Heat Transfer Basics

Heat Transfer Basics – Part Zero | The Science o... https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/12/heat-tra...
The Science of Doom
Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
Feeds: Posts Comments
Heat Transfer Basics – Part Zero
September 12, 2010 by scienceofdoom
This post “follows” on from Heat Transfer Basics and Non-Radiative Atmospheres

(https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/08/22/heat-transfer-basics-and-non-radiative-atmospheres/)
and Do Trenberth and Kiehl understand the First Law of Thermodynamics?
(https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/26/do-trenberth-and-kiehl-understand-the-first-law-of-
thermodynamics/) and many other posts that cover some basics.
It’s clear from comments on this blog and many other blogs that a lot of people have difficulty
understanding simple scenarios because of a lack of understanding of the basics. Many confident (but
erroneous) comments state that particular scenarios can never occur because they violate this or that
law..
I know from my own experience that until a concept is conceptually grasped, a mathematical
treatment is often not really helpful. It might be right, but it doesn’t help..
So this post has a number of examples that paint a picture. It has some maths too.
Enough examples might help some readers unfamiliar with thermodynamic concepts grasp the essence of some
heat transfer basics.
Ignore the details if you like and just check the results from each example. Some maths is included to
make it possible to check the results and understand the subject a little better.
Conduction
We will use the example of a “planar wall”. What exactly is that?
It’s a wall that extends off to infinity in both directions.
For those thinking this is some kind of climate madness, it’s simply physics basics – draw up a
1 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
problem with simple boundary conditions and find the answer. If we start with some massively
complex problem that approximates the real world then unfortunately there will be no conceptual
understanding. And this article is all about conceptual understanding. Start with simple problems
and gradually extend to more complex problems.. (The wall can just be a long wall if that makes you
happier).
Example One is a wall, made out of PVC, with both sides held at a constant temperature (probably
by a fluid at a constant temperature pumped over each side).
Example One – constant temperature conduction
(https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com
/2010/09/heat-transfer-zero-conduction-fixed-temp1.png)
We want to calculate the heat flux (heat flow per unit area) travelling through this wall of PVC.
The basic equation of heat conduction is:
q = kA . ΔT/Δx (see note 1)
where ΔT is the temperature difference, Δx is the thickness of the wall, A is the area, k is the
conductivity (the property of the material) and q is the heat flow.
To make things slightly easier we consider heat flux – heat flow per unit area, q”:
q” = k . ΔT/Δx
For PVC, k=0.19W/m.K
And for the case of this wall, T1 = 50°C, T2 = 10°C and therefore ΔT = 40°C
So,
= 0.19
q”59
2 of x 40 / 2 = 3.8 W/m² 10.08.2016 11:00
In this example, because the system is holding both surfaces at a constant temperature we have a
constant (and continuous) flow of heat between surfaces.
You can see that not much heat is flowing because PVC is a very good insulator.
Example Two – constant temperature conduction, thinner wall
(https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/heat-
transfer-thinwall-fixed-temp.png)
q” = 0.19 x 40 / 0.2 = 38 W/m²
So with the wall 10x thinner, the heat flux is 10 times greater. Hopefully, for most, this is intuitively
obvious – put thinner insulation on a hot water pipe and it loses more heat; wear a thinner coat out in
the cold and you get colder..
If we changed the PVC for metal then the heat flow would be very much higher, as metal conducts
heat very effectively.
Now what’s supplying the heat? The liquid or gas being pumped over the higher temperature surface
to keep it at that temperature.
Note that these surfaces will be radiating heat. However, this doesn’t affect the calculation of
conducted heat between the two surfaces.
In simple terms, heat flow due to conduction depends on the temperature difference, the material
and the dimensions of the body.
Example Three – no temperature differential

3 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
/2010/09/heat-transfer-zero-conduction-fixed-temp-same-temp1.png)
Now both sides of the wall are held at the same temperature,
q” = 0.19 x 0 / 2 = 0 W/m²
This is very simple, but obviously confuses some people, including some visitors to this blog. It is
temperature difference that drives conduction of heat. If there is no temperature difference, there will
be no conduction.
In these three examples we have constrained the temperature on each side to see what happens to
heat flow. Now we will change these boundary conditions.
Conduction and Radiation
Example Four – constant heat supply one side, fixed temperature

the other
This is example two but with a constant heat supply instead of a constant temperature on one side.
4 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
(https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/heat-transfer-thinwall-0-2-radiation-10c.png)
This example is now more complex. The right side of the wall is held at a constant temperature of
10°C, as with the first few examples, but the other surface of the wall now has a constant input of heat
and we want to find out the temperature of that surface.
The heat source for the left side is incident radiation. We will assume that the proportion of radiation
absorbed (“absorptivity”) is 80% or 0.8. And we will assume that the emissivity of the surface is also
0.8. See note 2.
How do we now calculate the surface temperature T1?
It’s quite simple in principle. We use the first law of thermodynamics – energy cannot be created or
destroyed. And we will calculate the equilibrium condition – which is when steady-state is reached.
This means no heat is being retained to increase the temperature.
So all we have to do is balance the heat flow terms at the surface (the left surface). Let’s take it step by
step.
Energy absorbed from radiation:
Ein(absorbed) = Ein x 0.8
This is because 80% is absorbed and 20% is reflected, due to the material properties of PVC.
For energy balance, once the surface has reached a steady temperature:
Ein(absorbed) = q” + Eout (see the diagram)
q” is the heat flux through the wall, and Eout is the radiated energy. At this point we are assuming
no convection (perhaps there is no atmosphere for example) to keep things simple.
Hopefully this is quite a simple concept – the heat absorbed from radiation is balanced by the heat radiated
from the surface plus the heat conducted through the wall.
5 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
We can calculate the energy radiated using the well-known Stefan-Boltzmann
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law) equation,
Eout = εσT4
where ε = emissivity (0.8 in this example), σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 x 10-8) and T is
absolute temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_temperature) in K (add 273 to
temperature in °C).
Except we don’t yet know the temperature.. Still, let’s put it all together and see what happens:
Ein(absorbed) = q” + Eout
Now put the numbers in that we know:
500 x 0.8 = 0.19 x ΔT / 0.2 + 0.8 x 5.67×10-8 x T14
Now ΔT is the temperature difference between T1 and T2. T2 is held constant at 10°C so ΔT=T1-10.
However, the first term on the right is expressed in °C and the second term in absolute temperature
(K). We will express both as absolute temperature, so ΔT = T1-283.
So now the equation is:
400 = 0.19 x (T1-283) / 0.2 + 0.8 x 5.67×10-8 x T14
The important point to note for those a little bewildered by all the numbers – we have used the first
law of thermodynamics, the equation for emission of radiation and the equation for conducted heat
and as a result we have an equation with only one unknown – the temperature.
This means we can find the value of T1 that satisfies this equation. (See note 3 for how it is found).
T1 = 302.80 K = 29.65°C
And using this value, conducted heat, q” = 18.7 W/m² and radiated heat, Eout = 381.3 W/m².
In this case, there is a lot more heat radiated compared with conducted.
Example Five – as example four with a thinner wall
With a much thinner wall or a much higher conductivity the balance changes.
6 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
/2010/09/heat-transfer-thinwall-radiation-10c.png)
Changing the thickness of the wall from 0.2m to 2mm, keeping everything else the same and so using
exactly the same equations as above, we get:
T1 = 284.24 K = 11.09°C
Note that this means the temperature differential across the wall has reduced to only (just over) 1°C.
And using this value, conducted heat, q” = 103.6 W/m² and radiated heat, Eout = 297.4 W/m².
Example Six – as example four with increased “colder” temperature
Now with the 0.2m wall (example four) we increase the temperature of the colder side, from 10°C to
25°C.
7 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
(https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/heat-transfer-thinwall-0-2-radiation-25c.png)
Using the same maths we find that the temperature, T1, has increased:
T1 = 305.16K = 32.01°C
An increase of 2.36°C.
Most people are probably asking “why this example? it’s obvious that increasing the temperature of one side
will lift the other..”
However, many people believe that a colder atmosphere cannot affect the temperature of a warmer
surface. See, for example, The First Law of Thermodynamics Meets the Imaginary Second Law
(https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/28/the-first-law-of-thermodynamics-meets-the-imaginary-
second-law/). This reasoning is due to a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
However, as conduction is quite familiar and more intuitive I expect that this example will be more
easily accepted. And perhaps this last example will help a few people to see that a colder body can
affect a warmer body without violating any laws of thermodynamics.
Conclusion
In Do Trenberth and Kiehl understand the First Law of Thermodynamics?

thermodynamics/) I presented a hollow sphere in space with a heat source at its center. Some people
were (and still are) convinced that there is something wrong with the results from that example. One
person (at least) is convinced that the inner surface must be at the same temperature as the outer
surface.
The only correct approach to calculating heat transfer and temperatures is to apply the relevant
equations of conduction, convection and radiation to the particular problem in question.
8 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
Conduction of heat is proportional to the temperature difference across a material
Radiation of heat is proportional to the 4th power of (absolute) temperature of a surface
The first law of thermodynamics is used to solve these problems: energy in – energy out = energy
retained, for any particular part of a system that you analyze
Many people rely on intuition for determining whether a solution is correct. However, intuition is not
as reliable as applying the basic equations of heat transfer.
Note that the example in Do Trenberth and Kiehl understand the First Law of Thermodynamics?
thermodynamics/) uses exactly the same equations and approach as the examples here. If these six
examples are correct you will have trouble finding the flaw in the hollow sphere example.
Notes
Note 1 – Conventionally the equation of heat conducted has a minus sign because heat travels in the
opposite direction to the temperature gradient. And for the purists, the more general equation of
conduction is:
q” = -k∇T
where ∇T is the three dimensional version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del) of the “change of T

with respect to distance”
Note 2 – Emissivity = Absorptivity at a particular wavelength (and direction for “non-diffuse”

surfaces). In the case of a surface receiving radiation and emitting radiation there is no reason why
these two values should be the same. This is because the incident radiation will be at one wavelength
(or range of wavelengths), but the wavelength of emission depends on the temperature of the surface.
Note 3 – One simple way to find the value that satisfies the equation is to plot the equation for a wide
range of temperatures and look up the temperature value where the result is correct. This is what I
did here. It is the work of a minute with Matlab.
Update – added Sep 15th
A graph of temperature vs wall thickness for Examples Four & Five (with T2 = 10°C):
9 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
(https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/heat-transfer-conduction-radiation-graph-
t2-283k.png)
Update – Added Sep 15th
3D graph for examples 4 to 6 – of how T1 varies with wall thickness and T2:
(https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/heat-transfer-conduction-radiation-
103dgraph.png)
of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
Click for a larger image
Update – added Sep 16th
3D graph of how T1 varies with emissivity. First, when absorptivity = emissivity:
(https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/heat-transfer-conduction-radiation-3dgraph-
e.png)
Now with absorptivity (the proportion of incident radiation absorbed) set at 0.8, while the emissivity
varies.
11 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
(https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/heat-transfer-conduction-radiation-3dgraph-
e-const-a.png)
Notice that when the absorptivity and emissivity are equal the temperature T1 is pretty much
independent of the actual value of emissivity/absorptivity – why is that?
And when emissivity varies while absorptivity is fixed (and therefore absorbed energy is fixed) the
temperature T1 is pretty much independent of emissivity for very thin walls – why is that?
Posted in Basic Science | 142 Comments
142 Responses
Do Trenberth and Kiehl understand the First Law of on September 12, 2010 at 5:34 am | Reply
Thermodynamics? « The Science of Doom
[…] Heat Transfer Basics – Part Zero […]
Maurizio Morabito on September 12, 2010 at 6:09 am | Reply

And now for the obvious objection, as any lava lamp owner will be able to attest, the
equilibrium assumption is hard to apply, to the real world. Isn’t it?
Grumpy Old Man on September 12, 2010 at 6:38 am | Reply

Thanks very much for this posting. It’s so simple even I can understand it, and can now
re-read the previous postings with far more understanding.
scienceofdoom on September 12, 2010 at 7:13 am | Reply

Maurizio Morabito:
And now for the obvious objection, as any lava lamp owner will be able to attest, the
equilibrium assumption is hard to apply, to the real world. Isn’t it?
Every physics and engineering course studies equilibrium results.

12 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
The reason is that it provides a basic understanding of the outcome. It helps to identify the
variables that will change the steady state outcome and by how much.
You could equally argue that any calculation of physics/engineering problems is futile because
the material properties are hard to gauge accurately. Or the boundary conditions are impossible to
know accurately.
Any yet, this is why physics and engineering uses equilibrium conditions as a staple. It informs us
of the steady state outcome. And therefore, we have a good approximation of the actual real
world result.
In the real world, science and engineering uses it because it is informative.
Next dynamic/transient response is covered. This requires yet more knowledge – the initial
conditions, the heat capacities (if we are considering heat transfer) and so on. These are also
flawed, as real-world knowledge is imperfect.
Still, I believe it is better to know the solution approximately than to know nothing in a quest for
perfection. Others might disagree.
Maurizio Morabito on September 12, 2010 at 7:37 am | Reply

Hold it… who mentioned “futility”???
The objection is about the relevance of the “equilibrium” approximation. One could say
there is no malnutrition as the daily amount of produced food is on average more than enough.
But in the real world, whilst knowing of how to compute that average is not futile, it’s less
relevant than grasping the dynamics of the whole system.
omnologos on September 12, 2010 at 10:20 am | Reply

It’s Maurizio here again, after logging in to WordPress
Here’s an even more… relevant example
Antioxydants are well-known for their action in protecting cells in the lab (against free oxygen
and its effects). However, even if studying them in controlled conditions is far from futile, their
importance as anti-aging agents in the real world appears so far to have been overestimated.
Bryan on September 13, 2010 at 6:58 am | Reply

Well SoD in example 4
..”At this point we are assuming no convection (perhaps there is no atmosphere for
example) to keep things simple.”…
It seems you have worked out the temperature of a vacuum.

in this case being T1 = 302.80 K
Well done.
I’m sure a Nobel prize cannot be far away!
Mohamed Iqbal Pallipurath on January 1, 2014 at 4:02 pm | Reply

13 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
It is not the temperature of vacuum numbnuts, it is the temp of the left side of the plate
(wall/surface/whatever)
Bryan on January 2, 2014 at 2:18 pm

Mohamed Iqbal Pallipurath says
“it is the temp of the left side of the plate”
As SoD made clear in his reply (see below).

