## fredag 1 februari 2013

### The DLR-meter Formula behind CO2 Alarmism

In previous posts we have seen that measurements of downwelling long wave radiation DLR is standardized by WMO to be measured by a ground-based pyrgeometer equipped with a thermopile according to the following DLR-meter Formula:
• DLR = V/K + sigma T_s^4
where V is measured voltage by the thermopile, K is a sensitivity coefficient to be determined by calibration to a reference, T_s is the measured temperature of the pyrgeometer and sigma is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant. Typical values are
•  V/K = - 100 W/m2 with V measured by the thermopile
• sigma T_s^4 = 400 W/m2 with T_s = + 15 C
• DLR = 300 W/m2
which can be illustrated as follows:

We understand that the output of the measurement as specified by WMO is DLR = 300 W/m2, which is obtained from the measured V/K = - 100 W/m2 and the standardized sigma T_s^4 = 400 W/m2. We understand that sigma T_s^4 = 400 W/m2 represents Stefan-Boltzmann's Law for radiation of a blackbody of temperature T_s into a surrounding at 0 K as represented by the red arrow.

But the physics described by the DLR-meter Formula as pictured above, is fictional physics, because the Earth surface with the pyrgeometer is not radiating directly into outer space at 0 K since the atmosphere is in between. The standardization of DLR measurement as stipulated by WMO thus lacks physics rationale.

The blue arrow representing DLR or "back radiation" is fabricated from an unphysical False Stefan Boltzmann Law represented by the red arrow. The only real physics is the measured voltage V translated to heat flux by the sensitivity coefficient K. The black arrow is real heat flux through the DLR-meter while the red and blue arrows represent nothing but non-physical fiction.

In the history of science there is no bigger bluff. It is the BIG BLUFF feeding CO2 alarmism. It remains to explain why physicists have not identified the bluff.

It is like the CEO of the Swedish state-owned company Telia, who claims that he did not know about bribes paid by Telia to get a license in Uzbekistan, bribes which everybody knows about: Either the CEO knows way too little to run the company or he is lying. In any case he is today resigning.

To say that the Earth is flat is a minor bluff compared to the BIG red arrow BLUFF, since there is some truth to the flatness of the Earth in the sense that it is approximately true on smaller scales, while there is no truth whatsoever in the red arrow of the BIG BLUFF.

PS1 Energy Secretary Steven Chu is also leaving his position, The Washington Post reports:
• Republicans criticized Chu for a \$528 million loan to Solyndra, a solar power company that is now bankrupt.
Obama said in a statement Friday, referring to billions of dollars in Energy Department loans to boost renewable energy such as wind and solar power:
• Chu brought a unique understanding of both the urgent challenge presented by climate change and the tremendous opportunity that clean energy represents for our economy.
• During his tenure, Chu helped move the country toward energy independence, Obama said,
• Thanks to Steve, we also expanded support for our brightest engineers and entrepreneurs as they pursue groundbreaking innovations that could transform our energy future.
Chu, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997, has not only been silent about the fictional physics of the BIG BLUFF, but has actively promoted CO2 alarmism based on the bluff. In a letter to Energy Department employees, Chu said he
• was proud of his tenure and cited dozens of accomplishments, including doubling the production of renewable energy from wind and solar power.
• Installations of solar electric systems have nearly doubled in each of the last three years, he said, while fully 42 percent of new energy capacity in the U.S. last year was from wind - more than any other energy source.
PS2 Notice that to question standarization is in a way meaningless because it is like questioning a definition, like questioning that there are 100 centimeters on a 1 meter. But when a definition is twisted into a statement about physics, a basic principle of science is violated, and such violation always has a purpose to twist the brains of people. To define DLR by formula is the first step towards CO2 alarmism with the atmosphere suddenly out of the blue by definition given the capacity to heat the Earth surface by 300 W/m2.  This is the BIG BLUFF which must be questioned. This is what Chu should have done, but did not in what can only be described as a corruption of the ideals of physics and science.

#### 38 kommentarer:

1. If you raise the temp uf the atmosphere to Ts, then V will be 0, ie the net radiation will be zero, but this does not mean that neither the earth nor the atmosphere has stopped radiating IR. Can´t you see that.

