Planck and the Fall of Science

There is a new sequence of posts on The World as Computation about Planck and his role as the father of modern physics, exposed in a larger context in Dr Faustus of Modern Physics.

Can The "Greenhouse Effect" Be Detected?

The recent exhange with Roy Spencer and Fred Singer concerning the "greenhouse effect" and "backradiation" identifies three groups in the climate debate with the following standpoints:

1. Alarmists: There is a greenhouse effect and it threatens to overheat the globe.
2. Skeptics: There is a greenhouse effect, but it is so small that it cannot be detected.
3. Deniers: As long as no greenhouse effect has been identified, one can act as if there is no greenhouse effect.

Roy and Fred belong to 2. and myself to 3. The discussion gets complicated by the fact that "the greenhouse effect" is not clearly described in the literature, but it is somehow connected to the radiative properties of the atmosphere:

Both alarmists and skeptics assume as a starting point that doubled CO2 will cause global warming by 1 C, which is referred to as no-feedback climate sensitivity. Alarmists then inflate it to 3 C with positive feedback and skeptics to about 0.5 C with negative feedback.

Both alarmists and skeptics thus firmly believe that science says that increasing the absorptivity of the atmosphere a little by doubling CO2, will cause warming.

Deniers are not so sure about that referring to the following argument:

• Earth surface temperature is determined by the lapse rate.
• Lapse rate is determined by thermodynamics with radiative forcing.
• Fully transparent atmosphere may be isothermal with zero lapse rate.
• Fully opaque atmosphere may be isothermal with zero lapse rate.
• Reality is somewhere in between with a certain lapse rate.
• It is not clear if more CO2 will increase or decrease the lapse rate.
• It is thus not clear if more CO2 will cause warming or cooling.
• There is no convincing evidence that any effect of doubled CO2 can be detected.

The dividing line goes between alarmists on one hand and skeptics/deniers on the other hand.

The quarrel between skeptics and deniers, about the existence of an effect which cannot be detected, seems to be of minor scientific importance compared to the main question of significant global warming or not.

Fred Singer Believes in Backradiation

Fred Singer states in the American Thinker under the title Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name

• Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Transfer of heat energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface is the same as backradiation, and since I am a firm denier of backradiation, there is a high risk that Fred is aiming his attack on some-one like me, probably directly addressing my simple person.

OK, so I am giving skeptics a bad name? What have I done to deserve this evaluation?

Well, I have given a new proof of Planck's radiation law, which is closer to physics than Planck's original derivation, because it does not rely on statistics, understanding that statistics is not physics but just statistics.

My proof shows that backradiation is physically impossible because it is unstable and cannot be realized by spontaneous physics, as an expression of the 2nd law.

I don't think Fred has read my proof, maybe not even Planck's original one. I ask him to do so, and then compare the merits of the proofs, and after that possibly change his statement that I am giving him a bad name. How about that Fred?

And Fred, isn't it important also for skeptics to obey the 2nd Law? Isn't the 2nd Law more than a simplistic argument which one can discard without much thought?

I expand the argument in

• Two Proofs of Planck's Law vs Backradiation
• From Spectrum to Heat Transfer.

The Empty Postulate of CO2 Alarmism

CO2 climate alarmism is based on two basic postulates concerning the effect of doubled concentration of atmospheric CO2 (compared to pre-industrial time):

1. Radiative forcing of 4 W/m2
2. Global heating of 1 C from radiative forcing of 4 W/m2.

Let us see how are these postulates motivated: 1. is supposed to follow from measurements of spectra like the above from "Atmospheric Radiation", Goody (1989) observed for clear skies over the Gulf of Mexico, April 23, 1969. After Conrath et al (1970).

The idea is that the dip in the spectrum between 14 - 16 microns reflects the absorption and emission of atmospheric CO2, and that doubled CO2 will cause a certain widening of the dip which is translated to so called "radiative forcing" of 4 W/m2 according to Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law (SB).

The so obtained radiative forcing of 4 W/m2 is then translated to 1 C of global heating by another application of SB which is the rationale of 2.

We see that both 1. and 2. originate from a spectrum which its translated first to radiative forcing and then to global heating with both steps relying on SB.

Is this a correct scientific mathematical argument? Is it so clear how to go from measured spectrum to estimated spectrum for doubled CO2 to radiative forcing to global warming?

No it is not at all clear, because SB describes radiation from a body into a surrounding of 0 K.

The Earth plus atmosphere radiates into a surrounding of about 3 K, and so SB may be applicable to the whole system, but SB does not in the same way describe the exchange of heat energy between the Earth surface and the atmosphere and this is where the radiative forcing is supposed to change global climate.

