Friday Funny – reflections on the greenhouse effect

Transparentised version of Image:Gluehlampe 01...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After the essays in May on mirrors and light bulbs, I’ve been regularly poked and prodded via email for not wanting to engage “the slayers” anymore, or to do that “third experiment” I mentioned in May. I long ago concluded by my experiences afterwards with “the slayers” that it is a waste of time and effort to try to explain anything to them. Curt Wilson, who did the second experiment and was planning to do the third, has come to the same conclusion, as have many others.

I have to give them credit though, they are entertaining. When I saw this profoundly ridiculous rebuttal (reflectional denial) at their headquarters while arguing over Willis’ Steel Greenhouse post, I just had to share it.

reflections_lol

LOL! That’s the “slayers” in  nutshell right there. No better example of the absurdity of their position exists in my opinion. Epic.

WUWT regular, Duke physicist Dr. Robert G. Brown has been trying to talk some sense into them over at Principia Scientific. I keep telling him he’s being sucked into a time and energy sink like gravity around a neutron star. Just as it is a good policy to steer clear of neutron stars, so it is with these folks who are incapable of assimilating the real world of physics, but live in an alternate reality of absurd second law constructs.

So, that’s why I’m not bothering anymore, when you have reflection denial statements like the one above, why engage in a pointless dialog with the hopelessly lost who don’t want to learn anything? Thank goodness for my spam filter.

For those that might care, keeping the filament of a lightbulb within its optimum temperature range increases its life, by limiting hotspots and thus tungsten evaporation. Putting an incandescent bulb into a reflector housing not designed for it will in fact increase the filament temperature, increasing tungsten evaporation and deposition on the inside bulb glass surface.

See: http://www.lightingassociates.org/i/u/2127806/f/tech_sheets/FAQs_Reflector_Design__Why_is_it_important_.pdf

Tungsten evaporation from hotspots is why standard incandescent bulbs eventually fail.

Advertisements

231 thoughts on “Friday Funny – reflections on the greenhouse effect

  1. The late great political scientist Kenneth Minogue did a superb job in his great 2008 book Alien Powers: The Pure Theory of Ideology of describing what makes a theory ideology. Part of it is that facts do not matter or cause a shift in the beliefs.

    Anyone interested in slaying this particular dragon would do well to read Minogue’s work to mix his definitions in with the facts.

    It’s only scientific in the social science sense of a theory designed to alter human behavior by shifting personal values, attitudes, and beliefs.

  2. Suppose the reflector is actually matt black rather than a normal reflector. I’m guessing that the matt black reflector will get hotter than the normal reflector and the filament will not get as hot.

    Reflection of heat and heat transfer between objects is two different things completely.

  3. >Jimbo says:
    >July 19, 2013 at 4:28 am
    >>johnmarshall says:
    >>July 19, 2013 at 4:14 am

    >>All light bulbs eventually fail how does that constitute an argument for the GHE.

    >Certainly, but check out the Centennial Light Bulb, they don’t make ‘em like the used to.

    It is not difficult to make a bulb that will outlast the customer, though it is difficult to turn a profit. It is actualy quite easy to modify a regular incandescent bulb to last a lifetime with a little resistance.

  4. Slayers and other sceptics just keep talking past each other.

    Slayers say that GHGs cannot make the surface any warmer than it otherwise would be because a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body, which in itself is correct but misses the point that only a reduction in the rate of cooling is required rather than any warming effect.

    Other sceptics point out correctly that a cooler body (GHGs) can slow the rate of cooling of a hotter body (the surface) but that also misses the point because GHGs are not the cause of the so called greenhouse effect.

    The reality is different again.

    In the case of a planet with an atmosphere it is the entire mass of the atmosphere (which includes liquids on the surface) that provides the warming effect and any effect from composition variations whether on the solid surface, within any liquid oceans or in the atmosphere can only affect air circulation patterns.

    We can see the proof of that in so many planets having wide variations in composition yet still managing to arrive at a long term balance between solar energy in and long wave energy out such that the atmospheres are retained. The atmospheric circulation simply configures itself to adapt the flow of energy through the system so as to retain ToA thermal balance despite the composition differences.

    A variation in composition of the air is no different in principle from variations in composition of solid surfaces or bodies of liquid once an atmosphere is in place.

    All composition characteristics in any of the three media (ground, oceans or air) will influence the prevailing air circulation pattern so one has to then ask just how large a contribution would be provided by such a tiny fraction as our emissions to the least dense medium (the air).

    The answer must be that it would be indistinguishable from zero.

  5. The shape of the reflector depends on what the light is intended to do. If you want a bright spot at a fair distance, then the reflector is a parabolic reflector with the bulb at the focus (think searchlight). All rays from the bulb that hit the reflector are reflected back parallel and in the direction you want to illuminate. If you want a large area illuminated, you use a hyperbolic (including at the extreme a flat) reflector. This spreads rays over a large area. If you want 360 degree illumination, you don’t bother with a reflector.

    BUT, remember that the bulb has to be supported in the reflector system. Normal method of support is through the reflector and on the axis of the reflector. This means that rays that would otherwise be reflected back through the filament are caught by the back of the bulb and normally dispersed so they do not impinge on the filament. So the filament is protected from the reflected rays.

    Make the reflector a matt black. This will absorb light energy from the light rays, and it will heat. Less light will be projected in the intended direction. But as no light (see below) is reflected back to the filament, it will not get hotter.

    Note, however, that even with a matt black paint, there will be some slight amount of light reflected, and because of the uneven surface of the matt paint, some minute quantity may be reflected back to the filament. This will give rise to some heating of the filament. In normal circumstances, this will be negligible.

  6. You should have asked yourself, why your face does not evaporate when you look at yourself in a mirror. Because this alleged “greenhouse warming” of your face would never stop if this effect existed.

    The above statement is true as long as you make some assumptions. :-) If you keep adding heat to something, and the heat can’t escape, then that thing will eventually evaporate.

    So we have two assumptions: 1 – you keep adding heat to your face long enough to make it evaporate. 2 – the heat can’t escape.

    I leave it to you as an exercise to explain why those assumptions don’t apply in the face, mirror example.

    Have the Slayers ever explained how a thermos works?

  7. It is not difficult to make a bulb that will outlast the customer, though it is difficult to turn a profit. It is actualy quite easy to modify a regular incandescent bulb to last a lifetime with a little resistance.

    Only if your lifetime is expected to be very short. I purchased a whole set of resistors being marketed to do that very thing long ago to use in bulbs that were very difficult to replace outdoors. They did extend the lifetime of the bulb(s) — by a factor of maybe three or four. But die they did, probably from the thermal shock of going on and off in the wintertime, maybe from something else.

    Personally, I think the second law always wins.

    The funny thing is, if you put your face a vacuum surrounded by a perfect reflector of EM energy and maintained its power output indefinitely, it would indeed eventually melt. Even the slayer’s BAD argument is in fact correct, but they cannot begin to grasp that there are multiple things going on and the mirror isn’t perfect and there is air.

    It’s useful to remember that the power density of the active fusion region of the sun is remarkably low — less than that of the human body IIRC. The only reason that it stays so hot is basically “the greenhouse effect” — radiative trapping of the released energy. It takes around 100 ky for a photon produced in the Sun’s core to get to the surface and escape. Now that’s a greenhouse effect!

    rgb

  8. I suggested to one of the slayers during the last debable that he perform a trivial experiment.

    This was to counter the argument that while the light bulb got hotter, the filament was ths source of the heat to it could not possibly get hotter.

    The experiment consisted of wrapping a bulb in foil, shiny side in, and turning it on. Obviously, as the filament cannot get any hotter, there is no reason that the bulb will expire in a few seconds.

    Did any slayer dare to try the experiment?

  9. Erata: “ths source of the heat to it could not possibly get hotter” -> “the source of the heat so it could not possibly get hotter.

  10. – the above erata is to a comment that used the “s” word so is queued in moderation ;(

  11. OK Anthony, you have faith in the GHE so patent a process using this effect to generate energy. This is just a simple challenge to you and your GHE friends.

    REPLY: Why would I need or want to? There’s plenty of other sources. And, as RGB points out above, the sun is not only the ultimate energy source for Earth but also has the ultimate GHE. – Anthony

  12. Jimbo— yes I know about this but that bulb has been left ”on” to eliminate the heat stress of the on/off cycle which is the main thing to cause bulb failure.

  13. I, for one, would like to see a third experiment. Unlike most WUWT readers, I’m not yet fully convinced that the slayers are fundamentally wrong. I’m not convinced they’re fundamentally right either, mind you, and I have to agree that they do present some silly arguments to defend their position. To help me reach a conclusion, I’d like to see an experiment similar to the initial mirror experiment with a flat plate of similar dimensions to the mirror, but made of a material that comes close to being a black body (on both sides so it will emit in all directions), rather than a reflector. CO2 absorbs the 15 micron stuff — it doesn’t reflect it. I think (but I’m not sure) the plate would want to be thin and light so as to have minimal thermal mass. I’m thinking atmospheric CO2 has minimal thermal mass, but I might be wrong.

  14. From the viewpoint of a self-taught engineer: >> IF << it were possible to tune a parabolic light reflector to the entire tungsten filament there would be little effect at all. As the reflected light was absorbed, the resistance would increase, less current would be drawn, and the 'boil-off' would stabilize.
    – sort of like "Earth adjusts its own thermometer"
    As it is, even distribution is difficult if not impossible and the hottest/thinnest point on the filament will eventually fail anyway… if not sooner.
    – sort of like geo-climate-engineering would have unintended consequences.

  15. Quibbling about the filament of a light bulb is missing the big error, that if the dragonslayers were right and energy cannot travel from a lower energy source to a higher energy source then it would be impossible to see yourself in a mirror because the face is at a higher energy than the mirror.

    Or, it would only be possible to see yourself in a mirror if was hotter than you!

    Rejecting the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect is such a profound error in physics that it is difficult to disagree with this post that engaging with such errant nonsense is an exercise in futility.
    As is most engagement with folks who are incapable of assimilating the real world of physics, but live in an alternate reality.

  16. You could have quoted my very clear statement on impossibility of “back radiation warming” from the same page as well, it is relevant:

    “Radiation reflected back to the source can not have any effect on the temperature of the source.

    However, in our usual environment putting a reflector close to the hot source would substantially reduce the convective cooling of the source thus causing a rise in temperature. But not through back radiation.

    Sadly, there are some fraudulent demonstrations around, where the effect of reduction in convective cooling is presented as the proof of a non-existing back radiation warming (“greenhouse effect”).”

    I can easily demonstrate it mathematically here, when this one has come through your moderation. Otherwise I would do it on the PSI forum where my comments are allowed.

    REPLY: I could have, but it would not have been as entertaining. Your comments are allowed here, except for the ones that are continually off-topic thread jacking, rants, or other policy violations. The Slayers never did thank me for pushing them into allowing comments on PSI in the first place. Maybe it is because they realize that it is now a a source of entertainment. win-win ;-) – Anthony

  17. I thought I’d try this experiment just to see. ….. and you know what , MY FACE EVAPORATED!

    They are right! I’m now going to sue WUWT for telling me it was safe !

  18. The greenhouse effect is misnamed because greenhouses don’t work that way. Therefore, the greenhouse effect isn’t real.

    Get it?

  19. What would the temperature at the surface of Venus be if Venus has the identical atmosphere (depth and composition) as Earth? Same for Mars? Incidentally, planets without oceans. The density, composition, and pressure of our atmosphere in combination of the energy received from the sun at a particular distance produces an average temperature. We’ve seen what volcanic ash can do as an effective energy reflector, yet it does not reflect energy from the surface as a green house effect, but rather preventer of energy from further heating the surface. The composition of our atmosphere is a resistance to energy absorption and reflection o and to and from the surface. Right?

  20. Jim A says:
    July 19, 2013 at 5:57 am

    From the viewpoint of a self-taught engineer: >> IF << it were possible to tune a parabolic light reflector to the entire tungsten filament there would be little effect at all.
    ………..

    Jim, you need to finish the self teaching. Parabolas focus parallel light , what come off a bulb is not parallel so you're going to need some pretty serious "tuning". Also a parabola is a two dimensional curve. You probably meant paraboloid.

    A polished hemisphere would be much better. Perhaps you should look up the temp coeff of the resistance of tungsten at the appropriate temperature and let's say 50% of the outgoing heat and light gets reflected back work out the new equilibrium temperature of the the filament would be.

    Then you may be able to make an educated statement as to whether there will be "little effect" or not.

  21. I could swear there was something about the mirror not making the bulb brighter, as for hotter, you’re putting in a given amount of power, you’re not letting it dissipate effectively, not sure what this is a proof or disproof of.

  22. We see the weather on the sun as the sun’s climate changes from season to season. Same on planets with an atmosphere. A function of uneven temperatures. The green house has a limit, just as any other intervention to energy flow.

  23. Patrick says:
    July 19, 2013 at 7:16 am

    “highflight56433 says:

    July 19, 2013 at 7:10 am”

    Not the same!

    Agreed, just as the greenhouse experiments are not the same. I think that is the entire point. :)

  24. A good way to extend bulb life & save some electricity is too add a diode in series with the filament. They make flat diode pads to do this but it is just as easy to do (and way cheaper) at the switch. So instead of a 25 watt light bulb use a 60 watt with a diode for extra bulb life. Dimming of course also reduces power usage and adds life. However they make long life bulbs (see 1000bulbs.com) although they have less lumens/watt. They also sell a carbon filament bulb that looks much like the original incandescent (only rated 2000 hours though).
    The problem with some low quality CFLs and LEDs is that although they are rated for long life, that may only apply to the light emitter. If the electronics are of low quality then they may give up well before the rated life. In addition the bulb styles and light are not always as pleasing and are more expensive up front. I have bought my incandescents on line when on sale and in bulk for a special rate so that they cost even less.

  25. ” AndyG55 says:
    July 19, 2013 at 4:45 am

    Suppose the reflector is actually matt black rather than a normal reflector. I’m guessing that the matt black reflector will get hotter than the normal reflector and the filament will not get as hot.

    Reflection of heat and heat transfer between objects is two different things completely.”

    Right.
    Only a few have every claimed CO2 reflects IR.
    Another aspect is distance involved with reflection or re-radiated wavelength.
    But all of this not the main issue.
    The fundamental aspect is idea that only the radiant effects of greenhouse gases
    can increase the average temperature of a planet. Which should be seen as
    obviously wrong- as there are other ways to increase average temperature other than
    involving the radiant effects of gases. And it seems obvious that radiant effect of transparent liquids [mainly Earth’s ocean and the droplets of water in clouds] have a significant effect and would major part in increasing a planet’s average temperature.

    Other than any radiant effects, the specific heat of the planets surface should also have
    dominate affects upon a planet’s average temperature.

    In other words, greenhouse theory claims that a planet with a atmosphere and same reflective
    properties as Earth would be 33 C cooler without greenhouse gases- and that only greenhouse gases can cause an increase of 33 C to Earth average temperature.

    For example I believe [because their is clear evidence] that the type of lunar surface, rather than than color or reflective nature of material affects the average surface temperature of the Moon.
    Or solid rock is known to retain it’s heat longer and lunar regolith.
    So clear evidence that the heat capacity has very noticeable effect and that the insulative
    properties of fine powdery lunar regolith as a cooling effect on the Moon average temperature.
    Or material which conducts more heat from the heated surface would be a warming effect on the Moon. This is not radiant effect, it’s conduction of heat. Or transfer of heat, which once transferred takes longer to lose it’s heat back into space.
    Or concrete or asphalt pavement absorbs more heat than sand, and takes longer to become cooler and this has nothing to do with radiant properties of gases. Or because of crazy idea that the warming possible is called greenhouse effect, pavement is greenhouse effect. As are oceans and other bodies of water.

    So, I am willing to entertain an idea that greenhouse gas [mostly water vapor] may cause 5 to 10 C of the 33 C. Not probably less than 1/2 of “greenhouse effect”.
    And if had to pick largest “greenhouse effect” the obvious factor seems related to the liquid transparent oceans. And next factor is heat capacity of an atmosphere.
    Or greenhouse gases are not the major or as claimed sole factor of warming or increasing
    earth’s average temperature.

  26. That reflector link relates to fluorescent lighting – no filament, no tungsten. Just saying.

    REPLY: Yes but the point about thermal considerations of reflectors is still valid and that was my reason for using it. – Anthony

  27. I am sorry, I dont see what is so transparently stupid about the suggestion that the filament might evaporate; those old 16mm projector bulbs didnt used to last long.
    Are you suggesting that if one took a spherical-ish bulb and surface silvered it that the filament would remain at the same temperature?
    Maybe I am as dim as the slayers!!

  28. Quibbling about the filament of a light bulb is missing the big error, that if the dragonslayers were right and energy cannot travel from a lower energy source to a higher energy source then it would be impossible to see yourself in a mirror because the face is at a higher energy than the mirror.

    Absolute twaddle. Your eyes detect light, which was reflected off your face from some high-energy source, bounced off the mirror with little loss, and back to your eyes. Nothing at all to do with energy output by your face/

    If you are going to attack the rubbish that the SL*Y*RS say then at least use a reasonable argument.

  29. Incandescent filaments are/were made to last 2000 or 1000 or 500 hours. The difference is that the filament in the 500 hours lights are made a little thinner and therefore get hotter and give a “whiter” appearance and have a slightly higher light yield at the cost of the life expectancy.

    Any hindrance of the light and/or heat output of the lamp that is reflected to the bulb will increase the filament temperature and shorten the lifecycle of the lamp. That was proven in the second experiment, where the lamp was covered with a foil cube, the current dropped with 0.7 mA. That is because a hotter filament has more resistance and therefore draws less current at the same voltage.

  30. OK, my comment has successfully come through with a 2 hours dalay. I am writing this to test if I am still under pre-moderation, and if yes, please, cancel it to make a real time conversation possible.

  31. Get a worklight-style bulb-on-a-cord.
    Stick it into sand bulb-down.
    Light it.
    Then explain why it burns out so fast.

  32. Stick a thermometer down in the sand, and a multimeter measuring amperage on the lamp.
    The sand won’t be close to the filament’s temperature before the filament will be toast.

  33. Well there is a (small) element of truth, in the silly statement.

    Back in the old days, (as they say), people had things called slide projectors, designed to throw magnified images of Kodachrome color slides onto a distant screen. Kodak, Bausch & Lomb and many others made them (I still have one.

    Almost universally, these projectors used a special 500 Watt incandescent light bulb to operate them.

    The lamp typically had a double separated straight strand of coiled coil filament. The Tungsten wire was extremely fine, and using the coiled coil, got a lot of wire length in a compact space.

    This lamp, mounted in the housing with the two filaments side by side, vertically, and parallel to the slide plane.

    A condenser lens in front of the bulb roughly collimated the light beam. It did not focus on the slide plane.

    With that arrangement, only a small fraction of the light (25%) got to the slide.

    The housing included a concave spherical mirror behind the bulb, with the filament center, at the center of curvature of the mirror. With that exact arrangement, the mirror, forms a 1:! inverted image of the two filaments, actually on each other. Each filament’s image fell on the other filament.

    This is undesirable.. The mirror (or lamp) had a fine adjustment arrangement, that translated one or the other sideways, parallel to the silde plane. In the new bulb replacement process (quite often) , the setup was adjusted so that the two filaments, and the two images interleaved, so that one image fell between the two filaments, and one filament fell between the two images. With a high reflectance mirror, the two images are essentially the same brightness as the two filaments; at least within the solid angle that the condenser lens could accommodate.

    So with no slide in place, one could focus the projection lens, so that it focused on the filament plane, instead of the slide plane. So on the screen at some useful distance, one got an image of four filaments, which then enabled the correct offset of the lamp or mirror. to get four equi-spaced filament images..

    If the projector used a cheap metal mirror (Aluminum), it also reflected IR very well, so if you misaligned, and got the filaments imaged on each other, then the “heat energy” going backwards, got returned to the filaments, so the filaments didn’t cool as fast as they were supposed to and they ran at higher Temperatures.

    Better projectors used a “cold” mirror, which selectively reflects visible radiation, but transmits IR wavelengths so they escape out the back of the projector.

    Running the filaments too hot, increased the rate of Tungsten evaporation, and there would always be sections of the filament, that were finer diameter than the rest of the filament. They would run hotter, and evaporate faster, so that made them even thiner, further accelerating the selective loss from hotspots. The filament would eventually fail from mechanical fracture of a thinned region of the filament; NOT from total evaporation of the filament. The differential thinning is actually very small, but the Temperature increase is amplified.

    I think those bulbs only lasted about 250 hours or so even under ideal conditions.

  34. gbaikie says: July 19, 2013 at 8:05 am
    “The fundamental aspect is idea that only the radiant effects of greenhouse gases
    can increase the average temperature of a planet.”

    This is a strawman argument. No serious scientist would say such a thing. LOTS of factors influence the surface temperature of the earth (and you go on to point out some of them).

    Basically, these other factors (like heat capacity and the rate of rotation) can help bring the “actual average surface temperature” up to the “effective blackbody temperature”. A rapidly rotating, high heat capacity; emissivity = 1; albedo = 0.3; no-GHG planet could have a surface temperature that approaches an average of 255 K. But neither heat capacity nor oceans can change the laws of physics that limit the effective BB temperature to 255K. If you make the planet spin more slowly or reduce the heat capacity, the average will drop below 255 K.

    Even adding GHGs does not change the effective BB temperature of the earth — that number is still 255 K. That is what an IR thermometer aimed at the earth as a whole from out in space would read. What DOES change is the effective radiating level — the “surface” of the earth if you will. With no GHGs, the “radiating surface” IS the actual surface, and the actual surface is limited to and average of 255 K (or less). With GHGs, some of the “radiating surface” is high in the atmosphere. In this case, some average of (the atmospheric temperatures and the actual surface temperatures) is limited to 255 K (or less). Since the atmospheric radiation aften comse from areas colder than 255 K, other areas like the the actual surface can (and must) be above 255 K.

  35. Dr. Brown needs to face the fact that “there are some people you can’t help”. This is the same problem that government social workers have. Indeed I applaud his effort but realistically many of these people are beyond help. They are too ingrained with liberal propaganda to recognize the truth or in some cases to even process the concepts being presented. Sad really.

  36. Definitive experiment: set three matched large (~10 gal) aquariums out in the sun with identical thermometers in identical relative positions. The difference is that two have a transparent (glass or plastic wrap) cover/convection barrier. One of these is enriched with CO2 (a bit of dry ice, allowed to sublimate and equilibrate).
    The temperature differences between the two will compare the contribution to greenhouse heating due to the convection barrier and the contribution due to CO2.

  37. The definitive statement of the physics if from Goody and Yung ‘Atmospheric Physics’, Ox. Ac. Press.

    The monochromatic rate of heat accumulation by matter is the negative of the Divergence of the monochromatic radiation flux density at a point.

    This means heat transfer rate = -Delta I where I is the irradiance. So, ‘back radiation’ cannot exist.

    It is why you use the difference of two S-B equations but in neither case is the irradiance transmitted power.

    Most scientists and engineers fail to understand the negative sign or that the pyrometer output which is the potential flux to a sink at 0 deg K is not an energy flux, but a potential energy source.

    Eventually the rest will catch up. Talk to the pyrgeometer manufacturers and they will tell you exactly what I have written here. There is no ‘back radiation’; the Trenberth Energy budget has wasted 100s of man years creatinbg a perpetual motion machine.

  38. Is it that they do not want to learn, or is it that they are so stubborn to push an agenda – no matter how foolish it makes them look!

