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.”

Why You Cannot Heat Yourself by a Mirror

When now winter approaches and energy costs are sky-rocketing, you may find yourself desperately seeking means to survive from freezing to death and all possibilites must be tested. Right?

Here is one possibility which typically can be put forward by anyone who believes that all bodies including your own emit a stream of photons with total heat energy scaling with $T^4$ with $T$ absolute temperature according to the Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann Law PSB independent of the temperature of the surrounding. Although this is a misconception of PSB, which in true form also includes the temperature of the surrounding, it is commonly believed even by physicists to be a fact and as such may propose the following:

Put up mirrors around the walls of your living room, if this is where you plan to hide during the winter (Germany allows only one room to be heated), and say to yourself: All these photons that I emit will be reflected back to me from all the mirrors and so I will be heated as much as I am cooling. This is nothing but the so called "greenhouse effect" heating the Earth surface from "back radiation" from the atmosphere supposedly acting somewhat like a mirror sending back radiation from the surface. 

Before you go buying all these mirrors, let me tell you why this won't work by referring to the analysis presented on Computational BlackBody Radiation: This is because transfer of heat from one body A to another B only occurs when say A is warmer than B, and this is because then A emits radiation with higher frequencies than B and it is these higher frequencies that have a heating effect on B lacking these frequencies.  

It is the same as transfer of knowledge from one person who is more knowledgable to a person less knowledgable. In both cases a threshold effect comes into play with the threshold set by the less knowledgable/cooler body. This effect is not present if you think of radiation as a stream of photons where something very essential is missing.

To those who believe that radiative heat transfer involves a stream of photons back and forth between bodies, I suggest to go to buy the mirrors, make a test and report back to me. Good Luck! 

Or check out Computational BlackBody Radiation and save that effort. You will then understand why you cannot heat yourself by a mirror, or teach yourself all by yourself anything above your threshold, or lift yourself in the hair!

Corruption of Modern Physics 1: Light as Particles

Photon/Energy Quanta Corrupters of Modern Physics

Modern Physics identified by quantum mechanics/atom mechanics as a revolution of classical non-atomistic continuum wave mechanics, was initiated by Planck in 1900 with his mathematical derivation of the spectrum of blackbody radiation based on a concept of energy quanta $hf$ (Joule) as discrete packets of energy with $h=6,62607015·10^{-34}$ Planck's constant and a $f$ a natural number (1,2,3,...) representing a frequency. 

Planck described his long struggle to motivate a high-frequency cut-off needed to avoid an  ultra-violet catastrophe with energies tending to infinity from frequencies without upper bound, as follows:   

• the whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be...

Frequencies can range from $10^{12}$ for infrared light to $10^{19}$ for gamma rays with corresponding energy quanta $hf$ ranging from $10^{-20}$ to $10^{-14}$ Joule, thus macroscopically very small. Planck did not view his energy quanta to represent real physics, because atom physics was not yet born, and then only as a mathematical trick to achieve high-frequency cut-off from a statistical argument.  

The next step towards quantum mechanics was taken in 1905 by the young Einstein in his "heuristic derivation" of the law of photoelectricity (already formulated by Hertz in 1887 on the basis of experiments), where Einstein picked up the idea of energy quanta $hf$ from Planck, to motivate why shining light on a metal surface releases electrons from the surface only if the light frequency is large enough, as if an energy quanta $hf$ of sufficient strength is needed to release one electron. Einstein's basic "heuristic idea" was thus that exactly one energy quantum later named photon ejects exactly one electron.

Einstein thus suggested to view light as a stream of photons/energy quanta each one if large enough capable of ejecting one electron. But this was only "heuristics" without real physics as admitted by Einstein in 1951:

• All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, "What are light quanta"? Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.

A decisive step towards quantum mechanics was taken by the Nobel Prize Committee awarding the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics to Planck for "his discovery of energy quanta" (in his derivation of black body spectrum), and the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics to Einstein for "his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect", thus sending the World a message of light as a stream of particles/photons/energy quanta. This work by Planck and Einstein is still the main "evidence" presented for the "particle nature of light", while all real physics evidence shows "wave nature" expressed in Maxwell's equations for electromagnetics and Schrödinger's equation for quantum mechanics. 

This is where modern physics stands today 100 years later coming to expression as the firm belief of a physicist (whether Nobel Laureate or not) that every material body as real physics is emitting an unstoppable shower of light particles/photons depending on its temperature, but not on the medium surrounding the body. This connects to the discussion with Will Happer still without conclusion.

Planck and Einstein viewed energy quanta/photons/light particles as a "heuristic" concept, which could be useful in certain types of theoretical arguments (statistics or cut-off), but which lacked real physics. Unfortunately this is forgotten by physicists of today, who do not object to an alarm of CO2 Warming caused by Downwelling Long Wave Radiation as stream/shower of energy quanta/photons emitted by the atmosphere and being absorbed by the Earth surface. 

It is important to distinguish between real physics and phantom physics. In phantom physics you are allowed to use concepts without physical meaning if it serves your objectives. In phantom physics you  can view the radiative exchange of heat energy between two bodies as a two-stream flow of photon particles transferring massive heat energy back-and-forth even if the bodies have the same temperature.

It is the same as believing your bank account to be connected to all other bank accounts with a massive one billion dollar transfer back and forth every moment. Or that you are connected to all other people on the web with a constant exchange back and forth of the same one Gbyte message every moment. 

This type of belief lacks real physics because it involves massive transfer back-and-forth, which is unstable and so cannot persist over time. To rely on unstable processes is dangerous and will result in misfortune. 

Corruption involves massive back-and-forth transfer of services/commodities. Corrupted physics involves massive back-and-forth transfer of heat energy. 

For a derivation of the laws of black body radiation and photoelectricity based on real physics carried by electromagnetic waves, see Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.  For quantum mechanics without particles, see Real Quantum Mechanics.

      

Photon Foolishness and CO2 Alarmism

Einstein received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his 1905 discovery of the Law of Photoelectricity (discovered by Hertz already in 1887) based on an idea of light as a stream of light particles or light quanta later named photons, in a return to an idea of Newton abandoned since the discovery of light as an electromagnetic wave phenomenon captured by Maxwell's equations published in 1873.  

Einstein was not happy with the Prize motivation, since it explicitly stated that he was not awarded because of his theory of relativity, which he considered to be his main work, while he viewed his early work on photoelectricity rather as a misconception, since concerning photons/light quanta he confessed in 1951:

• All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, "What are light quanta"? Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.

