Submitted to Geophysical Research Letters, 6/21/21. Published here at the request of the author.
Howard C. Hayden1
1Prof. Emeritus of Physics, UConn, now in Pueblo West, Colorado (corkhayden@comcast.net)
1. Introduction
A recent GRL paper by Loeb et al [1] contains a serious error in physics that is compounded by some extreme exaggerations to the press and in another GRL paper [2].
2. Basic Physics
With frequent but small, ephemeral exceptions, the radiant heat that a planet emits to outer space equals the heat absorbed from the sun. Indeed, this is true for Earth within 0.3 percent [1]. For Earth, the incoming/outgoing heat rate amounts to about 240 W/m2, averaged over the surface; for Venus, owing to its high 76% albedo, only 156 W/m2
The surface of the planet emits IR according to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. The surface of Earth at 288 K emits 390 W/m2, some 150 W/m2 more than the earth emits to space. That 150 W/m2 of heat retention is the cause of the 33 ºC temperature rise over the non-GHG Earth with the same albedo. Venus at 737 K emits 16,730 W/m2 from its surface, but only 156 W/m2 into space. The 16,574 W/m2 difference, due to the composition of the extremely dense atmosphere of Venus is what determines the climate of Venus: 511 ºC hotter than the hypothetical Venus with the same albedo but no greenhouse effect.
2.1 The Error in Physics
The serious scientific error of Loeb and colleagues is contained in this sentence, quoted verbatim:
“Climate is determined by how much of the sun’s energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation.”
Climate is determined by the very large difference between surface radiation and planet radiation, and is most assuredly not determined by minor positive and negative imbalances between absorbed solar energy and radiated IR.
2.2 Unjustified Assertion
Mr Loeb is quoted in numerous news articles (Washington Post, CNN, and others) as saying, based on about 15 years of CERES data, that the minor disequilibria between incoming and outgoing heat fluxes is “unprecedented.” The same claim is made in the title of a GRL article by Mr. Loeb [2]. Perhaps he can provide us with data from the last 4.6 billion years of Earth’s history to back up that claim.
[1] Norman G. Loeb, Gregory C. Johnson, Tyler J. Thorsen, John M. Lyman, Fred G. Rose, and Seiji Kato, “Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate, Geophysical Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093047 [2] Loeb, N. G., H. Wang, R. P. Allan, T. Andrews, K. Armour, J. N. S. Cole, et al., 2020: New generation of climate models track recent unprecedented changes in Earth’s radiation budget observed by CERES. Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086705. doi:10.1029/2019GL086705, ci
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Forget this graph at your peril.
Various satellite platforms before year 2005 gave a spread of TSI at TOA of about 15 wm-2.
The signal that was sought was under 1 wm-2.
Noise exceeds signal. By a lot.
Earlier operators subjectively moved the data closer together to present it as real.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/toa_problem.jpg
Then along comes the new satellite on the block, CERES, so they use data after 2005.
Question is, where do they place the CERES data in relation to this mixture of pre-2005 stuff?
Move the data up or down too much and the potential illusion of a change of half a Watt per sq m becomes no more than an error of INACCURACY. Geoff S
I’d say the bigger error is using the S-B equation in the form reserved for idealized blackbodies:
q = σ T^4
… slapping ε (emissivity) onto that:
q = ε σ T^4
… and calculating radiant exitance based upon that. Essentially treating graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects (ie: they don’t emit according to the energy gradient), but with ε<1 (sometimes).
The 390 W m-2 mentioned above can be achieved the following ways by using this incorrect formula:
1) Assume surface ε = 1 and ambient temperature = 0 K
This gives us a surface temperature of 287.9816 K to emit 390 W m-2. This treats real-world (graybody) objects completely as though they’re idealized blackbody objects.
2) Assume surface ε = 0.93643 (reference: NASA ISCCP program) and ambient temperature = 0 K
This gives us a surface temperature of 292.7493 K to emit 390 W m-2. This treats real-world (graybody) objects as through they’re idealized blackbody objects, but with ε<1.
3) Or, we can use the correct equation, taking into account the energy gradient, which all real-world (graybody) objects do:
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
So, we make the assumption, for example, of surface ε = 0.93643 (reference: NASA ISCCP program), and atmospheric temperature = 255.3722222222222 K
This gives a surface temperature of 328.16659 K to emit 390 W m-2.
As you can see, by treating real-world (graybody) objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects which emit without regard to the energy gradient, the radiant exitance is calculated far higher than it actually is, necessitating that the climastrologists then calculate a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow to subtract from the real (but improperly calculated, and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler energy flow.
4) For the same conditions as 3) above, but assuming 287.64 K surface temperature and solving for radiant exitance, we get 137.6512308353677 W m-2, not the 390 W m-2 assumed by incorrect math and incorrect science.
“q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h”
No, this equation is the result of the warmer body radiating with a power proportional to the fourth power of its temperature and the cooler body with power proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. This is just an equation giving the net flow of energy that results from both bodies simply following the SB law. There is no phsyical mechanism by which a body can detect the “energy gradient” and adjust it’s radiation accordingly.
There is a good article at the Science of Doom blog, with examples from several thermodynamics textbooks that explains the second law of thermodynamics governs only the NET flow of heat, and that this generally results from a bidirectional exchange of energy with more energy flowing from warmer to cooler than is recieved in the other direction. This is also in Clausius’ original text (I checked). Those that think the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics are just revealing their ignorance of thermodynamics.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/07/amazing-things-we-find-in-textbooks-the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
BTW there are still questions you are running away from on your carbon cycle article, for instance this one:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/#comment-3273746
You seem more than a little confused… do you suppose there is only one ‘Clyde’ in the world? LOL
Apologies, mea maxima culpa.
Read above… your classical interpretation of the wholly-quantum phenomenon known as ‘photons’ doesn’t work. Update your knowledge.
So the thermodynamics professors who wrote those thermodynamics textbooks are all wrong and you know better?
Still stuck on classical theory, eh? But that won’t stop you from bleating your fool head off, I bet. LOL
You’re subscribing to the Prevost Principle (whether you know it or not), core belief of the Prevost Theory Of Exchanges, a long-debunked radiative hypothesis dating from 1791, thrown on the midden-heap of scientific history by none other than James Clerk Maxwell, who convinced the scientific community to instead use the Kinetic Theory of Heat, which has since been superseded by Quantum Thermodynamics.
Planck clung to the debunked Prevost Principle when he stated that radiant exitance of an object depended only upon what happened within that object (he even specifically mentioned the Prevost Principle in the immediately-preceding sentence), which caused him to treat real-world (graybody) objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects (ie: they emit regardless of energy gradient), but with emissivity < 1. The climate loons cling to that because it supports their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy gradient‘ narrative, which supports their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which supports their ‘CAGW‘ narrative.
Your take on radiative physics would mean that objects at thermodynamic equilibrium would still be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation, which means the energy density in the intervening space is doubled… a violation of Stefan’s Law. I urge you to study quantized standing wavemodes in a cavity at thermodynamic equilibrium, realize that the wavemode nodes are always at the cavity walls in this case, and thus energy cannot flow (from cavity wall to cavity wall, from cavity wall to cavity space, or from cavity space to cavity walls) because photon chemical potential is zero.
If no work can be done, no energy can flow.
Further, whenever energy flows, entropy comes into play, for irreversible processes… all real-world processes are irreversible, radiation included because it is a temporally variant process. So your take on radiative physics would imply that a higher entropy object could spontaneously lower the entropy of an already-lower entropy object… that can’t happen unless time reversal has taken place (CPT symmetry), and we know that doesn’t take place for irreversible processes.
There are several other means by which to disprove your take on radiative physics… shall we delve into all of them?
Nope, what I have said is all taken from modern thermodynamics textbooks, which I have pointed out to you and which you are ignoring.,
Oh, do be getting right on detailing exactly how a photon can remain persistent in an EM field with higher chemical potential than the photon’s chemical potential… this should be good. LOL
Or didn’t you realize that a warmer object will have higher energy density (higher chemical potential) at all wavelengths than a cooler object? That a photon emitted by a cooler object with that lower chemical potential will have to ascend an energy gradient as it moves toward the warmer object, and as it moves it’s moving through a region with increasing chemical potential? That, given that the warmer object has higher energy density (higher chemical potential) than the cooler object at all wavelengths, the ever-increasing chemical potential of that gradient will subsume that photon before it ever reaches the warmer object?
None of your “thermodynamics textbooks” mention any of that, because thermodynamics is largely a classical-based theory. So you’re still stuck treating quantum interactions classically… how’s that working out for you? LOL
“None of your “thermodynamics textbooks” mention any of that, because thermodynamics is largely a classical-based theory.”
O.K. so the thermodynamics textbooks are wrong and you have proved it on a blog, despite the fact the same law is directly obtained simply by assuming each body radiates according to its own local properties without the need for any interaction.
I’ve proved nothing except that you don’t even understand what game is being played… you’re stuck in classical physics, I’m drop-kicking your delusional reality-denying kook arse via quantum physics and radiative physics.
Tell us… at thermodynamic equilibrium between two objects and with their environment, how much energy is each object emitting? Get right on calculating that… remember, that’s a temperature differential of zero all round. Also remember you’re not dealing with idealized blackbody objects.
I’ve already said, both bodies emit according to the SB law. It really is very simple. If the fluxes are equal in both directions no work is done as the system state remains constant.
“Also remember you’re not dealing with idealized blackbody objects.”
Lets agree how simple black-body objects behave first – if we can’t even do that there is no point considering how that applies to the real world.
Both bodies emit according to the energy gradient. If the energy outside an object is higher than the object’s internal energy, just how do you propose that it even emits?
“Both bodies emit according to the energy gradient.”
You can say that as often as you like, but it doesn’t make it true. Modern thermodynamics textbooks, the latest from 2007, say otherwise.
“If the energy outside an object is higher than the object’s internal energy, just how do you propose that it even emits?”
Because radiation depends only on local temperature. As I have shown, the energy transfer equation can still be obtained in that case by straightforward algebra.
If you have moving objects, how can a cooler object “know” from energy gradient not to radiate any energy in a direction that is not currently occupied by a warmer object, but into which a warmer object will have moved by the time the radiation arrives?
It’s right in the S-B equation for graybody objects, for crying out loud.. why do you suppose that as temperature differential decreases radiant exitance decreases? LOL
Clyde, I don’t think “chemical potential energy” means what your statements imply. It is not a property of matter that is reflected outside its physical body: “In thermodynamics, the chemical potential of a species is the energy that can be absorbed or released due to a change of the particle number of the given species, e.g. in a chemical reaction or phase transition. The chemical potential of a species in a mixture is defined as the rate of change of free energy of a thermodynamic system with respect to the change in the number of atoms or molecules of the species that are added to the system.”
Additionally, here is how it is described for photons in a vacuum: “In the case of photons, photons are bosons and can very easily and rapidly appear or disappear. Therefore, at thermodynamic equilibrium, the chemical potential of photons is always and everywhere zero. The reason is, if the chemical potential somewhere was higher than zero, photons would spontaneously disappear from that area until the chemical potential went back to zero; likewise, if the chemical potential somewhere was less than zero, photons would spontaneously appear until the chemical potential went back to zero. Since this process occurs extremely rapidly (at least, it occurs rapidly in the presence of dense charged matter), it is safe to assume that the photon chemical potential is never different from zero.”
You are going to have to explain yourself much more clearly.
You’re stating chemical potential in regards to chemical reactions or phase transition. Photons have chemical potential, too. At thermodynamic equilibrium, their chemical potential is zero.
That Wikipedia entry is ambiguously worded… it’s a comparison between the chemical potential of the ambient EM field and the chemical potential of a photon.
Now, if photon chemical potential is zero at thermodynamic equilibrium, just how do you propose that a photon can do work if its chemical potential is less than zero (ie: photon chemical potential is below ambient EM field chemical potential), and thus the photons (a component of the EM field… merely a persistent perturbation above the ambient EM field) are subsumed into the ambient EM field?
Similar concepts are found in Helmholtz Free Energy. If the free energy is zero, no work can be done, no energy can flow.
Unless you’re now going to claim that free energy has nothing to do with work… but that’d just be silly. LOL
Since the net heat flow is from hot to cold, which is hotter in the earth/atmosphere system? The earth or the atmosphere? That will define the direction of net heat flow.
The surface is warmer than the atmosphere, so the net transfer of heat is from the surface to the atmosphere, which is what is shown in the usual Trenberth diagram.
Thank you for graphically proving my point.
That graphic shows the surface emitting 396 W m-2.
Let us do the calculations, shall we?
If we assume 288 K surface temperature, emission into a 0 K ambient, and emissivity = 1, we get 390 W m-2. That’s treating a real-world surface as though it’s an idealized blackbody object, and we still can’t get to 396 W m-2 radiant exitance.
If we assume 289.08284 K surface temperature, emission into a 0 K ambient and emissivity = 1, we then get 396 W m-2. That’s treating a real-world surface as though it’s an idealized blackbody object, and that’s higher than the stated average temperature of 288 K.
If we assume an empirically-derived emissivity (I use 0.93643 from NASA’s ISCCP program), 293.8688 K surface temperature and emission into a 0 K ambient, we get 396 W m-2. That’s treating a real-world surface as though it’s an idealized blackbody (but with emissivity < 1), and that’s far above the stated average temperature of 288 K.
If we assume an empirically-derived emissivity (I use 0.93643 from NASA’s ISCCP program), 396 W m-2 radiant exitance, and emission into a sane atmospheric temperature of 255 K, we get a surface temperature of 328.78912 K. That’s far, far above the stated 288 K.
If we assume an empirically-derived emissivity (I use 0.93643 from NASA’s ISCCP program), 288 K surface temperature, and emission into a sane atmospheric temperature of 255 K, we get radiant exitance of 140.7881 W m-2. That treats a real-world (graybody) object properly, uses the stated temperature of 288 K and more closely reflects reality.
In other words, the “practical application” of the incorrectly-used form of the S-B equation meant to be used only for idealized blackbody objects leads to nonsensical results which grossly overinflates calculated radiant exitance, which necessitates the climastrologists then subtract a wholly fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real-world (but incorrectly calculated and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow. That is the basis of their ‘backradiation’ claim, which they use to bolster their ‘CAGW’ claim… all of it a fiction based upon bad mathematics.
Globally, the atmosphere experiences a net radiation deficit of approximately 100 W m-2 resulting from the dominance of longwave radiative cooling over the absorption of shortwave radiation. This cooling is balanced by a transfer of energy from the surface, the majority of which is delivered by surface evaporative cooling and subsequent net latent heat release in the atmosphere once water is removed via precipitation.
Whoopsie… does that state that the atmosphere is radiatively cooled, and that water vapor delivers the majority of the deficit between atmospheric radiative cooling and convective atmospheric energy gain?
Why, that’d mean CO2 is only a minor contributor via tropospheric thermalization, which increases CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which more efficiently convects those high specific heat capacity CO2 molecules and high latent heat capacity water molecules to the upper atmosphere, where they radiatively emit their energy to space, which is a net cooling process for the system known as ‘Earth’.
More radiative molecules (CO2 or water, for instance) emit more radiation, which means more radiation emitted to space, which is a cooling process, thereby cooling the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere can convectively warm it. Isn’t that exactly what I’ve been stating? LOL
Polyatomics (radiative molecules all) are not ‘global warming, heat trapping’ gases… they are net atmospheric coolants. Only by completely neglecting the fact that convection and evaporation removes far more surface energy than radiation can the climastrologists and climate loons claim that CO2 ‘traps’ energy and thus warms the planet.
———-
The climate loons claim that an atmosphere with both:
1) radiative surface emission
– and –
2) convective transfer of energy to the upper atmosphere and subsequent emission of that energy to space
…will cool if there are no radiative molecules and thus 2) above doesn’t take place. They must make this claim in order to make the claim that CO2 causes warming.
So in keeping with as simple a problem as possible so the dullards don’t become confused again:
radiation = 0.238
convection = 0.762
You’ll note we’re not using any units. However, the numbers are the known proportion of energy each mechanism transports to space in our atmosphere.
So 0.238 + 0.762 = 1, with 1 being equal to the total radiation emission to space.
Now, they claim that surface radiation alone will transit more energy to space while the planet cools down if that 0.762 is taken away. So they’ve just stated that 0.238 > 1. LOL
They’re attempting the old kook tactic of comparing ‘surface radiation vs. convection to / radiation from the upper atmosphere‘ (despite the fact that ‘convection to / radiation from the upper atmosphere‘ transits far more energy to space than ‘surface radiation‘ does), when in fact they should be comparing ‘surface radiation and convection to / radiation from the upper atmosphere‘ vs. ‘surface radiation alone‘.
Remember, surface radiation is emitted into the center of an Atmospheric Infrared Window, and thus has a nearly unfettered path out to space. Now add to that ‘convection to / radiative emission from the upper atmosphere’ by radiative molecules… they claim that’ll be less energy emitted to space than surface radiation alone (which they must do in order to claim that CO2 causes warming, to justify their CAGW blather).
———-
Study the refrigeration cycle. Which do you suppose moves the bulk of energy at a faster rate? Radiation or convection?
Hint: It’s convection.
Water and convection represents a strong negative feedback to surface temperature… higher temperature means more water evaporation, which means more convection (humid air is more buoyant than dry air), that energy is entrained in the latent heat of vaporization of the water molecules and is rapidly convected closer to TOA, where that energy is radiated away as the water vapor undergoes phase change (vapor to liquid) and sometimes undergoes phase change twice (vapor to liquid, liquid to solid) which radiates away even more energy.
That’s why convection accounts for more than 3/4ths of all energy removed from the surface. Because water acts as a refrigerant, in a literal ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense.
The same holds true for CO2, to a far lesser extent (because CO2 only has specific heat at prevalent Earth temperatures, not latent heat, whereas water has both)… the CO2 molecule has higher specific heat capacity than the homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2) and the monoatomics (Ar), so it can carry more energy when it is convected or advected.
Net energy, NASA ERBE experiment © D. Bice
Thus a higher atmospheric concentration of CO2 molecules in a parcel of air will convectively transport more energy to the upper atmosphere and advectively transport more energy poleward (and more readily radiatively emit that energy) than a lower atmospheric concentration of CO2 molecules in a parcel of air.
Another advantage of CO2 over the homonuclear diatomics is that CO2 can easily radiate away its energy, whereas the homonuclear diatomics cannot… once the homonuclear diatomics are vibrationally excited, their quantum states are meta-stable and long-lived. Monoatomics have no vibrational mode quantum states.
All polyatomic molecules increase thermodynamic coupling between heat source (in this case, the surface) and heat sink (in this case, space). This is why a monoatomic (with fewer DOF and thus lower specific heat capacity) is used as a filler gas between double-pane windows. If CO2 was such a terrific ‘heat trapping’ gas, one would think it would be used in this manner, but it’s not, because window manufacturers understand that atoms or molecules with fewer DOF and thus lower specific heat capacity convect and advect less energy.
So logic would dictate that both water vapor and CO2 (all polyatomic molecules, really) are net atmospheric coolants. The effect of polyatomic molecules upon the lapse rate (for instance, the dry and humid adiabatic lapse rates) shows this to be true.
Not according to the climate loons… they claim energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy gradient (that energy gradient the reason why energy only flows from warmer (higher energy density at all wavelengths) to cooler (lower energy density at all wavelengths).
They’re forced to make the unscientific ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient‘ claim to bolster their equally unscientific ‘backradiation‘ claim, to bolster their wholly unscientific ‘CAGW‘ claim… they’ve folded crazy in upon itself so many times that it’s got its head up its arse. LOL
The questions that none of them have been able to answer:
1) If energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient, what’s to stop a bound electron emitting photons at its ground state, spiraling-in to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s) and undergoing electron capture?
2) Is the meta-stability of all invariant-mass matter in the universe mediated by magic?
3) Or can the bound electron only emit when its energy density is higher than ambient energy density, and can only descend to a quantum state which is roughly* equal to the ambient energy density, because energy can only flow from higher to lower energy density?
Fine clyde, not only are modern thermodynamics textbooks fundamentally wrong, you have also proved climatologists have been wrong for over 100 years on the most basic topic. Here is your Nobel prize.
Alternatively, you are wrong and you are too busy insulting people to listen when they point out your errors.
Galileos are vanishingly rare, “loons” (to use your term) are ubiquitous, especially on-line, so the probabilities of you being a new Galileo are not on your side.
“1) If energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient, what’s to stop a bound electron emitting photons at its ground state, spiraling-in to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s) and undergoing electron capture?”
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Ask Feynman:
If you understood quantum physics, you would know that you can’t treat electrons as if they were definite particles in orbit around the nucleus. Perhaps you shouldn’t be trying to prove multiple fields of science wrong in blog comments.
The SB law described radiation from macroscopic objects, not individual atoms.
It’s not that modern thermodynamic textbooks are “wrong”, it’s that you are misapplying classical thermodynamics to the wholly quantum phenomenon of photons, when classical physics cannot even describe the photon, let alone describe the behavior of same. This has been explained to you.
Feynman was often incorrect, and his belief in this sort of metaphysicalism is one example of such… for instance, he stated that photons travel in a straight line… we know they do not, they travel along the path of least time, and given the geodesical warpage of space-time by invariant-mass matter, the path of least time is not always a straight line… which causes, for example, gravitational lensing, which was what originally corroborated Einstein’s theory.
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle isn’t about actual ‘confinement’ of fundamental particles (which isn’t ‘confinement’ at all in this case… the electron and proton are oppositely-charged and attracted toward each other), it’s about the effects of the process of measurement of a fundamental particle disturbing that particle and thus corrupting the measurement. That’s why we have an uncertainty for position and momentum… because our measurement processes must interact with what we’re measuring, we are introducing that uncertainty via our measurement. If we had a system which could respond and record at a high enough rate (without disturbing the fundamental particle), we could absolutely track the position and momentum of the electron.
I suggest you read the new double-slit experiment paper by Kocsis et al.… they increased the uncertainty of the momentum (‘weak measurement’ via measuring momentum via photon polarization) to better track the trajectory of a photon. By interacting less with the photon ensemble, the overall uncertainty decreased, and they were able to more precisely pinpoint the photon trajectory.
The electron is an invariant-mass particle… it is not randomly hopping about space or appearing at multiple places at the same time… that’s the sort of metaphysicalism that Penrose believes, very few believe that, especially given that we now have photographs of electrons with ever-increasing resolution.
The claim is that if the electron were to spiral in towards the nucleus, proton position would become more and more precisely ‘known’ by the electron, to the point where, if the electron was really close to the the nucleus, its position would be ‘known’ with such a precision that, by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, the uncertainty in the electron’s momentum would have to increase by a massive factor, so massive that the electron’s kinetic energy would increase by a factor of around 10 to the power of 10. What this fails to address is that the electron doesn’t descend toward the nucleal proton(s) by increasing its kinetic energy, but by decreasing it.
Nothing like anthropomorphizing the electron, though, eh? LOL
https://web.archive.org/web/20180719194558/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf
“The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the ‘orbiting’ electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation.”
If the electron’s potential energy is zero (zero EM component of the quantum vacuum field sustaining electron orbit), then its kinetic energy decreases, as well, drawing the electron nearer the nucleus… remember that a point charge undergoing angular acceleration will emit Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons (the reason that every single element in the Periodic Table exhibits some form of magnetism, usually diamagnetism, although certain valence electron configurations allow, for instance, ferromagnetism to dominate the underlying diamagnetism). In the past, they attempted to resolve the ‘spiral-in’ problem by claiming that in the ground state, the electron didn’t emit Larmor radiation… as though ground state is any different than any other higher state. They showed their hand when they worded it as “net radiation”… the ground state is still emitting Larmor radiation, it’s just exactly balanced by energy from the quantum vacuum. If this were not so, then elements in their ground state would not exhibit the magnetism inherent to all elements in the Periodic Table… it’d simply ‘shut off’ in the ground state, allowing an easy means of determining when an atom or molecule was in its ground state. That doesn’t happen.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190713225420/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13330878_Ground_state_of_hydrogen_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation-determined_state
“We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom.”
They’ve now expanded upon this to more complex atoms and higher electron quantum states.
This is why, for example, one can put a noble gas through a plethora of Casimir cavities (a plethora because Casimir cavities are by necessity tiny), and the bound electron(s) of that noble gas will descend in its (their) orbit(s), giving off photon(s) which can be put to use (because the Casimir cavity is blocking some of the quantum vacuum wavemodes which sustain the electron in its usual ground state orbital radius). The noble gas then exits the cavity, the electron(s) regain(s) its (their) usual orbital radius by absorbing energy from the quantum vacuum, the noble gas is then piped back around to the inlet of the cavity to repeat the process. We have working laboratory models of this process.