  39. “””””…..Greg House says:

    July 19, 2013 at 6:27 am

    You could have quoted my very clear statement on impossibility of “back radiation warming” from the same page as well, it is relevant:

    “Radiation reflected back to the source can not have any effect on the temperature of the source……””””””

    It may be relevant, but it is also nonsense.

    In the case of an incandescent source powered by electricity, the electrical parameters, including high Temperature resistance, determine how much electric power is being delivered, to heat the filament.

    The equilibrium Temperature reached then depends on the rate of energy loss, mainly by radiation. There will be “heat energy” conduction from the ends of the filament to the mounting hardware, which acts as a “heatsink”.

    If the filament were to be immersed in high purity water, it wouldn’t get as hot. (we don’t have to assume an actual vacuum or gas filled light bulb filament).

    So reflecting some of the otherwise escaping radiant energy (of any wavelength) back to the filament, will result in some of it being absorbed and some reflected. The amount absorbed results in a net reduction of the rate of energy loss, so the equilibrium Temperature will settle at a higher value. This higher Temperature filament will likely have a higher resistance, so the electric power will drop.

    In the case of an LED die, the emitted radiation is narrow band. If you reflect some of that back to the chip, some will be reflected, and some will refract into the chip, and rattle around in there. The LED diode junction, also happens to be a very efficient photo-detector (solar cell) at the same wavelength range that was emitted. So photons absorbed by the material, will result in electron-hole pairs being generated, and swept across the junction to create an electric current. This current is always in the opposite direction to the original applied current, but the device is usually current driven, so the result is the current remains the same, but the terminal Voltage increases, just as if the internal resistance has increased (it has).

    So with the same current drive and a higher drive Voltage the applied power is increased, and the chip will get hotter.

  40. *sigh* Here we go again.

    johnmarshall says (July 19, 2013 at 5:36 am): “OK Anthony, you have faith in the GHE so patent a process using this effect to generate energy.”

    Big Don says (July 19, 2013 at 5:51 am): “I, for one, would like to see a third experiment. Unlike most WUWT readers, I’m not yet fully convinced that the slayers are fundamentally wrong.”

    Greg House says (July 19, 2013 at 6:27 am): ‘You could have quoted my very clear statement on impossibility of “back radiation warming” from the same page as well…’

    AlecM says (July 19, 2013 at 10:39 am): “So, ‘back radiation’ cannot exist.”

    Dr. Spencer has illustrated the basis of the so-called “greenhouse effect” with his classic “Yes, Virginia” thought experiment. Just so we’re all on the same page and there are no misunderstandings, John, Don, Greg, and Alec, could you please read Dr. Spencer’s article, if you haven’t already?

    So far it’s just a thought experiment, but one of Dr. Spencer’s readers may soon do it for real, or at least a variant thereof. John, Don, Greg, and Alec, just to make your positions crystal clear, could you predict the outcome of the “Yes, Virginia” experiment if/when it’s done for real? Would the temperature of the heated plate increase, decrease, or remain the same in the presence of the unheated plate, compared to its absence? (Greg, I know I’ve asked you this before, but I don’t recall you anwering.)

    If it will help, one of the blank-ers has given his answer at a-site-I-must-not-link. Google “No, Virginia, cooler” to find it. :-)

  41. george e. smith says:

    ” but the terminal Voltage increases, just as if the internal resistance has increased (it has).
    So with the same current drive and a higher drive Voltage the applied power is increased, and the chip will get hotter.”

    If you increase the temperature of a semiconductor its resistance goes down.

  42. “WUWT regular, Duke physicist Dr. Robert G. Brown has been trying to talk some sense into them over at Principia Scientific.”

    I am SO jealous! Why would the good doctor waste his time on those clowns when he could be sharing his wisdom with US here at WUWT? We LOVE him, but those guys will only break his heart!!!

    Goodness, I’m so upset I need to eat ice cream or go shopping or something! :-)

  43. tadchem says:
    July 19, 2013 at 10:24 am

    Definitive experiment

    Not so definitive…
    The difference in conduction/convection of a thin layer of CO2 compared to air has very little resemblance to what happens with the IR absorbance by CO2 in a 70 km layer of air…

  44. You know, why do y’all need these experiments? It’s simple heat transfer by radiation.
    If you have a monolith in space Then there’s no conduction or convection. You have sunlight hitting it and blackbody radiation going off
    -S->
    The heat balance is
    S = 2*BB
    If there are two objects, then the BB radiation of both of them hits each other.
    -S->
    So the heat balance of object 1 is
    S + BB2 = 2*BB1
    If object 2 is above absolute 0, BB2 must be positive. Obviously, BB1 has to be higher than BB above. As the only way for outgoing radiation to increase is a temperature increase, this is true if BB2 is a blob of liquid helium.
    Seriously, this is basic heat transfer to set up, and high school physics to understand.

  45. steveta_uk says:
    July 19, 2013 at 8:55 am
    Absolute twaddle. Your eyes detect light, which was reflected off your face from some high-energy source, bounced off the mirror with little loss, and back to your eyes.
    =================
    Then how do you explain the fact that vampires can’t see their own reflection, hmm?

  46. WUWT regular, Duke physicist Dr. Robert G. Brown has been trying to talk some sense into them over at Principia Scientific. I keep telling him he’s being sucked into a time and energy sink like gravity around a neutron star.

    [+emphasis]
    With respect, may I suggest using the term black hole since information seems to be going in, but nothing seems to be comes out.[:–)

  47. Did I read someone say the sun has an “ultimate greenhouse effect”…

    The interior of the sun is so dense that photons produced in nuclear fusion–fusion initiated by the mass of the star being high enough to result in said densities–take millions of years to random walk out to the less dense layers where there is a chance of reaching the exterior and then making it into space beyond the star.

    The only stellar process which remotely resembles the greenhouse hypothesis, specifically the absurd runaway version, is the neutrino pulse which superheats the outer layers during a supernova.

    Normally the rest of the star is transparent to neutrinos, and so there is effectively zero energy transfer to the outer layers by neutrino absorption.

    In the case where the core has undergone a catastrophic collapse, the gravitational binding energy is converted into a large enough amount of neutrinos to result in significant heating of the outer layers.

    The escaping neutrinos also reduce the pressure within the star somewhat, allowing the outer layers to collapse inwards towards the neutrino shockwave, accelerating the rate of interaction even more dramatically, before the pull of the star is overwhelmed and the remaining mass is scattered beyond the star.

    The inability of the neutrino pulse to escape to space results in extreme heating of the outer layers, which at least somewhat resembles the “infrared trapping” mechanism postulated by the greenhouse hypothesis.

    A normal main sequence star has no analogue to said hypothesis, though, as the heating of the outer layers is not due to trapping of energy, rather it is simple proximity to the fusing core layers that leads to the temperature profile observed.

  48. The idiocy of out of context remarks is what this blog has come to be known by.
    To a layman – it is clear that you miss many of the points that the slayers disclose but there seems to be fearfulness for some reason pervading here!

    REPLY: Fearfullness? LOL! Maybe you are confused by the chorus of laughter. – Anthony

  49. Dear Gary Hladik,

    I did indeed read Dr. Spencer’s thought experiment. After over 30 years as an engineer, I’ve been through hundreds of thought experiments, but many fail to hold up to verification when tested with real physical matter. I’m not saying he is wrong, just that I wouldn’t mind seeing a demonstration that he is right. The whole reason I got sucked into being a climate skeptic in the first place is that I can’t bring myself to believe something just because someone with a PhD says that its so. Dr. Mann says the hockey stick is so. But when I looked for independent verification, there was none. Not to compare Spencer to Mann, but hey, I’m not one to just take anybody’s word for things, even if I know them to be honorable people. As to predicting an outcome — no I can’t. That’s exactly why I would like to see the experiment. I have no favorite horse in this race – I just want to see some data to see what happens. I’d be equally happy finding that Roy is right as to find out that the slayers are.

  50. Practical light bulb problem
    The filament of a standard light bulb has a positive coefficient when it comes to how resistance changes with temperature. If the temperature of the filament rises, so does the resistance and that reduces the power dissipation of the electric circuit and hence reduces the temperature, causing a bit of regulating. Since a 120 ohm resistance in an operating light bulb corresponds to a room temperature filament resistance below 20 ohms, the startup inrush current surge can easily be 10 times that of normal operating power dissipation and is when the usual light bulb failure happens.

  51. Jimbo says:
    July 19, 2013 at 4:28 am

    johnmarshall says:
    July 19, 2013 at 4:14 am

    All light bulbs eventually fail how does that constitute an argument for the GHE.

    Certainly, but check out the Centennial Light Bulb, they don’t make ‘em like the used to.

    ==========================================================================
    I sure hope Obama or the UN don’t force them to turn it off. It has a carbon filament.
    http://www.ask.com/wiki/Centennial_Light?o=2801&qsrc=999

  52. The slayers intrigue me because they provide an alternative, when I do think an alternative explanation of light and energy is needed, and I have ideas on that. It seems unlikely that the slayers are on the right track, though, but cracking the door can be helpful. Unfortunately I haven’t time to look into it much, so kudos to Robert Brown for doing so.

  53. max,
    you’ve got some real hangups there. Temperature balance occurs when the energy rate in equals the energy rate out. If you put 60 W of power into a light bulb, it will heat up until 60 W of power leave that light bulb. See above post for what happens to the actual amount of power when you manipulate the light bulb’s condition because it will reduce the electrical power applied unless you manipulate the voltage to compensate. If you block some of that radiation from leaving, then the light bulb will heat up more until a power balance is reached. If you simply take a warm object and place it in a room or a box, that object will assume the temperature of that room (which might change from the initial value or it might not – depending upon the thermal mass). Once that is done, the object will be at the temperature and it will radiate power out as if it were sitting out in space near nothing. However, since it will not transfer energy away and cool to a lower temperature than the ambient, that means that the radiation coming back by reflection off the walls and by radiation from the walls will equal the power being radiated. In other words, once the object has reached equilibrium with the room or box, it will neither become hotter or cooler as long as that box or room remains at a constant temperature.
    Note that if you think what I’ve stated is incorrect, you should immediate go apply for a patent because you now have a perpetual energy source and can build a perpetual motion machine.
    In reality, you simply have an object that is emitting and absorbing the same amount of power and if you add more – by running an electrical power cord to it and start adding additional heat, that object will heat up according to how much additional energy it receives minus how much additional energy leaves it. (assuming no work is being done or chemical reaction energy is occurring).
    As for your supernovae post, I’d suggest go read an introductory article about them.

  54. Friday Funny – reflections on the greenhouse effect

    ======================================================================
    Maybe CO2 is also the cause of dry humor?

  55. When I first heard about the magic of the greenhouse effect, I painted my house green and found it didn’t work (sarc/off). Perhaps this type of linear thought has led Slayer’s to their conclusions. In the way Al Gore embarrasses CAGW proponents, the Slayers are the sceptic’s cross to bear. Some of you may have heard the hymn “Gladly the Cross I’d Bear” which is misinterpreted by small children as “Gladly the cross-eyed Bear”.

  56. “””””…..Bryan says:

    July 19, 2013 at 11:19 am

    george e. smith says:

    ” but the terminal Voltage increases, just as if the internal resistance has increased (it has).
    So with the same current drive and a higher drive Voltage the applied power is increased, and the chip will get hotter.”

    If you increase the temperature of a semiconductor its resistance goes down…….”””””

    Bryan, I am going to assume that English is NOT your native language. You clearly didn’t read what I wrote; to whit;

    “””””….. but the terminal Voltage increases, just as if the internal resistance has increased (it has)……”””””

    Doesn’t say one word about increasing the Temperature of a semiconductor.

    I believe I said that the terminal VOLTAGE increases.

    I believe I said that the CURRENT flowing stays constant.

    I believe that Voltage times current equals power.

    I believe I said the applied power increases.

    I believe if you put more power into ANYTHING, it will get hotter.

    I believe that Voltage divided by current is (one measure of) RESISTANCE. (not necessarily Ohmic).

    I believe that a higher VOLTAGE divided by a constant CURRENT implies a higher RESISTANCE..

    And finally, I believe that if you made your first LED (light emitting diode) prior to June 1966, that you probably do know more about LEDs than I do.

  57. Big Don says (July 19, 2013 at 2:01 pm): “I did indeed read Dr. Spencer’s thought experiment. After over 30 years as an engineer, I’ve been through hundreds of thought experiments, but many fail to hold up to verification when tested with real physical matter. I’m not saying he is wrong, just that I wouldn’t mind seeing a demonstration that he is right.”

    Thanks. I should have included “don’t know” as a possible answer. Sorry.

    More later. I’d like others to weigh in on “Yes, Virginia” before proceeding.

  58. As I said before, back radiation can not have any warming effect on the source, either when it is produced by a perfect reflector or by a colder body. I’ll start with the reflector case, it is similar in case of emission/absorption by a colder body.

    The main problem the “greenhouse effect” proponents can not overcome is this. If we have a body held initially at a stable temperature (like by an internal battery)and then introduce a perfect reflector on the one side of the body and assume that the reflected radiation warms the body (“greenhouse effect”), then the warmed body (at a higher temperature than initially) would also radiate to the reflector more energy than initially. Therefore more reflected energy would come to the body than initially and this energy would warm the body even more. The body would then radiate even more energy to the reflector (in accordance to it’s higher temperature) and so on. It would never stop, the warming would be endless without any additional input of energy. The other side of the increasingly hotter getting body would very soon radiate away more energy, than there is in the system body-reflector, which is physically absurd and proves the initial assumption (“greenhouse effect” or warming by back radiation) false.

    Now let’s illustrate it with numbers. So, we have a flat very thin 1m² black body initially held by it’s internal battery at a stable temperature in vacuum, so that it constantly radiates 800 W/m²according to it’s temperature, which is 400 joules per second from each side (we neglect the radiation from the very thin sides to simplify the calculation). There is absolutely no other source of energy in the neighborhood. To further simplify the calculation we’ll do it in 1-second intervals.

    Now we put a perfect reflector of the same form and shape as our black body very very close to it so that what our body radiates from one side comes perfectly back to it, and we assume there is the “greenhouse effect”, of course (according to the “greenhouse effect” our black body absorbs this reflected radiation and gets warmer).

    So, the reflector reflects 400 back to our body, the body gets warmer accordingly and radiates (at a higher temperature than initially) 800+400=1200, which means 600 to the reflector and 600 away to the deep deep space (600+600=1200). Not that bad jet, but…

    The reflector reflects now 600 back to our body (because our body radiates 600 to the reflector, see above), and the “greenhouse effect” makes our black body absorb those 600 and get warmer accordingly. At an even higher temperature now our black body radiates 1200+600=1800, which means 900 to the reflector and 900 away to the deep deep space (900+900=1800).

    Now it is really bad for the “greenhouse effect”, because the 900 per second our body radiates away is more than the system body-reflector has at it’s disposal. This is physically impossible and proves the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” false.

    (By the way, if we proceed this way, we’ll see that the “export” of energy accelerates, we’ll get 600, 900, 1350, 2025 and so on.)

    The calculation in case of another black body instead of a reflector is similar and leads to the same conclusion.

    P.S. The method used above is known as “reductio ad absurdum”. Wikipedia describes it as “a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate […] that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.”

  59. IMHO, this is not an argument between the “slayer” position and the WUWT crowd. I did not know who “slayers” were until the Willis “steel shell” post evolved. My understanding through my university physics and thermo courses has always been that a cold object simply cannot warm up a warmer object. That is the essence of the Clausian statement of the Second Law, That has always been my understanding even before I knew who the “slayers” were, and before I knew anything about the greenhouse effect. And a violation of the 2nd Law always leads to a violation of the 1st Law.. I have never seen one physics or thermo textbook state any modified versions of these laws to indicate otherwise. No I am not going to debate these issues, because that is not my point. My point is that there are many scientists/physicists who adhere to the long established laws of thermodynamics, which happen to coincide with the slayer position.

  60. Greg, how many times can you give this sort of example, be corrected by someone, and STILL give the same wrong answer the next time?

    “… makes our black body absorb those 600 and get warmer accordingly.”
    OK — tou did get that line right. The object is absorbing 600 W of reflected light and absorbing 800 W of electrical power, for a total of 1400 W.

    It now will be emitting 700 W each way (for a total of 1400 W). It will absorb 700 W of reflected light and 800 W of electrical power, for a total of 1500 W.

    Then 750 W each way. Then 775 W each way. Then 787.5 W each way. It asymptotically approaches 800 W each way, and everything is in balance. There is never 900 W each way. There is no run-away heating.

    [There would be a few details related to the finite heat capacity of the 1mx1m sheet. This would determine how long it would take to reach each of stages listed above, but won’t change the conclusion.]

  61. SkepticGoneWild says (July 19, 2013 at 5:16 pm): “My understanding through my university physics and thermo courses has always been that a cold object simply cannot warm up a warmer object.”

    Thanks, Skeptic. So I’ll put you down for “temp stays the same” in the “Yes, Virginia” thought experiment?

  62. tjfolkerts says (July 19, 2013 at 5:57 pm): “Greg, how many times can you give this sort of example, be corrected by someone, and STILL give the same wrong answer the next time?”

    One can also think of Greg’s setup as applying a perfect insulator to one side of the two-sided black body. Then all 800 W must radiate from one side.

  63. SkepticGoneWild says “My point is that there are many scientists/physicists who adhere to the long established laws of thermodynamics, which happen to coincide with the slayer position.”

    With due respect, you are misinterpreting the thermodynamics involved. The long established laws of physics do NOT coincide with the slayer position (at least not often).

    Consider these two points.
    1) The 2nd Law says that heat (the net flow of thermal energy) naturally goes from warmer to cooler. This in no way precludes some thermal energy from moving from a cooler object to a warmer object, as long as more thermal energy goes the other way. The laws of conduction and radiation guarantee that this will always be the case. (The ‘slayers’ typically misinterpret this law, insisting incorrectly that the word “net” should not be there and that NO energy can move from a cooler object to a warmer object).
    2) Cool objects can “assist” in warming a warmer object in conjunction with some other heater. Only the heater actually “heats” the warm object. The cool object limits the heat flow that would have occurred to EVEN COLDER objects. (The sun for the earth; the electric heater in Greg’s example above; a furnace for your house). So the cool walls of your house, in conjunction with the hot furnace, will keep your house warmer than if there were no walls (or poorly insulated walls). Similarly, the cool atmosphere, in conjunction with the hot sun, will keep the earth warmer than if the earth were radiating straight to space.

  64. tjfolkerts says (July 19, 2013 at 5:57 pm): ““… makes our black body absorb those 600 and get warmer accordingly.”
    OK — tou did get that line right. The object is absorbing 600 W of reflected light and absorbing 800 W of electrical power, for a total of 1400 W.”
    ========================================================

    I know this argument, it is false.

    It ignores that the body in my example has already been warmed by the first portion of reflected radiation (“greenhouse effect”). Of course, this “greenhouse effect” can never happen in reality, but you can not insist there is “greenhouse effect” and ignore the higher temperature it is supposed to cause.

    Just stick to the assumption of the “greenhouse effect”.

    Again, black bodies radiate according to their temperature.

    800 joule per second is only what holds our black body at a stable temperature initially and what it radiates initially. Of course, in reality it would never get warmer without additional source of energy, it is only the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” that “warms” it and leads to the absurd result.

    So, you could only add 600 to 800, if the body were still at it’s initial temperature, but it is not, because it has already been “warmed” by the first portion of reflected radiation, which was 400. Therefore it’s next temperature is determined by the temperature corresponding to 1200 (not to 800) and the “additional” 600 reflected back. I am sorry, but this is your “greenhouse effect”, not mine.

    As I said, the problem the proponents of the “greenhouse effect” can not overcome is that their “greenhouse warming” causes also more back radiation which causes more warming and so on and it can never stop.

    From my experience, some people debating this point of mine somehow forget that the whole calculation is done strictly under the assumption of the “greenhouse effect”, every single step of it.

  65. As for your supernovae post, I’d suggest go read an introductory article about them. ~cba

    http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/gc.html

    “When a massive star at the end of its life collapses to a neutron star, it radiates almost all of its binding energy in the form of neutrinos, most of which have energies in the range 10-30 MeV. These neutrinos come in all flavors, and are emitted over a timescale of several tens of seconds. The neutrino luminosity of a gravitational collapse-driven supernova is typically 100 times its optical luminosity.”

    http://snoplus.phy.queensu.ca/Supernova_Neutrinos.html

    “When a massive star collapses in a type II supernova explosion, more than 99% of its gravitational binding energy is released as neutrinos. This results in more neutrinos being produced in the span of a few seconds than are released in the rest of the star’s life combined.”

    http://physics.aps.org/story/v24/st4

    “Before a dying star explodes, nuclear reactions generate neutrinos that carry away an estimated 99 percent of the supernova’s total radiated energy. Neutrinos barely interact with matter, so most of them fly right through the star’s layers and reach Earth before any other signs of the event.”

    Educate yourself, sweetheart.

  66. Oops, forgot one more for you, cba.

    “All flavors of neutrinos and antineu-
    trinos from the neutrinospheres inside the proto-NS are thought
    to play at least two essential roles in successful SN explosions
    in the ‘‘delayed explosion’’ model. First, successive interactions
    between intensive flux of neutrinos and materials collapsing
    into the proto-NS deposit neutrino energy into the ejecta and thus
    revive the shock propagation, leading to a successful breakout
    through the iron core (Wilson 1985; Bethe & Wilson 1985). Sec-
    ond, in such a neutrino-powered SN explosion mechanism, the
    atmosphere of the proto-NS is heated by neutrinos at high en-
    tropy s/k=100~400 to form a ‘‘hot bubble’’ flowing out rap-
    idly behind the shock, which is called the neutrino-driven wind.
    This is a viable candidate site for the r-process (Woosley et al.
    1994).”

    “Otsuki et al. (2000) showed that neutrino heating occurs most
    effectively at r=30 km from the center of the collapsing core.
    We found in the same flow model analysis that it takes 3–4 ms
    for the material blowing off the surface from the proto-NS to
    reach 30 km. We discussed in
    [2] that neutrino emission is followed, until abruptly terminated by the BH formation, with the appearance of the apparent horizon in the first scenario. Finite time elapses before the BH forms, and the neutrino luminosity
    is cut off at 1–2 s (Burrows 1988). In the second scenario the
    cutoff time is delayed about 10 s for the formation of the proto-
    NS, followed by possibly a phase transition of softening of the
    equation of state of the core matter, and possibly later mass accretion onto the BH. Since the neutrino cutoff time 1–2 or
    10 s is larger than the heating timescale 3–4 ms, we can as-
    sume that the hot bubble can form in the neutrino-driven wind
    of Type II SNe that form BHs as remnants.
    The temperature of all flows of the neutrino-driven wind used
    in the present study reaches to T_9 ~=9 at t=3~4 ms. We adopt
    this temperature as the typical temperature at which neutrino
    heating is completed. The entropy of the hot bubble that is
    formed stays constant after this time. This justifies our assump-
    tion of constant entropy during the nucleosynthesis that follows.
    Our nucleosynthesis calculation starts from this initial tem-
    perature, and time zero refers to the time when the hot bubble
    reaches T_9=9 as displayed in Figure 1. It is to be noted that
    the time in this figure and all others we discuss in this paper is
    not the time after core collapse or core bounce. Flows of the
    neutrino-driven wind successively blow off until the neutrino
    luminosity is cut off at the time t=t_cut.”

