tisdag 2 maj 2017

CO2 Global Warming Alarmism: Hour of Reckoning

Driving in the wrong direction on a one-way street, firmly believing it to be a two-way street, is stupid and potentially deadly hazardous for other people.

The US Environmental Protection Agency EPA has now cleansed its web page from CO2 global warming alarmism and US Energy Sec. Perry declares
  • We should ‘renegotiate’ the Paris Climate Change Agreement,
This signals the beginning of the end of the CO2 alarmism driven by EU politicians and US Democrats:
This is a victory for rational science showing that the "CO2 greenhouse effect" has been artificially
boosted to seemingly dangerous levels without proper scientific evidence, only in order to fit a certain political agenda. 

I feel happy to have contributed to this insight through an analysis of the unphysical nature of the concept of "back radiation" which is central to the proclaimed alarmingly big "CO2 greenhouse effect". 

You find "back radiation" in many books on atmospheric physics as one part of a "two-stream" radiative transfer model originally proposed by Schwarzschild in 1905 with net heat transfer warm-to-cold as the difference of two gross heat transfers warm-to-cold and cold-to-warm. See also History of Radiative Heat Transfer.

But what you find in many physics books is not necessarily true physics, and this is the case with two-stream radiative heat transfer, which is fake-science. This is because heat transfer cold-to-warm violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In the two-stream Schwarzschild equations this is present as an effect of unphysical absorption from unphysical back radiation. Schwarzschild formulated his model to allow analytical solution as first priority and did not worry about unphysical aspects. 

Two-stream radiative transfer is based on a mis-interpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann-Planck's Law $\sigma T^4$ as the radiative heat energy emitted by a black body of temperature $T$ Kelvin independent of the temperature of the environment of the body, while the physically correct interpretation is  radiative energy emitted into a background of temperature zero Kelvin. 

The radiative heat energy emitted by a black body of temperature $T$ in an environment of temperature $T_0$ is thus given by $\sigma (T^4-T_0^4)$ if $T_0\le T$. If $T_0>T$ then the body absorbs energy from the environment and emits no energy. 

The mis-interpretation of SBP law is widely spread and apparently accepted by many more or less prominent physicists. This is made possible by the fact that the standard derivation of the SBP law is based on statistics obscuring real physics. I have given an alternative derivation based on transparent physics exhibiting the mis-interpretation.  

CO2 alarmists like two-stream gross flow because small changes of gross flow can be big and support alarmism, while small changes of net flow will remain small and give no reason for alarm. And true radiative heat transfer is one-stream warm-to-cold. 

In short, the CO2 swindle is based on unphysical two-stream radiative heat transfer between the Earth surface and the atmosphere of size 300 W/m2 claimed to suggest a global warming alarm of 3 C, while the true net transfer is 10 times smaller about 30 W/m2, which can only suggest a harmless warming of 0.3 C. 

There is much evidence that CO2 alarmism is scientific swindle, a basic element being the unphysical idea of two-stream radiative transfer connected to a mis-interpretation of the SBP law. To be ignorant of physics may be inconvenient but to make a mis-interpretation of a physical law believing it to be true physics can be very dangerous; for example believing that a one-way street is a two-way street can be lethal...and the more convinced you are the more dangerous...

It is the responsibility of physicists to gard that basic physics of radiative heat transfer is correctly described in the physics literature.  Apparently physicists today have other priorities (like string theory and multiversa) and so the mis-interpretation of the SBP law as a basis for CO2 alarm has been able to survive under the wings of physics, but now the time of reckoning is here...as evidenced by EPA...

Murry Salby is today a leading skeptic to CO2 alarmism, but the mis-conception of two-stream radiative heat transfer was present in his 1996 book Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics as a result of mis-management of fundamental physics in modern times allowing violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as the cornerstone of classical physics.

