Why can't radiation from a cold body make a hot body hotter?

Posted by dbhalling 3 years, 9 months ago to Science
44 comments | Share | Flag

This is another error showing a fundamental error in the whole green house theory.
SOURCE URL: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.mx/2014/11/why-cant-radiation-from-cold-body-make.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Zenphamy 3 years, 9 months ago
    Good article Dale. It makes me wonder who searched through Thermodynamics for terms and definitions they could redefine to suit their purposes, just as they redefine perfectly understood and centuries old English words and sentence structures.

    There is so much of this type of 'garbage' throughout Climate Change 'science', that brings into question the credentials and intelligence of any science or tech type that pretends to support their nonsense.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      I am not sure, except I think they so want it to be true that the mistakes are not literally on purpose. Of course they do not give a damn that they are wrong in the end.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 3 years, 9 months ago
        As I recall, in the mid-'70's, during the "energy crisis", there was not so much talk about the evil
        of industry and its causing "pollution" as previously.
        Let those elitist environmentalists have to go through some of the deprivation that their ideology
        (or idiotology) would cause, and then maybe,
        just maybe, they'd shut up. (But that's a foolish
        dream; they'd just find a way to turn it around
        and escape the blame for what they had promoted).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 3 years, 9 months ago
    Thanks to dbh for introducing this article.
    I do not have the patience to study this in enough detail to give a considered opinion.
    I'd like to see experimental results.

    I do observe tho' that the hot-spot has not been found despite extensive search.

    If greenhouses gases are warming the planet, such warming will happen first in the upper troposphere, the cold blob of air 8-12 km above the tropics. It is real cold up there, but it ought to be slightly less cold thanks to greenhouse gases. All the alarmist climate models predict warming there first— it is the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming as opposed to warming by some other cause.

    The fact that no hot-spot has been found, is strong evidence against the proposition of a greenhouse effect, either from human activity or from nature.

    The alarmists are seriously worried by this as can be seen by convoluted explanations of the kind- more snow due to global warming.


    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/new-...

    http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 3 years, 9 months ago
    The heat transfer analysis in this article is correct. The comments about photons are true only for cases where the photons are not in confined spaces (i.e. unless the photon excites a nanoparticle). When a photon excites a nanoparticle, the nanoparticle boundaries act somewhat like a wall for either an electron or a photon. This is the so-called "quantum effect" and is the whole reason for the "particle-in-a-box" analysis that is common in Physical Chemistry 2 courses.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      Hi J,

      I have now found several of these articles and they make perfect sense to me - statistical mechanics is not my strongest area. Bottom line the whole radiative green house effect is nonsense. The hottest possible temperature on Earth would be the blackbody temperature on the surface.

      I have been collecting the information and thinking about reformatting it in the way I think is the most logical and persuasive. If I ever write that post perhaps I should run it past you first.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 3 years, 9 months ago
        Quite correct, db. Happy New Year to you and Kh. The timing of this for me was perfect. I was preparing a talk for next Tuesday night on the changes that confining an electron to a small space causes, as well as the applications that open up as a result.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
          I am not sure exactly how that applies, but post your powerpoint presentation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 3 years, 9 months ago
            You were talking about photons at the end of your discussion. The one exception to what you said about photons is when photons are confined in spaces with dimensions of < 200 nm.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
              I was not talking about photons, but the article did.

              I thought the article got a little glib here

              "How does a photon from a cool spectrum source “know” not to travel to and warm up a warmer source? It is because a photon is effectively outside of space and time.
              Start thinking of what life as a photon must be like, if you were a photon, travelling at the speed of light, and wrap your head around that."

              One of the most interesting lectures on light I have seen Hans Schantz, who is an Objectivist. He talks from the perspective of ElectroMagnetics, but his ideas have implications for the pilot wave theory of light. He is an technology entrepreneur in the antenna space. I think this is the lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ns2J...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ mminnick 3 years, 9 months ago
    My physics is a little rusty but I think it goes something like this.
    1. The photons and electromagnetic energy released by a cold object have less energy than a worm body. Think of it in terms of light. a bright light has more energy than a dim light. When this energy (photons, EM waves) impact on the warmer body) they receive energy from the hot body, thus cooling the hotbody and slightly increasing the energy of the cold body particles and EM waves. This has the effect of cooling the hotbody and potentially increasing the energy (heat) of the cold body depending upon the backscatter and reflection of the photons and EM waves.
    Just a guess mind you, but perhaps close enough.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      This is one of those problems, in my opinion, where thinking microscopically is better than microscopically. Microscopically, heat always goes from hot to cold not the other way. If heat energy could go from cold to hot it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics


      I found these ideas so important I have started double and triple checking them and will probably write an article on point, which I hope is even more clear.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BradA 3 years, 9 months ago
    I've got another observation based on thermodynamic fundamentals. You know how the AGW's like to trot out those global temperature maps regularly showing how much hotter we've gotten? Well, they're pretty much meaningless because they don't show what's really important.
    When one speaks about "warming" the use of temperature as an indicator is only useful in certain situations. Heat content or enthalpy, as represented by heat / mass, is the more accurate and proper measurement to be used especially when talking about relative warming or cooling. Temperature can be a proxy for heat content when used in a well mixed system. But the atmosphere is anything but a well mixed system. Most significantly, in addition to temperature, there are constant variations in composition and pressure. And of those, water content, aka humidity, is the most important. For example, if you look at given mass of air at 50F and 50% RH its heat content is actually greater than the same mass of air at 55F and 25% RH. And yet, if you compare just temperatures in this example, you would conclude a massive 5F increase in warming has occurred.
    In relating this to climate change, I've searched the NASA and NOAA sites for information on how they account for humidity in any of their data sets but I have found nothing.I've been in touch recently with a Professor of Atmospheric Science.who confirmed that RH is not accounted for in various models except as estimates on a global scale.
    As such, every time I see one of those global depictions I shake my head and wonder what kind of education you need to become a "Climate Scientist." Certainly not one that involves basic Thermodynamics.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 3 years, 9 months ago
      What is heat per mass? Specific heat would be how much heat need be absorbed to raise the temperature so much. In physics there are very specific definitions for heat and enthalpy. Heat is energy that is transferred from one body to another other than by work or transfer of matter. Enthalpy is the total energy content of a body plus the energy needed against the environment in the formation of the body, usually the PV of the body. Enthalpy is not measurable other than as a change in enthapy, just as that of energy as a relative amount with respect to other matter. Reference points are needed. It is best to just use energy content rather than heat content. If there is no energy transfer by other than work or mass transfer, there is no heat involved. Energy, of course, is transferable from a cold to a hot body as recognized in the Stefan-boltzmann law as expressed for gray bodies:
      energy transfer = (e-hotsigmaT_hot^4 - e_coldsigmaT_cold^4) where energy is transferred in both directions. Since the Earth's system is open, energy enters from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere's gasses return some of the absorbed energy from the Earth back to the Earth, so the Earth's surface may end up slightly warmer during daylight than without the green house gasses because of the return of some energy. The N2, O2, and Ar mostly have affects in the upper atmosphere and little due to their temperature in the lower atmosphere since they radiate mainly in the microwave and radio wave lengths, so cooling of those gasses is mainly done by interacting with the green house gasses which then radiate energy away from the atmosphere. As far as I can see, green house gasses are necessary to remove energy from the atmosphere so that it does not warm too much due to conduction and convection from the Earth's warm surface.

      Climate scientists would have training in all the necessary sciences but for many belonging is more importance than having personal integrity.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by BradA 3 years, 9 months ago
        I'm not sure if you found some particularly obfuscated material to post or if you're just really good at unnecessarily complicating a simple concept.
        The original point was that talking about temperature alone is entirely misleading. Using my original example, the 50F 50% RH air has 16.28 BTU/lb. The 55F 25%RH air has 15.77 BTU/lb. Yes, I've assumed other values constant in this example, but for atmospheric conditions, they are not consequential. As previously stated, the energy contained in the 55F air will melt less ice than the energy from the lower temperature 50F air. But if all you're using to determine "atmospheric warming" is temperature, you will be coming to the wrong conclusion.
        Regarding the training of "Climate scientists", a while back I looked at the required course work to get a degree in this area from a number of respected universities. What I found lacking were courses in hard science and engineering. Specifically lacking were foundations in physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, chemical reactions and kinetics, to name a few. All of which would be necessary to even begin to understand something as complex as the heat balance for the entire world.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      Excellent points, which is why the ocean temperature is more important than the air temperature. By the way what is RH? Is is a pressure or density measurement?