If we were able to construct a Casimir cavity which could block all quantum vacuum wavemodes resonant with electron quantum state, the electron would spiral-in to the nucleal proton(s)… except it’s extremely difficult to block the quantum vacuum, being “DC to daylight”.
Perhaps you’d do well to leave quantum physics to the quantum physicists, eh? LOL
“Feynman was often incorrect, and his belief in this sort of metaphysicalism is one example of such… for instance, he stated that photons travel in a straight line… we know they do not, they travel along the path of least time, and given the geodesical warpage of space-time by invariant-mass matter, the path of least time is not always a straight line… which causes, for example, gravitational lensing, which was what originally corroborated Einstein’s theory.”
This is rubbish, Feynman understood general relativity and gravitational lensing perfectly well, so anybody with an ounce of common sense would understand he meant the sort of laboratory scale approximation that any sane physicist would adopt for any non-relativistic problem. Or perhaps that the path is a straight line in a space-time warped by gravity (which isn’t a straight line in ordinary space).
Given the first point is very obviously wrong, I don’t see any point in going any further with your Gish gallop.
Feynman’s own compiled list of errata from his lectures 1964-1976:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/info/flp_errata.html
The errors of Feynman and Hibbs:
https://isis2.cc.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/FeynmanHibbs/ErrorsOfFeynmanHibbsX.pdf
A “straight line in a space-time warped by gravity” isn’t a straight line in Euclidean space, Euclidean space is a localized flat-geometry 3 dimensional approximation of the far more accurate affine 4-D Lorentzian space-time.
In fact, a ‘straight’ line in gravitationally-warped 4-D Lorentzian space-time isn’t the ‘straight’ that you think of when you think of ‘straight’: Straight paths look, to our 3-D Euclidean-space oriented monkey brains, like curved paths.
It matters not whether he was speaking of laboratory-scale or cosmological-scale, light doesn’t travel in straight lines, sometimes even over short distances… it travels along the path of least time. In fact, he even invoked Fermat’s Principle while continuing to state a total of 21 times that light traveled in straight lines, while demonstrating that it didn’t. That’s erroneous.
If you’re treating electrons as though they’re ‘measuring’ the system, ‘interacting’ with the system, ‘perturbing’ the system (as our measurements do, hence the uncertainties that we introduce which cause the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), rather than treating those electrons as part of the system, you’re anthropomorphizing those electrons, and that is a metaphysical bridge too far.
Clyde,
”Feynman was often incorrect, and his belief in this sort of metaphysicalism is one example of such… for instance, he stated that photons travel in a straight line… we know they do not, they travel along the path of least time, and given the geodesical warpage of space-time by invariant-mass matter, the path of least time is not always a straight line”‘
–
It is rare when I agree with DM.
the path of least time has a direction which is the shortest path between two points in the reference frame being used.
Feynman was using the term “straight ” in this proper sense.
He was dealing with photons at a a microscopic level where the mass and time effects of subatomic particles seriously warp time and space.
–
Some of your graphs and comments are interesting, hence why people are responding to your claims.
Some of it is rubbish.
Not sure who you really are.
Light doesn’t follow a straight path even at microscopic lengths (nor at any length scale)… it always and everywhere follows the path of least time. Even at the microscopic level, that may not necessarily be a straight path, as our 3-D Euclidean space oriented brains interpret ‘straight’.
If you understood the physical makeup of the photon at its most fundamental level, you’d understand why that is.
I can teach you… would you like to know what a photon actually ‘looks’ like?
As to Feynman believing that bound electrons ‘interact with’, ‘measure’, ‘perturb’ the system as they spiral around the nucleus… that’s anthropomorphizing the electron. His belief that the electron can jump from place to place, appear in two places at the same time, etc. is metaphysicalism of the highest order. The electron is part of the system, not external to it. The electron doesn’t know nor does it care where the nucleus is… it’s just an invariant-mass charged fundamental particle. It cannot think, it cannot measure. Its position and velocity (speed and direction) are determined solely by the forces acting upon it, and that is deterministic. Simply because we don’t have the equipment to track it in real time doesn’t mean its position and velocity are not deterministic.
We can mathematically derive the S-B equation from the Quantization Rule… it is completely deterministic. It also entails Power, which entails force, and force is directly related to work, which is why energy does not flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient. One would think the two warmist supposed physicists here would realize this simple fact, but apparently simple math escapes them. LOL
It is our measurements (which must interact with the fundamental particle in order to measure it) which perturbs the system, which introduces the uncertainties which we know as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. That’s why the new weak-measurement double-slit experiment was able to more accurately track photon trajectory, it perturbed the system less, and thus introduced less uncertainty.
There most certainly is a mechanism by which a body can ‘detect’ the “energy gradient”… radiation pressure.
The entire CAGW argument is fallacious, predicated upon a physical mechanism which is provably physically impossible, and which violates several fundamental physical laws, not least of which are 2LoT and Stefan’s Law.
The climatastrologists use the following for graybody objects:
q = ε σ T^4
That’s the formula for idealized blackbody objects. They essentially slapped ε (emissivity) onto that formula and called it good, but that’s not even proper math, let alone proper science.
The proper formula for graybody objects:
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
A BB object assumes maximum radiant exitance, and maximum radiative absorptivity… equivalent to assuming idealized blackbody objects disregard energy gradient. Graybody objects, however, take into account the energy gradient.
Their use of the wrong formula increases radiant exitance of graybody objects far above what it actually is:
… which necessitates that they subtract a fictional ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
Thus, some of the loons come to believe that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (the basis of their ‘backradiation’ blather). This violates 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense… energy cannot flow from lower energy density to higher energy density without external energy doing work upon the system to push that energy against the energy gradient. Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object.
Energy only flows if there is an energy gradient, and it only flows down that energy gradient (unless external energy is doing work to push that energy up the energy gradient, as in a refrigerator or A/C unit). That energy gradient is set up by the object’s surface molecule’s magnetic dipoles generating a radiation pressure. It is the energy density differential between cooler and warmer object which determines the radiant exitance of the warmer object, for a system with only two objects. For a complex system consisting of many objects, it is the energy density differential of a multitude of objects, but the same principle holds.
F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy
U = internal energy
T = absolute temp
S = final entropy
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment
If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
If ΔU = 0, then (ΔU * c/4εσ) = 0, thus no energy can flow.
U has the same physical units as pressure (J m-3) and U ∝ T. That is radiation pressure, which sets up the energy gradient.
Free energy is defined as the capacity to do work. If U = TS, p_photon = u/3 = p_object, energy cannot flow because no work can be done. Helmholtz Free Energy is zero. Photon chemical potential is zero.
———-
We’ll examine the temperature / pressure / energy relation in an atom / molecule sense and in relation to photons:
An atom or molecule moving in a single translational mode DOF will have a higher temperature for the same kinetic energy than if it’s moving in more than a single translational mode DOF.
KE = (DOF / 2) k_B T
T = (2 KE) / (DOF k_B)
In statistical mechanics the following molecular equation is derived from first principles: P = n k_B T for a given volume.
Therefore T = (P / (n k_B)) for a given volume.
Where: k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J·K−1); T = absolute temperature (K); P = absolute pressure (Pa); n = number of particles
If n = 1, then T = P / k_B in units of K / m³ for a given volume.
Now, knowing that libtards are pedants, they’ll likely bleat something like “Temperature does not have units of K / m³ !!!“… note the ‘for a given volume‘ blurb. We will cancel volume in a bit.
We can relate velocity to kinetic energy via the equation:
v = √(v_x² + v_y² + v_z²) = √((DOF k_B T) / m) = √(2 KE / m)
As velocity increases, kinetic energy increases.
Kinetic theory gives the static pressure P for an ideal gas as:
P = ((1 / 3) (n / V)) m v² = (n k_B T) / V
Combining the above with the ideal gas law gives:
(1 / 3)(m v²) = k_B T
∴ T = mv² / 3 k_B for 3 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / k_B for 1 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / DOF k_B
See what I did there? I equated kinetic energy to pressure over that volume, thus canceling that volume, then solved for T.
———-
Now, that’s for particle kinetic energy, and we can see that temperature and pressure are intimately linked. What about photons?
The pressure P for a photon gas exerted in the x-direction on area A of a wall is summed over all i = 1 to N photons:
P = ½ ∑ 2 pix vix / V = ⅓ U/V = ⅓ e,
U is just ∑ pix vix + piy viy + piz viz for photons.
The equation for the radiation energy density is Stefan’s Law and a is Stefan’s constant.
e = aT^4
∴ T = 4^√(e/a)
In other words, temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant. It is a measure of energy density.
Keep in mind that Stefan’s constant above equals 4σ/c (which is sometimes known as the radiation constant), and ε is the emissivity modifier for graybody objects.
Which is why: U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
This agrees with Planck’s Law: ρ(T) = aT^4 = T^4 4εσ/c, when including the graybody emissivity modifier ε.
The S-B equation integrates Planck’s Radiation Formula (which calculates the energy density for a given wavelength) over all wavelengths.
Now that we see that all are in agreement, let us move on to chemical potential…
Among the properties of the cavity with volume V in radiative thermal equilibrium at temperature T is that:
U = a V T^4
P = ⅓ a T^4
S = (4/3) a V T^3
We can calculate the chemical potential, µ, which measures the ease with which the number n moles of photons adjusts to keep the energy density constant in the cavity in radiative thermal equilibrium:
µn = U – ST + PV
µ = 0
When photons are in radiative thermal equilibrium in a volume V at a constant temperature T, their chemical potential is zero.
Chemical potential is a measure of the ability to do work. If chemical potential equals zero, no work can be done, thus no energy can flow.
Also remember that there is no conservation law for photons. Since photons are merely persistent perturbations of the EM field above the ambient, should the ambient EM field chemical potential exceed the photon chemical potential, those photons will be subsumed by the ambient EM field.
Also remember that between two objects, one warmer and one cooler, the chemical potential increases in the intervening space as one ascends the energy gradient from cooler to warmer object. Thus photons from the cooler object will be subsumed before they ever reach the warmer object because warmer objects have higher energy density at all wavelengths than cooler objects.
The climate loons misinterpret the S-B radiant exitance equation for real-world objects. Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower energy gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) slows radiant exitance of the warmer object. The differing energy density between objects manifests an energy gradient, each surface’s energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.
So their incorrect usage of the S-B equation results in a violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law, and their ‘backradiation’ blather is physically impossible.
This is typical of a discussion on climate skeptic blogs, I provide exerpts from half a dozen thermodynamics text books (via science of Doom) that directly contradict Clyde. His response a new bit of nonsense, and then simply repeat the same error as if those textbooks did not exist with a huge Gish gallop.
“There most certainly is a mechanism by which a body can ‘detect’ the “energy gradient”… radiation pressure.”
As radiation pressure is created by the radiation that is to be controlled by the radiation pressure, that is obviously non-sensical circular reasoning.
Explain, *exactly* how this mechanism works.
This really isn’t rocket science. To make it easier, consider two infinite parallel plates, the warmer at temperature T_h the cooler at T_c, both with the same emmisivity.
According to the SB law, the hotter radiates towards the cooler plate with power
p_h = 1/2 ε σ T_h^4
Similarly, the cooler radiates towards the hotter plate with power
p_c = 1/2 ε σ T_c^4
The NET flow of heat between the plates is then the difference between the power radiated by the hotter plate and the amount it receives from the cooler plate
q = ε σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4)*1/2
Which is exactly Clyde’s “correct” law, but achieved simply by each plate behaving according to its own local temperature with no requirement for a spooky mechanism by which it supposedly detects an “energy gradient”. Occam’s razor prefers my explanation, and so do the textbooks written by thermodynamics professors.
Your take on radiative physics is unphysical, a classical treatment of a wholly quantum phenomenon.
Rather than rehash the same drop-kicking I give to all deluded climate kooks who persist in denying the quantum physics ramifications of radiative energetic exchange, I’ll let you prove yourself wrong…
Read, comprehend, learn:
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-nested-black-body-shells-model-and.html
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-greenhouse-gas-hypothesis-and.html
“But… but… but that’s not consensus science! It’s fringe stuff!“, you may bleat… yeah, no. Standard radiative physics taken straight from the book Thermal Physics, Second Edition by Philip M. Morse, Professor of Physics at MIT, co-founding editor of Annals of Physics, co-founder of MIT Acoustics Laboratory, first Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory, founder of MIT Computation Center.
I’ve received my copy of “Thermal Physics” by Morse as well as “Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer” by Siegel and Howell (a 1072-page tome).
Siegel and Howell don’t mention “chemical potential” or energy gradients at all.
What this tells me that: Even if you are correct about the quantum perspective (and I’m not yet convinced that you are), in practice and for engineering purposes, the issues you are alluding to do not affect the results of practical thermodynamic calculations.
* * *
I’m still perusing Morse, but haven’t yet seen something that counters the above conclusion.
Bob, “the results of practical thermodynamic calculations” results in the K-T diagram.
Now do the calculations… the diagrams show anywhere from 390 W m-2 to 396 W m-2 surface radiant exitance, and assume a surface temperature of ~288 K.
What emissivity must one have to even emit that much from a 288 K surface? Typically very close to or exactly unity.
Does the surface have an emissivity of 1, Bob?
What ambient temperature must one have to emit that much from a 288 K surface? 0 K. Is that physical, Bob?
Does the surface emit into a 0 K ambient, Bob?
Now, if one assumes a sane atmospheric temperature into which the surface is emitting, and an empirically-derived emissivity (I use 0.93643 from the NASA ISCCP program), what must the surface temperature be in order to emit that much? Much higher than 288 K.
Are you erroneously treating the graybody surface as though it’s an idealized blackbody object, but with emissivity < 1? Sure you are.
I agree that it’s annoying/disturbing that these diagrams so often apply a surface emissivity of 1.
That’s because you are doing a totally inappropriate calculation.
You need to compare apples to apples.
To be fair, you need to either (1) go with their “390 W m-2 to 396 W m-2 surface radiant exitance” AND with the assumption that they are talking about the radiant energy transfer that would occur to a heat sink at 0 K, OR you need to (2) work with the numbers they offer for the net radiative heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere.
If you mix numbers from option #1 and option #2 and get garbage, that’s your fault, not anyone else’s.
In another comment I’ve done the calculation with the numbers correctly matched, and nothing particularly surprising emerges.
No. You have been erroneously comparing apples to oranges.
But yet, at the same time that you find it ‘annoying’ that they incorrectly use an emissivity of 1 and emission to 0 K ambient (ie: treating real-world (graybody) objects as if they’re idealized blackbody objects), you’re defending the practice.
As to ‘comparing apples to apples’:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3276134
Using the form of the S-B equation for idealized blackbody objects upon graybody objects is what’s creating the ‘garbage’… that your numbers for that ‘garbage’ are self-consistent because you’ve subtracted a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from a real (but calculated incorrectly and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow doesn’t change the fact that you’re still ‘annoyed’ at the incorrect usage of the S-B equation, nor that you’re working with wholly-fictive numbers brought about by incorrect usage of the S-B equation… how ever are you going to reconcile your defense of the incorrect usage with your ‘annoyance’ over that usage, Bob? LOL
Where have you seen me defend the practice of assuming an emissivity of 1?
I did not say I find that ‘annoying,’ nor did I agree that that is incorrect.
Yes, I’m defending that aspect. It’s “standard practice” in thermal engineering.
I’ve been perusing my thousand-page 3rd edition reference on “Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer” and so far it seems to entirely support this mode of calculation that you are objecting to, as do my other reference books on thermal physics.
Let’s compare what you want me to do and what others are doing.
You assert that the “correct” equation is:
Others (e.g., Trenberth):
It’s mathematically identical to what you claim should be done!
Yet, you’re howling in outrage that this is incorrect!
Forget all the interpretations you’re layering on top of the way things are discussed. Just notice: the math is identical. The end result is identical.
You’re mischaracterizing what I’m annoyed about and what I’m agreeing is “incorrect.” My position is self-consistent.
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“Where have you seen me defend the practice of assuming an emissivity of 1?”
Bob… really? You’ve claimed that the practice of using the incorrect form of the S-B equation on graybody objects (essentially treating them as though they’re idealized blackbody objects which emit willy-nilly without regard to the energy gradient (but with emissivity <1), and often treating them exactly like idealized blackbody objects (including emissivity =1) comes to the same end result when calculating the net of radiant exitance and absorption (by cancelling the error in calculation on the back end by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but incorrectly calculated and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow), so it doesn’t really matter which is used… you’ve defined what your ‘answer’ is in terms of your being able to cancel the errors inherent in your Framework #1, but you’ve not considered that the ‘answer’ you’ve defined isn’t the only ‘answer’ that people use the S-B equation to seek. If the ‘answer’ one seeks is radiant exitance, your Framework #1 is going to give an unphysical result.
I’m waiting for your take on the meta-stability of all invariant-mass matter in terms of bound electron photon emission… if energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient, then bound electrons can emit photons even at ground state, thus they spiral-in to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s), thus they undergo electron capture, thus the meta-stability of all invariant-mass matter is either a fever dream or your take on radiative physics is flawed. LOL
Nothing in what you write indicates that I have ever defended using an emissivity of 1 when using an emissivity < 1 would be more appropriate.
I disagree with characterizing them as “errors.”
As I mentioned in my other comment, I believe you are calculating “radiant heat flux” and inappropriately labeling it “radiant exitance”, so that it’s you who is calculating “radiant exitance” inappropriately.
However, I don’t think this matters much in practice, since “radiant exitance” is generally of interest as an aide to calculating radiant heat transfer. As long as one is clear about how one has defined “radiant exitance” and what its relationship is to “radiant heat transfer” then it doesn’t matter if one uses my definition or yours.
Ultimately, radiant heat transfer is what matters for calculating the radiative behavior of thermodynamic systems.
It’s certainly what ultimately matters with regard to debates about climate science.
My approach and yours yield identical results for radiative heat transfer.
One implication of this is that your approach does not invalidate the conclusions of mainstream climate science.
If I ever become interested in that subject, I imagine I will again come up with an analysis that yields the mathematically correct result, despite your worries.
I don’t think you understand my “take on radiative physics” well enough that you can make valid inferences about how my way of thinking would generalize to other contexts
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“when using an emissivity < 1 would be more appropriate”
“More appropriate”? It is practically essential to arrive at a correct answer. As is using the correct form of the S-B equation for graybody objects.
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“As I mentioned in my other comment, I believe you are calculating “radiant heat flux” and inappropriately labeling it “radiant exitance”, so that it’s you who is calculating “radiant exitance” inappropriately.”
And you’re diametrically opposite to reality on that, Bob.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3276370
It is you who are incorrectly using the incorrect form of the S-B equation (the one meant for BB objects) on graybody objects, and since you’ve stated your stance that you believe that calculates “radiant flux”, it is you who is incorrectly labeling it “radiant exitance”.
Oh, how the turntables, eh, Bob? LOL
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“My approach and yours yield identical results for radiative heat transfer.”
Except your approach uses the incorrect form of the S-B equation (the one meant for BB objects) on graybody objects, incorrectly calculates what you term “radiant flux” rather than “radiant exitance”, incorrectly calculates the magnitude of what you term “radiant flux” rather than “radiant exitance”, then cancels the errors in calculation on the back end by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but incorrectly calculated and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
If one wishes to merely calculate radiant exitance alone, your approach gives an incorrect result.
Further, your approach gives impetus to the climate loons to claim that your incorrectly calculated “radiant flux” (which you’ve mislabeled as “radiant exitance”) is physical, thus we get the ‘backradiation’ claim.
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“I don’t think you understand my “take on radiative physics” well enough that you can make valid inferences about how my way of thinking would generalize to other contexts.”
Yeah, Bob, that’s why I asked for your take on spectral emission from bound electrons in their ground state, so I didn’t have to make inferences.
There is no ‘generalization’ here, Bob… it is the same context… spectral emission. How are bound electrons in their ground state prevented from emitting photons and thus spiraling-in to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s) in your universe, where energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient?
Per my other comment, can you point to a single credible source that supports your assertion that the equation you keep calling the S-B equation is that, as opposed to being the equation for radiant heat transfer?
Because energy is conserved. There is no way an electron in its ground state can emit a photon and conserve energy.
If a photon were to be emitted, then the electron would need to go to an even lower energy state, and there is no such lower state.
(“spiraling-in to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s)” would not be a lower-energy state. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle means that localizing an electron to be closer to the nucleus would increase the expectation value of the electron’s kinetic energy.)
There is no need to talk about energy gradients to prevent the catastrophe you’re worried about in this situation.
Again, Bob, there is not really such a thing as “radiant heat transfer”… heat is definitionally an energy flux… there is an energy flow from warmer to cooler that we call ‘heat’. You’ve demonstrated this fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘heat’ is in the past, you’ve been schooled in the past.
Why is there “no such lower state”, Bob? Is it not because the quantum vacuum is the ground state energy density which sustains the electron in its ground state orbital radius? Sure it is.
And what happens, Bob, when the quantum vacuum wavemodes sustaining the bound electron at its usual ground state orbital radius are removed via, for instance, a Casimir cavity?
Oh, that’s right… electron orbital radius decreases, the electron falls to a quantum state lower than the ground state, giving off a photon in the process.
In fact, we have working laboratory models demonstrating exactly that.
So you see, Bob, it’s the energy density of the quantum vacuum which sustains the bound electron in its usual ground state orbital radius. The bound electron cannot emit a photon and descend to a lower quantum state because the quantum vacuum energy density prevents it, because energy cannot flow from lower energy density to higher energy density.
So again I ask… in your universe, where energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient, where photons can flow from lower energy density to higher energy density, what prevents the bound electron from emitting photons and spiraling-in to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s)?
Bob, Bob, Bob… just admit your error and move on… you were incorrect in stating that Framework #2 calculated “radiant flux”.
Radiant exitance is radiant flux per unit area, and Framework #2 explicitly includes area. So you’re diametrically opposite to reality.
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
Framework #2 explicitly calculates radiant exitance, and if (as you seem to desire to do) one does not assume an area of 1 m^2 for Framework #1, then one calculates radiant flux…
So in point of fact, it is you who is calculating “radiant flux” and erroneously calling it “radiant exitance”… in addition to using the incorrect form of the S-B equation (meant for idealized blackbody objects) upon graybody objects, which increases what you incorrectly call “radiant flux” (but which is actually “radiant exitance” in either Framework #1 or Framework #2 case, because Framework #2 explicitly calculates on area, and Framework #1 implicitly does so… except, apparently, when you use Framework #1), which necessitates that you carry the error forward, subtracting a fictive “cooler to warmer” energy flow from the real (but incorrectly calculated and thus too high) “warmer to cooler” energy flow to cancel that error on the back-end, which leads some to believe that energy can flow “cooler to warmer”, which is what leads us to the ‘backradiation’ claim, which is what leads us to the fallacious ‘CAGW’ claim via such nonsense as the K-T diagram and its many variants.
The S-B equation is known as the radiant exitance equation… Framework #2 explicitly calculates upon area, Framework #1 implicitly does so (except, apparently, when you use it). They are the same equation with different assumptions about emissivity and base temperature, nothing more.
But, I did NOT say Framework #2 calculated “radiant flux”. I said:
And, the definition of “radiant heat flux” is: “The heat transfer rate per unit area as thermal radiation.”
You are misquoting me by replacing this with the term “radiant flux”, which has an entirely different meaning from the term that I used.
Please just admit your error and move on.
* * *
The whole issue of “area” is a trivial detail irrelevant to the main issues we are discussing.
I prefer to work with the “per area” formulation because the “radiometry units” on a per area basis have more precise definitions.
For example, the terms “radiant exitance” and “irradiance” are defined on per area basis and refer specifically to radiation leaving and entering a surface, respectively.
However, the term “radiant flux” which is not defined on a per area basis is very generic: it can refer to radiation leaving or entering a surface or in free space. A sentence which uses this term tends to be ambiguous. So, it’s not ideal to use this term when trying to communicate clearly.
That’s why I express things on a “per area” basis whenever possible.
* * *
I did not introduce any issues related to using “per area” or using explicit area; you’ve introduced these (likely inadvertently) by misquoting the term “radiant heat flux” as “radiant flux.”
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“And, the definition of “radiant heat flux” is: “The heat transfer rate per unit area as thermal radiation.””
https://www.rp-photonics.com/radiant_exitance.html
“Definition: radiant flux emitted by a surface per unit area”
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h <– Right there, Bob. LOL
https://www.rp-photonics.com/radiant_flux.html
“Definition: radiant energy per unit time which is emitted, transmitted, reflected or received by an object”
Note the first definition uses “radiant flux”, the second definition is “radiant flux”, Bob. You’re using the wrong definition, Bob. LOL
Perhaps, rather than relying upon the US Forest Service for your scientific definitions, Bob, you should rely upon a scientist with a PhD in a relevant field. LOL
Let me guess, you realized you wrote the wrong term, desperately searched for the term “radiant heat flux”, firewords.net came up as the second search term, Wikipedia doesn’t even have that term listed, there were no other instances of “radiant heat flux” below that search term except for MIT’s “radiative heat flux” term which relates to cavity radiation and doesn’t even mention area, so you went with what you had… right, Bob? LOL
Stating “radiant heat flux” (your words) is akin to stating “radiant energy flow flux”… yet again you demonstrate your fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘heat’ is, Bob. LOL
Unless you’re referring to the term “heat flux”, which again is nonsensical in light of the definition of “heat”… akin to stating “energy flow flux”. Oh, and “heat flux” (radiant or not) has units of BTU/hr or similar, matching the definition of “radiant flux” above.
