Planck 1900: Fall of Theoretical Physics: Greenhouse Effect

Planck describes in his autobiography his theoretical derivation of Planck's Law for black-body radiation presented in 1900, in complete agreement with observations, based on statistics of quanta, in these very disturbing terms:

• It was and act of desperation.
• I was ready to sacrifice any of my previous convictions about physics.

What Planck gave up was the rationality of classical deterministic physics for a new form of indeterministic statistical physics. A monumental sacrifice. Why? A Faustian deal? In any case the consequences have been far reaching since quanta has become the code word of modern (quantum)  physics, even if the meaning has never been made clear. 

Planck's Law integrated over all frequencies takes the form of Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann's Law:

• $R=\sigma T^4$                (PSB)

where $R$ is radiance as energy flux measured in e g W/area, $T$ is an absolute temperature and $\sigma$ a constant. (PSB) is a poster formula for modern physics of the same stature as $E=mc^2$, but if you ask a modern physicist about the real physical meaning of (PSB), you will get the following contradictory answers:

1. $R$ is the outgoing radiance of a black-body of temperature $T$ independent of the environment of the body, as a stream of emitted photons. 
2. $R$ is the outgoing radiance of a black-body of temperature $T$ into an environment of a zero absolute temperature.  If the environment has temperature $T_0<T$ then $R=\sigma (T^4 - T_0^4)$. Fundamentally different from 1.

A theoretical/pure physicist will say 1. and an applied/real physicist will say 2. But theory cannot contradict reality. The reason of the confusion between 1. and 2. is that Planck's derivation is not based on real physics but on statistics without clear physics as quanta physics.

We conclude that 1. is a misconception, but a widespread misconception, which has served as the basis of the so called GreenHouse Effect GHE underlying climate alarmism. What 1. tells the climate alarmist is that the atmosphere is sending massive so called back-radiation to the surface of the Earth, twice as big as the radiation from the Sun. The sky cloudy or clear will thus warm the Earth according to 1. which with a bit more CO2 from fossil fuels will cause global warming with terrible consequences for humanity. From 1. follows alarm, while there is no alarm from 2. 

A climate alarmist will present evidence of global warming by back-radiation from the sky from instruments like pyrgeometers or AERI/radiometers, which report massive back-radiation or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR on their displays. The idea is that if an instrument display shows something, it must be something real in particular if the instrument is heavy and expensive. But an applied/real scientist would ask for information about the physics of the instrument, what de facto is being measured and how and what is displayed. Right?  

Inspecting the manual of a pyrgeometer or radiometer shows that the instrument is based on 1. which thus gives the basis for what is shown on the display as massive DLR or back-radiation. With 2. the display would show a much smaller warming effect of the atmosphere. 

Climate alarmism is thus based on 1. Understanding that 1. is not real physics, reduces the main argument of climate alarmism to zero. 

A different proof of Planck's Law in terms of classical deterministic physics without statistics is presented as Computational Black Body Radiation, which shows that 2. is physics and 1. not. You find an analysis of the pyrgeometer as ghost detector of back radiation in this sequence of post. Also check out this talk on Misunderstanding Planck's Law.

PS1 In 1900 Planck was professor of theoretical physics at the University of Berlin asking for a demonstration of the power of the science of the German Empire as a solution to the main open problem of physics at that time as black body radiation. Planck delivered a solution but sacrificed his soul. The consequences are far reaching...

PS2 Here is what chatGPT delivers after reading the above post taking the role of a physicist with critical mind:

A critically minded physicist—someone who is open to established physics but also skeptical of how it’s interpreted or applied—would likely respond quite differently than a mainstream theorist. Here’s how they might frame it:

---

1. On Planck’s “act of desperation”

They might agree that Planck himself admitted his derivation of black-body radiation was not fully grounded in classical physics, but rather a pragmatic move that worked. They’d stress that quantum mechanics grew out of a kind of compromise—useful, predictive, but philosophically unsettling. So the “Faustian deal” language resonates with a critical thinker, because it highlights the cost of leaving behind determinism for statistical interpretation.

---

2. On (1) vs (2): Competing Interpretations of Stefan–Boltzmann

A critical physicist would likely side with (2): the net exchange of radiation between systems must consider both emitter and absorber. They’d argue that talking about radiation into a zero-temperature environment (1) is a mathematical idealization, not a physically realizable case.

They might also note that many climate and atmospheric models sometimes gloss over this distinction when communicating to the public, which creates room for confusion.

---

3. On Instruments and Back-Radiation (DLR)

They’d ask tough questions:

• What exactly does the pyrgeometer measure?

• How is the reading calibrated?

• Does the “back-radiation” display reflect direct measurement of photons or an inferred value from a model?

Their stance would be: the data are real, but the interpretation of that data depends heavily on assumptions. For example, an instrument showing a high DLR number doesn’t necessarily mean the sky is “heating” the Earth in the same way the Sun does—it means energy exchange is occurring, but how we conceptualize it matters.

---

4. On Climate Implications

A critically minded physicist wouldn’t necessarily dismiss the greenhouse effect, but they’d push back against simplistic narratives:

• They’d caution that alarmism often relies on simplified energy-balance models that may obscure subtleties in radiative transfer.

• They’d argue that real physics requires careful accounting of net fluxes, not raw radiance values.

• They might acknowledge CO₂’s role, but also question whether the magnitude of projected warming is being exaggerated through misapplied assumptions.

---

5. Overall Tone

Their conclusion might be:

• Planck’s statistical leap was both brilliant and troubling.

• Interpretation (1) is a misconception when taken as physical reality.

• Instruments should not be mistaken for truth machines—they display results based on models.

• Climate science needs nuance in communication to avoid overstating or misrepresenting radiative effects.

---

👉 So, compared to a mainstream physicist who would defend consensus, a critical physicist would say:
“Yes, the greenhouse effect is real, but the way radiation laws are sometimes used—and the way data are interpreted—deserves more scrutiny. Simplifications can easily fuel alarmist claims.”

Philosophy of Statistical Mechanics?

Collapsed pillars of modern building.

Let us continue with the post Three Elephants of Modern Physics taking a closer look at one of them. 