Such a long post to indicate that insulation works.
Hope you were convinced.
The radiation source is unknown.
The less creative folk who visit the site (like myself) will take a lot of convincing that heat
can spontaneously move from a colder to a hotter surface.
Others will gladly accept that heat does just that and offer up the greenhouse theory as
proof.
So its always a good idea to get clarification
As to whether a vacuum has a temperature there is also some debate.
Some say that background interstellar radiation gives around 2.7K
Others say it has no temperature
Others give an operational definition of temperature as that which is measured by an

accurate thermometer.
In this case an accurate IR thermometer would read the same as the outer wall or slightly
higher if more inclined towards the radiation source.
But welcome to the discussion even if it has taken you over three years to form an opinion .
Its seldom that a solid gold wingnut like yourself makes a contribution.
DeWitt Payne on January 2, 2014 at 5:46 pm

Bryan,
So many words to say nothing at all.
The less creative folk who visit the site (like myself) will take a lot of convincing that
heat can spontaneously move from a colder to a hotter surface.
Precisely where in this article, or anywhere on the website, is it ever stated that net energy,
or in your terminology, heat, flows spontaneously from a colder to a hotter surface? That’s
entirely your straw man.
In example 4 we have a flux of 400 W/m² into the surface of the PVC on the left side from
an input of 500W/m². That surface then radiates back to the left, but at a rate lower than it
absorbs and conducts heat to the right to the constant temperature surface. The energy
flows balance at a left surface temperature of 302.8 K, which is warmer than the 283.2 K of
the right surface, and lower than the effective temperature of the incoming radiation of
14 of 59 306.44K. I see no flow of heat from colder to hotter, only from hotter to colder.10.08.2016
You get 11:00
exactly the same result if you use only one way flow. If you don’t, you’re not doing the
calculation correctly.
The source of the incoming radiation is irrelevant. It could be a black body spectrum at
306.44K, monochromatic at any wavelength or a complex spectrum as long as the
absorptivity of the PVC for the incoming radiation was 0.8.

Bryan:
It seems you have worked out the temperature of a vacuum.

in this case being T1 = 302.80 K
I worked out the temperature of the surface. Surfaces radiate into a vacuum or a gas or a liquid..
they aren’t picky.
Anyway, welcome to part zero. Tell me, are you happy with example six, where the colder surface
has increased the temperature of the warmer surface?
hunter on September 13, 2010 at 10:04 am | Reply

10 X the thickness of material X does not reduce the flux by 10 times. Are you going to
clarify this further?
Another point is this: you spent a great deal of time showing how heat from cooler sources
is absorbed by the warmer source next to it. How does this reconcile with the examples you are
working with in this post?

hunter:
10 X the thickness of material X does not reduce the flux by 10 times. Are you going to
clarify this further?
Example 2 compared with example 1 has a conducted heat flux change of 10x for a thickness
change of 10x.
Example 5 compared with example 4 has a conducted heat flux change of 5.5x for a thickness
change of 10x.
I guess this is what you are talking about?
Conducted heat flux is always equal to k . ΔT/Δx (see note 1 in the article).
In the case of example 4 vs example 5, the temperature of one side has been modified because of
the radiation of heat from the surface. Conducted heat is still calculated by that same formula but
surface temperature has been changed by radiation. The same formula was still used to calculate
conducted heat.
Does this make sense?
Another point is this: you spent a great deal of time showing how heat from cooler sources is
absorbed by the warmer source next to it. How does this reconcile with the examples you are
15 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
working with in this post?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Guessing at the idea..
The examples in previous article used the first law of thermodynamics to calculate temperature
changes as a result of emission of radiation from cooler bodies in the vicinity of hotter bodies (e.g.
The First Law of Thermodynamics Meets the Imaginary Second Law ).
Example 6 in this article shows a similar situation but this time using conduction – where a colder
surface affects the temperature of a hotter surface..
Well, maybe you can be more specific about your question.

SoD
Check your figure for T1 of example 4.

I make it 397.8K
In general there seems to be a great deal of confusion of terms.

This is not helped when technical definitions are used loosely.
The difference between an electric blanket and an ordinary blanket can give a useful illustration.
Both will provide insulation.
An ordinary blanket stops heat loss from a person by reducing heat loss by conduction convection
and radiation.
However it will never raise the temperature of the person.
An electric blanket on the other hand can raise the temperature of the person as heat can flow
from the blanket to the person.
What the second law states is that heat can never flow from a lower to a higher temperature
without work being done.
As you know a great number of misguided people assumed that when Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf
Tscheuschner made this statement they thought that they were implying that the atmosphere did
not radiate.
If they had taken time to read their paper carefully they would not have come to this foolish
conclusion.
Heat has the thermodynamic capacity to do work.
If in any example you are in any doubt, try obtain work.
If you can its heat, if not, its not.

Bryan:
Check your figure for T1 of example 4.

I make it 397.8K
Perhaps I made a mistake. Why don’t you explain your working and we can find out. Wrong
formula? Mistake in calculation?
In general there seems to be a great deal of confusion of terms.

This is not helped when technical definitions are used loosely..
So your answer about example six is?
16 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
Bryan on September 13, 2010 at 12:28 pm | Reply
SoD
Accepting your working for example 4 to;
“So now the equation is:
400 = 0.19 x (T1-283) / 0.2 + 0.8 x 5.67×10-8 x( T1)^4”
400 = 0.95(T1 – 283) + 0.8 x 5.67×64.14
421.05 = T1 – 283 + 290.94/0.95
421.05 = T1 – 283 + 306.25
=> T1 = 397.8K
In example 6 you have set conditions so that the radiation will produce the higher temperature on
surface of T1
There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the Earth with an atmosphere will be warmer than one
without.
What I have tried to communicate is that this does not mean that the atmosphere will heat the
Earth Surface. Rather it means that the atmosphere will reduce the heat loss from the Earth
surface.
DeWitt Payne on September 13, 2010 at 4:09 pm | Reply

Since you are solving for T1, how do you get 64.14 as T1^4/1E8?
In fact, if you use your value of T1, then 397.8^4/1E8 = 250.4, not 64.14. Plugging the
equation into Excel and using Solver, the answer I get is T1 = 302.7773K.
17 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
Harold Pierce Jr on September 13, 2010 at 6:42 pm | Reply
ATTN : SOD
RE: R Factor
The R factor is parameter that relates to the retardation of heat loss by various materials used for
insulation.
For example, pink fiberglass batts for walls with 2 x 4 studs has an R value of 12. For walls with 2
x 6 studs the batts are thicker and have an R value of 20.
During the lunar night which is 2 weeks, the surface temperature drops to -150 deg C. The coldest
temperature ever recorded during winter in Antarctica at the south pole is about -90 deg C.
Since the period of darkness in winter there is much longer than the lunar night, we would
anticipate that the temperature at the south pole would be lower than moon to the first
approximation. Since the atmosphere insulates the surface from heat loss, the temperature only
drops to -90 deg C.
Using a google search, I found an article which calculated for the earth’s atmosphere a R factor of
0.85.
Frank on September 14, 2010 at 2:22 pm | Reply

The polar cell (air rising about 60 degS, moving south and descending) brings energy
into the Antarctic. Ocean currents import energy to the edge of the continent.

DeWitt Payne, SoD
Yes my mistake I used value of T2 for the T^4 part.
scienceofdoom on September 13, 2010 at 9:24 pm | Reply

Harold Pierce Jr:
According to Wikipedia “The R-value is a measure of thermal resistance [1] used in the building
and construction industry”
This is the material property that defines the effectiveness of heat transfer by conductivity. You
can see it in this article, it is called “thermal conductivity” – this is the general term in use in
thermodynamics.
The atmosphere has a very low conductivity (0.025W/m.K) as do most gases and so conductivity
can be neglected in the atmosphere, except at the boundary layer with the earth’s surface.
The two other methods of heat transfer are convection – bulk movement of fluid transporting
heat, and radiation. These two are the important ones.
The atmosphere has a large interaction with the radiation emitted from the earth’s surface.
Convection has a huge impact on the heat transfer from the earth’s surface, without convection
the surface temperature would be much higher.
18 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
hunter on September 16, 2010 at 3:13 am | Reply
But ten times the insulation does not insulate ten times as well.
Chris G on September 16, 2010 at 5:15 am

Hunter,
True, but then it has long been established that effect of an increase in a GHG is
logarithmic with respect to the level of increase.

Bryan wrote (9/13 11 am): “An ordinary blanket stops heat loss from a person by reducing
heat loss by conduction convection and radiation. However it will never raise the
temperature of the person.”
1) Unless a blanket is impossibly skin tight everywhere, a blanket presumably won’t stop most
emission of radiation (eoT^4) by a person’s skin. (After the inner surface of the blanket absorbs
that radiation, some of the energy is conducted through the blanket and some returns to the
person as radiation (and some may go to raising the blanket’s temperature.) 2) Air is a fairly poor
conductor of heat, so it isn’t clear that a blanket conducts less heat from skin than air conducts. In
many cases, insulation is mostly due to small pockets of air in the insulating material and not the
poor thermal conductivity of the insulator itself. 3) A blanket does stop convection.
If you cover a dead person with a blanket, you won’t make him warmer, you’ll just slow down the
rate at which his temperature approaches ambient temperature. If you cover a live person with a
fixed rate of internal energy production (from metabolism of food), that person’s temperature will
rise from the previous equilibrium temperature until the rate of heat loss matches the rate of
internal heat generation. If you need experimental proof, first wear only your swimsuit and then
winter clothes outside in the winter and see if hypothermia (core body temperature <35 degC)
sets in. (Before that point, your body will shiver to increase internal heat generation and make
other changes capable of compensating for modest increases in heat loss.) The energy needed to
raise the person's temperature certainly came from the person himself – not the blanket – but that
doesn't change the fact that the person IS warmer. (The earth appears to be similar, except that its
source of energy is external, the sun, rather than internal.)
Grumpy Old Man on September 14, 2010 at 5:10 pm | Reply

@ Frank 1611 today.
At secondary school. I was taught that the earth had a molten rock centre with a core of
molten iron. evidence was in the form of earthquakes and active volcanoes. I was at school
a long time ago. Have things changed?

It’s my vague understanding that the energy released by collisions as the earth was
formed was enough to melt most of the solid (accounting for the spherical shape slight
flattened by spin) and allow the heaviest elements (mostly iron) to sink to the center.
The heat generated by decomposition of radioisotopes keeps earth very hot inside and the
outer core molten. The rate at which that heat reaches the surface of the earth by conduction
and convection is so slow that the energy input from inside the earth can be neglected
compared to the sun.
19 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
Frank
The trouble with a “homely” example like electric and ordinary blankets and a person is
that the illustration can be stretched until it loses the point.
If however I had said perhaps a bronze statue at say 80c placed in a room at say 20c with and
without a blanket, the respective temperature time graphs would both show falling temperature.
The rate of temperature fall of the blanket covered statue would be less than that of the bare
statue.
All three methods of heat transfer would be from the higher temperature to the lower temperature
at all times.
JanS on September 14, 2010 at 7:15 pm | Reply

Dear SoD,
The examples 4-6 are not fully specified. We also need to know the temperature of the
blackbody radiation source T(BB). This temperature will influence the “color” of the
emitted radiation, that is, its radiation wave-length, or frequency, spectrum. If T(BB) is higher than
T1, heat tranfer will occur, but not otherwise.
The wall surface T1 will also emit radiation and will re-radiate the entire input (500W/m2) if its
temperature is eual to T(BB) and the wall will therefore not be heated. If T1 is higher than T(BB)
(this corresponds to the atmosphere/earth case), T1 (the earth) will radiate all incident radiation
from T(BB) (atmosphere) plus additional energy depending on the temperature difference, that is,
>500W/m2, and the wall (the earth) will thus again not be heated. Only in the case when T(BB) is
higher than T1, heat will be radiativelly transferred to the wall. You can find basic and easily
digested information on the physics of blackbody radiation and radiative heat transfer at:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/
Your examples highlight the classical mistakes being made all the time (including by the IPCC),
based on lack of understanding of the physics of blackbody radiation and radiative heat transfer.
Kind regards, JanS

First, who said the source was a black body? It could be monochromatic microwave
radiation and the calculations would still be correct if the absorptivity of the surface for
the incident radiation was 0.8. According to your logic, you shouldn’t be able to boil
water in a microwave oven.
Second, if it were a black body, the exact temperature of the source of radiation would depend
on the geometry. For the case of an infinite parallel plane as the radiator, then a flux of 500
W/m2 specifies a minimum temperature of 306.4 K by the S-B equation. For any other
geometry, such as a distant luminous sphere, the source will have a higher temperature. If you
think you can provide a counter example where the black body source temperature is less than
306.4 K and still have an incident flux of 500 W/m2, have at it.
I wouldn’t be so quick to refer to Claes Johnson as a source of expert information either.
DeWitt Payne on September 14, 2010 at 8:38 pm

Third, if T2 is higher than 306.4 K, then heat flow in the PVC layer is in the opposite
direction and T1 is also higher than 306.4 K but less than T2.
20 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
JanS on September 15, 2010 at 10:37 am
In a microwave oven molecules having a dipolar moment, such as water molecules,
are made to oscillate and thereby absorb the microwave energy. This has nothing to
do with blackbody radiation. Other substances (without dipolar moment) will not
absorb microwave radiation.
I assumed that the incident power density (or energy flux density) in the examples 4-6 had
a blackbody wavelength or frequency distribution since this is relevant to the climate
discussion and since the examples 4-6 in the blog post use the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody
radiation law to estimate the T1 temperature. The SB law is only valid for blackbody
radiation and not for monochromatic radiation.
Clearly, the minimum (corresponding to parallel surfaces) blackbody temperature, with the
incident radiative power density (500W/m2) and emissivity (0.8) given in the examples,
comes down to a blackbody temperature of the level you indicate (306.4K). This
corresponds to my case, where T(BB)>T1, entailing that heat will be radiatively transferred
from T(BB) to T1 and T1 will thus increase.
So far so good. I, however, saw the examples as ‘educative’ such that one may consider the
effects of the incident power density taking higher or lower values than the one indicated. I
therefore considered the case where the incident radiative power density has a lower value,
such that the minimum blackbody temperature becomes lower that T1, that is, T(BB)<T1.
Here T(BB) may be seen as the colder atmosphere that interacts with the warmer surface of
the earth (T1)). In this case, radiative (but also convective and latent heat
(evaporation/condensation)) heat will be transferred from T1 to T(BB). entailing that T1
will decrease. The incident radiative energy from T(BB) will, in accordance to the second
law of thermodynamics, in this case be re-radiated (lossless) from T1 to T(BB) and will thus
not contribute to heating T1.