Unfortunately, the Tom, Dick and Harry misconceived idea of light as a stream of photon particles has survived into our days, in parallel with the wave picture, and has come to serve as the basis of CO2 alarmism in the form of Downwelling Long Wave Radiation DLWR of Back Radiation as a stream of photons from the atmosphere to a warmer Earth surface with a massive global warming effect. 

In the spirit of Bohr the particle and wave nature of light are not considered contradictory but simply complementary although behaving differently:  

The Tom, Dick and Harry particle misconception is captured in an incorrect Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann Law PSBL stating that a black body at temperature $T$ Kelvin emits/radiates heat energy in the form of light quanta/photons scaling with $T^4$ (per unit area and time), independent of the surrounding temperature. The radiation has a Planck spectrum scaling with $T\nu^2$ with $\nu$ frequency (modulo high-frequency cut-off scaling with $T$). The misconception is that the radiation is independent of the surrounding temperature based on a primitive idea of radiation as a stream of photon particles being ejected independent of surrounding. This misconception is widely spread and embraced by otherwise very knowledgable physicists and laymen. 

A correct PSBL states black body radiation scaling with $(T^4 - T_s^4)$, where $T_s$ is the surrounding temperature. In this form the radiation can be seen as a wave resonance phenomenon between black body and surrounding, see Computational Blackbody Radiation. 

The Planck spectrum scaling with $T\nu^2$ directly connects with the wave nature of light with the energy of a harmonic oscillator of frequency $\nu$ scaling with $\nu^2$. 

To fit this into a particle idea Einstein suggested to view a photon as a localised wave packet of length scaling with $\frac{1}{\nu}$ and energy scaling with $\nu$ (captured in Planck's formula $E=h\nu$ with $h$ Planck's constant). The total radiation from a a stream of photons would then scale with $\nu^2$ since $\nu$ photons of length $\frac{1}{\nu}$ (traveling with the speed light) would pass in unit time. 

Einstein thus in 1905 associated the energy $E=h\nu$ to a concept of light quanta, which gave him the Nobel Prize in 1921 with the Law of Photoelectricity taking the form $E+P=h\nu$ with $P$ electron release energy and $E$ kinetic energy of an emitted electron upon impact by one photon with energy $h\nu$, but then misled generations of physicists into a misconception of PSBL misused by CO2 alarmism, while his insight in 1951 that light quanta has no physical meaning passed by without notice.  

This post directly connects to the following recent posts:

• Discussion with Will Happer on Back Radiation 
• Radiation as Resonance     

and to a wave analysis of the photoelectric effect (p 97). The idea of light as a stream of photon particles is as misconceived as an idea of sound as a stream of phonon particles which you spit out when you speak, while we all know that sound is transmitted by sound waves as a resonance phenomenon from loud speaker to your eardrums carried by air. 

The idea of light from Proxima Centauri as the closest star to our own as a stream of photon particles traveling at the speed of light one by one all alone 40,208,000,000,000 km on a journey taking 4.37 years without ever getting lost in cosmic dust or atmosphere until finally being captured by a human eye, is to fantastic to be credible. Light as particles is not physics, as Einstein said.

PS Typical misconception of photon particles each one ejecting an electron thus creating photoelectricity:

Compare with Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation describing instead photoelectricity as a wave threshold phenomenon asking for a high enough frequency for electron ejection. See also this post.

How Much Do You Radiate?

A human body with surface 1 m2 sitting still in a room without air circulation and windows eating a standard ransom of 2.000 kcal/day produces a heat power of 80 Watts (two standard light bulbs), which has to be transferred by radiation to the room walls (no convection/conduction) to keep stationary state and not overheat or freeze. 

Assuming a body surface temperature of 30 C and a wall temperature of 10 C, we can compare with Stefan-Boltzmann's Law stating a radiative flux from body to wall of about 80 Watts/m2 upon a temperature difference of 20 C. This is basic physics. If the wall temperature was 20 C then the heat transfer would be 40 Watts/m2 and so the body would overheat. If the wall temperature is 0 C, then you will freeze to death unless you increase your intake to 3000 kcal/day. This may be the case for the coming Winter.

We are here clearly speaking about one-way heat transport from body to wall. Let us now compare with the center piece of CO2 alarmism, which is two-way heat transfer between a colder atmosphere and a warmer  Earth surface with "back radiation" from the atmosphere to the Earth surface of size 350 Watts/m2 to be compared with the around 200 Watts/m2 absorbed from the Sun. 

This can be compared with the human-room situation in the case of a temperature difference of 10 C corresponding to a net heat transfer of 40 Watts/m2 and would then postulate a radiative heat transfer from wall to body of 350 Watts/m2, to be balanced by outgoing radiation from the body to wall of 390 Watts/m2 with a net of 40 Watts/m2. The two-way heat transfer of CO2 alarmism thus postulates a massive back-and-forth heat energy transfer between body and wall of size 400 Watts/m2 (the power of two Suns) while the net is small 40 Watts/m2. 

Your body is thus supposed to be shining like two Suns which is balanced by the walls also shining like two Suns. Shining like two Suns could boost your ego, but you understand that this can only be fiction, right? If so, then you also understand that the back radiation of CO2 alarmism is also fiction.

Why is massive back-and-forth heat transfer between bodies unphysical? Because it is unstable and as such not physically sustainable over time. Only net heat transfer from warm to cold is stable and thus physically possible and then in fact also real. See Computational Black Body Radiation. 

The unphysical nature of back radiation can be seen in the functioning of a pyrgeometer discussed in previous posts clarifying that a pyrgeometer de facto measures a temperature difference and in no way gross back radiation, which is a derived ghost quantity which cannot be directly measured because it lacks stable physical realisation. Similarly your body can register the temperature of the wall of the room you are sitting in, but has no collector counting photon particles spitted out from the colder wall, nor any sensor counting photons emitted by your body.   

  

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.  

 

Klimatupplysningens Stämma Beslutar att det finns "Back Radiation"

Fredrik Malmquist tar ånyo på Klimatupplysningen, nu med utgångspunkt från mitt föredrag vid Climate Sense 2018, upp frågan om "back radiation" (klimatalarmismens och "växthuseffektens" grundbult) i Öppen Tråd 1 och Öppen Tråd 2.