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/634/1/534/pdf/0004-637X_634_1_534.pdf

    Now, unless I’m sorely mistaken, that paper and the links above say that during a supernova most of the gravitational binding energy is released in the form of neutrinos, and there is a process by which neutrino heating influences the formation of certain SN remnants, as well as being involved in r-nucleosynthesis during the explosion itself.

    So, cba, can you please share with the rest of the class your insight about where my understanding of SN processes is incorrect?

  67. SkepticGoneWild says (July 19, 2013 at 6:12 pm): “I’m not interested in thought experiments.”

    Would you be interested in a real experiment?

    Note that every experiment is a “thought experiment” until it’s actually carried out. Generally the experimenter has some idea/prediction, if only a guess, how the experiment will turn out. You’ve written enough that I can deduce your prediction, but feel free to make it explicit.

    BTW, there are textbook/handbooks that dispute your version of the Second Law. See here and a href=https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/#comment-1219848>here.

    Incidentally, I see you participated in the latter thread but apparently missed Willis’s references.

  68. Correcting HTML error in my previous comment:

    BTW, there are textbook/handbooks that dispute your version of the Second Law. See here and here.

  69. I am appalled at the silliness that seems to have taken over WUWT. In the past, I have strongly recommended this site to others, but this kind of smarmy, non-scientific exchange is far beneath the standard I had come to expect of WUWT.

    Example: Someone posting as “steveta_uk” suggests an experiment involving wrapping a lightbulb in aluminum foil, shiny side in. Exactly what purpose would be served by such an inane “experiment”? Clearly, this experiment would be meaningless as it has NOTHING in common with the misnamed “greenhouse effect” for the obvious reason that the lightbulb would be reflecting upon itself a heat source that is being continuously renewed from an outside source! This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the “greenhouse gas” theory of the solar-Earth-atmosphere system.

    Perhaps “steveta_uk” would like to take a crack at explaining:

    (1) Why greenhouse effect theory is a complete failure at predicting climate change?
    or,
    (2) Why ice core data clearly show that atmospheric carbon dioxide RESPONDS to climate warming and is not the CAUSE of climate warming,
    or,
    (3) Why, if water vapor is the primary and overwhelming “greenhouse gas” responsible for near-surface atmospheric warming (as claimed by GHE theory), a desert heat wave predicted during extremely dry (low water vapor) atmospheric conditions fails to materialize as a consequence of an influx of water vapor into the atmosphere?
    or, in a similar example,
    (4) Why when two continental (i.e., non-maritime) locations at the same latitude having climates that differ significantly in their atmospheric water vapor content (one desert, one humid), it is the location with the desert climate that posts the consistently HIGHER temperatures? If atmospheric “greenhouse” gas “back radiation” theory is correct and water vapor is such a potent greenhouse gas, how can that be? Hint: Please illustrate your explanation using one of the many “back radiation warming” graphics commonly used to explain “greenhouse gas” warming as the basis for your explanation.

    If, in fact, “back radiation” is responsible for increasing surface temperature, and thus, subsequent radiation from Earth’s surface must increase, what prevents this cyclic process from continuously warming Earth’s surface in a runaway process? At what point does “back radiation” stop warming the surface?

    Finally, doesn’t it strike defenders of GHE theory the least bit odd that, no matter what difference is claimed between what preliminary (in absence of GHE warming) computations predict Earth’s surface temperature should be and what it is thought to be, that difference can be explained by a warming process that miraculously warms just enough to account for that difference, no more, no less?

    Isn’t it possible that estimates of Earth’s surface temperature (in the absence of a greenhouse effect) might just be wrong when their reconciliation with reality is dependent on this miraculously clever “greenhouse effect” that knows just how much warmth is needed? That such reconciliation is so readily accepted among those who claim scientific credentials is remarkable, given predictions for contributions to climate from a greenhouse effect are based on unrealistic assumptions piled on top of unproven theory in a grossly simplified climate universe.

    How much serious effort has been expended trying to understand global climate & climate change in the absence of any reliance on a “greenhouse effect”?

    Pierre R. Latour, PhD, has given this question serious consideration. His conclusions are worth a read: Greenhouse Gas Theory is False (July 8, 2013) at http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=latourp&date=130708

  70. tjfolkerts says:
    July 19, 2013 at 6:16 pm
    “The 2nd Law says that heat (the net flow of thermal energy) naturally goes from warmer to cooler. This in no way precludes some thermal energy from moving from a cooler object to a warmer object, as long as more thermal energy goes the other way. The laws of conduction and radiation guarantee that this will always be the case. (The ‘slayers’ typically misinterpret this law, insisting incorrectly that the word “net” should not be there and that NO energy can move from a cooler object to a warmer object).”
    ===================================================================

    The word “net” is simply not there. It is in your postings and in many others, but in the historical statements it is not there. Hence what you and some others are presenting as the 2nd Law is not the 2nd Law.

    Still, your pseudo “the 2nd Law” can be valid, but you need to prove it, what no one managed to do.


  71. Max
    So, cba, can you please share with the rest of the class your insight about where my understanding of SN processes is incorrect?

    I did not see where your references stated that the neutrinos significantly interacted with anything on their way out of the star. Your claim that there is a greenhouse effect there and nowhere on Earth is where your problem exists. Talking about a massive compression shock wave rippling thru a large dying star and generating tremendous amounts of hydrogen fusion outside the core where hydrogen concentration is still very high is not relevent to anything about what is referred to as the greenhouse gas effect.

  72. tjfolkerts says:
    July 19, 2013 at 6:16 pm
    “Cool objects can “assist” in warming a warmer object in conjunction with some other heater. Only the heater actually “heats” the warm object. The cool object limits the heat flow that would have occurred to EVEN COLDER objects. (The sun for the earth; the electric heater in Greg’s example above; a furnace for your house). So the cool walls of your house, in conjunction with the hot furnace, will keep your house warmer than if there were no walls (or poorly insulated walls). Similarly, the cool atmosphere, in conjunction with the hot sun, will keep the earth warmer than if the earth were radiating straight to space.”
    ==============================================================

    This “assistance” is the funniest argument, sorry. Just think of it: if I let my dog “assist” by pushing the air condition button, is my dog now cooling my house “in conjunction” with the air conditioner? Dogs cool houses? “Greendog effect”?

    The warmists’ position is that colder objects supply energy to warmer objects, not just “assist” in an unrelated way.

  73. Bob Webster says (July 19, 2013 at 7:32 pm): “Pierre R. Latour, PhD, has given this question serious consideration. His conclusions are worth a read: Greenhouse Gas Theory is False…”

    Thanks Bob. Congrats on getting that link through moderation. I’ll put you down for “same” in the “Yes, Virginia” sweepstakes shall I, then?

    So far we have:

    johnmarshall: (presume “same” from comments)
    Big Don: don’t know
    Greg: (presume “same” from comments)
    AlecM: (presume “same” from comments)
    SkepticGoneWild: (presume “same” from comments)
    Bob Webster: same (he refers to Latour, who is on record)

    Stay tuned.

  74. Bob, I’ll take a few quick stabs at some of your questions/comments:

    “… the lightbulb would be reflecting upon itself a heat source that is being continuously renewed from an outside source! This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the “greenhouse gas” theory of the solar-Earth-atmosphere system.
    The earth IS renewed by an outside source .. the sun!

    (2) Why ice core data clearly show that atmospheric carbon dioxide RESPONDS to climate warming and is not the CAUSE of climate warming … “
    CO2 can be both a casue and an effect of warming. The “natural condition” seems to be that warming leads to more CO2 which leads to some more warming (ie some degree of positive feedback). But the conditions in the last ~100 years ARE different from the past. The is an “unnatural” source of CO2 (ie people). This source of CO2 does not depend on the earth coming out of a previous glacial period. Surely you are not saying that the CO2 rise in the last ~ 100 years is the RESULT of warming?!

    ” … two continental locations at the same latitude …”
    Phoenix and Atlanta fit the bill pretty well. There is some basic data here:
    http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/arizona/phoenix/
    http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/georgia/atlanta/

    Yes, Phoenix is hotter. However …
    1) Phoenix is significantly less cloudy, allowing in more solar energy, which by itself should make phoenix (and desert locations in general) warmer than Atlanta (or similar locations).
    2) The difference between high and low is greater in Phoenix. The lack of GHGs mean more effective cooling at night.

    “what prevents this cyclic process from continuously warming Earth’s surface in a runaway process?”
    See the comment above to Greg. The infinite series converges, with a finite warming from added GHGs. There are other sorts of feedbacks that could magnify the effect (like melting ice changing earths albedo, or melting permafrost releasing yet more CO2), but even these can’t lead to temperatures spiraling upward toward infinity.

    “… this miraculously clever “greenhouse effect” that knows just how much warmth is needed?
    This seems an oddly backwards way of thinking. The GHGs do provide some warming via backradiation (or “reduction of cooling” if you want to be picky). Fortunately the theory does give the right ballpark for surface temperatures, whereas a nonGHG atmosphere cannot come even close to the right temperatures. I find that “fortunate for science”, not “miraculous”.

    ” Pierre R. Latour, PhD, has given this question serious consideration.
    Unfortunately, his “serious consideration” is good occasionally, but overall it is seriously lacking.

    ********************************************

    Clearly we are not going to resolve these issues here. I just wanted to provide some food for thought to show that your objects are not “fatal” to climate science.

  75. gbaikie says: July 19, 2013 at 8:05 am
    “The fundamental aspect is idea that only the radiant effects of greenhouse gases
    can increase the average temperature of a planet.”

    This is a strawman argument. No serious scientist would say such a thing. LOTS of factors influence the surface temperature of the earth (and you go on to point out some of them).

    I don’t think it’s strawman.
    Let’s take a planet called Mars.
    You probably think the only way to increase the average temperature of Mars is
    by added more CO2 gas or some other greenhouse gas- like say, Methane.

    I don’t think increasing Mars rotation [going from from 24 to say, 12 hours] it would affects it’s average temperature by a significant amount.
    Though I do think if you increase our Moon’s rotation [had day which was 24 hours long] that this would increase it’s average temperature by a significance amount.

    I think if you added liquid water to Mars you would increase it’s temperature.
    And also if added enough water to Venus, it would decrease it’s average temperature.

    With Mars the amount water could as little a 1 meter depth in terms of globally. And with Venus
    probably the amount of water which equal to about 10 meters of depth globally. With Mars it’s assuming the water would somehow not disappear under the surface and/or just pile up at poles. Best to start by put all water at Mars equatorial/tropical region.
    The water on Venus because of temperature would start as water vapor. And even if water starts is in form of ice on Mars, it still eventually warm Mars.
    And more than this amount water on either planet will have a even more significant effect [cool Venus further, and warm Mars more].
    And I think if you add more CO2 to Mars, it doesn’t increase global temperature but would create a larger CO2 polar caps. With more CO2 [say more twice current amount of the current 2.5 x 10^16 kg of mostly CO2, the increased sublimation of CO2 at pole would slightly increase polar winter temperature- so have some regional affect but not significantly affect global temperature.
    It’s possible the increase of atmosphere [of any kind] could increase the amount dust in atmosphere, and increased dust could have global warming affect.

  76. Greg says: “This “assistance” is the funniest argument, sorry. … The warmists’ position is that colder objects supply energy to warmer objects, not just “assist” in an unrelated way.”

    I’m sorry that you have such trouble understanding basic physics, thinking that such physics is “funny”. The colder object DOES supple some energy to the warmer object, which is precisely an “assist” in a related way. Of course, this is all colloquial language, which could be made more formal. But heat (the NET flow of thermal energy) still flows from warmer to cooler; energy is still conserved; the laws of thermodynamics are still obeyed. There is nothing in the GHE that goes against the laws of physics.

    Of course, there are many OTHER factors in addition to the GHE that affect climate. CO2 is simply one of many effects that combine to determine temperatures.

  77. gbaikie says: “You probably think the only way to increase the average temperature of Mars is by added more CO2 gas or some other greenhouse gas- like say, Methane.”

    You would be wrong! :-)

    Besides some of the more obvious ways (like changing the albedo), you could warm Mars by adding more non-GHGs as well!

    The GHE involves GHGs at the “top of the atmosphere” (TOA) radiating poorly to space because it is cold there. The physics of lapse rates will ensure that the higher you go, the colder it will be (within certain limits). Adding EITHER GHGs or nonGHGs will raise the TOA. So adding either GHGs or nonGHGs to Mars will raise the surface temperature.

    For earth, doubling the N2 in the atmosphere would have a bigger effect than doubling the CO2. But there is no chance of doubling the N2, while it is possible to double the CO2.

  78. Here ya go, cba, which I assume stands for “can’t be asked”, as in “can’t be asked to read”, yes?

    “All flavors of neutrinos and antineu-
    trinos from the neutrinospheres inside the proto-NS are thought
    to play at least two essential roles in successful SN explosions
    in the ‘‘delayed explosion’’ model. First, successive interactions
    between intensive flux of neutrinos and materials collapsing
    into the proto-NS deposit neutrino energy into the ejecta and thus
    revive the shock propagation, leading to a successful breakout
    through the iron core (Wilson 1985; Bethe & Wilson 1985). Sec-
    ond, in such a neutrino-powered SN explosion mechanism, the
    atmosphere of the proto-NS is heated by neutrinos at high en-
    tropy s/k=100~400 to form a ‘‘hot bubble’’ flowing out rap-
    idly behind the shock, which is called the neutrino-driven wind.
    This is a viable candidate site for the r-process (Woosley et al.
    1994).

    “Otsuki et al. (2000) showed that neutrino heating occurs most
    effectively at r=30 km from the center of the collapsing core
    .
    We found in the same flow model analysis that it takes 3–4 ms
    for the material blowing off the surface from the proto-NS to
    reach 30 km. We discussed in
    [2] that neutrino emission is followed, until abruptly terminated by the BH formation, with the appearance of the apparent horizon in the first scenario. Finite time elapses before the BH forms, and the neutrino luminosity
    is cut off at 1–2 s (Burrows 1988). In the second scenario the
    cutoff time is delayed about 10 s for the formation of the proto-
    NS, followed by possibly a phase transition of softening of the
    equation of state of the core matter, and possibly later mass accretion onto the BH. Since the neutrino cutoff time 1–2 or
    10 s is larger than the heating timescale 3–4 ms, we can as-
    sume that the hot bubble can form in the neutrino-driven wind
    of Type II SNe
    that form BHs as remnants.
    The temperature of all flows of the neutrino-driven wind used
    in the present study reaches to T_9 ~=9 at t=3~4 ms. We adopt
    this temperature as the typical temperature at which neutrino
    heating is completed
    . The entropy of the hot bubble that is
    formed stays constant after this time. This justifies our assump-
    tion of constant entropy during the nucleosynthesis that follows.
    Our nucleosynthesis calculation starts from this initial tem-
    perature, and time zero refers to the time when the hot bubble
    reaches T_9=9 as displayed in Figure 1. It is to be noted that
    the time in this figure and all others we discuss in this paper is
    not the time after core collapse or core bounce. Flows of the
    neutrino-driven wind successively blow off until the neutrino
    luminosity is cut off at the time t=t_cut.”

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/634/1/534/pdf/0004-637X_634_1_534.pdf

    Perhaps bolding the references to neutrino heating will help?

  79. Max
    I haven’t been paying attention for some years. Have we physically detected any neutrinos ?

  80. ” tjfolkerts says:
    July 19, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    gbaikie says: “You probably think the only way to increase the average temperature of Mars is by added more CO2 gas or some other greenhouse gas- like say, Methane.”

    You would be wrong! :-)

    Besides some of the more obvious ways (like changing the albedo), you could warm Mars by adding more non-GHGs as well! ”

    Mars Earth Ratio (Mars/Earth)
    Bond albedo 0.250 0.306 0.817
    Visual geometric albedo 0.170 0.367 0.463
    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
    Moon Earth Ratio (Moon/Earth)
    Bond albedo 0.11 0.306 0.360
    Visual geometric albedo 0.12 0.367 0.330
    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

    Mars does not appear very bright due to it’s distance from Sun and though the surface material is not general as dark as Moon, it would appear less bright.
    I don’t think if you made Mars the surface lamp soot black that the day time surface
    temperature would much warmer and it would not affect night time surface temperature.
    So I would say maybe at most, 2 C warmer average global temperature.
    Naturally, Earth from space is fairly brilliant in comparison to either Mars or the Moon.
    So if one made blacker than the Moon, it would have a slight effect.
    And visually, it might be a stunning effect.

    As far as adding more non-GHGs.
    I think methane may warm it a bit more than non-GHGs. I think changing it lamp black could
    be a bigger effect.
    But If one means adding something like the Earth’s 1 atm of atmosphere,
    this type of scale of atmosphere will dim the Mars surface considerably so that day time surface receives 100 watts [or more] reduction per square meter, so daytime surface temperature would be lower [*and* make the place “feel” really cold].
    But perhaps overall it would increase night time temperatures.
    I would guess that, Mars’ lower gravity than Earth, reduces amount heat which is transferred [via convection] to atmosphere- but perhaps not- or it’s not as a significant factor as think it could be.
    But with a much more massive Mars atmosphere, it seems you would get much more powerful winds [the wind would increase convection, but more importantly, you get much more dust].

    “For earth, doubling the N2 in the atmosphere would have a bigger effect than doubling the CO2. But there is no chance of doubling the N2, while it is possible to double the CO2.”

    I think doubling Earth’s N2, would cool Earth. Reduces amount solar flux which reaches the surface. I think halving it, could make it a bit warmer, though regions far from bodies of water, would get cooler at night. [Siberia much colder].
    But tropics of Earth is 40% of global surface area and up to 38 latitude north and south is half the world surface area and with our current ocean and land mass configuration, it seems to me this would make this region much warmer and hence in terms global temperature, a higher average temperature. It seems with less atmosphere and greater potential temperature differences, one could have more storms. So not as uniform a temperature, but a bit warmer.

  81. steveta_uk says:
    July 19, 2013 at 5:12 am

    Erata: “ths source of the heat to it could not possibly get hotter” -> “the source of the heat so it could not possibly get hotter.

    Yore erata needs an erratum because you spelled errata rong. It’s the reflexive form of Muphry’s Law.

  82. cba says (19 July, 2:11pm: “the startup inrush current surge can easily be 10 times that of normal operating power dissipation and is when the usual light bulb failure happens.”

    I’ve always thought this was the major factor in bulb failure, encouraged in this by the fact that I have some 12V halogen bulbs in place that have been there almost 20 years. I put this down to the fact that they’re fed from transformers, which reduce the shock.

  83. Did anyone even bother to check that the example worked through is exactly the “steel Greenhouse” proposal and can be found in the textbook – – page 24 number 1026 – :-

    Problems and Solutions on Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics (Major American Universities Ph.D. Qualifying Questions and Solutions) Volume 5 Edited by Young-Kuo Lim. ???

    Read the book – you can find it Google Books and preview enough of it to see this example.

    This is accurate physics and mathematics where the result is derived from first principles without any assumptions.

    If it challenges your preconceived ideas test it out and see which one is actually right – you may be surprised.

    Everyone should understand this is a sound result – even more so as it makes no assumptions about the answer unlike the assumption made in the “Steel Greenhouse”.

    Proper science and mathematics require no assumption about the answer.

  84. Anthony that is the ultimate cop out. you do not bother because you know it is not possible. If you could fame and fortune would be yours.
    And rgb calling the sun the ultimate GHE could be confusion with something else but certainly not any GHE.

    REPLY: Fame and fortune as a member of the “slayers” clown consensus? I think not. – Anthony

  85. And you still have not explained why a desert is hotter than a rainforest within the concept of the GHE.

  86. tjfolkerts says:
    July 19, 2013 at 9:03 pm
    “The colder object DOES supple some energy to the warmer object, “

    ==========================================================

    This is absolutely impossible, exactly as in case of a reflector.

    In my example above, if we replace the reflector with a blackbody at 0K initially, in 2 seconds the system will export more energy than it has at it’s disposal, an absurd result that proves the assumption false.

  87. tjfolkerts provides some very civil (thank you) comments on my own. While I’m currently traveling in the northeast and have limited access to my resources (probably shouldn’t have jumped in under the circumstances), there are a few observations regarding tjforkerts comments that I can provide.

    I wrote:
    “… the lightbulb would be reflecting upon itself a heat source that is being continuously renewed from an outside source! This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the “greenhouse gas” theory of the solar-Earth-atmosphere system.”

    tjfolkerts responded: “The earth IS renewed by an outside source .. the sun!”

    My reply: Perhaps I should have been more clear. The outside source I referred to was “outside” the lightbulb system and is the source of electric power supplied to the outlet where this “experiment” is connected to the power grid. The “source” of the radiation is the filament within the lightbulb. The electricity supplied to that filament is outside the system and completely unaffected by the foil! It will continue to supply energy to the filament so long as the bill is kept current! This is NOT analogous in any way to the solar-Earth-atmosphere system.

    I wrote:

    “(2) Why ice core data clearly show that atmospheric carbon dioxide RESPONDS to climate warming and is not the CAUSE of climate warming … “

    tjfolkerts responded: “CO2 can be both a casue and an effect of warming…”

    My reply: But THAT is the question in dispute. What “warming” are we discussing? Atmospheric warming or Earth surface warming? No dispute that atmospheric material can be warmed by solar radiation. But (a) to what extent and by what mechanism (convection? surface contact conduction? radiation?) is the atmosphere warmed by Earth during daylight hours as shown on typical charts illustrating greenhouse warming theory (which typically only address radiation), and, (b) what process allows the warmed atmosphere (regardless of source of warming) to increase Earth’s surface temperature (the 2nd LAW – not theory – contention). BTW, the 2-way notions, even if accurate, cannot ADD heat, i.e., you cannot explain away a violation of the 2nd Law so frivolously – the 2nd Law does not limit its application to any particular type of heat transfer, nor does it grant atmospheric exceptions.

    tkfolkerts reply continued: “… the conditions in the last ~100 years ARE different from the past. The is an ‘unnatural’ source of CO2 (ie people).”

    My response: I’ve always been fascinated by the idea that humanity is somehow “not natural” – but that is for another discussion and beside the point.

    tjfolkerts continued: “… Surely you are not saying that the CO2 rise in the last ~ 100 years is the RESULT of warming?!

    My response: Why not? Natural processes have caused warm and cold cycles (multi-decadal shifts, century periods, ice age/interglacial cycles, ice epochs, ice eras) over every meaningful time period for climate. Why, suddenly, must those natural processes be replaced with a theory that has yet to be demonstrated? On what basis do we reject the likelihood that multi-decadal warming trends of the past century are not perfectly normal today? And on what basis do we reject the strong likelihood that we are experiencing a modern warming period that is just as natural as well recorded past warming periods?

    I wrote: ” … two continental locations at the same latitude …”

    tjfolkerts replied: “Phoenix and Atlanta fit the bill pretty well… Yes, Phoenix is hotter. However …
    1) Phoenix is significantly less cloudy, allowing in more solar energy, which by itself should make phoenix (and desert locations in general) warmer than Atlanta (or similar locations).”

    My response: So changes in surface temperatures are strongly influenced by changes in cloud cover. This is key to the Svensmark theory and should provide ample rationale for thoroughly examining this climate influence. Yet Svensmark is ridiculed by “the usual suspects” … but I digress from the point.

    tfjolkerts continues: “2) The difference between high and low is greater in Phoenix. The lack of GHGs mean more effective cooling at night.”

