Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Pushed by a commenter on another thread, I thought I’d discuss the R. W. Wood experiment, done in 1909. Many people hold that this experiment shows that CO2 absorption and/or back-radiation doesn’t exist, or at least that the poorly named “greenhouse effect” is trivially small. I say it doesn’t show anything at all. Let me show you the manifold problems with the experiment.
To start with, let me give a curious example of the greenhouse effect, that of the Steel Greenhouse. Imagine a planet in the vacuum of space. A residue of nuclear material reacting in the core warms it to where it is radiating at say 235 watts per square metre (W/m2). Figure 1 shows the situation.
Figure 1. Planet in outer space, heated from the interior. Drawing show equilibrium situation
This planet is at equilibrium. The natural reactor in the core of the planet is generating power that at the planet’s surface amounts to 235 W/m2. It is radiating the same amount, so it is neither warming nor cooling.
Now, imagine that without changing anything else, we put a steel shell around the planet. Figure 2 shows that situation, with one side of the shell temporarily removed so we can look inside.
Figure 2. As in Figure 1, but with a solid steel shell surrounding the planet. Near side of the shell temporarily removed to view interior. Vertical distance of the shell from the surface is greatly exaggerated for clarity—in reality the shell and the shell have nearly the same surface area. (A shell 6 miles (10 km) above the Earth has an exterior area only 0.3% larger than the Earth’s surface area.)
[UPDATE: Misunderstandings revealed in the comments demonstrated that I lacked clarity. To expand, let me note that because the difference in exterior surface area of the shell and the surface is only 0.3%, I am making the simplifying assumption that they are equal. This clarifies the situation greatly. Yes, it introduces a whopping error of 0.3% in the calculations, which people have jumped all over in the comments as if it meant something … really, folks, 0.3%? If you like, you can do the calculations in total watts, which comes to the same answer. I am also making the simplifying assumption that both the planet and shell are “blackbodies”, meaning they absorb all of the infrared that hits them.]
Now, note what happens when we add a shell around the planet. The shell warms up and it begins to radiate as well … but it radiates the same amount inwards and outwards. The inwards radiation warms the surface of the planet, until it is radiating at 470 W/m2. At that point the system is back in equilibrium. The planet is receiving 235 W/m2 from the interior, plus 235 W/m2 from the shell, and it is radiating the total amount, 470 W/m2. The shell is receiving 470 W/m2 from the planet, and it is radiating the same amount, half inwards back to the planet and half outwards to outer space. Note also that despite the fact that the planetary surface ends up much warmer (radiating 470 W/m2), energy is conserved. The same 235 W/m2 of power is emitted to space as in Figure 1.
And that is all that there is to the poorly named greenhouse effect. It does not require CO2 or an atmosphere, it can be built out of steel. It depends entirely on the fact that a shell has two sides and a solid body only has one side.
Now, this magical system works because there is a vacuum between the planet and the shell. As a result, the planet and the shell can take up very different temperatures. If they could not do so, if for example the shell were held up by huge thick pillars that efficiently conducted the heat from the surface to the shell, then the two would always be at the same temperature, and that temperature would be such that the system radiated at 235 W/m2. There would be no differential heating of the surface, and there would be no greenhouse effect.
Another way to lower the efficiency of the system is to introduce an atmosphere. Each watt of power lost by atmospheric convection of heat from the surface to the shell reduces the radiation temperature of the surface by the same amount. If the atmosphere can conduct the surface temperature effectively enough to the shell, the surface ends up only slightly warmer than the shell.
Let me summarize. In order for the greenhouse effect to function, the shell has to be thermally isolated from the surface so that the temperatures of the two can differ substantially. If the atmosphere or other means efficiently transfers surface heat to the shell there will be very little difference in temperature between the two.
Now, remember that I started out to discuss the R. W. Wood experiment. Here is the report of that experiment, from the author. I have highlighted the experimental setup.
Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse
By Professor R. W. Wood (Communicated by the Author)
THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.
I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the “open,” the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.
To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 oC., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.
There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 o, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.
Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.
I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.