Som vanligt rusar expertisen hos Klimatupplysningen med Lennart Bengtsson och Ingemar Nordin i spetsen till storms mot min grundliga matematisk-vetenskapliga analys, som visar att "back radiation" är enkom fiktion grundad på en misstolkning av Planck's strålningslag. Fredrik skriver i kommentar 2 på Tråd 2:

• Stämman var ganska överens om att återstrålning trots allt existerar. 
• En foton från en kall kropp kan ju inte veta om resan skall sluta i en varmare eller kallare kropp resonerar man.

Så har då stämman i konsensus kommit fram till (kanske efter omröstning) att mina argument är nonsens, naturligtvis utan att alls ta del av dem på något egentligt vis, och då bara med hänvisning till att en foton kan ju inte veta var dess resa skall sluta. 

Men detta har ju ingenting med upplysning och fysik att göra, bara barnslig förvillelse. Varför ägnar sig då Klimatupplysningen i kontraproduktiv anda åt att försvara klimatalarmismens grundbult i form av "back radiation" när den inte finns redovisad i den vetenskapliga litteraturen? Bara som konsensusbeslut på en stämma. Jämför med föregående post.

Kanske någon kan förklara detta för mig?

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:

"Back Radiation" as Violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

A new article by Martin Herzberg in Energy&Environment reviews & summarizes the NIPCC Report Climate Change Reconsidered -Physical Science. In particular, Herzberg gives the following devastating review of the phenomenon of "back radiation" supposedly being the "heating mechanism" of the "greenhouse effect:

• The most prevalent definition or heating mechanism involves what is referred to as “back radiation”. Greenhouse gases absorb some of the IR radiation that the Earth’s surface radiates toward free space after it is heated by solar radiation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ”reradiated energy in the IR portion of the spectrum is trapped within the atmosphere keeping the surface temperature warm.” 
• This mechanism has the colder atmosphere blithely and spontaneously emitting radiant energy toward the warmer surface. 
• That energy is supposed to be absorbed by the Earth’s surface and heat it further. 
• Thus the warmer surface should get even warmer by absorbing energy from a colder source: in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Advocates of CO2 alarmism work hard to meet this argument claiming that the violation of the 2nd Law is only apparent: "Back radiation" always comes along with "forward radiation" and the net radiation is always from warm to cold and so the 2nd law is not violated. The trouble with this way of handling the objection expressed by Herzberg (and myself), is that "back radiation" and "forward radiation" are supposed to be independent physical processes as "two-way flow of infrared photons",  and at the same dependent coupled processes guaranteeing the the 2nd laws is not violated. 

But independent processes which are dependent, is a contradiction and so the effort to save "back radiation" from joining phlogistons in the wardrobe of unphysical processes, comes to nil and so the "greenhouse effect" is "hanging in the air" without scientific basis.       

Does an Undetectable "Greenhouse Effect" Exist?

Vincent Gray seeks to clarify the physics of the "greenhouse effect" in a new blog post at 

The Australian Climate Sceptics - Exposing the flaws in the greatest hoax inflicted on the human race:

1. Greenhouse gases, predominantly water vapour, do absorb infra red radiation from the earth, radiate the additional energy in all directions, including downwards and so warm the earth. 
2. So the greenhouse effect does exist. 
3. This effect must be very small as it has not been detected, despite the enormous effort that has been applied to try and find it.

We read that Vincent here puts forward the idea that the atmosphere by radiating heat energy downwards causes warming of the Earth surface in a process of two-way radiative heat transfer between the atmosphere and surface including "back radiation" from a cold atmosphere to a warm surface. Vincent thus accepts the picture painted by CO2 alarmism based on a "greenhouse effect" and thereby gives it a free ride. Vincent shares this view with many "skeptics".

At the same time as Vincents claims that "the greenhouse effect exists", he informs us that it has not been detected, presumably then because "it must be very small". 

All this is unfortunate because the two-way heat transfer including back radiation which Vincent describes, is not true physics but fake physics, as I have argued in extended writing. 

Vincent defends his position with a direct attack on my position with the following argument (in bold):

• Radiation energy is converted to heat if it is absorbed by any suitable object. 
• The temperature of that object is quite irrelevant. 
• The speculation by some that radiation cannot be absorbed by an object whose temperature is bigger than that of the radiant emitter requires the absurd assumption that radiation, is capable of detecting the temperature of distant objects before deciding whether they are fit to receive absorption. 
• Such an assumption restores the need for a belief in the existence of an ether.

But is it absurd that an absorber can detect if the temperature of an emitter is bigger than its own temperature? Not at all! That information is encoded in the spectrum of the emission as the high-frequency cut-off described in Wien's displacement law with the cut-off increasing linearly with temperature. The result is that emission from a certain temperature cannot be re-emitted by an absorber at lower temperature and thus must be absorbed and turned into heat causing warming. 

A stone put in the sun light, can thus very well detect that the sun light falling upon itself was emitted at a temperature higher than its own, because sun light contains frequencies above the cut-off frequency of the stone.  The stone detects this by finding itself being unable to re-emit these frequencies and thus cannot prevent getting heated by the Sun. This is nothing the absorber "decides" to do in Vincent's vocabulary, because atoms have no free will "to decide",  but simply something the absorber is unable to do, which involves no "decision" and thus can be physics.

 So in conclusion I pose the following question to Vincent (and other "skeptics"):  Since the "greenhouse effect" cannot be detected experimentally and your theoretical argument in support of its existence has shown to be incorrect, wouldn't it be more rational to give up arguing that the "greenhouse effect exists" because there is "back radiation",  thus giving support to CO2 alarmism?

I have asked Vincent to respond to this post, but it may well be be that Vincent, like some other "skeptics", simply hides (and warms up) after making an attack on a skeptic position of a frequency above his own cut-off.

PS Vincent's claim of existence of a phenomenon that is not detectable, connects to an (unfortunate) aspect of modern physics, as opposed to classical physics, rooted in the Bohr Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, where the wave function is not viewed to represent real physics independent of human observation, but instead represents human understanding in statistical terms limited to what can be observed by humans. Modern physicists following Bohr are thus allowed to speak about only physics which is observable and then in statistical terms. But this is too narrow, and has opened the possibility of a vast physical landscape beyond observation, which physicists are now eagerly exploring in the extreme forms of string theory and multiversa. The (unfortunate) result is that speaking about phenomena of physics which cannot be detected, which in the view of classical physics is nonsense,  has now become mainstream modern physics. 

