lördag 14 februari 2015

KlimatUpplysningen 2: The Big DLR/Back Radiation Bluff

This is a reposting of an earlier post.

The Earth's energy budget is surveyed by
  • pyrgeometers on ground measuring downwelling longwave radiation DLR (GEWEX)
  • bolometers on satellites measuring outgoing longwave radiation OLR (ERBE and CERES)
  • $DLR$ = heat flux from atmosphere to the Earth surface (in W/m2)
  • $OLR$ = heat flux from atmosphere into outer space at 0 K (or 3 K)
operating according to the following algebraic formulas:
  • $DLR  = V/K + \sigma T_i^4$ = $DLR$-Pyrgeometer Formula
  • $OLR = E + \sigma T_i^4$ = $OLR$-Bolometer Formula 
  • $T_i$ is measured instrument temperature
  • $V$ is voltage measured by pyrgeometer sensor and $K$ is a sensitivity coefficient
  • $E$ is heat flux measured by a bolometer thermal link.
The Bolometer Formula is obtained from Stefan-Boltzmann's Law 
  •  $E = \sigma (T_a^4 - T_i^4)$
where $\sigma = 5.67 \times 10^{-8}$ is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant, $T_a$ is the bolometric temperature obtained by calibrating the bolometer against a blackbody. Defining $OLR = \sigma T_a^4$ gives the Bolometer Formula with $OLR$ representing the heat flux from the atmosphere into outer space as stated. 

$OLR$ as reported by ERBE and CERES based on the $OLR$-Bolometer Formula is thus the heat flux from the Earth with atmosphere into outer space based on Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, and as such represents real physics: The Earth + atmosphere transforms shortwave heat energy received from the Sun into longwave heat energy which is returned to outer space as $OLR$.  This makes sense as true real physics.

We now turn to $DLR$, which we know by previous posts represents the BIG BLUFF of CO2 alarmism: The $DLR$-Pyrgeometer Formula seems to be an analog of the $OLR$-Bolometer Formula and the BIG BLUFF is now to argue that since the OLR-Bolometer Formula makes sense as an expression of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, also the $DLR$-Pyrgeometer Formula makes sense. But this is not true!

The $DLR$-Pyrgeometer Formula is supposed to be an algebraic reformulation of  
  • $\sigma (T_a^4 - T_i^4) = V/K$ with $DLR = \sigma T_a^4$,
where $\sigma (T_a^4 - T_i^4)$ is the heat flux between the atmosphere at temperature $T_a$ and the pyrgeometer at $T_i  > T_a$ according to Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, as measured by the (negative) voltage $V$. The BIG BLUFF is to give the algebraic reformulation a physical meaning with $DLR = \sigma T_a^4$ interpreted  as the heat flux from the atmosphere to the Earth surface. But this is not the physics:
  • $\sigma T_a^4$ is heat flux from a blackbody into outer space at 0 K.
  • $\sigma T_a^4$ is not heat flux from the atmosphere to the Earth surface because there is no such heat flux because $T_a <  T_i$.
We can see through the BIG BLUFF of CO2-alarmism with $DLR$ as heat flux from the atmosphere to the Earth surface with a warming effect:

$DLR$ is computed from a non-physical $DLR$-Pyrgeometer Formula which is deceptively similar to a physical $OLR$-Bolometer Formula, and the BIG BLUFF is to say that because $OLR$ is real so is $DLR$ and global warming. 

The BIG BLUFF of $DLR$ is
  • cleverly constructed with a clever mixing of $OLR$ and $DLR$, 
  • cleverly covered up in technical documents presenting the non-physical $DLR$-Pyrgeometer Formula as a version of the True Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, which expresses one-way heat flux from warm to cold,  
  • hiding that the $DLR$-Pyrgeometer Formula represents a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law expressing two-way heat flux with in particular heat flux from a cold atmosphere to a warm Earth surface in violation with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.      
Global warming alarmism is based on $DLR$ demonstrated by instrumental evidence as a scientific evidence of global warming by back radiation from "greenhouse gasses" including the trace gas CO2. But this is fabricated evidence without physics reality and so it is a BIG BLUFF.  It may be the BIGGEST SCIENCE BLUFF EVER, in the sense that it asks for diversion of massive resources into meaningless curbing of CO2 emissions with no doubt catastrophical consequences for large parts of the human population.  

