tisdag 1 februari 2011

Analysis of Greenhouse Effect Debate

The comments to the thread on Judy Curry's blog on my two articles in Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory show the following features:
  • Climate alarmism is based on "backradiation", but physicists do not want to tell if "backradiation" is real or not, although it must be their job.
  • Accordingly, skeptics like Spencer and Monckton have nothing to say, because they have to rely on what physicists say, and physicists say nothing. Climate alarmists use this vacuum to say anything that suits some preconceived agenda.
  • There are some people with open minds who get some of my message.
  • Many show little readiness to absorb anything and just repeat various mantras floating around in the lacuna of absent physicists.
  • Nobody claims that my mathematics is wrong.
The essence of my message is as follows
  • In radiative heat transfer, heat is transferred between bodies by electromagnetic waves and electromagnetic waves are described by Maxwell's wave equations. I derive Planck's radiation law from a version of Maxwell's equations subject to a dissipative effect from finite precision analog computation.
  • I show that "backradiation" would correspond to a negative dissipative effect, which is unstable and thus unphysical. Thus Maxwell's wave equations do not allow "backradiation". To me this is evidence that Nature neither does.
  • To describe atmospheric radiation by quantum mechanics is as meaningless as describing climate thermodynamics by quantum mechanics.
  • You cannot compute the lift and drag of an airplane by quantum mechanics, but you can do it by the Navier-Stokes equations, the analog of Maxwell's equations for fluid flow.
  • Maxwell and Navier-Stokes are continuum mechanics models describing macroscopics, but macroscopics cannot be described by microscopic quantum mechanics, because macroscopics emerges from interaction of multiple microscopics.
  • Climate results from thermodynamics with radiative forcing, and radiation alone cannot tell anything of real significance, such as the effect of changing the atmospheric radiative properties a little: It is not clear if more clouds or water vapour will cause global cooling or warming, or the effect of a small change of CO2. Climate CO2 alarmism is based on a postulate of a climate sensitivity of + 1 C which is a formality without known real significance.
I see very little discussion on these main points. Why? Because physicists say nothing which prevents non-physicists to even listen, because my credibility is unclear and all communication builds on some form of credibility (or prestige). Maybe I am a goofy crackpot as some people seem to believe, but maybe I am not.

But how are people going to tell, in particular if my message is expressed in mathematical terms?

So silence (intertvined with outbreaks of ridicule) from the ruling class, is quite effective. But to say nothing is not sign of strength and control and so the situation can quickly change...Mubarak is saying very little...

To my critics I would like to say:
  • I have shown you my equations, now show me your equations and we can have a discussion and compare.
I expect some of you to come with the following response: Consider two blackbodies 1 and 2 of temperatures T1 and T2 in radiative contact, described by the following Stefan-Boltzmann equations as the basic equations of radiative transfer :
  • Q1 = sigma T2^4 - sigma T1^4
  • Q2 = sigma T1^4 -sigma T2^4
where Q1 is the heat energy absorbed by 1 and Q2 that by 2. So 1 loses sigma T1^4 and gains sigma T2^4 by "backradiation" and 2 loses sigma T2^4 and gains sigma T1^4 by "backradiation". And so you say: "backradiation" exists because in my formulas there appear terms which I have given the name "backradiation".

But then I say that just because you have named something "backradiation", it does not follow that this something has a physical reality. If you believe that, you are either a child or great author but not a scientist. And then I ask you to motivate your equations, to derive them mathematically from some more elementary assumptions.

Then you probably say that this was what Planck did and then I say that he just considered one
body radiating to empty space, and that the above formulas are ad hoc formulas which cannot
be presented as evidence that "backradiation" is physical. And then you say?

30 kommentarer:

  1. One thing not shown is that planetary rotation generates centrifugal force. Thermodynamics does not include this even though the salt changes on the oceans are at the surface of the oceans. This inhibits solar penetration form heating the ocean like it did in the past.

  2. From Wikipedia, "Thermal radiation" the following is taken:
    "...a human being, roughly 2 square meter in area, and about 307 kelvins in temperature, continuously radiates about 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts."
    Is this an example of "back-radiation"?