    My response: The lack of clouds might just dominate the difference at night. My point was that the “climate” in these two areas have a striking difference in the dominate “greenhouse” gas, water vapor, yet the greater heat is observed where that greenhouse gas is extremely low.

    I wrote: “what prevents this cyclic process from continuously warming Earth’s surface in a runaway process?”

    tjfolkerts replied: “… The infinite series converges, with a finite warming from added GHGs. There are other sorts of feedbacks that could magnify the effect… but even these can’t lead to temperatures spiraling upward toward infinity.”

    My response: I’d love to pursue this point further, but cannot as my time and travel resources are limited. However, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume this claim is accurate and a cooler atmosphere can, somehow make Earth’s surface WARMER (as opposed to reducing the rate of cooling). If that is the case, then an upper limit can be computed to just how warm Earth can get from this claimed greenhouse effect. What is that limit? How does it compare with past climate, in particular, when Earth is not within an Ice Epoch of and Ice Era and global temperatures average roughly 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) higher than at present (e.g., Earth’s climate when dinosaurs reigned for about 200 million years)? Over the past 500-600 million years, the correlation between atmosphere CO2 and climate is sufficiently poor to discredit a causative link and should suggest we look elsewhere to understand those factors that are responsible for Earth’s surface temperature.

    I wrote: “… this miraculously clever “greenhouse effect” that knows just how much warmth is needed? … Pierre R. Latour, PhD, has given this question serious consideration.”

    tjfolkerts reply: “This seems an oddly backwards way of thinking…”

    My response: Why is it “oddly backwards” to suspect a “back of the envelope” calculation based on limited factors to compute a disparity between observed global temperature (a hard enough measurement to pin down) and what that calculation implies are the only possible sources for global temperature other than the misnamed “greenhouse effect”? If there is anything oddly backward, it is the quick acceptance of a theory that strains credibility on the basis of calculations of what “should be” rooted in assumptions and a background of immature climate science knowledge. Climate and climate change are extremely complex and dependent upon so many factors that are poorly understood. Even if we could accurately model the Earth’s climate dynamics, collecting sufficient data to feed the model would be extremely costly and difficult. Current models assume the GHE Theory and yet fail miserably at predicting current climate from past conditions (See article at WUWT quoting Freeman Dyson https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/freeman-dyson-speaks-out-about-climate-science-and-fudge/)

    tjfolkerts continued: “The GHGs do provide some warming via backradiation (or ‘reduction of cooling’ if you want to be picky).”

    My response: But you assume the greenhouse effect to prove the greenhouse effect! You claim the temperature difference can be satisfied by a greenhouse effect, and use the assumed greenhouse effect to prove the difference is the result of a greenhouse effect. This is not science, it is science fiction. The semantics should not be treated so cavalierly. It is not being “picky” to be accurate and clear. There is a distinct difference between a “reduction in cooling” and “warming” – the former reduces heat loss while the latter adds heat. This is the very crux of the contentious issue. To suggest that a reduction in the rate of cooling is the same as warming is seriously misleading.

    jffolkerts continues: “Fortunately the theory does give the right ballpark for surface temperatures, whereas a nonGHG atmosphere cannot come even close to the right temperatures.”

    Latour’s excellent article wherein he does exactly what you claim cannot be done uses first principles of sound physics. He does not have to rely upon unproven THEORY (greenhouse effect WARMING of Earth’s surface) that depends upon wholly unrealistic assumptions about Earth’s characteristics (flat Earth models, blackbodies, etc.).

    tjfolkerts continues: “Unfortunately, his ‘serious consideration’ is good occasionally, but overall it is seriously lacking.”

    My response: Perhaps you’d like to explain where Latour is “seriously lacking” – a pretty hefty accusation in the absence of any explanation.

    tjfolkerts end with: “Clearly we are not going to resolve these issues here. I just wanted to provide some food for thought to show that your objects are not ‘fatal’ to climate science.”

    My response: Again, I appreciate the civility of tjfolkerts in this exchange. I’ve tried to respond in kind. And I agree that we are not likely to come to see this issue the same based on this kind of exchange. However, I strongly believe that if commenters are civil and respect differing views (the essence of real scientific inquiry), then we can all learn from each other and move the science forward. The points raised by tjfolkerts are fair and certainly reasonable from the perspective taken – and while our civility doesn’t make either of us correct, it makes the exchange worthwhile.

  88. “And you still have not explained why a desert is hotter than a rainforest within the concept of the GHE.”

    Rainforests tend to have a higher average temperature. Deserts can get cooler at night.

    Death Valley highest daytime temperature: “134 °F (57 °C) on July 10, 1913, at Furnace Creek, which is currently the hottest temperature ever recorded.”….
    “The summer of 1917 had 52 days where temperature reached 120 °F (49 °C) or above with 43 of them consecutive.” …
    “The lowest temperature recorded at Greenland Ranch was 15 °F (−9 °C) in January 1913.”
    “The mean annual temperature for Death Valley (Furnace Creek Weather Station) is 77.2 °F (25.1 °C) with an average high in January of around 67 °F (19 °C) and 116 °F (47 °C) in July.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley

    Generally, tropical rainforest:
    “The average yearly temperature is approximately 80 °F (26 °C) but the temperature can range from 68 °F (20 °C) to 93 °F (34 °C).”
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_yearly_tropical_rain_forest_temperature
    So hottest place on planet has average yearly temperature of 77.2 °F and generally rainforest have about average of 80 °F.
    Or it tends to be much warmer at night in tropical paradises.

    “What is the coldest temperature recorded in Singapore?
    The lowest minimum temperature ever recorded in the month of December is 20.6 deg C ( on 2 Dec 1964), while the lowest temperature ever recorded (since record began in 1929) is 19.4 deg C (on 31 Jan 1934).
    Cool weather over Singapore are caused by the following conditions :
    i ) periods of cloudy to overcast weather accompanied by rain which blocks out the heat from the sun
    ii ) season and prevailing wind
    Singapore’s average annual rainfall is 2357.8 mm. ”
    http://www.weather.gov.sg/wip/web/home/faq
    “Singapore is 1 degree north of the equator. Singapore’s climate is classified as tropical rainforest climate (Köppen climate classification Af), with no true distinct seasons. Owing to its geographical location and maritime exposure, its climate is characterized by uniform temperature and pressure, high humidity and abundant rainfall. The average annual rainfall is around 2,340 mm (92.1 in). The highest 24-hour rainfall figures ever recorded in history was 512 mm (20.2 in) (1978), 467 mm (18.4 in) (1969) and 366 mm (14.4 in) (19 December 2006). The temperature hovers around a diurnal range of a minimum of 23 °C (73.4 °F) and a maximum of 32 °C (89.6 °F). May is the hottest month of the year in Singapore, followed by April. This is due to light winds and strong sunshine during those months. The highest recorded temperature is 36.0 °C (96.8 °F) on 26 March 1998. The lowest recorded temperature is 19.4 °C (66.9 °F) on 31 January 1934. Temperature often goes above 33.5 °C (92.3 °F) and can reach 35 °C (95 °F) at times.

    Relative humidity has a diurnal range in the high 90s in the early morning to around 60% in the mid-afternoon, but does go below 50% at times.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Singapore

    So in tropical rainforests you can run around without any clothes, but without clothes in deserts, you could freeze.

  89. Gary,

    Please. Science of Dumb? Er… I mean “Doom”? I visited that site. I argued with him under the name “Jonathan” in March of this year. Those equations are simple heat transfer equations which you will find in any thermo or physics textbook. They do not invalidate the 2nd Law. I challenged Mr. Dumb to find me a textbook problem example which indicates a cooler body warming up a warmer body. Not just an equation, but a worked up problem with real numbers. He could not provide one. There are none.

  90. george e. smith says:
    Bryan, I am going to assume that English is NOT your native language. You clearly didn’t read what I wrote; to whit;

    “””””….. but the terminal Voltage increases, just as if the internal resistance has increased (it has)……”””””

    Doesn’t say one word about increasing the Temperature of a semiconductor.

    I believe I said that the terminal VOLTAGE increases.

    I believe I said that the CURRENT flowing stays constant.

    I believe that Voltage times current equals power.

    I believe I said the applied power increases.

    I believe if you put more power into ANYTHING, it will get hotter.

    I believe that Voltage divided by current is (one measure of) RESISTANCE. (not necessarily Ohmic).

    I believe that a higher VOLTAGE divided by a constant CURRENT implies a higher RESISTANCE..

    And finally, I believe that if you made your first LED (light emitting diode) prior to June 1966, that you probably do know more about LEDs than I do.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    George if something gets hotter then its temperature has increased.
    You say;
    “just as if the internal resistance has increased (it has)…”
    “I believe if you put more power into ANYTHING, it will get hotter.”

    My simple observation is that since the LED is made from semicondor material then in this case its resistance will go down.
    This cannot be squared with your statement above.

    Read the following article or any similar source on the topic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity

  91. gbaikie says: “I don’t think if you made Mars the surface lamp soot black that the day time surface
    temperature would much warmer

    As a ballpark figure, Mars now absorbs ~ 75% of the incoming solar energy. Making it perfectly black would change that to 100%. Since temperature is proportional to P^0.25 and power has gone up by a factor of ~ 100/75, the temperature would go up by a factor of ~ 100/75^0.25 = ~ 7.5 %. So if the average is ~ 220 K now, it could increase by ~ 16 K. (Again, these are rough estimates that ignore lots of details that could change the results a bit.)

    gbaikie says: “I think methane may warm it a bit more than non-GHGs.”
    Mole for mole, adding GHGs has more impact than adding non-GHGs, so I agree that adding a given amount of methane (or CO2) would have more impact than the same amount of N2 (or O2).

    The basic argument is related to the lapse rate. Adding more N2 would raise the CO2 on average. Since the CO2 is now radiating from a higher altitude where it will be cooler, it will radiate less, so the ground will have to radiate more to compensate. (There are even plenty of people who incorrectly argue that mass alone causes warming, even without the effect of the GHGS.)

    More N2 would have a minimal impact on the solar energy reaching the surface. This would create a minimal cooling effect, which would be overpowered by the lapse-rate warming effect.

  92. tjfolkerts says:
    July 20, 2013 at 7:51 am
    “Since the CO2 is now radiating from a higher altitude where it will be cooler, it will radiate less, so the ground will have to radiate more to compensate.”

    You are confusing the behavious of a blackbody, which radiates less when it is cooler, with the behaviour of a gas molecule, which will only radiate on its spectral lines. The entire argument of CO2AGW is based around the absorption and re-emission of photons of exactly those frequencies; and as I never tire to assert, Kirchhoff’s Law states that in local thermal equilibrium, thermalization equals dethermalization; so the photons that the CO2 molecules high up in the atmosphere absorb and re-emit, and which mostly come from lower atmosphere layers, are already of a frequency of those spectral lines and the temperature of the CO2 molecule that captures them plays no rolw at all in the process.

  93. “baikie says: “I don’t think if you made Mars the surface lamp soot black that the day time surface
    temperature would much warmer”
    As a ballpark figure, Mars now absorbs ~ 75% of the incoming solar energy. Making it perfectly black would change that to 100%. Since temperature is proportional to P^0.25 and power has gone up by a factor of ~ 100/75, the temperature would go up by a factor of ~ 100/75^0.25 = ~ 7.5 %. So if the average is ~ 220 K now, it could increase by ~ 16 K. (Again, these are rough estimates that ignore lots of details that could change the results a bit.) ”

    What could be done is take dry brownish red sand and carbon and expose them to sunlight
    on Earth which is around 500 to 600 watts per square meter. And measure their temperature.

    On Mars the ground in sunlight near noon get about 80 F.

    What I did, was I have some brownish sand [probably more reflective as compared to Mars regolith].
    And took 3 barbecue briquets and crushed them into small pieces. And put them on table outside.
    each sample about 6 by 6″ area and 1/8th to 1/4″ deep.
    Right now it’s cloudy [looks like it might even rain- unusual weather for southern calif in summer, but cloudy in morning is normal and probably burn off. Now 8:30 am. Maybe direct sun will appear by 10 or 11 am. And they are now 68 F.
    So if and when sand is 80 F [26.6 C] what will the temperature of crushed briquets be?
    I think there more advantage of briquets warming quicker, due to it being black and due to lower specific heat [plus sand is a bit damp]. Plus if sun come out [unless it’s as early as around 10 am] I will have more than 600 watts per square meter.
    Despite this I don’t think there will a temperature difference more than 5 C.
    And air temperature has been reaching about 80 F, so the effect of air should be minor, unless surface temperature gets above 90 F [I forget it check once gets to 80 F].
    Different color painted cars:
    http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/cartemp/

  94. It’s already 3 C difference. Sand [still damp] 20 C and crushed briquets 23 C.
    And still cloudy. 8:55 am

  95. “Still, your pseudo “the 2nd Law” can be valid, but you need to prove it, what no one managed to do.”

    It is you, greg, with the pseudo 2nd Law. The “net” concept is there. It is reinforced in the modern statistical mechanics statement of the 2nd Law in terms of entropy and probabilities. It takes almost a willful misreading to say that no energy can move from colder to warmer.

    The 2nd Law is fundamentally about probabilities. There is a chance that an atom/molecule/solid will emit a photon. The probability increases if the atom/molecule/solid has more energy. A hotter atom/molecule/solid has more energy on average. So on average, more photons with higher energy will move from a hot atom to a cool atom, than from a cool atom to a hot atom. (The same general idea applies to collisions & conduction).

    Energy moves randomly from any atom to any other atom. The odds just favor the transfers from warmer to cooler.

  96. gbaikie,

    Experiments are always a good place to start. :-)

    I was calculating a ‘global average’ change. The difference could be greater during the day due to sunlight. On the other hand, there would be local cooling effects from conduction/convection, which would dampen any differences. So it is tough to be too precise predicting the changes for small patches like that.

  97. Dirk says July 20, 2013 at 7:57 am:
    ” You are confusing the behavious of a blackbody, which radiates less when it is cooler, with the behaviour of a gas molecule, which will only radiate on its spectral lines.”</em.

    Let me try to be more clear about the physics.

    The blackbody curve sets the maximum possible thermal radiation. This curve gets smaller and shifts to longer wavelengths as the temperature drops.

    The specific material determines how close to that theoretical maximum will actually be created by a 'glowing object'. A material like water with a high emissivity (~ 0.96) will emit a spectrum quite close to the theoretical blackbody curve. A material like polished aluminum with a low emissivity (~ 0.05) will hardly emit any thermal iR.

    CO2 has bands where it emits well (eg near 15 um) and other bands where it emits poorly. In the bands where it emits well, it will emit about like a blackbody. in the bands where it emits poorly, it will hardly emit any thermal radiation. (Put another way, the emissivity varies dramatically depending on the wavelength you are talking about). But this radiation is still limited by the "envelop" of the blackbody curve.

    Combine all this, and warm CO2 does indeed emit more thermal iR than cool CO2.

    “Kirchhoff’s Law states that in local thermal equilibrium, thermalization equals dethermalization”
    You are missing one key idea, which is that the atmosphere will (almost) always be cooler as you go higher. If the CO2 in a region absorbs some specific wavelength with 90% efficiency, it will also emit with 90% efficiency (Kirchhoff’s Law). However, as thermal energy is working its way up through the atmosphere, CO2 at any given level would be efficiently absorbing the “hot bright IR” from below and efficiently emitting “cold, dim IR” upward in its place.

    So yes, the CO2 molecules still emit 15 um photons no matter what the temperature, but the cooler CO2 molecules emit fewer of them. So CO2 DOES have an impact on the spectrum.

    Check out MODTRAN: http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.html
    Try looking down from various altitudes. (Maybe remove everything but CO2 to make things simpler). Near the surface (say 1 km up) the CO2 absorbs the surface IR, but replaces it with similar IR since it is a similar temperature. Go to 2km or 5 km or 20 km. The IR in the CO2 bands will keep decreasing as the temperature keeps decreasing.

  98. Maybe (Wicki’s definition) of Fick’s Law is of some help here:

    Fick’s first law relates the diffusive flux to the concentration under the assumption of steady state. It postulates that the flux goes from regions of high concentration to regions of low concentration, with a magnitude that is proportional to the concentration gradient (spatial derivative).

    Fick’s Law is already from 1855. You don’t see anything in that law that is called net diffusive flux, although most here will know that a lot of molecules/ions or whatever will diffuse from the lower concentration towards the higher concentration as all such movements are random. But the movements from higher concentrations to lower outnumber the opposite movements, so that the net flux is in from high to low.

    Something similar is happening with radiation exchanges between a warmer and a colder object. There is radiation going from a colder object to a warmer one, which is absorbed there, but the radiation of the warmer one outnumbers that of the colder object, so that the net heat flux is from warm to cold…

  99. tjfolkerts says:
    July 20, 2013 at 11:11 am

    You are missing DirkH’s point. We don’t care about emissions which occur due to ambient temperature. Those would occur in any case, with or without additional CO2. We care specifically about emissions which occur as remission of emissions originating from the Earth’s surface, roughly half of which return to that surface.

    You are putting the cart before the horse. Increasing the height of the CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause greater heating. Greater temperature increases the average height of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It cannot be both, because that would constitute a runaway positive feedback loop. Temperatures go up, pushing the CO2 higher, which raises temperature, which pushes the CO2 higher, and so on ad infinitum. Pretty soon, the CO2 would boil off into space.

  100. Anthony–You are correct to allow the “slaxxrs” a place here.

    The point is–the science is NOT settled. Allowing Slaxxers to comment here verifies your search for the truth.

    True, they may be after their own “Nobel Prize”, but the truth will always out.

    Keep up the great effort.

  101. We can solve this whole problem if we stop calling it “warming” and instead call it “slower cooling”.

    Therefore, it is not getting peak hotter, to any material degree, it is just getting cooler slower enough to raise the average temperature over time.

    We can quibble that the instaneous cooling is also slowed, thereby raising the instaneous peak temperature in these experimental situations; but the main effect of the terribly named greenhouse effect is a reduction in the rate of cooling, and therefore the higher average temperature over time, because of IR reflectivity.

    I don’t think human CO2 is a big deal, but this argument about IR heating the surface is inane; and a change from saying it heats the surface,to saying it slows the rate of cooling of the surface and lower air masses, might just get the stupid semantical nomenclature arguments out of the way.

  102. tjfolkerts says:
    July 20, 2013 at 9:07 am
    “Still, your pseudo “the 2nd Law” can be valid, but you need to prove it, what no one managed to do.”
    It is you, greg, with the pseudo 2nd Law. The “net” concept is there. It is reinforced in the modern statistical mechanics statement of the 2nd Law in terms of entropy and probabilities. It takes almost a willful misreading to say that no energy can move from colder to warmer.”
    ==========================================================

    Again, there is no “net”-word in the historical statements of the 2nd Law. Nor can this “net” thing be derived from those historical statements. You and others can claim whatever “net”-concept you like, but no one has proven it correct. You simply misinterpret the 2nd Law by inserting something else into it. As I said, claim whatever you want but do not call it “the 2nd Law”, because it is not.

    As for “cold can warm hot”, I have already demonstrated above that this assumption inevitably leads to an absurd result, which proves this assumption false, no reference to the (real) 2nd Law being necessary. Your “greenhouse effect” is physically impossible.

  103. Bart, I seem to be missing your point, too. All thermal radiation is “emissions which occur due to ambient temperature”. That is the ONLY thing we should be concerned about!

    There is a fundamental misunderstanding when you say “emissions which occur as remission of emissions originating from the Earth’s surface”. CO2 emits based on its local temperature ie based on its own current energy. The constant jostling of the molecules in the atmosphere means that the “original source” of any energy is completely lost. Since the atmosphere is (almost) always cooler higher up, the net flow of thermal photons is always upward. Talking about “re-emission or “reflection” of the ground’s IR is a common simplification that many people use, but it is not a good way to really think about the situation when getting into the physics involved.

    “You are putting the cart before the horse. Increasing the height of the CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause greater heating. Greater temperature increases the average height of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Again, I think you misunderstand what I was saying. We could raise the entire atmosphere by heating it, but that is not what I was discussing.

    For the emissions to space, only the “top layer” of CO2 matters. Infrared cameras tuned to 15 um aimed at the earth from outer space only see photons that come from high in the atmosphere. Of course there is not a clearly delineated “top layer” with sharp boundaries, but think about the top few grams of CO2 in any square meter. That “top layer” is a wide slice somewhere around 15 km up with current conditions. Suppose we double the CO2. That slice at 15 km up will now have twice as much CO2. That means the true “top slice” is now the top of that slice … maybe 16 km up. Well, 16 km up the air will be ~ 6-10 K cooler, so the CO2 in the “new top layer” will emit less energy to space than the “old top layer” did.

    Same basic idea applies if more N2 is added. The N2 will “dilute” the entire atmosphere, raising the top few grams of CO2.

    In either case, the top is cooler and emits less energy to space — without changing the amount of solar energy coming in. The system has to re-adjust until balance is restored. The simplest re-adjustment would be for the entire system to warm slightly from top to bottom (although other changes like more clouds reflecting more sunlight could also occur).

  104. Yep, Marc.

    This topic too often gets muddled in semantics rather than physics. Either the discussion has to be very technical in the use of word like “heat” (in which case you lose the people how don’t have a degree in physics), or you can be colloquial (in which case you take liberties with precision).

    Greg is case in point. He says that I am saying “cold can warm hot” and then attacks the colloquialism rather than the physics. In fact I am saying something more like ” ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ fight to determine the temperature of the ‘warm’ intermediary. If you weaken ‘cold” by making it only ‘cool’ instead of ‘cold’, then ‘warm’ will get warmer.” Seems pretty intuitive and obvious to me when stated in a more correct way.

    The cool object (in conjunction with an active heater) helps determine the temperature of the warmer object — its as simple as that. The cool insulation of your house (in conjunction with the hot furnace) helps keep the house warm (compared to having the walls thermally connected to even colder air outside). The cool atmosphere (in conjunction with the hot sun) helps keep the earth’s surface warm (compared to having the surface thermally connected to even colder outer space).

  105. Greg House says:
    July 20, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Again, there is no “net”-word in the historical statements of the 2nd Law. Nor can this “net” thing be derived from those historical statements.

    Greg, there is no “net”-word in the historical statements in Fick’s Law of diffusion of 1855. Despite that, it is proven that all the molecules/ions move in all directions and even some move from lower concentrations to higher concentrations. Fick’s Law only says that in average more molecules/ions move from the higher concentration to the lower one than reverse.

    The 2nd Law of heat transfer doesn’t count for individual packages of radiation energy, fotons, which go in all directions and even some are emitted from a colder object and are absorbed by a warmer one. All what the 2nd Law says is that in average more radiation energy is transferred from a warmer to a colder object than reverse.

  106. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    July 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm
    “All what the 2nd Law says is that in average more radiation energy is transferred from a warmer to a colder object than reverse.”
    ========================================================

    This is not true, the 2nd Law says nothing about “average”, exactly like it says nothing about “net”.

    Again, the assumption “cold warms hot” leads to an absurd result and is therefore false, see my demonstration above.

  107. Marc says:
    July 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm
    “We can solve this whole problem if we stop calling it “warming” and instead call it “slower cooling”.”
    =============================================================

    No, you can not save the “greenhouse effect” this way. “Slowing cooling by back radiation”-effect would mean an alleged energy supply that causes a warming of an object at initially stable temperature (with an absurd result, see above) and an increasing warming of an object that has already been in the state of warming. It is still the same impossible “back radiation warming effect” regardless of how you call it.

