Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You go on a bit about smart photons. Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons? All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.
When I pinned him down on this he once said that scientists don't really know why. They don't know what quantum mechanics or gravity really is. Maybe someday they will know. Etc. Yes, further proof his brain isn't functioning.I think he originally said that photons simply aren't emitted toward hotter matter.
I took that to mean they peaked out and looked around before they decided on a path.
Smart photons, smart emitters, either one is proof he's an idiot.
Third person is much better than talking to the ill-tempered troll in first person.I bet he loves being talked about 3rd person here.
For God's sake. Can't you stop lying??? The Dartmouth text says exactly what the equation is. Why do you keep lying about that? Why do you keep playing the troll? You are calling that science a false version now. You have never ever given a reference to your made up version. You lose. Science wins. Sad.You gave me bullshit about a false version of a physical law...so what? Till such time as you state what the equation says, we have nothing else to talk about...except perhaps why you won't state what the equation says.
The basic picture of climate alarmism with epsilon sigmaT4a = Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth, according to a False Stefan-Boltzmann law.
In recent posts on Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR I have compared two versions of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law, one named False-SB:
and one named True-SB:
- R=sigmaT4−sigmaT4b
where R is the radiance from a blackbody at temperature T into a background at temperature T>Tb and sigma is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant.
- R=sigma(T4−T4b)
Although False-SB and True-SB look algebraically very similar, they describe very different physics: False-SB describes the radiative transfer R as the difference of two-way gross flows sigmaT4 (from the blackbody to the background) and sigmaT4b (from the background to the blackbody).True-SB describes only one-way (net) flow from the blackbody to the background, assuming that T>Tb.
The physics of False-SB is thus two-way flow, while the physics of True-SB is one-way flow
False-SB can be seen as a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with sigmaT4b transfer of heat from a colder background to a warmer body.
True-SB follows in the case Tb=0 by integration over frequencies of Planck's radiation law, and in the case T>Tb>0 by a direct extension of Planck's law.
But False-SB does not follow the same way, because there is no two-way Planck law to integrate. So how is then False-SB proved in the scientific literature? Which scientist is responsible for the False-SB?
The answer is that the proof of False-SB is considered to be so trivial that nobody has cared to write down the proof. The proof of False-SB is considered so self-evident that nobody claims to have given a proof. Remember that Planck got the Nobel Prize for his radiation law which proved True-SB, and thus a proof of False-SB could also be worth a prize, unless the proof is so trivial that anybody can do it.
So what is then the (trivial) proof of False-SB? There are two proofs in the literature:
1. Application of True-SB twice:
2. Distributive law of algebra:
- Apply True-SB first with Tb=0 and then with T=0, and add up the results.
- Alternatively, apply twice switching the roles of radiator and background.
Both 1. and 2. look so trivial that nobody would care to claim priority and thus carry responsibility.
- sigma(T4−T4b)=sigmaT4−sigmaT4b.
But both 1 and 2 are incorrect, and accordingly lack correct justification, because
We thus have a situation where a physical law, which lacks support in physics literature (False-SB), is taken for granted because it is viewed to be so obvious, and then is used by climate scientists to sell AGW alarm, while there is no climate scientist responsible for presenting the false law.
- Setting T=0 violates the the assumption of True-SB that T>Tb.
- Switching roles changes the physics and does not describe a uniqe situation.
- The physical meaning of the algebraic law is missing.
False-SB can be used to sell alarm because it deals with the difference of two gross flows, which is unstable in the sense that a small relative change of any of the gross flows can cause a big relative change of the net flow, which allows inflation of a small cause (doubled CO2) into a big effect (global warming of 3 C).
But True-SB cannot be used to sell alarm, and therefore it is crucial in climate alarmism to use False-SB.
This suggests the following strategy when debating with a CO2 alarmist:
I recently tried this with Prof Grant W Petty, and noticed that it works very efficiently: Prof Petty got angry and slammed the door.
- Ask which SB law supports CO2 alarmism.
- At the answer that it is the False-SB, ask for a proof.
- At the answer that the proof is trivial, ask about the details of the proof.
- At the answer that it directly follows by application twice of True-SB, ask how.
- At the answer, first Tb=0 and then T=0, tell that T=0 is not allowed in True-SB.
- At the answer that the proof anyway is trivial, go back to 4 and repeat.
In recent posts I have exhibited a version of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law referred to as False-SB which is used by climate scientists to support CO2 alarm, and I have shown that False-SB is the result of an incorrect application of Planck's radiation law. Let me here again show the incorrect argument leading to False-SB, and the correct argument leading to
True-SB.
Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law in its original form (SB) expressing the total radiance from a blackbody of temperature T into a background at 0 K, is obtained by integration/summation over frequencies of Planck's radiation law expressing the radiation intensity I(f,T) emitted by a blackbody as a function of frequency f and temperature T, per unit frequency, surface area, viewing solid angle and time:
with the high-frequency cut-off factor
- I(f,T)=yTf2theta(ν,T),y=2kc2
where c is the speed of light in vacuum, k is Boltzmann's constant, with theta(ν,T)≈0 for hfkT>10say and theta(f,T)≈1 for hfkT<1. Since h/k≈10−10, this effectively means that only frequencies ν≤T1011 will be emitted, which fits with the common experience that a black surface heated by the high-frequency light from the Sun, will not itself shine like the Sun, but radiate only lower frequencies.
- theta(f,T)=hfkTehfkT−1,
We refer to kTh as the cut-off frequency because frequencies f>kTh will be radiated subject to strong damping. We see that the cut-off frequency scales with T, which is Wien's Displacement Law.
Normalizing and simplifying the exponential cut-off, Planck's law can be written in the form
The idea is now that SB is obtained from Planck's law by summation/integration over frequencies. The basic form of SB expresses the total radiance R(T,0) of a blackbody of temperature Tradiating into a background at 0 K as
- I(f,T)=yTf2 for f≤T
- I(f,T)=0 for f>T.
where sigma=γ3.
- R(T,0)=yT∫T0f2df=sigmaT4
We next seek the radiance R(T,Tb) when the background is a blackbody of temperature Tb>0. Planck proved his law in the case Tb=0 by using an argument based on statistics of quanta and it is not clear how to extend this argument to T>Tb>0. Accordingly, a derivation of R(T,Tb) from Planck law in the case Tb>0, appears to be missing in physics literature.
To be able to compute R(T,Tb) a new proof of Planck's law was given in Computational Blackbody Radiation in Slaying the Skydragon, a proof which allows direct generalization to Tb>0 with (compare with previous post):
where the first integral I1 is the radiance from the body into the background above the cut-off of the background and the second integral the net radiance below cut-off. Notice that if T≈Tb, then I1≈3I2 and so the above cut-off contribution I1 dominates the radiance.
- RTrue≡R(T,Tb)=∫TTbγTf2df+∫Tb0y(T−Tb)f2df≡I1+I2,
We see that Extra close brace or missing open brace is the sum of two integrals with positive integrands both expressing radiance from the warm body into the colder background. We should now stop here having reached an expression for RTrue=R(T,Tb) correctly derived from a correct Planck law.
However, climate scientists have introduced an incorrect version of SB named False-SB, obtainedby rewriting I1 as follows:
which since I2=sigma(T−Tb)T3b gives False-SB on the (seductively simple) form
- I1=∫T0yTf2df−∫Tb0yTf2df=sigmaT4−sigmaTT3b
expressing the transfer of energy from the body to the background as the difference of two gross flows in opposite directions. We see that False-SB arises by rewriting an integral with positive integrand as the difference of two integrals with positive integrands as follows:
- RFalse=sigmaT4−sigmaT4b
where the lower integration limit 0 could be replaced by any positive number smaller than Tb. False-SB arises when giving this formal mathematical manipulation a physical meaning stating that one-way net flow is the difference of two-way gross flows, with the flow from the background in violating with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
- ∫TTbf2df=∫T0f2df−∫Tb0f2df,
We see that False-SB arises by writing the correct R(T,Tb) as
where C is an arbitrary positive constant, and then assigning the arbitrary constant C a definite physical meaning as the transfer of heat from the colder background to the warmer body, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The only correct choice is C=0 which gives the correct net flow R(T,Tb) as stated above.
- RFalse=(R(T,Tb)+C)−C,
False-SB is thus obtained by an ad hoc generalization of SB for Tb=0 in the form R(T,0)=sigmaT4, to the incorrect form RFalse=sigmaT4−sigmaT4b in striking violation of the 2nd law.
Note that the seduction of RFalse is enhanced by the fact that RFalse gives the
correct net flow R(T,Tb), which by proponents of the correctness of RFalse is used as evidence that RFalse is correct. But this only shows that there is an aspect (one-way net flow) of RFalsewhich is correct, while the two-way gross flow suggested by RFalse is grossly incorrect.
If the only meaning of RFalse is net flow equal to R(T,Tb), then RFalse should better be eliminated from the discussion altogether by replacing it with the correct R(T,Tb). DLR should thus be eliminated as fictitious pseudo-physics.
Finally, the difference between RTrue and RFalse comes out as different stability
properties of one-way net flow and two-way gross flow, with RFalse supporting the idea of high climate sensitivity behind CO2 alarmism. If RFalse and DLR is eliminated from the discussion, then CO2 alarmism crumbles.
Here, from a PhD who gets it
You go on a bit about smart photons. Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons? All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.
I think he originally said that photons simply aren't emitted toward hotter matter.
I took that to mean they peaked out and looked around before they decided on a path.