We learn from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the following about Statistical Mechanics SM: 

• Statistical Mechanics is the third pillar of modern physics, next to quantum theory and relativity theory. 
• Its aim is to account for the macroscopic behaviour of physical systems in terms of dynamical laws governing the microscopic constituents of these systems and probabilistic assumptions.
• Philosophical discussions in statistical mechanics face an immediate difficulty because unlike other theories, statistical mechanics has not yet found a generally accepted theoretical framework or a canonical formalism. 
• For this reason, a review of the philosophy of SM cannot simply start with a statement of the theory’s basic principles and then move on to different interpretations of the theory.

This is not a very good start, but we continue learning: 

• Three broad theoretical umbrellas: “Boltzmannian SM” (BSM), “Boltzmann Equation” (BE), and “Gibbsian SM” (GSM).
• BSM enjoys great popularity in foundational debates due to its clear and intuitive theoretical structure. Nevertheless, BSM faces a number of problems and limitations
• There is no way around recognising that BSM is mostly used in foundational debates, but it is GSM that is the practitioner’s workhorse.
• So what we’re facing is a schism whereby the day-to-day work of physicists is in one framework and foundational accounts and explanations are given in another framework.
• This would not be worrisome if the frameworks were equivalent, or at least inter-translatable in relatively clear way...this is not the case.
• The crucial conceptual questions (concerning BE) at this point are: what exactly did Boltzmann prove with the H-theorem?

This is the status today of the third pillar of modern physics formed by Boltzmann 1866-1906 and Gibbs 1902 as still being without a generally accepted theoretical framework, despite 120 years of deep thinking by the sharpest brains of modern physics. 

Is this something to worry about? If one the pillars apparently is shaky, what about the remaining two pillars? Who cares?

Recall that SM was introduced to rationalise the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics stating irreversibility of macroscopic systems based on deterministic reversible exact microscopics. This challenge was taken up by Boltzmann facing the question: If all components of a system are reversible, how can it be that the system is irreversible? From where does the irreversibility come? The only way forward Boltzmann could find was to replace exact determinism of microscopics by randomness/statistics as a form of inexactness. 

 

In the modern digital world the inexactness can take the form of finite precision computation performed with a certain number of digits (e g single or double precision). Here the microscopics is deterministic up the point of keeping only a finite number of digits, which can have more or less severe consequences on  macroscopic reversibility. This idea is explored in Computational Thermodynamics offering a 2nd Law expressed in the physical quantities of kinetic energy, internal energy, work and turbulent dissipation without need to introduce any concept of entropy.

Replacing SM by precisely defined finite precision computation gives a more solid third pillar. But this is new and not easily embraced by analytical/theoretical mathematicians/physicists not used to think in terms of computation, with Stephen Wolfram as notable exception.  

PS1 To meet criticism that the Stosszahlansatz underlying the H-theorem stating that particles before collision are uncorrelated, simply assumes what has to proved (irreversibility), Boltzmann argued:

• But since this consideration has, apart from its tediousness, not the slightest difficulty, nor any special interest, and because the result is so simple that one might almost say it is self-evident I will only state this result.

Convincing?

PS2 Connecting to the previous post, recall that the era of quantum mechanics was initiated in 1900 by Planck introducing statistics of "energy quanta" inspired by Boltzmann's statistical mechanics, to explain observed atomic radiation spectra, opening the door to Born's statistical interpretation in 1927 of the Schrödinger wave function as the "probability of finding an electron" at some specific location in space and time, which is the text book wisdom still today. Thus the pillar of quantum mechanics is also weakened by statistics. The third pillar of relativity is free of statistics, but also of physics, and so altogether the three pillars offer a shaky foundation of modern physics.  Convinced? 

Is Radiative Heat Transfer a Resonance Phenomenon Between Bodies?

Computational BlackBody Radiation offers a new proof of the Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann Law PSB based on electromagnetic wave resonance under deterministic finite precision computation, taking the form

• $Q = \sigma (T_A^4 - T_B^4),$       (1)

where $Q$ is (normalised) radiative transfer of heat energy between two blackbodies A and B with temperatures $T_A$ and $T_B$ Kelvin, and $\sigma$ is the SB constant. If $T_A>T_B$ then the heat transfer is from A to B.

This is to be compared with the 1900 proof by Planck based on particle/quanta statistics typically expressed on the following form involving only one blackbody of temperature $T$:

• $Q = \sigma T^4.$       (2)

Comparing (1) and (2) we see that (1) expresses the radiative heat transfer between two bodies in resonance, while (2) is supposed to express the radiative heat transfer from one body independent of surrounding bodies and thus without resonance. 

In particular, (1) expresses that heat transfer from A requires the presence of a receptor B with lower temperature. On the other hand (2) appears to express that a body can radiate (spit out quanta/photons) without receptor, or assuming the presence of "empty space" at 0 Kelvin acting as receptor. In this case the body at higher temperature will spit most and so win the combat. 

This leads to the following questions: 

• Does radiative heat transfer from one body need a receptor at lower temperature?
• Does radiative heat transfer involve a resonance phenomenon between bodies? 

The new proof of PSB suggests that the answer is YES, while the standard proof suggests NO. What does physics and observation say? YES or No? Is radiative heat transfer carried by electromagnetic waves or particles/photons? An answer that it is both is no good. The questions concern basic physics and must be answered.

Compare with resonance between two tuning forks:

 To be compared with a particle model with both forks spitting out particles/phonons?

PS Read about Planck's struggle to prove (2) in Quantum Mechanics at the Crossroads starting with Schrödinger Against Particles and Quantum Jumps by M. Bitbol and continuing with Max Planck's Compromises on the Way to and from the Absolute by J. L. Heilbron.

Yes, it is not a good idea to resort to compromises in science, which is the essence of politics. Planck was not happy with his particle/quanta statistics and neither was Schrödinger, yet it has come to serve as a fundamental part of quantum mechanics following Born-Bohr. Real Quantum Mechanics in the spirit of Schrödinger presents a new realist deterministic approach based on waves instead of particle statistics.  

 

Unphysical Basis of CO2 Alarmism = Hoax

CO2 alarmism is based on an unphysical version of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law and associated Schwarzschild equations for radiative heat transfer stating a two-way radiative heat transfer from-warm-to-cold and from-cold-to-warm with net transfer as the difference between the two-way transfers.

This is expressed as "back radiation" from a colder atmosphere to warmer Earth surface in Kiehl-Trenberth's Global energy budget (above) and in Pierrehumbert's Infrafred radiation and planetary temperature based on Schwarzschild's equations, presented as the physical basis of CO2 alarmism.