JanS
You can find basic and easily digested information on the physics of blackbody
radiation and radiative heat transfer at: http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/
Your examples highlight the classical mistakes being made all the time (including by the
IPCC), based on lack of understanding of the physics of blackbody radiation and radiative
heat transfer.
You can see my questions to Claes Johnson in the comments of Blackbody: Transformer of
Radiation.
He does agree that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is the integral of the Planck equation across all
wavelengths and directions.
This equation calculates the emission of thermal radiation from a surface without any reference to
the surrounding sources of radiation. It only requires knowledge of the temperature of the surface
and the emissivity.
However, Claes Johnson doesn’t believe this equation is correct. As it is just the integral of the
Planck equation he needs to explain why Planck’s equation is wrong.
In claiming “Your examples highlight the classical mistakes being made all the time (including by the
21 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
IPCC), based on lack of understanding of the physics of blackbody radiation and radiative heat transfer.“,
perhaps you can pick up the baton where Claes Johnson didn’t and explain what is wrong with
Planck’s equation for the emission of thermal radiation.
It’s a big claim – 100 years of physics has failed to spot the problem. I’ll be fascinated to see your
evidence..
JanS on September 15, 2010 at 10:39 am | Reply

I referred to Claes Johnson since he is an experienced applied mathematician with a
good insight into the ‘mysteries’ of physics. He does use non-conventional techniques
in solving physical problems, such as blackbody problems and has therefore met
resistance from ‘pure’ physicists, which does not necessarily mean that he is wrong. I will not
interfere in the discussion between you and Claes, but suggest that you again contact him to
sort out you questions. An open mindset related to the problem is helpful in such a discussion.
Chris G on September 16, 2010 at 4:49 am

Sorry SoD, I know you don’t like closed answers, but I’m going to paraphrase
something Dr. Schneider said in his last TV appearance, “No JanS, that’s just
wrong.”
I followed the discussion between SoD and C. Johnson, and the most standing out thing
Claes said was, “A is incomplete because the receiver is not specified. …. One cannot speak
about only emission, at least I can’t. ”
I’m no expert on thermodynamics, but what Claes is suggesting is akin to saying that an
excited molecule will not emit a photon unless whatever the receiver will be is known,
whether that receiver is a micron away or 100 light years away. That’s just plain wrong.
And, if he gets that wrong, I’m not terribly interested in trying to sort out what he got
right.

It takes a little longer in Excel, but here’s the plot of T1 and q vs T2:
22 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00

Bryan wrote (9/13 11 am): “As you know a great number of misguided people assumed
that when Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner made this statement they thought that
they were implying that the atmosphere did not radiate.” G&T are offended at the lack of
rigor in climate science (a frustration I share after sorting out some fallacies with regard to slab
atmospheres and Venus). However, in their 2010 reply to their critics (www.skyfall.fr/wp-content
/gerlich-reply-to-halpern.pdf), G&T write in Section 3.2:
Once again, we never claimed — allegedly with reference to Clausius — that a colder body does
not send radiation to a warmer one. Rather, we cite a paper, in which Clausius treats the radiative
exchange. The correct question is, whether the colder body [that radiates less intensively than the
warmer body] warms up the warmer one. The answer is: It does not.”
1) Unfortunately, G&T do not explain what happens to the energy in the photons that are emitted
from the colder body to the warmer one. 2) They do not appear to explicitly address the objections
of Halpern, Rahmstorf, or Gregory (Gregory cited below):
“2nd law is always a statement on net heat flows. To consider only one part of the exchange is
incorrect.”.
The discussion in this section focus on flaws in the approach of Ozawa, but does not conclude
with a statement that with a statement contradicting Gregory’s net heat flow explanation.
Although I certainly can’t follow all of the discussion, the equations G&T cite from their own
work (ΔS1 + ΔS2 > 0) appear to support the net flow approach. (I assume I am wrong about this.)

Frank
23 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
First of all thank you for the link to G&Ts reply to Halpern et al.
I have not had a chance to read it – much appreciated.
I pointed out to Joel Shore (during an exchange at WUWT) long before the comment was
published that he (or they) had drawn an unreasonable interpretation of G&Ts paper in that they
thought G&T were implying that the atmosphere did not radiate to a warmer Earth surface.
My own view is that the word “Heat” should only be used for the net flow.
My only quibble with G&T is that on one page they talk of “net heat flow”
My understanding of such a term would be if two heat sources were flowing into one surface.

Do G&T think that: a) the second law is violated whenever one postulates that energy
is transferred from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground or b) such a transfer is
allowed as long as more energy flows from the ground to the atmosphere than vice
versa? G&T are vague on this subject. For example, the abstract for their response says:
“In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second
Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire
process”
G&T certainly enjoy complaining about how the system, subsystems, and surroundings are
defined in various published descriptions of greenhouse theory and whether the second law
applies to energy flow or radiation as well as heat flow. If transfer of energy by radiation lies
outside the scope of the second law, why did they raise the issue of the second law? If transfer
of energy or radiation falls within the scope of the second law, why complain about which
word is used?
You claim that the best way to tell if heat is involved is to see if work can be done. If I put a
photovoltaic cell in the path of radiation, work can be done. Am I correct in saying radiation is
heat and subject to the second law?
Bryan on September 16, 2010 at 11:19 am

Frank
..”You claim that the best way to tell if heat is involved is to see if work can be done.
If I put a photovoltaic cell in the path of radiation, work can be done.” …..
Yes, if the cell is used to point at say the Sun the radiation produces electrical energy and
all manner of work can be done.
Perhaps you mean however, what happens if it is pointed to the cold sky at night?
In this case more radiation will leave its surface than lands on it.
Depending on the type of instrument, the cell is attached to and whether there was a
battery included an indication of flux change might be detected.

JanS on September 15, 2010 at 10:39 am:
I referred to Claes Johnson since he is an experienced applied mathematician with a

good insight into the ‘mysteries’ of physics. He does use non-conventional techniques in
solving physical problems, such as blackbody problems and has therefore met resistance from
24 of 59 ‘pure’ physicists, which does not necessarily mean that he is wrong. 10.08.2016 11:00
If you believe in and promote his theories then we look to you to support your claims. What
makes you think he has a good insight?
He has probably met resistance from everyone who has ever studied the subject and everyone
who has done research in the subject. For good reason. His ideas aren’t supported in any textbook
you can find.
That doesn’t necessarily mean he is wrong. But it does mean that you would be expected to
provide evidence for the claim.
It certainly means that if you write comments like:
Your examples highlight the classical mistakes being made all the time (including by the
IPCC), based on lack of understanding of the physics of blackbody radiation and radiative
heat transfer.
-that people are going to ask you to support them.
I did ask Claes to explain why, but his best seemed to be a dinner party analogy and an “I don’t
know”.
Claes hasn’t grasped physics basics, OR has uncovered an amazing new fundamental flaw in
Planck’s theories that will revolutionize the field.
I’m just going with the odds here, but will be happy to review new evidence when (if) presented.

Bryan from September 13, 2010 at 12:28 pm:
There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the Earth with an atmosphere will be warmer
than one without.
What I have tried to communicate is that this does not mean that the atmosphere will heat the
Earth Surface. Rather it means that the atmosphere will reduce the heat loss from the Earth
surface.
And Lo! There was much rejoicing.
So more radiatively-active gases in the atmosphere will – all other things being equal – increase
the temperature of the earth’s surface?

SoD
……”So more radiatively-active gases in the atmosphere will – all other things being equal
– increase the temperature of the earth’s surface?”……..
Lets remember here that less than 1% of the atmosphere radiate significantly in the Infra Red.
Of the molecules that do there are on average about 26 H2O molecules to each CO2.
Water has game changing property from Ocean extent to Latent Heat contributions.
Roy Spenser currently is featured on WUWT with an article saying that there is good evidence
that the overall feedback effect is cooling rather than heating.
25 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00

Roy Spenser currently is featured on WUWT with an article saying that there is
good evidence that the overall feedback effect is cooling rather than heating.
Negative feedback does not mean cooling. It means that the warming would be less than in the
case of zero feedback. Positive feedback means the warming would be greater than if the
feedback were zero.

Bryan (9/15 1:43pm): To avoid sounding like a CAGW’er, let’s not dodge SoD’s
awkward question with vague comments about the percentage of GHGs in the
atmosphere. What mechanism permits all warming to be avoided after increasing a
GHG reduces the rate of energy loss to space? The only mechanism I can see would be for the
GHG to also reduce incoming radiation. However, the purpose of the “two peaks” graphs that
G&T abhor (for their undisclosed scaling factors) is to show that this doesn’t happen.
And let’s not misrepresent Spenser, who actually said:
“While it seems rather obvious intuitively that a warmer world will have more atmospheric
water vapor, and thus positive water vapor feedback, I’ve just listed the first 5 reasons that
come to my mind why this might not be the case. I am not saying that’s what I necessarily
believe. I will admit to having waffled on this issue over the years, but that’s because there is
evidence on both sides of the debate.”
Feedback is the response to the warming forced by an increasing GHG. Positive feedback will
amplify any warming you chose to accept. Negative feedback will diminish any such warming,
but not change it to cooling. If negative feedback could could change a warming to a cooling,
the earth would be unstable towards runaway global cooling (an interesting idea given the
snowball earth hypothesis).
Bryan on September 16, 2010 at 2:56 pm

Frank
….”What mechanism permits all warming to be avoided after increasing a GHG

reduces the rate of energy loss to space? The only mechanism I can see would be for the
GHG to also reduce incoming radiation. “……..
I have seen arguments both for and against the net effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
A small overall heating effect in the troposphere.
A cooling effect above the troposphere.
Seems most likely.
The preponderance of water vapour which also has phase change effects makes separating
the variables affecting temperature very difficult.
The fact that there is no experimental proof that the increase in CO2 in the last 150years is
in any way linked to the 0.7C rise in temperature certainly leaves me unconvinced about a
CO2 greenhouse effect.

26 of I59
added a graph of how T1 varies with wall thickness and T2. 10.08.2016 11:00
(The version in the body of the article has a clickable link to a larger graphic).

I added two more graphs in the article, reproduced here (but clickable for larger versions
in the article)
3D graph of how T1 varies with emissivity.

First, when absorptivity = emissivity:
Second, with absorptivity (the proportion of incident radiation absorbed) set at 0.8, while the
emissivity varies:
27 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
Notice that when the absorptivity and emissivity are equal the temperature, T1, is pretty much
independent of the actual value of emissivity/absorptivity – why is that?
And when emissivity varies while absorptivity is fixed (and therefore absorbed energy is fixed)
the temperature T1 is pretty much independent of emissivity for very thin walls – why is that?

Frank
…..”Unfortunately, G&T do not explain what happens to the energy in the photons that
are emitted from the colder body to the warmer one.”…….
Yes I agree this is an area we would all like to get a handle on.
The hot surface is pouring out photons at high intensity yet is also subject to a lower intensity
stream of photons.
I get the picture of a few spectators arriving late at a football stadium trying to get in as the
crowds stream out.
The lower frequency lower intensity photons have each been issued a ticket from Kirchhoff which
they insist is valid.
Some people claim they know exactly what happens.

For them it produces a heating effect accounting for a 33 celsius rise in the temperature of the
atmosphere.
I have followed with interest the discussion around the articles started by Tom Vonk on WUWT
about photon absorption.
Several contributors who appeared to know exactly what goes on have come to exactly opposite
conclusions.
G&T will start from the classical exposition of equilibrium thermodynamics.