Two-way Heat Transfer and 2nd Law: Contradiction!

The discussion with edX in the previous post exhibits a "greenhouse effect" connected to "back radiation" or "Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR" from a cold atmosphere to a warmer Earth surface, as a part of two-way radiative heat transfer between two bodies each supposed to emit independently of the other according to a Stefan-Boltzmann law of the form $Q=\sigma T^4$ with $T$ body temperature and $\sigma$ a positive constant.

As the discussion shows, advocating two-way heat transfer requires an argument showing that  what appears to be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with the colder body transfering heat to the warmer, is only apparent. The argument is then that the heat transfer is always bigger from the warmer and so the net transfer is always from warm to cold.

However, this argument is contradictory: Each body is supposed to emit independently of the other, yet at the same time the two transfer processes must somehow be linked to guarantee that the net transfer always comes out right, even if they are nearly equal. The transfer processes are thus assumed to be both independent and dependent, which is a contradiction. And contradictory physics can only be non-physical illusion.

Unfortunately, in modern physics contradictions such as wave-particle contradiction, have come to be accepted by Bohr sophistery as "complementarity" or "duality". A "round square" is thus in modern physics not a contradiction, but just expresses "complementary" or "dual" properties of some higher physical existence incomprehensible to human understanding but still physics. But sophistery is not science and contradictory physics is non-physics.

In this context, recall that the idea of two-way heat transfer was used by Schwarzschild in 1906 to set up a simple model for radiative heat transfer allowing a simple analytical solution as a linear function. The unphysical aspect of Schwarzschild'd model is exposed in the recent post Unphysical Schwarzschild vs Physical Model for Radiative Heat transfer. What was unphysical in 1906 is still unphysical today.

edX: "Back Radiation" as the Physics of the "Greenhouse Effect"

I started my journey as climate skeptic in 2009 in an attempt to understand the physics of the so called "greenhouse effect" threatening human civilisation by global warming from human emission of CO2 as a powerful "greenhouse gas".

I then discovered that the "greenhouse effect"was (and still is) is very vaguely identified in the scientific literature which poses a severe difficulty to skepticism of CO2 alarmism.

The ongoing edX course Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial is an attack on skepticism to CO2 alarmism, referred to as "denialism", introduced by:

• In this first week you will be introduced to some of the terminology we will use in the course in order to begin building your understanding of scientific consensus, the psychology of denial and the spread of denial. 

The course shows which skeptics arguments are the most effective and thus requires special effort to kill. In this sense the course offers valuable insight. In a video lecture in week 3 on the "Greenhouse Effect", we are informed that:

• The glow from the Earth surface goes upwards, greenhouse gasses absorb some of this heat and they then glow in every direction including down towards us. 
• This is how the greenhouse effect works. We measure it every day here at Reading Atmospheric Obervatory by a pyrgeometer...it has a special window only allowing infrared light through to be measured. Even during a cloudless night it measures the constant greenhouse glow. 
• Even though the greenhouse effect is an observed fact, there is a myth that it does not exist. This myth misinterprets a law of physics called the second law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law says that even though heat moves in all directions, overall heat moves from hot to cold, and not from cold to hot. 
• The myth says that the greenhouse effect does not exist because it means heat moving from a cooler sky to warmer surface. But this is a misrepresentation: The greenhouse effect obeys the law: A square meter of Earth surface send about 500 Watts upwards, so it works like a 500 W heater. The greenhouse effect sends down about 330 Watts of heat, so in total about 170 Watts goes from the warmer surface to the cooler sky. Heat overall goes from hot to cold  but the greenhouse effect sends som back to warm us up.
• The myth misrepresents the 2nd law. Meanwhile observatories measures the greenhouse effect every day all over the globe.

We understand that the "greenhouse effect" is based on "back radiation" from the atmosphere, which is measured by pyrgeometers. 

From the beginning of my skeptics journey I understood, from a new proof of Planck's radiation I had constructed as part of a larger effort to describe physics as analog computation,  that "back radiation" is an illusion without physical reality, and so that a pyrgeometer is constructed to sell this illusion to a market in need of "instrumental evidence".  

This insight has made me into a "denier" in the view of not only alarmists but strangely enough also in the view of leading skeptics such as Singer and Spencer and many others.  As a "denier of back radiation" based on a view of physics as computation,  I have met many strong reactions often including direct censorship of this my view. 

The edX course gives me more courage to not give up this view including a new proof of Planck's law leading to the conclusion that "back radiation" is non-physical illusion. The edX course shows that if "back radiation" is illusion, then so is the "greenhouse effect". Unfortunately, leading skeptics have fallen into the trap of "How to fool yourself with a pyrgeometer".

You find more material under the categories "myth of back radiation" and "pyrgeometer". To get rid of illusions may get very quickly, once you meet the right argument. Notice in particular the recent post on the unphysical aspect of Schwarzschild's radiation model introducing the unfortunate unphysical idea of "back radiation" or "downwelling longwave radiation DLR" as the warming element of the "greenhouse effect".

Take a special look at the argument presented: The 2nd law says that even though heat moves in all directions, overall heat moves from hot to cold.  If anything, this is a false version of the 2nd law: It is not true that "heat moves in all directions".

I asked edX to give the scientific justification of this statement, and report the answer. If you go through the response from edX below, you will find that after an exchange of nearly 100 comments back and forth, we are still far from getting an answer from edX. The tactic used by edX is to meet any question from me as a student following the course, by a battery of counter-questions with the objective of keeping me busy and so avoiding to answer my question. Clever, but tiresome both for edX and me.

Here is a copy of the edX Discussion with teacher Gavin Cawley:

Gavin: The physical mechanism is very straightforward. I would happily go through the physics with you, step-by-step, starting with back body radiation, to see where we agree and where we disagree. Do you agree that a spherical black body object, in a vacuum, will radiate energy in all directions in the form of photons, according to the fourth power of its temperature (i.e. the Stefan-Boltzman law), with the spectrum of radiation governed by Plank's law? If you answer my questions directly, I am sure we will soon reach agreement.

Claes: Yes, if you by a vacuum mean a surrounding environment at 0 K. Is that so? And if you by "photons" mean electromagnetic waves. Is that so?

Gavin: By vacuum, I did indeed mean that the surrounding environment is at 0K. By "photon" I was referring to "an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation". Do you still agree, given those clarifications?

Claes: Yes, go on.

