onsdag 12 oktober 2011

False SB Not Part of Physics Literature

The scientific explanation of the greenhouse effect of climate science.

Making a little field study to see how text books present (Yes) or not present (No) the False-SB (False-Stefan-Boltzmann Law) discussed in previous posts, we find:
  • Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung: No
  • Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest: No
  • Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar: No
  • 3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis: No
  • An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah: No
  • Radiative Transfer in the Atmosphere and Ocean by Thomas-Stamnes: Yes
  • An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews: Yes
  • Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation by Bohren-Clothiaux: Yes
  • A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty: Yes
  • An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation by Liou: Yes
  • An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics by Fleagle-Businger: Yes
  • Assessing Climate Change by Rapp: Yes
  • UN Climate Change Science Compendium 2009: Yes
  • Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC: Yes
  • The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen: Yes
  • IPCC TAR 2007: Yes.
The result can be generalized as follows:

1. In a general basic physics texts on radiative transfer not connected to climate science, there is no reason to introduce the False-SB, because radiative transfer is one-way and False-SB is two-way. Accordingly, physics literature on radiative transfer does not mention False-SB.

2. Most texts on climate science including atmospheric radiation present False-SB, because most texts connect to CO2 alarmism and False-SB serves as the scientific basis of alarmism by suggesting that global climate is sensitive to small perturbations of radiative forcing.

In short: False-SB is a free invention of CO2 alarmism, and is not part of basic physics literature. False-SB is thus pseudo-science. Probably the biggest scientific fraud all times.

For an list of the use of False-SB in academic teaching see Consensus Science compiled by Alan Siddons.

9 kommentarer:

  1. Simple fact: we observe infrared emission from the atmosphere. For example, http://www.gemini.edu/?q=node/10787

    This simple fact contradicts your hypothesis. To write so much about such a bizarre theory that is so trivially proven wrong is foolish indeed.

  2. Read about DLR on http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/who-invented-downwelling-longwave.html . DLR Radiance is not measured directly, but is computed using a False-SB.

  3. Incorrect. It is measured directly. The very same instruments that measure radiation from stars and galaxies measure radiation from the atmosphere. Do you believe that the whole universe is illusory?

  4. "Radiation from stars and galaxies" is captured and so in a sense measured by my eyes.

    But how much does it heat me?


  5. Anonym above, it is clear that you have little understanding of instrumentation. There is no instrument that directly measures radiation or heat flux. Instruments measure directly a voltage or electrical current of a device such as a thermocouple or thermistor which has been (or should have been) calibrated for a relative temperature to some base (ambient) which needs to be measured separately or is assumed. This is then used to calculate with some assumptions (eg an emissivity of 1 for a black body) the radiant heat flux. It is also possible to measure the comparitive intensity of wavelengths of emissions from a source. Making some assumptions from the Planck distribution is possible to calculate a temperature of the source and then from that with further assumption calculate the radiation from the source. If you do not know what you are doing which is the case with most so-called "climate scientist" the it is very likely that assumptions will be wrong and and possibly even get the sign or direction of the heat flux wrong.
    Have a look at this http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/02/a-note-on-the-stefan-boltzman-equation/ It may help.

  6. Yes, direct measurement of IR radiance is difficult, or impossible. A telescope,
    or IR camera, magnifies a light signal which can then be recorded by a sensor by absorption. With enough magnification even a cosmic microwave background radiation at 3K can be recorded and presented in a colored picture. To claim that
    this background radiation is heating the Earth as a form of DLR lacks scientific rationale.

  7. Direct measurement of IR is trivial. William Herschel discovered that more than 200 years ago. Your ignorance is staggering.

  8. Claes,

    could you be so kind to define your definition of heating?

  9. Heat is internal energy in contrast to kinetic energy, and heating is increase of
    internal energy. The first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy as the sum of internal energy and kinetic energy, is conserved.