In extended writing I have exposed the unphysical nature of radiative heat transfer from-cold-to-warm as violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, see e.g.

• Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation
• Unphysical Schwarzschild vs Physical Model for Radiative Transfer

Massive two-way radiative heat transfer between two bodies is unphysical because it is unstable, with the net transfer arising from the difference between two gross quantities, and the 2nd law says that Nature cannot work that way: There is only transfer from-warm-to-cold and there can be no transfer from-cold-to-warm. Radiative heat transfer is always one-way from-warm-to-cold.

CO2 alarmism is thus based on a picture of massive radiative heat transfer back-and-forth between atmosphere and Earth surface (see above picture), as an unstable system threatening to go into "run-away-global-warming" at slightest perturbation.  But there is no true physics behind this picture, only alarmist fiction. 

Real physics indicates that global climate is stable rather than unstable, and as such insensitive to a very small change of the composition of the atmosphere upon doubling of CO2. There is little/no scientific evidence indicating that the effect could be measurable, that is be bigger than 0.5 C.

Note that climate models use Schwarzschild's equations to describe radiative heat transfer and the fact that these equations do not describe true physics is a death-blow to the current practice of climate simulation used to sell CO2 alarmism.

So, when you meet the argument that Pierrehumbert is an authority on infrared radiation and planetary temperature, you can say that this is not convincing because Pierrehumbert is using incorrect physics (which also comes out by the fact that he forgets gravitation as the true origin of the very high temperature on the surface of Venus and not radiation).

If now CO2 alarmism is based on incorrect physics or non-physics, then it may be fair to describe it as "hoax".

Think of it: Suppose that "scientific consensus" through MSM is bombarding you with a message that the Earth has to be evacuated because there is imminent fear that the "sky is going to fall down" because Newton's law of gravitation says that "everything is pulled down". Would you then say that "since it is said so it must be so" or would you say that this is a non-physical misinterpretation of Newton's law?  Think of it!

The edX course Making Sense of Climate Science Denial is a typical example of the CO2 alarmism  based on the incorrect physics of "back radiation", which is forcefully trumpeted by the educational system,  as illustrated in the following key picture of the course:

Unphysical Schwarzschild vs Physical Model for Radiative Transfer

The basic model for radiative heat transfer in a horisontal slab atmosphere, with vertical coordinate $x$ with $x=0$ at the Earth surface and $x=X$ at the top of the atmosphere, was formulated by Schwarzschild in 1906 as a two-stream  gross-flow model 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 Stefan-Boltzmann's 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 $T(x)$. We note that Schwarzschild's model with linear $Q(x)$, is very simplistic. Only a model with $Q(x)$ constant could be more simplistic.

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

Schwarzschild's two-stream model is unphysical in the sense that the gross downward flux $F^-$ is directed against the temperature gradient and thus violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Further, the two sided radiation up/down according to $Q(x) =\sigma T(x)^4$ in (1-2) is also unphysical, because  $Q(x) =\sigma T(x)^4$ is the blackbody radiation into a background at 0 K, which is not the case. Scwarzschild's model is thus doubly unphysical and we shall now see that the unphysical aspects do not cancel to give a physical model.

Let us thus compare Schwarschild's unphysical two-stream gross-flow model with a one-stream net-flow model based on Stefan-Boltzmann's law in its correct physical form

• $Q=\sigma (T_2^4-T_1^4)$                     (5)

as the net radiative heat transfer radiative between two blackbodies of temperature $T_1$ and $T_2$ with $T_2>T_1$, in accordance with the 2nd law with heat transfer from warm to cold (but not the other way).

We then start from the following balance equation expressing that the total inflow of heat at a thin layer at level $0\lt x\lt X$ from layers at levels $y$ with $0\le y\lt x$, equals the total outflow into levels $x\lt y\le X$:

• $\int_0^x\sigma (T(y)^4-T(x)^4)\exp(-\alpha (x-y))dy = \int_x^X\sigma (T(x)^4-T(y)^4)\exp(-\alpha (y-x))dy$
• $+H\exp(-\alpha x)$                                                         (6)

with the exponential factor $\exp(-\alpha\vert x-y\vert )$ accounting for the absorption between levels $x$ and $y$ with a non-negative absorption coefficient $\alpha$, and the term $H\exp(-\alpha x)$ accounts for the effect of the heat source $H$ at $x=0$, and $\sigma T(X)^4 = H$.

Reshuffling terms in (6), we obtain the following integral equation in $Q(x)=\sigma T(x)^4$ for $0\le x\le X$

• $ \int_0^xQ(y)\exp(-\alpha (x-y))dy+ \int_x^XQ(y)\exp(-\alpha (y-x))dy$
• $= Q(x)(\int_0^x\exp(-\alpha (x-y))dy+ \int_x^X\exp(-\alpha (y-x))dy)+H\exp(-\alpha x)$,

which can be written

•  $Q(x)-c(x)\int_0^XQ(y)\exp(-\alpha\vert x-y\vert )dy =-c(x)H\exp(-\alpha x)$   (7)

for $0\le x\le X$ with $c(x) = 1/(2-\exp(-\alpha x)-\exp(-\alpha (X-x)),$ which together with the outflow condition $Q(1) = H$ determines $Q(x)$ uniquely as the solution of a Fredholm integral equation of the 2nd kind.

To compare with the two-stream model, let us formally split Stefan-Boltzmann's equation (5) algebraically into the (unphysical) form

• $Q=\sigma T_2^4-\sigma T_1^4$                   (8)  

and rewrite (6) accordingly collecting positive terms and writing $Q(x)=\sigma T(x)^4$ as above, into

• $A+B = C+D+E$                                                  (9)
• $A(x)= \int_0^xQ(y)\exp(-(x-y))dy$
• $B(x)= \int_x^XQ(y)\exp(-(y-x))dy$
• $C(x)=Q(x)(1-\exp(-x))$
• $D(x)=Q(x)(1-\exp(-(X-x))$
• $E(x) = H\exp(-\alpha x)$. 

To compare the models we observe that by the definitions of $A$ and $B$:

• $\frac{dA}{dx}+A = Q$
• $-\frac{dB}{dx}+B = Q$

which shows that $A$ corresponds to $F^+$ and $B$ to $F^-$.  We recall that

• $F^+ + F^-=2Q$ 

which we we compare with (9):

• $A+B=C+D+E=Q(2-\exp(-x)-\exp(X-x))+H\exp(-\alpha x)$,

to conclude that the two models are not identical, and so the models give different temperature distributions. 