The proper term is “radiant flux”… your definition of “radiant heat flux” is essentially “radiant exitance”… but didn’t you claim me to be incorrect in using the “radiant exitance” term rather than your “radiant heat flux” term, Bob? Those nits, they will be picked, eh, Bob? LOL
If it’s a “trivial detail”, Bob, why did you even bring it up? Because you thought you could score a point against a superior debating opponent and far superior intellect, right? Point denied. LOL
Do let me know if you need schooling on elementary definitions again, Bob. LOL
Clyde, you’re really acting like a jerk at this point.
I have no interest in getting into a pissing match with you about definitions of terms for concepts that you don’t acknowledge the existence of.
Other way around. I wanted to express a certain concept. I found a source that verified that the term “radiant heat flux” could be used to express that concept. I did that before I used the term.
The term I used may not be widely used, but so what.
The term may seem vaguely inconsistent with, or bear an odd relationship to, other terminology used in radiometry, but that’s very common in radiometry. Again, so what.
None of the terms you have proposed capture the meaning that I intended to convey.
I DIDN’T bring it up. I brought up something else, a distinction which you are apparently unable to understand.
You’re misinterpreting me. I loathe “debating” and always have. If that’s what you’re here for, then I will politely decline to participate further.
My intention is to seek mutual understanding, and investigate the possibility of coming to some level of shared reality.
If you’re not interested in that, please let me know, so I can direct my attention elsewhere.
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“Clyde, you’re really acting like a jerk at this point.”
Proving you wrong as you stubbornly use incorrect definitions, accuse others of improperly not using your incorrect definitions, then claim that it’s a “trivial detail” when you realize you used an incorrect definition, then play the victim as you whinge in a tearful retreat when your incorrect definition is exposed as being incorrect isn’t being “a jerk”, Bob… I treat all reality-denying climate kooks the same way. If you want respect, you earn it by acknowledging scientific reality. I owe you nothing.
You’re just lucky Lubos Motl isn’t here… he’d tear you a new one large enough to drive a Mack truck through. I’m practically a freaking saint in comparison to him, and I’ve restrained myself in your case. He’s wicked smart, emphasis on wicked. LOL
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“I have no interest in getting into a pissing match with you…”
There is no “pissing match”, Bob… I was right, you were wrong. Unless you’re now going to claim that radiant exitance isn’t the extension of radiant flux to include the physical unit of area, to wit:
———-
https://www.rp-photonics.com/radiant_exitance.html
“Definition: radiant flux emitted by a surface per unit area”
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h <– Right there, Bob. LOL
https://www.rp-photonics.com/radiant_flux.html
“Definition: radiant energy per unit time which is emitted, transmitted, reflected or received by an object”
Note the first definition uses “radiant flux”, the second definition is “radiant flux”, Bob. You’re using the wrong definition, Bob. LOL
———-
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“I DIDN’T bring it up.”
You’re lying, Bob. You not only brought it up once, you brought it up twice, because you thought you had, with your incorrect definition, a means of scoring a point against a superior debating opponent and far superior intellect, to wit:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3276367
“As I mentioned in my other comment, I believe you are calculating “radiant heat flux” and inappropriately labeling it “radiant exitance”, so that it’s you who is calculating “radiant exitance” inappropriately.”
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“My intention is to seek mutual understanding, and investigate the possibility of coming to some level of shared reality.”
And what makes you think I want to share your reality, Bob? My reality is sane, well described, I understand how the universe works right down to the quantum level, I can mathematically describe any physical process, my universe is not some metaphysical mish-mash of ancient ideas and cobbled-together half-understandings of reality. Yours is.
If you want to understand reality, do away with your ideological bent, Bob. You’ve been brainwashed into a climate cult, they aim to use you as a “useful idiot” until such time as they deem you no longer useful, whereupon they’ll dispose of you. History should tell you this, but liberals have just as scant a knowledge of history as they do science.
You have not been taking the trouble to comprehend a single thing that I write.
At this point, your part of the conversation is entirely a matter of you responding to your own projections and fantasies.
No thanks.
Somewhat akin to an insane asylum patient screaming:
“You have not been taking the trouble to understand that if I don’t keep beating my head against this wall, the aliens will stop beaming information into my brain, my brain won’t be able to continue holding reality in its present state, and the world will end!” LOL
Poor Bob… you’re wrong on your use of Framework #1, which treats real-world graybody objects as though they emit into a 0 K ambient, which causes radiant exitance to be calculated for all objects far too high, necessitating that you subtract a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow (and that despite you being told that the S-B equation is designed to subtract energy density in the form of temperature, not subtract energy flows); as you continue to defend the idea that energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy gradient; as you’ve misapplied a definition from the US Forest Service while you denied the actual definition of radiant flux (and claimed that I was incorrectly not using your incorrect definition) as used for radiant exitance (radiant exitance is radiant flux with the physical units of area added); as you’ve denied scientific reality in defense of your ideological belief in a poorly-told climate fairy tale; as you’ve defended the mathematical fraudery inherent in your Framework #1… and now you’re making pretenses of continuing your denial of reality by running away, rather than contritely admitting your multitude of failings and promising to self-sane in future.
Now let’s see… what does one say to intentionally-ignorant, stubbornly insistent upon being wrong to toe their ideology’s line, third-rate hack physicists to send them on their tearful way after they’ve been drop-kicked across the width and breadth of WUWT?
“Good riddance to libtard rubbish.”?
“Don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.”?
“I’ll visit you at the funny farm. No I won’t.”?
“Be sure to come back any time you want another dose of reality in the form of a steel-toed boot applied to your backside.”
Ah, that’s the one. LOL
Clyde, you appear to believe that an object emits according to S-B into another object, space and etc. I’m of the belief that a body’s radiation emissions is determined by its physical properties and temperature. Show me a textbook that disagrees.
An object emits according to the energy gradient. If the energy density outside an object is higher than that internal to the object, just how exactly is a photon (a quanta of energy) going to be emitted into that higher energy density? Magic?
Dave Fair says “Show me a textbook that disagrees.”
Clyde is unable to do so, and ironically later says
“I suggest you crack a book for once in your life.”
Fine, specify the book that disagrees with Dave Fair.
I suggest you crack a Quantum Thermodynamics textbook. LOL
Start here.
Clyde, please explain how radiative physics is “a wholly quantum phenomenon.” How does that modify S-B?
I suggest you crack a book for once in your life. Classical theory cannot even describe the photon, let alone describe the behavior of the photon.
That ‘bit of nonsense’ (your words) is standard radiative physics and quantum physics. Your inability to understand the science in no way detracts from the veracity of that science.
Radiation pressure is not “created by the radiation that is to be… blah, blah, blah”… you yet again seem more than a little confused. Reread what I’ve written, and this time do try to read for comprehension. LOL
I asked you to explain the mechanism in detail, and you didn’t. Bluff called, hand empty.
“you yet again seem more than a little confused.”
hey, I’m not the one that is directly contradicted on thermodynamics by half a dozen thermodynamics textbooks (the contents of which you seem to be studiously ignoring).
Your inability to read for comprehension in no way denotes that I’ve failed to properly explain… if you’re unable to understand the physics involved, that is your failure, and no one else’s.
Yawn. Sorry, but evasive bluster is no where near as convincing as half a dozen thermodynamics textbooks written by thermodynamics experts. Everything I have written is in accordance with what is written in those textbooks.
In any case, backradiation from the atmosphere is directly observable from the surface.
“thermodynamic textbooks” LOL
Still stuck on classical theory, while attempting to discuss the wholly-quantum phenomenon of photons… but you’re not a deluded little idiot who can’t take the hint that you’re not even playing the same game.. I’m over here hitting home runs, you’re sitting in your mom’s basement playing Tiddley-Winks. LOL
No, ‘backradiation from the atmosphere’ is not ‘directly observable from the surface’… you’ve just demonstrated that you don’t know how a pyrgeometer works. LOL
Rather than drop-kick you as I usually do with all reality-denying kooks, I’ll yet again allow you to prove yourself wrong:
Read, comprehend, learn:
https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-yourself-with-pyrgeometer.html
I know, I know… the entire foundation of your belief system has just suffered a devastating earthquake, you’ll need some time to regroup, nurse your wounded psyche, figure out how you could have been so stupid and gullible that you bought into a poorly-told climate fairy-tale… it’s understandable. Take all the time that you need. LOL
” but you’re not a deluded little idiot who can’t take the hint that you’re not even playing the same game..”
At this point there is no chance of productive discussion. When you insult your opponent you put yourself in a position where you cannot admit you are wrong without making an utter fool of yourself (for being proved wrong by a “deluded little idiot”).
This is not the way science ought to be discussed.
This is not classical thermodynamics, these are modern thermodynamics textbooks.
I have discussed this in the past with Claes, it wasn’t difficult to ask him questions he couldn’t answer, but at least he was willing to address what was written in the textbooks, which is more than you have done.
When you refuse to admit you are wrong, you cannot admit you are wrong… that’s why I insult you. You are so prototypically ‘climate kook’ that I already had every response queued up before you ever put finger to keyboard… I’ve only drop-kicked more than a few hundred of you tardlings… you’re all predictable in your denials of reality.
“When you refuse to admit you are wrong, you cannot admit you are wrong… that’s why I insult you. You are so prototypically ‘climate kook’ that I already had every response queued up before you ever put finger to keyboard… I’ve only drop-kicked more than a few hundred of you tardlings… you’re all predictable in your denials of reality.”
Yawn. It’s funny, you call me a “climate kook”, but I am just quoting physics from modern physics textbooks (the latest from 2007). Is that the sort of things “climate kooks” do?
I’m also not they one that is ignoring direct observational evidence of downwelling IR that directly refutes your position (pyrgeometers are not the only instrument that can be used).
No, you’re quoting from classically-based thermodynamics texts… classical theory cannot even describe the photon, so how you’re going to use thermodynamics to describe the behavior of the photon is something you’ll have to work out for yourself. LOL
I note that in the discussion it is pointed out to Claes that downwelling IR can be detected by IR spectrometers
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/
(which is what I had in mind) and this reduced Claes to say
which is absurd. You can indeed design instruments sensitive to IR light. When you point them at the sky they detect IR light from the atmosphere. This means that downwelling IR can be directly observed. But Claes can’t admit that so he indulges in this evasion.
It is left to Claes to explain (but he didn’t) how the atmosphere can radiate IR to the ground, where it is absorbed without transfer of energy (of course there is a larger transfer in the other direction so the second law is not violated in any way by this exchange).
Perhaps if you properly understood how a pyrgeometer works, you’d understand that what it’s actually measuring is the dearth of photons in the IR range, which cools the outward facing side of the pyrgeometer (assuming the pyrgeometer is warmer than the atmosphere) because energy can only flow down an energy gradient, and the electronics compare that voltage differential across the pyrgeometer thermopile to a reference thermistor (usually affixed to the backside of the thermopile), which then infers a measured temperature, which then infers a radiative flux… except it reverses the direction of that radiative flux if the thermopile is warmer than the atmosphere. That’s what Claes wrote about.
So I wrote
and Clyde replied
An IR specrtometer is not the same thing as a pyrgeometer. Hint, how can you measure the spectrum of something that isn’t actually there?
Again, this has been explained to you as regards a pyrgeometer. The main difference between a pyrgeometer and an IR spectrometer is the detector, with an IR spectrometer generally using a semiconductor quantum detector, rather than a thermopile as in the pyrgeometer, with a monochromator to split the light from the light source into component frequencies. I challenge you to use an IR spectrometer on the ambient EM field without cooling the detector… you’ll get nothing, unless you cool your detector below ambient (the cooler your detector, the longer wavelengths you can detect) in which case, the photons have higher chemical potential than the detector, and can thus do work upon it, be detected by it.
This FTIR’s detector was cooled with liquid nitrogen.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3275540
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3276095
AS I said “Hint, how can you measure the SPECTRUM of something that isn’t actually there?”
Clyde responds
How can the monochromator split the IR if the photons have all been “subsumed”?
Does an IR spectrometer’s liquid nitrogen-cooled quantum detector have a lower chemical potential than the ambient EM field?
What happens to those subsumed photons when the ambient EM field encounters a region or object with lower chemical potential than the ambient EM field?
The very first step to critical thinking:
1) Put brain in gear.
LOL
“What happens to those subsumed photons when the ambient EM field encounters a region or object with lower chemical potential than the ambient EM field?”
right so now you are saying that the photons pop back into existence when they reach a colder object.
So their existence in the EM field is just light viewed as a wave instead of a particle? Bad luck that means that they will be absorbed by solid objects regardless of their temperature. All charged particles interact with the EM field.
I don’t say that, particle physics says that. I agree with the science. You obviously don’t.
In the case of photons, photons are bosons and can very easily and rapidly appear or disappear. Therefore, at thermodynamic equilibrium, the chemical potential of photons is always and everywhere zero. The reason is, if the chemical potential somewhere was higher than zero, photons would spontaneously disappear from that area until the chemical potential went back to zero; likewise, if the chemical potential somewhere was less than zero, photons would spontaneously appear until the chemical potential went back to zero.
Again, that statement is ambiguously-worded… it’s a comparison between the chemical potential of the ambient EM field and the chemical potential of the photons; just as it’s a comparison between the chemical potential of the photons and the chemical potential of any given object which determines whether that photon can do work upon that object.
You have no problem, I assume, with pair production, in which fundamental particles manifest from the quantum vacuum… yet you seem to have a fundamental block on photons (a component of the ambient EM field, merely a persistent perturbation above the ambient EM field) manifesting from and being subsumed into the ambient EM field.
You’ll get right on detailing exactly how energy flows from lower to higher energy density, or even how energy flows when there is no energy density gradient… your misunderstanding of the fundamental physical laws means you fundamentally misunderstand reality.
Real photons cannot be treated in the same way as virtual photons. If a virtual photon is “subsumed” it is just giving back the energy that it “borrowed” from a quantum fluctuation in the EM field only a tiny fraction of a second beforehand. Real photons on the other hand have a much longer lifetime and if a real photon was “subsumed” there would loss of energy and momentum because it wasn’t borrowed from the EM field in the first place. In the case of IR radiated from warm objects, the energy is taken from the kinetic energy of the object that radiated it.
You are incorrectly conflating bits of physics.
Ah, I see what you’re getting at… you think that because virtual photons can only attain their energy from the quantum vacuum when actualizing for that split second, that energy is returned to the quantum vacuum… and you obviously believe the EM component of the quantum vacuum has some sort of ‘firewall’ that prevents energy outside the quantum vacuum from ever interacting with the quantum vacuum.
Tell me… what happens to energy when it becomes maximally entropied? Does it not become a part of the quantum vacuum, the ground state? So maximally-entropied photons, are subsumed by the ground-state energy density of the EM component of the quantum vacuum… is that energy just ‘disappeared’?
{ BTW, that increases quantum vacuum energy density… the universe has two options to relieve the ever-increasing energy density (and thus radiation pressure) as energy continually maximally entropies and becomes a part of the ground-state quantum vacuum… it can either expand, or it can manifest invariant mass matter. Right now, it is most energetically efficient to expand. Early in the age of the universe, it was more energetically efficient to manifest invariant-mass matter, which is where all the matter around you came from. Once all energy is maximally entropied, the universe will undergo heat death.}
You are still not making the distinction between real and virtual photons.
The Clydes of this world always know more than the people who actually work in the field.
You’ve demonstrated that you know next to nothing in this field. Go study.
I don’t know if I’d go as far as Clyde, but he certainly has a point. Basically, according to Planck, heat radiation is an EM wave expanding uniformly in all directions. The field strength of the hotter object will be stronger than the cold one. This means the “cold” field could cancel part of the “hot” field thus obviating the need for the hot body to actually ABSORB additional energy. This is one of the things I’ve been study Planck original thesis for.
The problem with most of this is simple averages. Unless you have a source at a constant source, some of the simple equations are only good at equilibrium. Take SB for example. If a body is radiating into space I don’t think anybody will doubt is will cool. But, how fast? What rate? How about two bodies with different masses and different temps? None of these are easy to solve and require calculus to analyze. Sophisticated vector calculus like Planck uses.
Part of the problem that people run into is assuming you can use SB and say that an atom or molecule radiates as a black body. That just isn’t true. At small, little pieces of the spectrum a molecule may radiate at the temperature SB predicts but that is all. The earth with all its combination of atoms and elements doesn’t radiate as a black body at a specific temperature. There are gaps and holes and various emissivity’s. Not an easy puzzle to solve.
Well, Planck wasn’t exactly the perfect ‘role model’ in this respect. It is his error which the climate alarmists cling to in order to support their ‘energy flows willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient‘ narrative, which supports their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which supports their ‘CAGW‘ narrative.
Planck correctly stated:
“Conduction of heat depends on the temperature of the medium in which it takes place, or more strictly speaking, on the non-uniform distribution of the temperature in space, as measured by the temperature gradient.”
In other words, energy can only flow (the definition of heat) via conduction if there is a temperature (and therefore an energy density) gradient.
Where Planck erred is in his clinging to the Prevost Theory Of Exchanges in regard to radiative energy, which led him to eschew scientific reality (that energy only flows if there is an energy gradient), to wit:
“But the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).”
The long-debunked Prevost Theory of Exchanges (first replaced by the Kinetic Theory of Heat, then by Quantum Thermodynamics) assumed that energy flowed without regard to energy gradient. This led Planck to make the further incorrect assumption in keeping with the Prevost Theory of Exchanges:
“We shall now introduce the further simplifying assumption that the physical and chemical condition of the emitting substance depends on but a single variable, namely, on its absolute temperature T.”
So unless he was speaking strictly of idealized blackbody objects (and not real-world graybody objects), Planck made a mistake. Given that Planck was discussing emissivity in the very paragraph where he mentions Prevost’s principle, that means he made a mistake… he wasn’t discussing idealized blackbody objects.
The image above shows that while idealized blackbody objects do not take into account the energy gradient, real-world graybody objects most certainly do. Of course, idealized blackbody objects are just that, idealizations… they don’t actually exist.
So in the real world, the energy gradient determines radiant exitance, energy does not flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient and 2Lot applies always and everywhere.
So Carnot erred in assuming that heat is never consumed as work; Clausius erred in attributing ‘heat’ to the energy density of an object (‘heat’ is definitionally an energy flux, ‘temperature’ is a measure of energy density); Kirchhoff in formulating his original version of Kirchhoff’s Law used the term ’emissivity’ when he actually meant ’emissive power’; and Planck erred in clinging to a long-debunked radiative model, and his follow-on assumptions stemming from that led to his treating real-world objects as though they emit willy-nilly without regard to the energy gradient… even the greats of science make mistakes.
Good thing I’m around to correct them. LOL
Name the advanced degrees you have obtained, Clyde. How many textbooks have you written? What learned societies have invited you to speak? What obscure part of quantum physics gave you the unique ability to overturn all of modern physics?
Clyde, the fact that CliSciFi hucksters have misused parts of modern physics does not mean that you have to deny accepted scientific results. You come off here as an extreme kook by avoiding rational questions with hostility. Tell us a little about yourself and where you developed these ideas about radiant energy flow within a energy gradient. I’d be interested in your opinion as to the energy gradient between the Sun and the Earth. And geometric resistance between objects needs lots of explanation. You seem to have mixed up a temperature gradient through a physical medium with an energy gradient in vacuum.
Awww, the climate kook is attempting to appeal to authority by claiming that only his ‘authorities’ matter.
Answer your own questions regarding ‘authority’. Go on. LOL
As to your other questions, you can just as easily learn for yourself, but you refuse to. You have an entire world of knowledge at your fingertips, but you refuse to use it, because it destroys your narrative.
A radiative system can be analogized to an electrical system. The objects have a surface ‘resistance’, as does the intervening space. The energy density of each object can be analogized to the voltage in an electrical circuit. The same concepts hold, energy does not flow against an energy gradient… according to your take on radiative physics, analogizing it to an electrical circuit, you claim that if we took a 1.5 V battery and a 12 V battery, electrically connected them ‘- to -‘ and ‘+ to +’, the 1.5 V battery would do work upon the 12 V battery. Does that ever happen? No, it does not.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/9781119476986.ch9
Science and reality don’t care about your ‘consensus’ (which isn’t a consensus at all), nor your ‘authorities’ (whom are often mistaken), nor your feelings.
The ‘rational questions’ from the climate kooks are designed to negate reality by pushing more falsities such that they can sustain their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient‘ narrative, which bolsters their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which bolsters their ‘CAGW‘ narrative… all built upon bad mathematics and misconstrual of scientific concepts.
The maths and concepts I use are all standard radiative physics and quantum physics. Your inability to understand and your unwillingness to accept that scientific reality in no way diminishes that reality.
As an EE, I disagree that a radiative system can be “analogized to an electrical system.” The intervening space can have no “resistance” to radiant energy. Otherwise we could not observe starlight. Radiatively active atmospheric gases might be analogized to resistors in that they waylay certain wavelengths and transfer the energy through collisions with other molecules, heating them.
For the last time: There has been no radiant energy gradient measured by experimentation that I am aware. There is no analogy to a conduction gradient in accepted physics. I pity you that you believe yourself above all currently practicing physicists.
Over and out. Bye. No more responses. Have a good life. So long. Screw off. And all of that other good stuff.
Dave Fair wrote:
You’ve been provided a reference:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/9781119476986.ch9
The intervening space doesn’t have its own emissivity, for an atmosphere? Or are you disingenuously attempting to conflate objects here on Earth with the vacuum of space?
In point of fact, even the vacuum of space has a ‘resistance’ of a sort… what do you suppose sets the speed of light in vacuum? Is it not contributions from the non-zero EM component of the quantum vacuum and the CMB? Certainly it is. In a ‘perfect’ vacuum (no matter, no energy), the speed of light would essentially be infinite… that can’t actually happen, though… space and time are intricately intertwined. No energy and no matter in a vacuum would effectively increase the speed of light to infinity by collapsing space to zero.
Dave Fair wrote:
You’ve never held a thermometer and walked around measuring temperature change? If you have, you’ve measured the energy gradient. Congratulations, you’ve just proven yourself wrong. You likely didn’t realize it, because you have a shallow knowledge of what temperature, energy density, etc. even is. LOL
Temperature is a measure of energy density.
The equation for the radiation energy density is Stefan’s Law and a is Stefan’s constant.
e = aT^4
∴ T = 4^√(e/a)
In other words, temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant. It is a measure of energy density.
Keep in mind that Stefan’s constant above equals 4σ/c (which is sometimes known as the radiation constant), and ε is the emissivity modifier for graybody objects.
In other words, for those who are slow to pick up on bolded clues:
Temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant.
Which is why: U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
This agrees with Planck’s Law: ρ(T) = aT^4 = T^4 4εσ/c, when including the graybody emissivity modifier ε.
The S-B equation integrates Planck’s Radiation Formula (which calculates the energy density for a given wavelength) over all wavelengths.
F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy
U = internal energy
T = absolute temp
S = final entropy
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment
If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
If ΔU = 0, then (ΔU * c/4εσ) = 0, thus no energy can flow.
U has the same physical units as pressure (J m-3) and U ∝ T. That is radiation pressure, which sets up the energy gradient.
Free energy is defined as the capacity to do work. If U = TS, p_photon = u/3 = p_object, energy cannot flow because no work can be done. Helmholtz Free Energy is zero. Photon chemical potential is zero.
Energy gradients only apply to conducting medium, not radiant energy. Unless interrupted by an absorbing medium, radiation goes forever. The starlight we see is the same as the energy we see from our Sun.
Your demonstration of your inability to understand energy density and the resultant radiation pressure which sets up the energy gradient between objects is noted.
You will note that your denials of scientific reality do not in any way, shape or form change that reality.
Technically, that’s true for black body radiation, but not necessarily for real (grey body) materials which can, in some cases, preferentially radiate more in some directions than others.
There are two distinct frameworks for thinking about thermal radiation passing between two objects.
Frameworks #1 and #2 are mathematically equivalent, and always predict the same physical results.
When you talk about the ‘“cold” field could cancel part of the “hot” field thus obviating the need for the hot body to actually ABSORB additional energy’ that would be an indication of being in framework #2.
It’s NOT an indication that there is anything wrong with someone else being in framework #1. Since, if you’re applying the frameworks correctly, they ALWAYS yield the same results.
