The US Trump policy is to return to the age of plentiful cheap fossil fuel that made America great in the 1950s-1960s.
“Conserving oil is no longer an economic imperative for the US, the Trump administration has declared in a major new policy statement that threatens to undermine decades of government campaigns for efficient cars and other conservation programs.”
There is a pattern of actions, opening up more restricted and offshore drilling sites. Reducing regulatory oversight and increasing the effective subsidies. De-funding the attempts to promote efficiency and reversing the attempts to reduce emissions. All of this is consistent with past attitudes to fossil fuel use, but it may need a historical context to see why.
After WW2 the major oil fields in the Mid East were run by western companies with the close oversight of their government because of the strategic significance, as well as the economic importance of the supply. The UK goverment directly ran the BP (British-Persuian) oil company. Oil flowed as fast as was possible and drove the post-war boom.
Eventually the Arab nations demanded 50% of the profit, grudgingly the US companies accepted that demand from the Saudis. The UK government was not so willing to negotiate with its colony, regarding the rights to the oil as entirely a matter for the UK to decide. A decision biased by the profits flowing directly into government coffers. The result was the overthrow of Mosadegh in operation Ajax, a joint operation with the US who wanted to keep commies out of the Western Oil supply area. The UK still had to make a 50-50 deal, anything else would have resulted in the rapid overthrow of their newly installed puppet general.
But the oil kept flowing, at that point neither the West or the Oil nations had any reason to limit supply.
Then OPEC was formed. The Oil Producing and Exporting Countries finally realised that they could control the price by limiting the supply. That they could get as much, or more money for less product. And then the war between Israel and Egypt/Syria triggered an embargo on US supplies. The oil crisis of the 1970s turned an apparently unlimited and unconstrained source of cheap energy into a much less accessible and uncertain resource with a variable price. For possibly the first time since oil had been exploited as an energy source the prospect of having to maximise efficiency and minimise waste became significant factors in the design and operation in the use of fossil fuels.
Apart from this shift in the perception of oil from an unconstrained cheap resource to something that had to be used ‘economically’, there was another response. Nations and oil companies looked for new sources of fossil fuel outside the OPEC cartel. Off-shore fields were explored and possible sources in less hospitable regions like Alaska and Sumatra. It was an attempt to recapture the golden era when oil was cheap and plentiful driving the massive economic growth in the consumer culture of the West. A growth that had been unconstrained by oil prices or shortages.
To some extent it worked, finds like the North Sea fields provided supplies unimpeded by anything except the logistics of extraction. The amount of oil consumed by the advanced, modern societies jumped again.
Western societies had become dependent on the abundance of cheap fossil fuel to drive the growth, progress and continual improvement in the quality of life, and amount of consumer stuff that inhabitants of the First World enjoyed. Previous interruptions, or limits on the supply, or rises in price had shown the damage that could result from any change from an ever increasing flow of oil from the industry that extracted, processed and distributed fossil fuels.
There were two problems.
One was that the increasing demand for more oil every year eventually hit logistical constraints. Expanding the processing and distribution infra-structure to meet the rising demand required large capital investment. A lot of the easy oil had been extracted. To keep increasing, production would need to access oil from more difficult sources, at greater cost. The resulting variability in oil prices between the later 1980s and now appears to be due to the amplification of small miss-matches between supply and demand within the global oil economy rather than wars, economic, or political impacts.
The second problem was the increasing realisation that burning all this fossil fuel was raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the oceans with potentially serious implications for the climate and ecology of both. Even if the internal variability of the fossil fuel market price could be solved, and increasing demand from the growth in the West and developing Nations in the East, could be met, science indicated that the cumulative emissions would have dangerous consequences. It was another, more profound threat to the idea that continued social improvement and growing wealth could be driven by increasing consumption of fossil fuels.
One response was to look yet again at increasing efficiency and reducing waste. Alternatives with lower, or zero Carbon emissions were explored with more urgency and support that before as the problem of limiting the demand became a matter for governments seeking to control their emissions rather than respond to a temporary Geo-political hiatus in supply or logistical limit that could be overcome if prices rose enough to make extraction economically viable for more difficult sources. Attempts were even made at the global level to reach agreements on emissions at Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris…
The other response, most overt in the US, has been an attempt to ignore or dismiss the science that predicts significant climate change and seek ways to continue the unconstrained consumption of fossil fuels that has conferred such benefits in the past, and provided a quality of life with increasing wealth to which the Nation had become accustomed. The US was not the only Nation willing to ignore the warnings from scientists, others, more covertly paid lip-service to the science but pursued a mix of policies that resulted in limited improvement or even continued expansion of fossil fuel use. The global companies that extracted and produced the oil and other fossil fuels, and the main business users of their product were always willing to follow the lead of those seeking to maintain demand and supply of an increasing amount of fossil fuels. They even played a role in promoting the disparagement of the climate science that threatened the prospect of stranded assets along with those governments, producers and consumers, for whom the implications of climate change were an inconvenient truth.