Gavin: Thank you. A second black-body object (lets call it "B" and the first "A") is then introduced. For convenience make B spherical, with the same radius as A, and placed a short distance from, but not touching A. Would you agree that B also radiates photons in all directions according to the fourth power of its temperature (Stefan Boltzmann) with a spectrum given by Plank's law?

Claes: No, since with A present, the environment of B is not a vacuum at 0 K. And then?

Gavin: The intensity and spectrum of black body radiation depends only on its temperature, as given by the Stefan-Boltzmann and Plank laws, which is why black-body objects are a useful idealization. Can you provide a reference to a derivation for black-body radiation that explicitly states the dependence on environmental temperature?

The thought experiment we are conducting doesn't depend on this point, but we appear to have identified a point of divergence, so it would be useful to understand the source of the disagreement.

Claes: It is certainly very natural to expect that the state of the environment is of importance. We just agreed that a body emits according to Planck's law into a vacuum at 0 K. Don't you remember that? If you claim that the environment is of no importance, then you have to back that with strong evidence, since it is such a strange utterly surprising statement. So what is your evidence? Planck's proof of his law only counts degrees of freedom in a cavity and says nothing about independence of surrounding environment, and thus cannot be used as positive evidence of your claim about independence. Right?

Gavin:Regarding the equivalence between cavity radiation and black body radiation, there is a nice explanation here by Prof. Alan Guth of MIT (it is from an excellent course on the early universe that is well worth watching). Essentially the radiation within a cavity is described by Plank's law, but if you were to put a black body into that cavity and wait for it to reach thermal equilibrium, then it must radiate according to Plank's law as well in order for the incoming energy from the cavity radiation to match the outbound black-body radiation, and like cavity radiation, only depends on temperature. Note in this case, the derivation definitely doesn't depend on the environment being at 0K. Prof. Guth also specifically states that its radiation wouldn't change if you took it out of the cavity (at least until it cooled, but then its radiation would be according to SB and P laws at the lower temperature). Prof. Guth is a leading expert in cosmology, where black-body radiation is an important concept (e.g. cosmic background radiation), so I suspect his understanding of this topic is reliable. However, if you have a reference to a derivation of the Plank and Stefan-Boltzmann laws that detail the sensitivity to the environment, then I would happily read them. Can you supply me with such a reference?

Now the environment is certainly important in determining the warming or cooling of the black body objects, which is why I made the simplifying assumption of a vacuum at 0K. However, whether the bodies warm or cool does not depend solely on their intrinsic radiation, as we shall see later in the thought experiment, so I see nothing unnatural about the intensity and spectrum of radiation depending only on temperature.

Let us assume that object B is a little cooler than object A, would you agree that it (B) radiates photons equally in all directions (being a spherical black body object)?

Claes:The version of SB you find in engineering texts, which is relevant to atmospheric radiation, states that the heat transfer between a body A at temperature T_A and a body B at temp T_B is given by Q = sigma (T_A^4 - T_B^4) with A warmer than B and transfer of Q from A to B. The dependence of the environment is here obvious, right? Do you accept this version of Stefan-Boltzmann?

Gavin:That equation is for heat transfer, not for the radiation of photons from a black-body object, we will get on to transfer later. For the moment, I am trying to establish your position on the intensity and spectrum of photons radiated from B as that is important in explaining the transfer.

Let us assume that object B is a little cooler than object A, would you agree that it (B) radiates photons equally in all directions (being a spherical black body object)?

Claes:No, as I have said, the presence of A will influence the radiation from B, since A is part of the environment of B. And yes, we are speaking about heat transfer by radiation, and nothing else, right? And it is better to leave out cosmology, inflation, Big Bang and multiverse, since it is is of little importance concerning atmospheric radiation, right?

Gavin: As I have asked ClaesJohnson twice for a reference giving derivations of the Plank and Stefan-Boltzman law that detail the sensitivity to the environment, and none has been provided, I will have to leave that issue to one side for the moment.

Claes, my previous question referred only to the direction of photons emitted by object B, do you agree, that being a spherical black body object, B will emit photons equally in all directions?

BTW, I should have said more explicitly that I do agree with the formula "Q = sigma (T_A^4 - T_B^4)" for radiative transfer; I certainly do.

Claes: If we do agree about SB as stated, then we are on speaking terms. The presence and dependence of the environment is clear in this formula, right? In particular, we have our previous agreement in the special case with T_B = 0 K, right? What I have asked you about is reference to a statement of independence of environment. What is your evidence? We have agreed on dependence and now it is up to you to deliver contradictory evidence of independence. What is it?

Gavin: "The presence and dependence of the environment is clear in this formula, right?" no, as I said, that equation is about radiative transfer between objects, not the radiation from the objects themselves.

"What I have asked you about is reference to a statement of independence of environment. " I have already provided two, the second being the lecture by Prof. Guth, whom most would regard as being well qualified on the subject.

"We have agreed on dependence and now it is up to you to deliver contradictory evidence of independence" I have already clearly stated that the environment is relevant to transfer, but not to the intrinsic radiation of the object (indeed the transfer equation can be derived from intrinsic radiation being independent of environment).

Now this is the fourth time I have asked this question without a direct answer, I repeat:

Claes, my previous question referred only to the direction of photons emitted by object B, do you agree, that being a spherical black body object, B will emit photons equally in all directions?

Claes: Again, are we discussing heat transfer by radiation, or something else? What, if so?

Gavin: ClaesJohnson we are discussing the radiation of photons from a black body object, with the intention of explaining the nature of radiative transfer from one black body to another in due course.

Claes, my previous question referred only to the direction of photons emitted by object B, do you agree, that being a spherical black body object, B will emit photons equally in all directions?

Claes: No, the environment of B will influence the heat energy radiated by B.

Gavin: ClaesJohnson, O.K. so does B emit any photons that strike (and are absorbed) by A?

Claes: What does that have to do with the heat transfer by radiation between A which we are discussing? Or are you discussing something else? If so, what?

Gavin: In order to explain my argument to you, I need to properly understand your objection. The best way to do this is to ask questions that allow you to unambiguously state your position in a way that I will understand. You may not understand the relevance of these questions, but I suspect it will be clear to most readers with a background in physics, but the fastest way to reach agreement is simply to give a concise and direct answer to the question. So, please give a direct answer to the question: does B emit any photons that strike (and are absorbed) by A?