Smart photons, smart emitters, either one is proof he's an idiot.
You go on a bit about smart photons. Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons? All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.
I think he originally said that photons simply aren't emitted toward hotter matter.
I took that to mean they peaked out and looked around before they decided on a path.
Smart photons, smart emitters, either one is proof he's an idiot.
You have to explain how this cooler emitting to warmer works. When the cooler emits, doesn't its temperature drop?
You go on a bit about smart photons. Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons? All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.
I think he originally said that photons simply aren't emitted toward hotter matter.
I took that to mean they peaked out and looked around before they decided on a path.
Smart photons, smart emitters, either one is proof he's an idiot.
You go on a bit about smart photons. Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons? All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.
I think he originally said that photons simply aren't emitted toward hotter matter.
I took that to mean they peaked out and looked around before they decided on a path.
Smart photons, smart emitters, either one is proof he's an idiot.
You have to explain how this cooler emitting to warmer works. When the cooler emits, doesn't its temperature drop?
You have to explain how this cooler emitting to warmer works.
It's simple, all matter above 0K emits.
It doesn't put out feelers and decide, emit this way, not that way.
When the cooler emits, doesn't its temperature drop?
Of course. And when the warmer emits, its temperature drops more.
You go on a bit about smart photons. Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons? All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.
I think he originally said that photons simply aren't emitted toward hotter matter.
I took that to mean they peaked out and looked around before they decided on a path.
Smart photons, smart emitters, either one is proof he's an idiot.
How come the bowling ball doesn't float off into space when its released down the lane? Does it peep around to see where gravity it stronger?
You go on a bit about smart photons. Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons? All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.
I think he originally said that photons simply aren't emitted toward hotter matter.
I took that to mean they peaked out and looked around before they decided on a path.
Smart photons, smart emitters, either one is proof he's an idiot.
You have to explain how this cooler emitting to warmer works. When the cooler emits, doesn't its temperature drop?
You have to explain how this cooler emitting to warmer works.
It's simple, all matter above 0K emits.
It doesn't put out feelers and decide, emit this way, not that way.
When the cooler emits, doesn't its temperature drop?
Of course. And when the warmer emits, its temperature drops more.
2 things, are there any real world observations of cooler dropping temperatures in a warmer environment?
If the cooler did in fact drop temperature, wouldn't it take infinite time for 2 objects to ever reach equilibrium
Ah forget it they wanted to use that as a bait to deflect from the fact that you won`t need any CO2 at all to heat air in an enclosure which is not totally transparent in the IR spectrum.SSDD, did you not catch Polar Bear's comment that the thermometer hole in the cap would have precluded any pressure build up in the bottles?
It looked like a fair amount of resistance when he pushed the thermometer into the bottle cap...perhaps there wasn't as much pressure as if the vent had been open, but there was certainly more pressure than if there were an open vent. Any pressure greater than 1 bar would have resulted in the CO2 bottle being some amount warmer than the air bottle.
Again, here is the text to a video that used to be on the internet...unsure where it went, but it performed the bottle experiment with closed caps and with the bottles being vented...when the bottles were sealed, the result was predictable...the CO2 bottle was warmer due to the heat of compression...when the bottles were vented, there was no difference in temperature between the two.
The experiment in this link was performed with much more control than the simple thermometer stuck in a bottle experiment that fooled you guys.
Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger
They each made several thousand posts about the back radiation of energy that had been absorbed being an additional energy source and suddenly have it not exist if something other than CO2 ( like PET plastic) absorbed it.
The absence of any convection was another major factor more significant than all the CO2 involved with this silly experiment. The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Too bad this video that (Physics) Prof.Dr.Gerlich and Tscheuschner posted is in German because they and over 1000 other scientist with a PhD in Physics say exactly what I have been arguing here.
No quantitative determination has ever been made that shows by how much atmospheric air warms in relation to the incremental increase of CO2 we contributed. They also say that neither the computer models nor the so called global average temperature reports are based on any of the science needed to actually calculate the forecast numbers that get published. It is a complete farce to present these estimations based on questionable statistical methods as if they had been scientifically determined. And as I said, + all the skeptics in this forum keep saying ( and ~ 1000 physics PhDs also say) this much quoted consensus among "climatologists" is a tool that may be acceptable and useful in politics but has no place in Physics.
The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Where are the roof vents of our atmosphere?
What might the IQ be of somebody who argues that the atmosphere has a glass roof ?
You need a glass roof to block IR?
Ah forget it they wanted to use that as a bait to deflect from the fact that you won`t need any CO2 at all to heat air in an enclosure which is not totally transparent in the IR spectrum.It looked like a fair amount of resistance when he pushed the thermometer into the bottle cap...perhaps there wasn't as much pressure as if the vent had been open, but there was certainly more pressure than if there were an open vent. Any pressure greater than 1 bar would have resulted in the CO2 bottle being some amount warmer than the air bottle.