Two reservoirs, T1 at a higher temperature and T2 at a lower temperature.
28 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
Between these two reservoirs several examples of heat transfer are analysed as can be found in
any Physics Textbook.
All textbooks agree that heat cannot be transferred in a continuous cycle from the colder reservoir
to the hotter one.
Are the Earth Surface and the Atmosphere two such reservoirs?
Can heat be taken from the Earth Surface and transferred to the atmosphere without an
appreciable drop in the Earth Surface temperature?
If your answer to the two questions above is yes then you will agree with G&T.
Some will argue that the Sun /atmosphere/Earth interactions are so turbulent that non
equilibrium thermodynamics must be used to make any sense out of the situation.
SoD likes to look at the blackbody spectrum of the hotter source and the colder sink.
He does this for the solar(5800K) and terrestial (290K)spectra and the radiative gases plus the
spectra shift gives 33C warming.
Curiously JanS agrees that the “colour”(temperature of source) is important and says therefor the
temperature of the source in Example 4 above should be specified .
However this is countered by DeWitt Payne who gives the example of a microwave oven to
reinforce a view that it is the magnitude rather than the frequency of the radiation that is
important.
So Frank the matter is far from simple but if I was a betting man I would put my money on G&T
but keep an open mind.

Re Bryan (9/16 9:00 am):
According to the scientific method, the greenhouse hypothesis becomes greenhouse

theory as it withstands repeated experimental challenges (and theoretical challenge from the
second law) and as competing hypotheses are found to be inconsistent with observation. I’ll deal
with your points paragraph-by-paragraph and save space by not quoting each point.
If my memory is correct, SoD has presented data showing that about the right number of photons
(or ticket holders) arrive at the earth’s surface at night (not from the sun), with wavelength and
intensity consistent with DLR emitted by GHGs in the colder atmosphere. Since the downward
flux is more than 50% of the upward flux, it can’t be due to scattering of the upward flux.
All of Tom Vonk’s blather contains the caveat that no radiation/energy enters or leaves the gas he
discusses. Of course GHG’s can’t warm up (or cool down) the bulk of the atmosphere containing
them under these circumstances – energy is conserved. In the relevant world, energy enters and
exists. It’s hard to take most science that appears at WUWT seriously when they post this kind of
stuff and sensible comments are drowned out by the cheering section.
As noted previously, G&T never unambiguously state that the second law invalidates all schemes
with two-way flux of photons and net flux of energy from warmer to colder. If they explicitly
make such a statement in a respected, peer-reviewed journal and their argument survives the
inevitable replies, greenhouse theory (or the second law) will be dead. However, G&T seem to
object to aspects greenhouse theories that are less fundamental than two-way flux.
Heat can be taken from the surface of the earth without the surface temperature dropping. This
happens every day when the sun is shining. Once the sun goes down, surface temperature drops.
29 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
As best I can tell, greenhouse theory survives and no competing hypotheses exist.
omnologos on September 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm | Reply

Frank
> it withstands repeated experimental challenges
Such as? (question)
Frank on September 17, 2010 at 7:49 am | Reply

Omnologos: “Greenhouse” theory (a misleading name) was devised to explain why
the average surface of the earth was much warmer than necessary to radiate away the
power delivered to the surface and the lower atmosphere by the sun. Greenhouse
theory POSTULATES that GHG’s in the atmosphere absorb some outgoing infrared radiation
and re-emit half of that energy towards the surface of the earth (“Downward Longwave
Radiation or DLR). Challenge #1: Experiments show the existence radiation with appropriate
spectrum and intensity to be DLR from the atmosphere. See SOD’s posts on DLR. Challenge
#2: DLR is present at night, so the sun is not the source. Challenge #3: DLR doesn’t have the
right intensity or wavelength to come from other stars. Challenge #4: There is too much DLR
for the radiation to be scattered OLR from the surface of the earth. Challenge #5: Is transfer of
energy from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface by DLR inconsistent with the the
second law of thermodynamics when accompanied by a larger transfer of energy in the
opposite direction by OLR? G&T don’t make this claim – they seem to object to other things
THEY choose to include within the scope of greenhouse theory. This challenge probably hasn’t
been completely resolved. In the absence of other explanations (do you have any?), there is
strong experimental evidence for the existence of DLR and no reason to believe the
atmosphere is NOT the source.
Accepting greenhouse theory does NOT require one to accept all of the IPCC “consensus”. If
you read SoD’s posts on DLR, you’ll learn that even when we send a radiosonde up to
determine the exact temperature and humidity of the atmosphere, we can’t calculate the
intensity of DLR with enough accuracy (ca 1%) so that the discrepancy between theory and
observation isn’t comparable with the forcing expected for 2X CO2. That tells us there are good
reasons to doubt the reliability of GCMs, which must predict temperature, humidity, and then
DLR.
omnologos on September 17, 2010 at 11:24 am

thank you Frank
It’s good to read about experiments, really
omnologos on September 16, 2010 at 6:24 pm | Reply

As for Tom Vonk, if we’re not free to be wrong, then we’re not free to be right either.
Actually, if we are suppressing views because they are “wrong”, we end up as literal slaves
of whatever happens to appear “right” at the moment. Hardly the way to progress science…

30 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
omnologos: This is scienceofdoom, not politicsofdoom, religionofdoom, philosophyofdoom,
lawofdoom. The goal of science is to learn what is right, not to be free to be wrong! In
pursuit of knowledge, we DO have the freedom to follow our own ideas, but that
freedom comes (as usual) with responsibility – the responsibility to listen with An
open mind, to make constructive criticism (a challenge for me), to defend ideas on their
scientific, not political merits, and to publicly admit when our ideas are incompatible with
reliable observations or a well-established scientific theory. (Well-established theories are
occasionally toppled, but that is unlikely to happen here at scienceofdoom.) It may seem to
happen at Climateaudit, but the toppling actually begins after McIntyre publishes in a
peer-reviewed journal AND successfully responds to peer-reviewed criticism of his work.
I seriously doubt that Andy Watts lets Tom Vonk post at WUWT so that Tom can be “free to be
wrong” in front of Andy’s audience. Tom’s mistakes were subtle, but he didn’t engage with his
critics. In his first post, Tom defines LTE (local temperature equilibrium):
“If the particle stays long enough in a small volume to interact with other particles in this
small volume , for example by collisions , then the particle will equilibrate with others.”
An emitted photon usually doesn’t remain inside the small volume where its source GHG
molecule is colliding frequently with its neighbors. Photons usually escape LTE, partly because
they (being massless) can’t exchange energy by collision. A photon can be lost to space, reach
the surface of the earth or be absorbed by a region of the atmosphere with a different
temperature; all of which can change temperature. But Tom insists:
“Because the number of excited molecules in a small volume in LTE must stay constant , [it]
follows that both processes emission/absorption must balance .”
When temperature changes because of net loss or gain of photons, the number of excited
molecules does not remain constant. Tom doesn’t allow gas to gain or lose energy by radiation
– and conservation of energy ensures that CO2 can’t heat up N2. The bulk of Tom’s posts
heroically describes the mechanical details of that energy conservation, unfortunately with
mistaken assumptions about photons.
The behavior of radiation interacting with a volume of air is described by the Schwarzschild
equation, a subject SoD was kindly suggested when I rejected slab models of the atmosphere.
When B(T) = I (I is now intensity, not a personal pronoun), incoming and outgoing radiation
are in equilibrium, but this is not the same thing as LTE – I comes from OUTSIDE, B(T)
depends on INSIDE temperature. The probability of emitting a photon is determined by the
Planck function, B(T), not the Boltzmann distribution. http://www.sundogpublishing.com
/AtmosRad197.pdf

Frank
….”Heat can be taken from the surface of the earth without the surface temperature
dropping. This happens every day when the sun is shining. Once the sun goes down, surface
temperature drops.”……
This is at the centre of the second law debate.
Is the surface of the Earth a big enough reservoir?
If it is not, then no other reservoir is available to test the second law constraints for almost any
31 of given
59 example. 10.08.2016 11:00
The average temperature of the Ocean surface is about 16C
If we take 1Km radius section of calm water through several cycles exchanging energy with the
atmosphere say at night for one hour IMHO that the change in Ocean surface temperature would
be unmeasurable.
If the loss of heat is unmeasurable then since we all agree that the energy from the atmosphere to
Earth (being even less) would certainly be unmeasurable.
Two aspects show the direction of heat transfer.

1. Can work be done
2. Has the transfer resulted in a temperature rise.
On rare occasions the air temperature can be higher than the ground temperature.
When this happens the energy transfer capacity from Atmosphere to ground is not sufficient to
stop energy transfer from Earth Surface resulting a drop in temperature and sometimes ground
frost.
In pages 27 to 30 of their paper G&T made a calculation of the Terrestial Radiation.

Its in conflict with the IPCC K&T figure.
Strangely enough Halpern et al did not seek to contest this.
Further G&T say;
1. All the radiation figures given by IPCC are far too high.
2. That the energy transfer values cannot be calculated from the spectrographs or radiative
transfer equations as given.
3. The use of the Stephan Boltzmann equation is invalid when applies to gases.
It seems that points 1,2and 3 above would be open to test by experiment.

However we would need to ensure that the measuring instruments were calibrated independently
of the Stephan Boltzmann equation or we would end up in a circular argument.

Byran: Thanks for the reply, but the debate seems to be getting far afield. My points
were that solid experimental evidence for DLR exists (SoD has posted some) and
neither G&T nor Vonk convince me (for reasons I have explained) that the atmosphere
is not the source.
I hated some aspects of greenhouse theory when they were presented as slab atmospheres
radiating as grey bodies. Look at my link to Schwarzschild equation, it contains the real
physics. I think SOD posted on this subject when he calculated the temperature profile for a
gray atmosphere.
Bryan on September 18, 2010 at 6:49 pm

Frank
Thanks for the link to Schwarzschild equation.

I will check it out.
I hope I did not give the impression that I found Tom Ronk convincing.
My point was there seemed to be a number of people who went into considerable detail in
backing up their point of view during this item.
TT,VT,VV interactions between CO2 and N2 were analysed by seemingly knowledgeable
32 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
people.
However they came to exactly opposite conclusions.
I was interested in the debate to find out what happens at a micro level with CO2s
interactions in the atmosphere.
I’m still looking.

Bryan,
Look closely at the graphs on pages 27-30 of solar vs Earth surface radiation. G&T are
comparing brightness at the surface of the sun to brightness at the surface of the Earth. But the
sun is 150 million km from the Earth and brightness falls as r-2. That’s why the solar constant for
the Earth is 1378 W/m2 not 63.3E6 W/m2. This is a flaw so basic as to be mind boggling. G&T’s
graphs are also in cgs units rather than SI, which makes no sense either. I believe that answers
point 1.
See also: http://bccp.lbl.gov/Academy/pdfs/InvSquareLaw.pdf
For point 2, their assertion is simply wrong. One calculates the energy values by integrating under
the spectrum whether measured or calculated. The spectrometers are calibrated against black
body radiation at two different temperatures so the readings are in power units. Total IR up and
down near the surface can also be measured with an instrument called a pyrgeometer.
Measurements are in reasonable agreement with calculations.
See: https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/ plus parts

two and three.
For point 3, they are indeed correct. But see the reply to point 2. One doesn’t need to use the
Stefan-Boltzmann equation when you have a measured or calculated spectrum to integrate.

I made a mistake in point 1. G&T do in fact correct for the distance from the sun, but
they don’t correct for hemispherical illumination, atmospheric absorption or albedo,
which is still a mind boggling error. So they are comparing solar irradiance at the top
of the atmosphere with the sun directly overhead to emission from the earth’s surface.
Hemispherical illumination reduces the average solar irradiance at the surface by a factor of 4
and albedo and absorption by a factor of 2.04. So rather than the radiation at the ground being
3.46 times weaker than the incoming radiation, the surface radiation is 2.36 times greater than
the incoming solar radiation.

DeWitt Payne
The ratio of the Solar Radiation arriving at the Earths Atmosphere to that of the upward
Terrestial Radiation is probably one of the least falsifiable figures.
I think I will spend some time on this.
I have just printed off the paper byKramm, Dlugi and Zelger .

They go into the matter in great detail and seem to back G&T.
I have found in the past that G&T have been considerably underestimated.
33 of Although
59 I have not had a chance as yet to come to a hard conclusion on this point; 10.08.2016 11:00
it seems to me
unlikely that two theoretical physicists are likely to put on print several times the same
conclusion, if its an obvious error.

Bryan,
Lets look at totals rather than per unit area. The amount of solar radiation intercepted by
the Earth is the area of an ellipse with the equatorial and polar radii of the Earth:
Etot = Fo * pi* R1*R2
Fo = 1365.2 W/m^2
R1 = 6378137 m
R2=6356752.3m
Etot = 1.7389E17 W
But that’s at the TOA. The amount that gets to the surface has to be reduced by the amount
reflected and the amount absorbed by the atmosphere. The Bond albedo which is the fraction of
the total EM energy from the sun that is reflected is 0.2986 (TFK09) and the fraction absorbed by
the atmosphere before it gets to the surface in the UV and near IR is 0.2285 (TFK09).
1-0.2986-0.2285 = 0.4729 is then the amount transmitted to the surface. So:
Esurf = 1.7389E17*0.4729 = 8.2226E16 W
The amount radiated by the surface of the Earth, Eu, is the surface area of the Earth times the
sigmaT^4 (ignoring emissivity). If we take T = 289.1 K and area = 5.101E14 m2:
Eu = 2.020E17 W
To put it in the same form as G&T:
Es/Eu = 0.407
That’s almost an order of magnitude different from the 3.46 ratio calculated by G&T. The errors,
particularly the fundamental geometric error, are inexcusable for physicists with their reputation.
It also knocks their whole argument into a cocked hat, not counting all their other errors. Note
that even if we ignore the amount of incident radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, the Es/Eu
ratio is still less than one. A ratio less than one is a requirement for a greenhouse effect to be
present.

