Heh. In response to a ridiculous claim making the rounds (I get comment bombed at WUWT daily with that nonsense) which I debunked here: A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds
Dr. Roy Spencer employs some power visual satire, that has truth in it. He writes:
How Can Home Insulation Keep Your House Warmer, When It Cools Your House?!
<sarc> There is an obvious conspiracy from the HVAC and home repair industry, who for years have been telling us to add more insulation to our homes to keep them warmer in winter.
But we all know, from basic thermodynamics, that since insulation conducts heat from the warm interior to the cold outside, it actually COOLS the house.
Go read his entire essay here. <Sarc> on, Roy!
UPDATE: Even Monckton thinks these ideas promoted by slayers/principia/O’Sullivan are ridiculous:
Reply to John O’Sullivan:
One John O’Sullivan has written me a confused and scientifically illiterate “open letter” in which he describes me as a “greenhouse gas promoter”. I do not promote greenhouse gases.
He says I have “carefully styled [my]self ‘science adviser’ to Margaret Thatcher. Others, not I, have used that term. For four years I advised the Prime Minister on various policy matters, including science.
He says I was wrong to say in 1986 that added CO2 in the air would cause some warming. Since 1986 there has been some warming. Some of it may have been caused by CO2.
He says a paper by me admits the “tell-tale greenhouse-effect ‘hot spot’ in the atmosphere isn’t there”. The “hot spot”, which I named, ought to be there whatever the cause of the warming. The IPCC was wrong to assert that it would only arise from greenhouse warming. Its absence indicates either that there has been no warming (confirming the past two decades’ temperature records) or that tropical surface temperatures are inadequately measured.
He misrepresents Professor Richard Lindzen and Dr. Roy Spencer by a series of crude over-simplifications. If he has concerns about their results, he should address his concerns to them, not to me.
He invites me to “throw out” my “shredded blanket effect” of greenhouse gases that “traps” heat. It is Al Gore, not I, who talks of a “blanket” that “traps” heat. Interaction of greenhouse gases with photons at certain absorption wavelengths induces a quantum resonance in the gas molecules, emitting heat directly. It is more like turning on a tiny radiator than trapping heat with a blanket. Therefore, he is wrong to describe CO2 as a “coolant” with respect to global temperature.
He invites me to explain why Al Gore faked a televised experiment. That is a question for Mr. Gore.
He says I am wrong to assert that blackbodies have albedo. Here, he confuses two distinct methods of radiative transfer at a surface: absorption/emission (in which the Earth is a near-blackbody, displacing incoming radiance to the near-infrared in accordance with Wien’s law), and reflection (by which clouds and ice reflect the Sun’s radiance without displacing its incoming wavelengths).
He implicitly attributes Margaret Thatcher’s 1988 speech to the Royal Society about global warming to me. I had ceased to work with her in 1986.
He says that if I checked my history I should discover that it was not until 1981 that scientists were seriously considering CO2’s impact on climate. However, Joseph Fourier had posited the greenhouse effect some 200 years previously; Tyndale had measured the greenhouse effect of various gases at the Royal Institution in London in 1859; Arrhenius had predicted in 1896 that a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause 4-8 K warming, and had revised this estimate to 1.6 K in 1906; Callender had sounded a strong note of alarm in 1938; and numerous scientists, including Manabe&Wetherald (1976) had attempted to determine climate sensitivity before Hansen’s 1981 paper.
He says, with characteristic snide offensiveness, that I “crassly” attribute the “heat-trapping properties of latent heat to a trace gas that is a perfect energy emitter”. On the contrary: in its absorption bands, CO2 absorbs the energy of a photon and emits heat by quantum resonance.
He says the American Meteorological Society found in 1951 that all the long-wave radiation that might otherwise have been absorbed by CO2 was “already absorbed by water vapor”. It is now known that, though that is largely true for the lower troposphere, it is often false for the upper.