Again, here is the text to a video that used to be on the internet...unsure where it went, but it performed the bottle experiment with closed caps and with the bottles being vented...when the bottles were sealed, the result was predictable...the CO2 bottle was warmer due to the heat of compression...when the bottles were vented, there was no difference in temperature between the two.
The experiment in this link was performed with much more control than the simple thermometer stuck in a bottle experiment that fooled you guys.
Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger
They each made several thousand posts about the back radiation of energy that had been absorbed being an additional energy source and suddenly have it not exist if something other than CO2 ( like PET plastic) absorbed it.
The absence of any convection was another major factor more significant than all the CO2 involved with this silly experiment. The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Too bad this video that (Physics) Prof.Dr.Gerlich and Tscheuschner posted is in German because they and over 1000 other scientist with a PhD in Physics say exactly what I have been arguing here.
No quantitative determination has ever been made that shows by how much atmospheric air warms in relation to the incremental increase of CO2 we contributed. They also say that neither the computer models nor the so called global average temperature reports are based on any of the science needed to actually calculate the forecast numbers that get published. It is a complete farce to present these estimations based on questionable statistical methods as if they had been scientifically determined. And as I said, + all the skeptics in this forum keep saying ( and ~ 1000 physics PhDs also say) this much quoted consensus among "climatologists" is a tool that may be acceptable and useful in politics but has no place in Physics.
The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Where are the roof vents of our atmosphere?
What might the IQ be of somebody who argues that the atmosphere has a glass roof ?
You need a glass roof to block IR?
Keep talking..the more wise cracks you make the more obvious it gets that comedians never did well at school. You and the other "expert" spent the whole weekend grand standing here saying glass does not absorb any IR especially not this strange global glass roof that exists in your magic mushroom mind.
And your giggly echo chamber friends can`t wrap their equally little minds around the fact that a plastic bottle with 100% CO2 maxed out at only 5 deg more than the control proves AGW is a hoax.
They figure 2500 times less CO2 will max out by as much if you give it several decades. But for that they need an "average" earth which has no nights or any cold seasons and is exposed to a steady solar irradiance...in other words a flat disk earth.
You go on a bit about smart photons. Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons? All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.
I think he originally said that photons simply aren't emitted toward hotter matter.
I took that to mean they peaked out and looked around before they decided on a path.
Smart photons, smart emitters, either one is proof he's an idiot.
How come the bowling ball doesn't float off into space when its released down the lane? Does it peep around to see where gravity it stronger?
Because gravity.
You go on a bit about smart photons. Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons? All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.
I think he originally said that photons simply aren't emitted toward hotter matter.
I took that to mean they peaked out and looked around before they decided on a path.
Smart photons, smart emitters, either one is proof he's an idiot.
How come the bowling ball doesn't float off into space when its released down the lane? Does it peep around to see where gravity it stronger?
Because gravity.
You mean the ball is just following the laws of the Universe?
Your source (that you failed to identify) is a Swedish mathematician by the name of Claes Goran Johnson. Johnson has never published any climate related work in a refereed journal, though he claims to have had one article published in a journal called "Relations". Unfortunately, no such journal exists and Johnson's supposed links to it lead back to his own website.
Claes Goran Johnson
PS: to claim that the Distributive law: ( A(B+C)=AB+BC ) does not apply in the physical universe is bullshit.
Here, from a PhD who gets it
Ah, I see where you are getting this crap: Claes Johnson.
He defines the True-SB as you have said a number of times
Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: False-SB
… the true Stefan-Boltzmann's Law (True-SB) concerns radiation from a blackbody of temperature T>0 into a background at 0K, …
That equation would be
R = emissivity sigma T⁴
He further observes that T cannot be negative. His observations are correct.
We can also define a background that is radiating,
Rc = emissivity sigma Tc⁴
That observation is also correct.
At equilibrium the absorption of the object by the background at Tc is
R = absorptivity sigma T⁴
So the outgoing radiation minus incoming radiation is:
R - Rc = emissivity sigma T⁴ - absorptivity sigma Tc⁴
Those two cannot be factored. In 1859, Kirchhoff defined a law that states that emission and absorption in heated objects at equilibrium are equal because if they were not, then the conservation of energy would be violated. In other words emissivity = absorptivity. So now the temperatures can be factored out.
R - Rc = emissivity sigma (T⁴ - Tc⁴)
If Tc is larger than T, both temperatures are still positive, as Claes would insist. But the result of the subtraction is negative. That simply means the roles of absorption and emission are reversed. Positive temperatures are still preserved. That is why Claes freaked out when he saw a negative difference in the equation.
That is essentially what the Dartmouth text excerpt said. Claes should read the Dartmouth paper.