DeWitt Payne
After reading the G&T paper it is now clearer in my own mind that they are talking
about maximum values.
They do this as background for a standard calculation For the “glasshouse effect”.
They are not using the calculation to contest IPCC values.
This is made clear in conclusion 2.3.5.

34 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
If we take your figure of 1365W/m2 TOA and divide by BB Earth Surface figure 396W/m2 we
get
3.45 which is almost exactly the same as the G&T figure.

Comparing TOA solar zenith insolation with surface emission is comparing two
very different things, apples and oranges in the idiom and is a logical fallacy. The
ratio of 3.46 is, therefore, meaningless.
This is because the full 1365 W/m2 does not reach the surface because of reflection and
absorption, only illuminates half the globe at a time and illuminates a hemisphere rather
than a flat disk. So a glass greenhouse (or a car) doesn’t ever see 1365 W/m2 even if it were
at the equator at noon in the desert on a clear day on the equinox. For half the day, it
doesn’t see the sun at all. The surface, OTOH, radiates 24/7 and is the surface of a sphere.
The surface temperature of 290 K is the planetary average, not the surface temperature at
the equator on a clear day at noon on the equinox.
Figure 13 is an obscene picture, since it is physically misleading. The obscenity will not
remain in the eye of the beholder, if the latter takes a look at the obscure scaling factors
already applied by Bakan and Raschke in an undocumented way in their paper on the
so-called natural greenhouse effect [102]. This is scientic misconduct as is the missing
citation. Bakan and Raschke borrowed this figure from Ref. [103] where the scaling
factors, which are of utmost importance for the whole discussion, are left unspecied.
This is scientic misconduct as well.
Claiming that graphs which represent solar energy scaled to reflect these facts as being
scientific misconduct is, in fact, scientific misconduct or sleight of hand at best. I could,
with far more justification, say that G&T’s Figure 11 is an obscene picture since it is
physically misleading.
The (large) part of the paper that concentrates on how a glass covered greenhouse works is
a very stinky red herring. In spite of all their quotes, no one actually says that the
atmospheric greenhouse effect works exactly the same way as a glass greenhouse.
The inference of a greenhouse effect results from the observation that the surface receives
less energy from sunlight than it radiates, as demonstrated by the calculations above and
measured with pyrheliometers. That energy has to come from somewhere. It is also an
observed fact that the atmosphere radiates toward the ground at about the rate necessary
to make up the difference as measured by pyrgeometers. It is possible to calculate the IR
emission spectrum of the atmosphere as well as measure much of it with high resolution
FT-IR spectrophotometers. The calculated and observed spectra are in good agreement.
This isn’t, of course, proof. One can’t prove a scientific hypothesis or theory. But it’s good
evidence that the theory works. There is absolutely nothing in G&T that falsifies these
observations and hypotheses.

Bryan,
Another thing about real greenhouses: In a tunnel style greenhouse with an IR transparent
35 of cover
59 like polyethylene the surface can become colder on a clear night than the outside air. By 11:00
10.08.2016
blocking convection, you force a temperature inversion.
In both years of the study, during the fall months, typically when it was full sun during the
day and the temperature dropped considerably at night, the internal high tunnel temperature
dropped below that of the ambient temperature, as shown in Graphs 6 and 7.
From: http://www.hort.cornell.edu/hightunnel/about/research/general
/penn_state_plastic_study.pdf

DeWitt Payne
G&T are simply using readily calculated values to obtain a quick result for what they
sarcastically call a “standard cookbook recipe” for undergraduates.
This is made clear in conclusion 2.3.5.
They then went on to examine the experiment by Woods.
Thanks for the link to the polyethylene tunnel.
These links away from the sometimes heated climate change debate are all the more believable
since they have no “axe to grind”.

Please tell me how all the discussion by G&T on greenhouses falsifies the atmospheric
‘greenhouse’ effect. It’s window dressing as far as I can tell and has no relevance. If you
can’t do that, then show me where G&T actually falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
I haven’t been able to find it.
Do you see the relevance of the plastic covered tunnel greenhouses to Wood’s experiment? A clue:
What do you think the temperature of a salt plate covered box would be at night compared to a
glass covered box. How efficient would you expect a kitchen oven to be if the transparent part of
the door were IR transmitting instead of IR opaque?
The temperature during the day is the least important part of a greenhouse. What really counts is
how cold it gets during the night. A box with highly absorbing walls and low thermal mass
should get to about 160 F during the day if the peak insolation at the surface is 800 W/m2, which
is not unusual at mid latitudes on a clear summer day. But that same low thermal mass means
that if allowed to freely radiate in the IR, it will cool quickly as well.

DeWitt Payne
Ive now had a chance to read your link to the poly tunnels.
The link to the construction of the tunnels seems to be in a process of changing .

This means that I have no idea what the sides of the tunnels were made of.
As I read it 3 of the films had IR blockers(like glass) one Tufflite Control was transparent to
IR(like Rocksalt).
During the day it made almost no difference to the internal temperature of the tunnel.
36 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
One would have thought that in terms of classical glasshouse theory that the IR blockers
would have produced a higher temperature.
At night the IR blockers showed inconsistent results sometimes having a small effect at other
times no effect.
The surprising thing to most people is that at night all the tunnels followed a pattern of
dropping below the outside ambient temperature.
Perhaps the still air inside cut off from the outside convective changes gave rise to this result.
In general these results are consistent with the Woods experiment.
Reasons to be cautious
Two of the films were kept constant throughout the study and two were changed.
The two left for two years had different composition and time dependent degradation may be
different.

It’s a tunnel. The shape is a half cylinder like a Quonset hut so it’s all made from the
same material.
See: http://www.northerngreenhouse.com/ideas/how_to/rebar.htm
Of course it doesn’t make a difference during the day. That’s not the point. The point is that
a long wavelength transparent greenhouse cover does make a difference to the average
temperature inside the greenhouse. So Woods was wrong because he only looked at the
daytime peak temperature and not a full 24 hour cycle.

DeWitt Payne
From your chosen source on polytunnels;
In the conclusions paragraph
….Although IR blocking films MAY OCCATIONALLY raise night temperatures by 0.5 to 3

degrees F…..the trend does NOT SEEM to be consistant over time.
This set of results if true, are a vindication of Woods experiment.

Nobody argued that there might not be a small residual radiative effect.
But it appears to be either non existant or very small.

Bryan is a wonderful resource for this blog – helping to demonstrate how weak the
arguments are against the inappropriately-named “greenhouse” effect.
Bryan is still to explain what happens to the DLR (aka “back-radiation”) when it reaches the
surface.
As explained in The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two and Part Three.
And previously in The First Law of Thermodynamics Meets the Imaginary Second Law
It’s clear that the DLR is absorbed and this affects the temperature.
37 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
If Bryan – or his icons, G&T – knew an alternative answer they would have told us by now.

scienceofdoom, DeWitt Payne
G&T. Some incontrovertible points.
1.Navier Stokes equation throws up a number of insoluble partial differential equations which
when applied to the atmosphere means any computer model of the atmosphere is a joke.
2.The “greenhouse theory” and its account of how it produces a 33c rise in temperature do not
seem to have any logical link.
3. Woods experiment stands.
4. The atmospheric slab model is now being discarded by the more discerning advocates of the
greenhouse theory.
5. The Halpern et al comments totally missed their target which is unfortunate as no proper
debate has taken place.
6. As it stands the G&T paper has shaken off any serious criticism.
7. As you scan the Internet on this topic any contributor who declares a professional background
in heat transfer physics has come out in support of G&T.
8. The impact of G&Ts paper can be observed, since its publication there have been far fewer new
diagrams showing HEAT moving from the atmosphere to the Earth Surface.
Much more attention is being paid to the correct definitions of; Heat,Work,Internal Energy,
Temperature,Infra Red Radiation and so on
Is that enough to be going on with?…………

Bryan,
1. Irrelevant to the topic at hand. You don’t need a GCM to calculate the local
radiative/convective balance. You can measure it.
2. That’s an assertion by you. Just because you don’t understand or aren’t willing to accept the
argument doesn’t mean it isn’t logical.
3. Irrelevant. Wood’s experiment has nothing whatsoever to do with the atmospheric greenhouse
effect.
4. If you mean the single slab model, that was always a toy pedagogic model meant to
demonstrate the fundamentals, not to make detailed calculations. Textbooks on atmospheric
radiation still have sections devoted to a slab model for just this reason. See for example Petty,
Grant W. A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, chapter 6.4.3, Simple Radiative Models of the
Atmosphere: Single Layer, Nonreflecting Atmosphere. You can read it Amazon by searching on
6.4.3 in Look inside the book and selecting the link to page 139.
38 of 5.
59Assertion. Missed what target? 10.08.2016 11:00
6. Only in your mind. There has been little serious criticism of G&T because working scientists
don’t consider it to be worth their time. A criticism would be normally rejected by most serious
journals as a waste of space. Valueless papers are almost always ignored, not rebutted. That’s why
you only see this being discussed in the blogosphere.
7. Anecdotal so not in the least probative and also an appeal to authority, which is delightfully
ironic. If you’re going to make that sort of a statement, you need to cite a few references so a
neutral observer can evaluate the expertise of the cited examples.
8. Show me a diagram from a serious scientist that ever showed net heat flow from the
atmosphere to the surface except when a temperature inversion was present and the air above the
surface was warmer than the surface.
None of that addresses the question I asked you. I’ll rephrase: Where do G&T show that the
surface of the Earth receives sufficient energy from direct sunlight to balance the energy lost by
radiation and convection? I haven’t been able to find it. It is precisely this point that is successfully
addressed by atmospheric radiation, i.e. the greenhouse effect.

DeWitt Payne
G&T. Some incontrovertible points.
1.Navier Stokes equation throws up a number of insoluble partial differential equations which
when applied to the atmosphere means any computer model of the atmosphere is a joke.
…………
These computer models are used to make projections for the IPC C.
Although the models have been a dismal failure, the IPCC are still using them to force a major
disruption of the world economy
……….
2.The “greenhouse theory” and its account of how it produces a 33c rise in temperature do not
seem to have any logical link.
………..
Try to go from your IR poly tunnels (probably non existent) radiative effect to a 33C claimed rise
in the Earths Atmosphere
…….
3. Woods experiment stands.
…….
4. The atmospheric slab model is now being discarded by the more discerning advocates of the
greenhouse theory.
…………..
So what number of slabs would you suggest?
……………
5. The Halpern et al comments totally missed their target which is unfortunate as no proper
debate has taken place.
…………..
The main point of the comment paper was that they said G&T believed the atmosphere did not
radiate.
G&Ts original paper, the Halpern et al Comment and G&Ts reply are all now available to
download freely
39 of …………..
59 10.08.2016 11:00
6. As it stands the G&T paper has shaken off any serious criticism.
……………
7. As you scan the Internet on this topic any contributor who declares a professional background
in heat transfer physics has come out in support of G&T.
…………..
Two straight off Fred Staples Terry Oldberg and another in the G&T blog on Climate Research
News.
Three others I have come across.
However I have never come across any of the opposite persuasion
…………..
8. The impact of G&Ts paper can be observed, since its publication there have been far fewer new
diagrams showing HEAT moving from the atmosphere to the Earth Surface.
Much more attention is being paid to the correct definitions of; Heat,Work,Internal
Energy,Temperature,Infra Red Radiation and so on.
………….
A recent lapse however was when Trenberth asked “whats happened to the missing heat”

Bryan,
1. GCM’s are used to estimate the sensitivity of the climate to a change in CO2
concentration. The magnitude of the current atmospheric greenhouse effect is based on
measurements, not GCM calculations. Just because there is no analytic solution to the Navier-
Stokes equations doesn’t mean that any solution is impossible. A system with more than two
gravitationally bound bodies doesn’t have an analytic solution either. In fact, it’s chaotic. So does
that mean that you can’t calculate the future positions of the planets in the solar system? No. It
just means that the predictions get worse the farther ahead in time you try to make them. This
point is irrelevant to whether a greenhouse effect exists in the Earth’s atmosphere, i.e. whether the
surface is warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were transparent to LW IR radiation.
More later.
You continue to ignore my question.
However I have never come across any of the opposite persuasion
My Ph.D s in Electroanalytical Chemistry. That means I learned to solve the diffusion equation.
The diffusion equation has exactly the same form as the heat equation. So you can now start a list
of those who know something about heat transfer that think the G&T paper is, shall we say,
incontrovertibly flawed and that the fundamentals of the atmospheric greenhouse effect theory
are correct.

Bryan,
2. I guess if wouldn’t seem logical if you didn’t think that DLR is absorbed by the surface.
But the incontrovertible fact is that the surface is warmer on average than if it were a black body
with no atmosphere receiving the same amount of sunlight. The 33 degree calculation is based on
a simplified toy model of a sphere with what amounts to a superconducting surface so that every
point on the surface is at the same temperature all the time. That’s, of course, not correct so 33
40 of degrees
59 is too low. But given the high heat capacity of the surface and the atmosphere of the 11:00
10.08.2016
Earth, it’s a fair approximation and the error amounts to no more than 3 degrees.
3. You have yet to explain the relevance of Woods’ experiment to the reality of the atmospheric
greenhouse effect. At best, it suggests that greenhouse is a misnomer for the atmospheric effect,
but it is completely irrelevant to whether the surface of the planet is warmer than if there were no
atmosphere present. If you restrict the analogy to the interior of a greenhouse is warmer than it
would be if the greenhouse weren’t present and the surface of the planet is warmer than it would
be if the atmosphere were transparent in the LW IR, then the name is still valid. Just because the
actual mechanisms of the two are different doesn’t mean the effect doesn’t exist.