In practice, in any complicated situation, it’s generally much easier to do your calculations using framework #1.
Clyde insists that only framework #2 is “physical.” I believe that they are both useful frameworks and framework #1 is at least as “physical” as framework #2. But, that philosophical point doesn’t matter because, correctly applied, both frameworks give the same answers for all practical thermodynamic calculations.
For the SB equation to be valid might require a degree of thermal equilibrium within the material that is radiating, but it’s a standard that is easily met. There is no requirement that temperature might not be gradually changing. SB is broadly valid, particular
It’s pretty straightforward to write valid equations for each of these situations.
For someone familiar with vector calculus, at least, these sort of problems aren’t difficult to solve.
And, if one makes some simplifying assumptions (e.g., a simple geometry, or high thermal conductivity within an object), some of these scenarios become simple to solve even without such fancy skills.
It’s not necessarily as difficult as you make it sound.
Engineers and physicists are skilled at making appropriate approximations and calculating “bounds” on possible behaviors. It’s possible to arrive at certain definitive conclusions, even about complex systems.
For example, one knows that total energy will be conserved, no matter how complex the system is. That allows one to develop certain conclusions, even without knowing all the precise details of what is happening in the system.
One can also know things like, “the Earth’s surface emissivity is given by [some particular map derived from satellite data]”, and based on such data, one can calculate bounds on the radiative heat transfer from the surface.
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“Clyde insists that only framework #2 is “physical.” I believe that they are both useful frameworks and framework #1 is at least as “physical” as framework #2. But, that philosophical point doesn’t matter because, correctly applied, both frameworks give the same answers for all practical thermodynamic calculations.”
Sort of depends upon what you consider to be an “answer”, doesn’t it?
If the answer you’re looking for is radiant exitance from a surface, your Framework #1 is going to give you inflated numbers.
That inflated number necessitates that you carry forward the error in calculation, subtracting the likewise inflated (ie: incorrect) radiant exitance of the other objects in the system from the radiant exitance of the object you’re operating upon… which may give you a similar number as Framework #2 in the end, but only because you’re carrying forward that error in calculation, and cancelling it on the back end.
So in Framework #1 and in your context, “physical” only refers to the end result of calculating the net of radiant exitance and absorption, but calculating upon incorrect numbers and cancelling the errors on the back end isn’t exactly good mathematics, and it gives some the impetus to claim that that error you’re cancelling on the back end actually represents reality, that energy actually can spontaneously flow from lower to higher energy density, hence the ‘backradiation’ claim.
Framework #2 gives real-world numbers for radiant exitance, there is no need to carry any error forward and cancel it on the back end, and thus it is “physical” all along the calculation.
In using Framework #2, you calculate “radiant heat flux.” You are mis-labeling that “radiant exitance.”
No. Framework #1 gives exactly the number one would measure for radiant exitance with an appropriate instruments.
* * *
But, the debate about “radiant exitance” doesn’t really matter. Nor do opinions about what is or isn’t real.
Heat transfer is what matters, in regard to calculating the behavior of thermodynamic systems.
And, both frameworks yield the same results with regard to heat transfer.
Bob Wentworth wrote:
In point of fact, you’ve got that exactly backward, Bob.
The S-B equation is the radiant exitance equation, after all. Radiant exitance is the radiant flux emitted by a surface per unit area. So in fact, Framework #2 explicitly calculates radiant exitance, not “radiant heat flux” (your words) as you claim..
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
As does (implicitly, by assuming 1 m^2 or similar such units) the form of the S-B equation for idealized blackbody objects:
Your argument about “what is or isn’t real” rings hollow, a meager attempt on your part at defending the (mis)use of a form of an equation that calculates incorrect results, then cancels those results on the back end by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
As for your Framework #1 calculation for radiant exitance, I’ve done the calculations above, it shows radiant exitance to be far higher for graybody objects when using the form of the S-B equation meant for idealized blackbody objects (essentially treating graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects which do not emit according to the energy gradient, just with ε<1 (sometimes)). Both forms of the S-B equation cannot be correct in calculating radiant exitance for graybody objects, Bob.
Yes, it is. But the equation you offer { q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h } is not the S-B equation. It is the equation for radiant heat transfer.
Or so say all my thermodynamics and heat transfer texts.
I went to the trouble of ordering Morse’s “Thermal Physics” to see if it would back up your assertions, but I see no sign that it does.
Would you be willing to say what sources have led you to the conclusion that { q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h } is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for a body emitting to an environment at temperature T_c?
Bob, you’ve demonstrated your fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘heat’ is in the past, and you’ve been schooled on this in the past.
‘Heat’ is an energy flux. There is not really what you call “radiant heat transfer”, that’s akin to saying “radiant energy flux transfer”.
There is an energy flow from warmer to cooler that we call ‘heat’.
Really? The S-B equation isn’t the S-B equation?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Are you confusing ‘radiant flux’ and ‘radiant exitance’ again, Bob? LOL
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, Bob.
The form of the S-B equation meant to be used for idealized blackbody objects uses a fixed 0 K as its base temperature… hence when calculating using this form of the equation on graybody objects, radiant exitance is calculated too high.
The form of the S-B equation meant to be used for graybody objects has a base temperature which ranges up and down in accord with the temperature of the cooler object. This is why, for real-world objects, as ΔT↓, q↓.
They are essentially the same equation, with different assumptions about ε and the base temperature, as the graphic above shows.
———-
Now, if you’re assuming a graybody object emits into a 0 K ambient, but has ε<1, you’re treating a real-world (graybody) object as though it’s an idealized blackbody object, just with ε<1. This calculates graybody radiant exitance too high.
That would be bad enough, except some of the K-T diagram variants not only do that, but they also assume ε=1, treating graybody objects as if they’re idealized blackbody objects. This, likewise, calculates graybody radiant exitance too high. Remember, idealized blackbody objects are idealized… they don’t actually exist.
By using the incorrect form of the equation, you’re calculating radiant exitance for a graybody object to be far higher than it actually is, necessitating that you carry that error forward and cancel it by subtracting the similarly too-high radiant exitance of the cooler object… which gives the impression that this cancellation of errors to balance the equation represents reality, giving the impetus to some climate loons to claim that the subtracted ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is physical… and that’s how we’ve come to the point we are at, with the climate loons insisting that ‘backradiation’ exists, because their mathematical ineptitude supports their ‘CAGW’ narrative, and they’ll only give it up and admit their mistakes on pain of death.
That’s a misapplication of science on a grand scale, and it’s been used to chuck trillions of dollars down the ‘green’ toilet.
You really don’t need to repeat that graphic in every post. I get what you’re claiming, in that regard. Repeating it endlessly does not make it more persuasive.
Your arguments about the physics would be more persuasive if you didn’t consistently rush to a completely illogical conclusion.
Mathematically, the formalism I advocate and the one that you advocate yield identical results for heat transfer.
So, it is utterly irrational to argue that the very same equations that you advocate for are wrong when they are applied by people you don’t like who label things in ways you don’t enjoy.
The mathematics of the “climate loons” is formally identical to the mathematics you are advocating for.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the way they talk about it.
Well, Bob, if you’d pick up on the hint I’m laying down for once, maybe I wouldn’t have to “repeat that graphic in every post”.
What you call Framework #1 (the form of the S-B equation meant to be used on idealized blackbody objects) and Framework #2 (the form of the S-B equation meant to be used on graybody objects) ARE THE SAME EQUATION WITH DIFFERENT STARTING ASSUMPTIONS.
So the only one who has “rushed to a completely illogical conclusion” is you, Bob… that illogical conclusion being that one can start with different starting assumptions and arrive at “identical results” (your words) for anything.
Your take on radiative physics incorrectly calculates using Framework #1 (the form of the S-B equation meant to be used on idealized blackbody objects) on graybody objects. Doing so arrives at an incorrect (too high) result for each object calculated upon. This forces you to carry those errors forward and cancel them on the back end by subtracting the too-high radiant exitance (which you apparently calculate as “radiant flux” incorrectly by not assuming 1 m^2 or similar such area units for Framework #1, then call that radiant exitance”… while incorrectly claiming that I was incorrectly calculating “radiant flux” and calling it “radiant exitance”) of all objects other than the one you’re operating upon… you’re subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow. Your carrying those errors forward and canceling them on the back end leads some (usually climastrologists) to claim that energy actually can flow cooler to warmer, said claim used to claim that ‘backradiation’ causes ‘CAGW’, and hence we must tear down modern society, deindustrialize and subjugate ourselves to a totalitarian socialist one-world government.
On top of all that, you’ve attempted to define the ‘answer’ one seeks as only being the net heat transfer, which allows you to cancel those errors you carried forward… if one is calculating only for radiant exitance of a single object, your incorrectly-applied Framework #1 arrives at laughable numbers.
And you see no problem with any of that, Bob.
“Sure, my take on radiative physics is used to bolster malignant socialists who wish to enslave humanity to the green collective, and it gets the wrong results for all but a very specific solution but mUh IdEnTiCaL rEsUlTs fOr HeAt TrAnSfEr!” LOL
When the climate loons complain (as you’ve done above, Bob) about my repeatedly hammering them with facts, I typically tell them that repetition helps the mentally retarded to learn. Don’t make me start telling you that, Bob.
The term “radiant heat transfer” is a standard usage. See, for example, this or this. It also goes by the name “radiation heat transfer”, e.g., here or here.
So, please refrain from “schooling” me for using language that is in standard usage.
Thanks for the reference to hyperphysics. However, it’s important to pay attention to labels.
The equation P = 𝜀𝜎A(T⁴ – T꜀⁴) is NOT labeled “radiant exitance”; it’s labeled the “net radiation loss rate.”
“Net” is specifically referring to the “net” result when the “irradiance” (𝜀𝜎T꜀⁴) (from the environment is subtracted from the “radiant exitance” (𝜀𝜎T⁴) emitted by the surface.
Why do you think there would be a need for the word “net” if your interpretation of the physics was correct?
Why would I do that? According to the definitions, ‘radiant exitance’ refers to the ‘radiant flux’ emitted per unit area.
* * *
I notice that it seems like someone who sounds very much like you was involved in trying to edit the Wikipedia page on ‘radiant exitance’.
For graybody objects, you’re assuming that “net” must imply a subtraction of “cooler to warmer” energy flow from the “warmer to cooler” energy flow, Bob, when in actuality it’s calculating the net radiant exitance of the warmer object by subtracting the temperature (a measure of energy density) of the cooler object or environment from the temperature (a measure of energy density) of the warmer object to arrive at the net temperature (a measure of energy density) gradient, and it is the net energy density gradient which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object… that in no way implies that energy is flowing from “cooler to warmer”, merely that the energy density (of which temperature is a measure) of the cooler object or environment reduces the radiant exitance of the warmer object.
If you assume the energy density gradient of all real-world graybody objects (ie: the temperature differential) is akin to the objects emitting into a 0K ambient, you’re doing it wrong, Bob:
In light of what we know about the fundamental physical laws, radiative physics, quantum physics and common sense, Bob, your take on reality is unphysical.
Your take on radiative physics incorrectly calculates using Framework #1 (the form of the S-B equation meant to be used on idealized blackbody objects) on graybody objects. Doing so arrives at an incorrect (too high) result for each object calculated upon. This forces you to carry those errors forward and cancel them on the back end by subtracting the too-high radiant exitance (which you apparently calculate as “radiant flux” incorrectly by not assuming 1 m^2 or similar such area units for Framework #1, then call that radiant exitance”… while incorrectly claiming that I was incorrectly calculating “radiant flux” and calling it “radiant exitance”) of all objects other than the one you’re operating upon… you’re subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow. Your carrying those errors forward and canceling them on the back end leads some (usually climastrologists) to claim that energy actually can flow cooler to warmer, said claim used to claim that ‘backradiation’ causes ‘CAGW’, and hence we must tear down modern society, deindustrialize and subjugate ourselves to a totalitarian socialist one-world government.
On top of all that, you’ve attempted to define the ‘answer’ one seeks as only being the net heat transfer, which allows you to cancel those errors you carried forward… if one is calculating only for radiant exitance of a single object, your incorrectly-applied Framework #1 arrives at laughable numbers.
And you see no problem with any of that, Bob.
Ok, I’ll weigh in with my own diagram.
https://imgur.com/0IWJfRt
There are two distinct ways of analyzing energy transfer via thermal radiation. I’ve named them differently in the diagram. But the nomenclature is:
“Framework 1” = “Radiation Perspective”
“Framework 2” = “Heat Transfer Perspective”
I’m willing to use either framework. You insist on the second framework as being the only “physical” framework.
I know that you object for Framework 1/the Radiation Perspective.
But… both frameworks predict identical results with regard to heat transfer.
Heat transfer is what affects the functioning of climate.
* * *
With regard to “radiant exitance”, I notice that your model seems to assert that a black body in equilibrium with its environment has a “radiant exitance” of zero.
Do you really mean to assert that?
Surely that’s a violation of Stefan’s Law?
* * *
“Radiant exitance” is only an intermediate value in any calculation of temperature. The calculation of temperatures and heat transfers is what affects climate.
It shouldn’t affect the end results regarding climate if we disagree on the value of “radiant exitance”, so long as we are each using a formalism that leads to the same calculated heat transfers (net energy flows) and temperatures.
Here’s the image again, in-line.
Bob Wentworth wrote:
“But… both frameworks predict identical results with regard to heat transfer”
But only when calculating heat transfer… if all one wants to calculate is radiant exitance of a single object, it gives a far-too-high result, because the calculation ends before that “back end” at which you cancel the errors you carried forward from calculating on graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects (just with ε<1… sometimes). The very act of you treating real-world objects as though they emit into a 0 K ambient is unphysical, and the unphysicality of your Framework #1 extends all the way to the end net heat transfer result.
No, treating real-world objects as though they emit willy-nilly without regard to the energy gradient, which means even at thermodynamic equilibrium they are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation, is what violates Stefan’s Law… it doubles energy density in the intervening space between the objects you’re calculating upon.
As to idealized blackbody objects:
Kirchhoff’s Law is a ratio, not an equality:
emissive power / absorptivity = ε (λ,T) / α (λ,T)
An idealized blackbody object assumes ε=1 at thermodynamic equilibrium, implying that ε (λ,T) = 1 for an idealized blackbody object, and thus implying α (λ,T) = 1, meaning that, as Kirchhoff wrote regarding idealized blackbodies: “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”… and that means an idealized blackbody must emit all its internal energy and can thus never be at anything but 0 K… except at 0 K, there can be no internal energy… and a 0 K object emitting zero internal energy to a 0 K ambient (with zero energy) doesn’t really make sense.
ε (λ,0 K) / α (λ,0 K)
You’re not going to learn much from studying fictional objects which aren’t even consistent in the description of their behavior.
Bob Wentworth wrote:
““Radiant exitance” is only an intermediate value in any calculation of temperature. The calculation of temperatures and heat transfers is what affects climate.”
Ah, a take on the old kook tactic of “intermediate results don’t have to make sense! Only the end result does!”. LOL
Intermediate results need not make sense in regards to physical units, but the numbers you’re calculating had better make sense… your Framework #1 numbers do not until you cancel the errors (propagated throughout the calculation) at the back end.
And “radiant exitance” is not used to calculate temperature… what are you even saying? Temperature is a measure of energy density… the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant.
Again, if one wants to calculate radiant exitance (for, say, generating a realistic K-T diagram), then your Framework #1 method calculates radiant exitance far too high for all objects, which forces one to cancel that error by subtracting the radiant exitance of the other object(s) from the object you’re calculating upon, in effect subtracting a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow. Your method, put into place in producing the K-T diagrams, has already shown the folly of using Framework #1, Bob. I’m beginning to think you only defend it because Framework #2 destroys the ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient’ narrative, said narrative which bolsters the ‘backradiation’ narrative, which bolsters the ‘CAGW’ narrative.
You misinterpret the S-B radiant exitance equation for real-world objects. Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower energy gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) slows radiant exitance of the warmer object. You insist upon subtracting energy flows (one real but too high, one fictive), when the S-B equation is designed to cancel energy densities (temperature is a measure of energy density).
Any response?
Re-read my prior response, Bob. You’re arguing about idealized fictional objects which do not exist and are not even consistent in the description of their behavior… you’re essentially arguing along the lines of:
“But your model says that if unicorns can’t fart glitter, all the happy little fairies can’t fly. Do you really mean to assert that? Any response?“
I notice that it seems like someone who sounds very much like you was involved in trying to edit the Wikipedia page on ‘radiant exitance’.
does a bit
“This means the “cold” field could cancel part of the “hot” field thus obviating the need for the hot body to actually ABSORB additional energy. This is one of the things I’ve been study Planck original thesis for.”
which is a reasonable description of the net flow of energy resulting from the partial cancellation of a bi-directional exchange.
There is no need for new physics to explain the heat transfer equation. It is what you get if each body radiates according to the SB law.
“Part of the problem that people run into is assuming you can use SB and say that an atom or molecule radiates as a black body.”
Is anybody saying that (other than as a straw man)?
Look up “entropy”. Here is the basic tenant. If two objects are considered a system, entropy results in the spontaneous net heat flow from the hot object to the cold object. With no further energy input into the system, the two objects will move toward equal temperatures.
+42^42.
I think the articlde is not about ideal blackbody radiation but about actual satellite measuments for actaul wavelength incoming and outgoing radiation for the actual surface of the planet and for actual annual periods with the actual solar orbit and current excentricity. To reduce it to theretical physics with average temperatures and albedo is not helpful.
That equation is valid only if the hot and cold object both have the same emissivity (ε) and a view factor of 1.
The surface and the atmosphere definitely do NOT have the same emissivity. (In addition, the parts of the atmosphere that interact radiatively with the surface have a wide range of temperatures; treating the temperature as having a single temperature is at best a crude approximation.)
So, your subsequent calculations, based on the above equation, are wrong.
Even if you were right about energy gradients, it’s still the case that treating objects as if they emit according to ε σ T^4 and treating the atmosphere as if it emits according to ε σ T^4 (with a different ε and with T varying by location, and accounting for absorption as well) leads to the correct mathematical outcome.
Bob, as a physicist, you should at least research before you make statements.
“That equation” is not “valid only if the hot and cold object both have the same emissivity (ε) and a view factor of 1”.
ε is a placeholder symbol for a calculation done outside the equation, the form of that calculation dependent upon the configuration.
For instance, ε = (1 / (1/ε_h + 1/ε_c – 1)) calculates the geometric resistance for the configuration between two graybody plates.
And of course that equation assumes a configuration factor of 1… but for the surface emitting into the atmosphere, what configuration factor would you assign it? And given that the sum of all configuration factors for any given surface is unity, what configuration factor would you assign it?
Is the K-T graphic the “correct mathematical outcome”, Bob? Showing anywhere from 390 to 396 W m-2 being emitted from a surface which they purport to be at 288 K? Do the calculations, Bob… what emissivity must the surface have and what temperature is that surface emitting into in order to get anywhere from 390 to 396 W m-2? If one assumes a sane atmospheric temperature into which the surface is emitting, what surface temperature must you have in order to emit that 390 to 396 W m-2?
Ok, it’s possible to define ε that way. Though, in your original comment, you applied the valued “surface ε = 0.93643” to your equation. You were not applying the procedure that you now say is needed. So, I assumed you were using the definition in which ε was the emissivity of a surface independent of its environment.
In any event, in your original comment you clearly used your radiant heat transfer equation in an illegitimate manner, using an inappropriate value of ε.
To be rigorous, you’d need to assign configuration factors to all the different portions of the atmosphere at different temperatures, plus a configuration factor to open space to account for the atmospheric window. Yes, these would add up to 1.
You can’t possibly get an accurate picture of heat transport from the surface to the atmosphere to space by modeling the atmosphere as having a single temperature.
You are inappropriately mixing conventions.
You want to use a convention in which you only talk about the net radiative heat transfer? Fine.
But, then it’s not fair for you to then take a number from other people’s work that does not correspond to what you’re talking about, and insist that that number it has to be plugged into your formula.
To be fair, you need to take the number from their work that does correspond to what you are talking about.
In a NASA diagram, they assert the surface emits to the atmosphere a radiant energy flux of 368.3 W/m² and the atmosphere emits to the surface a radiant energy flux of 340.3 W/m², so that the net radiant heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere is 28.0 W/m².
You want to assert that those 368.3 W/m² and 340.3 W/m² values are just mathematical fictions? Let’s go along with that, for the moment. Even if that were true, it’s still the case that, to check others’ work using your formula, one needs to apply it to the number 28.0 W/m².
So, suppose 28.0 W/m² = q/A_h = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) where T_h = 288 K and, per your assumption, the atmospheric temperature is T_c = 255.37.
Then one calculates ε = 0.19.
I’m sure that using a single temperature value for the atmosphere isn’t correct. So, this value for ε isn’t be correct either, except as a very crude approximation.
But, a value of ε = 0.19 doesn’t strike me as a wildly unreasonable number for the effective emissivity for heat exchange between the surface and the atmosphere.
So, I don’t see any indications of a problem being present.
So you’re getting around the incorrect usage of the S-B equation by subtracting the wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly, and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, then attempting to calculate upon the differential, and you don’t see that you’re doing exactly what the misuse of that equation necessitates, and you still don’t see a problem with calculating upon a wholly-fictive energy flow. LOL
The 255 K atmospheric temperature was just a number pulled from thin air, but you must admit, it is far closer than your attempted (and NASA’s actual) use of 0 K. If you don’t see the problem of calculating for an emission to 0 K, then you’re lost, Bob. You’re mixing real and theoretical numbers and concepts to arrive at some mish-mash that demonstrably makes no sense.
The emissivity of the cooler object only matters in that it is a roundabout measure of the absorptivity of that object… between two objects, one warmer and one cooler, the cooler object won’t even be emitting in the direction of the warmer object, as the energy gradient precludes emission.
Look at 2LoT down at the quantum scale… think in terms of how radiative emission (blackbody emission or spectral emission) even works. How is a photon (a quanta of energy) emitted into a higher-energy ambient? It’s not.
In the case of spectral emission, think about what sustains a bound electron in its current state… think about how it is the energy density which precludes emission of a photon, said emission which removes enough energy that the bound electron no longer has an integer number of de Broglie waves in its orbit, thus the bound electron quantum jumps to a lower state in which there are an integer number of de Broglie waves in its orbit and which matches (roughly *) the external energy density.
That energy only flows from higher to lower energy density is what maintains the meta-stability of all invariant-mass matter in the universe. Your take on radiative physics would have all bound electrons emitting willy-nilly, then spiraling in to undergo electron capture. LOL
Had you read what I’d previously written, you’d have realized this already, Bob:
Fer Christ’s sake. 255 K is simply the temperature that a blackbody would have to have to produce the emissions spectra measured from space looking at the Earth. It has no physical meaning as to the temperature(s) of Earth’s atmosphere.
Did I say that it did? I plucked 255 K out of thin air, but it’s 255 K closer to reality than the 0 K you climate loons use when you incorrectly use the form of the S-B equation meant for idealized blackbody objects on graybody objects. LOL
Emissions from a body do not depend on the temperature of anything that they are “emitting into.” Tell the Sun that the Earth controls its emissions.
Certain emission frequencies from the Earth’s surface go straight through the ‘atmospheric window’ to outer space. Other emission frequencies encounter different atmospheric molecules that absorb energy at those specific frequencies. All of the relevant frequencies are being emitted, whether straight to space or to intermediate molecules.
If you wish to continue denying reality in light of the fact that the meta-stability of all invariant-mass matter in the universe is predicated upon energy only flowing from higher to lower energy density (thus preventing the bound electron from emitting willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient and thus spiraling-in to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s) and undergoing electron capture), that is your prerogative.
It doesn’t change reality one whit, of course.
Clyde appears to be treating electrons as definite particles as if they were planets orbiting a star, which they are not. From Feynman’s lectures:
So ironically Clyde is ignoring aspects of quantum theory when it suits him.
Did… did you just claim that an electron is not an invariant-mass fundamental particle? LOL
Feynman’s metaphysicalism and anthropomorphization of the electron is addressed here:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3276491
No one is “ignoring aspects of quantum theory when it suits him” except you.
You are ignoring aspects of quantum theory, specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (this isn’t Feynman’s “metaphysicalism”, he was just teaching basic particle physics to undergraduates). Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle explains why electrons don’t fall into the nucleus, and you have provided no counter-argument.
Unless we need to add Heisenberg’s ucnertainty principle to the list of physics that you have refuted on your Nobel prize submission ;o)
Ah, I see you did bury a response to HUP in the Gish Gallop (hint, answer the question first, rather than start with yet another obviously incorrect claim).
No, HUP is not just about measurement. Taking the wave view of the electron then as it orbits closer and closer to the nucleus it would need to have a shorter and shorter wavelength in order to be ever more localized. The De Broglie equation says the particles momentum is inversely proportional to its wavelength, so once it is localised at the nucleus (0.87×10−15 m) for a hydrogen atom, it’s momentum would be more than large enough throw it out of the atom entirely.
