tisdag 11 oktober 2011

Petty on DLR 2

I have now received an answer from Prof Petty on my question concerning the scientific basis of the following SB law:

(SB-invented) R = sigma T^4 - sigma T_b^4 = R_out - R_in

expressing the radiative heat transfer R between a blackbody at temperature T in exchange with a blackbody background of temp T_b, as the difference of two gross flows, sigma T^4 and
sigma T_b^4.

Prof Petty states:
  • It would be more accurate to say that I recognize the SB law (F=sigma*T^4) being applied twice, once for each body.
  • The full expression is not a form of the SB Law but rather a consequence of the SB law.
This is precisely what I have been waiting Petty to state himself: Petty offers a proof of (SB-invented) consisting of applying twice a (SB-original) of the form F = sigma T^4.

Petty thus claims (SB-invented) to be a consequence of (SB-original) and the proof consists in "applying (SB-original) twice".

But (SB-original) was not proved to applicable twice, only once. To apply it twice takes it outside that realm of its original proof. To apply it twice is an ad hoc procedure and free invention, which is viewed to be true only because it looks so trivial and innocent.

But it is not at all trivial, and not innocent. What would be needed is a direct proof of (SB-invented), a proof which is not simply a free invention. But a direct proof cannot to be found in the literature.

Will Prof Petty be willing to understand what I am saying? That DLR is based on an invented
SB law without scientific basis. And what is CO2 alarmism without DLR?

3 kommentarer:

  1. That's pretty hilarious. So it all comes down to the fact that you think a black body only behaves like a black body if it's alone in the universe, and if there is another black body around then neither of them behave like a black body any more.

    The real world proves you wrong. Millions upon millions upon millions of real observations prove you wrong. Your misunderstanding is desperate, and your certainty in your own wrongness is pathetic.

  2. Yes it is hilarious. I am truely amazed myself. But the false-SB is not true.
    And nobody has observed DLR directly, only indirectly by the false-SB. It is

  3. A huge number of people have observed radiation from the atmosphere directly. That you think they haven't is just weird.