Claes: I cannot answer because I do not understand the physics of "photons that strike and are absorbed by A". Again, are we discussing heat transfer by electromagnetic waves? If not, what is it you are discussing?

Gavin: A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence (source).

Radiation and absorption of photons is the basic mechanism by which radiative transfer occurs. Absorption simply means that the photon no longer exists and the energy that it carried has been transferred to the body that absorbed it. So does B emit any photons that strike (and are absorbed) by A?

Claes: Gavin, if we agree about SB as stated in engineering literature, why is this not enough to describe atmospheric radiative heat transfer? What more do you want? My analysis of blackbody radiation is exposed at https://computationalblackbody.wordpress.com/

Gavin: Claes, as I have pointed out to you before, that equation is for radiative transfer. In order to answer your question about the second law of thermodynamics and the back-radiation, you need to understand how that transfer arises from an exchange of energy in either direction. It is a shame that you have been so unwilling to give direct answers to straightforward questions, so I will explain it to you.

So, the conventional interpretation of thermodynamics would indicate that the warmer of the two bodies would radiate energy (in the form of photons) at a rate given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, i.e.

Ja = sigma*Ta^4,

where Ja is the power radiated from A, Ta is the temperature of A in Kelvin and sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Now, A being a spherical black-body will radiate photons evenly in every direction, however a proportion of these, which we will call c, will be traveling in the right direction to intersect with B, which being a black body will absorb them. The rate at which energy is received at B due to this flow of photons from A is

c*Ja = c*sigma*Ta^4

Similarly, B will radiate energy at a rate given by the Stefan-Boltzman law, such that

Jb = sigma*Tb^4,

where Jb is the power of the radiation from B and Tb is the temperature of B. Now by symmetry (as I have made the two objects spheres of identical radius), the proportion of the radiated photons from B that intersect with A is the same as the proportion of photons emitted by A that intersect with B, i.e. c. Thus the rate at which energy is received at A due to this flow of photons from B is

c*Jb = c*sigma*Tb^4

Now let's consider the gain of energy by the cooler body, B. It has gained energy from A at a rate c*sigma*Ta^4, but has lost energy to A at a rate c*sigma*Tb^4. The transfer of heat between the two, is just the difference of these quantities, i.e.

Q = c*sigma*Ta^4 - c*sigma*Tb^4

or in other words

Q = c*sigma*(Ta^4 - Tb^4)

which is the usual "engineering" representation of the Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiative transfer. The important thing to note is that this arises perfectly naturally from the intensity of black-body radiation depending solely on its absolute temperature. There is no need for some unspecified physical mechanism that influences the direction in which a black body radiates; it just radiates in all directions, and the net flow of energy conforms precisely to the second law of thermodynamics. This is what the footnote in Clausius' book describes, and the basic idea has been well understood for a long time.

So, if a spherical black body does not radiate photons equally in every direction, but is affected by its environment, please explain the physical mechanism by which this is achieved.

Footnote, I am assuming that the constant c has been aggregated with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant in ClaesJohnsons' equation. The constant c depends on the size of the objects, their shape and how much of the radiation from one object is able to fall on another. I have made the scenario in the thought experiment symmetrical so it is easy to see that c is the same for both bodies, although this is true without the exact symmetry.

Claes: I have asked you if an engineering version of SB (or Planck) is enough to describe atmospheric radiation, and if not, what is missing. If you agree that it is basically enough, then we have a common standpoint and we can go on to specific questions concerning the physics of the so called "greenhouse effect". If you insist that it is not enough, then I want to see your arguments supporting this view.

There are endless questions that can take a lifetime or more to answer, such as: What is an "infrared photon"? What physical laws does it follow? How does it travel through space? In straight lines? What is the process of "absorption/emission of an "infrared photon". In which direction is it emitted? Is an "infrared photon" particle or wave? What is its lifetime? How does it interact with other "infrared photons". Are "infrared photons" like bullets traveling through space? If so, what happens when two "infrared photons" meet? Is heat transfer between two bodies carried by two opposite streams of "infrared photons" back and forth between the bodies? If so, what is the mechanism that guarantees that the net heat transfer is from warm to cold? What is the wave function of the multiverse? Et cet, et cet...

But all these questions are irrelevant as concerns the physics of the "greenhouse effect", if the engineering version of SB/Planck (which we have agreed is valid) is enough to describe atmospheric radiative heat transfer.

So I ask you again if we can take this version as a common ground and then proceed to the real questions of importance concerning the physics of the "greenhouse effect", with a basic question being climate sensitivity as the amount of global warming from doubled CO2.

Is this OK to you? Or do you insist that questions of the type I have listed above, have to be answered (by me) before we can can come to the point? And in particular before you will give an answer to my original question about the statement in the video of week 3 that "although heat moves in all directions.." (Is this statement connected to an idea of opposite streams of photons between bodies?)

I expect to get a clear answer to my clearly stated questions, and not just more questions from you to me, which I cannot answer (and probably nobody else).

To meet a question by a battery of counter-questions is a way to avoid answering the original question. I am sure you would not like to resort to this form of discussion trickery, right?

I also ask you if you have looked at the web site on Computational Blackbody Radiation I referred to and if you have read and understood the arguments there presented, and if you have some comments or questions concerning the material?

In short: If net heat transfer from warm-to-cold is what matters, why insist on net heat transfer as the difference of two opposite heat transfers warm-to-cold and cold-to-warm, where the latter appears to violate the 2nd law?

I have given my argument for net transfer as a property of stability (connected to the 2nd law). Transfer as the difference of two opposite gross transfers is an unstable process, since small differences in gross transfers can shift the sign of the net transfer, and thus violate the 2nd law. The only way the 2nd law can be upheld with transfer as difference of opposite gross transfers, is that the opposite transfers somehow are linked, but that contradicts your idea that the opposite transfers are independent of each other. Do you see this?

Gavin: ClaesJohnson wrote

"I have asked you if an engineering version of SB (or Planck) is enough to describe atmospheric radiation, and if not, what is missing. If you agree that it is basically enough, then we have a common standpoint and we can go on to specific questions concerning the physics of the so called "greenhouse effect"."

I have already explained why more is required, when I wrote in the previous message:

"Claes, as I have pointed out to you before, that equation is for radiative transfer. In order to answer your question about the second law of thermodynamics and the back-radiation, you need to understand how that transfer arises from an exchange of energy in either direction."

When we reach agreement on that point, then we will have a common standpoint to discuss the greenhouse effect (and specifically why there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics).

