Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Short History Of Radiation Theories
#1
Here is a very interesting PDF about the thinking behind people who apparently in mistaken fashion.Creates the "greenhouse" effect paradigm.

A Short History Of Radiation Theories – What Do They
Reveal About "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?


Matthias Kleespies, Germany, November 18th, 2011

Here are a few excerpts:

Quote:Moreover, Erren (2003) points out: "The key paper on global warming written by Svante Arrhenius [1] in 1896 relies on the infrared observations of the moon as published by Langley in 1890 [2]. The paper of Langley contains errors that were corrected in 1900 by Langley and Abbot[3] but this was
after Arrhenius published his theory."

Quote:It is therefore realistic to conclude that Arrhenius´ theory is based on misconceptions – aether theory and misunderstanding of Fourier´s greenhouse experiments – and flaws in Langley´s data upon which his theory is built. So, Arrhenius´ "greenhouse effect" theory is questionable, to say the least. But nevertheless, modern "greenhouse effect theories" still largely claim that:
a) The atmosphere acts like a greenhouse made of glass
b) CO2 is a major contributor to this greenhouse effect

Interested in the rest of the PDF presentation?

It is HERE
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
Kleespies paper is interesting, however, he is on the wrong track trying to disprove downwelling IR.

Of course there is downwelling IR, this can be measured. The real killer to the greenhouse effect is that it is impossible for this down welling IR to warm the ground and thus create a greenhouse effect. According to quantum mechanics, the molecules and atoms of the ground are already excited to a higher or same energy state than this IR can stimulate and the ground is itself already emitting IR of the same wavelengths.

Therefore back IR IS real, HOWEVER, it is impossible for back IR to heat the ground further. It is merely back scattered out (eventually) to space along with all the other upwelling IR.
Reply
#3
Well said, CR. Have a look at this blog:

http://jinancaoblog.blogspot.com/

Scroll down a couple of posts. Interesting stuff.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#4
That is right, good link Richard! He states that if anything, CO2 will act as a coolant by absorbing kinetic heat energy from O2 and N2 molecules in the atmosphere and radiating this energy out to space as IR. i agree with that.

CO2 cannot convert any IR energy it receives into kinetic heat energy and thus warm the planet because the atmosphere is already at this temperature and all CO2 molecules already excited enough to be emitting IR as they absorb Kinetic heat energy, This explains why the greenhouse from IRIGs effect does not exist in the atmosphere and my post above explains why it does not exist for the earths surface either!

I admire the Dragon Slayers, they have said some good and correct things but seem to be needlessly tying themselves in knots over this disproving of downwelling IR. There is no need for that! and no need to invoke Einstein to discredit Planck etc.

It also matters not whether Maxwell, or Newton or whoever is correct about light being particles or waves or wa-ticke duality things! . The Dragon slaers are wasting their energy on these red- herrings and thus opening themselves to straw- man argument put downs.
Reply
#5
Strange that. The Dragon Slayer team have a lot of fire power with their combined qualifications.
Whatever, I'm not qualified to knock 'em. Since day one for me I have been asking the question "Why doesn't the dry adiabatic lapse rate change for large changes in water vapour?" Trying to resolve that has led me to reading more about how water vapour reacts to sunlight in the 1 to 5 micron bands. To me it seems the H2O molecules absorb incoming near infrared maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere even though volumetric mass has reduced. The secondary effect would be to reduce that amount of sunlight driven energy from reaching the surface hence land surfaces at the equator never get as warm as the equitorial desert regions. All very complex but I have learnt enough to reduce warmists to calling me names rather than talk science. Cool
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#6
I have decided to increase the importance of this long PDF presentation.

It is now a stickied thread.

An interesting comment from the PDF:

Quote:What does this mean? If you read at least the shorter of Johnson´s articles you will understand that electromagnetic waves can flow from both the warmer to the colder body and vice versa but HEAT can ONLY be transferred from the warmer to the colder body as required by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#7
"Quote:
What does this mean? If you read at least the shorter of Johnson´s articles you will understand that electromagnetic waves can flow from both the warmer to the colder body and vice versa but HEAT can ONLY be transferred from the warmer to the colder body as required by the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