PS1 Schwarzschild's two-stream model for radiative heat transfer takes the following form for a horisontal slab atmosphere, with vertical coordinate $x$ with $x=0$ at the Earth surface and $x=X$ at the top of the atmosphere, in terms of a gross upward heat flux $F^+(x)$ and a gross downward heat flux  $F^-(x)$ satisfying the following advection-absorption equations for $0\lt x\lt X$:
  • $\frac{dF^+}{dx} + F^+ = Q$               (1)
  • $-\frac{dF^-}{dx} + F^- = Q$               (2) 
where $Q(x) =\sigma T(x)^4$ is supposed to express the SBP law with $T(x)$ the temperature at $x$ and $\sigma$ Stefan-Boltzmann's constant, and $x$ serves as an optical coordinate normalizing absorption. The atmosphere is supposed to be heated from below at $x=0$ by a heat source $H$, and the heat is radiatively transported to the top of the atmosphere from where it is radiated into outer space at 0 K. Conservation of heat energy gives the additional equation
  • $F^+-F^- = H$,                                      (3)
from which follows by adding/subtracting (2) from (1) that $F^+ + F^-=2Q$ and $\frac{d(F^++F^-)}{dx}=-H$ and thus:
  • $2Q(x) = H(X-x)+H$,                          (4)
  • $F^+ =\frac{H}{2}(X-x)+H$
  • $F^-=\frac{H}{2}(X-x)$                        
which determines the temperature profile $T(x)$. Schwarzschild's model resulting in linear $Q(x)$, is very simplistic. Only a model with $Q(x)$ constant could be more simplistic.

Schwarzschild's model (1-2) expresses conservation of upward and downward heat fluxes through a thin atmospheric layer radiating both upward and downward according to SBP in the form $Q(x) =\sigma T(x)^4$.

The model is unphysical because it is based on mis-interpretation of SBP and through the equation
$-\frac{dF^-}{dx} + F^- = Q$ introduces spurious absorption.

In a following post I will consider one-stream models for radiative transport based on real physics.

PS2 I have over the years had heated debates about back radiation and two-stream radiative with many people including Roy Spencer and Judy Curry and I have met the strong grip physics books, right or wrong, can have on peoples minds. Planck is primarily to be blamed because of his unphysical proof of the law of black body radiation using statistical arguments, which he himself did not believe in and was very unhappy with, but also secondarly all the leading physicists after Planck who uncritically have accepted what cannot be true physics.

I have many times met the reaction, when I express my view that two-stream radiative heat transfer to be unphysical, that people get upset and in anger block further communication. Thus the idea of two-stream radiative heat transfer has been protected from scrutiny allowing it to serve as a corner-stone of the "greenhouse effect" invented to serve CO2 global warming alarmism. 

17 kommentarer:

  1. Claes I know that you are correct. You may have read the following article by Willis Lamb Jr Nobel prize physicist 1955 Anti-photon
    W E Lamb Jr
    Appl. Phys B ^0 77-84 (1995)

  2. Hi Claes

    I'm interested in thermal transport and thermal storage. I have started to look at, and are trying to understand your text Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.

    I wonder if you can answer a question that could clarify your approach.

    The u in the radiation models, is that representing displacements in the material constituting the blackbody?

  3. Yes, it represents chargé displacement.

  4. I am looking at page 41 in "ambsblack.pdf" here, and I can't see how the radiation models would be on a sound physically basis.


    You write that the equation (8.1) is modelling a vibrating system of charged particles. It looks like you want this to mean a uniformly distributed net charge in the system. Why are there no electrostatic interactions in your equation? The only way around this would be a material with a large dielectric constant, but that would effectively screen all radiation and remove the forcing from the equation.


    I just come to think of another issue that seems problematic in the context of blackbody radiation.

    Assuming your equation holds as it is stated, without Coulomb interaction. Vibrations in a real solid has a structural cutoff in the frequencies on the order of 10THz. That would correspond to radiation in the less energetic part of the infrared, but not any radiation more energetic than that. That would include most infrared radiation, visible light, UV and beyond. Even the blackbody spectra at room temperature is not well covered with the available frequency range ( ~< 10THz)

    The take home message here would be that --- Larmor radiation originating from lattice vibrations can impossibly be the sole mechanism behind blackbody radiation --- A wave equation, as the one you propose, can not capture the full physical picture necessary for blackbody radiation.


  5. I agree, the model is conceptual rather than modeling real physics, and so it is of interest to find a more realistic model.

  6. So in that case, it seems as the merit of the radiation models are unclear in the case of a real physical system.


    I noticed another strange thing here in this post.

    In the following paragraph.

    "The radiative heat energy emitted by a black body of temperature T in an environment of temperature T0 is thus given by σ(T−T0) if T0≤T. If T0>T then the body absorbs energy from the environment and emits no energy."

