The recent posts on Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR give strong evidence, kindly supplied by Prof Grant W Petty, that climate alarmism of global warming is based on a false version of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law (SB), a version which lacks support in physics literature.
The original true-SB reads:
- R = sigma (T^4 - T_b^4)
where R is the radiance from a blackbody at temperature T into a background at temperature T_b < T and sigma is Stefan-Boltzmann's (positive) constant.
The false-SB reads:
- R =R_out - R_in,
- where R_out = sigma T^4 and R_in = sigma T_b^4.
Prof Petty claims that false-SB is obtained by formally applying true-SB with T_b = 0 and with T = 0, and then adding up the results. This is the same as formally rewriting true-SB in the form
- R = sigma T^4 - sigma T_b^4,
using formally the distributive law of algebra:
- sigma (T^4 - T_b^4) = sigma T^4 - sigma T_b^4.
According to Prof Petty, the false-SB is obtained by applying true-SB twice, or by using the distributive law. Prof Petty then expresses a consensus of (alarmist) climate scientists.
What Prof Petty is doing seems like a trivial operation, under the assumption that the trivial operation is permissible from physics point of view, or that it is permissible to use the distributive law from physics point of view. Prof Petty shows that he is firmly convinced that the trivial operation is permissible, because it is so trivial.
But triviality is not a sufficient condition for truth. The truth is that the operation, as trivial it may be, is not permissible:
It is not permissible to formally apply true-SB twice with T_b = 0 and with T = 0, because the assumption of true-SB is that T > T_b and this assumption is violated in the case T = 0.
It is not permissible to attribute to the distributive a physical meaning, unless this meaning is specified, and it is not.
The conclusion is that climate alarmists regularly, apparently without thinking, are using a false-SB.
Even worse, climate alarmists use the false-SB as the scientific evidence that the trace gas CO2 can cause dangerous global warming. The false-SB serves alarmism by offering the instability
required to make it credible that a small cause (trace gas) can have a big effect (dangerous global warming). It is like writing
- R = 10 = 100 - 90 = R_out - R_in
and then talking about perturbations, of say 1%. A 1% perturbation of net flow R (= 0.1) can then be turned into 1% perturbation of gross flow R_out (= 1), with an inflation factor of 10.
This is precisely the argument used to produce the climate sensitivity of 3 C upon doubling of CO2 of IPCC alarmism , which is 10 times too big. It is illustrated in the Kiel-Trenberth energy budget with its backradiation/DLR and
- R_out = 339/392 and R_in = 321 = DLR with R_out - R_in much smaller than R_out.
In short, climate alarmism is based on a false SB law, which allows a false 10-fold inflation of effects of doubled CO2.
For a more detailed presentation, take a look at my recent talk:
and the upcoming book Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation based on the article
The use of false-SB is illustrated e.g. in
and many other sources presenting the so-called greenhouse effect.
Of course, it is natural to pose the following questions:
- Is it really possible that a false-SB is used by so many climate scientists?
- What are physicists saying? After all, physicists are responsible for SB.
- If many scientists agree, then they must be correct?
I will report if some answers come in...
Inlägg
Hi Claes,
SvaraRaderaCould you design & conduct an experiment to prove that the false-SB fails to determine heat flow between 2 grey or black bodies, and furthermore that the true-SB does?
The difference comes out when perturbations are considered, and thus is not so obvious to observe in experiment. The role of the false-SB is speculative, to create alarm by suggesting that a small cause can have big effect. It serves the same role as Hell in Christianity, a hypothetical place which can used in alarmistic propaganda. But it is not easy to prove that Hell does not exist, and that DLR does not exist. But the of proof lies on those who claim Hell or DLR is reality.
SvaraRaderaAs a layman I'm wondering...
SvaraRaderaIf the "original" SB law calculates the _net_ heat flux out of a blackbody, then wouldn't any backradiation, existent or not, already be accounted for?
So if you begin calculating the backradiation from another body applying the "modified" SB formula, then in fact you are adding on an effect that, wether it is there or not, already would be included in the result calculated by the original SB formula in the first place?
Is this a fair representation of what you're saying?
Best regards,
Bebben
Your knowledge of physics is woeful. You make bizarre and ridiculous claims that are so mistaken that even the most well-meaning attempt to explain where you've gone wrong is doomed to failure. Your obnoxious responses to Professor Petty's heroic attempts to explain things to you only demonstrate the bad faith that you're acting in. You could find out what's wrong with your claims about the Stefan-Boltzmann law by going to a first year undergraduate lecture in physics. Have you ever been to one of those?
SvaraRaderaClaes, there is more to it. Firstly, there is a requirement that a black body has a surface "The characteristic properties of a blackbody are that it absorbs all radiation incident on its surface and that the qualityand intensity of the radiation it emits are completely determined by its temperature" (Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook). CO2 fails because a) it does not have a surface & b) because it does not absorb all radiation. Another thing is that the S-B constant is based on a hemisphere "The total radiative flux throughout a hemisphere from a black SURFACE of area A and absolute temperature T is given by the Stefan-Boltzman law Q= A*sigma*T^4"
SvaraRaderaThen one has to consider non black surfaces "The ratio of the total radiating power of a real SURFACE to that of a black SURFACE at the same temperature is called the emittance of the SURFACE (for a perfectly plane sureface the EMISSIVITY)" "If radiation is incident on a surface, the fraction absorbed is called the absorptance (absorptivity) a term to which two subscripts maybe appended, the first to identify the temperature and the second to identify the spectral energy distribution of the surface"
How did Prof. Petty get an appointment when he does not understand basic heat transfer?
keep strong
cementafriend
The so called back radiations do not have a real existence, it's just a trick (not to hide the decline, lol) to summarize a very complex matter. It's clear for all scientists whom have a good understanding of quantum physics.
SvaraRaderaRobert