You’re assuming wavelength decreases, rather than the integer number of de Broglie waves in the electron’s orbit. That’s a false assumption.
Now, what happens when that bound electron (a point charge undergoing angular acceleration and thus emitting Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons) no longer has an energy source to make up for the energy lost via those virtual photons? You know, like if the bound electron was bound to a noble gas which was pumped into a Casimir cavity designed to block the quantum vacuum wavemodes resonant to the electron de Broglie wave wavelength?
Does not the integer number of de Broglie waves in the orbit decrease, the bound electron quantum jumps to a successively lower quantum state?
We have working laboratory models demonstrating exactly that… we can make the electron descend below its usual ground state by artificially decreasing ambient energy density. The noble gas emits photons which can be used, after which the noble gas exits the cavity, regains energy from the quantum vacuum to reestablish its usual ground state, then is pumped back around to the cavity inlet.
If we could build a perfect Casimir cavity which would block all such quantum vacuum wavemodes, would not the electron descend in orbit until only a single de Broglie wave exists, which creates a destructive-interference orbit which causes the electron to spiral-in to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s)?
Unfortunately, we cannot yet do that… the EM component of the quantum vacuum is what’s colloquially known as “DC to daylight”. And harmonics can provide energy to the bound electron.
Although I do note that recently the US military presented a paper about a new bomb based upon quantum physics which would “make nuclear weapons look like party-poppers” (their words)… so perhaps we now can do that.
“You’re assuming wavelength decreases, rather than the integer number of de Broglie waves in the electron’s orbit. That’s a false assumption.”
So what happens after the number of waves is 1. Then you need to decrease the wavelength for the electrons wave pattern to get any closer.
“a point charge”
Within an atom an electron can’t be regarded a point charge, it is a wave pattern. How many times does that need to be pointed out to you. You can’t treat an electron as if it were a planet orbiting a star, if it did we wouldn’t have quantum physics.
“Does not the integer number of de Broglie waves in the orbit decrease”
There is only an integer number of de Broglie waves in a stable orbit. The ground state is, by definition, stable orbit with the lowest possible energy, so the electron can’t be in a stable orbit closer to the nucleus than that. There is no lower quantum state to jump into, for reasons you have already been given.
Seriously is this the best you can do?
Seriously, is denial of empirical reality the very best you can do? Try harder. LOL
An electron is a point charge, bound or unbound.
It can be treated as a wave function via the Schrodinger equation for purposes of determining the probability distribution of its position, true, but that doesn’t change its underlying physical structure, nor does it change the fact that the electron orbital is a probability distribution based upon treating an electron as a wave function via the Schrodinger equation.
You’ll note I’ve not stated anything about ‘orbit’ in this context, I stated that the electron emits a photon and falls to a lower orbital radius when the excitation energy sustaining it in its current quantum state is removed.
Learn the difference between ‘orbit’ and ‘orbital’. You are the one implying that the electron is akin to a planet when you use the word ‘orbit’.
The electron most certainly can be in a “stable orbit” (your words) with an artificially-lowered ground state energy density, thus giving the electron a lower-than-usual integer number of de Broglie waves in its orbital.
That’s why we have working laboratory models using Casimir cavities through which a noble gas is pumped. The cavity excludes quantum vacuum wavemodes resonant with the electron’s de Broglie wavelength, the energy density is artificially lowered, the electron emits a photon because energy can now flow from higher to lower energy density, the electron descends to a lower orbital in which it has an integer number of de Broglie waves, said quantum state below the usual ground state.
[1] https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.11.790
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713220130/https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0106/0106097.pdf
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713225420/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13330878_Ground_state_of_hydrogen_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation-determined_state
“We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom.”
The above research has now been extended to more complex atoms and higher electron counts.
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20180719194558/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf
“The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the ‘orbiting’ electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation.”
Feynman’s metaphysicalism lies in his belief that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle applies to his anthropomorphized electrons, when in actuality, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is a result of our measuring techniques requiring interaction with whatever we’re measuring. We are introducing the uncertainty by affecting the system during our measurements. This is why the ‘weak measurement’ double-slit experiment was able to more accurately track the trajectory of single photons, by interacting less with the ensemble of photons.
This was explained to you. If you wish to cling to the metaphysical anthropomorphization of electrons as though they’re ‘measuring’ the system and ‘affecting’ the system and thereby introducing uncertainties just as our measurements do (rather than the electron being a part of the system), that is your prerogative, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are incorrect.
No, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle arises because our measurements interact with and perturb the system, by necessity, which introduces uncertainties in the measurement. Those uncertainties arise because of us.
If your take on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle preventing radiative collapse of bound electron state were true (it’s not), then we’d not be able to artificially lower electron quantum state below the usual ground state… and yet, we’ve got working laboratory models proving that we can do exactly that.
We’re not at the point yet where we can build a Casimir cavity well enough that it can block all quantum vacuum wavemodes which are resonant with (or a harmonic of) bound electron de Broglie wavelength, but if we were able to, we could reduce the integer number of de Broglie wavelengths to 1, a destructive-interference orbit would be set up, and the bound electron would spiral-in to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s).
Treating a bound electron as if it’s ‘measuring’ the system, ‘interacting’ with the system, ‘perturbing’ the system, rather than treating it as part of the system, is a metaphysical anthropomorphization of the electron. It was conceived as a means of getting around the fact that even in the electron’s ground state, that point charge undergoing angular acceleration is emitting Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons… because there were some who do not want to acknowledge that it is the non-zero expectation value of the EM component of the quantum vacuum which sustains the bound electron in its ground state… because there are some who do not want to acknowledge that energy only flows from higher to lower energy density… because there are some who still subscribe to the long-debunked Prevost Theory of Exchanges from 1791 (superseded first by Kinetic Theory of Heat, then by Quantum Thermodynamics).
But the times, they are a’changing… and even NASA admits that it is the quantum vacuum which sustains the bound electron in its ground state.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180719194558/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf
“The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the ‘orbiting’ electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation.”
Why? Energy. Cheap, non-polluting, never-ending baseload-generation energy. All day, all night, without end, until the heat death of the universe.
Unfortunately, Casimir cavities are by necessity tiny, so the working laboratory models don’t scale well.
I took a different tack using the same principles which scales much better.
“Tell the Sun that the Earth controls its emissions.”
and those of Alpha proxima, Alpha centauri, Barnard’s star…
Not only that, the Earth needs to know not to radiate energy in a direction that will contain a star by the time the radiation reaches it.
And to think Einstein had a problem with “spooky action at a distance”, I can’t imagine what he would make of this level of cosmic interconnectednes! ;o)
[edited to correct the Einstein quote]
Say we have a blue giant star, like Rigel, and a normal main sequence star, like our own, but they are separated by a cloud of cool dust. Can the normal main sequence star heat the cool dust cloud between the two stars? Being dust, it would be possible for some photons from the cooler star to pass through the dust and impinge on the blue giant, which according to Clyde’s physics would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
The physics for this is straight forward if all objects radiate according to their local temperature, but I would be very interested to hear how photons travel in straight lines only in directions that hit dust particles, but not the gaps between them in line with the blue giant (especially as the dust is in constant motion).
Please explain Clyde.
I’m working on calculating the energy density at varying distances from the sun, in order to demonstrate that photons from Earth will be subsumed before they ever reach the sun (and thus demonstrate that photons (quanta of energy consisting of the electric and magnetic fields oscillating in quadrature) do not spontaneously flow up an energy gradient)… when I get it done, I’ll attempt creating a graphic for the wavelengths emitted by Earth vs. the distance from the sun at which they’re subsumed by the ambient EM field, but I make no promises on how good that graphic will be.. I’m no artist.
Meanwhile:
According to the Global Energy Flow diagram as used by the IPCC:
… and based upon the original Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, the total solar surface insolation is 168 W/m^2, which would give a surface temperature of only 233.3 K (-39.73 F), which is why they have to claim that ‘backradiation’ can violate 2LoT; via the surface emitting radiation, the atmosphere absorbing and re-emitting half of that radiation back to the surface, then the surface re-emitting that radiation, the atmosphere absorbing and re-emitting half of that radiation back to the surface, etc., etc, on and on for millions of cycles so they can claim ‘backradiation’ warms the surface twice as much as the sun itself.
Of course, being ‘climastrologists’, they’re bad at math and logic… the greenhouse gas theory says that the sum of the above-described geometric series is 2, when it’s actually 1. And they claim that the atmospheric molecules absorb then re-emit 100% of the energy incident upon them, so they do not account for v-t collisional process thermalization, while claiming that that very process of thermalization will cause catastrophic warming.
So they’re double-counting energy, violating 2LoT, performing bad mathematics, misconstruing scientific concepts… almost as if they have an agenda to fulfill, and they’ll do it science and truth be damned. LOL
Of course, you can’t explain any of that, can you? LOL
“have to claim that ‘backradiation’ can violate 2LoT; via the surface emitting radiation, the atmosphere absorbing and re-emitting half of that radiation back to the surface, then the surface re-emitting that radiation, the atmosphere absorbing and re-emitting half of that radiation back to the surface, etc., etc, on and on for millions of cycles so they can claim ‘backradiation’ warms the surface twice as much as the sun itself. …
Of course, you can’t explain any of that, can you? LOL”
Well yes, I can actually. The problem here is that the meaning of “warms the surface” is ambiguous. If I am cold and cover myself with a blanket, then I become warmer. But is the blanket warming me? No, it is just returning some of my body heat back to me, but all of the actually heating is done by my body not the blanket.
Back-radiation is the same, it is returning some of the surfaces’ heat energy back to it, but all of the energy comes from the sun, the atmosphere is just changing controlling how that energy escapes to space. If it helps you could think if it as reducing the rate at which the surface would cool, rather than warming it.
None of this violates the second law of thermodynamics any more than a blanket does.
Blankets don’t convect, Loon. The atmosphere does. In fact, evaporation and convection account for ~76.2% of energy removal from the surface of the planet.
Where do you propose this ‘backradiation’ energy is coming from? You loons also claim that the energy is thermalized and warms the atmosphere… are you double-counting that energy? Sure you are. LOL
If ‘backradiation’ from CO2 atmospheric emission causes catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, where is this ‘backradiation’ coming from?
The near-surface extinction depth is ~10.4 m at current atmospheric CO2 concentration. The troposphere is essentially opaque to 13.98352 µm to 15.98352 µm radiation.
CO2’s absorption of IR in the troposphere thermalizes that radiation, increasing CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convection to the upper atmosphere (carrying with it the latent and specific heat of polyatomic molecules… more polyatomic molecules will carry more energy <u>and</u> will more readily emit that energy in the upper atmosphere), which is a cooling process.
Mean free path length for radiation increases exponentially with altitude and vice versa due to air density changing inversely exponentially with altitude, thus the net vector for radiation in the 13.98352 – 15.98352 µm band is upward, so the majority of ‘backradiation’ which could possibly reach the surface would be from that very thin layer of atmosphere which is within ~10.4 m of the surface, and the great majority of that energy is being thermalized and convected. So where’s this ‘backradiation’ energy coming from that’s going to cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
At 287.64 K (the latest stated average temperature of Earth) and an emissivity of 0.93643 (calculated from NASA’s ISCCP program, data collected 1983-2004), integrated radiance from 13.98352 µm – 15.98352 µm is 10.8773 W/sr-m^2.
Thus the maximum that CO2 could absorb in the troposphere would be 10.8773 W/sr-m^2, if all CO2 were in the CO2{v20(0)} vibrational mode quantum state.
While the Boltzmann Factor calculates that 10.816% of CO2 will be excited in one of its {v2} vibrational mode quantum states at 288 K, the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function shows that ~24.9% will be excited. This is higher than the Boltzmann Factor because faster molecules collide more often, weighting the reaction cross-section more toward the higher end.
Thus that drops to 8.1688523 W/sr-m^2 able to be absorbed. That’s for all CO2, natural and anthropogenic… anthropogenic CO2 accounts for ~3.63% (per IPCC AR4) of total CO2 flux, thus anthropogenic CO2 can only absorb 0.29652933849 W/sr-m^2.
CO2 absorbs ~50% within 1 meter, thus anthropogenic CO2 will absorb 0.148264669245 W/m^2 in the first meter, and the remainder 0.148264669245 W/m^2 within the next ~9 meters.
CO2 will absorb this radiation regardless of any increase in atmospheric concentration… the extinction depth is ~10.4 m at 14.98352 µm wavelength, reducing to ~9.7 m for a doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration. Any tropospheric thermalization which would occur at a higher CO2 atmospheric concentration is already taking place at the current concentration. Thus the net effect of CO2 thermalization is an increase in CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convective transport to the upper atmosphere, which is a cooling process.
The tropospheric thermalization is saturated. Even a doubling of CO2 doesn’t appreciably reduce extinction depth at the band centered around 14.98352 µm. But the upper-atmospheric radiative shedding of energy to space is not saturated… and more CO2 molecules will cause more upper-atmospheric cooling, increasing buoyancy of lower-atmosphere air and thus increasing convection.
An increased CO2 atmospheric concentration will emit more radiation in the upper atmosphere (simply because there are more molecules absorbing energy in the lower atmosphere, more molecules convectively transporting energy to the upper atmosphere, and more molecules capable of emitting radiation in the upper atmosphere), thus more radiation will be emitted to space, and that represents a loss of energy to the system known as ‘Earth’, which is a cooling process.
Zoomed in…
Note the extreme right-hand edge of that chart… negative and decreasing at an accelerating rate.
Why do you kooktards deny that global cooling is occurring? Climate deniers. LOL
Spectral Cooling Rates For the Mid-Latitude Summer Atmosphere Including Water Vapor, Carbon Dioxide and Ozone
Note the CO2-induced spectral cooling rate (positive numbers in the scale at right) extends to the surface of the planet, whereas CO2 shows just a slight bit of warming (negative numbers in the scale at right) only at the tropopause (ie: just above the clouds, where it absorbs a greater percentage of cloud-reflected solar insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).
Polyatomic molecules shift the lapse rate vertically, more of them shifts the lapse rate more vertically (which attempts to decrease temperature differential between different altitudes by transiting more energy from surface to upper atmosphere), while <u>also</u> radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere can convectively warm it… ie: they are coolants.
You will note that this is borne out empirically by that long-term upper-atmosphere cooling and by the fact that OLR increased by ~7 W/m^2 over ~72 years even as surface temperature showed no statistically significant trend for more than two decades (said increased OLR partly caused by the increasing CO2 concentration making available more molecules capable of efficiently convectively transporting energy to the upper atmosphere, and advectively transporting energy poleward, then radiatively emitting it).
If the back radiation doesn’t exist, how can it’s spectrum be directly observed from the surface?
If the photons are subsumed by the EM field because of the energy gradient before they ever reach the instrument, how are they split into a spectrum to be measured?
Where does the energy of the photon end up? Conservation of momentum means it can’t just stop.
Still clinging to your incorrect assumptions of how a pyrgeometer or IR spectrometer works, Loon?
The pyrgeometer’s thermopile’s outward-facing side cools in comparison to a reference thermistor usually affixed to the backside of the thermopile. The electronics see a dearth of IR photons from the atmosphere because the thermopile is warmer than the atmosphere. Energy flows from the thermopile to the atmosphere, because energy can only flow down an energy gradient (unless external energy does work to push that energy up the energy gradient, as in an A/C unit). The electronics infer an atmospheric temperature from that.
The IR spectrometer’s semiconductor quantum detector is cooled (typically with liquid nitrogen), meaning that its chemical potential is lower than the chemical potential of the atmosphere. IR photons can manifest from the ambient EM field to do work upon the IR spectrometer’s semiconductor quantum detector because energy only flows down an energy gradient (unless external energy does work to push that energy up the energy gradient, as in an A/C unit).
Remember that photons are a part of the ambient EM field… a persistent perturbation above the ambient… if ambient EM field chemical potential in a region is higher than the chemical potential of a photon encroaching upon that region, that photon will be subsumed into the ambient EM field… sort of akin to adding a dropper of 75 F water to a lake of 75 F water. If the ambient EM field encounters an object or coterminous region with lower chemical potential than the ambient EM field, photons will manifest from the ambient EM field until the chemical potential between the two returns to zero.
A good analogy is the EM component of the quantum vacuum… that energy is there, but you can’t make it do any work unless you’re able to artificially lower energy density (and hence chemical potential) in a region to below that of the quantum vacuum ground state energy density. That is what the working laboratory models do… the Casimir cavity creates an artificially lower energy density in the cavity space by excluding quantum vacuum wavemodes resonant with the bound electron de Broglie wavelength of a noble gas, that noble gas is pumped through the cavity space, the noble gas bound electrons emit photons (because energy can now flow from higher to lower energy density) and the bound electrons descend to a lower orbital with a lower integer number of de Broglie waves in their orbit, said orbital below the usual ground state. The noble gas exits the cavity, whereupon it regains energy from the quantum vacuum, the bound electrons resume their usual ground-state orbital radius, then the noble gas is pumped back around to the inlet of the cavity to repeat the process.
Your inability to understand that space-time has nothing to do with when or how a photon is emitted is noted. It is the energy density at the emitting surface at the moment that emission would occur which determines whether emission does occur. For objects which are relatively close (in terms of the speed of light relative to their own velocity), that energy density gradient between warmer and cooler object closely matches the energy density of each object.
Should a photon from a lower energy density object be emitted by a cooler object and a warmer (higher energy density at all wavelengths) object move into the path of that photon, the energy gradient will increase (at the speed of light), the slope of the energy density will increase, the chemical potential of the ambient EM field will increase, the photon will be subsumed before it ever reaches the warmer object… the photon is a component of the EM field, after all, merely a persistent perturbation above the ambient EM field.
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-nested-black-body-shells-model-and.html
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-greenhouse-gas-hypothesis-and.html
I see that you have totally failed to answer the question and substituted yet another unrelated Gish gallop. It is almost as if you are deliberately avoiding a question that you know perfectly well will show your theory to be wrong.
“the slope of the energy density will increase, the chemical potential of the ambient EM field will increase, the photon will be subsumed before it ever reaches the warmer object…”
So in that case, how can the cosmic microwave background (effective temperature of about 3K IIRC) be picked up by antennas at the earths surface at ambient temperatures?
Or for that matter, how can IR spectrometers measure the spectrum of downwelling IR from the ground?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407315300340
Again, this has been explained to you as regards a pyrgeometer. The main difference between a pyrgeometer and an IR spectrometer is the detector, with an IR spectrometer generally using a semiconductor quantum detector, rather than a thermopile as in the pyrgeometer, with a monochromator to split the light from the light source into component frequencies. I challenge you to use an IR spectrometer on the ambient EM field without cooling the detector… you’ll get nothing, unless you cool your detector below ambient (the cooler your detector, the longer wavelengths you can detect) in which case, the photons have higher chemical potential than the detector, and can thus do work upon it, be detected by it.
This FTIR’s detector was cooled with liquid nitrogen.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3275540
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3276095
?revision=1&size=bestfit&width=300&height=191
As I pointed out earlier, how can you detect the SPECTRUM of radiation if there is no radiation?
“with a monochromator to split the light from the light source into component frequencies.”
what light (IR) is there to split if it has all been “subsumed”.
Resonance. A resonant system doesn’t connect to the thermic heating of photons.
Essentially what you’re doing is setting up your system so that it resonantly oscillates at a certain frequency, and if there are EM wavelengths at that frequency, your system will oscillate, whereupon you can amplify that.
That’s how Pensiaz and Wilson did it, that’s how COBE did it, that’s how WMAP did it (actually WMAP inferred the radiation via the antenna temperature : CMB temperature differential, then inferred from that the differential between antennas of several different frequencies (pseudo-differential radiometer), then subtracted the foreground… it is in question whether they were measuring much more than noise, since they couldn’t take the same picture of the same slice of sky twice, which is likely why they released year 1 graphics, then released a 3 year average on year 3), and Planck cooled its sensors to as low as 0.1 K via 3-stage active refrigeration to increase sensitivity.
I asked how we can detect photons from the CMR with an effective temperature of 3K be detected by ground-based antennae at ambient temperature and CLyde says:
What can the antenna resonate with, given that according to you the photons will be “subsumed before it ever reaches the warmer object” (in this case the atmosphere miles above the antenna).
The atmosphere is transparent to microwaves… which you should know, given that you’ve probably seen a microwave transmitting tower somewhere near you at some point in your overly-cloistered life. LOL
Did… did you attempt to conflate spectral absorption with blackbody absorption? Sure you did… you are that disingenuous… or that stupid… haven’t decided which yet… might be both. LOL
“The atmosphere is transparent to microwaves… which you should know, given that you’ve probably seen a microwave transmitting tower somewhere near you at some point in your overly-cloistered life. LOL”
We are not talking about absorption by the atmosphere, we are talking about your theory of “subsumed” by the EM field. Microwaves and IR are the same thing, they only differ by wavelength and the distinction between the two is entirely arbitrary. So if IR is subsumed depending on the energy gradient, as you insist, microwaves will as well.
“Sure you did… you are that disingenuous… or that stupid… haven’t decided which yet… might be both. LOL”
Yawn. I’m not the one that is evading a point by substituting absorption by the atmosphere for the “subsumed by the EM field” argument that we were actually discussing.
Do you suppose that energy from the photons which are subsumed into the ambient EM field just disappears, Loon?
A photon is a part of the ambient EM field, a persistent perturbation above that ambient.
If a photon with lower chemical potential than the ambient EM field in a region encroaches upon that region, that photon will no longer be persistent. Given that photons do not obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and given that the EM field likely already has wavemodes of that photon’s wavelength, it’s not going to really do much to the ambient EM field… a bit like adding a dropper of 75 F water to a lake of 75 F water… it’s not going to change the temperature of the lake, just as the photon’s not going to change the energy density of the ambient EM field.
Now, if there are wavemodes in the ambient EM field which encounter a region or object with a lower chemical potential than those wavemodes, those photons can manifest from the ambient EM field, until the EM field chemical potential / object chemical potential ratio returns to zero.
A good analogy to the ambient EM field is the quantum vacuum… that energy is there, but you can’t make it do any work unless you’re somehow able to create a region of even lower energy density (and thus lower chemical potential).
Note that while the lower chemical potential photons are subsumed by the higher chemical potential of the ambient EM field, that ambient EM field still exists, and those wavelengths still exist in the ambient EM field (they likely already existed, but photons do not obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, so the lower chemical potential photons subsumed by the ambient EM field add little to the ambient EM field).
They can’t do any work except upon objects of lower chemical potential (just as with persistent photons). They’re not persistent unless they encounter an object or region with lower chemical potential. Note the difference between an EM field and a photon: photons are persistent perturbations above the ambient EM field and can thus do work on objects with chemical potential above that of the ambient EM field but below that of the persistent photon; the EM field has a chemical potential of zero (usually, unless there is a lower chemical potential object or region coterminous).
This is why persistent photons of sufficient energy (sufficient chemical potential) can cause the photoelectric effect, but you’ll note the ambient EM field cannot… because energy does not flow from lower to higher energy density (nor does it flow if there is no energy gradient whatsoever).
I directly answered your question. Your inability to read that answer for comprehension, or your inability to understand the answer, or your refusal to accept the reality of that answer, doesn’t detract from the veracity of that answer.
“I directly answered your question. Your inability to read that answer for comprehension, or your inability to understand the answer, or your refusal to accept the reality of that answer, doesn’t detract from the veracity of that answer.”
The standard evasive response whenever someone points out a question has been evaded, which is to say that they didn’t understand how the evasion answered the question, which is of course because it didn’t.
So if ““the slope of the energy density will increase, the chemical potential of the ambient EM field will increase, the photon will be subsumed before it ever reaches the warmer object…” how is it possible to measure the spectra of downwelling IR radiated by the atmosphere from the ground?
The standard backpedaling response whenever someone doesn’t want to accept the reality of an answer to their neophyte question.
This already been explained to you multiple times… that you cannot read for comprehension, that your inferior brain is unable to comprehend the answer, that your ideological bent precludes you accepting reality, is no one’s fault but your own.
Resonance:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3276686
Cooling the detector:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3276734
Transparent atmosphere:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3276821
Stop embarrassing yourself, Loon. LOL
I completely answered your question, Loon. That you cannot understand that answer, or that you refuse to accept that answer’s reality because it destroys your narrative is not my concern… that’s a personal failing on your part. LOL
Stefan and Boltzmann say you’re incorrect:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c3
Note especially the blurb:
“The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship is also related to the energy density in the radiation in a given volume of space.“
Quote mining – “is also related to” does not mean “is governed by”, which is what you are claiming.
Follow that link and prove yourself wrong, Loon. LOL
This is priceless, this is also a quoye from Clyde’s link
[EMPHASIS mine]
This appears just before the equation
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/imgheat/stef3.gif
So if there is no bidirectional radiation, why does it specify NET radiation?