  108. geran says:
    July 20, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    “The point is–the science is NOT settled. Allowing Slaxxers to comment here verifies your search for the truth.”
    ==========================================================

    Just to avoid misunderstanding, as far as I know, some people wrote a book “Slaxxxing the Sky Draxxxgon” and are called slaxxers since then, so, I am not one of the authors.

    To call a slaxxer anyone who disagrees with the notion of “greenhouse effect” does not seem correct to me. I prefer the classification “warmists” and “non-warmists” in a purely technical sense. Consider me an independent non-warmist, if you like.

  109. tjfolkerts says:
    July 20, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    ‘All thermal radiation is “emissions which occur due to ambient temperature”’

    Incorrect. Radiation occurs due to a change from a high vibrational energy state to a lower one. A CO2 molecule vibrational mode can be excited by photon absorption, or by resonant collision. The latter is a function of ambient temperature. The former is not necessarily. It is the former excitation of CO2 vibration states due to emissions of IR photons at the Earth’s surface with which we are concerned.


  110. tjfolkerts says:
    July 20, 2013 at 11:11 am

    You are missing DirkH’s point. We don’t care about emissions which occur due to ambient temperature. Those would occur in any case, with or without additional CO2. We care specifically about emissions which occur as remission of emissions originating from the Earth’s surface, roughly half of which return to that surface.

    big problem in comprehension here.

    The lapse rate and emissions in the atmosphere are all about conservation of energy. It’s cooler higher up because there is a balance in power up there. There’s no such thing as emissions that are remissions of emissions. One has absorbed radiation, convection, and conduction to get energy into a parcel of atmosphere and the same things for outgoing. It is emission that depends on the T and the atmospheric composition. In a slab of atmosphere, there is radiation downward and radiation outward – like a shell with two surfaces. Since higher up there is radiation being absorbed from below but not from above and there is radiation being emitted downward and upward based on the temperature of the slab (and on the content of the gases when not using a solid surface as an example). obviously the slab T has to drop the higher up it is because there isn’t as much energy being absorbed.


  111. tjfolkerts says:
    July 20, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    ‘All thermal radiation is “emissions which occur due to ambient temperature”’

    Incorrect. Radiation occurs due to a change from a high vibrational energy state to a lower one. A CO2 molecule vibrational mode can be excited by photon absorption, or by resonant collision. The latter is a function of ambient temperature. The former is not necessarily. It is the former excitation of CO2 vibration states due to emissions of IR photons at the Earth’s surface with which we are concerned.

    An excited state can be entered due either to the collison or a photon absorption. Also, an excited state can be left due either to a collision or to a photon emission. Higher energy photons from a warmer BB continuum are still absorbed by the molecules in a rather T independent fashion but the emissions of the energy associated with those are not “re-emitted” at those higher energy but rather according to the BB continuum for the temperature of the atmosphere there and upon the spectral characteristics of the molecule. In other words, this absorbed radiation becomes thermalized and helps define the local temperature.
    If the parcel of atmosphere were able to stay at the same temperature as Earth’s surface outgoing radiation, there would be no absorption lines present. If the parcel were hotter than the Earth’s surface, the parcel would be emitting spectral lines rather than absorbing them.

  112. Greg House says:
    July 20, 2013 at 5:14 pm
    Marc says:
    July 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm
    “We can solve this whole problem if we stop calling it “warming” and instead call it “slower cooling”.”
    =============================================================

    No, you can not save the “greenhouse effect” this way. “Slowing cooling by back radiation” the

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Wow, Greg, don’t be obtuse.

    It is very simple. I too hate the term greenhouse effect and I am not trying to save the term and the actual phenomenon will save itself by existing immutably. But cut it with the wordplay baloney.

    The atmosphere slows the rate at which the sun heats the surface by blocking some of the energy coming in. Then it also slows the surface from cooling by blocking the rate at which the energy can leave.

    Please! If I heat a pan of soup and pour some into the thermos and leave some in the pan, and I take the average temperature over several hours, the average temperature of the soup in the thermos will be higher than the average temperature of the soup left in the pan (at room temperature with the burner off). That is simply because the properties of the thermos slowed the rate of the soup cooling, not because the thermos imparted heat to the soup.

    The properties of the atmosphere slow the rate of surface cooling — there is no question about that, and I don’t care what you call it. The physics are explainable too, but denying the basic way it functions is dishonest.

    Do youdeny that the atmosphere slows the rate at which the surface cools when the sun is no longer heating the surface? If so, then please leave. If not, then this discussion is finished.

    And yes, CO2 is one of the chemicals that has a property that slows the cooling, along with water vapor and many other things. If you deny all that, gee wilikers!

    What we are all unsure abut is what other adjustments happen when we get a very slight warming from a modest increase in the ability of the atmosphere to slow cooling with more CO2 because it is such a vast, dynamic and complicated system with a lot more going on than soup in a thermos. Convection, conduction, radiation plus albedo changes and a million other things make it hard to say we can isolate the effect of CO2, and I suspect that the CO2 has a de minimis effect in such a wild and wooly system, but I am not sure. The main evidence points to the effect being small considering all.

    If you think I am wrong about the atmosphere slowing warming and cooling then check out the day and night temperatures of rock celestial bodies without atmospheres, like the moon, cooky. Can we move on to something that moves the ball forward while you repeat a grade?

  113. Greg House says:
    July 20, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    July 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm
    “All what the 2nd Law says is that in average more radiation energy is transferred from a warmer to a colder object than reverse.”
    ========================================================

    This is not true, the 2nd Law says nothing about “average”, exactly like it says nothing about “net”.

    Again, the assumption “cold warms hot” leads to an absurd result and is therefore false, see my demonstration above.
    =========================================================================
    *sigh* No. tjfolkerts already addressed all of your points but you failed to grasp what he wrote. Let me try (because I’m bored). The second law of thermodynamics as expressed mathematically IS NET heat transfer. It’s called the Clausius inequality and is expressed as the closed integral of dQ/T <= 0. Think a little bit about the mathematical properties of an integral. Think about how you evaluate an integral.

    Or here's another try. Take your plate. Let's insulate it on one side so we only have to worry about radiation from a single side just to make the problem a bit simpler. Then let's put another plate in place of the reflector but hook it up to a constant temperature sink that maintains its temperature at 100K. Let's say that our original plate is in equilibrium in this system at a temperature of 200K at some level of internal power production that is held constant. We all agree that (net) heat will flow from the hot plate to the cold plate at a rate of sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcold^4). Now let's increase the temp of the cold plate to 150K. The rate of heat loss from the hot plate just went down noticeably even though the object is still colder. By your understanding of the second law NO heat (not no net heat) can move from the cold plate to the hot plate, so how does nature know to reduce the heat transfer? Have we resurrected Maxwell’s Demon and given him a radar gun and ticket writing authority? No, what we’ve done is we’ve raised the amount of radiation from the cold plate that radiates back onto the hot plate. The hot plate now has to get rid of this extra heat and in order to be in equilibrium it has to raise its temperature.

    Now let’s move on to your original reflector/plate problem. The system starts with the plate emitting a total of 800W, 400W to space and 400W to the perfect reflector. The reflector sends 400W back, so the net outflow from the plate is only 400W right at the instant the first reflected photons make it back to the plate. The next time step is where you start making your mistakes. You make the assumption that a new equilibrium is instantaneously reached with the extra 400W now meaning that the plate is emitting a total of 1200W, 600 to each side. In reality the thermal mass of the plate will play a roll in establishing the equilibrium, but let’s assume it’s so small that the plate heats instantaneously. So 600W out, 600W to reflector and 600W back to plate. OK, so that means that the next go around the plate has to emit 1800W which is 900W on either side and more than the original energy production! OMG, you HAVE falsified it!

    Wait, no, you haven’t. You argument is that the plate is hotter and thus emitting 1200W when the additional 600W comes in, but that can’t be. See, I let you use instantaneous heating of the plate on the original 400W cycle, which means you have to let me use instantaneous cooling. The plate emits 600W to space and that’s gone. It emits 600W towards the reflector but due to the speed of light that emission has not made it back to the plate. The plate has radiated away the excess 400J (it’s in flight) so the temperature now reverts to that generated by the 800W of internal power. The plate is in instantaneous thermal equilibrium so that when the 600W comes back from the reflector the plate now has to deal with the 800W being internally generated and the 600W that just came in for a total of 1400W. And as tsfolkerts showed the next step is 700/700/1500, 775/775/1575, 793.75/793.75/1587.5,…

    I admit I had to spend some time figuring out the exact flaw in your argument. Your error is in your numerical integration and your time steps. If you want more detail on the nature of the error I’d suggest picking up a good reference on numerical integration to learn of all of the pitfalls that must be avoided when using that technique to solve a problem (not that it’s invalid, just potentially tricky).

  114. Bart,

    The time that a CO2 molecule might spend in the excited state before emitting a photon is much longer than the mean time between collisions in the atmosphere. Most often, the energy from an absorbed photon will be shared with other molecules before another photons is emitted. In other words, the energy is thermalized. An emitted photon would only rarely be “the same energy” as a photon that was absorbed earlier. It is much more likely to be energy due to a collision with another molecule.

    So being concerned with those rare photons that are indeed “re-emitted” is the wrong place to focus.

    (Looking back before posting, it looks like cba is saying about the same thing about thermalization.)

  115. SkepticGoneWild says (July 20, 2013 at 7:27 am): “Those equations are simple heat transfer equations which you will find in any thermo or physics textbook. They do not invalidate the 2nd Law”

    Of course they don’t. The only thing “invalidated” by Willis’s & SoD’s textbook references is the imaginary version of the 2nd Law.

    “I challenged Mr. Dumb to find me a textbook problem example which indicates a cooler body warming up a warmer body. Not just an equation, but a worked up problem with real numbers. He could not provide one. There are none.”

    Actually there are–I found a fully worked out problem involving a radiation-shielded thermocouple–but they’re not easy to find in free internet references. Note that I also found several other relevant problems but without computed answers, making them useless for the purpose. :-(

    But hey, let’s forget the textbooks for now and (finally) get to experiment.

    In these “cool thing warms a warmer thing” discussions, I always bring up Dr. Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” thought experiment, because it’s a simple illustration of the problem and if actually performed should settle the question definitively. Of course I never expected it to be done for real because Dr. Spencer has no incentive–he already knows the answer–and the Pink Unicorn Brigade dare not do it because they’d be proven wrong.

    It turns out, however, that the “Yes, Virginia” experiment–or rather a close variant–has been done and reported in the literature. Hat tip to “chris y” who cited this article all the way back in 2009 in the comment thread to the classic “Steel Greenhouse” article.

    The paper proposes a method to calculate the efficacy of one or more radiation shields in a vacuum furnace. Their apparatus is a water-jacketed vacuum chamber with cylindrical radiation shield(s) surrounding a long coaxial heating element. It actually resembles the “steel greenhouse”–hence the “chris y” comment–but differs in no significant way from the “Yes, Virginia” setup. They discuss radiation shield theory and then compare experiment with prediction.

    Rather than vary the heater temp, they maintain temp at 1300 °C and measure the decrease in power required to maintain constant temp with various shields in place. Using stainless steel, for example, the required power is only 52%, 37%, or 27% with one, two, or three shields, respectively, compared to no shield. Spencer 1, Pink Unicorn Brigade 0.

    The most amusing aspect of this paper is the authors’ casual attitude as their–in the eyes of the horrified Pink Unicorn Brigade–black magic “overthrows” the holy Second Law of Thermodynamics. In the introduction they write, “In constructing the high temperature vacuum furnace, the heat efficiency must be good. Radiation shields are, as is well known, used for this purpose…” Perhaps not so well known in the more ignorant corners of the internet… :-)

    Of course I don’t expect this to change anyone’s mind, except perhaps Big Don’s. The Pink Unicorn Brigade has repeatedly demonstrated invulnerability to both logic and facts. But the tap dancing around this one should be amusing. :-)

  116. Rosco says (July 20, 2013 at 2:12 am): “Did anyone even bother to check that the example worked through is exactly the “steel Greenhouse” proposal and can be found in the textbook – – page 24 number 1026 – :-”

    The 1990 edition can be downloaded here.

  117. “””””……

    My simple observation is that since the LED is made from semicondor material then in this case its resistance will go down.
    This cannot be squared with your statement above.

    Read the following article or any similar source on the topic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity……””””””

    So some “””””…..similar source on the topic…..”””””

    Well not really similar; an actual factual source on the topic.

    Ro whit Silicon Semiconductor Data; as in SEMICONDUCTOR DATA.

    By Helmut F. Wolf Pergamon Press.

    I prefer my source to yours, since the entire SEMICONDUCTOR industry is built on MY Source; not on Wikipedia.

    On page 48…. Resistivity of Silicon vs. Impurity Concentration and Temperature.

    For n-type, Cb = 1E15 cm^-1 at 25 deg C rho = 5.5 Ohm cm
    ……………………………………………at 125 deg C rho = 17.0 Ohm cm. That’s a 3.1x INCREASE!

    For n-type. Cb = 1E17 cm^-1 at 25 deg C rho = 0.1 Ohm cm
    …………………………………………….at 125 deg C rho = 0.2 Ohm cm That’s a 2.0x INCREASE!

    Well I could cite more of this SEMICONDUCTOR data, for both n-type, and p-type.

    Sorry it is always positive Temperature coefficient for Silicon.

    Should I dig out the data for Germanium or Gallium Arsenide as well, or would you prefer to look that up for yourself. But look it up in a real source; the kind that engineers and scientists who do work in the field use; their products are actually expected to work.

    And yes, it is still positive for LED…… SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIAL

    And maybe you should take a course in Semiconductor Physics, so you can learn the difference between RESISTANCE and ……. LEAKAGE CURRENTS.

    “””””…..This cannot be squared with your statement above…….”””””

    Correction Bryan; YOU cannot square “this” with my statement above !

    I was lucky enough to take MY Semiconductor Physics studies from Andrew Grove, who wrote the definitive text on the subject. That was 45 years ago at Fairchild Semiconductor, where Si valley really started. Andy was later the President and CEO of Intel. Sadly he is now severely hampered, by Parkinson’s or some similar malady. Not something I would wish on anybody, of such stature.

  118. Typo:

    “””””…..Ro whit Silicon Semiconductor Data; as in SEMICONDUCTOR DATA……”””””

    To whit…..”Silicon Semiconductor Data” ; as in SEMICONDUCTOR DATA…..

  119. Greg House says (July 20, 2013 at 5:05 pm): ‘Again, the assumption “cold warms hot” leads to an absurd result and is therefore false, see my demonstration above.’

    “Demonstration?” You mean your reductio ad absurdum thought experiment? The one that tjfolkerts showed was bullus excrementum? Short memory, Greg? :-)

  120. “””””…..cba says:

    July 20, 2013 at 8:40 pm


    tjfolkerts says:
    July 20, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    ‘All thermal radiation is “emissions which occur due to ambient temperature”’

    Incorrect. Radiation occurs due to a change from a high vibrational energy state to a lower one……”””””

    Well Tim is quite correct here.

    The operative words are THERMAL RADIATION .

    Thermal radiation >> IS << EM radiation whose entire cause is due to having a Temperature greater than zero Kelvins. So-called "Black Body" radiation is a fictional ideal type of THERMAL RADIATION

    BB radiation is entirely independent of ANY actual material or material properties, including electronic structures, or quantum numbers or anything else real.

    The vibrational/rotational or other oscillation modes of GHGs that are the crux of the so-called GHG effects are RESONANCE MODES of actual real physical materials each of which has its own characteristic modes and frequencies of oscillation, and are calculable with quantum mechanics; which relates to real physical materials.

    It is getting totally tiresome coming to WUWT regularly, and finding there are still people who don't know the difference between atomic and molecular resonances, and thermal continuum effects, which are entirely a consequence of the energetic mechanical collisions between molecules/atoms, in a VERY LARGE ASSEMBLAGE of same. Temperature is a macro property of large assemblages of "particles"

    RESONANCE RADIATIONS/ ABSORPTIONS are a property OF SINGLE MOLECULES/ATOMS……not of large assemblages.

    The solar energy spectrum, is a continuum thermal spectrum due to the (surface) Temperature of the sun.

    The Fraunhofer SPECTRAL LINES are a consequence of resonance emission/absorption by individual atoms/ions in the solar atmosphere (roughly). These spectral resonance lines are largely independent of Temperature; well there are Doppler and other line broadening effects, but the individual atoms don't know anything about Temperature (it's a macro property)

    Leif can sanitize this if I got it all rong.

  121. There is one simple thing that is often forgot. Earth surface only gets warmer if it gets more energy from the source (sun). How much earth surface transfers energy from the surface depends how warm the air is in the surface just above the surface. That just above is exactly what is enviroment temperature. Wind is very good at increase energy transfer from surface if it is colder than the surface. Earth surface radiate only the amount of energy what is temperature difference between surface and air, according to SB-law and Newtons cooling law. If temperature difference is 5K between surface and air that makes some few W/m2, not the measured 200-300 W/m2 which is its temperature what is calculated against 0K. Radiated energy depends of the temperature difference, earths surface cannot emit energy more than calculated energy change based on temperature change in surface material. Let’s say that that few W/m2 is 5 W/m2 all energy (5Wh/m2) transfers from the surface. Most of that is conduction when air is in contact with surface, there is very little energy left for radiation energy that warms air, simply because gases are very very poor absorbers or emitters in these temperatures.You cannot get more energy from the source ( now warmer surface is energy source to colder air) when it cools than what is its temperature chance. Radiation energy is only a very tiny part how energy transfers in system sun, earth, air, space and which energy transfer method works in different parts of that system. To calculate earths energy balance according to radiated energy misleads many false assumpitions ie. greenhouse effect. When you forget some vital energy transfers methods you must add to calculation more radiation energy to get that balance work. That is for sure wrong way to handle it and leads wrong theories and false physics as we have seen.

  122. george e. smith, you appear to be saying that if semiconductor material is heated its resistance goes up.
    I hope you agree with me that all commonly freely available sources (such as wikipedia) say exactly the opposite.
    For example what is this person up to;

    http://www.isb.ac.th/hs/jos/vol4iss1/Papers/1LEDTemp.pdf

    Is he inventing data for an experiment that never happened?
    Yet you claim that a highly specialised textbook supports your statements.
    Further you appear to have worked in the semiconductor industry.
    Why there should be such a disconnect between specialised and general literature is not obvious.
    The facts about semiconductor materials have nothing to do with any controversy such as the extent of AGW.

  123. Most posters above do not seem to fully understand the 2nd law. Whilst energy can flow from cold to hot the temperature of the hot body will not increase as a result. It is easier to understand when looking from the point of view of quantum mechanics.
    The 2nd law can be reduced to three words:- ”entropy must increase”. Any increase in temperature that occurred from the cold to hot energy transfer would mean a reduction of entropy. This would mean that it would be possible to have a process working above 100% efficiency. This is clearly impossible as Anthony knew/knows when he refused to take up my challenge above to design and build such an engine working on the GHE principle.
    He still refuses to answer the question regarding desert and rainforest surface temperatures.

  124. Marc says July 20, 2013 at 8:41 pm:
    “The atmosphere slows the rate at which the sun heats the surface by blocking some of the energy coming in. Then it also slows the surface from cooling by blocking the rate at which the energy can leave. … Do youdeny that the atmosphere slows the rate at which the surface cools when the sun is no longer heating the surface? … That is simply because the properties of the thermos slowed the rate of the soup cooling, not because the thermos imparted heat to the soup.”

    ================================================================

    No, the atmosphere generally can not slow the surface cooling, except for the case, where warmer air moves from a warmer region to a colder one.

    What the air does is cooling the surface by conduction/convection additionally to it’s radiative cooling, so it makes the cooling faster than it would be without air.

    Note that the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC is about the radiation returned to the surface by the “greenhouse gases” warming the surface additionally. As I demonstrated earlier on this thread, such an effect is physically impossible.

    To your thermos example, it simply prevents the (usually) colder air outside it from cooling the soup by conduction/convection. If the outside air was warmer than the soup in the thermos, the effect would the opposite: preventing the outside air from warming the soup. So, the thermos as such has neither cooling nor warming properties, it only separates the content and the outside air.

  125. Greg House says:
    July 21, 2013 at 7:43 am

    Only one question to know your position: if a photon emitted by an object at 273 K hits another object at 303 K and is absorbed by the latter (assuming both objects are ideal blackbodies), is the energy of the photon absorbed by the “warmer” body or not?

  126. Tsk Tsk says:
    July 20, 2013 at 8:45 pm
    “See, I let you use instantaneous heating of the plate on the original 400W cycle, which means you have to let me use instantaneous cooling.”

    =============================================================

    The “greenhouse effect” is claimed to produce warming, not cooling, hence your derivation is not about the “greenhouse effect” any longer.

    To see the absurd result of the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” you need to strictly stick to this assumption, not to jump from this assumption to the reality back and forth or even invent other absurd things.

  127. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    July 21, 2013 at 9:05 am
    “Only one question to know your position …”

    =======================================================

    My position is that whatever some people imagine about what might happen to the radiation, back radiation of any kind can not warm the source, because the assumption of the opposite leads to absurd results, see the explanation above.

    Of course, I am not going to speculate what exactly happens to the electromagnetic waves that have some properties that caused the introduction of the notion of photon. I am only interested in the question, if the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC exists or not. It doesn’t.

  128. cba says:
    July 20, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    Blackbody radiation is unforced, random radiation. We are specifically speaking here of radiation forcing from the surface, being absorbed by the CO2 above, and half of which is, yes, re-emitted back to the surface. You’ve got to provide a pathway for energy flow back to the surface. Otherwise, quite simply, the surface doesn’t heat up.

    Even if what you and TJ were saying were true, and it isn’t, the CO2 at lower altitude does not magically disappear when the new CO2 forces its center of mass upward. In fact, the base gets broader, so you’ve still got it radiating at low altitude, if anything at greater quantity than before.

    Temperature-based radiation is not the radiation we are looking for vis a vis the Greenhouse Effect.

    tjfolkerts says:
    July 20, 2013 at 9:37 pm

    “The time that a CO2 molecule might spend in the excited state before emitting a photon is much longer than the mean time between collisions in the atmosphere.”

    Moot question. A CO2 molecule is as likely to gain energy in a collision as lose it, so it has little net effect.

  129. johnmarshall says (July 21, 2013 at 3:43 am): “Most posters above do not seem to fully understand the 2nd law.”

    The irony, it burns! :-)

    “Whilst energy can flow from cold to hot the temperature of the hot body will not increase as a result.”

    How do you explain a radiation shield increasing the temperature of a vacuum furnace heating element?

    “This is clearly impossible as Anthony knew/knows when he refused to take up my challenge above to design and build such an engine working on the GHE principle.”

    I’m curious. If you, johnmarshall, assume for a moment that the so-called GHE really exists, how would you design such an engine?

  130. Boiler Designer says (July 21, 2013 at 12:32 am): “Radiation energy is only a very tiny part how energy transfers in system sun, earth, air, space and which energy transfer method works in different parts of that system. To calculate earths energy balance according to radiated energy misleads many false assumpitions ie. greenhouse effect.”

    Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Radiation is the only significant way the Earth gains energy from the sun, and the only significant way the Earth loses energy to space. “Radiated energy” is the only way to calculate Earth’s energy balance.

