onsdag 29 februari 2012

Fred Singer Believes in Backradiation

Fred Singer states in the American Thinker under the title Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name

  • Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.
Transfer of heat energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface is the same as backradiation, and since I am a firm denier of backradiation, there is a high risk that Fred is aiming his attack on some-one like me, probably directly addressing my simple person.

OK, so I am giving skeptics a bad name? What have I done to deserve this evaluation?

Well, I have given a new proof of Planck's radiation law, which is closer to physics than Planck's original derivation, because it does not rely on statistics, understanding that statistics is not physics but just statistics.

My proof shows that backradiation is physically impossible because it is unstable and cannot be realized by spontaneous physics, as an expression of the 2nd law.

I don't think Fred has read my proof, maybe not even Planck's original one. I ask him to do so, and then compare the merits of the proofs, and after that possibly change his statement that I am giving him a bad name. How about that Fred?

And Fred, isn't it important also for skeptics to obey the 2nd Law? Isn't the 2nd Law more than a simplistic argument which one can discard without much thought?

I expand the argument in


5 kommentarer:

  1. Maybe this discussion could help. Maybe the 2nd law isn't breached...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thermal_radiation#Emission.2Fabsorption_of_thermal_radiation_is_work.3F

    SvaraRadera
  2. I have to agree. Those people who claim to measure downwelling radiation do not know what they are measuring. There is no backradiation in heat transfer. Many physicists who have no practical experience seem to have accepted the concept of photons. The electromagnetic spectrum from X-rays to radio waves is composed of waves with defined wavelengths. Nobel prize winning physicist WE Lamb Jr has written papers to say there are no photons. It appears that string theory is based on waves. Just trying to read "The Shape of Inner space" by mathematician Shing-Tung Yau and Physicist Steve Nadis. This book may interest you. I quote from the book "The sounds produced by plucking a string depend not only on length and thickness of the string but also on the shape of the instrument's interior-the acoustic chamber-where waves of certain frequencies resonate at maximum amplitude. Physicists-like instrument makers are hunting for the Calabri-Yau manifold with the proper geometry to give rise to the waves and particles we see in nature"
    Cementafriend

    SvaraRadera
  3. Comment:
    Claes, I tried to post the following comment on your blogspot post about Singer. But for some reason, Blogspot will not let me post the comment. It seems to hang when it is supposed to prompt me for "human verification".

    I thought the issue was important, so I reproduce my comment here:

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This is a very disappointing development. Use of the word "denier" by Singer, in this context, is totally unacceptable.

    I have used the word "denial" in a debate once with you, but only because in English the phrase "to be in denial" is very old and lacks the same connotation. And the subject matter had little, if anything, to do with climate. Plus, my criticism was directed at almost all of science, not just you or even a certain group of scientists.

    Claes, I had just assumed that Singer had read your work, or at least some of it.

    The two of you seemed to be getting along quite well in the photo you took together, was it last year?

    I have had enormous respect for his work, myself.

    What has happened?

    Can you comment on whether Singer came to you privately first before publishing this?

    RTF

    SvaraRadera
  4. I don't think Fred has read my work.

    SvaraRadera
  5. Dear Dr. Johnson,

    Thank you for your article. It struck a chord with me.

    I was dumbfounded by the article of “Climate Deniers” Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name by S. Fred Singer on WUWT* and The American Thinker**. Before reading it I had considered Dr. Singer a hero. Specifically I was disturbed by his statement: “One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics — i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface.”** On WUWT’s comments section Bomber_the_Cat says (February 29, 2012 at 12:01 pm) elucidates:
    “We have actual measurements of downwelling radiation from the atmosphere. By analyzing that ‘back-radiation’ we see that it bears the unmistakable finger print of CO2 emission, i.e peaking at around a wavelength of 15 microns.” See graph here here:
    http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/longwave-downward-radiation-surface-evans.png

    Atmospheric science is not my training but Physics, Chemistry and Engineering including two post docs in the 1960s and 1970s give me some background in science. Also I remember what I learned in undergrad physics on fluids was vastly superseded in a course of fluid dynamics so perhaps these climate scientists may have something to teach me about atmospheric physics. I am humble.

    But I did study thermodynamics in physics, physical chemistry, and multiple engineering courses and NEVER once did a textbook, a professor or an experiment show heat moving from cold to hot. What is going on with Singer and Bomber_the_Cat and their “back-radiation” argument. No doubt radiation comes down from clouds. How else could one see them or even detect them by their infrared signature given the proper detector. BUT explain how cold clouds warm the earth below. I don’t get it. It seems to me to be a scam not an argument.

    As I read your article I see that I am not alone.

    Again thanks.

    Dan Kurt

    p.s. My son is a Ph.D. Mechanical Engineer. He obtained his M.S. and Ph.D. at a top 20 in the world university. He took only one course from the Applied Mathematics department on the Graduate Level during his years there. It was called Numerical Analysis and was a 5 credit level 600 course. Its reputation was that it was the hardest math course in the university. He took it as first year, first quarter Masters student as he only expected to be at the university the two years that he would need to get the MS degree and the course was given only every two years. As he wanted to take Numerical Analysis, he had no choice but to take the at that time. Over 120 graduate students started the course most of whom were Ph.D. candidates. About 70 were still taking the course after DROP day. More than 50% received a D or lower grade. Only two received an A level grade and both were Masters students. B level grades were sparse. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth when the grades came out. The two A grades were awarded to Masters students: a math major and my son. His comment to me after the fact was that he had dodged a bullet and vowed to never take another Applied Math course. His getting that A in numerical analysis prompted a professor to offer him a research position soon after and his research resulted in his being offered a Ph.D. fellowship. His field of interest has been numerical modeling of vibration and he is employed by an aero-space company.

    *http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/29/climate-deniers-are-giving-us-skeptics-a-bad-name/
    **http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html#ixzz1ntwaUlgw
    Reply

    SvaraRadera