So, do you accept that the engineering version of SB can be derived (as shown in my previous comment) as the net result of a bi-directional transfer of energy from A to B and from B to A, where the radiation from A is determined solely by is absolute temperature Ta (according to SB), and the radiation from B determined solely by its absolute temperature Tb (according to SB)?

To meet a question by a battery of counter-questions is a way to avoid answering the original question. I am sure you would not like to resort to this form of discussion trickery, right?

Please lets leave rhetoric out of this discussion. I have asked one question in this comment, and one only, please give a direct answer.

Claes: What is your question to me again? I will certainly try to answer if I only understand what you ask. Your answer to my question is that the engineering version of SB/Planck is not enough to (mathematically) model atmospheric radiative heat transfer. But you did not answer my follow-up question to your answer, namely, what more you then need to (mathematically) model atmospheric radiative heat transfer? What additional physical law do you need for this purpose?

You did not either answer if you have looked at the web site I gave. Have you? If so any reaction? And what about my original question?

You say that there are certain things I need to understand in order for you to answer my questions. I don't see that my understanding, whatever it means, is necessary in order for you to answer my questions? Would it not be possible for you to simply answer my clearly stated questions, regardless of my state of mind?

Is it necessary for me to give a complete account of my inner status and thoughts in order for you to answer my questions in my role as student in a course that you are giving on edX?

Isn't the role of a teacher to answer questions from students concerning the material presented by the teacher, rather than subjecting the students to interrogation to see if they carry ideas which the teacher does not like?

And again, what more than the engineering version of SB/Planck do you need to model atmospheric radiative heat transfer??? My view on this question is presented as Unphysical Schwarzschild vs Physical Model for Radiative Transfer at http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2015/04/unphysical-schwarzschild-vs-physical.html


Gavin: ClaesJohnson, you seem to have asked multiple questions in your comment, I am happy to answer them one at a time. Please select the technical/scientific question you would like me to answer.

In an earlier comment, I derived the engineering form of the SB equation for heat transfer as being the net result of a bi-directional transfer of energy due to the radiation from each body. This is not a new idea, in his book "The Theory of Heat Radiation", Max Plank (c.f. Plank's law) states:


A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B' at 1000C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B' is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B' a stronger emitter than A.

This makes it very clear that Plank's conception of heat transfer is of a bidirectional transfer of radiation, both from warmer to cooler and from cooler to warmer, with the transfer of heat depending on the net difference in the two flows. Note Plank also specifically states that the radiation from A is not dependent on the temperature of the body on which the radiation will fall.

So to repeat my question:

...do you accept that the engineering version of SB can be derived (as shown in my previous comment) as the net result of a bi-directional transfer of energy from A to B and from B to A, where the radiation from A is determined solely by is absolute temperature Ta (according to SB), and the radiation from B determined solely by its absolute temperature Tb (according to SB)?

Claes: Of course the one-directional SB can be derived from a two-directional version by trivially taking the difference. But that does not say that the two-directional is correct, right?. The one-directional version may be the correct physical law, while the two-directional may still be non-physical. Confirming an assumption by observing a consequence is one of the logical fallacies, right?

So I have answered your question, and now to my question: What more than the engineering version of SB/Planck do you need to mathematically model atmospheric radiative heat transfer? What additional physical do you need for that purpose? The question is clearly stated and I expect a clear answer.

Gavin: Claes, again you have asked multiple questions (note there are three question marks in your comment). However I will address them in turn, on this occasion (I assume the second was rhetorical):

"Of course the one-directional SB can be derived from a two-directional version by trivially taking the difference. But that does not say that the two-directional is correct, right?."

No, no in itself. However the quote I gave from Plank clearly shows that Plank's conception of heat transfer was the net result of a bi-directional flow of energy. Similarly Clausius' book clearly indicates that a bi-directional flow of heat is completely consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, provided the net flow is from hot to cold. More importantly, I would argue that there is no plausible physical mechanism that can explain how a body can modify its radiation to avoid its radiation being absorbed by a warmer body. My derivation requires no such assumption as the radiation of a body depends only on its local state (specifically its absolute temperature). So my question for this message is: "What physical mechanism allows a body to alter its radiation to avoid emitting photons that reach a (possibly moving) warmer body?"

"What more than the engineering version of SB/Planck do you need to mathematically model atmospheric radiative heat transfer?"

I have answered this question several times already. The net transfer of heat is depends on the difference in the energy exchanged between two bodies (in this case the atmosphere and the surface). Thus it is necessary to consider the amounts of energy radiated by each component and absorbed by each component separately. The greenhouse effect does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the energy transferred by back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface is "compensated" (as Clausius, in translation, would say) by a larger transfer of energy in the other direction, in the form of IR radiation from the surface.

The key point is that if you accept that a bi-directional exchange of radiation doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, provided the net flow is from hot to cold, then the greenhouse effect doesn't violate it either. If you do not accept this, then you need to show that the engineering form of the SB law is inconsistent with the interpretation as the net result of a bi-directional exchange of radiation. However you appear already to have conceded this point

"Of course the one-directional SB can be derived from a two-directional version by trivially taking the difference".

Claes: I asked you: What additional physical law, in addition to the one-directional engineering SB/Planck law we have agreed on, do you need to mathematically model atmospheric radiative heat transfer? What is your answer?

Gavin: Claes, I have already answered that question. We must use the physical laws governing the radiation of black-body objects (at least to begin with), which is the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, i.e. j* = sigma*T^4. From this we can straight-forwardsly derive the "one-directional engineering SB/Planck law" as the net result of an exchange of radiation between two bodies. Under this interpretation of the "engineering SB law", the greenhouse effect does not violate the second law of thermodynamics as the radiation from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere is greater than from the atmosphere to the surface. Therefore the "one-directional" net heat transfer of the "engineering" SB law is from warmer to cooler, as required by the second law of thermodynamics.

This question ought to have a yes or no answer, and will help me to understand your position if you give an unequivocal answer. Plank writes:

A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B' at 1000C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B' is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B' a stronger emitter than A.

My one question for this comment is: Is any of the radiation emitted by B (at 0C) absorbed by A (at 100C), "yes" or "no"?

Claes: This statement of Planck lacks physical reality. Nature does not play with opposite equally large quantities, which are independent, yet always keeping one bigger than the other to not violate the 2nd law. You cannot accept anything that Planck says without yourself judging if that is correct or not? Science is not parrot science where you simply repeat what is written in book or stated by some since long dead scientist.