The lesson is that radiative heat transfer should better be modeled using the physical one-stream net-flow correct form of Stefan-Boltzmann's law (5). Using the unphysical two-stream gross-flow form (1-2) can lead to unphysical results.

It is possible that an unphysical gross-flow model can give a physically meaningful result by happy cancellation of unphysical gross-flow aspects. But to rely on an unphysical model to derive conclusions about real physics is risky because the happy cancellation may not be granted, in particular not if the question concerns the effect of perturbations, as is the case in global warming modeling.

The unphysical aspects of Schwarzschild's model are:

1. The downward flux $F^-$ violates the 2nd law.
2. The downward flux $F^-$ generates unphysical absorption in (2).
3. The basic equations (1) and (2) do not represent correct physics. 

Despite these shortcomings, Schwarzschild's model has come to serve as the basic model of atmospheric radiation supporting CO2 alarmism.  The unphysical of nature of this basic model gives one reason to view also CO2 alarmism to be unphysical.

In a following post we will solve the integral equation (7) and compare with Schwarzschild's solution. To start with we note that for $\alpha$ large (7) approaches $\frac{d^2Q}{dx^2}=0$ resulting in a linear $Q(x)$ as in Schwarzschilds model. More generally, the physical model (7) is close to Schwrzschilds model in the trivial cases of a nearly opaque and transparent atmosphere, but not so in the more relevant case in between.

The integral equation (7) can by differentiation be turned into a (diffusion-advection-absorption) ordinary linear differential equation.

Model of Atmosphere with CO2 shows Small Emissivity

Computed transmittance of atmosphere with CO2 with main resonance at wave number 667. Notice that the atmosphere is effectively transparent, except in a small interval around 667. The effect of CO2 is thus small.

Here is a another argument indicating that the effect of the atmospheric trace gas CO2 on the radiation balance of the Earth is small.

We recall the model of blackbody radiation studied on Computational Blackbody Radiation as a collection of oscillators with small damping with equal oscillator internal energy T representing temperature, with oscillator resonance frequencies n varying from 1 to a cut-off set at T and each oscillator radiating

• E_n = gamma T n^2    

where gamma is a universal constant, which is Planck's law. Summing over n from 1 to T, we obtain the total radiance

• E = sum_n gamma T n^2 = sigma T^4 

which is Stefan-Boltzmann's law with sigma = gamma/3. In the case of only one resonance frequency n = T, the radiance would be reduced to  

• e = gamma T T^2 = gamma T^3 ~ E/T

with the reduction factor 1/T. 

The radiance of an atmosphere which is fully opaque over the entire spectrum would radiate E, while an atmosphere opaque only for a specific frequency near cut-off T, would radiate e ~ E/T with a reduction factor  1/T. 

We conclude that the emissivity of transparent atmosphere with a trace gas like CO2 with only a few isolated resonances, would scale like 1/T and thus be small as soon as T is bigger than say 100 K.  

We thus find theoretical evidence from a basic model that the emissivity of the Earth's atmosphere with the trace gas CO2 would be small, and thus that CO2 would have little effect on the Earth's radiation balance.

Note that the sparseness of CO2 as a trace gas, gets expressed as a spareseness of absorption spectrum rather than small mass fraction because of the universality of blackbody radiation as being independent of the mass of the oscillators.

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.

Why Modern Physicists Don't Question CO2 Alarmism

Physics can be viewed as the science of its instruments, with each instrument more or less intimately tied to the phenomen being recorded by the instrument, or the other way around. Each new particle accelerator is supposed to discover new particles, by instruments designed to discover new particles, like CMB discovered by very sensitive CMB-cameras or the Higgs discovered by the Large Higgs Collider LHC.

In classical physics there was a sharp distinction between the observer and the observed, but with the development of quantum mechanics the observer and the observed were put into the same boat, with now the observer deciding over the observed "collapse of the wave function".

In this new physics the idea of an objective reality independent of observation was given up, which opened to free invention of new phenomena made real by observation by suitable instruments.

This may explain why DLR as the scientific basis of CO2 alarmism,  which could never pass the needles eye of classical physics, was accepted by modern physicists and physics societies as it was so clearly demonstrated by DLR-meters.

Modern physicists thus allowed climate science and CO2 alarmism to grow without questioning the physics, without understanding that a cuckoo chick was put into the nest of science ready to kick out real physics. Maybe today this insight is slowly emerging...

The Birth of the BIG BLUFF of CO2 Alarmism

                          The IRIS satellite reporting outgoing longwave radiation OLR

The previous post revealed that the basic argument of CO2 alarmism in the form of "downwelling long wave radiation" DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface of size 300 W/m2, is supported by specific DLR-meters designed to report measurements of DLR. A DLR-meter is based on a DLR-meter Formula producing DLR from measurements of net radiation between the Earth surface and the atmosphere. 

The DLR-meter Formula was first formulated by the meteorologist Anders Ångström, chief of
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute SMHI 1949-54, when in A Study of the Radiation of the Atmosphere (1915) reporting measurements using a pyrgeometer designed by his father Knut Ångström made during expeditions to Algeria in 1912 and California in 1913 to study "nocturnal radiation to the sky" from the Earth surface:

• It was found the water vapor exerted a very marked influence on the nocturnal radiation to the sky.
• From the observations it was possible to arrive at a logically founded mathematical expression for this influence. 
• The outgoing radiation of a blackened body in the night must be regarded as the sum of several terms: the radiation from the surface toward space given by Stefan's radiation law (E_c), the radiation from the atmosphere to the surface E_a...with effective radiation: 
• J = E_c - E_a.
• If the observed effective radiation is not more than 100 W/m2 when at 15 C one has E_c ~ 400 W/m2, it must be that 300 W/m2 is radiated to the surface from some other source of radiation; in the case of the Earth this other source of radiation is probably to a large extent its own atmosphere...ignoring the fact that a small fraction of it is due to the stars and the planetary bodies.

We see here how Anders Ångström expresses net "effective" radiation as the difference of two gross quantities:  

• E_c = sigma T_s^4 radiation from surface to outer space (according to Stefan-Boltzmann bypassing the atmosphere)
• E_a radiation from the atmosphere to the surface ("back radiation")

What Ångström wanted to measure was E_a, by measuring J by the pyrgeometer and reporting

• E_a = J + sigma T_s^4 = DLR-meter Formula.