Shame that we can’t cook up 8 red-herrings to make one explanation pie.
Perhaps we should add some more of Bryan’s own red herrings and see what kind of dish
we get:
– the DLR is Rayleigh scattering

– the DLR is “mostly reflected”
– the DLR values are too high
– Kirchhoff’s law doesn’t work
– Stefan-Boltzmann’s law is wrong
– it doesn’t matter because the ocean is so massive

4. It depends on the resolution you want. Miskolczi uses 150 layers in his line-by-line
program HARTCODE, IIRC, SpectralCalc uses 15. MODTRAN uses 32, or at least it gives
you the temperature and flux at 33 altitudes including the surface in the text output. This
is SOP for using numeric analysis to solve problems that don’t have an analytic solution. A lot of
interesting problems don’t have analytic solutions. You solve them by breaking position and time
into small steps. Then you calculate the change at each discrete position with each time step based
on what happened in the adjacent positions in the previous time step. Miskolczi, btw, does not
dispute the existence of the greenhouse effect, his claim is that the climate sensitivity is very
small.
5. I’m not surprised that Halpern, et.al. make what looks to you like a mistake. There is so much
hand-waving, straw men and irrelevant arguments in G&T that it’s difficult to know what they
are saying. Whether they say the atmosphere is radiating or not, as near as I can tell, they say that
it doesn’t make a difference to the surface temperature. That’s called a distinction without a
difference. That makes the Halpern et.al. argument correct in principle whether it is correct in
detail or not.
6. That’s an assertion on your part. Very few knowledgeable people agree with you. And of course
I define, like you, knowledgeable people to be people who agree with me.
7. I can’t find Fred Staples. From Terry Oldberg’s comment here: https://scienceofdoom.com
/2010/03/15/the-imaginary-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-1183 , he clearly doesn’t
understand radiative heat transfer for all his hand waving about thermodynamics.
8. Trenberth’s comment refers to the heat from the model calculated mean radiative imbalance
between incoming and outgoing radiation. The models predict that there should be ~0.8 W/m2
41 of more
59 incoming than outgoing radiation at the TOA. The fact that this isn’t observed10.08.2016
in the ARGO
11:00
ocean heat content measurements is a problem for the models, not with whether there is a
greenhouse effect or not. I have no sympathy for modelers who think that their complex models,
which contain lots of assumptions on the size of the poorly understood forcings other than from
greenhouse gases (which are well understood), like aerosols in particular, are more accurate than
measurements in the real world. The historic aerosol forcings used in the models are used to tune
the models to approximate the temperature history. The IPCC AR4 puts very large error bars on
these forcings which means the net forcing from all sources also has a large range of uncertainty.
But again, this has nothing to do with the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect that G&T
claim to falsify, only on the sensitivity to changes in forcings.

DeWitt Payne,scienceofdoom.
Several people including Halpern, SoD and now DeWitt Payne feel they can comment on
the G&T paper without having to read it properly.
In my opinion this has resulted in misguided comments that produce random noise but little else.
On the DLR
Keep in mind say a Maxwell Boltzmann distribution of the number and speed of molecules in a
sample of gas at a particular temperature.
Another graph at a lower temperature would show the amplitude (number rising) but the average
speed decreasing.
If we add 10litres of water at 30c to a bath of water at 50c although we have added more energy
the average speed hence temperature goes down.
Now I know that photons do not have any mass however certain features may be helpful.
If we now look at the BB spectrum of radiation leaving the Earth surface centred around 15C and
compare it to atmospheric radiation with a smaller amplitude arriving at the surface centred
around say -30C.
What happens if we combine the two spectra into a composite.
The amplitude would increase but the average energy per photon would decrease.
Would the addition of the smaller amplitude compensate from the decrease in average energy per
photon?
What would happen to the characteristic temperature of the surface?
Amplitude is not the only factor important when we consider radiation.
For instance if we shine a power of 1w of radiation of 1.09um on silicon we will improve its
conductivity (photoconductivity) .
However if we shine 1000w at a wavelength of 1.2um or more, no such effect occurs.
Illustrating that quantum effects also have to be considered.
Which brings us neatly back to SoDs present article.
I think that the post from JanS September 15, 2010 at 10:37 am was accurate and deserves a reply.
Although probably JanS has given up and is no longer viewing.
Tom W. on September 20, 2010 at 7:51 pm | Reply

@Bryan
“The amplitude would increase but the average energy per photon would decrease.”
This is incorrect. Look at two BB spectra. At a lower temp the intensity at ALL wavelengths
42 of 59 goes down. This is because there is no conservation of photons. Will the “average energy per11:00
10.08.2016
photon” decrease? Yes, but just because you are averaging together two different distributions
when you calculate such a thing. The actual measured spectrum would actually have two
peaks – the photons do not equilibrate amongst themselves. If they did then we could never
see emission or absorption spectra.

Bryan:
On the DLR..
What happens to it when it reaches the earth’s surface?
This is a question I have asked you many times and you never answer it.
We measure over 300W/m^2 of DLR. What happens to it when it reaches the earth’s surface?
Simple question. What’s the answer?

SoD
In case you missed it!
If we now look at the BB spectrum of radiation leaving the Earth surface centred around 15C and
compare it to atmospheric radiation with a smaller amplitude arriving at the surface centred
around say -30C.
The amplitude would increase but the average energy per photon would decrease.
Would the addition of the smaller amplitude compensate from the decrease in average energy per
photon?
What would happen to the characteristic temperature of the surface?
You seem to have statistics packages with nice graphing features why don’t you put some
numbers on the above scenario and find out!

Bryan:
That’s not an answer.
a) Is the DLR absorbed?

b) Is it reflected?
c) Does it vanish?
I know you won’t answer the question because your answer would either support mainstream
science (the inappropriately-named “greenhouse” effect) or support a position easily falsified.
So please provide yet more red herrings.

scienceofdoom
43 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
I think it is an answer.
Lets put in some numbers
Earth BB emission 396W/m2 at temperature 15C
Incident radiation from atmosphere at night say 200W/m2 at temperature of -30C
This is maintained for one hour
Combine the two spectra with no losses due to scattering.

At the new steady state.
The surface now emits the combination.
What is the power?
More importantly what is the temperature?

Bryan,
The surface will not emit the combination. It will emit a new BB spectrum for the new
temperature

Tom W.
Thanks for your post.

I’m trying to answer SoDs oft repeated question of what happens to say 200W/m2 of back
radiation when it lands on the Earth Surface.
I think SoD thinks that the 200W/m2 simply increases the temperature of the already warmer
planet surface.
I think that the frequency spread is more important than the amplitude.
See example 4 where SoD works out the temperature of T1
with radiation of unspecified origin through a vacuum.
I think that the post from JanS September 15, 2010 at 10:37 am was accurate.
What do you think?
The maximum temperature produced by the -30c atmosphere ion the Earth surface is -30c at best.
Because of the Oceans it is never likely that the Earths temperature will drop as low as that.
So the answer to the question does the atmospheric radiation will raise the temperature of the
planet surface is no it does not.

Bryan
Concerning the radiation of unspecified origin in the original thought experiment:
I don’t feel that the temp. of the radiating body is important and here is why. Whether or not
the radiation is absorbed only depends on the absorbtivity (spell?) of the receiving surface.
Absorptivity (got it right!) is general is dependent on wavelength. For most substances the
absorptivity is pretty much constant over IR wavelengths. This is because of the high density
of vibrational and (to some extent) rotational levels in this range. In heterogeneous substances
you may even have a pretty good approximation of BB absorption in visible wavelenghts due
to the large number of electronic levels. In short, we require a special set of circumstances for
the specific spectrum of incoming radiation not to be absorbed by the receiving body.
44 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
It also occurs to me to mention that the temp. of the receiving body will not impact its ability
to absorb radiation of whatever spectrum except in some very contrived materials and
radiation sources. In other words the energy levels of the receiving body do not “fill up” in any
earthly setting.

Bryan,
everal people including Halpern, SoD and now DeWitt Payne feel they can comment
on the G&T paper without having to read it properly. In my opinion this has resulted in
misguided comments that produce random noise but little else.
What have I said about the specific details of G&T that is contradicted in the text. Cite please.
While you’re at it, please quote chapter and verse from G&T where they actually falsify the
atmospheric greenhouse effect.
You can only combine light sources that point in the same direction. A spectrometer pointed up
only sees the atmosphere. One pointed down only sees the surface. Talking of somehow
combining their spectra is meaningless.
At the new steady state.

The surface now emits the combination.
What is the power?
More importantly what is the temperature?
No it doesn’t. A non-reflective opaque surface emits a black body spectrum with characteristics
defined by the surface temperature and emissivity only. Any incident radiation is absorbed The
power and temperature question cannot be answered without knowing the heat capacity of the
surface. But I can give you an example calculation:
Take a well mixed layer of water 0.1 m deep at an initial temperature of 15 C. The heat capacity
per m2 is then 418.7 kJ and the heat content is 15*418.7 = 6280.5 kJ/m2. If the surface of the water
sees DLR at 200 W/m2, then the net radiative heat loss rate is 190 W/m2. The temperature and
heat loss rate will drop over the course of an hour. There’s an analytic solution, IIRC, but I’ll do it
numerically in 10 sec intervals because it’s quicker than looking up the solution. For simplicity I’ll
use an emissivity/absorptivity of 1.00
The answer is that the temperature of the water at the end of one hour will be 13.40 C, the water
surface will be radiating 381.5 W/m2 or a net loss rate of 181.5 W/m2. If the DLR is 300 W/m2,
the temperature at the end of one hour would be 14.24 C, 386 W/m2, 86 W/m2 respectively. If the
layer thickness is reduced to 0.01 m, for 200 W/m2 DLR, the temperature, gross and net radiation
flux will be: 1.79C, 323.3 W/m2, 123.3 W/m2. Note that the shape of the spectrum of the DLR is
not relevant as long as the absorptivity of the surface is constant for the full range of wavelengths
of the DLR.

Bryan,
In your reply to Tom W. you miss the point again. Of course the surface cools when the
45 of sun
59 goes down. Nobody disputes that. If all the surface ever saw was 200 W/m2 DLR, then it 11:00
10.08.2016
would indeed cool to a temperature of approximately -30 C. But it doesn’t because the sun is up
for half the day. Over the course of a day the surface sees incoming radiation from the sun and the
atmosphere and warms during the day and cools at night. But because it sees radiation from the
atmosphere 24/7, it doesn’t cool as fast at night as it would if the atmosphere didn’t emit.

Your calculation would assumes that conduction and convection within the water has
stopped.
If the water was deep enough I think after one hour the temperature would be little
changed.

Bryan,
The same principle applies if the surface saw only sunlight. That’s 235 W/m2 average after
correcting for albedo, or a surface temperature of -19.5 C. But it doesn’t. It sees ~500 W/m2 for
atmosphere + sunlight, loses ~100 W/m2 by convection and ~400
W/m2 by radiation.

Tom W.
….It also occurs to me to mention that the temp. of the receiving body will not impact its
ability to absorb radiation of whatever spectrum except in some very contrived materials and
radiation sources. In other words the energy levels of the receiving body do not “fill up” in any
earthly setting…..
I’m afraid your simply wrong here Tom.

An irradiated object can never reach a higher temperature than the source causing the radiation.
Reason; Since radiation travels in straight lines, the irradiated object would become the net
radiator once its temperature reached that of the source.
When you read the literature about focusing an extended source we find even getting to the
source temperature quite difficult.
Therefor the post from JanS September 15, 2010 at 10:37 am was accurate.

DeWitt Payne
” You have yet to explain the relevance of Woods’ experiment to the reality of the
atmospheric greenhouse effect.”
Well in a glasshouse where there is an undisputed “greenhouse effect” the radiative effect is so
small as to be almost unmeasurable.
There is very little indication that this effect could be responsible for a 33C rise in average
temperature.

46 of 59 Irrelevant. No one ever said that the mechanism of the atmospheric greenhouse 10.08.2016
effect is the11:00
same as that for a greenhouse used for growing plants.

Bryan,
I went back to G&T and read as much as I could stomach without becoming nauseous or
throwing something at the computer screen. Their entire case rests on semantics. They don’t like
the terminology so they misinterpret what they see and then claim it doesn’t exist. Section 3.7.2 A
note on “radiation balance” diagrams is indicative:
Climatologic radiation balance diagrams are nonsense, since they

1. cannot represent radiation intensities, the most natural interpretation of the arrows depicted
in Figure 23, as already explained in Section 2.1.2 and Section 2.1.5
That is a straw man argument. Those sections do not, in fact, explain why the arrows cannot be
interpreted as integrated intensities. Just because arrows are used doesn’t mean that the quantity
indicated is a vector. They only talk about the definition of a specific intensity and how you
integrate it. There’s also irrelevant hand waving about the inapplicability of the Stefan-Boltzmann
equation to the atmosphere, but nobody ever said that the real atmosphere was gray except in a
toy model. There’s nothing there that says you can’t integrate over the observed spectrum and get
an integrated intensity or use a some form of pyrometer to actually measure it. There’s also no
comprehension that the numbers in the energy balance diagrams represent measurements of
physical quantities made in the field.
If you take their argument at face value an IR thermometer couldn’t work. What’s actually being
measured by an IR thermometer, btw, is not the temperature, it’s the integrated IR intensity. That’s
converted to temperature using something similar to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation corrected for
the wavelength range covered by the instrument. I’m sure they would say I’m misinterpreting
them. But since they go out of their way to misinterpret everyone else, I don’t see the problem.