    The statement that the body "emits no energy" is extraordinary.

    If the body has a temperature T, then there are exited states above the ground state in the body. That is the meaning of having a temperature. An amount of these states will decay towards the groundstate while emitting electromagnetic radiation.

    Many of these decays are well modeled by first order time-dependent perturbation theory, that is, to be clear, perturbations on the groundstate. In this theory there are no temperature dependence for the existence of these decays, hence they occur independent of temperature. The temperature enters, and dictates the amount of decays per unit time, not the existence of decays.

    How then, can an ambient temperature have impact on the existence of decay of internal degrees of freedom in the body, as you suggest here? There is no temperature dependence for these decays to happen!

  7. In my analysis emission is always connected with absorption. Without absorber there will be no emitter. There is nothing like only emission. Emission-absorption is a coupled process, where in particular it is the presence of the absorber which keeps the emission from many sources in phase allowing transfer of energy. See Secret of the Piano as an app under Newmath on App Store.

  8. So, if light is absorbed in some type of interesting material, as a semiconductor, what happens to the energy?

  9. In my model, a body either transfers energy to a body of lower temp or absorbs energy from a body of higher temp.

  10. I was not thinking about your model, but a real semiconductor.

    As concluded above, that model is not interesting for understanding the behaviour in a real material.

    As stated, first order time-dependent perturbation theory gives sufficient qualitative understanding that excitations and de-excitations doesn't depend on the temperature, they are simply transitions between energy levels.

  11. Are you saying that "perturbation theory" explains blackbody radiation? Where can I read about such a thing?

  12. No, not directly.

    What it does is that it shows your assumption wrong, the assumption that a body colder than the surrounding would not radiate.

    There is no temperature dependence up to leading order. The temperature enters in some kind of occupation function, and then dictates the magnitude of the radiation.


    I could give you some pointers if you are interested in the vast body of research literature on the topic.

  13. Not directly? Occupation function? Yes, please give me some reference to enlighten myself!

  14. No, not directly.

    Time dependent perturbation theory is an approximation method used to estimate transition rates between energy states. As I written a couple of times now, this is relevant to refute your assumption that a cold object in a hotter environment would cease to radiate electromagnetic radiation.

    A body always has a temperature corresponding to excitations away from the groundstate. Since there are finite transition rates towards the groundstate, where some channels include electro-magnetic radiation, some amount of energy will always leave as radiation. Since the transition rates dominantly are not temperature dependent, there will always be radiation losses.


    About the litterature.

    There is a huge body of research literature on these topics (e.g. Physical Review Letters, Physical Review B, Nature Materials, Journal of Applied Physics, Chemistry of Materials...).

    This is of course a bit of a hurdle due to the vast amount of material. But more importantly it is a great strength, since the field of condensed matter physics is very matured.

    I would suggest to start with something very basic, such as Kittels "Introduction to Solid State Physics" if you have no prior experience with condensed matter physics. Then move up to something basic such as Ashcroft and Mermins "Solid State Physics" or Marders "Condensed Matter Physics". These books introduces terminology, basic methods and theory. Then move on to research literature.

  15. Maybe we are speaking about different physical phenomena: I speak about transfer of heat energy by radiation and there is no such thing from a cold body into a hotter environment, while you say "radiate electromagnetic radiation". What is that supposed to mean?

  16. As you use it here "heat energy" is ill defined. You need to specify what you mean. Do you mean heat? When thermal contact is the only interaction, all transfer is heat.

    Why would there be no such thing? It sounds as you would like to invoke the Clausius statement, it says something that sounds similar to what you are writing here.

    But what you miss then is that classical thermodynamics works with averaged quantities over full relaxation or full cycles. You can not isolate one side, for instance the cold one, you need to consider the full isolated system.

    Clausius statement is equivalent to Kelvins statement, so what it all boils down to (pun intended), is actually pretty simple. Show that a colder body radiating energy into a hotter one would allow us to construct a heat engine that violates the Carnot limit and your assumption holds.

    My tip would be that you show the opposite instead, that such a heat engine satisfies the Carnot limit, that is probably much easier ;-) (since it is true).

  17. Ok, so you are not clear what heat energy is, yet this is the subject we are discussing, radiative heat transfer, transfer of heat energy by radiation, right? Or are you discussing something else, and then what is your point?