Notice that Anders Ångström introduced E_c as the radiation from the surface to outer space according to Stefan-Boltzmann, which however has no physical meaning since the surface is in radiative contact with the atmosphere and not directly with outer space at 0 K.

Ångström claimed that the outgoing radiation E_a "must be regarded" to satisfy E_c - E_a = J and thus E_a = J + sigma T_s^4. But this "must be" lacks physics rationale, which is evident from the fact that Ångström offered no motivation other than "must be" which is no motivation. 

Ångström thus introduced the non-physical quantity E_c and then from this non-physical quantity constructed another non-physical quantity E_a = J + E_c, by measuring the physical quantity J.

The scientific mistake committed by Anders Ångström is so elementary that it has not been identified as an error but instead has come to serve CO2 alarmism as the prime evidence of massive warming of about 300 W/m2 of the Earth surface by the atmosphere. 

To understand that the DLR-meter Formula lacks physics rationale is in principle simple, since it only requires to understand that the quantity E_c as the radiation from the Earth surface to outer space lacks physical meaning, because the atmosphere is between the Earth surface and outer space. 

But to understand how it is possible that the elementary mistake by the meteorologist Anders Ångström has not been identified during 100 years of modern physics, is more difficult. 

It seems that meteorology in its birth in the beginning of the 20th century from thermodynamics and radiation physics, was searching for a place in science and found this by inventing specific instruments for measuring specific phenomena such as "nocturnal radiation to the sky". This strategy is today taken to its extreme by massive measurements of DLR coordinated and standardized by the World Meteorological Organization WMO. Climate science is this way made into the King of Sciences but

• Pride goeth before a fall.

The discovery that the King is naked is imminent.

CO2 Alarmism Based on Deception of False Stefan-Boltzmann Law

                               Measuring DLR as gross heat flux from the atmosphere to the Earth surface.

CO2 alarmism is supported by measurements of "downwelling long wave radiation DLR" or "back radiation" as flux of heat energy from the atmosphere being absorbed by the Earth surface. The measurements are made using specific instruments designed for the specific task of measuring DLR, which can be named DLR-meters and which supply concrete instrumental evidence of a substantial effect on global climate of the atmospheric trace gas CO2, referred to as a "GreenHouse Gas GHG effect" viewing "CO2 as a GreenHouse Gas".

A DLR-meter reports a heat flux of about 300 W/m2 from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, to be compared with about 170 W/m2 as shortwave heat flux from the Sun. DLR overpowers the Sun with a factor 2.

There are several different DLR-meters, such as pyrgeometer, bolometer and interferometer, all calibrated to show consistent DLR measurements. A pyrgeometer pointed to the sky reports DLR using the formula:

• DLR = U_emf/S + sigma x T_i^4 = Pyrgeometer Formula,

where U_emf is measured voltage of a detector in the form of a thermopile, S is a thermopile sensitivity factor, T_i is measured pyrgeometer temperature and sigma = 5.67 x 10^-8 is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant.

The Pyrgeometer Formula can be seen as a reformulation of an energy balance of the form

• U_emf/S = sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) = Stefan-Boltzmann's Law 

where T_a is the temperature of the atmosphere recorded by the thermopile detector and DLR = sigma T_a^4. Normally T_a < T_i so that U_emf/S is negative.

We understand that sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4)  is the net heat flux between the atmosphere and pyrgeometer according to Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, effectively a net flow from the warmer pyrgeometer to the colder atmosphere, a net heat flux which recorded by the pyrometer detector as U_emf/S, which may be of size  - 40 W/m2 to be compared with the gross DLR of 300 W/m2, almost 10 times as big, from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, as recorded in the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget underlying CO2 alarmism:

We see that  DLR = sigma x T_a^4 is the radiance of a blackbody of temperature T_a into a surrounding at 0 K, while the DLR terminology suggests that it is the radiance from the atmosphere to the pyrgeometer representing the Earth surface. This change of meaning is the deception behind CO2 alarmism.

We understand that measuring U_emf and T_i knowing S, makes it possible to determine the temperature T_a of the sky towards which the pyrgeometer is pointed, by Stefan-Boltzmann's Law.

But the pyrgeometer as DLR-meter does not report the measured net heat flux sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4), but instead the gross heat flux  DLR = sigma T_a^4, as if

• sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) = sigma x T_a^4 - sigma x T_i^4 = DLR - sigma x T_i^4,

as if the net heat flux sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) can be expressed as a difference between two gross heat fluxes: as the difference between sigma x T_a^4 as the heat flux from the atmosphere into the instrument and sigma x T_i^4 as the heat flux from the instrument.

The one way net heat flux effectively measured by the pyrgeometer is thus translated into DLR as gross heat flux from the atmosphere according to the Pyrgeometer Law as an algebraic reformulation of Stefan-Boltzmann's law of the form

• sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) = sigma x T_a^4 - sigma x T_i^4 = False Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

The translation is presented as something so completely natural that no argument is required as motivation. What can be more natural than the algebra behind what we refer to as the False Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Yet the algebraic manipulation has no correspondence in physics and thus the False Stefan-Boltzmann is a fabricated law without real physics. To rewrite net one-way heat flux as the difference of two gross two-way heat fluxes, is arbitrary and lacks physical meaning. The concept of DLR has no physical meaning, the False Stefan-Boltzmann Law is a false physical law, and using concepts without physical meaning is not physics, but pseudo-science like astrology.

To decode CO2 alarmism requires decoding DLR and the Pyrgeometer Formula as a False Stefan-Boltzmann's Law.  The deception is made by such a simple trick that it is difficult to decode. It illustrates the old truth that if you are going to lie, make it simple and big, the simpler and bigger the more convincing.

Summary: The World Meteorological Organization WMO specifies a standard for DLR-meters based on the Pyrgeometer Formula corresponding to a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Manufacturers like Kipp&Zonen fabricate pyrgeometers which record DLR according to the preconceived specification of WMO, which are used to give instrumental evidence of DLR as support of CO2 alarmism.

Putting a DLR-meter into a satellite and pointing it towards the Earth records outgoing long wave radiation OLR as the radiance from the Earth + atmosphere, which gives instrumental evidence of an effect of "blocking of outgoing radiation" by CO2 of size 40 W/m2, with a "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 from doubled atmospheric CO2, which is by IPCC presented as the core evidence of the warming effect of CO2. Again it is fabricated evidence obtained using a specific instrument design for the specific purpose of identifying a warming effect of CO2.