The previous US government under Obama was limited in the changes it could make with the opposition from the other branches of government. It could make small regulatory changes and try and shift the focus, the emphasis of the government funding and industry oversight away from fossil fuel producers and towards reductions in carbon emissions.
Trump has also been limited in what changes can be made by similar political gridlock at the legislative Federal level. But in the many small changes there is a clear regression to perhaps the most recent time in folk memory when America was ‘Great’. When wealth and prosperity were increasing faster than ever before, the consumer society was exploding and everyone (well nearly…) had never had it so good. A society in which that progress was driven by the cheap and increasing supply of oil.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/
TRUMP EPA UNVEILS PLAN TO NULLIFY FEDERAL RULES ON COAL POWER PLANTS
August 21, 2018
TRUMP ANNOUNCES PLAN TO WEAKEN OBAMA-ERA FUEL ECONOMY RULES
August 2, 2018
TRUMP OFFICIALS SET ASIDE EVIDENCE OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS’ SUCCESSES
TRUMP OFFICIALS PROPOSE ROLLBACKS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT RULES
July 19, 2018
WHITE HOUSE CUTS NASA CLIMATE MONITORING PROGRAM
May 9, 2018
EPA STARTS ROLLBACK OF CAR EMISSIONS STANDARDS
April 2, 2018
FEMA EXPELS “CLIMATE CHANGE” FROM STRATEGIC PLAN
March 16, 2018
EPA MULLS SHAKE-UP TO ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM
February 26, 2018
TRUMP PROPOSES CUTS TO CLIMATE AND CLEAN-ENERGY PROGRAMS
February 12, 2018
REPORT: TRUMP MULLING MAJOR CUTS TO CLEAN ENERGY RESEARCH
January 31, 2018
EPA LOOSENS REGULATIONS ON TOXIC AIR POLLUTION
January 25, 2018
REPORT: CLIMATE CHANGE WEB SITES ‘CENSORED’ UNDER TRUMP
January 10, 2018
TRUMP DROPS CLIMATE CHANGE FROM LIST OF NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS
December 18, 2017
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT PROPOSES LARGEST-EVER OIL AND GAS LEASE AUCTION
October 23, 2017
TRUMP EPA POISED TO SCRAP CLEAN POWER PLAN
October 9, 2017
MINING HEALTH STUDY HALTED; CLIMATE ADVISORY PANEL DISBANDED
August 22, 2017
TRUMP REVOKES FLOOD STANDARDS ACCOUNTING FOR SEA-LEVEL RISE
August 15, 2017
REPORT: EPA ENFORCEMENT LAGS UNDER TRUMP
August 10, 2017
U.S. PULLS OUT OF PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT
June 1, 2017
TRUMP BUDGET PROPOSES STEEP CUTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
May 23, 2017
EPA DISMISSES SCIENCE ADVISORS
May 5, 2017
EPA SCRUBS CLIMATE CHANGE WEBSITE
April 28, 2017
ORDER AIMS TO EXPAND OFFSHORE DRILLING
April 28, 2017
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT SCRUBS CLIMATE CHANGE WEBSITE
April 19, 2017
DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE PREPARED FOR USE
March 27, 2017
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE APPROVED
March 24, 2017
SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT BUDGET THREATENED
March 13, 2017
EMISSIONS INFO REQUEST NIXED
March 2, 2017
WATER PROTECTION MAY DRY UP
February 28, 2017
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3535244-Detailed-EPA-Budget-Cuts-as-of-March-21-2017.html
Shutting down the Energy Star program that has saved consumers billions $ and reduces consumption, or at least making it a self-certified, voluntary program for industry and property companies.
All of this demonstrates a desire to return to an Elysium where the social and environmental costs of consumption were Trumped by the drive for growth. When no demand for more fossil fuel consumption was opposed by anything more than a transient lag in supply. when Americans were getting richer on the flood of more and more fossil fuels with no deterrent on the expanding use and cumulative emissions.
Even the Lukewarmers seem mostly to agree that coal is, or should be a stranded asset for the foreseeable future. The damage from such an inefficient fuel makes it more expensive and polluting than most alternative fossil fuels, never mind zero emission alternatives.