It is not hard to see the bluff once you understand where to look and not get diverted away from what is really happening when the trick is performed.

PS Here is from the product specifikation of the Kipp and Zonen CG3 pyrgeometer:
  • The CGR 3 is a pyrgeometer, designed for meteorological measurements of downward atmospheric long wave radiation. The CGR 3 provides a voltage that is proportional to the net radiation in the far infrared (FIR). By calculation, downward atmospheric long wave radiation is derived.
It could not be more clear: Net radiation is measured, DLR is derived.  The BLUFF! 

6 kommentarer:

  1. Nevertheless, from Herman Harde: Radiation and Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere: A Comprehensive Approach on a Molecular Basis http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/
    In the Conclusion:
    "Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation and no heat. Therefore, in the same way, as radio waves can propagate from a colder antenna to a warmer receiver, microwaves can be absorbed by a hot chicken, or CO2-laser radiation (10.6 μm) can be used for welding and melting of metals up to several thousand °C, so any back radiation from colder and higher atmospheric layers can be absorbed by the lower and warmer layers, and this back radiation can also be absorbed by a warmer surface of the earth without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

    These are examples showing that electromagnetic radiation from low temperature sources can heat warmer objects still, and this contradicts your explanations, or are there other explanations for these examples?
    Grateful for your response.

  2. Dear Petter: You are talking about forced amplified radiation which of course can cause heating of a body which is warmer than a corresponding black body. But without forcing/amplifcation that does not work.

  3. Claes: an electromagnetic wave is a force field acting on electric charges like ions and dipoles. And the force is there how "warm" or "cold" the ion or dipole is. The force is independent of temperature. And it doesn´t matter if the em wave comes from a cold object and hits a warmer one. And these facts don´t violate the 2nd law of th dyn. I think this is more easy to understand than understanding your radiation model.

  4. Thanks for your reply, but I am still confused (now on a higher level though)
    So your statement in post Klimatopplysningen 1; " Effekten blir att uppvärmning kräver strålning från varmare kropp." is not correct?

  5. Petter: Man måste skilja på naturlig strålning utan förstärkning och där är svartkroppen optimum som sätter temperaturskalan som säger att uppvärmning kräver närvaro av en varmare kropp. Med förstärkning kan den naturliga jämvikt som detta medför sättas ur spel och en förstärkt lågfrekvent mikrovåg värma en biff över den temperatur som cut-off skulle sätta för en motsvarande svartkropp. OK?

  6. I am continually surprised at the people commenting about something they have little knowledge and experience. If one is to make a heat balance of a process (eg forming glass in a furnace, making cement clinker in a kiln, calcining alumina, dead burning magnesia for refractories etc), firstly one needs to understand the chemical and physical processes occurring, then one needs to understand the theory and errors behind the measurements and then make many measurements with appropriate instruments and finally cross check with known process equipment designs and process flows. Always, whether heat is transferred from hot exhaust gases to incoming raw materials, preheat combustion air or fuel; or to cool the product with cold air or even with water; or to heat raw materials upto reaction temperature ( maybe over 2000C for magnesia) the heat flux is only in one direction from higher temperature to lower temperature. In the furnace heat is transferred from the flame which maybe be 4000C mainly by radiation. Coal is the most efficient fuel because the flame has an emissivity close to one. However, contrary to any of the climate alarmists it is not the only method of heat transfer, convective heat transfer is also important.
    If one understands heat and mass transfer (eg anyone who uses the Chemical Engineering Handbook as a working reference) it should be clear that there is no back radiation. The 4th postulate of Thermodynamics (or as some put it the 2nd law of Thermodynamics) has been found to apply for over 150 years for industrial practices. I have recently read on physics.org that it also applies on a scale for single atoms.