  131. Sorry for bad, of course suns energy is only radiation energy to earth, but after that it is a very tiny part of heat transfer inside the system. Only in the upper atmosphere happens last radiation energy transfer to space. What happens inside the when sun energy is coming to earth and what happens between earth and atmosphere. Onlu molecules which can transfer heat to space are in practice O3 and CO2, if they increases the more earth radiates to space. Earth has incredibly fine temperature control system, more energy from sun, more CO2 from oceans, more radiation to space. CO2 acts as a cooler not as a warmer inside atmosphere. What happens to tempertaure if we take CO2 away from the atmosphere, atmosphere becomes much more hotter than with CO2, less heat radiation to space.

  132. Greg says: “My position is that whatever some people imagine …
    It is amazing (or maybe not so amazing) that whenever specific examples are brought up, whenever someone shows specifically where you are wrong, you always revert to your “soundbite science” and your own personal interpretation of the 2nd Law .

    One more very simple example …
    A block of copper has a heat reservoir on one side at 400 K and a heat reservoir on the other side at 200 K (the other sides are insulated). The average temperature of the block will be 300 K. Now slowly raise the temperature of the cold reservoir to 250 K. No heat can flow from the 250 K to the 300 K block — we all agree on that. But the copper block will warm up to an average of 325 K. The only external change was the cold reservoir. The only result was warming of the copper block. Whatever words you want to use, the temperature of the colder object is directly related to the temperature of the copper block.

    Whatever words you want to use, the temperature of the cool atmosphere affects the temperature of the warmer planet.

  133. Boiler design says: “Earth has incredibly fine temperature control system, more energy from sun, more CO2 from oceans, more radiation to space.”

    Close .. but the last step is reversed (which completely undoes your argument). The CO2 in the atmosphere is already emitting thermal IR to space. if you add more CO2, it will BLOCK the IR from lower layers and emit INSTEAD from the higher layers (that currently have too little CO2 to emit efficiently). The higher layers are COOLER (due to the lapse rate) so the emissions from the CO2 in the new higher top layer will be LESS than the emissions from the old lower top layer.

  134. “””””””…….Bryan says:

    July 21, 2013 at 2:12 am

    george e. smith, you appear to be saying that if semiconductor material is heated its resistance goes up.
    I hope you agree with me that all commonly freely available sources (such as wikipedia) say exactly the opposite.
    For example what is this person up to;

    http://www.isb.ac.th/hs/jos/vol4iss1/Papers/1LEDTemp.pdf

    Is he inventing data for an experiment that never happened?
    Yet you claim that a highly specialised textbook supports your statements.
    Further you appear to have worked in the semiconductor industry.
    Why there should be such a disconnect between specialised and general literature is not obvious…..”””””

    Well the Wikipedia reference somebody posted did not lead to anything; must be a wrong link.

    But the reference you give, is almost hilarious.

    No, the math in it is not unfamiliar; extremely familiar, in fact; but what your author gives, has nothing to do with the resistivity of semiconductor materials.

    It is in fact a standard for for the usual I / V characterstic of a semiconductor diode, which is an entirely different proposition. It is NOT a formula for resistance at all.

    Semiconductor diodes DO NOT obey Ohm’s law.

    There isn’t any disconnect between specialized literature and general literature. It is misapplication that causes problems.

    People see an equation that has Voltage in it, and current, and they jump to the conclusion that it must be a resistor.

    Well an electric motor operates with a Voltage, and a current, but it certainly doesn’t obey Ohm’s law

    “””””…..Itotal = Io exp(-eV/kT) [2] (Equation 1)…..”””””

    pasted from your reference.

    The Io ( I zero) is NOT a constant. It is the reverse saturation leakage current, that you get (ideally) when you reverse bias a semiconductor diode. Io is very highly dependent on Temperature.

    In the exponent part, kT/q has a value at room Temperature of about 26 milliVolts. So the equation says, that the current increases by a factor of e (2.71828) every time the Voltage is increased by 26 milliVolts. That is true almost independent of what the semiconductor is.

    Germanium, Silicon, Gallium Arsenide or GaasP (old red LED material), all of them, the current increases by e times every 26 milliVolts. That also works out to be about 60 mV per decade.

    Now, there is that (n) in there, which is a factor ( between 1 and 2) that depends on whether the current is dominated by diffusion current, or by recombination current.

    But for most practical devices, the 60 mV per decade is what most semiconductor engineers, know better than they know the value of Pi.

    But if you run any diode in its normal region at any constant current, the forward Voltage will drop 2 milliVolts per deg C increase in junction Temperature; doesn’t matter much which semiconductor. The actual Voltage, changes with semiconductor material, but they all have the same -2 mV/deg C change in Vf. But that is not due to a resistance change.

  135. tjfolkerts says:
    July 21, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    “…if you add more CO2, it will BLOCK the IR from lower layers and emit INSTEAD from the higher layers (that currently have too little CO2 to emit efficiently).”

    There is not nearly enough at higher altitude to block what is coming up from below to any level of significance. This is not even close to a first order effect.

  136. Greg House says:
    July 21, 2013 at 10:10 am

    My position is that whatever some people imagine about what might happen to the radiation, back radiation of any kind can not warm the source, because the assumption of the opposite leads to absurd results, see the explanation above.

    If the energy contained in any radiation, in this case a package called a photon, is not conserved, one is breaking the 1st Law of conservation of energy…

    Assuming that any individual photon released from a colder object that hits a warmer object is absorbed, it will heat the warmer object. Even if that is a miniscule effect for one photon.

    Does that break the 2nd Law? Not at all, as the total energy transfer (transmitted via photon packages) from the warmer to the cooler object is larger than what is transmitted from the cooler to the warmer one.

    Does that increase the temperature of the warmer object? Yes it does. The total energy balance must be conserved. Thus if the warmer object receives some energy from a colder one, it will either cool down less fast in the case of a one time heatup (from an intermittent energy source like the sun), or it will heat up further with a constant internal heat source.

  137. Bart says: “… so you’ve still got it [CO2] radiating at low altitude, if anything at greater quantity than before.
    Yes, more CO2 will radiate a bit more (or more specifically, will absorb and emit over shorter distances). But this not a big deal.

    “… half of which is, yes, re-emitted back to the surface.”
    Not exactly. The radiation down from the atmosphere (in the band that GHGs emit) is about EQUAL to the upward radiation, not about HALF.
    It is more accurate to say that ALL of the upward radiation gets absorbed by the GHGs (if it is in their bands). The GHGs in the lower atmosphere then emit THEIR OWN RADIATION that is about equal (slightly less) in intensity because it is about the same temperature (slightly cooler). This is the radiation that returns .. not ‘half of the ground’s radiation’.

    *****************************************

    The key point is not what happens within the atmosphere. The key point is what happens at the TOP. This is where the energy escapes to space, so this is where the changes to the overall energy balance occur. The radiation from the top will decrease as more CO2 is added.

  138. Bart says: “There is not nearly enough at higher altitude to block what is coming up from below to any level of significance. This is not even close to a first order effect.”

    At some levels (near the surface) it is a very STRONG effect. At some levels (say 50 km up) is is indeed “not even close to a first order effect” as you say.

    The point is that there is a continuously decreasing concentration. Each layer is a little less effective at blocking the photons from below (and creating their own photons). There will be SOME altitude at which 50% of the photons coming up are allowed through. With more CO2, that 50% level will be a little higher, and the photons that escape will be coming from a greater altitude. That translates to fewer photons escaping to space.

  139. Boiler Designer says (July 21, 2013 at 11:41 am): “What happens to tempertaure if we take CO2 away from the atmosphere, atmosphere becomes much more hotter than with CO2, less heat radiation to space.”

    Thanks for the clarification, BD. If I’m reading you right, you’re saying that so-called “greenhouse gases” may have a net cooling effect, rather than the net warming effect assumed by both CAGW alarmists and skeptics?

  140. Gary Hladik says:
    July 21, 2013 at 11:01 am
    “How do you explain a radiation shield increasing the temperature of a vacuum furnace heating element?”

    ==========================================================

    The abstract you linked your words to does not say anything about “increasing the temperature of a vacuum furnace heating element”. The shields are apparently supposed to protect the environment from the heat.

    This is your link: http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/11/1184 and this is the full text: “A method for calculating the efficiency of several sheets of thick radiation shields with finite thermal conductivity is presented. It is shown that in case of shields having infinite conductivity, the efficiency and temperatures of the shields are expressed by simple formulas. It is shown by several examples of this method of calculations that the most important factors for the efficiency are found to be emissivity, thermal conductivity of the innermost shield and its position. Effectiveness of a shield with small conductivity, which we call `thermal shield’ in this paper, especially at high temperature is emphasized. Several experimental results are shown; they agree satisfactorily with the calculations.”

    So, no “back radiation warming effect” is claimed there.

    Did you make it up, Gary, or was it a misunderstanding?

  141. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    July 21, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    “Assuming that any individual photon released from a colder object that hits a warmer object is absorbed, it will heat the warmer object.”

    ==========================================================

    No, it won’t, because the this assumption leads to an absurd result, which proves the assumption false, see the explanation and the calculation above. The calculation for 2 blackbodies is similar and leads to the same conclusion.

  142. tjfolkerts says:
    July 21, 2013 at 12:11 pm
    “…you always revert to your “soundbite science” and your own personal interpretation of the 2nd Law .”

    ==========================================================

    My refutation of the “greenhouse effect” above contains no reference to the 2nd Law at all and is not based on it.

    On the other hand, your and others’ misinterpretation of the 2nd Law is interesting, so I comment on it sometimes.

  143. tjfolkerts says:
    July 21, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    “It is more accurate to say that ALL of the upward radiation gets absorbed by the GHGs (if it is in their bands). “

    No, this is not correct. It depends on the concentration. If there is one molecule of CO2 at 20 km, it is not going to intercept everything coming at it from below 20 km.

    “The radiation from the top will decrease as more CO2 is added.”

    All things being equal, that would be the case (though, all things are decidedly not equal, which is why we haven’t observed any definite warming effect from CO2). However, it is because the increased concentration of CO2 would intercept more outbound IR. It has little to do with the altitude at which it is intercepted.

  144. Greg House says (July 21, 2013 at 1:44 pm): ‘The abstract you linked your words to does not say anything about “increasing the temperature of a vacuum furnace heating element”.’

    I had no problem downloading the full text. Does that not work for you?

  145. Bart,

    Sorry, in the context of the original statement, I thought is was clear I was still discussing your “low altitude” scenario. Let me be just a little clearer:
    ““It is more accurate to say that ALL of the upward radiation FROM THE SURFACE gets absorbed by the GHGs (if it is in their bands). “

    The concentration of CO2 near the surface is such that the IR in the 15 um absorption band only travels a few 100 m (maybe less) before is it 99.999% absorbed.

    Bart goes on to say: “However, it is because the increased concentration of CO2 would intercept more outbound IR.
    That would be part of the effect … the edges of the bands where absorption are poor will be blocked better with more CO2. But the centers of the bands are already absorbed 100% in relatively short distances near the surface, so adding more CO2 cannot intercept more than 100%. Of course, this changes as you get high in the atmosphere — which was my original point.

    So both the “broadening of the band” effect and the “raise the top-of-atmosphere” effect both serve to decrease the IR emitted to space (and hence lead to warming).

    My intuition says that the “raise the top-of-atmosphere” effect will be more significant. But either way it leads to warming of the surface.

  146. Gary Hladik says:
    July 21, 2013 at 3:22 pm
    “I had no problem downloading the full text. Does that not work for you?”

    ==============================================================

    Gary, first of all, definitely no reader would pay for the full text of this hidden behind the pay wall article just to prove that you lied made a mistake.

    Besides, common sense is practically screaming that if the authors had claimed increasing efficiency of a furnace by back radiation warming, they would have certainly said it clearly in their abstract. They didn’t. Try it better next time. And thank you for this wonderful revealing example.

  147. Greg House says:
    July 21, 2013 at 9:59 am

    Tsk Tsk says:
    July 20, 2013 at 8:45 pm
    “See, I let you use instantaneous heating of the plate on the original 400W cycle, which means you have to let me use instantaneous cooling.”
    =============================================================

    The “greenhouse effect” is claimed to produce warming, not cooling, hence your derivation is not about the “greenhouse effect” any longer.

    To see the absurd result of the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” you need to strictly stick to this assumption, not to jump from this assumption to the reality back and forth or even invent other absurd things.
    ==========================================================================
    OK, admit it. Now you’re just being facetious. In order for your “example” to work you have to have effectively instantaneous heating and by extension instantaneous cooling. And since the plate is physically isolated from everything else the only mechanism to achieve that is through radiation. And in order to truly obey the second law (and the first) emissivity and absorptivity have to be the same. If they weren’t then we truly would have a perpetual motion machine. But that’s exactly what you created with your error. It’s only through your integration error that you get the result that you want. My “cooling” is nothing other than blackbody radiation which is your warming and is perfectly consistent with the GHE.

    Finally, I’ll note that you didn’t or couldn’t answer how nature knows to raise the temperature of the plate when we raise the temperature of the cold sink. How do you suppose that information propagates between them?

  148. Gary Hladik says (July 21, 2013 at 3:22 pm): “I had no problem downloading the full text. Does that not work for you?”

    Aha! I found the problem. I’m using my wife’s “old” computer, which still has her faculty access to many academic publications. I disabled the proxy server and lost free access to the article. :-(

    So Greg, if you really think I’m “making it up” you can buy the article for 2000 yen (~$20) and prove your accusation, or you can take my word for it. Meanwhile, I’ll look for something more accessible.

  149. Greg House 7/21 2:32pm: “My refutation of the “greenhouse effect” above…”

    If you mean above at 7/19 5:02pm, then you have provided no successful GHE refutation therein.

    tjfolkerts offers an explanation why your refutation is not successful at 7/19 5:57pm which you incorrectly hand wave away.

    For your claim “My refutation of the “greenhouse effect” above…” to be successful at the most basic level, you will need to prove that massive bodies with T>0K do not all radiate in IR bands.

    Earth’s atm. is a massive body with T>0K, so it must radiate in IR bands toward earth’s surface. Prove that wrong, and you will have your refutation.

    From my reading of your words, you confuse warming with heat. Heat is no longer a noun. Heat is only an adjective as in heat transfer. Where you use “heat” as a noun, or replace “heat” with “warming”, your science is lacking modern skill.

    Do not be alarmed! This happens to many, even those with more skill that you demonstrate. Especially in the field of study of Ocean Heat Content. Oh man, don’t go there with me.

    In your example, nature protects against your proposed runaway with reflectors that are not perfect. Made real, your 7/19 5:02pm system will not runaway; it will equilibrate with surroundings at a higher temperature than before your reflector was placed. The real equilibrium temperature will not be infinite (as tjf tries to show you) even with a darn good internal battery. Nature protects.

  150. tjfolkerts says:
    July 21, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    “But either way it leads to warming of the surface.”

    With the obligatory “all things being equal”. Because it has become quite apparent that all things are not equal, and the increase in CO2 is having little actual effect due, very likely, to powerful negative feedback effects.

    Moreover, I assert that your specific mechanism is falsified by the fact that it creates a positive feedback, which at the very least would lead to far greater variability in temperature and CO2 than is observed.

  151. Tsk Tsk says:
    July 21, 2013 at 5:00 pm
    “In order for your “example” to work you have to have effectively instantaneous heating and by extension instantaneous cooling.”
    =======================================================

    Last time I checked the notion of “greenhouse effect” suggested warming, not cooling.

    I understand you desire, you know, to somehow insert cooling into the absurd “greenhouse effect” to avoid it’s absurd consequence, but you can not have it. Blame the IPCC&Co for that, not me.

  152. Tsk Tsk says:
    July 21, 2013 at 5:00 pm
    “In your example, nature protects against your proposed runaway with reflectors that are not perfect. Made real, your 7/19 5:02pm system will not runaway; it will equilibrate with surroundings at a higher temperature than before your reflector was placed. The real equilibrium temperature will not be infinite (as tjf tries to show you) even with a darn good internal battery.”

    ==========================================================

    I can sense wishful thinking on your side. You did not check it, did you? Please, do a similar calculation assuming the reflector returns only the half of what it gets and report the result.

  153. Greg House says (July 21, 2013 at 4:45 pm): “Besides, common sense is practically screaming that if the authors had claimed increasing efficiency of a furnace by back radiation warming, they would have certainly said it clearly in their abstract. They didn’t.”

    That’s just it, Greg. As they wrote in their introduction, the increase in efficiency was well known even in 1956. Their contribution was just an improved way to predict the actual efficiency gain from various types of shields.

    “Try it better next time.”

    Not really much point, is there? As we saw with the dichroic light bulb example (complete with product brochure and scientific papers), you’re impervious to facts. Every one of your comments in this thread has only reinforced that.

    “And thank you for this wonderful revealing example.”

    My pleasure. Thank you for the laughs. I mean, “The greenhouse effect will melt your face!!!! Aaaaah!” Priceless. :-)

  154. Gary Hladik says:
    July 21, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    “That’s just it, Greg. As they wrote in their introduction, the increase in efficiency was well known even in 1956. Their contribution was just an improved way to predict the actual efficiency gain from various types of shields.”

    ========================================================

    Efficiency of protecting the environment from the inside heat by the shields, nothing more.

    Now I do not believe any longer that it might have been a misunderstanding on your side. I think you lied, on purpose, hoping that nobody would really read your link. The IPCC&Co style.

    Anyway, it is my strong opinion, others may have theirs.

  155. Greg … think about what you just said! “Efficiency of protecting the environment from the inside heat by the shields”

    The ‘protection of the environment’ means less heat getting out to adversely warm the surroundings. By conservation of energy, this mean the heating elements are providing less power than they would without without the radiation shields in order to reach the same temperature. Your own statement backs this up!

    But the furnace is still just as hot as before on the inside. Low energy loss with the shields; high energy loss without the shields. We can produce the same temperature with less power input.

    Let’s continue …

    Remove the radiation shields (keeping the power to the heating elements constant now) … and the furnace will cool down in the interior. Add the shields back (still at constant power) and the furnace will warm up.

    Yep, the cold shields, in conjunction with the steady heater, have caused the warm interior to get even warmer. All in a vacuum where there is no conduction or convection .. only ‘back-radiation’ to affect the furnace temperature.

    “Cool+hot is warmer than cold+hot”

  156. Greg House says (July 21, 2013 at 9:11 pm): “Efficiency of protecting the environment from the inside heat by the shields, nothing more.”

    Only in the sense that the shield(s) reduces the power needed to achieve a given core temp, so less heat is dissipated to the “environment”.

    “Now I do not believe any longer that it might have been a misunderstanding on your side. I think you lied, on purpose, hoping that nobody would really read your link. The IPCC&Co style.”

    Thanks for living down to my expectations, Greg. FYI, you’re also accusing “chris y” of lying.

    For those with a functioning brain still reading this thread, I’ve found another real life variant of the “Yes, Virginia” experiment that should be accessible to everyone. This paper describes a compact vacuum furnace for use in orbit, where weight, space, and power are critical. The paper describes a number of design measures to reduce power consumption, but as the author writes in the introduction, “…radiant heating dominates heat transfer in the furnace at all temperatures…” so the project concentrated on efficient radiation shielding.

    I suggest reading the entire paper for full comprehension, but for the money quotes skip down to the “Low Power Testing” heading, where the author writes,

    The first test of the furnace design gave 115 W of power used at a coil temperature of 600°C. This is to be compared with the exact same furnace using vacuum insulation except with a quartz outer shell [i.e. without radiation shield] that operated at the same core temperature, but used a power of almost 2 kW.

    Further work on the radiation shielding reduces the power input to 80 watts for the same 600°C operating temperature. Note (again) that the author sees nothing remarkable about using radiation shielding to raise core temp (or, equivalently, maintain core temp with lower power input). Only the Pink Unicorn Brigade sees this kind of thing as face-melting voodoo science. :-)

  157. george e. smith, you appear to be saying that if semiconductor material is heated its resistance goes up.
    A simple yes or no reply on this central point would have cleared the matter up
    My last post gave you the chance to set the record straight but instead you dodged the central point
    I hoped that you would agree with me that all commonly freely available sources (such as wikipedia) say exactly the opposite that is that the resistivity goes down as the temperature goes up.
    Here is the wiki reference that you found hard to find from the link I provided.

    Semiconductors[edit]
    Main article: Semiconductor
    In general, resistivity of intrinsic semiconductors decreases with increasing temperature. The electrons are bumped to the conduction energy band by thermal energy, where they flow freely and in doing so leave behind holes in the valence band which also flow freely. The electric resistance of a typical intrinsic (non doped) semiconductor decreases exponentially with the temperature:

    This is also the opinion of all the physics textbooks I have looked up

    University Physics – Harris Benson 1996 edition page 537
    Essential Principles of Physics – Whelan & Hodgson 1978 Edition page 354
    University Physics – Young & Freedman 1996 edition page 804

  158. Gary Hladik
    This expert in industrial heat transfer considered that while radiative effects of CO2 were very significant at furnace temperatures, the effects were almost negligible at atmospheric temperatures.
    A. Schack, Der industrielle Warmeubergang [The industrial heat transfer] (Verlag
    Stahleisen m.b.H., Dusseldorf,
    Remember that advocates of the Greenhouse Effect claim a magnitude of 33K

  159. Gary Hladik.
    the element in a vacuum furnace gets heat from the electrical energy supplied to its element.

    No I could not design such an engine because the theory is wrong so it would not work. I was wondering if Anthony would make the same assumption. Obviously not.

    As explained above decreasing entropy of a system is impossible without an external source of energy to drive that drop. The earth/sun system is it, no external energy to lower entropy, even cosmic rays powerful though they are act as a cooling mechanism by increasing clouds which increases entropy.

  160. The fact of the matter is you haven’t ever moved a meter with your pretend effect,
    and there’s no name for that effect in the literature of history except as been claimed by cranks to move weather, and eventually climate.

    You’re not going to move a meter with the magic gas effect because there is no heating component to a miles deep frigid, refrigerated, gas bath. The fact the earth’s covered with ten thousand feet of refrigerant isn’t going to help your case.

    You who believed there would one day be found an effect measurable have been proven wrong in your guess which way an instrument would move time, after time.

  161. The ocean basins cover the earth about 55 or something percent. They kick back blue light the most energetic end of the spectrum.

    The earth’s “the blue planet” because of it.

    You’re not going to find an instrument class which reveals a warming effect due to the presence of the gas, water, half the globe covered in oceanic basins of:
    frigid,
    liquid,
    refrigerant.

    Even saying you think maybe reveals something’s seriously up with what leads you to claim you believe it. The atmosphere’s a frigid gas bath, refrigerated, with phase change action, of water.

    The refrigerant and the tiny trace of CO2 aren’t going to be found, ‘warming’ anything. No matter how many years people spend milking the grant/publicity that comes from insisting it will.

  162. [snip -try again, sans the accusation, my patience with you is wearing thin – Anthony]

  163. tjfolkerts says:
    July 21, 2013 at 10:35 pm
    “Greg … think about what you just said! “Efficiency of protecting the environment from the inside heat by the shields”
    The ‘protection of the environment’ means less heat getting out to adversely warm the surroundings. By conservation of energy, this mean the heating elements are providing less power than they would without without the radiation shields in order to reach the same temperature. Your own statement backs this up!”

    =======================================================

    Is it possible that you have lost focus a little bit?

    There are many ways to keep cold from getting warm and warm from getting cold, like blankets, insulation etc. . But we are talking specifically about alleged “back radiation warming effect” also known as “greenhouse effect”. This particular effect is not possible, as I demonstrated earlier on this thread.