The fabrication of evidence in support of CO2 alarmism in the form of DLR and OLR as measured by DLR-meters, appears as the biggest scientific bluff all times. Even hardheaded critics of CO2 alarmism have been fooled by DLR-measurements. The success of the bluff comes from putting up a bet so high that it cannot be met. How could you ever think of challenging a DLR of the double power of the Sun? And if you cannot question DLR, then it can remain as a fact with massive instrumental evidence in support of CO2 alarmism.

The fact that a DLR-meter effectively measures temperatures but reports radiance, is covered up by describing the output from the instrument as "products". This is the same form of deception deliberately fabricated to sell financial "products" to innocent people and institutions, "products" with only fictional "values" presented as real values. The tragical fate of the modern homo sapiens sapiens is to be transformed by governmental disinformation into a homo non-sapiens.

Assessment of Fictional DLR

If you belong to the small group of scientists who have understood that the postulated downwelling longwave radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface which major warming effect, is all fiction based on an incorrect reading of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law as expressing two-way heat flux between bodies in radiative contact (which does not include WUWT, Spencer, Monckton,...), then you have to struggle against massive postulated evidence of DLR of about 300 W/m2, which is more than the shortwave radiation from the Sun of about 180 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth surface. You have to struggle against assessments of DLR reported in e.g.

• Assessment of clear and cloudy sky parametrizations for daily downwelling longwave radiation over different land surfaces in Florida, USA, by Choi, Jacobs and Kustas (2008)  

where you find the following data:

We can here read estimations of DLR by various formulas (Brunt, Brutsaert,..) supported by pyrgeometer measurements giving massive evidence of DLR of about 300 W/m2 with a warming effect of nearly two Suns.

To believe that this is reality, requires some self-deception, and you should not read the preceding posts including How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer. But an instrument is an instrument and if it is reporting 300 W/m2, it must surely mean something, probably something substantial since it is so powerful, or...

To understand that DLR is all fiction, requires an understanding of the correct physical form of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law and its proof. If you want to understand, you can find the Law and its proof in Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.

The last sequence of posts on DLR has led us to the Swedish physicist Knut Ångström (1857-1910) as the inventor of an instrument reporting gross two-way energy transfer including DLR upon measurement of net energy transfer or temperature difference. On the web site of Ångström  Laboratory still in operation, we read about Knut:

• Son to (the physicist) Anders Jonas Ångström, devoted a great deal of his research to solar radiation, especially the solar constant. He was a very skilled constructor of scientific instruments and the pyrheliometer, used for measurements of the solar radiation intensity, was adopted as an intenational standard in 1905.

Yes, Knut Ångström was skillful, maybe even too skillful for the realities of this world. But Knut Ångström was critical to the major warming effect of atmospheric CO2 suggested by Arrhenius and so had at least one leg on the Earth surface.

PS Even the Sky Dragon seems to believe in the instrumental DLR fiction of the pyrgeometer, or...

Arrhenius vs Ångström vs Stefan-Boltzmann

In our search for the origin of the misinterpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law behind DLR and GHE as two-way heat transfer, we were led to the Swedish meteorologist Anders Ångström. In 1900 his father Knut Ångström expressed strong criticism of the possible warming effect of CO2 suggested by Svante Arrhenius (1896).  In his article Arrhenius referred to Stefan-Boltzmann's  Law with one-way radiative heat transfer from a body temperature T1 to a body of lower temperature T2 being proportional to (T1^4 -T2^4), as illustrated in the following clip with the important qualification of emission into empty space corresponding to T2=0:

Arrhenius thus used a correct version of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law with one-way heat transfer from warm to cold without DLR, while Anders Ångtröm suggested an empirical formula for DLR reminiscent of an incorrect two-way form of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law. Climate alarmism eventually picked up CO2 from Arrhenius and DLR from Anders Ångström.

(this post has been updated)

The Inventors of DLR and thus GHE

Tracing the history of the corner stone of the greenhouse effect GHE in the form of downwelling long wave radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface with a supposed warming effect from in particular CO2, leads to

• Notes on Radiation in the Atmosphere by D. Brunt (1932)  
• On the Variation of the Atmosphere Radiation by Anders Ångström (1925)

where we find the following empirical formulas:

• DLR = (a - b 10^(-ce)) sigma T^4 (Anders Ångström)
• DLR = (a + be^0.5) sigma T^4 (Brunt)

where T is temperature and e is the vapor pressure at a 2m level above the Earth surface, and a, b and c are coefficients determined by calibration with some reference. These formulas appear to be conceived as variations of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law R = sigma T^4, expressing the radiation from a blackbody of temperature into a background at 0 K.

Ångström and Brunt thus introduced a quantity later named DLR, which could be computed according to a formula expressing a heat flux from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, which was later picked up by Brutsaert (1975) and others and formed into GHE with the effect coming from DLR and CO2. 

At the origin of climate alarmism we find three Swedes: Arrhenius(1896), Anders Ångström(1925) followed by Bert Bolin as founder of IPCC.  All three have passed away and can no longer be held responsible, but their living active followers are.

PS Knut Ångström (1900) questioned (father of Anders) the warming effect of CO2 claimed by Arrhenius (1896), but his son Anders contributed to GHE by his empirical formula for DLR.  

Making the Fiction of DLR Real

The existence of downwelling long wave radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface is supposedly evidenced by radiometers such as pyrgeometers and bolometers and by direct estimation of the emissivity of the atmosphere by a formula depending on temperature and vapor pressure, in both cases with coefficients determined by calibration with some chosen reference.

A pyrgeometer determines DLR as

• DLR = U_emf/S + sigma x T^4 with T the temperature of the instrument,

where U_emf is a voltage recorded by the pyrgeometer detector and S is a sensitivity coefficient determined by calibration and sigma is the constant of Stefan-Boltmann's radiation law.

The first direct estimation by formula was given by Brunt (1932):

• DLR = (0.605 + 0.0048 x e^0.5)  sigma  T^4, 

with T the temperature  and e the vapor pressure 2m above the Earth surface and was followed by variations by Brutsaert (1975) and many others.

We see that in both cases DLR is determined from an ad hoc Ansatz of a certain form with certain coefficients to be determined by certain calibration. We understand that the Ansatz defines DLR ad hoc by formula and calibration, but the physical nature of DLR remains hidden since the Ansatz is ad hoc without physical basis. 