Whoopsie… seems you’re a loon. LOL
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2
Clyde wrote
“Whoopsie… seems you’re a loon. LOL
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2”
Yes, it talks of NET transfer TWICE in that section
“The relationship governing the net radiation …”
“… implying net radiative transfer to the object.”
So calling me a loon is no answer to the question
“So if there is no bidirectional radiation, why does it specify NET radiation?”
If it has reached that point in the discsussion there isn’t much point in continuing if it is just going to be insults with no attempt whatsoever to answer the question.
amusingly the site Clyde directed me do very directly contradicts his assertion that there is no bidirectional exchange of energy
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/absrad.html#c1
So that supports the usual explanation of the radiative heat transfer law giving the net transfer of energy between objects radiating independently according to their own temperature.
Yes, in a classical physics context… the S-B equation is classically-based, after all. But our knowledge gained since 1791 and the long-debunked Prevost’s Principle (thrown on the midden-heap of scientific history by James Clerk Maxwell after he read Joule’s paper and convinced the scientific community to instead use the Kinetic Theory of Heat, which was subsequently superseded by Quantum Thermodynamics) (Prevost’s Principle, which you are supporting whether you know it or not): quantum mechanics, quantum thermodynamics, radiative theory… all prove that energy does not flow from lower to higher energy density (and thus from lower to higher temperature, given that temperature is a measure of energy density) spontaneously.
Clausius was more genius than many realize, since he’d picked up on this fact long before most… 2LoT (in the Clausius Statement sense):
“No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body”
… states that energy cannot flow from a lower to a higher energy density region without external work being done upon the system… not via conduction, not via radiative means, not macroscopically, not at the quantum scale[1], not ever.
Do keep in mind the definition of heat: “an energy flux“. Thus:
“No process is possible whose sole result is an energy flux from a cooler to a hotter body” without external energy doing work upon the system.
Rudolf Clausius also wrote in his paper entitled “Entropy”:
“A transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body always occurs in those cases in which work is done by heat.”
Again, keeping in mind the definition of heat: “an energy flux“:
“An energy flux always (and only) occurs in those cases in which work can be done by that energy flux.”
If no work can be done, no energy can flow.
So where’s the energy to perform the work coming from to cause energy to flow from a lower to a higher energy density region?
Are you going to deny 1LoT and claim it just magically appears?
Are you going to deny 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense? { Hint: You already do. } LOL
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3275
It’s funny you mention Clausius’ statement. From the second edition of his book (page 78):
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor02claugoog/page/n98/mode/2up?view=theater
So Clausius agrees with me about heat transfer being the net result of a bidirectional exchange of energy.
Or how about Max Planck, from his book “The Theory of Heat Radiation” (page 50)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Clearly Planck viewed heat transfer as the net result of a bidirectional exchange of radiation as well.
“Clearly”, Planck viewed heat transfer as the net result of a bidirectional exchange of radiation because Planck clung to the long-debunked Prevost Principle, thrown on the midden-heap of scientific history by none other than James Clerk Maxwell after he’d read Joule’s paper and who then convinced the scientific community to use the Kinetic Theory of Heat, which has been subsequently superseded by Quantum Thermodynamics.
Planck wrote:
“7. The coefficient of emission depends, not only on the frequency ν, but also on the condition of the emitting substance contained in the volume-element dτ , and, generally speaking, in a very complicated way, according to the physical and chemical processes which take place in the elements of time and volume in question. But the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).”
This has already been explained to you several times in other comments. Perhaps, if you’d learn to read for comprehension, you’d not have embarrassed yourself by dredging up the example of a person (Planck) who incorrectly mashed together the new paradigm of Kinetic Theory of Heat with Prevost’s Theory of Exchanges into an unscientific mish-mash in which energy flows willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient (but only for radiative energy flow… Planck correctly stated that energy flow via conduction required a temperature (and therefore an energy density, given that temperature is a measure of energy density) gradient)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3275514
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/#comment-3276077
Well, Planck wasn’t exactly the perfect ‘role model’ in this respect. It is his error which the climate alarmists cling to in order to support their ‘energy flows willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient‘ narrative, which supports their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which supports their ‘CAGW‘ narrative.
Planck correctly stated:
“Conduction of heat depends on the temperature of the medium in which it takes place, or more strictly speaking, on the non-uniform distribution of the temperature in space, as measured by the temperature gradient.”
In other words, energy can only flow (the definition of heat) via conduction if there is a temperature (and therefore an energy density) gradient.
Where Planck erred is in his clinging to the Prevost Theory Of Exchanges in regard to radiative energy, which led him to eschew scientific reality (that energy only flows if there is an energy gradient), to wit:
“But the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).”
The long-debunked Prevost Theory of Exchanges (first replaced by the Kinetic Theory of Heat, then by Quantum Thermodynamics) assumed that energy flowed without regard to energy gradient. This led Planck to make the further incorrect assumption in keeping with the Prevost Theory of Exchanges:
“We shall now introduce the further simplifying assumption that the physical and chemical condition of the emitting substance depends on but a single variable, namely, on its absolute temperature T.”
So unless he was speaking strictly of idealized blackbody objects (and not real-world graybody objects), Planck made a mistake. Given that Planck was discussing emissivity in the very paragraph where he mentions Prevost’s principle, that means he made a mistake… he wasn’t discussing idealized blackbody objects.
The image above shows that while idealized blackbody objects do not take into account the energy gradient, real-world graybody objects most certainly do. Of course, idealized blackbody objects are just that, idealizations… they don’t actually exist.
So in the real world, the energy gradient determines radiant exitance, energy does not flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient and 2Lot applies always and everywhere.
So Carnot erred in assuming that heat is never consumed as work; Clausius erred in attributing ‘heat’ to the energy density of an object (‘heat’ is definitionally an energy flux, ‘temperature’ is a measure of energy density); Kirchhoff in formulating his original version of Kirchhoff’s Law used the term ’emissivity’ when he actually meant ’emissive power’; and Planck erred in clinging to a long-debunked radiative model, and his follow-on assumptions stemming from that led to his treating real-world objects as though they emit willy-nilly without regard to the energy gradient… even the greats of science make mistakes.
Good thing I’m around to correct them. LOL
“Planck correctly stated:
“Conduction of heat depends on the temperature of the medium in which it takes place, or more strictly speaking, on the non-uniform distribution of the temperature in space, as measured by the temperature gradient.”
In other words, energy can only flow (the definition of heat) via conduction if there is a temperature (and therefore an energy density) gradient.”
LOL Clyde tries to treat radiation like conduction just because Planck mentioned a gradient. Splendid example of “confirmation bias”.
Says the climate loon as he desperately ignores Clausius’s statement, to wit:
“He thereupon propounded the following as a fundamental principle: “Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body.”
The words ‘of itself’ here used for the sake of brevity, require, in order to be completely understood, a further explanation, as given in various parts of the author’s papers. In the first place they express the fact that heat can never, through conduction or radiation, accumulate itself in the warmer body at the cost of the cooler.”
Go on, Climate Loon… embarrass yourself again, it’s entertaining. LOL
Bwahahahaa! Climate Loon thinks this is my first go-round… you’re so prototypically ‘climate kook’ that as soon as I wrote of Clausius, I pulled up my texts on Clausius writing about the focusing of light, the concentration of light, which is what he was writing about immediately above your taken-out-of-context quote, to wit:
“He thereupon propounded the following as a fundamental principle: “Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body.”
The words ‘of itself’ here used for the sake of brevity, require, in order to be completely understood, a further explanation, as given in various parts of the author’s papers. In the first place they express the fact that heat can never, through conduction or radiation, accumulate itself in the warmer body at the cost of the cooler. This, which was already known as respects direct radiation, must thus be further extended to cases in which by refraction or reflection the course of the ray is diverted and a concentration of rays thereby produced.”
So… you’ve been caught being either:
1) …a disingenuous lying kook taking quotes out of context to support your kooky unscientific take on reality.
-or-
2) …too stupid to read for comprehension.
I’ll allow you to choose which. LOL
Wanna try the passage in which Clausius mentioned heat flowing from cooler to warmer… in refuting Carnot’s assertion that heat is not consumed as work? LOL
Try harder, Climate Kook. LOL
““Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body.””
Clyde wrote
Yes, Clausius is explicitly explaining what he meant by “of itself” in the very paragraph I quoted from his book
which you clearly didn’t read.
Clyde continued
which is more than just somewhat ironic
Yet again, you demonstrate your inability to read for comprehension… Clausius was writing of a cyclical process, as in the refrigeration cycle, in which external energy is doing work to push that energy up the energy gradient.
Clausius wrote:
“In the second place the principle must be applicable to processes which are a combination of several different steps, such as e.g. cyclical processes of the kind described above. It is true that by such a process (as we have seen by going through the original cycle in the reverse direction) heat may be carried over from a colder into a hotter body: our principle however declares that simultaneously with this passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body there must either take place an opposite passage of heat from a hotter to a colder body, or else some change or other which has the special property that is it not reversible, except under the condition that it occasions, whether directly or indirectly, such an opposite passage of heat.”
In other words, when moving energy from cooler to warmer via a cyclical process by using external energy to push that energy up the energy gradient, the external energy must be from a process which moves energy from warmer to cooler… the two processes need not take place in the same place… unless you’re going to claim the electricity to drive your A/C unit is generated in your A/C unit. LOL
Clausius was describing, for example, an A/C unit. You’re just incapable of reading for comprehension. LOL
So… you’ve yet again been caught being either:
1) … a disingenuous lying kook taking quotes out of context to support your kooky unscientific take on reality.
-or-
2) … too stupid to read for comprehension.
I’ll allow you to choose which. LOL
“This simultaneous passage of heat in the opposite direction,”
“opposite direction” means from the warmer body to the cooler as part of an exchange. This would not be the case for an A/C unit because the transfer of heat is not “in the opposite direction”, but it is transferred to a third body. The A/C unit is an example of the other form of compensation in that work has been done.
I did say
and you have provided an example of that.
You’re yet again assuming, from the depths of your scientific illiteracy, that the energy exchange from warmer to cooler to provide the external energy used to push system energy up an energy gradient, must take place within that system… apparently because you don’t know the meaning of the word “external”. LOL
So you are tacitly claiming that the electricity used to power your A/C unit is generated in your A/C unit.
Didn’t you already claim you were tired of embarrassing yourself, that you were running away? And yet, here you are, embarrassing yourself anew… climate kooks go to great lengths to defend the lies they refuse to admit they were stupid and gullible enough to buy into… to the point that they’ll lie, take quotes out of context, twist scientific definitions and conflate scientific concepts, play the victim when getting called on their unscientific blather, and making pretenses of running away (which is just their way of stating that they’ve run out of blather for the moment, but they’ll be back with a fresh batch of unscientific blather just as soon as they can figure out new lies, find more scientific definitions to twist and find more scientific concepts to conflate). Which means you’ve been busy Google-raping to assuage the cognitive dissonance you’re experiencing due to reality intruding upon your climate fairy-tale. LOL
No, that is not what I am saying an you know perfectly well that it is not. Each body radiates according to its own local temperature, and does not require any additional energy to accomplish that. The net flow of energy resulting from that is the heat transfer law, without any need for inventing new physics (for which you have no experimental evidence)
Oh come on, there is no way you can twist
to mean that the energy comes from inside the A/C unit! It is the power supplied to the A/C unit that means work can be done to transfer the heat to a third body (the air outside the building).
You really are making a fool of yourself if you think that kind of BS will fool anybody but you.
No, that’s what you’re attempting to imply… that energy can flow from cooler to warmer within a system because energy can flow from warmer to cooler within the same system… except you forgot about entropy.
Go on, give us the mathematics proving that energy can flow from cooler to warmer in any case whatsoever in which external energy doesn’t do work upon the system, in terms of entropy.
You can’t do it, because you’re an unscientific climate loon attempting to twist scientific concepts to fit your religious belief in a poorly-told climate fairy tale.
No, Clausius mentions two forms of “compensation” (i) a greater flow of energy in the opposite direction; and (ii) some other change… In the case of an A/C unit it is the latter – external energy has been provided,
misrepresenting me twice withing a single post shows it is deliberate. I have explicitly said that it is a bidirectional transfer of energy, and that it satisifies the second law of thermodynamics if the net flow of heat is from warm to cool. That clearly is not “from cooler to warmer in any case whatsoever”.
yawn
You’re lying. Clausius never wrote of “a greater flow of energy in the opposite direction”… if he had, you’d be able to quote those exact words. I note you’ve failed to do so.
Clausius wrote:
“No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body”
Do keep in mind the definition of heat: “an energy flux“. Thus:
“No process is possible whose sole result is an energy flux from a cooler to a hotter body” without external energy doing work upon the system.”
Rudolf Clausius also wrote in his paper entitled “Entropy”:
“A transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body always occurs in those cases in which work is done by heat.”
Again, keeping in mind the definition of heat: “an energy flux“:
“An energy flux always (and only) occurs in those cases in which work can be done by that energy flux.”
If no work can be done, no energy can flow.
Clausius also wrote:
“He thereupon propounded the following as a fundamental principle: “Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body.”
The words ‘of itself’ here used for the sake of brevity, require, in order to be completely understood, a further explanation, as given in various parts of the author’s papers. In the first place they express the fact that heat can never, through conduction or radiation, accumulate itself in the warmer body at the cost of the cooler.”
And of course, Clausius wrote the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the Clausius Statement sense… he couldn’t have been any more clear that energy in any form does not flow spontaneously from lower energy density to higher energy density.
Yet you deny all of that reality in order that you can keep your ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient‘ narrative alive, all so you can keep your ‘backradiation‘ narrative alive, so you can keep your ‘CAGW‘ narrative alive.
Except you’ve still not shown how energy can flow from cooler to warmer spontaneously, in terms of entropy… and you’ve forgotten the following:
CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant at all altitudes except a negligible bit of warming right at the tropopause (where it absorbs more cloud-reflected solar insolation and radiation from water condensation):
That’s from an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.
That’s from the Clough and Iacono study.
The climate loons are provably diametrically opposite to reality.
———-
Let us now do the mathematics to prove your poorly-told climate fairy tale is exactly that…
Now, you climate tardlings mis-use the S-B equation to show that the surface emits anywhere from 390 – 396 W m-2…
…to do so, you must use the form of the S-B equation meant to be used for idealized blackbody objects, and you must treat a real-world object as though it’s an idealized blackbody object (emission to a 0 K ambient), just with emissivity <1 (sometimes… other times, you treat graybodies exactly as idealized blackbodies)…
Your mis-use of the S-B equation inflates radiant exitance far above what it actually is for all objects, necessitating that you carry that error forward through your calculations and cancel it on the back end, essentially subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow… which leads especially scientifically-illiterate climate loons to conclude that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (a violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law).
So, given that we know that convection and evaporation accounts for 76.2% of all surface energy removal…
… and given that you climate tardlings claim the surface to emit 390 – 396 W m-2 via radiant exitance, we can calculate the amount of energy removed from the surface (and ultimately emitted out to space) by convection and evaporation, according to you unscientific tardlings:
390 / ((100 – 76.2) / 100) = 1638.6555 W m-2 energy removed from the surface via convection / evaporation.
So total energy removal from the surface, according to you unscientific tardlings is:
1638.6555 + 390 = 2028.6555 W m-2
Now, if a surface was able to radiatively emit that amount of energy (no convection, no evaporation), it would need (according to the form of the S-B equation you tardlings use, meant for idealized blackbody objects but which you use on graybody objects) the following temperature:
Assumptions:
1) emission to 0 K (just as you climate tardlings use)
2) emissivity of 0.93643 (ref: NASA ISCCP program)
442.11142377459703 K
-or-
336.1305627942746 F
-or-
168.961423774597 C
Now, if we use the S-B equation properly for graybody objects, and assume a sane (but arbitrarily chosen) atmospheric temperature of 255 K, we get:
… a surface temperature of:
453.86646334028137 K
-or-
357.2896340125063 F
-or-
180.7164633402813 C
As can be proven mathematically, the climate loon take on reality is so wrong as to be laughable.
Stop embarrassing yourself, or I’ll start hitting you with a thousand other scientific means by which your kooky take on reality can be disproved, Loon. LOL
I gave a direct quote from Clausius’ book with a page number and a link to the on-line version. I am not interested in your pedantry or your Gish gallops, and at this point I don’t think anybody else is interested either.
Again, if you were able to quote Clausius stating anything about “energy can flow from cooler to warmer because energy can flow from warmer to cooler“, you’d have done so… you failed to do so, and you’ve denied Clausius’ direct statements to the effect that energy in any form cannot flow from cooler to warmer without external energy doing work upon the system.
We’re still waiting for your mathematical proof of same, in terms of entropy… oh, you didn’t know that Clausius wrote extensively of entropy, and in so doing disproved every single bit of your deluded blather, did you? LOL
It is not ‘pedantry’ which you are detecting, it is scientific truth promulgated by a superior debating opponent and far superior intellect… holding you to account for your laughably incorrect take on reality isn’t pedantic, it’s merely entertaining watching you desperately flop like a fish on a hook as you realize you’re no longer in your element… you’re no longer the smartest idiot in a herd (I’d call it a ‘school’ in keeping with the fish analogy, but we all know you climate loons are fundamentally uneducated or maleducated. LOL) of climate loon idiots… now you’re a very small fish in a much larger ocean, and there’s a very large shark about… and that shark sees that you’re wounded and desperate to escape. LOL
And now, you’re yet again making pretenses of running away again… which means you’ve been backed into a corner by reality again… and you’ll have to furiously Google-rape to come up with more scientific definitions to twist to your equally-twisted climate ideology, more scientific concepts to conflate in defense of your indefensible and poorly-told climate fairy tale, more quotes which you can attempt to take out of context to bolster the largest scam ever perpetrated upon humanity.
Clyde says
The amount of radiation given off by a blackbody object is related to the energy density around it – News at 11!
Yes, releasing energy will increase energy density – you heard it here first*
I checked, it says nothing whatsoever that could possibly be construed as supporting your contention about photons being subsumed.
* may contain trace amounts of sarcasm ;o)
Perhaps if you’d learn to read for comprehension, you’d get it, but at this point, I seriously doubt that you’re able. LOL
Loon doesn’t believe that a component of the EM field can be subsumed back into the EM field when the photon chemical potential is below ambient EM field chemical potential. Loon either can’t read for comprehension, or Loon refuses to accept reality because it destroys his narrative. LOL
“Loon doesn’t believe that a component of the EM field can be subsumed back into the EM field when the photon chemical potential is below ambient EM field chemical potential.”
well you have yet to provide any evidence that it actually happens.
or explain where the energy carried by the photon end up.
Well, there has been one insult too many, as I said earlier in the discussion there is no chance of a productive discussion once insults start. If you insult someone it means there is no way you can accept that you are wrong without making a complete fool of yourself for having been shown to be wrong by a loon/kook/idiot. So people double down instead, and make a fool of themselves that way instead, which actually isn’t much better.
So basically Clyde has a theory that photons of IR are subsumed into the EM field when they encounter warmer conditions than the place where they originated, and then if they subsequently reach colder conditions they pop back into existence again. Clyde has provided no evidence whatsoever that this actually happens.
These subsumed photons continue as some sort of disturbance in the EM field, which sounds a lot like radiation viewed as a wave rather than as a particle. However all charged particles interact with the EM field, so being a wave/disturbance in the EM field doesn’t mean they can’t be absorbed by a cooler object.
So Clyde has a complicated theory, with no experimental support that explains something that is already explained much more straightforwardly by the net transfer of energy between objects that are radiating depending on their local temperature. Clydes own sources talk of a NET transfer, but he doesn’t want to seem to discuss that point.
So I’ll leave it there for Clyde to insult me a bit more, ignore the key points with a Gish gallop and claim “victory”. Climate skepticism at it’s finest!
“no experimental support” except everything we’ve learned in the intervening years since the Prevost Principle (which is what you’re supporting, whether you know it or not) from 1791… quantum physics, radiative physics, the fundamental physical laws… all that experimentally, empirically derived knowledge is counter to your take on radiative energetic transfer.
But you refuse to accept that scientific reality, you refuse to update your knowledge, you refuse to stop clinging to the long-debunked Prevost Principle (the underlying premise of the Prevost Theory of Exchanges, chucked on the midden-heap of scientific history by none other than James Clerk Maxwell, who convinced the scientific community to use the Kinetic Theory of Heat after reading Joule’s paper, and which was subsequently superseded by Quantum Thermodynamics)… all because you’ve been brainwashed into believing a poorly-told climate fairy tale predicated upon physically impossible physical processes, all in service to a malignant and malicious cabal of elitists who wish to enslave humanity to their green collective while they live like kings. Some sheeple just want to be ruled because it’s easier than thinking for themselves… you are obviously one of them.
Give a link to a paper describing an experiment where a real photon (not a virtual one) is subsumed into the EM field and then reappears again.
I’ll go you one better… an empirical example of a virtual photon being actualized into a photon direct from the quantum vacuum by increasing local energy density via a SQUID:
Observation of the dynamical Casimir effect in a superconducting circuit
https://sci-hub.se/http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/nature10561.html
Now, should the chemical potential of the ambient rise above the chemical potential of those photons, those photons will be subsumed into the ambient EM field, just as when that energy is maximally entropied, it will again become a part of the quantum vacuum ground state.
No Clyde, I said “Give a link to a paper describing an experiment where a real photon (not a virtual one) is subsumed into the EM field and then reappears again.”
Your theory requires real photons to be subsumed and reappear. Please provide experimental evidence that this occurs. A virtual photon being “actualised” is not evidence of a real photon being subsumed.
The example I provided you is an even stronger example of same… you’re just not scientifically literate enough to realize that fact. LOL
You’re essentially asking, “Show us an empirical example of photon emission and absorption!”, you’re just not scientifically literate enough to realize that fact. LOL
Oh, look… photon emission from electron / hole pair recombination, said photons with chemical potential above that of the ambient EM field, which is why they’re emitted:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2103/2103.14740.pdf
Oh, look… a biased semiconductor junction results in photon emission with chemical potential above ambient EM field chemical potential… you know.. an LED. And photons being subsumed in that biased semiconductor junction because it has a lower chemical potential than the photons (near field photonic cooling). LOL
https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41586-019-0918-8
So yet again, scientific reality shows you to be so laughably wrong that you’re essentially arguing for going back to a Ptolemaic-level of knowledge. LOL
“The example I provided you is an even stronger example of same”
No it isn’t. It isn’t an example of a real photon being “subsumed” into the EM field. You can’t provide experimental evidence of this because it simply doesn’t happen.
““Show us an empirical example of photon emission and absorption!”,”
No, we already have empirical examples of that, e.g. the photoelectric effect, where a photon is absorbed by matter. What we don’t have is empirical evidence for photons being “subsumed” into the EM field.
“And photons being subsumed in that biased semiconductor junction because it has a lower chemical potential than the photons (near field photonic cooling). LOL”
yes, that is a real photon being absorbed by matter, not being “subsumed” into the EM field.
You still have not provided any experimental evidence of a real (not virtual) photon being “subsumed” in to the EM field (which is not the same as being absorbed by matter)
I’ve already provided an example of same, you’re simply far too scientifically illiterate to understand even the basics of the concept, and you’d refuse to educate yourself in any case because scientific reality destroys your ‘CAGW’ / ‘backradiation’ / ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient’ narrative, and you don’t want to have to admit that you were stupid and gullible enough to buy into a poorly-told climate fairy tale.
Re-read what I wrote in my immediately-prior comment, study photonic cooling, you’ll see that you’ve just demonstrated your ideologically-driven willful ignorance which manifests as an apparent reading comprehension problem. LOL
“I’ve already provided an example of same”
no you haven’t you have tried to pass evidence of matter absorbing photons as evidence that photons can be subsumed into the EM field, but you are fooling nobody, I suspect not even yourself. The EM field is not matter.
yet another example of photons interacting with matter, not being “subsumed into the EM field”
You can’t provide experimental evidence of real photons being “subsumed” into the EM field because it doesn’t happen and you made it up.
In the case of a reverse-biased semiconductor bandgap, the photons are not absorbed by “matter”, they are absorbed in the bandgap because energy can only flow from higher to lower energy density. That’s a practical demonstration that the climate loon take on radiative physics is incorrect.
Yet again, the climate loon can’t fathom reality. He can’t fathom that the photon (a component of the ambient EM field, a persistent perturbation above the ambient) can be subsumed back into the EM field when EM field chemical potential exceeds photon chemical potential… because he has no idea what “chemical potential” even means nor implies. LOL
In the case of photons, photons are bosons and can very easily and rapidly appear or disappear. Therefore, at thermodynamic equilibrium, the chemical potential of photons is always and everywhere zero. The reason is, if the chemical potential somewhere was higher than zero, photons would spontaneously disappear from that area until the chemical potential went back to zero; likewise, if the chemical potential somewhere was less than zero, photons would spontaneously appear until the chemical potential went back to zero. Since this process occurs extremely rapidly (at least, it occurs rapidly in the presence of dense charged matter), it is safe to assume that the photon chemical potential is never different from zero.