    Another example: a car under an open shelter will not get frosty in winter at clear sky.

    The CO2 gas in the atmosphere is to some extent like a semipermeable mirror. Should it not affect the earth temperature by reradiation (backradiation)?

  3. You radiate 1000 Watts in an environment at 0 K, but only 100 W in an environment of 296 K. Radiation requires an environment to radiate into
    and the temp of that environment determines how much you radiate.
    No backradiation needs to be involved, and there is none, by mathematics.

  4. No, the body radiates 1000 W, acc to SB-law, independent of the temperature of the surroundings. But how much it gets back depends of the temperature of theese. The thermal radiation depends on movements of charges in the bodies and these movements are independent of anything in the surroundings.

  5. You describe fictitious "backradiation" without real physical correspondence.

  6. " Nobody claims that my mathematics is wrong. "

    Your mathematics is wrong. Your eqn (4) has exponential blow-up, on the very short timescale of gamma.
    This is quite funny, since you complain that back-radiation gives blow-up.

    You should also try to think about what the units of gamma are. In eqn (1) it seems to be kg/degree.
    Later you write gamma nu^2 << 1 which only makes sense if gamma has units of s^2.
    Then in (4) gamma has units of seconds.

  7. Curry, it should now be clear, is not the proper one to host a real scientific debate, because she is a devout believer in the greenhouse effect. Her blog is now essentially political, even "politically correct", and defensive of what she dogmatically (without question) believes is settled science. She has defined herself as one of the incompetent herd of climate scientists, and her blog does not deserve to be followed by those who believe in a real scientific discussion; it is full of empty argument.

    The greenhouse believers are hunkered down now behind the ramparts of their faith in "The Radiative Transfer Theory", and either that rampart needs to be battered down, or they need to be made aware of a fatal breach in their belief from another direction, as I have tried to do with the Venus/Earth atmospheric temperatures data, which definitively invalidates the greenhouse effect.

    Everyone needs to know that psychology, rather than science or politics, is the unseen force behind the intellectual conflict. Specifically, the psychology of belief, or dogma. As was ever the case, dogma degenerates into incompetent, unrecognized ignorance, divides people, and is no basis for progress in understanding, or for getting along with others.

    The fierce straining to make incompetent dogma dominant in all of the debates today -- such as they are -- means that we are in the beginning throes of a revolution, within science and beyond, in all our institutions (and worldwide, among all peoples, all nations). Incompetent dogmas are being clung to, and thereby tested. They are doomed to fail, but at what cost along the way? Mankind needs to confront its own runaway dogmas now, not runaway climate change.

  8. No (4) is stable which is seen by multiplying by u-dot and integrating by parts which gives a positive (stable) term gamma (u-doubledot)^4.
    Maybe you made a sign mistake.

  9. I think that this Wiki article "Thermal radiation" is good education.

    The temperature of a body is depending on the kinetic energy of the particles in the body and this kinetic energy (movements of particles) is linked to the thermal radiation from the body.
    Then at a certain temperature the radiation from the body will be the same independent of the surroundings. Simple logic. But the net radiation will of course depend on what energy it gets back from the surroundings.

  10. What you say is just words. Of course the emission depends on the receiving medium, like in a theatre play where a hostile audience will restrict the emission from the actors.

  11. Claes, I have made a general comment including a reference to your thoughts on Radiation here http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/02/a-note-on-the-stefan-boltzman-equation/

    keep strong

  12. (4) is unstable. It has solutions exp(t/gamma). You have almost shown this yourself in eq (10).

    You made an error in your integration by parts after eq (4). You cannot transfer t derivatives in an x integral.

  13. You are confused. Check with your math teacher.

  14. Claes wrote:"You radiate 1000 Watts in an environment at 0 K, but only 100 W in an environment of 296 K. Radiation requires an environment to radiate into
    and the temp of that environment determines how much you radiate.
    No backradiation needs to be involved, and there is none, by mathematics."
    Do you mean that the walls, at 296 K, not are emitting electromagnetic waves (in the form of IR). (I am not talking of net radiation. Without the body the walls net radiation is zero.) If they are, why should not this radiation be partly absorbed by the body?