2. Is there a modified S_B law for T_s radiation into a surrounding different from 0K?

3. There is no heat transfer between bodies of equal temp.

4. The True SB reads E = sigma (T_1^ 4 - T_2^4).

5. Claes says:"There is no heat transfer between bodies of equal temp."
But there is still IR acc to sigma T^ 4 from both bodies.

6. You are refereeing to non-existent Stefan-Boltzmann Law. There is no SB with two-way heat transfer.
If you believe there is, you should seek the source of such False SB. If you find one, you should search for its proof and check if it is correct. When you have done that I will be interested to hear your verdict.

7. Consider a hollow sphere, emissivity 1,0 at temperature T (288 K ?), a non-absorbing matter inside. ( Nitrogen ?)

Thermally inside stable.

Then introduce an radiation absorbing matter,(CO2 ?) all other equal.

Will that matter be warmer than the nonabsorbing?

8. Of course an absorbing medium can get warmer than a non-absorbing when subject to radiative forcing.

9. No one deriving the SB law requires T=0´K in background. I think it is your own invention like the one way SB law.
The link below is just one example. Especially look at the thermodynamic derivation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

10. Planck's Law, which is the basis of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, describes one-way heat transfer from a warm body to a colder surrounding. Planck ands Stefan-Boltzmann did not speak about two-way heat transfer, only about one-way heat transfer from warm to cold. Heat transfer from cold to warm is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and those who believe in this magic live in a world of fiction without reality. Why do you insist to cling to this form of mysticism? From where did you get this idea?

11. Claes,

you write:
„There is no heat transfer between bodies of equal temp.“

Yes, but what is the point?

Max Planxck schreibt im Original:
„Bedenkt man, dass jeder emittierte Energiebetrag eine Verminderung der Körperwärme, jeder absorbierte Energiebetrag eine Vermehrung der Körperwärme bedingt, so erhellt man daraus, daß beim thermodynamischen Gleichgewicht je zwei beliebig herausgegriffene Körper vermittelst der Strahlung gleichviel Körperwärme austauschen.“

The net energy exchange is zero. However there is energy that is transported between the two bodies via radiation.

Best regards
Günter

12. Good point Gunther: Also Planck was confused about Planck's Law, because the proof he gave rested on statistics of quanta without sound physical basis. Therefore it is necessary to give a different proof of the radiation law with solid physics basis. I have done so and the proof shows that the heat transfer is one-way from hot to cold. Two-way heat transfer is against the 2nd law since it involves heat transfer from cold to hot as a physical process independent of transfer from hot to cold. Since Planck is dead it is necessary to reprove Planck's Law in order to today properly understand its real meaning. It is meaningless to read old manuscripts like an orthodox priest reads the bible, without critical interpretation.

13. Yes, even Planck sees the exchange of energy between bodies of the same temp.

14. To believe in two-way heat transfer by radiation, is as non-physical as believing in two-way heat transfer by heat conduction. Heat transfer by radiation or conduction from cold to hot is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is to me unbelievable that today people including physicists go around and believe in physics which is against the second law. This is nothing but mysticism or shamanism which is dangerous physics. CO2 alarmism, based on two-way heat transfer by radiation, is the ultimate expression of this complete corruption of physics and scientific principle.

15. Claes,

you confuse heat transfer with energy transfer via radiation.
Planck writes about energy transfer. So do I and so does Lasse.

Regards
Günter

16. What is "energy transfer via radiation" which is not "radiative heat transfer". What is the role of this form of "energy transfer" in climate science?

17. I think you are revealing an extremely important abuse of the S-B law, but I contemplate the following dilemma:
Consider diffusion: Atoms/molecules moves in all directions but because of a concentration difference there is a net transport of one type of matter in one direction.
Consider heat conduction: Atoms/molecules vibrates in all directions, but influence matter that vibrates less, and there is a net heat transport from varm to cold.
Consider radiation: All matter with a temperature radiates in all directions, but there the warmest radiates more strongly towards the colder.
I interpret the erronuous use of the S-B law as follows: Uppwelling radiation from the earth enter an athmosphere of approx 15 degC, and not into 0K. CO" in the atmosphere radiates in all direction into a surrounding with the same temperature, i.e. also not into 0K. That is why the DLR formula is wrong.
Right or wrong? What do you think?