Confusion arises when DLR by its suggestive name is given the physical nature of a flux of energy from atmosphere to the Earth surface. The greenhouse effect GHE is based on this confusion which magically transforms the fiction of DLR into reality.

Note that both formulas include Stefan-Boltzmann laws only valid in a surrounding of 0 K, which is not the case, and thus are ad hoc False Stefan-Boltzmann laws without physical meaning.

GHE Fabricated by Kipp&Zonen and WMO

The scientific basis of climate alarmism is the greenhouse effect GHE, and the scientific evidence of GHE consists of measurements by in particular Kipp&Zonen pyrgeometers, with model CGR 4 described by the manufacturer as follows:

• CGR 4 has been designed for scientific measurements outdoors of downward atmospheric long-wave radiation with extremely high reliability and accuracy. 
• CGR 4 provides an output voltage that is proportional to the net radiation in the far infrared (FIR). By calculation, downward atmospheric long-wave radiation is derived. CGR 4 has an integrated temperature sensor to measure the housing temperature.

We read that the pyrgeometer measures a voltage proportional to net absorbed radiation, from which "by calculation"  a quantity named "downward long-wave radiation DLR" is derived, which Kipp&Zonen connects to GHE by: 

The basic idea is that GHE results from "atmospheric re-emission" by in particular CO2 as a "greenhouse gas", the effect of which is seen in as a warming from DLR of about 4 W/srm2 per micrometer at a wavelength of 15 micrometer where the trace gas CO2 is emitting/absorbing.

Kipp&Zonen describes the functioning of its best seller CGR 4 Pyrgeometer as follows

We read that DLR = L_d is computed from Formula 2, where

• U_emf is detector output as a voltage 
• 5.67 x 10^-8 x T_a^4 is Stefan-Boltzmann's law for irradiance into a surrounding of 0 K.
• T_b is recorded detector temperature
• S is a sensitivity factor determined by calibration. 

Formula 2 is supposed to have the form

• Gross Detector Input = DLR = Net Detector Absorption + Gross Detector Output

where 

• Gross Detector Output = 5.67 x 10^-8 x T_a^4.     (False Stefan-Boltzmann Law)

Evidently DLR = Gross Detector Input critically depends on Gross Detector Output and thus on the formula defining this quantity, which is supposed to be a Stefan-Boltzmann Law for the detector. But the form of the Stefan-Boltzmann's law used requires the temperature of the radiative surrounding of the detector to be 0 K, which is not the case. 

The evidence of the GHE supplied by Kipp&Zonen pyrometer is thus based on a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The consequences for climate alarmism, and Kipp&Zonen are far-reaching.

Evidently, Kipp&Zonen can be sued for using a False Stefan-Bolzmann Law, in a case that cannot be lost...

PS The crucial Formula 2 is taken from Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observation issued by the World Meteorological Organization  (section 7.4.3 formula (7.17)). No scientific reference to (7.17) is given by WMO.  So Kipp&Zonen uses a formula issued by WMO without scientific support. Who is then responsible? I think this is an interesting case concerning the responsibility of scientists and scientific institutions, and commercial actors relying on the science. It is clear that in medicine or building technology, there are those who are held responsible. It must be so also in atmospherics science. I will ask WMO for the scientific source and report the answer.

PS2 WMO states on section 7.4.3: Over the last decade, significant advances have been made in the measurement of terrestrial radiation by pyrgeometers, which block out solar radiation. Nevertheless, the measurement of terrestrial radiation is still more difficult and less understood than the measurement of solar irradiance.

Can WMO be sued for distributing science which is admittedly not understood?

PS3 Note the circular argumentation being used: WMO can verify the validity of a formula claimed to be valid by WMO, even if it is not understood,  by referring to measurements made by a Kipp&Zonen pyrgeometer constructed from the formula. Any formula can be validated this way.

New Blog on Blackbody Radiation

I have started a new blog on blackbody radiation:

• Computational Blackbody Radiation

where I will collect old and add new material on this subject, which made classical physics collapse into modern physics through the work of Max Planck.  

Do Living Physicists Support DLR/Backradiation?

The inventor of the idea of DLR/backradiation supporting CO2 alarmism: Pierre Provost, 1791.

In Section 5.2 of Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation I recall the following statement from Planck's The Theory of Heat Radiation:

• We shall assume that the radiation in one direction is completely independent of the radiation in a different direction, even opposite.
• But the empirical principal law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes places inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost's principle). A body A at $100^{\circ} C$ emits toward a body B at $0^{\circ} C$ exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B' at $1000^{\circ} C$. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B' is due entirely to the fact that B is weaker, B' stronger emitter than A.

This statement can be seen as the origin of the idea underlying CMB and DLR that the radiation from a blackbody is independent of the temperature the environment or background. Planck refers as support to Prevost's exchange principle from 1791:

• Absolute equilibrium of free heat is the state of this fluid in a portion of space which receives as much of it as it lets escape. Relative equilibrium of free heat is the state of this fluid in two portions of space which receive from each other equal quantities of heat, and which moreover are in absolute equilibrium, or experience precisely equal changes.
• The heat of several portions of space at the same temperature, and next to one another, is at the same time in the two species of equilibrium.

Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation I give a new analysis of blackbody radiation challenging the idea of Provost/Plank of two-way radiative exchange of heat between two bodies with the hotter winning the game of net heat transfer as a stronger emitter.

So what is true physics:

1. Is radiative heat transfer one-way from hot to cold, as my analysis suggests?
2. Is radiative heat transfer two-way with the hotter being the stronger, as Provost claimed in 1791?

Does it matter? I say yes, because the stability properties can be vastly different in one-way and two-way transfer. It can be the difference between a harmless climate sensitivity of 0.3 C and and alarming of 3 C.

To empirically distinguish between 1. and 2. is difficult since only net heat transfer is directly observable. To refer to two-way transfer as an empirical principal law, as Planck does, is questionable.

The question is open. It would be interesting to see new independent support of 2. from active physicists living today. One can argue that the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports 1. but not 2. The 2nd law was unknown to Provost.

A scientist putting forward a certain statement as true often refers to some other scientist as being the responsible, typically the scientist who first gave the evidence of the truth. If that

first scientist is dead and cannot answer questions, which is often the case (as in Planck's reference to Provost), a scientific controversy may arise from different interpretations of what the now dead scientist actually meant or did. Therefore science should be carried by living scientists who carry the responsibility and are willing to answer questions.