YES! exactly, this is what I've been banging on about on forums for the last two years or so! The reasons why this is so is due to the energy level of an incoming photon/ray needed to excite an electron and thereby convert radiation into heat. If the radiation comes from the colder body then the frequency distribution and hence energy of the radiation from the colder body will be too low to excite and thereby heat the warmer body. I've been putting this on the internet for a few years now and it seems at last some of the Slayers are cottoning onto this quantum explanation of the 2nd law as applied to disprove greenhouse gas theory,
Reply
#8
(03-23-2012, 06:53 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: "Quote:
What does this mean? If you read at least the shorter of Johnson´s articles you will understand that electromagnetic waves can flow from both the warmer to the colder body and vice versa but HEAT can ONLY be transferred from the warmer to the colder body as required by the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

YES! exactly, this is what I've been banging on about on forums for the last two years or so! The reasons why this is so is due to the energy level of an incoming photon/ray needed to excite an electron and thereby convert radiation into heat. If the radiation comes from the colder body then the frequency distribution and hence energy of the radiation from the colder body will be too low to excite and thereby heat the warmer body. I've been putting this on the internet for a few years now and it seems at last some of the Slayers are cottoning onto this quantum explanation of the 2nd law as applied to disprove greenhouse gas theory,

Slayers say it is a ONE WAY process (as stated by the Second law) but the lukewarmers say it is a NET process thus slowing down the cooling effect.

It is obvious to me that they are hung up on the idea of a NET effect that does not exist.Thus they are always in conflict with the second law.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#9
The idea of a "Net" heat transfer is nonsense. Either a photon/wave excites an atom/molecule or it is just back - scattered. Either it does or doesn't. There is no room for "Net" in the discrete yet weird world of quantum mechanics.
Reply
#10
The unresolved discussion about what happens has had me in knots too..

I still have not seen a good reason anywhere why it is not all relative.
I do not mean all positive, that merely creates energy.
I do not mean below peak gets back scattered, that seems to ignore energy to me.
I mean does the below peak reduce the energy level of the hotter object, ie, it is absorbed relatively.
As I noted a long time ago now on this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1057.html
I just do not "get" the "maths" of climate science.
that I think Climate Realist hinted at above.

My point is we live in a relative world, everything I see is relative, so why not IR absorption?
The "mystery" to me is that all three approaches actually give the same answer for two objects at different temperatures, but
it is the time taken to reach equilibrium that changes...
Maybe one day someone will do the experiment to show which timing is correct, because
untill that time as far as I understand, all three possibilities are merely conjecture.
Well, except all positvely absorbed which is obviously shown everyday, all around us to be incorrect.

So, is it back scattering or absorbed relatively?
I for one will admit, I am still none the wiser.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#11
(03-24-2012, 10:14 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: The idea of a "Net" heat transfer is nonsense. Either a photon/wave excites an atom/molecule or it is just back - scattered. Either it does or doesn't. There is no room for "Net" in the discrete yet weird world of quantum mechanics.

I agree. My layman's intuitive thoughts on this derive from reading that radiation occurs between molecules of any solid. Truly! Imagine an iron bar at slightly above room temperature. Look inside and you will see the molecules jostling but not changing position. You will also notice a 'glow', slightly brighter in the middle and dimming towards the surface. This is the total radiative band for that substance at that temperature, dimming as it cools. Since the bar is slightly above air temperature it has a slightly brighter 'glow' than the air around it as it cools. Photons from the air can arrive at the surface but only those photons with a statistical energy level ABOVE the surface temperature of the bar can be absorbed. But that energy WILL NOT be passed DOWN into the iron bar because the kinetic energy distribution in the iron molecules are more tightly constrained than the energy distribution from the molecules in the air.
I think I mentioned kinetic energy distribution in the Layman's thread. So it is possible an energetic photon from the air will be absorbed at the surface of the bar but statistically, the chance is too small to effect the overall heat energy in the bar. I believe that there are NO reports from any laboratory experiments that show warmer objects getting any warmer when placed in a cool environment.

If you have got this far Wink , consider what is happening to the iron bar when it has reached thermal equilibrium with the air around it. The bar is effectively BLACK BODY! Therefore it MUST be cooling radiatively! Well it sure is, but now we must consider CONDUCTIVE energy change between the surface of the iron bar and the surrounding air.

Yet when you pick up an iron bar at room temperature it feels COLD. Fun, isn't it!

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  CO2 absorbs very little outgoing Infrared Radiation Sunsettommy 0 2,458 05-23-2015, 08:04 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured Sunsettommy 0 2,498 07-25-2012, 02:30 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Outgoing Longwave Radiation and the Greenhouse Effect: Ken Gregory Sunsettommy 1 7,370 07-03-2011, 12:58 PM
Last Post: Inconvenient_Skeptic
  An important moment in science history - Hal Lewis Derek 5 9,251 10-14-2010, 04:46 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)