18. Heat conduction can be seen as a result of mixing which tends to decrease difference with heat energy transferred from the rich to the poor. Radiative heat transfer has the same effect of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Mixing is always one-sided in the sense that the rich gives some of his richdom to the poor and the poor gives some of his poverty to the rich. But there is never the case that the poor gives richdom to the rich, because that requires guns which is against the 2nd law.

19. Claes, I think you are making a simple case very obscure. As far as I can see, even with your "true" SB law the atmosphere acts as a blanket slowing down the cooling of the earth. So there ought to be some kind of atmospheric effect. As things stand, I think the core problem is that climatologists insist that only GGHs trap heat. It is quite obvious that all gases have the ability to trap heat, which would significantly reduce the climate sensitivity of CO2, probably by a factor 10 as you have already noted.

20. Claes, if you look at the IR-spectras from two blackbodies with T1 a little > T2 . These spectras overlap each other, so IR from both sides can evidently be absorbed by the other, because emittivity = absorptivity in that frequency region.

Evidently this does not violate the 2nd law of th.dyn.

21. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

22. Spontaneous heat transfer from cold to hot violates the 2nd law and there is no way you can get around this prohibit. If you think so you are fooling yourself. The reason is that you cannot create information out of nothing, while on the other hand it is easy to destroy information without knowing anything. In the cruel word of physics destruction is simple while construction takes time and requires diligence.

23. But what happens in the case I described above. You have earlier been very clever in explaining cut off frequencies in spectra, but now you are without answer. An e-m wave wirh a frequency witin the mutual(overlapping) frequency band can evidently be emitted or absorbed by both bodies. Evidently energy from the cold body can be absorbed by the warm body (and be reemitted). I think you easily understand this but it is evidently too hard to admit.

24. Yes, the radiation from the cold body is directly remitted without causing heating as if it was immediately rejected as inferior energy. The only thing to speak about is what is effectively being absorbed and stored as heat, and that is radiation from the warmer body. To insist that the cold heats the hot is meaningless advocasy without physical meaning. It is like the scholastics meaningless discussion about the number of angels on a knives edge.

25. Claes,

you write:
„Yes, the radiation from the cold body is directly remitted without causing heating as if it was immediately rejected as inferior energy.“

Your line of argument violates the principle of detailed balance or microsopic reversibility if you want.
You mix macroscopic concepts (heat) with microscopic physics (energy of photons). From an microscopic point of view their is no such thing as inferior energy.

Best regards
Günter

26. Yes, now we are on the same "plane". But the blue arrow in your picture can be seen as this emitted energy (from cold) and reemitted energy (from warm), so there is some kind of reality in it, not pure fantasy (DLR exists).
Discussion finished?

27. Lasse H and other confused non-engineers, instead of thought bubbles about nonsense situations, why not do some experiments as carried out in laboratories of engineering researchers. Have water flowing through a thin walled horizontal exposed copper pipe. Measure the flow of water, measure the water temperature before the point of exposure and after the exposed point, measure the surface temperature along the whole length of the exposed part. Make your measurements under different exposure conditions which are measured , eg sun light& no wind, dark & no wind, different surround air temperatures, etc. Then change the surface conditions such as painting the surface, coating with a black absorber, putting insulation in place etc This is engineering experimentation and engineering science. Thermodynamics, and heat transfer are engineering science subjects physics. Read up the work done by engineering experimenters such as Prof. Hoyt Hottel. Chapters 4 & 5 of Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook is a good summary of the findings of engineers. Maybe after reading that and looking at the results of your experimentation you may get close to understanding.
Claes, I suggest that you turn to other aspect of heat transfer, such as phase change, which does affect weather and climate. The paper by Dr Anastassia Makarieva et al (which you can download here http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.html) is causing some controversy eg http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/, and http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/makarieva-et-al-make-the-headlines-with-where-do-winds-come-from-paper/
In discussion some time ago about the pre-edition of the paper I suggested to Anastassia possibly in direct communication that that you, Claes, would be a good reviewer because of your excellent understanding of mathematics and your knowledge of fluid dynamics.
Keep well cementafriend

28. No Lasse H, there is no heat transfer from cold to warm, since it would violate the 2nd law. The red and blue arrows in the picture is fiction without physical reality. You insist with advocasy without physics. Follow the advice of the last comment and study some engineering books on radiative heat transfer.