  164. Gary Hladik says:
    July 22, 2013 at 12:08 am
    “I’ve found another real life variant of the “Yes, Virginia” experiment that should be accessible to everyone. This paper describes a compact vacuum furnace for use in orbit, where weight, space, and power are critical. The paper describes a number of design measures to reduce power consumption, but as the author writes in the introduction, “…radiant heating dominates heat transfer in the furnace at all temperatures…” so the project concentrated on efficient radiation shielding.”

    ========================================================

    This is the same kind of misunderstanding as in case of reflective layer on the inner side of a thermos flask. This is the definition of thermos flask from the WordWeb dictionary: Vacuum flask that preserves temperature of hot or cold drinks. So, they apparently know 2 things: a)it is vacuum insulation that works there, not “radiation shield”, they do not even mention the reflective layer and b)it does not necessarily warm (“cold drinks”). It is clear, that a thermos flask with a reflective layer will indeed keep a hot drink warm under usual conditions due to vacuum insulation, but this should not be confused with the alleged “back radiation warming effect”

    The same goes for any application. Reflected radiation like any radiation can warm, but not the source and not from cold to hot, see the demonstration above.

    The only way a radiation shield can work would be by redirecting radiation to some spot, but not to the source, the latter is impossible.

    In the abstract the authors wrote: “Vacuum and radiation insulation, coupled with low conductivity support paths provided a means to almost eliminate heat losses from the furnace,”, so, vacuum insulation would work, lowering conductivity would work, too, redirecting radiation would work in some cases, but redirecting radiation back to the source won’t work for physical reasons.

  165. Richard Vada says:
    July 22, 2013 at 4:21 am

    I suspect you are essentially correct, and that the phase changes of massive amounts of water dominate the dynamics. Mind you, what you are suggesting is negative feedback. It does not invalidate the basic Greenhouse mechanism, but it makes a mockery of the necessary “all things being equal” qualification. All things are decidedly not equal, and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, according to the observational evidence, has negligible impact on surface temperatures.

  166. ” Greg House says:
    July 21, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    Gary Hladik says:
    July 21, 2013 at 11:01 am
    “How do you explain a radiation shield increasing the temperature of a vacuum furnace heating element?”
    ==========================================================

    The abstract you linked your words to does not say anything about “increasing the temperature of a vacuum furnace heating element”. The shields are apparently supposed to protect the environment from the heat.”

    On Earth, if you have a bunch of mirror and point them at tower it can make very high temperatures and this high temperature be used to generate electrical power.
    A loss in such a system is whatever is being heated will radiate heat and it will also heat the air
    and lose heat from convection.

    On the Moon you could have same solar power system and not have any loss from convection of heat, but still have losses from radiant energy. So due to lack of heat loss from heating air [as you in a vacuum]. Such solar tower would be more efficient as compared to such systems on Earth.
    Plus on the Moon you start with more sunlight.
    Sunlight not intensify can heat an object to somewhere around 80 C, and on Moon the sunlight heats surface to about 120 C. This is due to solar flux being 1360 watts per square meter on the Moon as compared to around 1000 watts per square meter on Earth.
    With Moon you have no losses from convection and you have higher intensity of sunlight [the Earth’s atmosphere stops over 360 watts from reaching the surface].

    So on the Moon with mirrors one can more easily produce very high heat. On could point mirrors at the ground and melt and vaporize the ground. And your biggest loss is having very hot material which could be vaguely approaching the surface temperature of the Sun. But as get to point of reaching say 1000 K, the surface emitting a lot of energy, and 3000 K it’s glowing like a light bulb-
    5-10% of energy emitted is visible and most of rest in Near Infrared.
    And this is not anywhere close to climate science’s back radiation- it’s not in same time zone.
    A light bulb filament is small. if instead it was 1 meter square, it’s radiant energy is a lot- It’s around 4 million watts.
    So if want 2000 to 3000 K temperatures for furnace or power generation, you have stop the loss of this radiant energy- or use a lot of mirrors and/or only heat relatively small area.
    On with the Moon one can nearly capture the heat of the sun- though with lasers on Earth you can exceed the sun’s heat, to do this, generally involves using a vacuum- though dropping a nuclear bomb can provide such very high temperatures, briefly. [Btw, nuclear bombs above ground have different effects on Moon as compared to Earth- see high altitude/space environment nuclear explosions.]

    So solar power tower on Earth:
    “Thermal storage to store the heat in molten salt containers to continue producing electricity while the sun is not shining
    Steam is heated to 500 °C to drive turbines that are coupled to generators which produce electricity”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower
    ” Since molten salt is able to reach very high temperatures (over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit) and can hold more heat than the synthetic oil used in other CSP plants
    http://inhabitat.com/worlds-first-molten-salt-solar-plant-produces-power-at-night/
    1000 F is 537.7 C
    The advantage of using salt is you have a liquid [not a high pressure gas] at high temperature,
    the higher temperature has more heat stored in smaller area. So it’s used rather than oil or water for this reason.

    On moon you could also use salt, but you also perhaps have option of using some other medium which melts at even a higher temperature. Higher temperature can allow more efficiency, but one has more heat loss. So one were using solar tower which operated at same temperatures as on Earth, you would probably not use reflectors to deal with heat loss, but on the Moon one has potential to operate solar power towers or solar furnaces at much higher temperatures at lower costs, and have various benefit associated with operating at these higher temperature, and one would use reflectors to significantly reduce heat losses.

  167. Bryan say: “This expert in industrial heat transfer considered that while radiative effects of CO2 were very significant at furnace temperatures, the effects were almost negligible at atmospheric temperatures.”

    Bryan, industrial heating and the earth-sun-space system are rather different. Two huge differences pop to mind.
    1) Furnaces are typically no more than a few meters large. Those are rather short distances for CO2 to make much difference.
    2) Furnaces are surrounded by a “cold reservoir” at about 300 K (the air and ground and water around us). The earth is surrounded by a cold reservoir at about 3 K. So the equivalent statement would be something like “while radiative effects of CO2 were very significant at typical atmospheric temperatures, the effects would be almost negligible if the atmosphere were close to 3 K”.

  168. Bryan says (July 22, 2013 at 2:27 am): “This expert in industrial heat transfer considered that while radiative effects of CO2 were very significant at furnace temperatures, the effects were almost negligible at atmospheric temperatures.”

    The real-world effect of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases can be measured from the ground. The downwelling IR (DWIR) at Billings, OK, for example, varied around 300+ watts per square meter October 3-5, 1993. Not what I would call “negligible”.

    “Remember that advocates of the Greenhouse Effect claim a magnitude of 33K”

    From all so-called “greenhouse gases”, including water vapor, CO2, methane, ozone, etc.

  169. johnmarshall says (July 22, 2013 at 2:41 am): “No I could not design such an engine because the theory is wrong so it would not work.”

    Dodging the question. I asked you, as you asked Anthony, to design an engine utilizing the so-called “greenhouse effect”, assuming such an effect. You can’t, so your challenge is meaningless.

    What do think about the compact vacuum furnace?

  170. Greg House says (July 22, 2013 at 8:13 am): “…so, vacuum insulation would work, lowering conductivity would work, too, redirecting radiation would work in some case…”f

    Indeed, the furnace minimizes conduction losses through careful design and convection losses by using a vacuum, but to repeat from the introduction, “…radiant heating dominates heat transfer in the furnace at all temperatures…”

    “…but redirecting radiation back to the source won’t work for physical reasons.”

    Demonstrably false. Remember the control experiment for the effect of the radiation shielding? SInce English is apparently your second language, I’ll add emphasis:

    The first test of the furnace design gave 115 W of power used at a coil temperature of 600°C. This is to be compared with the exact same furnace using vacuum insulation except with a quartz outer shell [i.e. without radiation shield] that operated at the same core temperature, but used a power of almost 2 kW.” See? Vacuum in both cases, radiation shielding made all the difference.

    Since even that may not penetrate, I’ll translate: The radiation shielding alone reduced power requirements by over 90%. Pretty good for a “non-existent” effect, no? :-)

    Of course I still expect you to see nothing. I’m writing primarily for any fence-sitters still reading and secondarily for amusement; I always did enjoy watching the antics of “Sgt. Schultz” (though even he never thought he could melt his face with a mirror). :-)

  171. Greg House 8:13am demonstrates his confusion arising from use of the word “warm” when writing:

    1) “It is clear, that a thermos flask with a reflective layer will indeed keep a hot drink warm under usual conditions…”
    2) “Reflected radiation like any radiation can warm, but not the source…”

    The source of the warmth in the thermos flask is the hot drink hence these Greg House’ writings cannot both be true. The one that is not true in modern science is 2).

    In modern science, the word “energy” can be used as a noun, heat or “warmth” cannot be used as nouns. When one writes “heat transfer” it is always way less confusing to write “energy transfer”.

    Energy is conserved, heat is not. Heat as a noun doesn’t even exist once the caloric theory died out.

    Here’s one way I would make Greg House’ statements less confusing, both of these are true in modern science:
    1) “It is clear, that a thermos flask with a reflective layer will indeed keep a hot drink losing energy slower under usual conditions…”
    2) “Reflected radiation like any radiation can slow energy transfer but cannot raise the temperature above that of the original source…”

    ******
    Greg House 8:13am continues:

    “The only way a radiation shield can work would be by redirecting radiation to some spot, but not to the source, the latter is impossible.”

    When Greg House writes that incorrect statement, what he means to convey properly is something like this:

    “The only way a radiation shield can work would be by redirecting radiation to some spot, but if redirected to the source, it is impossible to raise the source’ temperature above starting conditions.”

    To Greg House – A recommendation for less confusion (of author & reader) in your postings: drop the terms “warm”, “warmth”, “heat” as a noun and substitute “energy” & “temperature”. Greg House’s postings will become a lot less confused and Greg House’s refutation(s) above will be obvious as to why it (they) cannot prevail.

  172. “”””……..Bryan says:

    July 22, 2013 at 1:41 am

    george e. smith, you appear to be saying that if semiconductor material is heated its resistance goes up.
    A simple yes or no reply on this central point would have cleared the matter up
    My last post gave you the chance to set the record straight but instead you dodged the central point
    I hoped that you would agree with me that all commonly freely available sources (such as wikipedia) say exactly the opposite that is that the resistivity goes down as the temperature goes up.
    Here is the wiki reference that you found hard to find from the link I provided.

    Semiconductors[edit]
    Main article: Semiconductor
    In general, resistivity of intrinsic semiconductors decreases with increasing temperature…….”””””””

    So Bryan,

    Let’s divide all common solid materials into two classes. One class is metallic conductors. Now Let me add, that we are talking PURE materials. Not a single atom of any impurity. The second class of such materials are not metallic conductors.
    Now we eliminate the first class; we have no more interest in them.

    What is left are “insulators.” They don’t generally have free electrons, particularly when cold.

    So-called “semi-conductors” are just insulators, usually in crystalline form since we said they are pure materials, and some of the shared electron bonds are weak enough that a few of them break at room Temperatures,. Yes these would be “intrinsic” semiconductors. A crystal like quartz has such strong bonds that very few break at room Temperature due to thermal agitation, but heat them enough, and eventually some will break, so is quartz an insulator, or a semiconductor ?

    But now we focus in on those solids that for various reasons we tend to think of as semiconductors.

    Carbon, Silicon, Germanium, and alpha tin, would be some group IV ones. Well carbon (diamond) is not your typical semiconductor; nor is alpha tin.

    The next group, would be the III-V s , the three fives, GaAs, GaP, GaN etc. Then there are the
    II-VI s, the two sixes, and so on and there’s a lot of them.

    But Silicon is best known and plentiful, so let’s stay with that.

    “””””…..In general, resistivity of INTRINSIC semiconductors decreases with increasing Temperature…..”””””

    Just try buying one; an intrinsic silicon device.

    Well you can’t; except as a paper weight, because you cannot make Ohmic contact with intrinsic silicon, to attach wires to it, and make a resistor out of it. But the statement is true. Raise the Temperature and more bonds will break, Same goes for quartz and diamond.

    But we were talking about LEDs , not intrinsic paper weights. (or gemstones).

    USEFUL semi-conductors are ALWAYS doped with impurities. In the case of Silicon, Boron and Phosphorous, would be two very common ones. Phosphorous, being group V donates a free electron, and makes the material n-type. Boron creates a hole, and makes p-type.

    Typical densities would range from 1E14 to 1e19 impurity atoms per cc. Silicon has 5E28 atoms per cc.

    I cited measured conductivities for 1E15 and 1E17 doping densities, which are more typical values. You need to get into the 1E19 to 1E20 range to make Ohmic contacts. Silicon has 5E22 atoms per cc.

    So at the highest doping densities, you have one impurity atom in 5,000 silicon atoms; and one in half a million is more typical.

    So keep that in mind when somebody tries to tell you that 400 ppm (1/2500) CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, couldn’t possibly do anything.

    But back to the semiconductor resistivity.

    At very high Temperatures, much higher than climate Temperatures, or device survival Temperatures, thermal breaking of crystal bonds, will lead to conductivity, that increases rapidly with higher Temperatures.

    As the Temperature drops, the thermally induced conductivity drops, until it is below the dopant induced conductivity, and below that Temperature, the conductivity now drops with lower Temperatures, or if you like the resistance goes up with Temperature just as I said.

    At low enough Temperatures (maybe 100 K) the conductivity will have a range of near zero Temperature coefficient, and at cryogenic Temperatures, it will once again have a conductivity that increases with Temperature, but at a much lower rate than the high Temperature end. At those Temperatures, the device is no longer an operational functioning semiconductor device, like a transistor, or LED. That doesn’t mean it is destroyed, it just doesn’t work at such low Temperatures.

    Over the whole functional operating Temperature and useful doping range of a Semiconductor device, the resistivity has a positive Temperature coefficient.

    So if you would like a gold star for finding texts that say the intrinsic Temperature coefficient is negative; I’ll give you a silver star, since YOUR references, failed to tell you the coefficient is also negative at very low Temperatures, for some extrinsic semi-conductors as well.

  173. Gary Hladik says:
    July 22, 2013 at 12:25 pm
    ““The first test of the furnace design gave 115 W of power used at a coil temperature of 600°C. This is to be compared with the exact same furnace using vacuum insulation except with a quartz outer shell [i.e. without radiation shield] that operated at the same core temperature, but used a power of almost 2 kW.” See? Vacuum in both cases, radiation shielding made all the difference.

    Since even that may not penetrate, I’ll translate: The radiation shielding alone reduced power requirements by over 90%. Pretty good for a “non-existent” effect, no? :-)”
    ============================================================

    The only rational explanation for this alleged difference performance by two types of shields (apart from non-existing back radiation effect) can be that they have other differences, like different conductivity, which leads to some differences in temperature and efficiency. But not back radiation.

    Another option would be that someone made it up.

    Again, as I demonstrated earlier on this thread, the assumption of “back radiation warming” leads to a runaway warming and production of energy out of nothing, which is apparently absurd and proves the assumption false. This is basic physics and simple math. There is no way around it.

    To illustrate it by a simple example, if someone claims to have increased efficiency of something by using the innovative equation 2+2=5 and there is indeed an increase in efficiency, then it is not because 2+2=5 and it does not prove 2+2=5 being correct, it must be for some other reasons.

  174. Gary Hladik and tjfolkerts
    In this case the argument is not with me but with Professor Schack.

    Professor Alfred Schack, the author of a standard textbook on industrial heat transfer .
    was the first scientist who pointed out in the twenties of the past century that the infrared
    light absorbing gas components carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) may be
    responsible for a higher heat transfer in the combustion chamber at high burning temperatures
    through an increased emission in the infrared. He estimated the emissions by measuring the
    spectral absorption capacity of carbon dioxide and water vapor.
    In the year 1972 Schack published a paper in Physikalische Blatter entitled ;
    The inuence of the carbon dioxide content of the air on the world’s climate”.
    With his article he got nvolved in the climate discussion and emphasized the important role of water vapor .
    Firstly, Schack estimated the mass of the consumed fossil fuels per year
    Schack then shows that CO2 would absorb only one seventh of the ground’s heat radiation
    at most, if the water vapor had not already absorbed the infrared light in most situations.
    Furthermore, a doubling of the CO2-content in the air would only halve the radiation’s characteristic absorption length, that is, the radiation would be absorbed at a length of 5km
    instead of at a length of 10 km, for example.
    Schack discussed the CO2 contribution only under the aspect that CO2 acts as an absorbent
    medium. He did not get the absurd idea to heat the radiating warmer ground with
    the radiation absorbed and re-radiated by the gas.
    In a comment on an article by the science journalist Rudzinski the climatologist
    Oeschger objected against Schack’s analysis of the inuence of the CO2 concentration on the
    climate that Schack had not calculated thoroughly enough . In particular, he referred to
    radiation transport calculations. However, such calculations have formerly been performed
    only for the atmospheres of stars, because the processes in planetary atmospheres are far too
    complicated for such simple models. The goal of astrophysical radiation transport calculations
    is to calculate as many absorption lines as possible with one boundary density distribution
    and one temperature dependency with respect to the height with Saha’s equation and many
    other additional hypotheses . However, the boundary density of the radiation intensity
    cannot be derived from these calculations.
    One should emphasize that Schack was the first scientist to take into account the selective
    emission by the infrared light absorbing re-gases for combustion chambers. Therefore one
    is driven to the verge of irritation when global climatologists blame him for not calculating
    complicatedly enough, simply because he saw the primitive physical concepts behind the
    equations for the radiation transfer.

    Taken from link below (page 71) with additional calculations to justify the analyisis.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf

  175. Trick says:
    July 22, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    “Greg House 8:13am demonstrates his confusion arising from use of the word “warm” when writing:
    1) “It is clear, that a thermos flask with a reflective layer will indeed keep a hot drink warm under usual conditions…”
    2) “Reflected radiation like any radiation can warm, but not the source…”
    The source of the warmth in the thermos flask is the hot drink hence these Greg House’ writings cannot both be true.”
    =============================================================

    It is only your cutting out an essential part out of my statement that let it look contradictory. Dirty trick, Mr.Trick.

    You have cut out the parts “due to vacuum insulation” and “but this should not be confused with the alleged “back radiation warming effect””. This is what I rally said: “It is clear, that a thermos flask with a reflective layer will indeed keep a hot drink warm under usual conditions due to vacuum insulation, but this should not be confused with the alleged “back radiation warming effect”. Meaning that the reflective layer inside a thermos flask is useless, it is the vacuum insulation that works.

  176. Bryan says (July 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm): “Gary Hladik and tjfolkerts
    In this case the argument is not with me but with Professor Schack.”

    I’m not sure there’s any argument at all. Theoretical calculations, based on the absorption/emission properties of CO2, say a doubling of CO2 should warm the Earth by about 1 K, all else being equal. All else is never equal of course, but both sides of the CAGW debate seem to agree on this point. Does Professor Schack disagree? Does he calculate the effect of doubling CO2, all else being equal?

  177. “””””……Bryan says:

    July 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    Gary Hladik and tjfolkerts
    In this case the argument is not with me but with Professor Schack.

    Professor Alfred Schack, the author of a standard textbook on industrial heat transfer .
    was the first scientist who pointed out in the twenties of the past century that the infrared
    light absorbing gas components carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) may be
    responsible for a higher heat transfer in the combustion chamber at high burning temperatures……”””””

    If I’m not mistaken (I have been before) one of the causes of pre-ignition in ICE engines, is EM radiation.

    Back in the days when I was interested in “hot” sports cars and engines, I recall reading, that, in a gasoline ICE at high compression, both the Temperatures and pressures go sky high at higher compression ratios, and eventually the heated gases are hot enough to radiate high enough energy photons, to ignite a fuel-air mixture. At the point where that happens, there is immediate ignition of all of the as yet unburned fuel air mixture, that the burning flame front, has not reached yet; so the result is a ping.

    That is part of the argument for many smaller cylinders, rather than fewer large cylinders, and is also a principal reason for dual spark plug ignition systems; to reduce the path length that the burning flame front has to travel, so it gets to the fuel faster, before the Temperature rise and radiation blows everything at once.

    Don’t know if that theory is still in good standing today, but modern ICEs seem to operate with much higher compression ratios than was possible in earlier times.

    I seem to recall, that my hot Jag XK-140 engine (3.4 litre) had an 8.5:1 compression ratio. The standard engine was lower (1956).

    Supercharged engines didn’t run as hot or as high pressures, so bearing loads were more reasonable, but thermal efficiency was lower because of the lower Temp, so radiator problems were the result.

    As I say, dunno if any of that applies today, or whether it was just folklore.

  178. Trick says (July 22, 2013 at 1:05 pm): ‘2) “Reflected radiation like any radiation can slow energy transfer but cannot raise the temperature above that of the original source…’

    The second part of that statement is not true, as demonstrated by this paper (unfortunately behind a paywall) and such tangible examples as this compact vacuum furnace and this dichroic light bulb.

    That shouldn’t be surprising. Just as the temp of a constantly heated house goes up when insulation is added (thus “slowing” conductive energy transfer to the environment) a radiation shield “slows” radiative transfer to the environment. Greg’s bullus excrementum example is exactly the same as applying a perfect insulator to one side of the plate, but with a radiative shield he thinks the plate would melt. In the insulated case he would (I hope) agree that the plate would simply radiate 800 W from the uninsulated side. Yet the two cases are functionally identical.

    It’s that kind of fuzzy thinking that leads the Pink Unicorn Brigade to conclude that the so-called “greenhouse effect” would melt your face (to the everlasting amusement of WUWT readers). :-)

  179. george e. smith
    Might be some truth in your pre ignition theory, it sounds plausible.
    One other curious engine effect is the smooth running of a petrol engine on a damp day.
    Some even tried to force steam into the pistons.
    The effect here however might be a petrol film forming over water droplet ensuring a better burning efficiency.

  180. Greg House says (July 22, 2013 at 2:55 pm): “Meaning that the reflective layer inside a thermos flask is useless, it is the vacuum insulation that works.”

    Which of course explains why thermos manufacturers go to the expense of adding the reflective layers, despite the danger that someone’s face could melt. :-)

  181. Greg House says (July 22, 2013 at 2:41 pm): [snip face-melting silliness]

    I won’t even bother.

    However, this perfectly illustrates a point I’ve made before on WUWT. When I bring up the “Yes, Virginia” thought experiment and ask why the Pink Unicorn Brigade (PUB) doesn’t do it for real and win a Nobel Prized for overthrowing conventional physics, someone usually asks why Dr. Spencer doesn’t do it and show the PUB they’re wrong.

    I reply

    1) Dr. Spencer has no reason, as he already knows the result;

    2) The PUB will not accept someone else’s experiment, even if it’s peer-reviewed and published or even a commercially available product. The PUB would have to do the experiment themselves, and even then they might not accept the result. No danger they’ll actually do it, of course.

    As we’ve seen with Anthony’s and Curt’s experiments, and with the papers and products discussed in this thread, I was (sadly) right. The PUB is impervious to both logic and facts. They’re exactly like the more rabid CAGW alarmists, who are likewise immune to truth. They all remind me, in fact, of this guy. :-)

  182. Greg House 2:55pm: My clip is intended to be brief but capture context. In this case, a thermos flask “under usual conditions” does contain a vacuum thus the context was carefully preserved in my clip.

    The reflective coating however is not useless. And remember radiation travels thru a vacuum. Under intense competition worldwide now, manufacturers would not bother with reflective coatings but in case they are wrongfully expending shareholder money, consider your story above where you write: “Reflected radiation like any radiation can warm…”

    Here, if you follow thru with my recommendation and drop the term “warm” and reduce confusion toward science preciseness short of formulas try these for a thermos flask:

    “Reflected radiation like any radiation can slow the cooling of the hot drink in the thermos…”

    “A vacuum in a thermos flask like any vacuum can slow the cooling of the hot drink in the thermos…”

    Both of which cause thermos buyers to part with some cash or credit.

    You are right despite your confusing wording in that neither the reflected radiation nor the vacuum insulation can increase the energy in the thermos flask. And eventually the hot drink reaches equilibrium with the surroundings (aka room temp.).

    Notice also, thermos temperature does not run away from reflections onto the energy source, refuting your 7/19 5:02pm claim above about GHE falseness. Nature protects a thermos from runaways with non-perfect reflectors and non-perfect vacuum insulation in much the same way as it does the atm. A difference is the location of the energy source (inside vs. outside), another difference is forced vs. unforced.

  183. Gary Hladik says:
    July 22, 2013 at 3:38 pm
    “Just as the temp of a constantly heated house goes up when insulation is added (thus “slowing” conductive energy transfer to the environment) a radiation shield “slows” radiative transfer to the environment.”

    ========================================================

    “A radiation shield “slows” radiative transfer to the environment” in some cases, but it can never change the temperature of the source, this is physically impossible, see my demonstration above.

    The first point about house insulation is misleading and blatantly wrong, unfortunately warmists use it quite often. Insulation neither warms nor cools, it creates only a barrier and the effect can be both cooling and warming, depending on air temperatures inside and outside.

  184. Gary Hladik 3:38pm: The thermos discussion in context is unforced (once filled) so I think it works (grad T of the hot drink always neg.), what do you think?

    The light bulb, furnace, etc. are forced. You are right in that forced context. In the forced context, even earthshine falling on the sun increases the sun’s temperature a bit more than without the earthshine (like the bulb & furnace experience) but the system doesn’t run away in temp. reality refuting the 7/19 5:02pm post claim about GHE falseness.

  185. Trick says:
    July 22, 2013 at 4:17 pm
    “Nature protects a thermos from runaways with non-perfect reflectors…”

    ====================================================

    I have already suggested that you made a calculation similar to mine above assuming only 50% reflection. Was it so difficult? Then you would have come to the same absurd result: runaway warming and export of energy created out of nothing.

    Thermos does not work by reflecting radiation, this effect is physically impossible.

  186. Greg House says (July 22, 2013 at 4:32 pm): ‘A radiation shield “slows” radiative transfer to the environment” in some cases, but it can never change the temperature of the source, this is physically impossible, see my demonstration miscalculated thought-less experiment above.’

    This is physically possible, see the real live examples that I referenced above.

    They’re guaranteed not to melt your face off, too! :-)

  187. Trick says (July 22, 2013 at 4:38 pm): “The thermos discussion in context is unforced (once filled) so I think it works (grad T of the hot drink always neg.), what do you think?”

    Yup.

  188. Greg House 4:50pm:

    Here I believe you jump back from unforced thermos system to forced (internal battery) system in your 7/19 5:02pm post refuted by tjfolkerts calc.s 7/19 5:57pm and I on 7/21 7:19pm.

    You use an unnatural perfect reflector to come to the wrong natural conclusion about the GHE. A perfect reflector does not exist in nature so there are no runaways, nature always protects us.

    Your reality forced system w/imperfect natural reflector will equilibrate energy in and out at a higher temperature than without the reflector; tjf does the correct calc.s. Your system, made real in an experiment, will not runaway.

    Nature shows us a thermos does function in part by reflecting radiation non-perfectly, this thermos effect is physically possible with no runaway.

    What I would do if I were you is take my suggestion seriously and rewrite your 7/19 5:02pm post without using these terms: warm, warms, warmer, warming, warmed. Just use energy and temperature terms. You will reach a different conclusion once you eliminate your confusion caused by these inadequate, imprecise “warm” terms. By doing it yourself, you really will learn your conclusion about the false GHE can be easily refuted.

  189. Trick says:
    July 22, 2013 at 6:12 pm
    “You use an unnatural perfect reflector to come to the wrong natural conclusion about the GHE. A perfect reflector does not exist in nature so there are no runaways, nature always protects us.”

    ==============================================================

    I have told you twice, if you assume only 50% reflection, you will get the same absurd outcome. Get it? Just not in 2, but in 4 seconds. 50% reflector is not perfect, is it? Satisfied now?

  190. Greg House says:
    July 21, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    Tsk Tsk says:
    July 21, 2013 at 5:00 pm
    “In order for your “example” to work you have to have effectively instantaneous heating and by extension instantaneous cooling.”
    =======================================================

    Last time I checked the notion of “greenhouse effect” suggested warming, not cooling.

    I understand you desire, you know, to somehow insert cooling into the absurd “greenhouse effect” to avoid it’s absurd consequence, but you can not have it. Blame the IPCC&Co for that, not me.
    =========================================================================
    At this point I should probably just say, “I know you are, but what am I?” since that has been the extent of your replies, but again I’m bored so I’ll try once more.

    The “cooling” that you continue to dwell upon is your heating. More specifically I am simply stating that the heat transfer is symmetrical, i.e. the mechanisms that heat the plate(just radiation in this case) are the same mechanisms that cool the plate. It’s really only through your integration error that you arrive at your conclusion, so let’s try once more to enable your understanding by building your problem up step by step:

    1) Begin with the blackbody plate you specified and infinitesimally thin so only the two large sides need be considered.
    2) Place the body in empty space surrounded by no background radiation, i.e. 0K
    3) Apply 800W of power production so that it comes up to temperature in equilibrium with its surroundings. Per your example before this is instantaneous (or at least is complete within your time step) but it works for real systems as well.
    4) Remove the power source. What happens? Since you want the plate to absorb all incoming radiation immediately that also means that it emits that radiation just as easily. And in your tortured problem you’ve stipulated the boundary condition that the plate MUST radiate away all of that additional heat in the next time step. Let’s come back to the real (but still idealized) plate again. The reality is that the plate is emitting 800W. Next we remove the power supply. In the immediate instant (Planck time?) after we do that the plate emits 800W, but that lowers the internal energy and hence the temperature of the plate to:

    Tnew=Told – E/m/cp

    Where Tnew and Told are the current and preceding step temps; m is the plate mass; cp is the specific heat of the plate and E is the energy (heat/radiation) emitted by the plate which is just power * time or:

    E=area*sigma*T^4*t

    Where sigma is the S-B constant; T is the present temperature; and t is the time step. Really the E, P, and t should all be dE, dP, and dt but let’s indulge ourselves.

    Now let’s return to your example where you say that the plate which absorbs the radiation has to emit that same radiation on the next step. If it doesn’t you don’t get your amplification. This is the “cooling” that you keep tripping on. But if it emits that energy then its temperature reverts to what it was before it received that energy because if it did not then you would be making energy. In order for that to not be the case you have to argue that an object cannot cool by radiation. Good luck with that.

    So let’s do your calculation properly accounting for the fact that an object which emits loses the energy that it emits.

    Step Energy Produced Total Emission Reflected Energy Energy Lost
    1 800 800 0 400
    2 800 1200 400 600
    3 800 1400 600 700
    4 800 1500 700 750
    5 800 1550 750 775
    6 800 1575 775 787.5
    7 800 1587.5 787.5 793.75
    8 800 1593.75 793.75 796.875
    9 800 1596.875 796.875 798.4375
    10 800 1598.4375 798.4375 799.21875
    11 800 1599.21875 799.21875 799.609375
    Sum 8800 16000.78125 7200.78125 8000.390625

    So by the 11th time step we have produced a grand total of 8800J of energy. We have emitted (lost to space) 8000J and we have retained 800J which is exactly the amount that we produce each cycle. However, because we have saved the output of previous cycles in the reflection loop we have a total of 800J resident in the system at any given time step. Without the reflector we would have no energy resident in the system. Again, the reality is that the system is continuous and these time steps are very crude but we’ve at least made everything self-consistent.

    But here’s the more interesting part of the problem: the temperature. The emission to empty space is still 800J(W) but the area radiating to space is half the original area since the other half is interacting with the reflector. So P=area*sigma(T^4):

    Pold=800=Pnew => Pold=area_old*sigma(Told^4)=area_new*sigma(Tnew^4)=Pnew

    Tnew/Told=(area_old/area_new)^1/4

    and area_old=2*area_new, so:

    Tnew/Told=(2)^1/4 which just so happens is a (global) warming.

    Since you won’t like the derivation that way, then do it from a total plate emission perspective:

    Pnew=2*Pold (from the tabulation) => Tnew^4=2*Told^4 => Tnew/Told=(2)^1/4.

    So again, your entire supposed falsification is based upon the fact that you didn’t add properly. You gloss over that by claiming that hot objects emit therefore they keep emitting the same energy. But that itself is a horrible error.

    Mods, if the text table doesn’t come through don’t worry about it.

  191. Gary Hladik says:
    July 22, 2013 at 5:31 pm
    “…see the real live examples that I referenced above.”
    =======================================================

    You referenced claims. They contradict basic physics and simple math, see my demonstration above. We know all that, thermos, blanket, radiation shield. Whatever some people might imagine, back radiation can not warm the source. Physically impossible.

    You other line “why would manufacturers use reflective layer inside a thermos flask” has nothing to do with physics and math. Manufacturers are known to be, let’s say, not particularly smart in some cases. Not so long ago some of them tried to buy a patent on a perpetual motion machine, a real life example. Should be a proof of existence of a perpetual motion machine, right?

  192. Trick says:
    July 21, 2013 at 7:19 pm

    In your example, nature protects against your proposed runaway with reflectors that are not perfect. Made real, your 7/19 5:02pm system will not runaway; it will equilibrate with surroundings at a higher temperature than before your reflector was placed. The real equilibrium temperature will not be infinite (as tjf tries to show you) even with a darn good internal battery. Nature protects.
    ==========================================================================
    No. The system is perfectly functional and capable even with perfect reflectors and blackbodies. Nature doesn’t have to protect against anything other than bad addition and the circular logic that comes from the insertion of a violation of the 1st law of thermo into a “proof” that a very real effect violates the 1st law of thermo…

  193. Tsk Tsk says:
    July 22, 2013 at 7:29 pm
    “… bad addition and the circular logic that comes from the insertion of a violation of the 1st law of thermo into a “proof” that a very real effect violates the 1st law of thermo…”

    =============================================================

    The only thing I “inserted” was the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC, “warming by back radiation”. Blame the IPCC.

  194. GH 7:06pm:

    “I have told you twice, if you assume only 50% reflection, you will get the same absurd outcome. Get it?”

    No, b/c you have confused yourself with the “warm” terms, there is no absurd outcome in nature with 50% reflection. You got it wrong once. Now twice. The system temperature with reflector will equilibrate with surroundings at a higher T, it will not runaway to an absurd outcome. If it would, power up the USA. Want to go 3for3?

    If not, rewrite your 7/19 5:02pm post using temperature and energy terms only. You will quickly find where you slip up.

  195. Tsk Tsk 7:29pm: “The system is perfectly functional and capable even with perfect reflectors and blackbodies.”

    Not a real system. I will have to disagree in real nature on entropy grounds, no entropy increase is only theoretical and used for learning. With real nature allowing a perfect reflector or perfect insulation, a forced system will have no equilibrium, there will be no energy out, it will runaway, Greg’s face WILL melt. I would turn my furnace on once a winter and when it cycles off, it is off for good. Might have to turn on the A/C when the winter sun comes thru the south windows.

    In an unforced system, the thermos will just sit there keeping your coffee hot ‘til the next millennium. Not so bad.

    But you won’t be able to go around a curve in your car without friction, and brakes? None. Engine RPM, no limit, unbalance ends its life quickly. Friction can be your friend, nature protects the innocent.

    Not sure what you mean by a very real effect violates 1st law.

  196. Gary & Trick (and others) discuss the idea that “Reflected radiation like any radiation can slow energy transfer but cannot raise the temperature above that of the original source…”

    People often seem to miss that there is a SECOND, INDEPENDENT energy source in the cases of interest. The furnace has heating elements (even hotter than the chamber of the furnace). The earth has the sun (even hotter than the surface of the earth).

    It is quite true that neither back radiation nor the insulation of your house nor the vacuum flask can BY ITSELF raise the temperature of the furnace chamber or the contents of the vacuum flack or the surface of the earth. For an unheated object, these forms of insulation (conductive insulation and/or radiative insulation) merely slow the cooling toward the temperature of the surroundings. Without the sun, the earth would slowly cool toward 3 K — the GHGs can do nothing more in this case than slightly prolong the time it takes to cool.

    But for the earth’s surface (or the analogous chamber of the furnace) has an active heater included (ie the sun or the heating elements of the furnace). The sun is actively trying to warm the earth’s surface; deeps space is continuously trying to cool it. The steady-state temperature (or more precisely, the quasi-steady-state temperature since there are variations during the day and the year) is the result of the competition between warming due to the sun and cooling due to space. The GHGs limit the effectiveness of the cooling part of the interactions. With the same energy input (eg the sun or the heating elements), but less energy output (eg radiation shields or GHGs ), the only possible result is a warmer surface or furnace chamber.

    Energy is conserved. Entropy increases. The net flow of energy is always from warmer to cooler. All is good in the universe.
    .

  197. Greg House says:
    July 22, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    Tsk Tsk says:
    July 22, 2013 at 7:29 pm
    “… bad addition and the circular logic that comes from the insertion of a violation of the 1st law of thermo into a “proof” that a very real effect violates the 1st law of thermo…”
    =============================================================

    The only thing I “inserted” was the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC, “warming by back radiation”. Blame the IPCC.
    ==========================================================================
    No, you inserted a violation of conservation of energy by having the plate remain hot after it emits the received reflected energy. You have to explain how the same energy can be in two places at once. Good luck.

  198. Tsk Tsk 7:15pm: Nice work, glad you are bored.

    As I tried to show GH 7/21 at 7:19pm, I agree with you here, in that GH doesn’t yet get that the atm. being T>0 has to radiate at the surface as you write:

    “In order for that to not be the case you have to argue that an object cannot cool by radiation. Good luck with that. “

  199. Trick says:
    July 22, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    Tsk Tsk 7:29pm: “The system is perfectly functional and capable even with perfect reflectors and blackbodies.”

    Not a real system. I will have to disagree in real nature on entropy grounds, no entropy increase is only theoretical and used for learning. With real nature allowing a perfect reflector or perfect insulation, a forced system will have no equilibrium, there will be no energy out, it will runaway, Greg’s face WILL melt. I would turn my furnace on once a winter and when it cycles off, it is off for good. Might have to turn on the A/C when the winter sun comes thru the south windows.
    =========================================================================
    No it will not. There is energy out. He placed a reflector only on one side. The other side is still free to emit. Once the transient is overcome the system will again emit 800W to space. In the interval from the introduction of the reflector to the steady state the system will actually emit less energy to space than 800W.

  200. Tsk Tsk 8:19pm; “He placed a reflector only on one side”

    GH placed a perfect reflector so it doesn’t emit from the other side at all. The perfect reflector T=0K which is just what GH misses in nature of GHE. The other side is NOT free to emit in GH construct. Of course, in nature it will have a T>0 and emit as you show.

  201. Using a plate with infinitesimal mass in Greg’s example is problematic. It is better to use some finite mass — perhaps an object with a heat capacity of 100 J/K. Then either take small time steps (1 second should work OK here) or actually use calculus to get an exact answer. Assuming that things change 100’s of degrees in each time steps will give poor results.

    In this case, the plate with a 800 W heater would radiate 400 W/m2 from the two sides = 289.8 K (for a blackbody) with no reflector in place (and ~ 0 K surroundings to avoid any other “back-radiation”)

    Add the reflector .. and suddenly 400 W/m^2 of reflected light comes back from one side.
    1ST SECOND: the object at 298 K will emit 400 + 400 J and absorb 800 +400. The net gain is 400, which warms it up by (400 J/K / 100 J) = 4 K to 294.
    2ND SECOND: the object at 293.8 K will emit 422 + 422 J and absorb 800 +422. The net gain is (800+422) – (422+422) = 378J , which warms it up by 3.78 K.
    3RD SECOND: the object at 297.6 K will emit 445 + 445 J and absorb 800 +445 . The net gain is (800+445 ) – (445 +445 ) = 355J , which warms it up by 3.55 K.

    You can write your own spreadsheet to finish it up. after 10 seconds, it has warmed to 320 K, with a net loss of 200 J/s. After 30 seconds, it is 341 K losing a net (800+ 739) – (739-739) = 61 J/s

    After 75 seconds, it is 344.6 K, emitting 800 + 800 from the two sides. It is also absorbing 800 (form the heater) + 800 (from reflection). Balance has been achieved.

  202. Trick says:
    July 22, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    Tsk Tsk 8:19pm; “He placed a reflector only on one side”

    GH placed a perfect reflector so it doesn’t emit from the other side at all. The perfect reflector T=0K which is just what GH misses in nature of GHE. The other side is NOT free to emit in GH construct. Of course, in nature it will have a T>0 and emit as you show.
    ==========================================================================
    Go re-read the problem statement. The is only reflection on one side of the power plate. The other side is free to radiate into empty 0K space.

  203. Tsk Tsk says:
    July 22, 2013 at 7:15 pm
    “The “cooling” that you continue to dwell upon is your heating. More specifically I am simply stating that the heat transfer is symmetrical, i.e. the mechanisms that heat the plate(just radiation in this case) are the same mechanisms that cool the plate.”

    =============================================================

    OK, let me try it again. The blackbody in my example is initially at a stable temperature, no cooling, no warming. Then comes the reflector and I assume that there is “greenhouse effect”, that is “warming by back radiation”. So, it is not a reality, it is an assumption. My intention is to find out, if thisassumption would lead to an absurd outcome. A typical “reductio ad absurdum” approach.

    Now, there can not be any cooling, only warming, because it is what the “greenhouse effect” is supposed to do. Crucially important here is to take into consideration that our body a)gets continuously warmer because of back radiation and b)therefore radiates according to it’s increasing temperature more and more and gets accordingly more and more back radiation and so on. Again, this is not real, this goes only under the assumption of the “greenhouse effect”.

    As a result, the system blackbody-reflector exports more energy than it has at its disposal. This is absurd and proves the assumption (“greenhouse effect”) false (see my calculation above).

    You calculation is wrong, because you ignore that the blackbody’s temperature in my example increases constantly (“greenhose warming”). Again, this is not real, this is the assumption. I assume the “greenhouse effect” and stick to it doing the calculation, so simple is that.

    Your “coolings” in the process of constant warming are not a part of the “greenhouse effect”, nor are they a part of reality. You invented an absurd thing, congratulations, it is even “better” than the “greenhouse effect”.

  204. Using a plate with infinitesimal mass in Greg’s example is problematic. It is better to use some finite mass — perhaps an object with a heat capacity of 100 J/K.

    Which is why you have to contort things and make the plate give up all of the heat it received on the previous cycle.

    Then either take small time steps (1 second should work OK here) or actually use calculus to get an exact answer. Assuming that things change 100′s of degrees in each time steps will give poor results.

    1ST SECOND: the object at 298 K will emit 400 + 400 J and absorb 800 +400. The net gain is 400, which warms it up by (400 J/K / 100 J) = 4 K to 294.
    2ND SECOND: the object at 293.8 K will emit 422 + 422 J and absorb 800 +422. The net gain is (800+422) – (422+422) = 378J , which warms it up by 3.78 K.

    I tried writing the progression down with a cp of 1 and you do indeed get ridiculous temp swings with a time step of 1sec. The second step is where he makes his mistake. He wants that step to be 400+422 for total reflection and then he just keeps compounding the error.

  205. Greg House says (July 22, 2013 at 7:23 pm): “You referenced claims.”

    No, no, I referenced a real live peer-reviewed paper and actual products that people have made, at least two of which (thermos and dichroic bulb) you can actually buy. (I suppose you could also buy a compact vacuum furnace, for the right price). Wait! Three real products (cue the Spanish Inquisition): the infrared microbolometer! The unsubstantiated “claims” around here are yours.

    Or do you have a peer-reviewed paper (paywalled or otherwise) saying the so-called “greenhouse effect” will melt your face? (The Journal of Pink Unicorns doesn’t count) :-)

  206. Tsk Tsk says:
    July 22, 2013 at 8:28 pm
    “No, you inserted a violation of conservation of energy by having the plate remain hot after it emits the received reflected energy. You have to explain how the same energy can be in two places at once.”
    =====================================================

    I understand that the step by step illustration might be difficult for some people. Following you logic, even before we introduce the reflector, when our blackbody emits 800 per second, it’s temperature drops to the absolute zero every second because, you know, it has emitted those 800 and has nothing more, then comes the next 800, the body emits and its it and it’s temperature drops to the absolute zero again and so on. Wait, we can take a millisecond instead of a second and it will be the same. So, according to your approach, a body at a stable temperature, let us say 333K is not actually constantly at 333K, but it’s temperature is jumping back and forth like that: 333-0-333-0-333-0-333-0-333-0-333-0- and so on.

    Congratulations, this absurdity beats even the “greenhouse effect”.

    So, again, the absurd result I got from the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” is to blame on the notion of the “greenhouse effect”. The nature does not work this way, of course.

  207. Trick says (July 22, 2013 at 8:19 pm): “Not a real system.”

    Right. It’s a thought experiment, or in Greg’s case a “thought-less” experiment. I seem to recall Greg writing in an old thread that he didn’t like thought experiments, but perhaps he’s learned to embrace the madness. :-)

    I’m thinking I’ve been to quick to dismiss Greg’s “demonstration”, as he puts it. I think we can have some fun with it. Let’s take Greg’s two-sided one meter square metal plate with 800 watts of input power, radiating 400 W per side. Now add Greg’s “perfect reflector” to side B, effectively blocking all radiation from side B. Assume, as Greg claims is true, that the reflected energy reaching side B can’t raise the plate’s temperature. What happens then?

    Well, I never studied Pink Unicorn Physics, so here I have to ask Greg what happens to the reflected energy striking side B? Is it absorbed somehow without affecting the plate, is it reflected back to the perfect reflector, or does it disappear?

    Over to you, Greg.

  208. Gary Hladik says:
    July 22, 2013 at 9:17 pm
    “No, no, I referenced a real live peer-reviewed paper … do you have a peer-reviewed paper …”

    =========================================================

    I suggest we discuss physics and math, not the peer-review process.

  209. Dang, that should have been …
    1ST SECOND: the object at 298 K289.8 K
    in my previous post.

    I hope that is the only typo.

  210. Gary Hladik says:
    July 22, 2013 at 9:37 pm
    “I think we can have some fun with it. Let’s take Greg’s two-sided one meter square metal plate with 800 watts of input power, radiating 400 W per side. Now add Greg’s “perfect reflector” to side B, effectively blocking all radiation from side B. Assume, as Greg claims is true, that the reflected energy reaching side B can’t raise the plate’s temperature. What happens then?”
    =============================================================

    Gary, if someone suggests 2,000,000,000,000 apples + 2,000,000,000,000 apples = 5,000,000,000,000 apples, would you suggest someone conducted an experiment or used simple math to prove that it is false? The question is rhetorical, of course.

  211. tjfolkerts says (July 22, 2013 at 9:41 pm): “I hope that is the only typo.”

    Don’t worry, only three or four of us are still reading. I suspect the mods are about to put a contract out on us. :-)

    • Indeed, Greg House hasn’t made any converts, and his arguments are still as ridiculous as his face melting from last week.

      Thread closed.

Comments are closed.