The series of elementary errors he here perpetrates, delivered with an unbecoming, cranky arrogance, indicates the need for considerable elementary education on his part. I refer him to Dr. Spencer’s excellent plain-English account of how we know there is a greenhouse effect.
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (April 18, 2013)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
DaveG has just posted a comment that is actually from John O’Sullivan, who Anthony has banned.
But I will provide the same think I posted on my blog to John’s Comment:
“Without greenhouse gases, the UPPER atmosphere would indeed be much warmer, but the LOWER atmosphere would be much cooler. Quit confusing the two, like you did with your recent misinterpretation of the NASA upper-atmosphere study. It’s been almost 50 years since Manabe and Strickler (1964) showed how the upper atmosphere is cooled by CO2, which is PART OF the greenhouse effect. Nothing new there.
Adding more insulation to your house makes the outside of your house cooler, and the inside warmer (in winter). Greenhouse gases (thermodynamically like insulation in your house) reduce the rate at which heat flows from higher temperatures to lower temperatures, thus making the warm side warmer, and the cool side cooler.”
Roy Spencer says: “Remember, 10,000,000 K temperatures are created at the core of the Sun with heating rates less than what the human body produces (per unit mass).”
Good god man. You forgot about gravity. Fusion is not the GHE.
Let me repeat this for everybody: Nuclear fusion is not the GHE. The solar core and nuclear fusion have no relevance or support to the supposed GHE. It is arguments like this which should destroy any credibility to the faith…oh wait. 🙂
“Remember, 10,000,000 K temperatures are created at the core of the Sun with heating rates less than what the human body produces (per unit mass).” ~Roy
Uh, the power leaving the core is low because everything is around the same temperature deep within the Sun.
You wouldn’t want a chunk of fusing core material dropped next to you, it wouldn’t be fun for anyone but Superman, who could shrug off a thermonuclear bomb.
____________________________
For the record, the temperatures aren’t created by the heating rates you’re talking about, the temperatures are created by the mass of the rest of the star compressing the core material enough for it to undergo fusion.
If a hunk of stellar material were replaced with non-fusing material at around the same temperature as your body it would be crushed rather dramatically until it reached a temperature where radiation pressure could support the rest of the star above it.
Anthony, you weren’t getting enough traffic at WUWT, so you bring this up again? 🙂
Max™ says (April 24, 2013 at 11:36 am): “Let’s say you have a pot of water that is being boiled (~373 K) and a block of ice (~273 K) radiating towards each other.”
Max, your thought experiment is quite complicated, involving phase changes, atmospheric cooling & heating via conduction/convection, etc.
What’s your take on the simpler thought experiment described here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
Gary Hladik says: “What’s your take on the simpler thought experiment described here:”
Only someone who believes in the Back Radiation theme would say that because it gets cooler in the box than the surrounding atmosphere that Proves Back Radiation because without it the box would go down to 3 degrees K.
To most people it would suggest that the back Radiation is actually cooling the box.
So what was your own take on it, or did you just accept Roy’s conclusion without actually thinking about it?
“Adding more insulation to your house makes the outside of your house cooler, and the inside warmer (in winter).”
Preventing drafts is not what a gas can do…a gas is a gas and is drafty. CO2 doesn’t prevent drafts. Putting something beside a heater simply heats up the thing…not the heater. Heat simply conducts into the thing.
Steven Mosher says:
April 24, 2013 at 10:45 am
The real debate is over how much warming GHGs will cause.
That is the debate. That science is not settled. Skeptics with smart arguments will get published, see Nic lewis and Troy masters. Its the central debate..
Absolute B***Sh** as usual, if you can’t get an absolute measure of how much is natural and how much is supposed CO2 or other GHGs you can never ever work out the sensitivy, it is all complete guesswork, hence the “pause” in warming, which by any other name is quickly going in to cooling.
