Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
It is fireworks night.....for "THE PHYSICS"
#1
Hi All,
I thought I had better share this as quickly as possible..

http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/132165.html
Frank Davis - Maxwell vs Planck

I suggest this is worth hurrying over to and reading...
Excerpt,

" And if "backradiation" is unphysical, then it can't be happening. And if that can't be happening, neither can Anthropogenic Global Warming.
And then AGW will prove to have been the product of the misdirection of physics by Max Planck in 1900 in his attempt to circumvent the problem of the "ultraviolet catastrophe".
It may well turn out that the AGW problem has been a consequence of an unfortunate dualism within physics that has grown up over the past 100 years.

AGW devotees may then be seen as being followers of Max Planck ("Planckists?"), and of the orthodox quantum physics of the past century.
AGW sceptics such as Johnson may be seen as followers of the older classical wave mechanical view of radiation ("Maxwellians?").
A dispute within physics has spilled out into a high-stakes political conflict.
"
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
#2
That story is very bad news for the future. History tells us there is only one way to curtail "Big government".
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#3
History does not always just repeat itself, I hope,
sometimes new technology means "things" will happen differently.

Gone are the days of simply drowning witches, burning books, and silencing ideas, it just ain't possible any longer.

Their greatest strength, is also their greatest weakness - I.T.
From computer models to "spreading the message", it cuts both ways.
Climategate, and now this.

Either way the cat is out of the bag, and it will be a rough ride.
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
#4
Woah!

Since I read this article yesterday.The comments section has rapidly expanded.SOD who was beaten raw by GORD in another blog.Was as usual too sure of what he believes.

The direction of the comments seems to be a little anti Claes Johnson,without any substantive reason for it.
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
#5
So, did anyone show that the mathematics used by Claes Johnson was wrong?

I didn't mean anything so mundane as "burning witches", I'm talking about full scale civil unrest. I predict that by the end of January 2011 there will be major riots in the UK as the people find they cannot afford the food and energy prices due to massive badly thought out tax hikes coming in on January 4th 2011.

Rather than start a new thread I thought I'd add this here; more "fireworks" so to speak. I'm keeping a note of this post for future reference. It's from NoTricksZone
and there are lots of links in the post to support claims.

Global Cooling Consensus Is Heating Up – Cooling Over The Next 1 To 3 Decades

Quote:By P Gosselin on 28. Dezember 2010

As winters get harsher and the snow piles up, more and more scientists are now warning of global cooling. Reader Matt Vooro has compiled a list (see below) of 31 prominent scientists and researchers who have words that governments ought to start heeding.

I guess only people under 40 years of age will possibly live to see the full extent of the forecasts. I lived through the 1940 to 1970 cool period and can assure you it was nothing bad.



Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#6
Quote:I lived through the 1940 to 1970 cool period and can assure you it was nothing bad.

Stephen Wilde,a while ago posted at Climate Realists.The opinion that the increasing solar output during that time blunted the cooling trend.But the short term big drop in the early to mid 1970's was due to a weaker than usual solar cycle.
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
The author here has confused the issues. I can't make my mind up whether he has confused the issues because he does not understand how radiation interacts with matter or whether he is deliberately confusing the issues as a way of subtly undermining Claes Johnson. Or maybe a bit of both. For example he contradicts himself with these two statements:-

(1)"The net result is that a warm blackbody can heat a colder blackbody, through incoming frequencies above cut-off. But a cold blackbody cannot heat a warmer, because incoming frequencies below cut-off will be re-emitted without heating effect.

(2) Since "backradiation" refers to the latter case, the model indicates that "backradiation" is not physical."

Statement (1) is correct, that is part of the laws of thermodynamics as I studied as an undergraduate chemist.

Statement (2) is not correct, back radiation does exist and is physical, however where the confusion exists is that this back radiation has the same or lower energy as the surface it is back radiating onto- the surface is already emitting at this wavelength. Therefore, it cannot heat the surface, it is just re-emitted back to the atmosphere in a random direction- eventually out to space. The back radiation is physical but warming from this back radiation is not only not physical, but it is impossible.

Frank Davis is AGAIN confusing radiation with heat. IR radiation IS NOT heat, it can, however create heat by interacting with an IRIM (an Infra Red Interacting Material- such as a gas), but only if that gas is cooler.

The Planck versus Maxwell argument is a bit of a red-herring. At uni, I was taught that radiation exists in the form of quantum packets of radiation waves. We do not have to choose between waves and quantum packets as Davis states, we recognise that radiation is BOTH a quantum packet and a wave. That is the nature of quantum mechanics. Davis is trying to undermine Johnson by subtly suggesting that his views of physics are old fashioned. Pure nonsense!

BTW, after the recent excellent "climate fools day" at the houses of commons, I had a quick chat with Hans Schreuder. He, like me has the background of a chemist. And he confirmed my thoughts on the matter that back radiation exists but it cannot heat the surface as the radiation has the same or lower energy (wavelength, in effect) as the earths surface that is emitting the radiation. Therefore as the surface of the earth is ALREADY emitting at this wavelength it cannot absorb the back radiation cannot be heated by it.