It’s a comparison between the chemical potential of the photon and the chemical potential of the EM field in this case. In the case of whether a photon can do work upon an object, it’s a comparison between the chemical potential of the photon and the chemical potential of the object.
Of course, the assumption that “photon chemical potential is never different than zero” isn’t exactly true… energy transfer to equalize chemical potential between a lower and higher chemical potential region does take a finite amount of time, after all. And it is expressly not true for a thermodynamic process or for light produced from photochemical processes. Note the “thermodynamic process”… IOW, if a region of chemical potential x encounters a photon of chemical potential y where x>y, that photon will be subsumed; if a region of chemical potential x encounters a coterminous object or region of chemical potential y where x>y, photons will manifest from region x toward region or object y until the chemical potentials of both are the same.
Again, a good analogy is the EM component of the quantum vacuum… that energy is there, but you cannot make it do any work unless you find a way to create an even lower energy density than the ground state. Photons which are maximally-entropied eventually become a part of the EM component of the quantum vacuum. Likewise, the background EM field… that energy is there, but you can’t make it do any work unless you create an even lower energy density than the background.
And of course, given that the ambient EM field is a component of the EM component of the ground state quantum vacuum, by affecting the ambient EM field, we can affect space-time, which causes Casimir force repulsion, via non-zero photon chemical potential:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28059546/
Again, you’re far too scientifically-illiterate to even comprehend the topic… you’re still writing as though the photons (and their energy) simply disappear when they are subsumed by the higher chemical potential of the ambient EM field.
The mathematics of photon chemical potential:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1119/1.1904623
But that will only confuse you all the more, causing you to bleat inanities all the more. LOL
I see we shall have to add semiconductor physics to a list of things you will BS about. (i) what photons? I presume you mean a photoelectric cell, in which case it is *still* photons being absorbed by matter. (ii) “bandgap” is just the term for the gap in potential which can give rise to an electron in a state that can carry current. It isn’t a physical place in a semiconductor junction. If a photon can be said to be “absorbed by the bandgap”, it means that an electron has absorbed it and been boosted from the valence band into the conduction band.
Here is experimental evidence that photons are not “subsumed by the EM field” resulting from a difference in temperature. The LED lights in my kitchen are cool, much colder than the electric hob, yet at night I can see the hob when it is switched on from the light emitted from the LED lights. If Clyde was right and photons were “subsumed into the EM field” to prevent them from being absorbed by a warmer object than the object that emitted it, it will also do the same to prevent them from being reflected/scattered by the warmer object as well (there is no way the photon knows whether it will be absorbed or reflected/scattered).
Of course CLyde will now invent yet another piece of unnecessary physics to explain that away, for which he won’t be able to provide any experimental evidence either, apart from bloviating on about virtual photons instead (“quantum vacuum”, which is not at all the same thing.
I see we shall have to add semiconductor physics to a list of things you will BS about.
Dikran Marsupial wrote:
“(i) what photons?”
The photons which manifest from the ambient EM field because ambient EM field energy density (and thus chemical potential) in the photodiode bandgap is lower than the energy density (and thus chemical potential) of the nanocalorimeter.
Dikran Marsupial wrote:
“(ii) “bandgap” is just the term for the gap in potential“
A “gap in potential” (your words) of which field? Oh, that’s right, the EM field. I bet you didn’t know that a bandgap can exist without electron flow, eh? You know, as in a reverse-biased photodiode used to absorb photons manifested from the ambient EM field in a nanocalorimeter experiment. The photo-diode is reverse-biased, you loon… you’ll get right on showing us exactly how electrons can flow in reverse through a diode (except in this case dark current, which is negligible and reduces the ability of the lower chemical potential of the bandgap to absorb higher chemical potential photons). It’s not the electrons absorbing those photons, they’re absorbed in the lower chemical potential of the bandgap as compared to the ambient EM field chemical potential.
Dikran Marsupial wrote:
“Here is experimental evidence that photons are not “subsumed by the EM field” resulting from a difference in temperature. The LED lights in my kitchen are cool, much colder than the electric hob, yet at night I can see the hob when it is switched on from the light emitted from the LED lights.“
First, it’s not “experimental”, you’ve performed no “experiment”, unless every action you ever take you classify as an “experiment”… the word you’re desperately grasping for is “empirical”. LOL
Second, by “hob”, I assume you mean “a shelf or projection at the back or side of a fireplace or oven, used for keeping food warm”.
Third, the photons from an LED are not thermal, they are generated via a photochemical process. Your LEDs are cool because that reaction efficiently converts the electric current flowing in a forward direction through the LED bandgap into light… the temperature of the LED doesn’t contribute to the energy (and thus the chemical potential) of the photons emitted by that LED to any significant amount. IOW, you’ve just demonstrated that you don’t even know how LEDs work. LOL
Give it up, Climate Loon… your desperate flopsweat-soaked maunderings in defense of the poorly-told climate fairy tale you were gullible and uneducated enough to buy into are just serving to highlight the lengths the self-deluded will go to in order that they don’t have to admit to their self-delusion.
As I’ve often stated, the climate loons bought into a poorly-told climate fairy tale. In order to maintain the plausibility of the lies inherent in that poorly-told climate fairy tale, the climate loons must deny an ever-widening swath of reality. There will come a time when they’ve denied so much of reality, deluded themselves to such an extent, that they can legitimately be classified as clinically insane. For those who deny the fundamental physical laws, take historical quotes out of context in defense of their poorly-told climate fairy tale, twist scientific concepts and definitions to sustain their poorly-told climate fairy tale… truth, reality and science be damned… that time is long past. LOL
Clyde wrote:
no, virtual photons have nothing to do with this whatsoever.
No, the voltage across the semiconductor device. That is what electronic engineers mean by “potential [difference]”.
Nope, you should have read the Wikipedia entry a little further
Clyde continued doubling down
How does the photon know that? Seriously, now you are going to argue thermal photons have different physics from other photons? Give me a break!
The last two paragraphs of bloviation merit no response.
Dikran Marsupial wrote:
“no, virtual photons have nothing to do with this whatsoever.”
Bwahahaha! Thank you for demonstrating yet again that you’re so scientifically-illiterate that you can’t even coherently speak on the topic. Ahhh, thanks, I needed a good laugh at the expense of an idiot, and you didn’t disappoint. LOL
Virtual photons are manifested from the quantum vacuum momentarily due to the anisotropy of the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum consists of zero-point energy. Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have.
So now you’re claiming that the photons subsumed in the higher chemical potential of the ambient EM field are at “the lowest possible energy”? Or do you want to now admit that you haven’t the first faint clue what you’re babbling about, that you’re just desperately bleating in defense of the poorly-told climate fairy tale which you were uneducated and gullible enough to buy lock, stock and barrel into? LOL
Dikran Marsupial dribbled:
“No, the voltage across the semiconductor device.”
And what field does voltage influence? Go on, prove yourself wrong again, Loon. LOL
Dikran Marsupial dribble-sharted:
“Nope, you should have read the Wikipedia entry a little further”
For definitions, I generally go to a dictionary. For scientific definitions, I generally go to a scientific glossary. You, apparently, go direct to the left-slanted Wikipedia. LOL
But your pedantism is noted and mercilessly mocked… really? You’re now nit-picking on the difference between an oven and a stove? LOL
And why are you using a British term on a US website, while conversing with a US citizen, especially in light of the fact that the British are known English-manglers. I bet you didn’t know that the British used to speak much as we Americans do, but you had a certain inbred royalty with a deformed jaw who couldn’t speak properly, and the hoi polloi sheeple imitated that, leading to modern British. LOL
Dikran Marsupial sharted:
“How does the photon know that? Seriously, now you are going to argue thermal photons have different physics from other photons?”
Bwahahahaa! And you yet again display your scientific illiteracy. You really do find yourself utterly incapable of understanding photon chemical potential, don’t you? LOL
Read, comprehend, learn:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/b0-12-369395-0/00618-7
There is one sentence in that text which proves every single bit of your deluded blather wrong, although to even grasp the fundamentals sufficiently to understand which sentence it is, you’ll need to understand the entire paper. LOL
I know, I know… that’ll just confuse the kook all the more, causing him to bleat all the more… this is how we demonstrate to the audience (the general public) that these climate loons aren’t even intellectually equipped to grasp the subject, and are thus not to be believed when they bleat out their alarmist blather about their poorly-told CAGW climate fairy-tale. LOL
This *STIL:* has nothing to do with propagation of real photons and nothing whatsoever to do with semiconductors.
“And why are you using a British term on a US website, while conversing with a US citizen”
It would be an insult to Americans to think they were so stupid that they couldn’t understand that people from other countries exist and that they have a slightly different vocabulary. My experience is generally different, however there are exceptions.
I asked ““How does the photon know that?”
Clyde blathered on again about chemical potential. Photons are photons are photons. They carry no information about their source.
Specifically where in that paper does it say that real photons (not virtual ones) can be subsumed into the electric field.
You inability to understand chemical potential of photons generated via a photochemical process such as in an LED, and chemical potential of thermal photons is demonstrated yet again.
Your stubborn refusal to educate yourself because doing so would destroy your ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient’ narrative, which would destroy your ‘backradiation’ narrative, which would destroy your ‘CAGW’ narrative, is demonstrated yet again.
Your willingness to beclown yourself in service to your religious belief in the poorly-told climate fairy-tale known as CAGW is demonstrated yet again. LOL
“Clyde blathered on again about chemical potential. Photons are photons are photons. They carry no information about their source.”
Clyde responded with more blather and still did not address the point. There is no difference between a thermally emitted photon and a photon created from an electron moving orbit.
It is no one’s fault but your own that you either cannot or will not educate yourself, Loon. But as it is, you’re merely embarrassing yourself. If you’re a physicist as some here claim, you’re embarrassing yourself even more so, as well as embarrassing the scientific community.
Go educate yourself, Loon. You’re diametrically opposite to reality.
It would be even more stupid if a people who don’t even use the term look it up, learn that it means a shelf to warm food on a stove or fireplace, then blame them because they don’t know that you English-mangling Britishers conflated that shelf to the entire stove or oven… but that’s exactly what you did. LOL
Voltage effects the electric field, good of you to admit that…. now, with what other field is the electric field symmetrized, Loon? Go on, prove yourself wrong yet again. LOL
For all his bluster Clyde has not been able to provide an experiment that demonstrates real photons can be subsumed into the EM field. All of the examples he has provided relate to either virtual photons or photons interacting with matter. The reason he can’t do this is because photons don’t disappear unless they interact with matter (which include e.g. generating an electron-positron pair).
Clyde also can’t explain how photons that have been subsumed into the EM field (because they pass through a layer of the atmosphere before hitting the detector that is warmer than the layer that emitted them) can be split into spectra by an IR spectrometer at the surface.
Clyde can’t explain how photons emitted by an LED light can be reflected/scattered by the the much hotter plate on the top of my cooker. Photons do not carry a record of the temperature of the object that emitted them, so they have no way of “knowing” if they need to be “subsumed” before they reach a warmer object or not.
Clyde can’t explain how we can detect the CBR (“effective temperature” ~3K) from a ground-based horn antenna at ambient surface temperatures.
So he has to make do with insults and bloviation.
I already have given you references to same. That you’re unable to grasp reality, that you’re not intellectually capable of sussing the simple concepts, definitions and maths of same… well, that’s a personal problem that you’ll have to wrestle with on your own time… but do go on embarrassing yourself for the entertainment of the sane folk… you are demonstrably diametrically opposite to reality, bleating like an idiot and generally showing that the state of higher education in Britain is even more dire than that in the US. LOL
I’ve explained several times to you how the CMB is detected, you’re simply too stupid to understand even the most simplified simplifications of reality… if you expect anyone to spoon-feed you reality so you can stop whinging like a moron, your expectation is likely not to be met… unless you go back to your British institutions of higher learning… perhaps they now specialize in feeding pabulum to water-brained infantiles. LOL
“I already have given you references to same.”
No you haven’t. All of the examples you have given so far have been for virtual photons or for photons interacting with matter. You have not given an example of an experiment where a real photon is subsumed by the EM field. That is because it doesn’t happen (it would violate conservation of momentum for a start).
What I have provided is proof of what I state, you’re just too idiotic to even connect the dots… you think that photons of lower chemical potential which are subsumed in the higher chemical potential ambient EM field just disappear (as does their energy); you think photons of lower chemical potential which are subsumed in the higher chemical potential ambient EM field become virtual photons; you can’t figure out that photons generated via thermal processes are indeed ‘different’ than those generated via photochemical processes because you can’t even understand the simple concept of chemical potential… and you refuse to educate yourself because you’re either too retarded to do so, or because you know that doing so destroys your “energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient‘ narrative, which destroys your ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which destroys your ‘CAGW‘ narrative.
I’d tell you to go educate yourself, but we’ve already tried that… so from now on, I’m just going to mercilessly mock you as I would mock a delusional drooling idiot screaming on a street corner about some impending catastrophe involving something no one can even sense. LOL
“What I have provided is proof of what I state”
No, evidence of virtual photons exist is not proof of real photons being subsumed into the EM field; photons interacting with matter is not evidence of real photons being subsumed into the EM field. You have provided no experimental evidence that real photons are subsumed into the EM field. If it actually happened, you ought to provide experimental evidence, but your can’t because it doesn’t.
Bwahahaha! Loon thinks that 5000 K LED is putting out light with a lower chemical potential than the electric plate of his cooker because the LED has a lower temperature than the electric plate… but he’s not a maleducated moron, right? LOL.
Thank you for yet again demonstrating that you have no business discussing any of this… you don’t even have the flimsiest of grasps upon the most basic of the basics… but that won’t stop you from bleating like a moron denied his crayons. LOL
“Bwahahaha! Loon thinks that 5000 K LED is putting out light with a lower chemical potential than the electric plate of his cooker because the LED has a lower temperature than the electric plate”
Changing the subject. You have not given an example of an experiment where a real photon is subsumed by the EM field. That is because it doesn’t happen
That you’re too stupid to connect the dots is no one’s fault but your own… you’ve been provided references which you have only read to scrape concepts to twist to fit your narrative; you’ve had this explained multiple times in multiple ways and still you bleat, “BUT BUT BUT THIS ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE YOU HAVEN’T SHOWN EMPIRICAL PROOF OF!” when in fact empirical and mathematical proof has been provided, you’re just too stupid to figure that out; your plaintive bleatfest has shown that you haven’t the first faint clue what you’re blathering about, including the fact that 5000 K LEDs are not putting out photons with lower chemical potential than your cooker as you claim, that LED photon chemical potential does not depend upon LED temperature as you claim; that lower chemical potential photons subsumed into the ambient EM field and their energy do not just disappear nor do they become virtual photons as you claim… you’ve continually embarrassed yourself with stupid proclamation after stupid proclamation, stupid demand after stupid demand even when those demands are met but you’re too stupid to realize it, and now you’re desperately claiming that I’m changing the subject when I’m directly answering one of your fully-retarded queries.
You’re desperate to score even a single point against a superior debating opponent and far superior intellect, but you just can’t seem to do anything other than score own-goals. LOL
And you only continue because you’re desperate to defend your ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient’ narrative, in defense of your ‘backradiation’ narrative, in defense of your ‘CAGW’ narrative… except I’ve already disproved all of it… you believe in a poorly-told climate fairy tale because you were too stupid and gullible to figure out the mathematical fraudery used to tell that poorly-told climate fairy tale, you became emotionally invested in that poorly-told climate fairy tale, you can’t possibly admit you’re an idiot who bought into a poorly-told climate fairy tale, not you! What will become of your reputation! What will people think?!
They’ll think you’re a gullible idiot, same as they do now… the difference is, more of them will tell that to you, to your face. LOL
“That you’re too stupid to connect the dots is no one’s fault but your own…”
I shouldn’t need to be able to connect the dots, that isn’t how science works, you need to be able to demonstrate your claims. If real photons can be “subsumed into the EM field” as you claim, you ought to be able to find experimental evidence that it does happen, or even just a paper that explicitly says that it happens. But despite repeated requests you can’t seem to find one.
It is not incumbent upon myself to impart to you the very obvious basics of physical reality which one learns in Physics For Idiots 101. It is not incumbent upon anyone to spoon-feed you scientific reality… that you sit here bawling because no one will do so is perhaps the reason why you find yourself utterly incapable of sussing reality… you lack the intellectual curiosity and capacity to figure reality out for yourself.
I’ve already provided the empirical and mathematical proof of same, you’re simply too stupid to even recognize it when you see it. If you were any smarter, you’d be embarrassed by how stupid you are, but you’re not, so you’re not.
“It is not incumbent upon myself to impart to you the very obvious basics of physical reality which one learns in Physics For Idiots 101.”
If they were basics, they wouldn’t be contradicted by undergraduate thermodynamics text books, which your theories are. Those thermodynamics textbook do however support my arguments.
“I’ve already provided the empirical and mathematical proof of same”
You can say that as often as you like, but it still won’t be true. You have provided examples involving virtual photons and real photons interacting with matter (neither of which are contraverisal), but you have not provided evidence of a real photon being “subsumed” by the EM field.
Going back to your rudimentary understanding of classical thermodynamics texts in support of your delusional take on a wholly quantum phenomenon, Loon? LOL
I have already provided empirical and mathematical proof of what I state. You are simply far too much of a dullard to figure out even simple concepts. Besides, you should be focusing on proving your own idiotic claim…
You claim that energy can flow ‘cooler to warmer‘ in a system because energy can flow ‘warmer to cooler‘ in that same system, because you’ve misread (ie: intentionally twisted to fit your equally twisted narrative) Clausius… Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.
dS ⩾ δQ/T, right?
So for instance, an example of an idealized reversible process would be energy transfer by radiation from a reservoir into a quasistatically expanding empty cavity… does that sound “real-world” to you? Me neither.
So you’re now forced to claim that radiative energy flow within your system is an idealized reversible process to get around entropy increasing with any real-world energy flow… that’s not very smart of you, now is it? You’re essentially forced to claim that radiative energy flow doesn’t doesn’t cause a change in entropy. LOL
So get right to it, Loon… mathematically prove your blather. If what you claim is physical, you can mathematically prove it. Your failure to do so means you’ll be forced to shut your yammering gob, go crack a book, and attempt to stuff some actual knowledge into that cement block you call a brain. LOL
Until such time as you’re able to mathematically prove your blather, you’re nothing but a laughingstock, an object of ridicule and derision… and nothing but my kicktoy.
And once you find yourself unable to mathematically prove your blather, you’ll remain my kicktoy. For life. LOL
You might want to get used to wearing that “Kick Me” sign, kook. LOL
For all his bloviating bluster, climate loon Dikran Marsupial still finds himself utterly unable to prove his “energy flows willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient” blather in terms of entropy.
You claim that energy can flow ‘cooler to warmer‘ in a system because energy can flow ‘warmer to cooler‘ in that same system, because you’ve misread (ie: intentionally twisted to fit your equally twisted narrative) Clausius… Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.
dS ⩾ δQ/T, right?
So for instance, an example of an idealized reversible process would be energy transfer by radiation from a reservoir into a quasistatically expanding empty cavity… does that sound “real-world” to you? Me neither.
So you’re now forced to claim that radiative energy flow within your system is an idealized reversible process to get around entropy increasing with any real-world energy flow… that’s not very smart of you, now is it? You’re essentially forced to claim that radiative energy flow doesn’t doesn’t cause a change in entropy. LOL
So get right to it, Loon… mathematically prove your blather. If what you claim is physical, you can mathematically prove it. Your failure to do so means you’ll be forced to shut your yammering gob, go crack a book, and attempt to stuff some actual knowledge into that cement block you call a brain. LOL
Until such time as you’re able to mathematically prove your blather, you’re nothing but a laughingstock, an object of ridicule and derision… and nothing but my kicktoy.
And once you find yourself unable to mathematically prove your blather, you’ll remain my kicktoy. For life. LOL
You might want to get used to wearing that “Kick Me” sign, kook. LOL
“You claim that energy can flow ‘cooler to warmer‘ in a system because energy can flow ‘warmer to cooler‘ in that same syste”
again you are misrepresenting what I have said. Blackbody objects radiate according to the SB law dependent on their own local temperature, so your “because” is misrepresenting the mechansim I have explained repeatedly.
Your failure to mathematically prove your claim yet again, is noted.
No, you’ve repeatedly stated that your “compensation” was that ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow in a system enabling ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow within that same system… because you can’t even understand simple scientific reality, nor can you read for comprehension, and apparently you can’t understand the definition of the word ‘external’… as in ‘system energy cannot flow up an energy gradient unless external energy does work to push system energy up that energy gradient’.
We’re still waiting for your mathematical proof of energy flow from ‘cooler to warmer’ as you have hijacked Clausius’ statement to claim can occur… why can’t you simply provide that mathematical proof, Loon?
Oh, that’s right… because you’re a laughable delusional loon beclowning yourself by attempting to ‘prove’ your delusion by taking quotes out of context, twisting scientific definitions and concepts, and outright lying in support of your ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient‘ claim, in support of your ‘backradiation‘ claim, in support of your ‘CAGW‘ claim… all of which has been definitively, scientifically, mathematically disproved.
But what could we expect from a guy whose dialect is caused by a long line of sheeple imitating an inbred retard with a congenital jaw deformity? IOW, Britishers speak like inbred idiots… an in so doing, have over the years hence, become as equally idiotic as whom they imitate. LOL
You claim that energy can flow ‘cooler to warmer‘ in a system because energy can flow ‘warmer to cooler‘ in that same system, because you’ve misread (ie: intentionally twisted to fit your equally twisted narrative) Clausius… Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.
dS ⩾ δQ/T, right?
So for instance, an example of an idealized reversible process would be energy transfer by radiation from a reservoir into a quasistatically expanding empty cavity… does that sound “real-world” to you? Me neither.
So you’re now forced to claim that radiative energy flow within your system is an idealized reversible process to get around entropy increasing with any real-world energy flow… that’s not very smart of you, now is it? You’re essentially forced to claim that radiative energy flow doesn’t doesn’t cause a change in entropy. LOL
So get right to it, Loon… mathematically prove your blather. If what you claim is physical, you can mathematically prove it. Your failure to do so means you’ll be forced to shut your yammering gob, go crack a book, and attempt to stuff some actual knowledge into that cement block you call a brain. LOL
Until such time as you’re able to mathematically prove your blather, you’re nothing but a laughingstock, an object of ridicule and derision… and nothing but my kicktoy.
And once you find yourself unable to mathematically prove your blather, you’ll remain my kicktoy. For life. LOL
You might want to get used to wearing that “Kick Me” sign, kook. LOL
“Your failure to mathematically prove your claim yet again,”
Mathematical proof of my claim is easy, and it was pointed out several times to you earlier in the discussion. Just take the SB radiation from the cooler black body object and subtract it from the SB radiation of the warmer black body object, which is the net transfer of energy and the resulting equation is *exactly* the heat transfer equation.
Once again. The heat flux, Pc, from the cooler body, at temperature Tc is given by the Stefan Boltzman equation
Pc = e * s * Tc^4
where e is the emissivity and s is the Stefan Boltzman constant.
Similarly, the heat flux, Pw, from the warmer body, at temperature Tw is also given by the Stefan Boltzman equation
Pw = e * s * Tw^4
Now not all of the heat flux from the cooler object will reach the warmer, and not all of the heat flux from the warmer object will reach the cooler, but the proportion will be the same for both, and this is called the “view factor”, which we will call F.
The net heat flux between the two objects is then
Pn = F*Pw – F*Pc = e*s*F*(Tw^4 – Tc^4)
which is exactly the same as the Stefan-Boltzman radiative heat transfer law.
There you are, a straight-forward mathematical derivation. You will find something similar in modern thermodynamics textbooks, and I gave links to several of them earlier in the discussion, that make that very point.
Awww, you go back to your incorrect understanding of the S-B equation, which stems from your incorrect understanding of what ‘heat’ and ‘temperature’ is, as you demonstrated above, which stems from your desperate attempts at twisting Clausius’ and Planck’s errors to fit your equally twisted take on reality… and all the while you completely ignore entropy… in effect claiming that radiative energetic exchange is an idealized reversible process… that’s not very bright of you, now is it? LOL
The S-B equation is not meant to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from a real (but incorrectly calculated and thus far too high in magnitude) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it is meant to subtract the energy density (temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant… it is a measure of energy density) of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object, because it is the energy density gradient which determines warmer object radiant exitance… you scientifically-illiterate loons infesting the scientific community have become so endemic that you’ve corrupted science to the point that your incorrectitude is now being taught in the institutions of so-called ‘higher’ learning. Idiots teaching idiots. LOL
You claim that energy can flow ‘cooler to warmer‘ in a system because energy can flow ‘warmer to cooler‘ in that same system, because you’ve misread (ie: intentionally twisted to fit your equally twisted narrative) Clausius… Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.
dS ⩾ δQ/T, right?