Even Anthony has to show all the Cold Records being set, but where are the explanations, where is it being shouted from the MSM roof tops.
Even the Met Office has had to back track yet again.
Isn’t it amazing what difference a few years can make, it was all about CO2 is the control knob, it overpowers everything.
Now we have it is Coal burning causing cooling, the Oceans eating the heat, it,s black dust, anything but CO2 doesn’t do what they said it does.
@DaveG what’s the idea of posting verbatum a comment from John O’Sullivan as if it were yours? That’s dishonest and has earned you a place in the “always moderated que” which is a step up from the troll bin.
O’Sullivan has enough credibility problems without your “help”. It seems the whole slayer/principia organization has similar credibility problems stemming from O’Sullivan’s history.
[snip we don’t link to that book promoting website -mod]
Roy’s example is appalling as many of the comments here have shown.
REPLY: no, what is appalling is the principia fools that believe this rubbish about the greenhouse effect being “bogus” as they say right on their web page.
This sort of stuff is the rational skeptics worst enemy. Like arguing with vaxxers – Anthony
Two questions;
1. What happens if the house has the R15 [or whatever] spun glass insulation taken out and R15 sealed bags of CO2 put in?
Will the house [assuming constant heat supply] cool off faster or slower?
2. I thought gasses[atmosphere] expanded to absorb extra heat.
The greenhouse gets hotter because the air cannot expand.
What stopping the atmosphere from expanding?
My understanding is that when you “add” insulation to a wall cavity, it’s the billion pockets of isolated, trapped air (gasses) that slow down the convection of heat from one side of the wall to the other. The insulating material actually serves as a “thermal bridge” that allows “higher” conductive heat-loss across the cavity – but the conductive heat-loss is more than off-set by the reduction in convective heat-loss.
The presence of the solid, insulation material actually speeds up heat-loss.
Joseph E Postma says (April 24, 2013 at 10:41 am): “…say, a AAA battery and tiny resistor could be used to generate 5000K inside a shell, and then you could smelt some steel or something with a AAA battery.”
This reminds me of Willis Eschenbach’s “steel greenhouse”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/
More insulation keeps my house cooler in the summer, when I’m running the air conditioner, or warmer in the winter, when I’m running the heat.
So adding more insulationing to my home can and does keep it cooler.
A C Osborn (April 24, 2013 at 12:26 pm), I think you’re confusing the “Yes, Virginia” thought experiment with something else. The “Yes, Virginia” thought experiment is the one with the chilled vacuum chamber containing two facing plates, one heated, one not.
I have thought quite a bit about the “Yes, Virginia” thought experiment, which I think distills the issue of so-called “back radiation” down to its essence, in contrast to Max’s messy thought experiment. I’ve also thought a lot about the criticism of this thought experiment by the so-called “slayers”, and I find their arguments…unconvincing, to put it politely.
Mods: My apologies for linking to a prohibited site. I’ll try to remember that in future.
Sorry if this is a double post.
The solar input occurs only over a single hemisphere. The intensity distribution of this input goes as the cosine function about the solar zenith. The integrated average value of this intensity has a temperature value of +49C. Solar power has an average heating power of +49C continuously on the sunlit hemisphere. This is very different from the flat-earth approximation of -18C. This is a rational consideration, because +49C continuous input is physically real, and will have a very different effect on the system than a global -18C. +49C can do a lot of things that -18C can’t.
Joseph E Postma says:
April 24, 2013 at 10:29 am
Insulation in your house prevents draft leakage and convective loss to the outside, by trapping material molecules
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wow. Three absolutely false statements in a single sentence. Way to go Joe.
REPLY: Yeah, I wanna see those molecule traps. Joe needs to take a time out before he claims the sun revolves around the Earth or something – Anthony
Max is correct I suppose. Nobody never measured 324W coming from the night sky AFAIK. And whoever believes, that this “back ratiation” from “greenhouse gases” by itself increases our night time temperature from -150C (like on the Moon) to +15 here, well, keep believing. Simple thermal retention of the N2+O2 explains bulk of the (wrongly calculated) “+33K” myth. It is as foolish as forever trying to calculate doubling sensitivity from CO2 and latest positive phase of AMO. You get some numbers in all cases; but it is just virtual number.
