söndag 31 juli 2011

The Sky Dragon Strikes Back

Andrew Skolnick has mounted a ferocious attack on the Slayers of the Sky Dragon on Judy Curry's blog as a large set of comments (out of 2000) on the blog post Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon.

The attack is supported by a Youtube clip entitled Needling the Deniers aimed at disproving my new derivation of Planck's law of blackbody radiation showing that the basic postulate of CO2 alarmism of backradiation is fiction.

The clip shows that a needle can be heated in a microwave oven, which is known to everybody with some experience of a such a device. Skolnick thus demonstrates that low frequency waves (microwaves) can heat an absorber to higher temperature than the blackbody temperature corresponding to the frequency.

Does this mean that a blackbody can heat another blackbody of higher temperature, that a cold atmosphere can radiatively heat a warmer Earth surface? Of course not!

But what about the microwave oven then? Isn't this a counter-example? No, it is not because the amplitude of the microwave radiation is much larger than that of blackbody radiation of the corresponding temperature. The heating in a microwave oven is thus not blackbody heating; it is amplifed blackbody heating, and therefore the microwave heating of a needle is not a counter-example to my proof that blackbody backradiation from cold to warm is fiction.

But it is good that Skolnick brings this issue to the table, which allows one more head of the Sky Dragon to be eliminated. Thank you Andrew!

7 kommentarer:

  1. Hi Claes, you had better be careful. On 4th July Andrew said on Judith's thread “ .. what Mr. O’Sullivan has accomplished by his scurrilous attacks and fraudulent claims on our LinkedIn Science and Technology Writers Group was to paint his face right in the middle of my investigative journalism radar screen .. ”.

    Having posted numerous venomous rants about John and the rest of the Slayers he may put you up on his radar screen and do the same about you. This possibility must terrify you as much as it didn't terrify John.

    Poor Andrew appears to suffer from a superiority complex (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/superiority+complex Definition 2).

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  2. Elsewhere in the Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon thread, I have tried to engage in design of an experiment to demonstrate the warming effect of CO2. Nobody has been game to even participate in what should be a fundamentally scientific undertaking. The science of blackbody radiation can be developed inside a metal sphere in a lab, but the science of "greenhouse" warming can only be fantasised in computer models and computer model "experiments" without any hope of real world verification of a real physical phenomenon.

  3. Claes, do you think that CO2 in atmosphere can absorb energy from earth and be heated by some part of it?

  4. Yes, a cold non transparent atmosphere can be heated by
    radiation from a warm Earth surface. So what?

  5. Then the net radiation from earth will diminish (*) and if the input energy from the sun is constant the earth temperature will rise. Or?

    (*)Acc to: (2) E = sigma (Te^4 - Ta^4) ~ 4 sigma Te^3 (Te - Ta), (wave model: net one-way flow) an eq set up by you in another thread.

  6. Yes, you are right, the atmosphere has a total warming effect (of maybe 33 C depending on what take as reference) but this is the result of both thermodynamics and radiation in interplay. The effect of doubled CO2
    on this system is impossible to determine because it is a complex coupled system. Many different reasonable arguments (e.g. on my blog) indicate a sensitivity of less than 0.3 C, while there is no reasonable argument indicating a 10 fold magnification to 3 C as claimed by IPCC. Do you really think 3 C can be motivated and is realistic? If so, what is your evidence?

  7. Yes, I agree with you that it is impossible to theoretically determine the effect of doubled CO2. Within 50 or 100 years the answer perhaps is given by nature itself.
    I also agree with you that there is no need to talk about "back radiation" because the eq (2)mentioned earlier creates the same result.
    But I believe that you can measure an energy radiation from a black body with a spectrum acc to the temperature of the body and that this is independent of anything outside the body, but just depending on the movement of the molecules of the body, and this can be called back radiation sometimes.