Again: what additional law is required to mathematically model atmospheric radiative heat transfer, beyond the one-directional SB/Planck law we have agreed on? Is it two-way heat transfer? If so, what equation does that effectively bring into the mathematical model? Have you read my post about Schwarzschild's (unphysical) equations based on two-way transfer? If not, do that and give your view on the necessity of Schwarzschild's model. OK?

Gavin: Claes, I have already answered your question repeatedly. The additional physical law that is required is the Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation: j* = sigma*T^4. For the reasons, see my previous answers.

Now please give a direct answer to my previous question, I repeat:

Plank writes:A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B' at 1000C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B' is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B' a stronger emitter than A.

My one question for this comment is: Is any of the radiation emitted by B (at 0C) absorbed by A (at 100C), "yes" or "no"?

You earlier wrote:

To meet a question by a battery of counter-questions is a way to avoid answering the original question. I am sure you would not like to resort to this form of discussion trickery, right?

Note that in my previous comment I asked precisely one question (only one question mark), but in your reply, you did not give an answer, but you asked multiple questions (I count six question marks!).

Claes: My answer is no.

Gavin: Thank you, that is interesting. Consider a third body B'' at 50C, which is of a similar size to B and again similarly situated. I am assuming that since B'' is also cooler than A, you would say that no radiation from B'' is absorbed by A either. Feel free to correct me if this assumption is incorrect. My question is, does A emit a different amount of radiation towards B than it emits towards B''?

Claes: Radiative heat transfer between bodies is described by the one-directional SB law we have agreed is valid.

Gavin: That is not a direct answer to the question, A either does emit a different amount of energy towards B than it emits towards B'', or it does not. Which is it?

Claes: SB gives the answer to your question. This is an exercise you can do yourself. After all you are the teacher and should know.

Gavin: The reason that I am asking for an unequivocal answer is that I intend to demonstrate a contradiction and do not want to leave room for equivocation after it has been established. If you are confident of your position, you ought to be eager to state your position in completely unequivocal terms. So I ask again:

"does A emit a different amount of radiation towards B than it emits towards B''?"

"yes" or "no".

Claes: A as warmer transfers heat to B and B" according to SB. If B" is warmer than B, then less heat energy transfers from A to B" than to B.

Claes: You claim that in addition to SB in the form Q = sigma (T_A^4 - T_B^4) with T_A > T_B, you need an SB of the form Q = sigma T_A^4. But the latter is included in the former if you set T_B = 0. So why is the extra SB needed?

Claes: Gavin: While you are thinking, I hope you also remember to answer my original question about the meaning of the statement "although heat moves in all directions..." in a video of week 3.
Gavin: I have now asked ClaesJohnson a straight-forward "yes"/"no" question three times, and each time have recieved an evasive response. As I have already explained why an indirect answer would be indicative of evasion, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the evasion was deliberate.

ClaesJohnson subsequently attempted to divert the discussion away from a line of inquiry that will demonstrate a contradiction in his position by repeating a question from earlier in the discussion that has already been answered (repeatedly). Again this is evasion.

Socratic method (a form of enquiry based on asking and answering questions) is an excellent means of resolving scientific disagreements, provided that both parties engage in the exercise in good faith. This cross-examination allows misunderstandings to be resolved and exposes the weaknesses in either argument. Evading direct questions is a clear indication that someone is unwilling to change their views, regardless of the evidence or opposing arguments presented. In this case, there is little point in continuing the discussion, and the observers can draw their own conclusion from the evasion.

Ulimately, if ClaesJohnson refuses to look at anything other than the "one-direction" SB law for radiative heat transfer, and is unable to understand that this arises as the net result of a bi-directional transfer of energy (as illustrated by Planck's example), he will be unable to understand why the greenhouse effect doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. However, he can't say that this has not been explained to him.

Claes: Gavin, I think we have come to the end of our discussion. Yes, it is true that only the uni-directional SB makes sense to me and to physics. You have not been able to give any scientific support to a "greenhouse effect" based on two-directional heat transfer including "back radiation" with heat transfer from cold to warm, and neither have you been able to explain the obvious violation of the 2nd law in such a process. This means that a "greenhouse effect" based on "back radiation" is nonphysical illusion. The result is that the course lacks sufficient scientific basis and should be closed.

Gavin: ClaesJohnson If only the uni-directional SB makes sense to you, then perhaps you should not obstruct attempts to explain the bi-directional energy transfer required for an understanding of back radiation by the sort of evasive behaviour you have demonstrated during this discussion.

Claes: I have declared my standpoint very clearly. The evasiveness is yours. I am surprised that edX offers a platform for the kind of propagandistic disinformation the course presents. In any case the "denial" will not be affected by the course.

Fred Singer about Nay-Sayers (Like Me)

Fred Singer claims in a recent post at WUWT that Climate Nay-Sayers are giving Climate Scientists a Bad Name. I think that Fred puts me into this detestful category of deniers and the issue is again that (in)famous "back radiation" or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR. Fred writes:

• One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all — because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; 
• i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. 
• It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. 
• One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. 
• But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Fred is here deliberately misrepresenting me: I am not saying that there is no "greenhouse effect" from clouds and water vapor and a little from CO2. What I do say is that "back radiation" from the atmosphere to the Earth surface of magnitude 300 W/m2 is fake non-physics and I understand that a pyrgeometer reporting this quantity does that with a fake invented scale which could be anything.

To argue that a certain scientific statement gives climate scientists a "bad name" is a trick to shift the discussion from the scientific question of what a pyrgeometer in fact measures, to a question of value and "entartete kunst" or "bad science". This is neither clever nor very nice, or effective. Scientific arguments cannot be replaced by value arguments.  

Speaking about science, it is remarkable that Fred pays so little attention to the 2nd law stating that energy cannot by itself be transferred from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface, simply disregarding the 2nd law as a "simplistic argument". Remarkable indeed Fred. Or what do you say?

PS I have asked Fred to respond to my above reaction to his post. I would not be surprised if Fred to this request simply returns silence. This is how nay-sayers (like me) should better be handled and thereby be removed from science. Of course "enartete science" must be annihilated to preserve "good science"  giving "good scientists" the "good name"  they rightly deserve.

Fred and I debated "back radiation" when we met in 2011, and evidently that question is still nagging in Fred's mind...