Jim S, it doesn’t matter to the point being made whether we are talking about conduction, convection, or radiation. ANYTHING that reduces heat loss from a heated object can increase its temperature. And that “anything” is usually at a COOLER temperature than the heated object itself. No laws of thermodynamics are broken, as alleged by the slayers.
By trapping material molecules I was of course referring to preventing drafts, which prevents warm air escape to the outside. Warm air is composed of molecules. Preventing drafts is of course one of the main functions of insulation, in your house.
Juraj V. says:
April 24, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Max is correct I suppose. Nobody never measured 324W coming from the night sky AFAIK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest you read what has been measured:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
” it doesn’t matter to the point being made whether we are talking about conduction, convection, or radiation. ANYTHING that reduces heat loss from a heated object can increase its temperature.”
It only increases “the” temperature, it doesn’t increase the temperature of the source. Real greenhouses aren’t heated to higher than the source, nor does the insulation in a house cause an increase of the temperature of the gas flame in the furnace.
Here’s a physics textbook example of trapping radiation from an active source inside a cavity.
http://books.google.no/books?id=PfadZy35Wh0C&pg=PA442&lpg=PA442&dq=blackbody+sphere+surrounded+shell+radiation&source=bl&ots=TDbus0Dwu4&sig=3Aj5S6SlUB55MY9ry_MBXzTBm84&hl=no&sa=X&ei=d6VxUfOHC8Os4ASGsYCACQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=blackbody%20sphere%20surrounded%20shell%20radiation&f=false
Problem 27.: “A sphere of radius R is maintained at a surface temperature T by an internal heat source (Figure 3). The sphere is surrounded by a thin concentric shell of radius 2R. Both objects absorb and emit as blackbodies. Show that the temperature of the shell is T/(8^1/4) = 0.595 T. (Hint: Both the inner and outer surfaces of the shell emit as blackbodies.)”
The surface temperature of the sphere is maintained by its internal heat source. And that’s that. There is no “then the sphere has to heat up some more because radiation is trapped” etc etc. Of course, trapping photons in a cavity from a thermal source only produces a blackbody spectrum; it doesn’t cause the photons to change frequency to higher temperature. Photons are bosons and can pile on top of each other without caring, aside from equal constructive and destructive interference which results in no net change. This is very different than the behaviour of trapping more and more molecules into a confined space.
REPLY: and none of this matters – Anthony
Alberta Slim says (April 24, 2013 at 1:00 pm): “Two questions;
1. What happens if the house has the R15 [or whatever] spun glass insulation taken out and R15 sealed bags of CO2 put in?”
If the R-value of the new material is the same as the old, shouldn’t it insulate the same?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation)
“2. I thought gasses[atmosphere] expanded to absorb extra heat.
The greenhouse gets hotter because the air cannot expand.
What stopping the atmosphere from expanding?”
Nothing. Like regular houses, greenhouses generally aren’t airtight. Air convection is inhibited, not prevented entirely. Note that heating your house with, say, a gas heater doesn’t raise the house internal pressure and make your ears pop.
ALL:
It is important to remember that there is NO WAY to determine the temperature of anything based upon the rate of energy input alone, for example the Earth absorbing an average of ~240 W/m2 from the Sun. Temperature is a function of BOTH energy input (typically not temperature dependent) AND energy loss (typically VERY temperature dependent), neglecting issues related to heat capacity which mainly affect the time required for the system to equilibrate. The temperature of anything heated will increase until the rate of energy *loss* equals the rate of energy *gain*. So, temperature can be increased by increasing INPUT, or decreasing OUTPUT.