The mere existence of back radiation does not imply heating. It is very simple really- heat energy, like water ALWAYS moves down hill- from hot to cold NEVER the other way round.

also!
Note the weasel word "May":-

"AGW sceptics such as Johnson may be seen as followers of the older classical wave mechanical view of radiation "

"may" does not mean that he does!!!
Reply
#8
(12-30-2010, 09:18 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: back radiation exists but it cannot heat the surface as the radiation has the same or lower energy (wavelength, in effect) as the earths surface that is emitting the radiation. Therefore as the surface of the earth is ALREADY emitting at this wavelength it cannot absorb the back radiation cannot be heated by it.

The mere existence of back radiation does not imply heating. It is very simple really- heat energy, like water ALWAYS moves down hill- from hot to cold NEVER the other way round.

Climate realist:-
I may have misunderstood here, but I had taken from the above description
specifically "heat energy, like water ALWAYS moves down hill- from hot to cold NEVER the other way round"
(and your post) that,
lower wavelength IR when absorbed would have to lower the energy level of the surface of the absorbing object
(by (half of) the difference between them [allowing for specific heat differences]).
This is, as I understand "things", what is meant by "relatively absorbed".

Owt else is either "all positively" absorbed, or ignored below the "cut off" wavelength. Niether of which I can "see" happening.

Also, the mean free path length of a photon is rarely brought into such "discussions" when it is central surely, particularly in real world applications?

I had read into Frank Davis's descriptions of quanta and wavelengths in regards to this matter that how Planck calculates such had to be done to avoid the UV catastrophe,
not that we had to distinguish between them. I would agree that Davis actually goes about explaining Johnson's ideas incorrectly, and maybe that is deliberate to undermine Johnson.
In short, yes it is useful to consider both quanta and wavelengths, but when calculating greater care one way or the other is required.

I think Planck's way to avoid the UV catastrophe is wrong, and Johnson is by comparison more correct, but not completely "there" as of yet.
All other heat flows are relative, which is the same as saying heat only goes from hot to cold, no one to date has shown why radiation is supposedly so different that,
a cooler thing can warm a warmer thing.
A cooler thing cools a warmer thing surely, by whatever means.






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
#9
Derek wrote :- "that,
lower wavelength IR when absorbed would have to lower the energy level of the surface of the absorbing object
(by (half of) the difference between them [allowing for specific heat differences]).
This is, as I understand "things", what is meant by "relatively absorbed".

Owt else is either "all positively" absorbed, or ignored below the "cut off" wavelength. Niether of which I can "see" happening."

No, "relatively absorbed" has no meaning in terms of radiation and physics and chemistry, you cannot have radiation averaging out and cold warming hot. To do so would cause a decrease in entropy, which is against the laws of thermodynamics. The reason why radiation from a cooler body (lower atmosphere) CANNOT warm a warmer body (the earths surface) is because the warmer body (the Earths surface) is already emmitting IR at this wavelength. Therefore, the earths surface is not warmed by this back radiation which is at the same "temperature" in terms of energy as the earths surface. Therefore, the hot earths surface acts like a mirror to the IR at this energy level (wavelength). A body emits IR at a wavelength that is proportional to its temperature. Hence materials are seen to change colour as they are heated- example would be steel when heated to (approx) 1000C glows red hot, then orange and by the time it is white hot- emitting white light, the steel is so hot it is molten.

This is to do with the excitement of electrons in the molecules and atoms of the material. The hotter the material, the more excited the electrons, the "hotter" the radiation. This is because the photon (wave quanta particle) is emitted when an electron changes energy state (moves from a higher more excited orbital to a lower one).

In the case of the surface of the earth, it is already excited to the same energy level as the back radiation, hence it cannot get excited further by radiation that it is already emitting as to do so would effectively be energy from nothing. Which is impossible.

However one tries to describe it, the greenhouse effect is impossible within the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

I have spoken to Hans Schreuder (I love my CO2 website and an associate with Alan Siddons) and he confirmed my understanding as detailled above is the correct one. Put simply, the greenhouse effect is impossible. Unless one is Gandalf and magic is real of course!
Reply
#10
CR writes:

Quote:The reason why radiation from a cooler body (lower atmosphere) CANNOT warm a warmer body (the earths surface) is because the warmer body (the Earths surface) is already emmitting IR at this wavelength. Therefore, the earths surface is not warmed by this back radiation which is at the same "temperature" in terms of energy as the earths surface. Therefore, the hot earths surface acts like a mirror to the IR at this energy level (wavelength). A body emits IR at a wavelength that is proportional to its temperature. Hence materials are seen to change colour as they are heated- example would be steel when heated to (approx) 1000C glows red hot, then orange and by the time it is white hot- emitting white light, the steel is so hot it is molten.

I thought incoming VISIBLE LIGHT (that strikes the planets surface) is at a more energetic level,than outgoing IR.That alone would make it impossible for a lower energy state Infrared radiation to warm up a more energetic Visible light effect that is busily striking the surface,for half the day but emitting all night by that lower energy state IR.