  15. Claes,

    Do you want to make it clear to your readers that you have a totally different understanding of physics from Gerlich & Tscheuschner?

    Many people think you are supporting their claims, whereas they also believe Max Planck was correct and accept quantum mechanics.

    In their case, they apparently believe "back radiation" exists, just neglect to explain what happens to it when it "reaches the ground".

    Of course, you will confuse many of your new supporters, but clarification is always good.

  16. I don't say anything about quantum mechanics since I consider a classical wave equation as a version of Maxwell's eqns. My understanding of physics is thus that of Maxwell. I don't think quantum mechanics is useful for macroscopics like
    atmospheric radiation.

  17. To Lasse H: You are mixing up electromagnetic waves (radiation) with
    heat transfer by electromagnetic waves (radiation). I explain in the article
    that electromagnetic waves propagate two-ways but heat transfer is one-way, from warm to cold. If you think of radiation as streams of photons this distinction cannot be made and everything becomes confused and mysterious. Right?

  18. Claes,
    What, in your opinion, do single-photon detectors detect?


  19. Just because an instrument reading is discrete (a pointlike blip on a screen or a natural number) does it mean that what caused the blip was a pointlike object. Of course a wave can trigger a pointlike reading.

  20. #Of course a wave can trigger a pointlike reading.

    So when the detector reads a sequence of separate discrete detections what do you claim is happening? Does the source emit a discrete sequence of waves or is there a single long emitted wave which somehow only triggers the detector at certain times?

  21. Yes, something like that. How can you tell?

  22. Claes wrote: "To Lasse H: You are mixing up electromagnetic waves (radiation) with
    heat transfer by electromagnetic waves (radiation)."
    Heat transfer by E-M-waves just means that some energy in the E-M-field can be transferred to (charged) particles so that they start to move (vibrate) "getting warm". The body in the earlier example transfers a net energy/second (heat transfer) of 100 W to the walls but this can be derived from a two way E-M radiation: 1000 W from the body to the wall and 900 W the other way.
    What temp do the walls see? What do they radiate? The net radiation is of course 0 W from wall to wall. No heat transfer. But they still radiate.
    Think of heating the walls so that they begin to glow. The net heat transfer from wall to wall is zero but they radiate a lot, it can even be seen. And so, even at 296K the walls radiate and this radiation will be absorbed (to some extent) by the body, at the higher temp.
    This example can be seen as an analogy of the "earth - CO2" question. Or?

  23. A think experiment with a radiation power meter (IR-meter)
    1. The IR-meter pointing at the body at 307 K with walls at 296 K, as in the Wikipedia example above.
    2. The IR-meter pointing at the body at 307 K but with no walls, just empty space at 0 K.

    What radiation power will be measured/calculated in the both cases.

  24. An IR meter measures frequency (IR)/temperature and not radiation power, as I have noted in previous posts.

  25. I also wrote calculated. I have read what you have written.
    Back to my think experiment.
    Suppose the body is a black body.
    As we already know the temperature we don´t need an IR-meter.
    It is just to use the SB law, which gives 1000 W with 2 squaremeter area of the body in both cases.
    Back to the earth-CO2-case:
    As you said earlier in a reply, the net heat transfer from the body in the Wiki example decreased if you put a wall with T>0K around it. With earth as the body and CO2 as the wall the radiation (heat transfer) from earth will dicrease, but with constant input power from the sun this will mean that the earth temperature will rise (not including the termodynamics)

  26. #Yes, something like that. How can you tell?

    Now I don't understand. You have your Maxwell wave theory. If this is a functioning physics theory it must give a prediction of how the wave will trigger the detector.
    What does the theory predict will happen?

  27. It says nothing about this phenomenon since the design of the detector is not modeled. What is modeled is a resonance phenomeon in a vibrating string of charges subject to forcing from an incoming electrical field and
    which radiate through a dissipative term.

  28. But does it predict that there is a continuous wave being emitted or is there a sequence of discrete waves? That is a question about the source not the detector.

  29. Only waves and fields make sense, particles not.