But perhaps the Trump statement that really reveals the depth of his enthusiasm for a ‘Gilded Age’ of uncurbed fossil fuel consumption is this tweet.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
America is blessed with extraordinary energy abundance, including more than 250 years worth of beautiful clean coal. We have ended the war on coal, and will continue to work to promote American energy dominance!
izen 
For the Radiative Green House Effect to function as advertised, i.e. warming the surface of the earth by 33 C, that surface must radiate as an ideal black body.
But non-radiative heat transfer processes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection, latent/evaporation/condensation, of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render such ideal BB emission impossible.
Trenberth says the ocean’s emissivity is 0.97. The turbulent non-radiative heat transfer processes are responsible for most of the heat movement from ocean to air and LWIR emissivity is more like 0.16.
Without the ideal 396 W/m^2 upwelling BB radiation the 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” GHG LWIR energy loop does not exist (TFK_bams09)
and carbon dioxide does no warming
and mankind does no climate changing.
Got science? Well, BRING IT!!
LikeLike
@-nick
“Got science? Well, BRING IT!!”
Pointless when you have shown that you reject the science that is known and established.
But start here if you are really sincere about wanting to understand the known physics.
@-“and carbon dioxide does no warming
and mankind does no climate changing.”
So what does ??
Solar input has decreased, but both the surface and the oceans have warmed. Thermal expansion causing sea level rise confirms that.
Where is the extra energy at the surface coming from??
Is there ANY evidence that could cause you to reconsider the outright dogmatic rejection of established science you embrace !
LikeLike
Solar input has decreased, but both the surface and the oceans have warmed. Thermal expansion causing sea level rise confirms that.
Where is the extra energy at the surface coming from??
Voices in someone’s head. Got data? Evidence? UAH doesn’t show land/sea warming just a bunch of noisy data. Sea level is 3 mm/y, less than a foot per CENTURY! Impossible to actually measure plus SO WHAT? ISR decreased – says who? The albedo runs the show, GHGs do squat.
LikeLike
According to RGHE theory at 289 K average earth surface temperature per S-B BB equation, i.e. 1.0 emissivity, 396 W/m^2 LWIR energy upwells from the surface. (TFK_bams09)
That’s (396-342) 54 MORE than arrived from the sun.
That’s (396-240) 156 MORE than the net post albedo that enters and leaves ToA.
That’s (396-160) 236 MORE than the net post atmospheric absorption that arrives and leaves the surface.
Three rather egregious violations of conservation of energy.
All you need to do is explain how the surface radiates as a BB in clear violation of conservation of energy and with the non-radiative processes due to the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules.
If the surface BB radiation of 396 W/m^2 doesn’t stand – NONE of it does.
You’re up! Bring it!
LikeLike
@-nick
“The albedo runs the show, GHGs do squat.”
GHGs alter the albedo, (in the IR) or do you think water vapour has no effect ?!
UAH measures the temperature at the altitude of the mt Everest peak, not the surface, and it does show warming.
You really need to do a bit of research into the known physics, I suggest ‘Science of Doom‘ before you display such errors that makes your contribution irrelevant except as evidence of your own (chosen?) ignorance.
LikeLike
“GHGs alter the albedo,…”
Since when? News to me and most everyone else. References?
In the CAGW world water vapor does not exist, only 0.04% CO2 and that’s not enough Hp to accomplish diddly.
Since you apparently don’t know, UAH is University of Alabama Huntsville, Dr. Roy Spencer, where they measure anomaly temperatures for pretty much EVERYTHING. R^2 for most of the data is around 0.3, can’t draw a meaningful trend from random spots.
Not sitting still for a physics lesson from some clueless cut&paste blogster amateur. If you knew your ass about the topic you could explain how/why I’m wrong or find someone who can.
In the alarmist world only CO2 matters and 0.04% of the atmosphere haven’t the Hp to do diddly.
UAH is University of Alabama Huntsville, Dr Roy Spencer, where they measure and trend anomalies for EVERYTHING!
I’m not sitting still for physics lessons from some cut&paste blogster amateur.
You can’t explain or refute what you have no clue about.
LikeLike
O.K. I’ll spell it out.
My contention is that the 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR power flux is only a theoretical calculation, inserting 289 K, 16 C, in the S-B equation with an ideal BB emissivity of 1.0. (TFK_bams09)
This 396 W/m^2 power flux has no physical reality because: 1) it violates conservation of energy, 2) the non-radiative heat transfer processes, e.g. conduction, convection, advection, latent evaporation & condensation, of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, limits the surface LWIR emissivity to 0.16, 63/396.
In the spirit of R. W. Wood’s 1909 experiment that disputed CO2’s atmospheric role, I have actually demonstrated point 2 in a lab situation.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
No 396 W/m^2 upwelling means no 333 W/m^2 perpetual GHG energy loop means no RGHE and no CO2 warming and no man caused climate changing.
Now the honorable traditional scientific process is that YOU 1) explain the 396 W/m^2 and/or 2) refute my contention.
I suggest you phone a friend because it’s obvious you haven’t a clue.
LikeLike
@-nick
“Not sitting still for a physics lesson from some clueless cut&paste blogster amateur. If you knew your ass about the topic you could explain how/why I’m wrong or find someone who can.”
I am not involved in the scientific fields that most closely deal with the subject of climate and claim no special expertise. Although ‘clueless’ may be a little harsh. Like you I am a blogster amateur with an interest in the subject, but defer to the people who can do the calculus needed to calculate radiative transfer equations.
@-“This 396 W/m^2 power flux has no physical reality because: 1) it violates conservation of energy, 2) the non-radiative heat transfer processes, e.g. conduction, convection, advection, latent evaporation & condensation, of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, limits the surface LWIR emissivity to 0.16, 63/396.”
I had gathered this was your ‘Gotcha’ argument. The questions I first asked, which went unanswered, and the SoD links should Have indicated that I think this is not even wrong. It contains an apparent internal contradiction; If the 396W/m^2 energy flux has no physical reality then what are the conduction, convection, advection, latent evaporation & condensation, of the contiguous participating media, doing ?
You seem to be insisting that only the 63W/m^2 radiative transfer processes at the surface should be counted AND that the total energy transfer at the surface is 396W/m^2 because of non-radiative processes.
So the question remains, why is the ocean warming if it is transfering 396W/m^2 to the atmosphere ?
The LoT Insists that stuff only warms up when it is receiving more energy than it is losing.
A digression…
In past decades I spent far too much time discussing evolution with Creationists, ID’ers, on forums and boards. Entertaining and educational but, …
It became obvious there was a repeating pattern to the people arguing for their rejection of the mainstream biological science to be taken seriously. They were a small minority who were outside the discipline of biology and had a ‘Gotcha’ point that they thought was substantive, but was often not even wrong because they did not grasp the science they were attacking.
The objections they raised had no traction within the field of biology because they had already been refuted or were incoherent. The arguments were mainly a means for the YEC or ID proponent to justify their own position, at least the argument always seemed most convincing to the proponent who was prepared to ignore the complete indifference of science, or its outright rejection.
Often on the basis that there was a vast ideological conspiracy against them…
I notice that you have dismissed the UAH results as inconclusive, I would tend to agree, I have followed the Christy-Spencer results since they got corrected on subtracting a correction they should have been adding. (version 2.5?) It is the source of climate data that has had larger adjustments than any other AFAIK and is still undocumented. (were is the code? or did they finally provide a 6.5 version recently.) But the LT data is from an altutude where the air is too thin to breathe.
You also appeared to cast doubt on the sea level rise. The sea surface temperature trend has been adjusted downwards, but still shows statistically significant warming. The ocean heat content also supports and is consistent with the measured rise and warming.
But I harbour the suspicion that not only do you reject the reality of back radiation, but that you are on the verge of dismissing the objective measures of a global warming trend, or at least finding some way just short of asserting it is all fraudulent, that a significant warming trend well beyond any unforced variation exists.
It all fills me with a strong sense of recognition for the tropes and patterns I encountered so often from people eager to dismiss the accumulated, consistent, consilient, and credible scientific knowledge on the subject in the Darwinian debates.
‘On the Origin of Species’ was published at the same time Tyndall was first measuring the radiative absorption of carbonic air…
LikeLike
“..then what are the conduction, convection, advection, latent evaporation & condensation, of the contiguous participating media, doing ?”
Q = U A dT Just like the walls of a house.
“..total energy transfer at the surface is 396W/m^2 because of non-radiative processes.”
Surface is 160 W/m^2.
LikeLike
radiative transfer equations. (I don’t know SoD’s credentials. Another pretender? It’s not that complicated.)
(You admit no scientific background so you must be reposting this material with no comprehension. And I don’t have a blog and am no amateur.)
You seem to be insisting that only the 63W/m^2 radiative transfer processes at the surface should be counted (and included in the total energy transfer at the surface of (17+80+63) 160 W/m^2 with ALL heat transfer processes.)
BTW the K-T style earth power flux balance models are really^4 stupid and unrealistic. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6369927560008212481
So the question remains, why is the ocean warming (Coming out of LIA.) if it is transfering 396W/m^2 to the atmosphere ? (It’s not and can’t. 0.97 emissivity not possible.)
The LoT Insists that stuff only warms up when it is receiving more energy than it is losing. (Check. And energy flows ONLY from hot to cold.)
But the LT data is from an altutude where the air is too thin to breathe. (99% of atmospheric molecules below 32 km. What do heat, energy, temperature, hot, cold mean w/o molecules?)
You also appeared to cast doubt on the sea level rise. (At 3 mm/y trivial.) The sea surface temperature trend has been adjusted downwards, but still shows statistically significant warming. (Compared to what?) The ocean heat content (Like anybody can actually measure it. Computer models.) also supports and is consistent with the measured rise and warming.
But I harbour the suspicion that not only do you reject the reality of back radiation, (correct)
“…but that you are on the verge of dismissing the objective measures of a global warming trend, (Observed trends don’t exist and/or don’t matter, various observed correlations are not cause.)
LikeLike
@-nick
“you reject the reality of back radiation, (correct) ”
Which is why I view it as folly to discuss your other assertions.
Assuming that because I do not admit a specific scientific background I am totally bereft of some knowledge, and yes, even comprehension of the standard version of physics, chemistry and biology may be unwise.
Back radiation is not some particular oddity invented for climate science, it is an integral part of physics ever since Thermodynamics got sorted by Stefan and Boltzmann.
MODTRANSis not an imaginary or arbitrary construct, but important sources of information used far more widely than just in climate science. To quote;
“The MODTRAN® (MODerate resolution atmospheric TRANsmission) computer code is used worldwide by research scientists in government agencies, commercial organizations, and educational institutions for the prediction and analysis of optical measurements through the atmosphere. MODTRAN was developed and continues to be maintained through a longstanding collaboration between Spectral Sciences, Inc. (SSI) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The code is embedded in many operational and research sensor and data processing systems, particularly those involving the removal of atmospheric effects, commonly referred to as atmospheric correction, in remotely sensed multi- and hyperspectral imaging ”
All of this it seems you are throwing out.
At the most mundane level, if there is no back radiation how does the retina receive photons of energy from object colder than body temperature. We do not, vampire-like, disappear if the mirror is colder than us.
Most of the understanding on why CO2 and water vapour are warming the surface in mainstream science developed since the 1960s derives from astronomy and military research on heat sensing for missile detection and targeting.
The back radiation is routinely measured,
“Solar and thermal radiation profiles and radiative forcing measured through the atmosphere”
and used to calculate building insulation requirements.
“NIGHT RADIATION EFFECT ON ENERGY PERFORMANCEOF VENTILATED FAÇADES “
By rejecting the standard version of physics that is accepted and used by all mainstream science you are doing the equivalent of the anti-Darwinists who deny that dominant and recessive genes shapes our hereditary.
You have chosen for whatever reason to take a contrary position on a long established aspect of physics that applies in many fields outside climate science. Such extraordinary claims, and you must have realised by now just how far outside the mainstream your position is, require more than just extraordinary evidence. They require an explanation why the current understanding on this subject works. It is utile, it has predictive skill, is coherent, consilient and consistent.
And yet still you would reject it.
It is telling you seem unaware of Science of Doom, it has been the goto site for open and full discussion of the underlying science for almost a decade in the climate field. Rigorous in a way Skeptical science is not, and much more tolerant of contrarian challenges, which are often followed up with exhaustive posts and discussions of the detail.
SoD is unwilling however to cater for those that reject the standard model of quantum mechanics. That does unfortunately eliminate those who want to zero out back radiation. It is a policy I will probably follow unless you can come up with something more interesting than flat earth style avoidance of the LAWS of thermodynamics.
LikeLike
If you would like to advance your ideas on someone with much better comprehension than my feeble efforts, this post at professor rabett’s seems appropriate.
Heat Has No Hair
LikeLike
Don’t know what visible light and mirrors have to do with any of this. Gather you don’t either.
The Instruments & Measurements
But wait, you say, upwelling LWIR power flux is actually measured.
Well, no it’s not.
IR instruments, e.g. pyrheliometers, radiometers, etc. don’t directly measure power flux. They measure a relative temperature compared to heated/chilled/reference thermistors or thermopiles and INFER a power flux using that comparative temperature and ASSUMING an emissivity of 1.0. The Apogee instrument instruction book actually warns the owner/operator about this potential error noting that ground/surface ε can be less than 1.0.
That this warning went unheeded explains why SURFRAD upwelling LWIR with an assumed and uncorrected ε of 1.0 measures TWICE as much upwelling LWIR as incoming ISR, a rather egregious breach of energy conservation.
This also explains why USCRN data shows that the IR (SUR_TEMP) parallels the 1.5 m air temperature, (T_HR_AVG) and not the actual ground (SOIL_TEMP_5). The actual ground is warmer than the air temperature with few exceptions, contradicting the RGHE notion that the air warms the ground.
LikeLike
@-nick
“…contradicting the RGHE notion that the air warms the ground.”
Even that is miss-stated. The air slows the cooling of the surface by back radiation.
Therefore the surface is warmer than it would be from an external energy input without the adjacent source of DLR.
The ‘Green Plate Effect’, remember ?
LikeLike
“The air slows the cooling of the surface by back radiation.”
Nonsense. If energy moved from cold air to hot surface without work there would be refrigerators without power cords. Seen any? Me neither.
IF!!!! the surface were moving 396 it would turn to a block of ice – or the water content would. BUT!!!! the 396 does not exist & therefore the 333 “back” does not exist.
USCRN data clearly shows the ground warmer than the air and energy flows ONLY from warm to cold..
LikeLike
@-nick
“USCRN data clearly shows the ground warmer than the air and energy flows ONLY from warm to cold..”
So what do you think happens when ground and air are at EXACTLY the same temperature ?
There may be zero NET energy flow, but they are still exchanging photons and phonons of energy, that quantum activity does not suddenly stop because an adjacent object is the same temperature.
This is just one of the logical problems you face if you dismiss the continual exchange of energy between ALL objects above 0K.
The NET flow is always from ‘cold’ to ‘hot’, but the flow is always bi-directional, present, and shaped by the absorption, reflection, and thermal capacity of the systems.
LikeLike
“…exchanging photons and phonons of energy…”
“…NET flow is always from ‘cold’ to ‘hot’, but the flow is always bi-directional,…’
Handwavium nonsense.
Prove it through experiment & data.
LikeLike
Bi-directional energy flow is thermodynamic rubbish.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6388409240586899456
LikeLike
The alleged process is thus: a surface radiating at 396 W/m^2 (289 K S-B BB 1.0 emissivity calc) is headed for 0 K at light speed and all that prevents this is the “back” radiation of 333 W/m^2. BTW a S-B equilibrium temperature of 4 C, 39 F.
The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 35,000 feet as low as -60 C. The S-B power flux for these temperatures are 167 W/m^2 and 117 W/m^2 respectively.
And that’s in ALL directions!
Say a statistical 40% head “back” to the surface – that’s 67 to 47 W/m^2. Not even close to 333!
The 333 W/m^2 “back” radiation is obvious rubbish!!!
Photon torpedoes and Klingons on the phonon – snake oil horse manure.
LikeLike
@-nick
“Bi-directional energy flow is thermodynamic rubbish.[link]”
Interesting.
How much hotter does the inner tube get when the outer tube is present compared to when it is alone radiating straight to space?
Presumably the outer tube radiates equally on its outside and inside to dissipate the input energy.
Or is it made of magic that only emits from one hot surface, not both.
LikeLike
My example presumes a vacuum between the two surfaces. Molecular cond/conv screws everything up.
Inner tube radiates the same w or w/o outer tube. Inner doesn’t even know the outer exists. For the outer to impact the inner requires the creation of extra energy. The inner surface of the outer tube does not/can not emit towards the inner tube – unless it can find some magic extra energy. It ALL leaves the outer surface of the outer tube.
50 W/m^2 S-B BB = 172 K over small area.
12.5 W/m^2 S-B BB = 122 K over large area.
What you are suggesting is that the thin tube walls can simultaneously emit the same energy from both sides. Not possible. And not 50/50 or 60/40 or 70/30. The colder side emits it all.
Emitting from one side is not magic it’s how thermo works, hot to cold unless work is added, e.g. refrigerators. The cold inner walls don’t make the contents colder.
LikeLike
@-nick
“What you are suggesting is that the thin tube walls can simultaneously emit the same energy from both sides. ”
Well, yes. That is what is observed in reality. A thin wall of thermally conducting material will be at the same temperature on both sides.
And therefore will emit on both sides. The outer tube will emit equally from both sides if it is all at the same temperature. The outer doesn’t even know the inner exists.
What you are suggesting is that if I put a satellite CPU heatsink in a box it will get no hotter than if it was radiating freely.
Sounds like a good way to cook the chip.
LikeLike
With or without molecules?