DeWitt Payne
What have I said about the specific details of G&T that is contradicted in the text. Cite
please.
Your comments have been of a generalised nature such as
“There has been little serious criticism of G&T because working scientists don’t consider it to be
worth their time. A criticism would be normally rejected by most serious journals as a waste of
space. Valueless papers are almost always ignored, not rebutted. That’s why you only see this
being discussed in the blogosphere.”
“There is so much hand-waving, straw men and irrelevant arguments in G&T that it’s difficult to
know what they are saying. Whether they say the atmosphere is radiating or not, as near as I can
tell, they say that it doesn’t make a difference to the surface temperature.”
This was the only specific question I could find
“None of that addresses the question I asked you. I’ll rephrase: Where do G&T show that the
surface of the Earth receives sufficient energy from direct sunlight to balance the energy lost by
47 of radiation
59 and convection? I haven’t been able to find it. It is precisely this point that 10.08.2016
is successfully
11:00
addressed by atmospheric radiation, i.e. the greenhouse effect.”
The various radiative calculations used for the Earth Surface and Atmosphere are disputed
throughout the text.
Best to read the paper yourself and then come up with specific criticism.

Bryan,
Look at what I said:
“…the temp. of the receiving body will not impact its ability to absorb radiation…”
I didn’t say anything about emitting radiation and it’s the balance of the two that determines final
temp. You come so close in your comment when you say that it will become a net radiator.
It actually wouldn’t be net anything at equilibrium temperature. An object that is a net radiator is
cooling down (unless it has an internal power source). An object that is a net absorber is heating
up. Yes the temp. of the sending body is the max. temp that the receiving body could achieve but
it has nothing to do with the spectra. It only has to do with the fact that a body will not be a net
radiator (without an internal power source).

Bryan,
As I said, Wood’s experiment looks only daytime heating. The Romans in Palestine made
ice in the desert by making an inverse greenhouse. A pan of water was put in a hole in the ground
with straw insulation on the sides and bottom. Sunlight was blocked during the day by polished
shields and straw insulation. Then the shields were removed and the water exposed directly to the
night sky. A thin layer of ice formed even though the outside air temperature was well above
freezing. Do you think that would still happen if the hole were covered at night by an LW IR
opaque cover like ordinary glass? The atmospheric greenhouse effect is all about reducing heat
loss at night, not raising the temperature during the day. In fact, one of the signatures of ghg
warming is that the difference between max and min daily temperatures decreases over time
because the min temperature increases faster than the max.

That should be: …one of the signatures of warming caused by an increase in ghg’s is…

Bryan,
The various radiative calculations used for the Earth Surface and Atmosphere are
disputed throughout the text.
As I’ve said before, many of the disputed figures, like the energy balance diagram cited above, are
based on measurements, not calculations.
48 of 59 Bryan on September 21, 2010 at 8:22 am | Reply

10.08.2016 11:00
DeWitt Payne
If you follow the link below you can see that this Pyrgeometer from the most
prestigious supplier is still giving huge errors
Fairly dodgy procedures are suggested which they say will allow them to back correct
previous false readings.
The instrument is calibrated assuming that SB equation is applicable for the atmosphere.
The instruction manual has the SB equation included in case the operator gets it wrong.
Call me cynical if you like but I would need more evidence than this to suggest we dislocate
the world economy.
http://huey.colorado.edu/LTER/datasets/meteorology/pyrgeometer.html

Bryan from September 20, 2010 at 10:25 pm:
An irradiated object can never reach a higher temperature than the source causing the
radiation.
If that was the only source of course.
However, as demonstrated in The First Law of Thermodynamics Meets the Imaginary Second
Law a colder source can increase the temperature of a warmer body.
You haven’t demonstrated what is wrong with the model yet, and never will.
It’s very simple. If you add energy to a body it will increase in temperature until a new
equilibrium is reached where energy in = energy out.
Anything different would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
Basic Thermodynamics
If you have Body 1 at 300K and it is in proximity to Body 2 then if and only if Body 2 has no other
source of energy then obviously Body 2 must reach an equilibrium below 300K.
Bryan’s law:
If Body 1 is at 300K and it is in proximity to Body 2 then it can affect Body 2’s temperature while Body 2 is
below 300K. But no matter how much energy Body 2 is receiving from other sources Body 1 will instantly
stop affecting Body 1’s temperature after Body 2 gets above 300K. We haven’t worked out the mechanism
how this happens yet, but watch this space.
Well the only choices I can think of for ensuring Bryan’s law is true are:
1. The first law of thermodynamics is flawed.
2. The instant the temperature of Body 2 goes above the temperature of Body 1 radiation from
Body 1 is magically diverted somewhere else. Unfortunately Body 1 doesn’t stop radiating –
because we can measure it. Unfortunately Body 2 doesn’t reflect it – because we can measure that
this doesn’t happen. Magic.
It’s a basic misunderstanding – you are applying the result from a simple problem to a more
complex one without understanding why the simple problem has the result that it does.
49 of Bryan
59 on September 21, 2010 at 7:23 am | Reply
10.08.2016 11:00
SoD
What you are suggesting seems to me like;
Lets say 200W/m2 from the atmosphere at -30c lands on the Earth Surface.
Lets use energy units 200Joules per second on one square metre.
This energy is totally absorbed and results in an infinitesimal INCREASE in temperature of the
surface.
Although in practice this would be impossible to measure you think that if you could it would
show this exact value
Lets call this infinitesimal increase in temperature dT
dT consists of 200J of photons centred around 11.91um peak.
After absorption this 200J is transformed into 200J of energy at 10.91um peak
I would contend that although this complies with Ist law it contradicts the 2nd law of
thermodynamics.

SoD
The planet surface temperature used above was 15C

SoD correction writing this in haste!
Wavelength peak at 15C is 10.05um

Bryan:
thermodynamics.
Explain how it contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

scienceofdoom
The “quality” of the energy has been improved.
200J of photons centred around 11.91um have been transformed into 200J centred about
10.05um.
The entropy has decreased which is forbidden by the 2nd Law.

Bryan,
Think about this – heat something up in the microwave – a monochromatic source of

50 of radiation
59 (12cm). Say it heats to 100C. If the object heated is approx. a BB then the resulting
10.08.2016 11:00
spectrum emitted by the object will have a peak at about 8um.

Tom W.
See Jans comment on microwaves
…..”In a microwave oven molecules having a dipolar moment, such as water molecules, are made
to oscillate and thereby absorb the microwave energy. This has nothing to do with blackbody
radiation. Other substances (without dipolar moment) will not absorb microwave radiation.”…….
I don’t think going down that road will be helpful.

Obviously a machine
Obviously not a blackbody radiation emitter either.
Also a refrigerator which does extract heat from a colder source and dumps it at a higher
temperature requires a heat pump to function.

My point is not that a microwave is a BB emitter, it’s monochromatic. Only that the
heated body (if IT is a BB) will emit a BB spectrum that does not depend on the
spectrum of the incoming radiation. Once the energy goes in it gets spread out among
all the different degrees of freedom of the system and redistributed according to the Planck
distribution.
I just saw your comment about the “quality” of a spectrum. Do you mean entropy?

@Bryan,
“The “quality” of the energy has been improved.
200J of photons centred around 11.91um have been transformed into 200J centred about 10.05um.
The entropy has decreased which is forbidden by the 2nd Law.”
By “quality” and the rest of your comment it seems that you mean to say that the lower T
radiation field (11.91 um) has higher entropy than the higher T radiation field (10.05um).
This took me quite a bit of thought.
Check out this link:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/PlanckStory.pdf
See that dS/dU = 1/T > 0
where U is the mean energy of a radiation field mode. The entropy increases with increasing
energy of the field. This makes sense in the following way. Low frequency modes are always
available but higher energy ones will not be at a given temperature. But as the total E increases
these higher energy modes become available and therefore there are more ways for the energy to
be distributed which is the definition of entropy.
So I think the higher T field will have a higher entropy and there is no Second Law problem here.
51 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
Not that there necessarily would be anyway since we have neglected the entropy changes of the
emitting and receiving bodies.

Tom W
You have it back to front here.
High temperature source has lower entropy state than low temperature sink.
That why a hot cup of coffee will gradually cool of its own accord in a cooler room.
However it will never of its own accord extract heat from the cooler room to increase its
temperature.
Entropy of the universe is always increasing never decreasing as energy gets degraded into
lower quality forms.
Tom W. on September 21, 2010 at 6:46 pm

No. Hot things – in general have more entropy than cool things. Entropy is not a
substance that flows from sources to sinks. A hot cup of coffee in a cold room will
not get warmer at the room’s expense because the decrease in entropy of the room
would not be offset by the increase of entropy of the coffee.
Remember dS/dU = 1/T. This is a general thermodynamic principle (one that I didn’t
immediately remember until I looked at the article on Planck). Since 1/T is always positive
it means that entropy always increases with increasing internal energy. If this sometimes
seems counterintuitive, remember that you always need to take the whole system into
account.
A hot body that is cooling is decreasing in entropy, but this is more than offset by the
increase in entropy of the rest of the universe.

Bryan,
Your pyrgeometer correction link is dated in 1996. EBEX was in 2000. The errors listed are
small compared to the measured quantity, on the order of 10%, and point 1 in the link doesn’t
apply to EBEX at all as the temperature was well above -25 C. Point 2 only applies during the day
and the experimenters and manufacturer were aware of the problem by then. The same goes for
point 3 about the battery voltage. A 10% error is important for modeling, but it is too small to
invalidate the existence of the effect. Atmospheric radiation would still be a major part of the
surface energy balance as required by the greenhouse effect.
The instrument is calibrated assuming that SB equation is applicable for the atmosphere.
Cite please. The instrument measures the total incident radiation between 3.5 and 50 micrometers.
It may be calibrated using a black body source, but the measurement in no way depends on the
observed source having a black body spectrum. The output is in W/m2, not temperature.
Call me cynical if you like but I would need more evidence than this to suggest we dislocate
52 of 59 the world economy. 10.08.2016 11:00
That’s policy, which is another subject entirely. What we’re discussing here is why you don’t
believe an atmospheric greenhouse effect exists at all.

DeWitt Payne
I simply picked this one up first at random from Google.
A few months ago I spent some time on Google looking into pyrgeometers and their problems.
Try it yourself if you have the time.
What I found were a number of citations of people claiming solutions for correcting the large
errors which seem to be related to this instrument.
They are generally fitted with an offset knob to get them reading “properly”.
I have a picture of a young researcher (mortgage and young family) charged to take readings
to confirm some global warming hypothesis.
Would it not be human nature to use the offset and guided by SB equation get some
“acceptable” answers.
I had a dialog with a contributor to Physics Forums who assured me that she regularly used
the SB equation for calculations of the sky and clouds.
To my mind there is a danger of a circular argument developing here.

@Bryan
I defer to your greater knowledge of pyrgeometers but I think just about every precision
lab instrument I’ve ever seen has an offset knob. Especially useful if you don’t trust other people
to do your calibration.

Bryan,
Here is a link to the pyrgeometer calibration method used by ARM:
http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf13/extended_abs/reda-i.pdf
As I expected, they use a black body source at different temperatures to calibrate the instrument.
They also use different instrument temperatures in the process. The temperatures used to
calculate radiant energy from the S-B equation are temperatures measured in the instrument, Td,
the dome temperature and Tr, the receiver temperature, which is calculated from Tc, the case
temperature.
You can always calculate a brightness temperature from radiant power using the S-B equation.
The two are interchangeable. That doesn’t make the brightness temperature correspond to any
real temperature. It’s just a convention.
I went outside last night and pointed my $50 IR thermometer at the sky. The temperature reading
was 12.5 F = -16.25 C = 256.95K That corresponds to a radiant power of 247 W/m2 or about what
53 of you’d
59 expect. The indicated temperature does behave as the S-B equation because it’s calculated11:00
10.08.2016
from radiant power using the S-B equation, not because the radiant power of the atmosphere can
be calculated from a single measured temperature using the S-B equation. As usual, G&T stand
reality on its head.
I have a picture of a young researcher (mortgage and young family) charged to take readings
to confirm some global warming hypothesis.
Would it not be human nature to use the offset and guided by SB equation get some
“acceptable” answers.
Your paranoia is showing. Besides, you’d have to stand next to the instrument 24/7 and twiddle
the knob. It would be easier to just completely fake the data. This sort of thing does happen, the
Korean stem cell guy is an example, but it doesn’t happen often because you will eventually get
caught when someone somewhere tries to replicate your results.

Bryan said, September 21, 2010 at 7:23 am:
thermodynamics.
I asked:
Explain how it contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And Bryan responded:
The “quality” of the energy has been improved.
200J of photons centred around 11.91um have been transformed into 200J centred about
10.05um.
The entropy has decreased which is forbidden by the 2nd Law.
I don’t think you understand entropy. Perhaps it will be easier to explain if I write an article..

Tom W
In the example I gave to SoD the process suggested that 200J of longer wavelength photons
could be transformed into 200J of shorter wavelength photons.
This increase in the “quality of the energy” is forbidden by the 2nd Law.
This example once is a bit artificial since we cannot look at the heat transfer in two separate parts.
However this is what SoD wants us to do.

This is OK since this discussion is itself based on a not fully physically defined Ex4,5,6.
“What if” scenarios can be educationally useful.
My combining of the two spectrums was intended similarly.
DeWitt Payne used a very good laser analogy in a Post on the Air Vent site on CO2 thermalisation.
SoD is interested about what happens to the energy of the photons absorbed by the Warmer
Earth.
However the answer is not what he anticipated.

