your stream of consciousness is.. I have given detailed information from traditional physics which contradicts you.
You go fetch your textbooks and we’ll have a look at them.