      For the same reasons speaking of the global average or mean temperature is nonsense.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by BradA 3 years, 9 months ago
        Sorry, RH = Relative Humidity
        And the main point was that a given mass of the 50F air would melt more ice than the same mass of the 55F.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
          Makes sense
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by BradA 3 years, 9 months ago
            Oh, and I should point out that WRT temperature, the oceans are also anything but a well mixed system. And even less understood and consistently measurable than the atmosphere. But yes, the oceans are a much, much larger thermal collector than the atmosphere.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by edweaver 3 years, 9 months ago
              Exactly! The oceans are much larger thermal collectors and if I understand it correctly, when the oceans warm, waste in the ocean decays faster. This releases more co2, which causes plants to grow faster & larger, which cools the atmosphere, reducing the amount of co2 released from the oceans, slowing plant growth, warming the planet which starts the cycle over again. Of course this happens on land masses too. And then throw in the effects of the sun and we have the ups & downs of the climate.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 3 years, 9 months ago
    From what I have read and watched some documentaries that astronomers classify our Sun as a variable star. So, how could any scientist set the the output as a constant. It doesn't make any sense.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      I have asked that exact question, but never found good information on point. I am highly skeptical that our Sun's output is constant over time. However the AGW advocates maintain that it is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 3 years, 9 months ago
        Its output is fairly stable but slowly changes over long periods and during sunspot cycles. The main difference is the Earth's orbit gives about 90 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere difference between perihelion, being the most, and aphelion where it is the least. In a way, we in the North are fortunate due to being at perihelion at about January 4 and aphelion on July 4. Though that is not understood to be the cause, I look forward to perihelion here in southern Wisconsin due to the January thaw that happens nearly every year a week or so around the beginning of January. Winter here begins about at Thanksgiving and proceeds to the thaw, and then begins again through February.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 3 years, 9 months ago
    Now I may be off as I went through Navy Nuclear Power school in 1983. The course is strong in Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow along with Chemistry, Physics and Thermodynamics. Of course it is classified so I have no notes, just the little tidbits that adhered to the grey matter in my skull. I agree with mminnick, I may rusty also but the point he made is what I remember from those classes a couple of lifetimes ago. I read the article and the terminology is mostly correct but the positions held by the author are so out of whack that he would have been failed in those classes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      Yes that is a good model. Ultimately, a cold body warming up a warm body would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 3 years, 9 months ago
        That is correct for an isolated system where no matter or radiation enters the system. It is not true for a closed system which allows energy to enter the system nor is it true for an open system (Earth system) where both matter and energy are allowed to enter the system. If living systems were isolated thermodynamic systems there would be no life. Humans, e.g., are warm systems where cooler stuff enters and continues to replace the heat radiated from the bodies by chemical means. In fact entropy decreases in living systems due to work done from the environment. Some environmentalists would like to reverse that and even cool down life to save the planet.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 9 months ago
    I do not follow this after reading it a few times.

    Q = k1T1^4 - k2T2^4 is exactly the radiative heat transfer between two objects.

    The Greenhouse Effect has to do with a frequency shift from a high frequency that is transmissible to a low frequency that is reflected. This works just fine in greenhouses.

    This guy is about as good at getting to the point as the AGW people are at explaining their correlation theories.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 3 years, 9 months ago
      Thoritsu 'This works just fine in greenhouses.'

      How greenhouses work:

      Heat comes in from the sun, it warms the internal air, the pressure of this warm air increases with temperature.
      The volume is constrained, the air 'tries' to expand but is prevented by the glass roof from escaping.

      Radiation out to space from this warm air is negligible,
      there is no so-called back-radiation from the glass roof.

      Thus, greenhouses retain heat as the physical barrier allows radiant heat from the sun to enter,
      but prevents hot air dissipating.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
        "there is no so-called back-radiation from the glass roof" Yep. Although I think the pressure expansion is negligible. Most importantly the walls and roof prevent convection
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      That is the equation for heat transfer and it shows that heat can only transfer from a hot object to a colder object and it is correct.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 9 months ago
        Yes it is correct, but the article rambles about Q not being a heat source, and some more noise. I don't get the point.

        A hotter cold thing can make a hot thing even hotter though. I don't follow what assertion the climate zealots have made that he rebuts.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 9 months ago
          I am beginning to get it. Seems to me a very strong argument can be made that the temperatures of the air or other gasses are so close to the Surface temperature that radiation is an irrelevant heat transfer mechanism. Back Radiation makes no sense.

          The NASA website on this is a big confusing mess.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
            Yes, somewhere I found radiative heating is usually on relevant when there is a large temperature difference. Otherwise conduction and convection dominate, which makes sense to me.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 9 months ago
              Right. You can feel it yourself from a toaster or soldering iron.

              Because the effect is to the fourth power and the variable is absolute temp, it takes a real difference to show up because there is 273 degrees before you get to freezing.

              Those coefficients in front don't help much either.

              I see what this guy is getting at now, but good lord he could make a simpler case.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo