06 November 2011
|No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still (Updated)|
|Supplemental email correspondence-pg 2|
From: Pierre R Latour
Subject: No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:38:14 -0600
Dear Dr Roy Spencer,
I have shared your scientific skepticism of Global Warming and Greenhouse Gas theory promoted by the UN IPCC for a number of years.
While Earth’s radiating temperature goes up and down from time to time, and atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing during the last few decades, I have yet to see a plausible theory connecting anthropogenic CO2 to significant temperature effects, like plus or minus 1C for say 10% changes in fossil fuel combustion. Any net steady-state effect appears to be vanishingly small. I believe there are numerous flaws in GHG theory.
I studied your website developed in late July 2010 with considerable interest: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
My analysis and conclusions were posted 6 Nov 11 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8610&;linkbox=true&position=2
The source I prepared is attached for your consideration: No Virginia Cooler Objects Cannot Make Objects Even Warmer Still edited.pdf
I attached my earlier publication: Thermostat CO2 HPFeb10.pdf
I hope you find them interesting and informative. I welcome any claims of provable errors I may have made; I want to learn, I have no stake in the outcome.
My resume is available upon request.
Pierre R Latour, PE, PhD Chemical Process Control Systems Engineer
President, CLIFFTENT Inc
From: Roy Spencer
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 5:49 PM
To: Pierre R Latour
Subject: RE: No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
Good to hear from you.
Rather than the hypothetical experiment with plates, etc., let me ask you one question:
Why does a hand-held IR thermometer measuring a clear sky apparent temperature of, say, 0 deg. F, increase its reading to, say, 40 deg. F when it is pointed at a low cloud, in both cases the ground air temperature being (say) 60 deg. F?
The point is that the sky-viewing portion of the thermopile warms when it is pointed at the cloud, even though the thermometer itself is warmer than the cloud. How do you explain that without downwelling IR radiation being part of the atmosphere's (and surface's) energy budget?
From: Pierre R Latour
To: Roy Spencer
Subject: RE: No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still, v1.1
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:38:51 -0600
Dear Roy Spencer,
Both questions are easy. Your next to last sentence is correct.
Q1: Because that cloud can re-radiate absorbed solar radiation more intensely than transparent, low density air. IR pyrometers measure intensity of radiation (and corresponding Boltzmann temperature), a point property of EMR field at the receiving pyrometer sensor (thermopile), generated by some body, like a nearby cloud. (Gee, that sounds poetic, make a good song lyric.)
Thermometers and thermocouples measure a different point property, thermal temperature of matter, the molecules surrounding the bulb or thermocouple, like the surface air around it. Radiating matter has two different types of temperatures.
That is why we use pyrometers to measure radiation intensity of electric fields and thermometers to measure thermal heat intensity of gases, liquids and solids. (This is basic physics, chemical engineering and instrumentation business.)
One of many causes of confusion in the low level public literature on GHG is failure to understand these two temperatures and how they are related to two different physical phenomena and energy transfer mechanisms: radiation by 300k km/s pure energy field of zero mass and slow conduction/convection by matter.
Q2: So Earth’s surface and atmosphere has two kinds of temperatures, just like a burning log or candle; one for radiant energy (mostly to space) and one for thermal heat (trapped in our thermos bottle). GHG theory is all mixed up. “Downwelling IR radiation”, just like all radiation is certainly a part of Earth’s energy budget; reflected, scattered, transmitted and absorbed (by colder molecules only).
The references I supplied do a better job answering your questions than I can.
Does your prompt abandonment of your hot plates thought experiment indicate you see I may have a point? How firm are you in your belief Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still? If you have elevated that assumption beyond belief to knowledge and your mind is quite closed on the subject, please tell me in fairness; we are both busy.
Thanks for your prompt reply, questions and interest in my views. Feel free to ask more questions. Your reply made history; only the second time I know of where a meteorologist responded to a chemical engineer (Richard Lindzen did in 2009). Your attached TruthAboutClimateChangeOpenletterFeb11.pdf was sound engineering and an act of courage.
To learn why process control engineering standards for knowing truth exceed scientists, study attached FbKnwArtLtrs BentWinSpg11.pdf (my 2 cts on last page).
Pierre R Latour, Chemical Process Control Systems Engineer
From: Roy Spencer
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:56 AM
To: Pierre R Latour
Subject: RE: No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still, v1.1
But the IR thermometer measurements can prove the same point at night, too! OK, so do the test INSIDE your house....let the IR thermometer warm up in your hand, then point it at the inside of a refrigerator (reading a cold temperature). Then point it at the outside of the refrigerator (reading close to room temperature). (Turn the light off in the room and do it again. Same result.)
And, yes, I am aware of the differences between thermometers, pyrometers, thermocouples, etc.
I have not abandoned the theoretical example of hot and cold plates...instead, the IR thermometer test described above is the most direct proof of the concept, which you can perform yourself. Because the lens-illuminated side of the thermopile is actually changing its temperature in response to changes in incident IR, and will warm even if the object it is viewing is colder than the thermopile (when its field of view is changed from the inside of the refrigerator to the outside).
Pierre, surely you are smart enough to recognize this as basic thermal radiation physics.
From: Pierre Latour
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:18 PM
To: 'Roy Spencer'
Subject: Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still, v1.2
Dear Roy Spencer,
Thank you for your second reply below, 18 min after I sent mine. You are quick on the draw.
So you want to modify your experiment a third time. You can do that forever. Rather than trying to disprove my explanation by simply asking me to explain all your experiments, you should work to prove your own theory, or better yet disprove it; you first Alphonse.
Recap. First a recap to ensure we are on the same page(s). We are discussing a very important issue for mankind. Back-radiation from cold GHG reabsorbed by warmer surface is one foundation pillar of GHG theory supporting AGW and CO2 pollution forecasts. See famous Kiehl-Trenberth diagram attached, particularly far right side. Since 1997 Kyoto Protocol, world governments have spent > $100 billion with government and academic groups to prove fossil fuel combustion increases CO2 and warms the Earth significantly. The back-radiation hypothesis of GHG theory has been cracking under skeptics scientific scrutiny for years and is crumbling into the dust bin of history these days. Many powerful vested interests are waging a world-wide war to rescue it. Australia just adopted a carbon tax law on 7Nov11 which Viv Forbes claims will cripple Australian industry. Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Europe, Japan, Mexico and US can no longer afford to borrow from future generations to finance more GHG theory research and the world is left to rely on Syria, Iran, N Korea and Zimbabwe to take up the slack. I realize US DoE, EPA, Congress, NAS, UN IPCC, National Geographic, American Meteorological Society, most universities and the “overwhelming consensus” of meteorologists and scientists believe in back-radiation, fervently, for some reason. I just can’t find out what it is. I would like to get it right for once, so I can rest in peace. They tell me I must accept it on their authority. After all Al Gore won the popular vote in Nov 2000. Even though I am an environmentalist, I fear when AGW promoters discover I remain skeptical, have questions, and proved Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still, they will get upset, perhaps even angry. I am afraid I will be called derogatory names like truth denier, oil industry lobbyist, wing-nut, ding-bat, or nut case. I hope they can change and don’t hurt me. I consider Roy Spencer a hero.
I think the use of historic data to build statistical regression models capable of forecasting, without the underlying relationships of physics and chemistry, mass, energy and momentum conservation and rate laws, is known to be a fundamentally flawed method. It would be like regressing hourly stock market price data for forecasting. If Prof Michael Mann, Univ of East Anglia and UN IPCC can do it for climate, they can do it for investments and retire to Monaco. The HPI abandoned that approach for rigorous engineering models of oil refinery processes by 1970, because empirical regression models do not work in distillation column feedback control systems where accurate extrapolation, not just interpolation, is required. Expert systems are no longer in vogue for similar reasons.
I have identified several more chemical engineering flaws in GHG theory. What a tangled web we weave, when -------.
Move on. I am pleased you want to move on from hot plates and my reply, seek my assistance to refute more GHG theory errors. I assume you have read all of my original analysis and references, found no errors and concur with my conclusions. Attached Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.pdf replaces the *.pdf I sent you; it clarifies one equation; the conclusion remains valid. My mathematical model of your theory represents it correctly. (If not, could you provide the correct math and physics? And please identify where the net increase in energy radiation from your two plates comes from; the energy balance on your whole system and every component in it.) I was correct to assume your hot plate > 150F radiates to all its 0F surroundings, not just to the cold plate. Otherwise how could one explain if a hotter surface can absorb cold incident re-radiation, heat further and radiate more, then why can they also say on the second merry-go-round round the cold surface does not absorb the hotter radiation and re-radiate it a second time? One iteration is enough?
