Some reflections:
- The "greenhouse effect" is not described in the physics literature.
- Isn't it the task of physicists to describe it and give it a mathematical dress, if it is physics?
- Spencer seeks to twist the 2nd Law to allow cool objects to warm, in order to open to "backradiation" the supposed basis of the "greenhouse effect".
- But "backradiation" is not described in the physics literature either, like "backconduction" or "backdiffusion". Why?
- Spencer does not use mathematics, the language of physics, just pictures. Is this enough?
- Popular science is fine if there is real physics behind supported by math and observation, but what is the role of popular science without real physics basis? Replace real science?
And so to Roy: Would you mind taking a look at my posts on the myth of backradiation (with mathematics in Computational Blackbody Radiation) and give some response. In particular concerning your statement:
- While heat conduction by an object always flows from hotter to colder, in the case of thermal radiation a cooler object does not check what the temperature of its surroundings is before sending out infrared energy. It sends it out anyway, no matter whether its surroundings are cooler or hotter.
How do know that an emitting cool object is so "cool" that it does not care about the temperature of the surroundings? What is the underlying physics and mathematics? Is it like a "cool blogger" able to emit hotter information than absorbed?
PS I drafted Computational Blackbody Radiation 5 years ago in connection with work on thermodynamics and the 2nd Law. Surprisingly maybe, it seems to be at the core of the discussion on the "greenhouse effect". Hopefully someone will read it. I believe the mathematical model analyzed carries some thruths about physical reality. DS
Inlägg
Roy Spencers popular descriptions of the Greenhouse Effect are always amusing reading. I'm sure a hot object dips down a thermometer in an adjacent cooler object before it starts to transport heat to it by conduction.
SvaraRadera"The "greenhouse effect" is not described in the physics literature."
SvaraRaderaYou are pitifully stupid, Claes. I can no longer see any alternative way to desribe you. This idiotic statement confirms you as a laughing stock. IPCC reports contain lists of thousands of references, none of which you have bothered to read. So fine, don't read them. But to claim that they don't exist is literally insane.
Your comments are not desired. Stop or I will close comments.
SvaraRaderaClaes,
SvaraRaderaI hope you won't close down comments because of this annoying troll, but instead on the Blogger dashboard go to settings > comments > comment moderation > check "always" & then you can just delete every asinine thing he has to say.
The Comment that Dr. Roy Spencer wouldn't publish:
SvaraRaderahttp://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/comment-dr-roy-spencer-wouldnt-publish.html
You should certainly close comments if you don't like criticism of your wildly mistaken claims.
SvaraRadera