So for instance, an example of an idealized reversible process would be energy transfer by radiation from a reservoir into a quasistatically expanding empty cavity… does that sound “real-world” to you? Me neither.
So you’re now forced to claim that radiative energy flow within your system is an idealized reversible process to get around entropy increasing with any real-world energy flow… that’s not very smart of you, now is it? You’re essentially forced to claim that radiative energy flow doesn’t doesn’t cause a change in entropy. LOL
So get right to it, Loon… mathematically prove your blather in terms of entropy. If what you claim is physical, you can mathematically prove it. Your failure to do so means you’ll be forced to shut your yammering gob, go crack a book, and attempt to stuff some actual knowledge into that cement block you call a brain. LOL
Until such time as you’re able to mathematically prove your blather, you’re nothing but a laughingstock, an object of ridicule and derision… and nothing but my kicktoy.
And once you find yourself unable to mathematically prove your blather, you’ll remain my kicktoy. For life. LOL
You might want to get used to wearing that “Kick Me” sign, kook. LOL
“he S-B equation is not meant to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from …”
Says you. Thermodynamics textbooks contradict you.
You asked for “mathematical proof”, there is no error in the maths that I provided, you just don’t like what the maths says.
Awww, like a dog returning to eat its own stool, you rely upon the incorrect understanding of reality you’ve been inculcated with… you don’t know how to think, you’ve had stuffed into that cement block you call a brain what to think. LOL
Your incorrect understanding of the S-B equation stems from your incorrect understanding of what ‘heat’ and ‘temperature’ is, as you demonstrated above, which stems from your desperate attempts at twisting Clausius’ and Planck’s errors to fit your equally twisted take on reality… and all the while you completely ignore entropy… in effect claiming that radiative energetic exchange is an idealized reversible process… that’s not very bright of you, now is it? LOL
The S-B equation is not meant to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from a real (but incorrectly calculated and thus far too high in magnitude) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it is meant to subtract the energy density (temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant… it is a measure of energy density) of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object, because it is the energy density gradient which determines warmer object radiant exitance… you scientifically-illiterate loons infesting the scientific community have become so endemic that you’ve corrupted science to the point that your incorrectitude is now being taught in the institutions of so-called ‘higher’ learning. Idiots teaching idiots. LOL
You claim that energy can flow ‘cooler to warmer‘ in a system because energy can flow ‘warmer to cooler‘ in that same system, because you’ve misread (ie: intentionally twisted to fit your equally twisted narrative) Clausius… Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.
dS ⩾ δQ/T, right?
So for instance, an example of an idealized reversible process would be energy transfer by radiation from a reservoir into a quasistatically expanding empty cavity… does that sound “real-world” to you? Me neither.
So you’re now forced to claim that radiative energy flow within your system is an idealized reversible process to get around entropy increasing with any real-world energy flow… that’s not very smart of you, now is it? You’re essentially forced to claim that radiative energy flow doesn’t doesn’t cause a change in entropy. LOL
So get right to it, Loon… mathematically prove your blather in terms of entropy. If what you claim is physical, you can mathematically prove it, and your solution will remain consistent with known scientific reality… you can’t do that because you’re a maleducated and wholly-deluded nong.
Your failure to do so means you’ll be forced to shut your yammering gob, go crack a book, and attempt to stuff some actual knowledge into that cement block you call a brain. LOL
You might want to get used to wearing that “Kick Me” sign, kook. LOL
O.K. so you are just repeating yourself in your claims that modern thermodynamics text books are completely wrong on the most basic concepts. Plus ca change for climate skeptic blogs.
Repetition helps the mentally retarded to learn, Loon.
An equation may imply that a certain process is possible, but that doesn’t imply that the process is physically possible.
For instance, CPT symmetry implies that time reversal is possible… leading some especially scientifically-illiterate kooks to claim that time reversal only needs a reversal of the motion of the molecules or atoms of a system… they don’t know about CPT symmetry, so they don’t know that for time invariance to occur, one needs charge conjugation and parity symmetry… not even beta decay of 60Co does that, and it’s CP invariant.
Your take on the S-B equation is a similar situation… merely because the mathematics can be twisted to claim that a fictive ‘cooler to warmer‘ energy flow can be subtracted from a real (but incorrectly calculated and thus far too high in magnitude) ‘warmer to cooler‘ energy flow doesn’t imply that it’s physical reality… because you climate loons forgot to check your math.
Do so now, Loon. Prove that your take on the S-B equation (subtracting a fictive ‘cooler to warmer‘ energy flow from a real (but incorrectly calculated and thus far too high in magnitude) ‘warmer to cooler‘ energy flow represents physical reality in terms of entropy… you can’t do it, because it doesn’t represent physical reality.
In order for your take on the S-B equation to represent reality, radiative energetic transfer would have to be an idealized reversible process… no real-world process is reversible, all are irreversible. You are wrong, you’re just too stupid and maleducated to understand that fact.
Again, you’ve been inculcated with what to think, you’ve not been taught how to think… and your inability to think for yourself has led you to embarrass yourself in front of the whole world. LOL
Now aren’t you red-faced and embarrassed at your lack of mental acuity? Sure you are. LOL
So get right to it, Loon… mathematically prove your blather in terms of entropy. If what you claim is physical, you can mathematically prove it, and your solution will remain consistent with known scientific reality… you can’t do that because you’re a maleducated and wholly-deluded nong.
Your failure to do so means you’ll be forced to shut your yammering gob, go crack a book, and attempt to stuff some actual knowledge into that cement block you call a brain. LOL
You might want to get used to wearing that “Kick Me” sign, kook. You’re my kook now. For life. I pwn you. LOL
Dikran Marsupial sharted:
“Blackbody objects radiate according to the SB law dependent on their own local temperature…”
Yet again you demonstrate your inability to keep up. We’re not talking about idealized blackbody objects, Loon, we’re talking about you climate tardlings misusing the S-B equation to treat real-world (graybody) objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects, just with ε<1 (sometimes… other times you treat real-world (graybody) objects exactly as though they’re idealized blackbody objects).
You use q = σ T^4, slap ε onto that (sometimes), and carry on with your mathematical fraudery.
You’re clinging to the Prevost Principle from 1791… a long-debunked core tenet of the long-debunked Prevost Theory of Exchanges. Planck clung to it mistakenly, leading him to treat real-world graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects (which is why you climate loons cling to Planck’s statement that an object’s emission only depends upon its internal status, whereas he correctly stated that energy transfer via conduction requires a temperature (and thus an energy density) gradient)… except your very own Bob Wentworth disproved Prevost (and by extension, Planck). You cling to the long-debunked Prevost Principle because that’s the only way you can bolster your ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient‘ blather (which the Prevost Principle postulated), to bolster your ‘backradiation‘ blather, to bolster your ‘CAGW‘ blather… all of it disproved. You’ve got nothing but a religious belief in a poorly-told climate fairy-tale.
Your mis-use of the S-B equation inflates radiant exitance far above what it actually is for all graybody objects, necessitating that you carry that error forward through your calculations and cancel it on the back end, essentially subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow… which leads especially scientifically-illiterate climate loons to conclude that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (a violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law).
The S-B equation isn’t meant to be used to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the incorrectly-calculated and thus too high ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object energy density (temperature is a measure of energy density) from warmer object energy density. Radiant exitance of the warmer object is predicated upon the energy density gradient.
The climate loons misuse the S-B equation to bolster their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy gradient‘ blather, to bolster their ‘backradiation‘ blather, to bolster their ‘CAGW‘ blather… all of it definitively, scientifically, mathematically disproved… CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant at all altitudes (except for negligible warming right at the tropopause), as I show in other comments.
You’ve repeatedly stated that your “compensation” was that ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow in a system enabling ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow within that same system… because you can’t even understand simple scientific reality, nor can you read for comprehension, and apparently you can’t understand the definition of the word ‘external’… as in ‘system energy cannot flow up an energy gradient unless external energy does work to push system energy up that energy gradient’.
You claim that energy can flow ‘cooler to warmer‘ in a system because energy can flow ‘warmer to cooler‘ in that same system, because you’ve misread (ie: intentionally twisted to fit your equally twisted narrative) Clausius… Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.
Your incorrect understanding of the S-B equation stems from your incorrect understanding of what ‘heat’ and ‘temperature’ is, as you demonstrated above, which stems from your desperate attempts at twisting Clausius’ and Planck’s errors to fit your equally twisted take on reality.
Your problem is that at thermodynamic equilibrium, your incorrect take on reality necessitates that objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation without system entropy changing one bit… so you’re forced to claim that radiative energetic exchange is an idealized reversible process. It’s not, and that disproves your blather.
So you completely ignore entropy. That’s not very bright of you, now is it? LOL
An equation may imply that a certain process is possible, but that doesn’t imply that the process is physically possible.
For instance, CPT symmetry implies that time reversal is possible… leading some especially scientifically-illiterate kooks to claim that time reversal only needs a reversal of the motion of the molecules or atoms of a system… they don’t know about CPT symmetry, so they don’t know that for time invariance to occur, one needs charge conjugation and parity symmetry… not even beta decay of 60Co does that, and it’s CP invariant.
Your take on the S-B equation is a similar situation… merely because the mathematics can be twisted to claim that a fictive ‘cooler to warmer‘ energy flow can be subtracted from a real (but incorrectly calculated and thus far too high in magnitude) ‘warmer to cooler‘ energy flow doesn’t imply that it’s physical reality… because you climate loons forgot to check your math.
Do so now, Loon. Prove that your take on the S-B equation (subtracting a fictive ‘cooler to warmer‘ energy flow from a real (but incorrectly calculated and thus far too high in magnitude) ‘warmer to cooler‘ energy flow represents physical reality in terms of entropy… you can’t do it, because it doesn’t represent physical reality.
In order for your take on the S-B equation to represent reality, radiative energetic transfer would have to be an idealized reversible process… no real-world process is reversible, all are irreversible.
You are wrong, you’re just too stupid and maleducated to understand that fact.
Again, you’ve been inculcated with what to think, you’ve not been taught how to think… and your inability to think for yourself has led you to embarrass yourself in front of the whole world. LOL
So get right to it, Loon… mathematically prove your blather in terms of entropy. If what you claim is physical, you can mathematically prove it, and your solution will remain consistent with known scientific reality… you can’t do that because you’re a maleducated and wholly-deluded nong.
Your failure to do so means you’ll be forced to shut your yammering gob, go crack a book, and attempt to stuff some actual knowledge into that cement block you call a brain. LOL
And before you bleat again about me repeatedly walloping you about the head and shoulders with truth, facts and reality, remember:
Repetition helps the mentally retarded to learn, kook. LOL
You might want to get used to wearing that “Kick Me” sign, kook. From here on out, it’s going to be put to a lot of use. LOL
“Venus at 737 K emits 16,730 W/m2 from its surface, but only 156 W/m2 into space. The 16,574 W/m2 difference, due to the composition of the extremely dense atmosphere of Venus is what determines the climate of Venus: 511 ºC hotter than the hypothetical Venus with the same albedo but no greenhouse effect.”
I’m still trying to wrap my brain around this. Using round numbers, the surface of Venus radiates 16,000 W/m^2. But only 156 W/m2 is going to space. This would only be possible if the atmosphere is uni-directional in radiation.
Well, you can only get to 16,730 W m-2 at the surface of Venus if you assume a temperature of 737.008466 K, emission to a 0 K ambient and an emissivity of 1… so yet again, they’re treating real-world (graybody) objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects. And they call this “science”. LOL
But then, that’s exactly what this thread is for.
uni-directional is perhaps overstating it, but one component of the so-called greenhouse effect is that (to paraphrase Ekholm’s 1901 paper on the subject) the atmosphere is like the glass in a greenhouse (note not like the greenhouse itself) in that it is transparent to visible light but largely opaque to infra-red. This means that IR radiation can only escape from a layer in the atmosphere at which there isn’t enough GHG above to absorb it. That layer is colder than the surface (lapse rate), so it radiates less than the surface.
The atmosphere of Venus is *very* thick and *very* opaque to IR, so that layer is very high in the atmosphere and hence a *lot* colder than the surface, compared to the situation on Earth.
I suspect that there is some difference on Venus caused by the atmosphere being a lot more opaque to visible light than the Earth, but you can be sure that the planetary scientists that wok on this know about that already.
Glass doesn’t convect, Loon, the atmosphere does. In fact, it is the glass in a greenhouse which is responsible for the hindrance of convection which is the actual ‘greenhouse’ effect.
Now, let us examine the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics…
In an atmosphere consisting solely of monoatomics (which have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit nor absorb radiation) and homonuclear diatomics (which have a net-zero magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit nor absorb radiation unless perturbed via collision), the upper atmosphere could not as effectively radiatively cool, and would thus warm.
The N2, O2 and Ar would pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, would convect to the upper atmosphere, and could not as effectively radiate that energy to space. Remember that CO2 (a polyatomic) is currently the predominant upper-atmospheric radiative coolant.
The upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to air convecting from lower altitudes, and thus convection would be hindered. Do remember that an actual greenhouse works by hindering convection. It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which should rightfully be termed the ‘greenhouse’ gases.
Thus the surface would warm because the atmosphere would be closer to being isothermal (but would still have a lapse rate due to gravitational potential energy / kinetic energy transform with altitude).
Thus, common sense dictates that the thermal energy of the 99% of the atmosphere which cannot radiatively emit must be transferred to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (CO2 being a lesser contributor in the lower atmosphere and the largest contributor in the upper atmosphere, water vapor being the main contributor in the lower atmosphere) which can radiatively emit and thus shed that energy to space.
So, far from being ‘greenhouse gases’ which ‘trap heat’ in the atmosphere, those radiative gases actually shed energy from the atmosphere to space. They are net atmospheric coolants. In fact, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense).
The chance of any N2 or O2 molecule colliding with water vapor is ~3% on average in the troposphere, and for CO2 it’s only ~0.0415%. Logic dictates that as atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, the likelihood of N2 or O2 colliding with it also increases, and thus increases the chance that N2 or O2 can transfer its translational and / or vibrational mode energy to the vibrational mode energy of CO2, which can then shed that energy to space via radiative emission.
So can anyone explain how increasing the concentration of the major coolants in the atmosphere (and thus increasing the likelihood that N2 and O2 will transfer their energy to those coolant gases, which will then emit a large proportion (remember the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) of that radiation out to space) will result in more ‘heat trapping’, causing global warming? Especially in light of the fact that evaporation and convection remove ~76.2% of all surface energy? I thought not.
“But the molecules don’t have enough kinetic energy to impart to the CO2 molecule to vibrationally excite its lowest vibrational mode quantum state!”, you may claim… not so, and you’re completely discounting N2 and O2 vibrational mode quantum state energy. The Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function shows that at 288 K, ~24.9% of all atmospheric particles (atoms / molecules) have sufficient kinetic energy (remember, at any single given kinetic temperature, all atoms or molecules will have identical kinetic energy regardless of their atomic or molecular mass [1]) such that two molecules colliding (one CO2, one any other molecule) will excite CO2’s lowest excited vibrational mode quantum state ( CO2{v21(1)} ). And that kinetic energy can be lower for the contributing molecule if it’s also got vibrational mode quantum state energy.
CAGW is based upon a flawed understanding of physics, first promulgated by Svante Arrhenius back in 1896, before we even had a firm grasp on molecular physics and quantum mechanics. It was before the discovery of the photon, before the discovery of the electron, before the discovery of the proton, before the discovery of the neutron, before the discovery of atomic nuclei, before the Planck blackbody formula, before Special and General Relativity, obviously long before we discovered exactly why atoms and molecules emit at specific spectra, and a full decade before Einstein fully explained the discrepancies up to that date between Equipartition Theorem theory and empirical observation, ushering in a new quantum theory of matter. Arrhenius didn’t even know enough about molecular physics to call it “CO2”, he called it “carbonic acid”! Further, his experiment failed to account for water vapor, used 9.7 µm radiation (while CO2 absorbs mainly at 14.98352 µm) and he over-estimated the absorption coefficient of CO2 by 253%, forcing him to later revise his estimate (which was still wrong) of temperature forcing from CO2. Yet his flawed experiment is still touted by the climate alarmists as their basis for alarm and hence their basis for tearing down our modern society, deindustrialization and depopulation of the planet.
Arrhenius didn’t have the technical knowledge at the time to reason his way through the problem properly, as we did immediately above.
Come on, people, let’s start using some common sense. You’ve been hoodwinked by the CAGW lie for far too long.
Freedom is not free, maintaining your freedom requires you take on certain responsibilities, such as holding public officials (and those paid from the public purse, as climate ‘scientists’ are) accountable when they promulgate propaganda and falsehoods. You can’t afford to abrogate your responsibility any longer, you can’t afford to sit on the sidelines any longer. It’s time to stand and fight this scam.
It’s time to start using your brains for something other than tweeting inanities and watching cat videos. Your future and your freedom is on the line. The whole issue has been hijacked, and is now the vehicle-of-choice for socialists to try to usher in a totalitarian one-world socialist government. That’s why the CAGW hypothesis won’t die, even in the face of a veritable mountain of evidence that it is diametrically opposite to reality.
The choice is clear… you can become a proponent of modern physics and end this CAGW fiasco, whereupon you retain capitalism and representative republicanism and all the freedoms and prosperity they bring… or you can put your faith (and that’s what it is… faith, a belief without evidence… in fact, a belief which exists despite contradictory evidence) in an ancient and incorrect understanding of physics, whereupon you’ll go back to the ancient and incorrect understanding of political and economic theory known as socialism, lose your freedoms, and become a serf to the elitists.
There can be no more ‘sitting on the sidelines’ in this fight for our very way of life.
[1]
————————-
The Equipartition Theorem states that energy is shared equally amongst all energetically accessible degrees of freedom of a system. “Energetically accessible” being a proviso that the energy must be sufficient to occupy the quantized energy states of electronic, rotational or vibrational modes for it to be shared in those modes. Thus at the exact same kinetic temperature all molecules, regardless of molecular weight, will have the same kinetic energy. For higher atomic mass molecules, they’ll be moving slower; for lower atomic mass molecules, they’ll be moving faster; but their kinetic (translational mode) energy will all be the same at the same kinetic temperature.
—–
For CO2, with a molecular weight of 44.0095 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 329.8802984961799 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 372.23005645833854 m/s
Effective (rms) Speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 404.0195258297897 m/s
For N2, with a molecular weight of 28.0134 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 413.472552224243 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 466.55381409564717 m/s
Effective (rms) speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 506.3983877978326 m/s
—–
CO2_KE = ((1/2) m (v · v))
CO2_KE = ((1/2) * 7.307948764374951e-26 kg * (404.0195258297897 m/s * 404.0195258297897 m/s))
CO2_KE = 5.9644473243674682571545362758031e-21 J
N2_KE = ((1/2) m (v · v))
N2_KE = ((1/2) * 4.651734100954141e-26 kg * (506.3983877978326 m/s * 506.3983877978326 m/s))
N2_KE = 5.9644378149782481931358080148627e-21 J
The nearly imperceptible differential (9.5093892200640187282609404e-27 J) in kinetic energy is due to rounding errors.
————————-
“Glass doesn’t convect, Loon”
yes, well done, that was the very point I was making when I wrote
“like the glass in a greenhouse (note not like the greenhouse itself)”
This was the point Ekholm was making as well.
Edited to add:
“it is the glass in a greenhouse which is responsible for the hindrance of convection which is the actual ‘greenhouse’ effect.”
That is why I wrote “the so-called greenhouse effect” rather than “the greenhouse effect”.
Those who don’t understand the so-called greenhouse effect often push the canard about greenhouses limiting convection. We ALL, and I mean ALL, know that and have heard the canard a million times before. So they climatologists used a slightly misleading term, so what? If you care about the science, you would address the actual argument, not engage in ridiculous pedantry about the name given to it (before spouting the usual Gish gallop that evades the argument).
Then you admit that your purported “greenhouse effect” (which is actually the tropospheric lapse rate) is misnamed, and that it targets the wrong atmospheric constituents.
I don’t dispute that there is a “greenhouse effect”… I dispute its name (an actual greenhouse works by preventing convection of energy away from the space in question… so unless we’re naming the homonuclear diatomics (the molecules which cannot emit at TOA, thus causing TOA to emit less energy per volume, thus slowing radiative cooling at TOA, thus lending less buoyancy to convecting air parcels, thus lessening convection) as ‘greenhouse gases’, it’s misnamed); its mechanism (a lot of the temperature differential is due to the lapse rate, which requires just enough inbound energy to balance radiative outflow at TOA to maintain); and its purported cause (an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration can be shown to cause more radiative emission at TOA (more molecules of higher specific heat capacity convecting more energy from the surface, and more molecules radiatively emitting that energy at TOA), which represents an overall increase in loss of energy to the system known as ‘Earth’).
That graphic doesn’t show CO2 ‘trapping’ energy, it shows it thermalizing and down-converting it, transferring it to primarily water vapor. That’s why the left-hand side of that graphic rises higher than it otherwise would, that energy is being emitted at longer wavelengths. The 294K Blackbody Emission line is misdirection… apply a lower-temperature BB curve, and take into account the fact that CO2, O3 and H2O are thermalizing and down-converting that energy, which causes the graph to the left of where those molecules are absorbing to be higher.
To better illustrate what I’m speaking of above…
First, a disclaimer: I am definitely not an artist. I can’t draw a straight line to save my life, I can’t free-hand draw, I have no photo-editing skills whatsoever. I still (poorly) draw stick figures to represent people. The orange line in the image below is very likely not correct, nor to scale. The image was edited in Paint, and I pixel-by-pixel filled in the orange line… that is the extent of my graphic artistry abilities.
But when I state: “apply a lower-temperature BB curve, and take into account the fact that CO2, O3 and H2O are thermalizing and down-converting that energy, which causes the graph to the left of where those molecules are absorbing to be higher”, this is a very rough graphical approximation of what I’m talking about:
If one applies a Planckian curve such that the empty area under the curve and the filled area above the curve are equal, one can arrive at a relatively accurate ‘global temperature’. Alas, I haven’t the graphical artistry abilities to do so.
Now, shall we discuss Brightness Temperature and why Brightness Temperature proves that CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant? LOL
I wrote “If you care about the science, you would address the actual argument, not engage in ridiculous pedantry about the name given to it (before spouting the usual Gish gallop that evades the argument).”
Clyde wrote “…I don’t dispute that there is a “greenhouse effect”… I dispute its name (an actual greenhouse works by preventing convection of energy away from the space in question” followed by yet another Gish gallop. Who could have predicted that?
It’s only considered a “Gish gallop” to those who either cannot understand what I wrote, or who cannot refute what I wrote.
Or, in your case, both. LOL
Actual vs Adjusted US temperatures
Is it all over?
What a shame.
Prof Hayden
–
“The surface of the planet emits IR according to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. The surface of Earth at 288 K emits 390 W/m2, some 150 W/m2 more than the earth emits to space.
That 150 W/m2 of heat retention is the cause of the 33 ºC temperature rise over the non-GHG Earth with the same albedo”
–
No.
–
The temperature at the TOA is 255 K. which is roughly 240 W/M2
–
the flux emitted by Earth at TOA equals the flux absorbed at the earths surface from the sun.
Theoretically the surface of the earth should be 255K, with no atmosphere or a non absorbing atmosphere [and albedo].
–
The temperature at the surface of the earth is 288 K.you will get E = = 390 W/m2.
–
Lost on everyone is that there is no 150 W/m2 of heat retention.
The flux in equals the flux out.
It is not adding 150 W/m2 constantly to the atmosphere.
It did heat up 33 C due to GHG H2o and CO2.
In the distant past.
Now the energy in equals the energy out more or less. on daily scales subject mainly to clouds [albedo] and a little solar variation.
–
The earth surface emits 390W/M2 but not to space.
It has to get through repeated layers of opaqueness to do so.
Half of everything going up comes back then a half of that etc.
Resulting in a surface re-emission of part of the original 240W/M2 multiple times until it built up enough upward energy to reach the TOA.
–
“The surface of Earth at 288 K emits 390 W/m2, some 150 W/m2 more than the earth emits to space.”
The surface of the earth receives 240 W/M2 which all goes out to space. No heat is retained.
The TOA is identical to the surface of the earth in the amount of incoming and outgoing radiation.
That is why it is called the TOA.
The surface is not magically providing an extra 150/W/M2 to heat the atmosphere.
It is not an engine.
It is not the sun. I
t is not a heat generating source.
It does not magically make energy.
Anthony,
a submission to this blog to the approved email address has come back rejected. Have I misunderstood something in the instructions?
JF