- 0 = 100 - 100.
lördag 15 oktober 2011
True-SB or False-SB by Experiment?
In recent posts I have compared a true form of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law describing one-way net radiative heat transfer between bodies of different temperature, named True-SB, and an incorrect form not described in physics literature describing net flow as the difference between two-way gross flows, named False-SB, in communication with Prof Grant W. Petty claiming that False-SB is true.
Prof Petty asks if it possible to set up an experiment showing that False-SB is false? Maybe, but since False-SB describes a fictitious non-physical two-way flow, the experiment would amount to prove the non-existence of a certain phenomenon, and proving non-existence is in general much more difficult than proving existence. Existence is proved by exhibiting the object claimed to exist, while non-existence requires a search through all possibilities which may well be impossible.
Further, any test observing the net flow, which is the only flow which can be observed directly, will not be a disproof of False-SB.
The argument of Prof Petty is now the following: If there is no experiment in sight capable of making a distinction between True-SB and False-SB, it must mean that if True-SB is true then False-SB is equally true. Is this a correct scientific argument?
No, it is not correct, because even if the two versions give the same net flow, they have fundamentally different stability aspects, and stability is essential in the basic applications of SB in climate science concerning climate sensitivity, which is global warming under a small
perturbation of radiative forcing. The different stability is displayed in comparing net with the difference of gross quantities in an equality such as
Here the net (flow) is 0 (two bodies of equal temperature), while gross flow is 100. The net flow on the left hand side remains small under small perturbations, while a small relative perturbation of gross flow (small relative change of the temperature of one of the bodies), may turn the right hand side into 1, which is an infinite inflation of 0.
True-SB and False-SB describe vastly different physics (one-way vs two-way heat transfer) and
the fact the the net flow of False-SB is the same as in True-SB, is not evidence that False-SB is true.
What is required by any scientist claiming that False-SB is true, like Prof Petty, is direct theoretical and experimental verification that False-SB is true, but both are missing. It is not enough to say that since the net flow is the same as in True-SB, also False-SB must be true. This is not science, only pseudo-science.
The following question presents itself: If now True-SB and False-SB describe the same net flow, and the only thing that matters is net flow, why cannot climate scientists like Prof Petty be content with the True-SB but instead so ardently have to insist that False-SB is true?
Yes. you are right: The stability aspect of False-SB serves the purpose of selling CO2 alarmism
by inflating something neglible to something alarming. But alarm based on pseudo-science is pseudo-alarm.