One thought on “Radiant Energy Transfer Surface To Atmosphere

  1. My reply:

    The CO2 AGW hoax relies on claiming a “net energy flow” between atmospheric CO2 and the surface to argue that the Second Law of Thermodynamics isn’t violated by CO2 back radiation, when we all know it is.

    Here’s the hoax being pushed by the DeSmog smear blog:
    https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/18/climate-advocates-underestimate-power-fossil-fuel-misinformation-campaign-brulle

    In its table titled “Fact/Myth/Fallacy” it states:
    “2nd law talks about net flow of energy, and doesn’t forbid some flow from cool to hot.”

    It’s all about the pesky persistent Planck (blackbody) Radiation Law, the Wien Displacement Law, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

    The CO2 hoaxers’ con game is exposed by the simple observation that the Second Law states that a colder body can’t raise the TEMPERATURE of a hotter body. It says nothing about net energy flow. CO2’s Max, er, max Planck radiation wavelength is 15 microns, which corresponds to a Planck temperature of 193K (-80C), which can’t even melt an ice cube. It might warm a -81C ice cube if it isn’t in water form 🙂

    Check my work here by typing 193K into the temperature field:
    https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

    You can sit in an ice cave and bask in all that 0C (10.6 micron) Planck radiation all day, but it won’t cook your meal. To raise the temperature of an object with max Planck radiation wavelength l, the radiating object must have a max Planck radiation of wavelength less than l, which requires it to have a higher Planck temperature. You can’t fool Mother Nature. Any longer wavelength radiation will either bounce off (reflect, like light) or get absorbed and reemitted at that longer wavelength,, which doesn’t warm the hotter object one gnat ‘s whisker because the Planck radiation curve already includes all longer wavelengths but only the max power wavelength determines the temperature, along with what temperature objects it can warm.

    It’s worse than that, because to raise the temperature of an object the second object must not only have a hotter temperature (lower max Planck wavelength), it must have the same or greater power to switch it to a higher temperature curve. Try holding a lit match in front of a cigarette at arm’s length and seeing how it won’t light until you narrow the distance.

    In short, a colder object’s radiation can’t push the Planck radiation curve to the left (shorter wavelength) and warm it up, but rather the hotter object will pull the colder object’s curve to the left, warming it up, while standing pat. Look up Doctor Dolittle’s Pushmi-Pullyu and see if 5th grader scientists can groove on it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Dolittle_characters

    Therefore, the whole CO2 back radiation narrative of so many watts per square meter of -80C radiation from some indeterminate range of heights in the sky is a pure hoax designed to fool thermodynamics ignoramuses, which sadly includes most so-called physicists.

    “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” – Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882-1944)

    Read my super cool collection of Quora articles tearing the CO2 greenhouse warming theory apart and revealing that it’s not only a scientific hoax, it’s being pushed for political purposes and is the ultimate fake news. How can we grab the public’s attention without a world stage like Great Tuna, er, Greta Thunberg gets?

    http://www.historyscoper.com/tlwsquoraclimatechangearticles.html

Comments are closed.