Background. Consider reshaping the colder plate to a parabola. We know radiation (and thermal) shields, reflectors, lenses and telescopes focus radiation, A1*I1, by increasing incidence over a smaller area, A2*I2, from constant receiving power, watts = e*A1*I1 = a*A2*I2. So I2 = I1*(eA1/aA2). If cold absorber focuses large A1 to smaller A2 such that aA2 < eA1, then I2 > I1. If hot focused spot Boltzmann T1 > t2 of receptor, receptor can absorb it, even if emitter T1 < t2. Focused solar eclipses burn holes in paper on Earth. Now some skeptics of my explanation conclude this proves back-radiation from a cold body to a hot one can be absorbed by the hot one, making it hotter, which of course, with proper understanding of the English words, does not follow. Beware of Mumbo Jumbo.
My radio antenna detects and absorbs cold radio waves but it does not reemit them with higher intensity than it intercepted them. My 1200 w microwave oven heats coffee to boiling; when I turn it off the boiling stops abruptly, within a few seconds. I suppose coffee re-emits some intense (hot) microwaves converted to IR for a while. I think the IR rate drops very quickly when the oven stops and equalizes with my kitchen IR as I drink it. I am not able to determine how long the coffee continues to radiate above background T.
I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected CMBR = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further. What does that have to do with whether warm radiators get warmer from cold re-radiation?
Regarding "back-radiation", physics professor Nasif Nahle wrote: “I prefer to call it "downward" radiation, not "backradiation", for the same reasons you expose. Downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation. We cannot count the whole percentage of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere as energy emitted towards the surface as a warm wrapper because it is dispersed immediately to winds, in the form of kinetic energy, to space like thermal radiation, and to other systems like unusable potential energy. However, the main reason other systems do not absorb thermal radiation from the atmosphere is that the wavelength of the emitted electromagnetic energy does not correspond to thermal energy, i.e. it cannot be transferred as heat to other systems, because of redshift. Downward radiation exists, but it cannot warm up systems that are warmer than the air.”
Clouds. With that, let us consider your question about clouds.
I accept your description of your experimental evidence is valid. You say clouds radiate more IR than open clear sky (not transient but at steady-state, 0200). I accept that because a cloud has liquid and therefore higher density than clear, transparent sky, so cloud can convert the internal energy it absorbed from daylight to lower T IR (I am not an expert at how and how fast matter actually does this). Easy to accept clouds radiate more intensely (higher T) than gas. If night cloud IR intercepted by surface is warmer than surface, Ti > ts, surface can absorb some of it and reradiate some. But it cannot absorb it if Ts < ts. To conclude Earth’s warmer surface absorbs colder IR from clouds, one must assume IR pyrometers are radiators; I need proof. See Pyrometer and Infrared thermometer; neither mentions radiating pyrometers. Thin filament pyrometers developed since 1988 improved measurement of gases. Since the distance to spot ratio is hard to set for clouds, IR readings may not be accurate. (Thanks for assuring me I am smart enough to recognize basic thermal radiation physics. You probably reached that conclusion from my work to help you understand why Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still.)
Whether IR detectors or Earth surface absorbs radiation from nighttime clouds, warm and re-radiate back still depends on the nature of the incident spectrum and the interceptor, so I cling to my belief warmer radiating surface will not absorb colder cloud radiation either.
Your night experiment is easily explained: low lying clouds radiate IR in the dark for a while, like my house and body do. How they do that is a different subject; your job. My experience is they radiate differently (probably by reflection) in daytime than at nighttime, in the visible to my eyes. Moonlight helps me see them at night radiating by reflection.
So far I have refuted every back-radiation claim I have encountered; no one has refuted any of mine. Since some of your questions are answered in the references I provided and a new book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, 2011, (http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/), I suggest you read them. If you have any further questions for me, be assured I will reply with my best understanding or “I don’t know”.
Roy, surely you are smart enough to recognize cold radiating plates warming hot radiating plates to radiate more intensely violates basic physics. When you think our exchange reaches the quality of your “Yes Virginia” blog, Jul11, you have my permission to post our exchange on your blog, entirely. May I pass it to Richard Lindzen and Marc Morano? My Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still is already at Climate Realists and Climate Change Dispatch.
Math Theorem: The set of all incorrect statements includes the set of all politically incorrect statements, so a correct statement can never be politically incorrect. QED.