Here would be my interpretation of his experimental setup:
Figure 3. Cross section of the R. W. Wood experiment. The two cardboard boxes are painted black. One is covered with glass, which absorbs and re-emits infrared. The other is covered with rock salt, which is transparent to infrared. They are packed in cotton wool. Thermometers not shown.
Bearing in mind the discussion of the steel greenhouse above, I leave it as an exercise for the interested reader to work out why this is not a valid test of infrared back-radiation on a planetary scale … please consider the presence of the air in the boxes, the efficiency of the convective heat transfer through that air from the box to the cover plates, the vertical temperature profile of that air, the transfer of power from the “surface” to the “shell” through the walls of the box, and the relative temperatures of the air, the box, and the transparent cover.
Seems to me like with a few small changes it could indeed be a valid test, however.
Best regards,
w.
Willis and friends are wrongly attributing the atmospheric greenhouse effect with the greenhouse gas effect.
I have watched them go round and round for years: unable to establish any experiment that shows greenhouse gas effect to be true, they seize on the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
There is indeed an atmospheric greenhouse effect which buffers temperatures. Solar radiation in is buffered therefore temperatures aren’t able to get so high.
Earth & solar radiation out, are buffered therefore temperatures aren’t able to get so ow.
———–
I’ve watched these greenhouse gas effect people for ten years, trying to make believe they “understood” that “there really IS a greenhouse gas effect.”
Every single time someone shows them an actual experiment that disproves it, they’re off to another fantasy model. There’s no experiment that means anything to them, nothing proves anything.
*THE ABOVE are LINDZEN’S ALMOST EXACT WORDS.*
All greenhouse gas effect believers, MUST retreat to the nearest fantasy model because reality never bears out their claim.
So one thing they’re incapable of differentiating is the difference between the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect: and the Greenhouse Gas Effect.
Mark it. Because once the scam’s gone viral, you’re going to be straightening them out on it as each new generation of suckers buys into it, till the day you die.
Another aspect none of them ever get: like-energy repulsion in thermodynamics.
In the Greenhouse Gas Effect voodoo believer’s head, classical like-energy repulsion simply doesn’t exist.
Here’s how that often works out: watch for it.
Remember the discussion “if you have a single light bulb in space, it won’t shine at normal, typical voltages and amperages, because lack of an infrared field around the bulb, demonstrates very low resistance to infrared emission, and the bulb dumps it’s radiation before it can glow.”
“If the bulb is taken back to temperatures it was designed to work in, it’ll glow and burn at design-assigned temps.
“If you put that lightbulb in a hot warehouse, it’s going to shine brighter:
“if you turn it on near another, each shines more, because field density of infrared energy between them is higher: and like energy fields, radiate into each other with more difficulty;
therefore on the side of the filament each bulb is on, like-force repulsion, makes each bulb able to dump a little less heat, in that direction. The filament has an area around it that is room temperature and emits normally except on one side a field where flux density is higher, therefore unable to dump as much energy to that side,
therefore temperatures rise slightly and each bulb shines correspondingly a little brighter.”
———————-
Well in “Greenhouse Gas Effect” pseudo-physics, this is now, “sharing energy” where it’s not the presence of field flux density stopping any radiation getting out, as long as the field has enough intensity,
it’s a new paradigm of each one radiating out : completely ignoring field flux-density as physical fact.
No they’re still radiating JUST LIKE THE OTHER FIELD ISN’T THERE
*and right there, they just DENIED a FUNDAMENTAL DRIVER of RADIATION MECHANICS*
They will do it and claim to you they never HEARD of such mechanics in radiative transfer.
Yet, every time they come into a discussion about the action of flow in energy, the hoop jumping begins:
* and ALL EXPERIMENTS now mean NOTHING *
and EVERY OPPORTUNITY to resort to an IMAGINARY FANTASY where they can DEFLECT YOU from the FACT THEIR PHYSICS DON’T WORK is taken.
they’re just “handing off, back and forth.
Go ask one how two light bulbs interact. *They will tell you to a man*
that those light bulbs are picking up therms from the space just outside the surface, internalizing them and immediately radiating another in a handoff effect.
Their physics must vanish the actual mechanism of radiation to be replaced with a social one where objects “share” energy by radiating into the field, then immediately receiving another from that field to replace it.