Since it is obvious that it is INCOMING solar radiation that does all the warming of the planets surface.It would then be reasoned that Visible Light then represent the top of the energy hill.This is considered in the below:

Greenhouse Gas Facts and Fantasies

Quoting the last paragraph:

Quote:The second law of thermodynamics prohibits carbon dioxide from arresting or reversing the spontaneous downhill flow of energy, putting advocates in the awkward position of insisting that a trace atmospheric component's innocent participation in a natural heat dissipation process is responsible for warming a planet. The fictitious "trapped heat" property, which they aggressively promote with a dishonest "greenhouse gas" metaphor, is based on their misrepresentation of natural absorption and emission energy transfer processes and disregard of two fundamental laws of physics. Their promotional embellishments have also corrupted the meaning of "greenhouse effect," a term originally relating the loose confinement of warm nighttime air near ground level by cloud cover, to hot air trapped inside a greenhouse.
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
#11
Sunsettomy, yes, that is right, you are understanding the basic physics of why the greenhouse effect is impossible. Visible light has a shorter wavelength than UV and hence each photon (wave/ quantum wave particle, however you like to describe it) has more energy than IR photons.

Yes, and I agree, all the radiation that warms the earth does come directly from the sun (apart from the tiny effect possibly of visible light scattered from the atmosphere over a sunset/ sunrise horizon).
Reply
#12
Thank you for the replies Climate Realist. I will consider and reply in due course.
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
#13
Been ruminating on this subject of "backradiation". Thinking about clouds. Let's assume 10/10 cloud at 600 metres above ground level. Surface temperature of say 15C and a lapse rate of -6C per kilometre will give us a cloud base temperature of 11.4C. The cloud is cooler than the surface but not by much, also the cloud will have a much broader radiation band as water has an emissivity of 0.95 and the surface will be disparate items like grass, roads, trees, rooftops etc.etc. with a wide range of emissivities and all rather less than that of water.

I'm not suggesting the cool cloud will warm the surface. What I am suggesting is that the cloud base temperature will rise until there is equilibrium in the energy transfer between the surface and the cloud base.

This means for that altitude of 600 metres lapse rate is now effectively zero. Is this possible? How else to account for the marked reduction in surface cooling at night when under heavy cloud?

Thoughts anyone?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#14
(06-11-2011, 03:30 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Been ruminating on this subject of "backradiation". Thinking about clouds. Let's assume 10/10 cloud at 600 metres above ground level. Surface temperature of say 15C and a lapse rate of -6C per kilometre will give us a cloud base temperature of 11.4C. The cloud is cooler than the surface but not by much, also the cloud will have a much broader radiation band as water has an emissivity of 0.95 and the surface will be disparate items like grass, roads, trees, rooftops etc.etc. with a wide range of emissivities and all rather less than that of water.

I'm not suggesting the cool cloud will warm the surface. What I am suggesting is that the cloud base temperature will rise until there is equilibrium in the energy transfer between the surface and the cloud base.

This means for that altitude of 600 metres lapse rate is now effectively zero. Is this possible? How else to account for the marked reduction in surface cooling at night when under heavy cloud?

Thoughts anyone?

Clouds represent a stable layer of air that blocks heat loss by convection.

Reply
#15
Clouds represent a stable layer of air that blocks heat loss by convection.

If convection is not happening the lapse rate must be zero?
I am trying to understand the physics of this phenomenon.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#16
(06-11-2011, 08:48 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Clouds represent a stable layer of air that blocks heat loss by convection.

If convection is not happening the lapse rate must be zero?
I am trying to understand the physics of this phenomenon.

It's not that the convection is not happening at all, just the stable layer of air under the clouds somewhat inhibits heat loss by convection- slows it down a lot. Thus keeping warm air close to the ground.

Lapse rate is to do with the loss in air pressure as you increase altitude- generally the higher you go the colder it is as a result of lower air pressure. Although this is applies "with all things equal", an exception could be if you have a temperature inversion, for example.

A gas, when put under pressure (compressed) will increase in temperature, and when the pressure is lowered (expands), the temperature will drop- despite the same amount of heat being in that body of gas.

Reply
#17
Thanks C R, I can follow all that. Its a case of a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing with me. Wink

Right now, here in Milford Haven there is a very welcome light steady rain. Been raining for some hours because all my water storage tanks are overflowing. I have four cubic metres. Outside temp is 9C at 08:15 local time. It was 8C two hours ago. This is a low rate of temperature increase for this time of day. Sun is quite high now but no sign due to the cloud, so this must be dispersed scattered light energy causing the current warming at 1 metre above the surface. Normally shade temperature rises much faster at this time under clear skies.

I have a little experiment with a half square metre of mild steel plate 3 mils thick and noted the plate temperature increases faster than the air temperature, in the shade remember, which to me indicates energy is being passed to the surface via light scattering through the clear air above.

What I am trying to understand is energy produced/absorbed by the continuous phase change of water vapour at the base of the cloud in relation to the natural radiation from the surface.
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
  Is The Institute of Physics Fascist? Questioning_Climate 2 4,306 01-11-2010, 11:52 AM
Last Post: Questioning_Climate



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)