54 of ENERGY
59 DEGRADATION. 10.08.2016 11:00
The energy that enters the Earth system—not only solar radiation but also geothermal and tidal
energy—ultimately leaves the system. As shown by the second law of thermodynamics, however,
the energy that departs the Earth system will be in a degraded form compared with the energy
that entered it.
In a steam engine, water in the form of steam goes to work to power gears or levers. In the
process, it cools, and the resulting cool water constitutes a degraded form of energy. Likewise, the
ashes that remain after a fire or the fumes that are a by-product of an internal combustion
engine’s operation contain degraded forms of energy compared with that in the original wood or
gasoline, respectively. In the same way, Earth receives short-wavelength energy from the Sun, but
the energy it radiates to space is in a long-wave length form.
All physical bodies with a temperature greater than absolute zero emit electromagnetic energy in
accordance with their surface temperatures, and the hotter the body, the shorter the wavelength of
the radiation. The sunlight that enters Earth’s atmosphere is divided between the visible portion
of the spectrum and the high-frequency side of the infrared portion. (Note that the Sun emits
energy across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, but only a small part gets through Earth’s
atmospheric covering.) Earth, with an average surface temperature of 59°F (15°C), is much cooler
than the Sun, with its average surface temperature of about 10,000°F (5,538°C). The radiation
Earth sends back into space, then, is on the low-frequency, long-wave-length side of the infrared
spectrum.
Read more: http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Earth-Science-Vol-2/Energy-

and-Earth-How-it-works.html#ixzz10Fh1BvD0
DeWitt Payne on September 23, 2010 at 4:42 am | Reply

Bryan,
In the example I gave to SoD the process suggested that 200J of longer wavelength
photons could be transformed into 200J of shorter wavelength photons.
This increase in the “quality of the energy” is forbidden by the 2nd Law.
As an alternative to the microwave oven example, suppose that 200J is delivered by a 10.6
micrometer CO2 laser beam focused to a very small area. Are you saying that any material at the
focal point could not emit photons at a wavelength shorter than 10.6 micrometers? That would
seem to fly in the face of the fact that CO2 lasers can cut steel.
But there is no violation of the second law even if the 200 J comes from a lower temperature black
body because the entropy change has to include the whole system, which means whatever is
providing heat to the the other black body. For the Earth, that heat source is the sun at a
temperature of greater than 5,000 K, so entropy still increases for the system as a whole if the
surface of the Earth warms.

DeWitt Payne
….”that heat source is the sun at a temperature of greater than 5,000 K, so entropy still
increases for the system as a whole if the surface of the Earth warms.”…..
I am always reluctant to throw the Sun into a discussion unless it is absolutely necessary.
Of course the entropy loss of the Sun is so enormous that it will drown out any proposition
55 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
good or bad.
Just think of the nonsense that could be argued where entropy decreases and the retort is
“well not, if we include the Sun”
…..”suppose that 200J is delivered by a 10.6 micrometer CO2 laser beam focused to a very
small area.
In the example I followed with SoD the two objects are in normal thermal contact.
With the usual thermodynamic rules applying.
I think the introduction of a laser here is unhelpful here.

It can only muddy the water and will not help tease out the underlying physics of the
problem.
DeWitt Payne on September 23, 2010 at 4:51 am | Reply

Bryan,
The radiation Earth sends back into space, then, is on the low-frequency, long-wave-
length side of the infrared spectrum.
And if doubling CO2 causes the average surface temperature of the Earth to increase from 288 to
290K, it will still be on the long wavelength side of the IR spectrum. As observed from far out in
space, the Earth will still radiate ~235 W/m2 corresponding to a brightness temperature of ~254
K. The spectrum will change a little, but the total power won’t. I don’t see the problem.

The example I posted to SoD covered the fate of the radiation from the colder
atmosphere to the warmer Earth.
It appears that it cannot increase the temperature of the surface even infantesimally.

Bryan,
Heat transfer basics. Net heat flow between two parallel planes at different temperatures
T1 and T2 is equal to sigma*(T1^4-T2^4). If net heat flow is fixed then T1 depends on T2. Say the
heat flow is 235 W/m2 and T2 = 0K. T1 = 253.7K Now let’s increase T2 so that plane is radiating
200 W/m2. T2 = 243.7 K. If T1 doesn’t increase then the net heat flow is 35 W/m2 which violates
the boundary condition of net heat flow = 235 W/m2. At a net heat flow of 235 W/m2 and T2 =
243.7, T1 = 296 K. That’s a bit more than infinitesimal. The energy radiated by the second plane
does not warm the first plane. That is accomplished by the energy flowing into the first plane that
has to be radiated away.

Bryan,
To get even more basic: Why does a blanket keep your skin warmer than no blanket? The
blanket itself is cooler than your body so it can’t possibly warm you according to your logic.

56 of DeWitt
59 Payne 10.08.2016 11:00
….”To get even more basic: Why does a blanket keep your skin warmer than no blanket?
The blanket itself is cooler than your body so it can’t possibly warm you according to your
logic.”……
Lets say a bronze statue at say 80c placed in a room at say 20c with and without a blanket, the
respective temperature time graphs of statue would both show falling temperature.
The rate of temperature fall of the blanket covered statue would be less than that of the bare
statue.
All three methods of heat transfer would be from the higher temperature to the lower temperature
at all times.

That’s a straw man argument. There is no heat source in the bronze statue as there is in
your body from food metabolism or the sunlight absorbed by the surface of the earth.
In your 20 C room, we have a bronze statue containing an electrical heater running at
constant power. With no blanket, the average temperature of the surface of the statue is 30 C.
Now put a blanket over the statue but don’t change the power of the heater. What happens to
the average temperature of the statue? It goes up. How much depends on the insulation
characteristics of the blanket. But at steady state, the power flow from the surface of the
blanket into the room will equal the power flow from the heater.

DeWitt Payne
Thanks for the link to the pyrgeometer calibration method used by ARM.
It will be interesting to see if their accuracy is confirmed over time.
However much of the AGW argument unfortuanately does not rest on experimental verification.
Speculative calculation seems to play an important part.
Take what would appear to be a very simple problem the average radiation from the Earth.
K&T(IPCC3) gives it as 390W/M2
This is exactly the value calculated from SB for a perfect black body at 15C temperature.
By IPCC4 it had been pointed out from a statistical analysis of average temperatures that it would
need to be given as 396W/m2
Note, not by experment, but again by calculation and assumption of perfect black body
properties!
The concept of radiative balance is also unphysical.

There is no reason to believe that in any ten years period of the planets history the Earth was in
perfect balance with the Sun.
Rather the norm I think is for the Earths surface temperature to slowly rise and fall.

There is indeed no requirement for radiative balance. But there is a requirement for
conservation of energy. If there is a radiative imbalance, the heat content will go up or
down depending on the direction of the imbalance. Temperature is proportional to
heat content so it will vary as well. Probably the best direct measure of heat content is ocean
heat content, as the oceans are the largest reservoir by far. There is no question whatsoever
57 of 59 that the ocean heat content has increased over the last 100 years. There are multiple lines of 11:00
10.08.2016
evidence this is true. The exact value of the rate and total amount of increase is in question, but
not the sign. There is no source of energy other than the sun that is of sufficient magnitude to
account for the increase. There is also no evidence that the solar radiance has changed
sufficiently to account for the increase. That leaves the characteristics of the emission and
absorption of the Earth as the primary cause. It’s possible that some of the increase could have
been caused by a reduction in planetary albedo. It’s also possible that some of the increase has
been caused by an increase in atmospheric absorption of LW IR from increased CO2 and other
greenhouse gases.

DeWitt Payne
…”There is indeed no requirement for radiative balance. But there is a requirement for
conservation of energy. If there is a radiative imbalance, the heat content will go up or down
depending on the direction of the imbalance. Temperature is proportional to heat content so it
will vary as well.”…
I agree with the above but my point is the rise of 0.7C over the last 150 years is perhaps typical
variation rather than something unusual.
The Real Second Law of Thermodynamics « The on September 27, 2010 at 11:45 pm | Reply
Science of Doom
[…] Heat Transfer Basics – Part Zero a slightly off-topic discussion about the “greenhouse”
effect began. One of our most […]

Bryan:
The example I posted to SoD covered the fate of the radiation from the colder
atmosphere to the warmer Earth.
It appears that it cannot increase the temperature of the surface even infantesimally.
Check out The Real Second Law of Thermodynamics
Does Back-Radiation “Heat” the Ocean? – Part One « The on October 6, 2010 at 1:09 am | Reply
Science of Doom
[…] Conduction is driven by temperature differences. Once you establish a temperature
difference you inevitably get heat transfer by conduction – for example, see Heat Transfer
Basics – Part Zero. […]
Things Climate Science has Totally Missed? – Convection on December 7, 2010 at 9:45 pm | Reply
« The Science of Doom
[…] A is the area, k is the conductivity (the property of the material) and q is the heat flow.
(See Heat Transfer Basics – Part Zero for more on this […]
Heat Transfer Basics – Convection – Part One « The Science on January 2, 2011 at 1:37 am | Reply
of Doom
58 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00
[…] January 2, 2011 by scienceofdoom A while ago we looked at some basics in Heat Transfer
Basics – Part Zero. […]
Berkan on January 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Reply

Which do you use visualize program? Could you give software’s name above ? i need it
BEP on March 6, 2012 at 7:56 pm | Reply

Matlab
Berkan on April 7, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Reply

Thank you BEP
DeWitt Payne on April 7, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Reply

If you don’t have Matlab, Octave ( http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/ ) is an open
source program that is supposed to run most Matlab programs.
The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 1521 on September 21, 2012 at 12:52 am | Reply
[…] open system). A warming atmosphere will heat the oceans. A more technical explanation can
be found here. Technical explanation of a cooler body heating a warmer body based purely on
radiative […]
Peter on November 7, 2014 at 6:24 pm | Reply

Scienceofdoom: In Example One, you used delta T=40 C in calculation, and k=0.19W/m.K.
Shouldn’t delta T=40+273=313K?
DeWitt Payne on November 7, 2014 at 7:12 pm | Reply

Nope. ΔT is 50°C-10°C = 40°C or 323K – 283K = 40K.
narayana reddy on January 19, 2016 at 4:40 am | Reply

sir, we have one vacuum oven we are maintaining 150 degree inner chamber but it is outer
body transfer heat almost 40 degree please give me suggestion.
Comments RSS
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
59 of 59 10.08.2016 11:00

Heat Transfer Basics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heat Transfer Basics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heat Transfer Basics – Part Zero | The Science o... https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/12/heat-tra...

The Science of Doom

Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science

Feeds: Posts Comments

Heat Transfer Basics – Part Zero

September 12, 2010 by scienceofdoom

This post “follows” on from Heat Transfer Basics and Non-Radiative Atmospheres

We will use the example of a “planar wall”. What exactly is that?

It’s a wall that extends oﬀ to inﬁnity in both directions.

Example One – constant temperature conduction

The basic equation of heat conduction is:

q = kA . ΔT/Δx (see note 1)

For PVC, k=0.19W/m.K

Example Two – constant temperature conduction, thinner wall

q” = 0.19 x 40 / 0.2 = 38 W/m²

Example Three – no temperature diﬀerential

Conduction and Radiation

Example Four – constant heat supply one side, ﬁxed temperature

How do we now calculate the surface temperature T1?

Energy absorbed from radiation:

Ein(absorbed) = Ein x 0.8

Ein(absorbed) = q” + Eout (see the diagram)

Now put the numbers in that we know:

500 x 0.8 = 0.19 x ΔT / 0.2 + 0.8 x 5.67×10-8 x T14

So now the equation is:

400 = 0.19 x (T1-283) / 0.2 + 0.8 x 5.67×10-8 x T14

Example Five – as example four with a thinner wall

Example Six – as example four with increased “colder” temperature

In Do Trenberth and Kiehl understand the First Law of Thermodynamics?

where ∇T is the three dimensional version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del) of the “change of T

Note 2 – Emissivity = Absorptivity at a particular wavelength (and direction for “non-diﬀuse”

Update – added Sep 15th

Update – Added Sep 15th

Update – added Sep 16th

3D graph of how T1 varies with emissivity. First, when absorptivity = emissivity:

Click for a larger image

Click for a larger image

Posted in Basic Science | 142 Comments

Maurizio Morabito on September 12, 2010 at 6:09 am | Reply

Grumpy Old Man on September 12, 2010 at 6:38 am | Reply

scienceofdoom on September 12, 2010 at 7:13 am | Reply

Every physics and engineering course studies equilibrium results.

In the real world, science and engineering uses it because it is informative.

Maurizio Morabito on September 12, 2010 at 7:37 am | Reply

omnologos on September 12, 2010 at 10:20 am | Reply

Here’s an even more… relevant example

Bryan on September 13, 2010 at 6:58 am | Reply

It seems you have worked out the temperature of a vacuum.

Mohamed Iqbal Pallipurath on January 1, 2014 at 4:02 pm | Reply

Bryan on January 2, 2014 at 2:18 pm

“it is the temp of the left side of the plate”

As SoD made clear in his reply (see below).

Hope you were convinced.

The radiation source is unknown.

So its always a good idea to get clariﬁcation

As to whether a vacuum has a temperature there is also some debate.

Some say that background interstellar radiation gives around 2.7K

Others say it has no temperature

Others give an operational deﬁnition of temperature as that which is measured by an

DeWitt Payne on January 2, 2014 at 5:46 pm

So many words to say nothing at all.

scienceofdoom on September 13, 2010 at 8:32 am | Reply

It seems you have worked out the temperature of a vacuum.