In my modest experiment a 125 W heating element in air was about 670 F, with a cooling fan about 450 F and in a vacuum about 820 F.
Molecules remove energy through non-radiative processes cooling the surface, radiation shares the heat load.
The surface doesn’t radiate as a very hot BB until in a vacuum.
The earth’s surface cannot radiate as a BB, cannot upwell 396 w/m^2 at 289 K, no 333 GHG loop, no CO2 warming, no mankind climate changing.
396 W/m^2 upwelling is a theoretical calculation and not real.
That is the ONLY question to resolve.
LikeLike
@-nick
“In my modest experiment a 125 W heating element in air was about 670 F, with a cooling fan about 450 F and in a vacuum about 820 F.”
So you generated a lot of hot air.
How hot did the walls of the vacuum chamber get ?
LikeLike
Actually there was no hot air – it’s a vacuum. The only way heat got from heating element to inner chamber walls was by radiation.
The outside of the chamber surrounded by air was around 90 F. Did not instrument or record since that was not germane to experiment.
Heating element radiates to inside of walls conduct to outside of walls cond/conv/rad to surrounding air – flow path – hotter to colder.
Just in case.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
LikeLike
@-nick
“Actually there was no hot air – it’s a vacuum. The only way heat got from heating element to inner chamber walls was by radiation.”
When cooling in open air, or with the fan or with water evaporation you showed that passive convective, forced air or evaporative cooling are more efficient that just radiative cooling.
Something familiar to any gaming geek who wants to cool their overclocked thread shredder.
@-“The outside of the chamber surrounded by air was around 90 F. Did not instrument or record since that was not germane to experiment.”
That is unfortunate. Mainstream science would consider the temperature of the vacuum container/surroundings are an important component of the system. That you consider it not germane and was not recorded of controlled would seem to be an oversight.
Conventional thermodynamics would predict that the temperature of the vacuum chamber has an influence on the temperature of your energy source.
Just think how much more convincing the modest experiment would have been if you had measured the temperature of the heating element with different states of the vacuum container. Recording the outer temperature with cooling, ice-packs or passive convection and seeing if it had any influence on the temperature of the energy source would have been…
Interesting!
LikeLike
“Recording the outer temperature with cooling, ice-packs or passive convection and seeing if it had any influence on the temperature of the energy source would have been… Interesting!”
Yes, it would. Looking forward to your report.
LikeLike
Yes, indeed, a most interesting observation.
If the outer chamber walls were temperature controlled, heated or cooled.
If there were a participating media between, i.e. air, colder outer walls might create a steeper heat transfer differential through the conducting/convecting molecular media, a higher Btu/h flow from inner surface to outer surface and it is possible that the heating element would operate at a lower temperature. Vice versa for a heated chamber walls. Still energy flow from hot to cold. Similar to my modest experiment.
But if there were a vacuum, would heating/cooling the outer walls alter the temperature/radiative flow of the inner heating element?
Wow, that would demonstrate “back” radiation – or not.
Man, Nobel written all over that!
Submit that grant application and don’t forget to invite me to the ceremony.
LikeLike
@-nick
“Wow, that would demonstrate “back” radiation – or not.
Man, Nobel written all over that!
Submit that grant application and don’t forget to invite me to the ceremony.”
Now you are just attempting to be fatuous.
The experiment has been done, rather more elegantly than your modest example, and can be used to measure the emissivity of surfaces
Click to access 61088ed4-a189-469b-9393-fba7570c8e76.pdf
Note that is necessary to know the temperature of the outer container and include the S-B radiation from it back to the central tube under test.
There might be a Nobel if anyone found that the radiation from the surrounding vacuum chamber was irrelevant to theses calculations (Dark energy?), but considering they are used routinely in everything from satellites to the old Cathode ray tubes that used to be in televisions, the ambient temperature of the tube influences the power required to heat the cathode heater to the required temperature. If it wasn’t for the back radiation a higher current would be needed. This also applies to the old valves/tubes. It seems unlikely this feature has been missed.
LikeLike
Wow, already have the Ann Slye paper. Studied it months ago, have to find my notes. Notice the importance of performing the experiment in a vacuum. Molecules screw it all up. Actually that paper was the impetus for my modest experiment.
I don’t think it does/says what you think/claim.
I’ll be back.
LikeLike
@-nick
“I don’t think it does/says what you think/claim.”
You mean what the author thinks/claims. I am just following their lead in recognising the importance of the container temperature and the back radiation from it.
@-“I’ll be back.”
Why ?
LikeLike
Need to prepare an R&C of the paper. The paper was written to verify the S-B constant not container/back radiation, etc. Maybe you should read it.