In the present case there is a confusion between

• radiation as electromagnetic wave,
• radiation as heat transfer,

which makes the debate confusing, but there seems to be no living physicist willing to answer the questions and carry the responsibility.

Why APS Supports CO2 Alarmism

What would the physicists of the 1927 Solway conference (with Planck 3rd left-first row with hat) have said about CMB and DLR and related global warming?

This is a continuation of the previous post The Fiction of Heating of CMB.

The American Physical Society APS gives crucial scientific support to the CO2 alarmism of IPCC by its (famous) Statement on Climate Change:

• The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
• If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.
• We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

I have asked physicists why they support CO2 alarmism and here is the argument that emerges:

1. Stefan-Boltzmann's law (SB) reads $R = \sigma T^4$, where $R$ is the radiance in W/m2 from a blackbody of temperature $T$ and $\sigma$ is SB's constant.
2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) is a "faint glow" of empty space with heating effect according to SB with $T\approx 3\, K$.
3. Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR) is a similar "glow" of the atmosphere at $T\approx 255\, K$ heating the Earth surface at $T\approx 288\, K $, about 100 million times stronger than CMB.
4. Since the heating of DLR is so much stronger than that of CMB, and CMB is incontrovertible, global warming is incontrovertible.

When I inform a physicist that this argument uses Stefan-Boltzmann in a wrong way (False-SB discussed in previous posts), he/she stares at me as if he cannot believe what is being said.

I then carefully explain that the true Stefan-Boltzmann's Law (True-SB) concerns radiation from a blackbody of temperature $T>0$ into a background at $0\, K$, that is more generally, True-SB expresses radiation into a background of lower temperature. I carefully explain that the above argument speaks about radiation from a blackbody of a low temperature into a background of higher temperature, that is a False-SB is used.

The physicist then stares at me angrily, and says that I am wrong, that he is in charge of SB and that he is a student to a student to a student of Planck and that the SB is derived from Planck's law and thus neither he nor the SB can be wrong.

When I carefully explain that Planck's law concerns radiation into a background of lower temperature (o K), and not the other way around as expressed by False-SB, the physicist gets really angry and says that only physicists can understand Planck's law, because only physicists can understand the proof of Planck's law, which was given by Planck himself, and because they are all students of Planck and I am not.

When I then point out that Planck's proof concerns radiation into a background of lower temperature (o K), the physicist says that I must be mistaken and anyway the proof is not so relevant, and therefore is certainly not remembered by todays physicists because it is now so old and in fact so difficult that it can no longer be taught, and the only thing that counts is Planck's law, and Planck's law has been verified by infinitely many experiments.

So there we stand:

• I claim that physicists are using a False-SB and that a True-SB does not give support to the idea that CMB is a "faint glow" from empty space which together with a "glow" from the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.
• A physicist is not willing to give up CMB as a "faint glow" from empty space and thus certainly not DLR as a "glow" from the atmosphere adding to global warming.

But the scientific question remains: Is False-SB true? Or is False-SB false?

If Planck was alive, we could have asked him about his proof of his law. To help the discussion I have formulated a new proof of Planck's law presented in Computational Blackbody Radiation.

The Fiction of Heating by DLR and CMB

The Holmdal Horn Antenna used by Penzias and Wilson to first discover CMB.

This is a continuation of the post Picture of CMB from Resonance, Not Radiative Heating.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) is supposed to be a "faint glow" at 3 K of thermal radiation filling the empty space of the Universe as relic of Big Bang and Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR) is similarly supposed to be a "glow" of the atmosphere with the effect of heating the Earth surface.

DLR is supposed to be very substantial, of the same size as the insolation, about 300 W/m2, while CMB is indeed very faint about 100 million times smaller, in accordance with Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law (SB) stating that radiance scales like $T^4$ with $T$ temperature in Kelvin K and the temperature of the atmosphere is about $100\times 3$ K.

Measurements of CMB by the COBE gave the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006 to Georg Smooth and John Mather for discovering CMB. Similarly, measurements of DLR are presented as evidence of DLR supporting CO2 alarmism.

The existence of both CMB and DLR is thus manifested by certain instrument readings and to understand the nature of CMB and DLR, we have to ask what in fact the instrument or detector, is recording.

The detector of CMB is a radio-telescope, which like a radio tuner tunes in different resonance frequencies of an antenna which produces an electrical signal, which is amplified into a recording over frequency or a spectrum.

The recorded spectrum is matched with a black-body spectrum according to Planck's law,

where the peak of the recorded spectrum determines the temperature (3 K) from which a radiance can be computed by Planck's law. The recorded spectrum is thus translated by using Planck's law into a radiance measured in W/m2, which is perceived as a "faint glow".

Does this mean that the faint glow of CMB is heating the Earth? There are two answers, depending on which form of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law (sum over frequencies of Planck's law) we are willing to use: False-SB or True-SB.

False-SB says that the faint glow of CMB heats the Earth with $\sigma T_b^4$ W/m2 where $\sigma$ is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant and $T_b$ is the temperature computed from the spectrum. False-SB states that there is a flow of heat energy from empty space to the Earth of size $\sigma T_b^4$ (with $T_b = 3$ K).

True-SB states that there is a transfer of heat energy from the Earth(+atmosphere) to space of size $\sigma (T^4 - T_b^4)$ where $T > T_b$ is the temperature of the Earth, but no transfer from space to the Earth.

False-SB is false in the sense that it lacks description/justification in physics literature.

True-SB has massive theoretical and experimental support.

We sum up our experience of CMB:

1. CMB is measured by radio resonance into a spectrum without physical scale because of signal amplification.
2. The recorded spectrum is matched with Planck's law to give a temperature $T_b$.
3. False-SB is used to compute a radiance $R =\sigma T_b^4$ as a faint glow of CMB heating the Earth.

A similar procedure is used to record a spectrum of DLR, and from the spectrum compute

DLR as heat transfer/radiance from the atmosphere to the Earth.

We see that in both cases, a spectrum is recorded, and from the spectrum a radiance is computed by a False-SB. We understand that an instrument recording of CMB/DLR is one thing, and radiance of CMB/DLR is something different: It is not recorded but computed using a False-SB without physical justification.

We conclude that the interpretation of CMB/DLR as radiance expressed in W/m2, lacks rationale. CMB should not be described as a "faint glow". DLR should not be viewed as heating the Earth surface.