For Greenhouse Gas Effect Believers, every opportunity to avoid experimentation must be taken.
All experiments mean nothing except that there really is a Greenhouse Gas Effect, “You’re just confused.”
As they tell you the have a steel sphere at one temp on one side, the cold void of space on the other, yet that half of all therms touching the steel sphere must be re-radiated back into a field of higher flux density.
Willis tried to tell this forum he invented a steel sphere that must radiate back 1/2 of all thermal energy coming to it,
*no matter what the temperature hence field flux density, on the other side of that sphere*
and claims here proudly, that for years, not one human being has been able to find a hole in his story.
Go directly to his and his Greenhouse Gas Effect fan club and ask them why two light bulbs get hotter when burned near each other.
AGAIN: all acknowledgement of field flux density parameters vanishes instantly.
The bulbs aren’t trying to radiate into an elevated flux density field, and failing, because radiation can’t get out.
No this is the Amateurs-R-Us paradigm of utter disavowal of any acknowledgment of field flux density in radiative transfer mechanics, because it makes their voodoo line up PRECISELY with their experimental failure-to-appear.
“I’m blowing smoke.”
No Willis, YOU’RE THE ONE who lost sight of the entire concept, of impossibility of radiation,
into any field of identical flux density.
THESE WORDS DO NOT EXIST IN WILLIS’
and OTHER MAGIC GASSER’S VOCABULULARIES:
“Radiative transfer can not occur into a field with already identical levels of flux density.”
What they have, is “socialist physics” where the energy cooperates, and radiation into fields of identical intensity happen E.V.E.R.Y. STEP of the W.A.Y.
Go back and look.
They all do it,
because *THEIR BULLSHOOT DOESN’T FLY WITHOUT RADIATION,
INTO IDENTICAL FIELD DENSITIES;
which IS FORBIDDEN in RADIATIVE TRANSFER MECHANICS.*
Tell one of them, “Explain to me your story about why two lightbulbs near each other, will both be hotter,”
And watch what he tries to do.
davidmhoffer says:
February 7, 2013 at 3:00 pm
….
I was talking about “the Joke of an Experiment” was too crude to get meaningful data. Thanks for the link BTW. That method makes a lot more sense.
All Greenhouse Gas Effect believers,
(1) Can not differentiate between the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect,
and the Greenhouse Gas Effect.
Ask one to sort that out for you. They can’t. For instance this article is about the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, which exists – attempted proven with the second great Magic Gasser Error,
(2)lack of acknowledgement of radiative transfer into identical energy-flux, fields being forbidden by thermodynamics.
They ALL: to a MAN: *DENY the IMPOSSIBILITY of RADIATIVE TRANSFER into a FIELD already EQUAL in energy density*
Go check with your local magic gasser, and ask him questions about the two things I just said.
Watch when he starts writhing like you’re pouring holy water on a vampire.
Ask him: if your radiative transfer model works, why can’t you show me with an experiment?
*Because they believe in radiative transfer into a field with identical flux density*
I lost a post in the ether so here’s the shortened re-write.
Ask a magic gasser to explain to you why two light bulbs are hotter when they are close together.
He will tell you that the two “share” energy; and that energy from one, enters the other then leaves again,
in direct contravention of the mandate in radiative transfer mechanics,
of the impossibility of radiative transfer into fields of equal or higher strength.
Go ask any magic gasser about the two light bulbs.
He’ll get all jacked up telling you how the energy from one, is entering the other: although the energy from the first will be much reduced by contact with the second.
He’ll act stunned when you explain to him field flux densities don’t allow a lower density field to radiate into a higher density field.
When you tell him the field density between the two rising, is keeps heat from leaving the bulbs in the first place, he’ll pretend he agrees but the very first time he explains it all his way, he will try to slip in radiation into a field of higher density energy.
Oh Yes
He Will.
Appended to the last post I made,
“Or, more likely, he will try to tell you he believes in radiative transfer into a field of identical energy, first: and if you buy that, he might then try to run with that and claim it’s possible for radiative transfer into a field of HIGHER energy density.