LikeLike
The equations:
Equation (4) Hnet = σ * ε * A * (T^4rod – T^4cyl) (cyl=surr)
There are two surfaces, but only one area & apparently it’s the rod. How can one area have different temperatures? Can’t – therefore T^4rod = T^4cyl & (T^4rod – T^4cyl) = 0 Conservation of energy.
The COMPLETE equations for two separate surfaces:
H1 = σ * ε1 * A1 * T1^4 & H2 = σ * ε2 * A2 * T2^4
H1 – H2 = σ * ((ε1 * A1 * T1^4) – (ε2 * A2 * T2^4))
Since surface 1 is in a vacuum and emits all of the energy that enters its ε1 = 1.0.
Since surface 2 is in a vacuum on one side and by definition absorbs all of the energy from 1 ε2 = 1.0.
H1 – H2 = σ * ε * ((A1 * T1^4) – (A2 * T2^4))
But all the energy emitted by surface 1, rod, is absorbed by surface 2, cylinder therefore:
(A1 * T1^4) = (A2 * T2^4) & (A1 * T1^4) – (A2 * T2^4) = 0 & no net “back” radiation.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6388409240586899456
Based on the physical data in the paper:
surface one: 4,330.7 W/m^2 for S-B BB of 525.7 K
surface two: 318.3 W/m^2 for S-B BB of 273.7 K
Now consider the first row of data tabulated in Table 2.
The cylinder temperature is listed as 376.9. This is about 100 C greater than predicted by the S-B equation.
My calculations compared to Table 2 by row: 5.49E-8, 5.15E-8, 94% / 7.11E-8, 587E-8, 83% / 6.61E-8, 5.66E-8, 86%.
Rather significant differences.
If I assume a 100 C error in the cylinder temperatures I get the following:
Cylinder temp minus 100 C Table 2 by row: 4.87E-8, 5.15E-8, 106% / 5.43E-8, 587E-8, 108% / 5.28E-8, 5.66E-8, 107%.
Much closer agreement.
If I ignore the cylinder temperature I get the following:
Without cylinder “back” flow Table 2 by row: 4.52E-8, 5.15E-8, 114% / 4.99E-8, 587E-8, 118% / 4.87E-8, 5.66E-8, 116%.
Looks like the “back” doesn’t make a huge difference.
Wish I could talk with Syle, access the raw data. Looks like lots of questions for replication. Another grant application.
Notice the clear implication that outside a vacuum ideal BB radiation is compromised – i.e. earth’s surface.
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-stefan-boltzmann-law-at-non-vacuum.html
http://principia-scientific.org/the-stefan-boltzmann-law-at-a-non-vacuum-interface-misuse-by-global-warming-alarmists/
LikeLike
@-nick
“If I assume a 100 C error in the cylinder temperatures…
If I ignore the cylinder temperature I get the following:…”
You get values for the S-B constant that have an error about 10x the results in the experiment.
Is there any reason other than your dogmatic refusal to recognise the existence and importance of back radiation to impute measurement error or discard measured data, that results in WORSE accuracy than reported ?
There comes a point in contending with someone who denies basic established science, whether it is Evolution, Thermodynamics or a spherical Earth, that the entertainment value wears off. The insistence on rejecting the understanding humans have gained in these subjects becomes tedious, and obviously impervious to any evidence.
It begins to feel that you are disparaging a person who lacks the cognitive ability to engage in a meanigful way. That you are kicking a legless cripple. It becomes uncomfortable in a way that trying to tell young children that Father Christmas does not exist would be.
I will probably indulge your apparently compulsive need to expose the egregious position you advance, even in this niche venue that is frequented according to the ‘hits’, by you, me and what are probably a handful of spider-bots roaming the links.
But I will probably not respond any further, you even got your own post back in April!
And it is beginning to feel like I am exploiting the ignorance and dogma you exhibit for my own amusement at your expense.
LikeLike
Rants aren’t science.
RGHE theory requires 396 W/m^2 of LWIR energy upwelling from the surface.
I maintain that this 396 W/m^2 is a theoretical “what If” S-B BB ideal 1.0 emissivity calculation for any surface at 289 K with no physical reality. (TFK_bams09)
If this 396 W/m^2 does not exist neither do the 333 W/m^2 GHG LWIR energy loop, CO2 warming or man-caused climate change.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6443501424587395072
Your only science based response must address the origin, physics and existence of that 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR.
No other points or arguments matter.
-This post is retained as a matter of record.
Please do not use it to attack or disparage this poster. –izen
LikeLike