The net result is that the climate sensitivity of 1 C global warming from doubled CO2, cannot be viewed to describe any scientific reality, but is instead used simply as a definition or agreement. This is evidenced by the fact that all scientists are supposed to agree on the 1 C, from skeptics to alarmists. An they all do agree on the 1 C.

If you say that you the 1 C is not valid, you will meet the response that this it is not possible to say so, because all scientists agree on the 1 C and you cannot question a scientific agreement which is a definition. Or if you do, then you are silly.

To question that there are 100 centimeters on a meter will meet the same laughs as questioning the 1 C from doubled CO2.

But a definition has no scientific content and says nothing about reality. In particular it cannot be taken as point of departure for feedbacks, which is nevertheless done by both alarmists and skeptics.

Alarmists start with 1 C and jack it up to 3 C by positive feedback.

Skeptics start with 1 C and take it down to 0.5 C by negative feedback.

But a real skeptic would not start with 1 C, because it is not science. A real skeptic would seek to directly assess climate sensitivity, by measurements. Doing so indicates a climate sensitivity smaller than 0.5 C, thus so small that it cannot be identified.

The net result is that the basic postulate of climate alarmism of a climate sensitivity of 1 C is a definition empty of scientific content and as such of no value. Both skeptics and alarmists should be able to agree on this.

Also Judy Curry has now understood the emptiness of IPCC:

• The IPCC might have outlived its usefulness. Let’s see what the next assessment report comes up with. But we are getting diminishing returns from these assessments, and they take up an enormous amount of scientists’ time.

Can Roy Spencer Describe the "Greenhouse Effect"?

There is a new post on the Roy Spencer's description of the "Greenhouse Effect" at The World as Computation.

The comments show again how widely spread is the idea of "backradiation" although it is nowhere described in physics literature, not even on Wikipedia. Notable is also the complete absence of physicists in the debate, leaving room for all sorts of free inventions such as IR-photons busy traveling around the universe carrying little units of heat energy which they deliver to everybody without asking anything, in particular not about the temperature of the recipient.

But radiative heat transfer is a collective phenomenon of resonance between bodies in radiative contact, where the resonance is only causing heating in bodies with low temperature as an expression of the 2nd law as proved in Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.

Why Is Roy Spencer Not Serious?

Roy Spencer returns to the "The Issue of Backradiation" in More Musings from the Greenhouse with statements like:

• The existence of this “back radiation” is disputed by some people because of two seemingly counter-intuitive features.
• Imagine two plates at two different temperatures facing one another. Let’s say one plate is at 100 deg. C and the other is at 0 deg. C.
• But now imagine that the cooler plate is nearly the same temperature (99 deg. C) as the hotter plate (100 deg. C). It will be obvious to most people that the net flow of IR energy from the 100 deg. C plate to the slightly cooler plate will be at a slower rate than it was before.
• But why should that be? In both cases the 100 deg. C plate is emitting IR at the same rate, yet the NET flow of IR is reduced if the cooler plate is not as cold.

When I ask in a comment what the scientific evidence Roy has for his proclamation that "in both cases the 100 deg. C plate is emitting IR at the same rate", I get the following answer:

• Yes, Claes you found me out. I have nefarious motives for using certain terminology. It’s simply to annoy you.

This is more than musing, it is nefariously amusing, with nefariously meaning "extremely wicked" or "extremely morally bad in principle or practice".

When I ask Roy to get serious, I get no response.

I ask him here again to get serious and answer my question: What is the scientific evidence Roy, supporting your proposition that emission of IR energy is independent of the surrounding temperature? You can reply as a comment to this post. I am serious.

PS Follow the debate as comments to Roy's post, and see how backradiation is deconstructed into the wardrobe of scientific ghosts.

How to Understand Climate Debate

Two basic issues dominate the climate debate:

1. For CO2 emitters to prove that CO2 has no significant effect.
2. For CO2 alarmists to prove that CO2 has significant effect.

We may compare with a legal process:

1. For the accused to prove innocence.
2. For the prosecutor to prove that the accused is guilty.

We understand that 2. is a necessary requirement for the prosecutor to win the process. If 2. is missing, the issue 1. does not come up.

The situation is the same in climate politics: If 2. is missing, then 1. does not come up. And the fact is that 2. is missing. There is no scientific evidence that CO2 has a significant effect.

But clever CO2 alarmists are turning the debate around to 1. instead of 2. asking CO2 emitters to prove that CO2 has no significant effect. Once one understands this trick also the climate debate becomes understandable and more managable.