In any case when you examine all these Greenhouse Gas Effect wannabes, they all; TO A MAN
will try to tell you they believe in a radiative transfer mechanism in which lower density energy, migrates into a field of already higher density.
This is strictly – I repeat strictly and stringently and unyieldingly *forbidden*
in radiative transfer mechanics.
Richard M says (February 7, 2013 at 2:44 pm): “Willis, I agree with your description. It got me thinking how we might tie this closer to our real situation.”
Willis did a two-shell model here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
Figure 4.
Willis Eschenbach wrote:
“This is because rather than the warmer object receiving radiation from the cooler object of say 400 W/m2, it is only receiving a paltry 315 W/m2 from the block of ice. As a result, it cools faster when it is next to the ice.
Can we agree on that, that a block of ice cools an object faster than a block of warm material?”
Willis, sorry, because I believe you are correct in this thread, I cannot agree with you that a block of ice cools an object faster than a block of warm[er than ice] material.
stuff does not cool stuff
Because I agree with you on the wider points, I believe it is correct to say that a cooling (by radiation) object is warmed less by (the radiation from) a block of ice than it is by (the radiation from) a block of warm[er than ice] material.
If I’ve got that wrong, then I don’t understand your wider points -even though I agree with them! Nitpicking? Maybe, but this heat loss and transfer by radiation business needs careful wording in the absence of math (sadly, my default state).
stuff radiates regardless of its surroundings and loses temperature in the process
radiation from stuff will raise the temperature of other stuff regardless of that other stuff’s temperature
ugh?
tjfolkerts says:
February 7, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Dang, I’m forced to settle out of court on that one, of course you are correct. Well caught, I was moving too fast.
Clarity is never a niti-pick. Curiously, I had thought of that, was going to change it, and never got around to it, so rather than a nit-pick, given our agreement, it is an inspired truth …
Many thanks,
w.
Allen B. Eltor wrote:
“I’m blowing smoke.”
Well, that’s more an issue of convection, fluid dynamics and Brownian motion.
@KR says:
February 7, 2013 at 2:26 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
To the extent that DWLWIR reaches the “skin layer” of the ocean nearly all of it is fully absorbed within the first 10 microns of that layer. Approx 50% of such DWLWIR is absorbed within 4 microns.
The ‘theoretical’ energy being absorbed within the first 4 or so microns of the “skin layer” is so great that it ought to lead to significant evaporation since the energy cannot easily make its way downward since the energy flux in this layer of the ocean is upwards, not downwards.. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature
from which you will note that temperature in the first 10nm is lower than the temperature in the first 1m. That cannot be conducted against the energy flow, so energy absorbed within the first 1, 2, 3, 4 microns etc cannot easily make its way down into the deep ocean. The realclimate article does not address this. It does not deal with hiow the energy theoretically absorbed in the first few microns is dissipated elsewhere before the first micron layer is boiled off leading to extensive evaporation. There is theoretically enough energy absorbed within the first 5 or so microns of the “skin layer” of the ocean to produce in excess of 12m worth of rainfall!
The other process which could dissipate the energy would be Ocean overturning, but this is a slow mechanical process which cannot operate quickly enough to drag the energy downwards into the deep ocean before the water in the first micron or two has absorbed so much energy that it is ‘boiled’ off.
But my point is that there is a LWIR block immediately above the oceans consisting of windswept spray and spume which is a fine mist of water droplets not vapour. This is seperated from the “skin layer” to which you refer and would absorb all (or nearly all) DWLWIR before it reaches the “skin layer” Since this windswept spray/spume consists of more than a few microns, it would act as a DLWIR block in the sameway as we use suncream to block harmful IR and UV rays. Once again the realclimate article does not address this point.
An assumption is being made that oceans are like a mill pond. Like a laboratory sinkfull of water. They are not. Given that the global average windspped over the oceans is BF force 4, oceans are overlaid with a mist of windswept spray and spume which DWLWIR must first encounter before it can reach the “surface skin” of the ocean and hence before any DWLWIR can go to heat the ocean.
Allen B. Eltor says:
February 7, 2013 at 4:32 pm
I fear that you have confused the impossibility of heat spontaneously flowing from a colder to a warmer surface with what happens to radiation.
You might think of radiation as a tiny BB whizzing through space. It doesn’t care about the temperature of what it hits, it just hits it, and transfers its energy to what it hits.
Similarly radiation passing through space just hits what it hits, and transfers its energy to that object.
This seems like it would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems to be what you are asserting.
What you are overlooking is this. Let’s assume there are two objects in outer space, I’ll call them C and H for cold and hot. Here’s the key piece to the puzzle:
If C can see H, H can see C.
This means that whenever a small amount of radiation is flowing from Cold to Hot, there is always MORE radiation simultaneously flowing from hot to cold.
The NET energy transferred by radiation, as you can see in any introductory textbook, is the incoming radiation minus the outgoing radiation, that is to say, energy gained minus energy lost. This NET energy transfer is called a flow of HEAT. It is energy gained minus energy lost.
The hot object is losing more that it is gaining from the cold object, so it cools as heat flows to the cold object in accordance with the second law.
Let me illustrate this with money. Suppose I give you a hundred dollars, and you give me seventy-five dollars. There’s two ways to look at that.
Both ways are equally valid. Now consider that I’m Hot and you’re Cold. Since all solid objects both radiate and absorb radiation, both objects are transferring radiative energy. I radiate 100 W/m2 and you radiate 75 W/m2 …
Net energy transfer, called a flow of heat, is 25 W/m2 from me to you. So the Second Law holds.
This is an exact analogue of the physical situation.
Hope this assists you,
w.
PJF says:
February 7, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Thanks, PJF. Again, this is a semantical problem. Let me say instead that stuff cools faster when it’s next to a block of ice than when it’s next to a block of wood.
The problem is the imprecision of language. When we say ice “warms” or it “cools”, the omitted part is “compared to X”. Compared to me, ice cools. Compared to dry ice, ice warms …
w.
Allen B. Eltor says (February 7, 2013 at 4:19 pm): “Go check with your local magic gasser, and ask him questions about the two things I just said.
Watch when he starts writhing like you’re pouring holy water on a vampire.
Ask him: if your radiative transfer model works, why can’t you show me with an experiment?”
Well, I’m not a “magic gasser”, whatever that is (at least I don’t think so), but my guess is your friendly MG will answer, “Why should I waste my time doing an experiment whose outcome I already know? Why don’t you do the definitive experiment* that proves me wrong? I don’t want to spoil it for you, Allen, but you rest assured: by the time the experiment is over, you get the girl, win the Nobel Prize, and SAVE THE ENTIRE PLANET!! Now you tell me, isn’t that worth a measly few weeks of your time?”
* If I’m reading you right, Dr. Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” experiment should do the trick:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
Allen B. Eltor says:
February 7, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Tell one of them, “Explain to me your story about why two lightbulbs near each other, will both be hotter,”
And watch what he tries to do.”
Answer: because they both shine on each other. Really, you need to calm down here. You can even test this out in your home. Get two lamps and put them next to each other as closely as you can. Then put your hand in between the two lamps. Then try again with only one lamp. Prediction: your hand will feel warmer with two lamps shining on it instead of one.
Cheers, 🙂
Gary Hladik says, February 7, 2013 at 5:51 pm: “* If I’m reading you right, Dr. Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” experiment should do the trick: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/“
===============================================================
This is not true, it was not an experiment. It was a fictional story, no reference to a real scientific physical experiment proving the main assertion was given in the article. The main assertion was given like that, in capital letters: “Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER.”
There is apparently no real scientific physical experiment proving that, exactly like in the case of Willis’ shell, ice block etc.
What would be really, really helpful here is if Willis and Huffer would get together (or go it alone!) and reference a textbook or some other reasonably credible source to back up their “theories/facts/whatever.” Blogging-talk does not constitute any proof of anything.
Yes, there are 1,000,000 differences between the boxes in the Wood experiment and the Earth, but those differences are irrelevant,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is my understanding that what you don’t know can’t hurt you. As a consequence, some people are invulnerable.
jae says:
February 7, 2013 at 6:38 pm
What would be really, really helpful here is if Willis and Huffer would get together (or go it alone!) and reference a textbook or some other reasonably credible source to back up their “theories/facts/whatever.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
Is there some part of “any university thermodynamics text book” that you fail to comprehend?
Thermal Engineering (Rajput)
Applied Thermodynamics (Rajput)
Thermodynamics and Chemistry (DeVoe)
Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Sonntaq)
Modern Engineering Thermodynamics (Balmer)
Textbook of Thermodynamics (Epstein)
Engineering Thermodynamics (Nag)
Intro to Thermodynamics (Rao)
Thermodynamics (Cengel)
Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Borgnakke)
Thermodynamics for Engineers (Somerton)
Thermodynamics Demystified (Potter)
Principles of Engineering Thermodynamics (Moran)
Commonly Asked Questions in Thermodynamics (Assael)
There are probably dozens of text books on thermodynamics.
There are also reasonably well written articles on the Second Law and Stefan-Boltzmann on the internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Greg House says (February 7, 2013 at 6:30 pm): “This is not true, it was not an experiment.”
Correct. That’s why our hypothetical MG was advising Allen to do the experiment himself. Personally, I think it was a pretty good sales pitch. So good, in fact, that if you don’t hurry up and do the experiment yourself, Greg, Allen may very well snatch that Nobel Prize right out of your hands. Why you’re still reading this thread when fame, fortune, and femmes beckon is beyond me. 🙂
Dr,
AGW is way out on a limb proof wise, an not in a good way.
“Finally, we’re told the earth’s atmosphere is not like a real glass greenhouse, yet I have seen dozens of references by various government science agencies and universities describing the earth’s atmosphere being like a real glass greenhouse in which the troposphere “traps” the heat thereby cooling the stratosphere.”
I will agree with you that there are plenty of people out there especially in the government pushing broken versions of GHE to support AGW.
However, I will repeat what I said earlier. The Earth and The Moon receive the same amount of energy per m2. The average surface temp of the Moon which has no atmosphere is lower than the average surface temp of the Earth which does have an atmosphere.
It is one thing to say we don’t really understand the mechanism behind GHE, however suggesting there is no GHE at all is counter to what is observable.
Second Law 1824 (Carnot)
2nd Law Revision 1851 (Kelvin)
2nd Law Revision 1854 (Clausius)
2nd Law Revision 2000 (Stoner)
Stefan 1879
Stefan-Boltzmann 1884
Wien’s Displacement Law 1893
Planck’s Constant 1900
For those lecturing me on physics, please note that the 2nd Law has been revised several times as our understanding of the physics has improved. In order for Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Second Law to both be true, the second Law must refer to the net energy flux, and the energy flux must be two way (meaning from hot to cold and cold to hot at the same time). In fact, all the definitions over time of the 2nd Law refer to a statistical distribution, not a hard and fast one way street. The work of Wien and Planck improved our understanding of SB Law and 2nd Law and how they relate to each other, and have been proven experimentally too many times to count.
Those who yap on about what the 2nd Law says, or what SB Law says, but have no knowledge of the practical applications of these, ought to to some studying until they understand the formulas, how to apply them, and can prove that they have applied them properly through experimentation. I have. I’m betting Willis has. Richard Courtney most likely as well. Certainly Leif Svalgaard. Robert G Brown. Many of us have studied, learned, applied and proven. Yet we are lectured ad nauseum by those who have not and cannot.
jae says (February 7, 2013 at 6:38 pm): ‘What would be really, really helpful here is if Willis and Huffer would get together (or go it alone!) and reference a textbook or some other reasonably credible source to back up their “theories/facts/whatever.’
Science of Doom did just that:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/07/amazing-things-we-find-in-textbooks-the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
“Blogging-talk does not constitute any proof of anything.”
I fear that even textbooks, in the eyes of some, do not constitute any proof of anything. See the comment thread following the SoD article.
Nice try, Huffer, but listing all the thermo books doesn’t cut it. Come on, if you have ANY integrity here, you will cite specific pages. What a piece of work!
Willis?? any specific references from the literature to your shell-game?
MattS says, February 7, 2013 at 7:23 pm: I will agree with you that there are plenty of people out there especially in the government pushing broken versions of GHE to support AGW.
===============================================================
The original official IPCC version has been broken since it came into existence around 1860, the Wood experiment (1909) proves that.