29. Claes, you suddenly admitted that there is radiation from cold that is reemitted from warm body, which is exactly the blue arrow in your picture. But I have never said something about heat transfer from cold to warm. I am just talking about the physical reality, about which radiation that exists. The earth is not directly warmed by GHG-gases but if these gases are warmed by the radiation from earth (which is possible acc to you), then the radiation from earth will diminish acc to either the "false" or your true SB law, so with constant input from the sun the earth temp will rise a little. I think that this is very logic and easy to see.

30. You continue your meaningless advocasy, but we are speaking about heat transfer and there is no heat transfer from cold to warm because it is against the 2nd. DLR as measured by a DLR-meter is fiction without physical reality. It is the big bluff supporting CO2 alarmism. Of course it takes some courage to realize that it is a bluff, since the bluff is so consistently trumpeted by WMO and IPCC. But if you follow the logic of science then you will see through the bluff and you will get upset when understanding that you have been fooled.

31. Did you misplace my question about anharmonic treatment?

I repeat it then.

If you acknowledge that it is important to model real solids (you said so up in this comment section), why doesn't your model treat anharmonic coupling in your solid? It should be included if you intend to treat heat conducted in a realistic solid.

32. My analysis of blackbody radiation is based on near resonance under small damping, which maybe is the anharmonicity you are asking for.

33. Claes, I agree with you that heat tranfer always goes from warm to cold. I have never said anything else. But if the "blanket" of GHG-gases gets warmer (warmed by earth) then it is fully logic that the earth will get warmer, acc to the two SB-laws (unless thermodynamic mechanisms fully counteract it).

34. Good, that we agree on (some of) the basics: So DLR of 300 W/m2 is fiction, and a DLR-meter measuring DLR = 300 W/m2 is fiction? Next question is to understand the effect of CO2 on OLR, as recorded by OLR-meters. My analysis is that this is also fiction: CO2 has negligible influence on OLR, far from the measured 40 W/m2 in total and 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling. OK?

35. Claes, I think you should be an exellent politician... ;-)

36. No, this is science and scientific logic and truth, not politics and twisted truth.

37. Shouldn't the temperature of outer space be approx. 2,9 K, due to the omnipresent cosmic background radiation?

I do believe in the greenhouse effect, but not in CO2-alarmism.

When citing S-B law and Planck’s radiation law, I use energy not heat. So when you have a system comprising one cold and one warm blackbody, the radiated energy from the cold blackbody will be absorbed by a warmer blackbody and principally be transformed into heat. But the energy irradiated from the warm to the cold blackbody is higher. Eventually, the two blackbodies will have the same surface temperature and the net energy transfer between the two blackbodies will be zero.

I do have problems understanding the backradiation of the terrestrial atmosphere, which, obviously, is common knowledge to IPCC. Energy absorption and heat convection in the terrestrial atmosphere is more appropriate, I think.

I picture the terrestrial atmosphere as a blanket, which is wrapped around the earth at night, so the heat from the surface is more or less trapped.

Now, study the planet Venus and its atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
A far distant observer outside Venus, using the visible spectrum, cannot see the surface of Venus basically due to a cloud, which is completely surrounding the planet at a certain altitude and at large comprising sulfuric acid.

The cloud blocks and reflects most of the light in the visible spectrum. According to Physics known to me, the reflective characteristics works both ways. Visible light irradiating the cloud from below is also blocked and reflected in the same manner.

(What we earthlings see in the night sky, is not the light from the sun reflected at the surface of Venus, but the reflected light at the cloud. The surface has, however, been imaged by radar.)

Hypothetically, the same observer is now positioned at the surface of Venus. The field of view of the observer is directed towards the sun.
What will the observer see?
Will the observer be able to see the contour of the sun?
If not, why can't the observer discern the sun?
And if not, and assuming the observer can elevate himself in the Venusian atmosphere, at what altitude is the sun discernible? What is then the distance to the cloud?

Those more or less rhetorical questions, without stipulating whether there is any greenhouse effect on Venus or not, tell us, I think, that it’s more appropriate to speak of reflection, at least in the visible spectrum, than backradiation?

38. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av bloggadministratören.