- Planck’s Law and the theory of blackbody radiation does in fact prove my statement “A low frequency/energy photon (eg 15um CO2 photons) cannot transfer any quantum energy to a higher frequency/energy/temperature blackbody because all of those lower frequency/energy microstates & orbitals are already completely filled/saturated in the hotter body. This fact alone from quantum mechanics falsifies CAGW.”As shown on these calculated Planck curves, CO2 (+H2O overlap) absorbs and emits in the LWIR the same as a true blackbody would at an emitting temperature of ~217K over the LWIR band from ~12 or 13um to ~17um
Even though CO2 has emissivity less than a true black body and line emissions centered around 15um, and observations also show CO2 emissivity decreases with temperature unlike a true BB, for purposes of this simple question, we’ll assume (like climate scientists incorrectly do) that CO2 emits and absorbs as a true BB.gammacrux: Can a BB at 217K cause a BB at 255K to warm by 33K to 288K as the Arrhenius theory claims?The lower energy/temperature/frequency microstates of a BB at a given temperature are by definition “saturated” in a perfect blackbody absorber/emitter and that explains why classical physics shown by the dashed lines in fig 4.8 does not happen in nature and instead a Planck curve of emission and absorption is found in nature. If those lower energy/temperature/frequency microstates of a BB were not saturated, then any energy level photons could be thermalized by a blackbody and the frequency vs BB energy intensity curve would go to infinity as shown by the (false) dashed lines in fig 4.8:http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/plancks-quantum-theory-explains-why-low.html - Phil: Yes or No: Can a blackbody at 193K warm a warmer blackbody at 255K by 33K to 288K?Phil says: “Since the ‘blackbody at 193K’ is a figment of your imagination there’s no reason to answer it, I would point out that in your pure nitrogen atmosphere the blackbody at 193K would be replacing a background at 4K, that would make quite a difference.”NO not even wrong.Phil claims the blackbody at 193K is a figment of the OLR spectra that both he and I have posted!Phil look very closely: do you see the blackbody Planck curves calculated for blackbodies with emitting temperatures of 220K-320K?Do you see that the CO2+H2O overlap corresponding Planck curve is ~217K (it is higher than 193K for pure CO2 due to presence of water vapor overlap) in the LWIR spectra of any relevance to the AGW debate 12-17um?THAT is the 217K “partial blackbody” I’m asking about. YOU are effectively claiming that radiation from a “partial blackbody” at a peak emitting temperature of ~217K in the 12-17um band can make a true black body e.g. the Earth warm from the 255K equilb temp with Sun by 33K to 288K!Secondly, I’ve already shown you (and so does Feynman’s chapter 40, vol 1, and the US Std Atmosphere, Maxwell, etc) that a pure N2 or pure N2/O2 Boltzmann distribution atmosphere would have almost the same temperature gradient as our current atmosphere:The “ERL” on a planet with pure N2 atmosphere is located at the surface h=0 and is exactly equivalent to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun for that planet, NOT “a blackbody at 193K” as you falsely claim above!
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Why greenhouse gases do not "remove" any alleged "missing heat" from the atmosphere
Excerpts from the comments on WUWT post The Trouble With Global Climate Models in which Quaternary geologist Kristian, TimTheToolMan, and myself explain to "Phil" why greenhouse gases do not "remove" any alleged "missing heat" from the atmosphere:
WSJ: Obama’s Wind-Energy Lobby Gets Blown Away
Obama’s Wind-Energy Lobby Gets Blown Away
A California judge rules in favor of bald eagles and against 30-year permits to shred them
Chalk one up for the bald eagle. The avian symbol of American freedom has beaten theObama administration and the wind industry in court, though the majestic birds still don’t stand a chance when flying near the subsidy-fueled blades of green-energy production.
On Aug. 11, a federal judge in the Northern District of California shot down a rule proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that would have allowed the wind industry to legally kill bald eagles and golden eagles for up to three decades.
The ruling is a setback for the wind industry and President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which depends on tripling domestic wind-energy capacity to meet the plan’s projected cuts in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030. The ruling also exposes the Obama administration’s cozy relationship with the wind industry and the danger to wildlife posed by a major expansion of wind-energy capacity.
U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh, an Obama appointee, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the American Bird Conservancy, and against the FWS’s “eagle take” rule. Judge Koh found that the FWS violated the National Environmental Policy Act in 2013 when the agency’s director, Dan Ashe, decided that the agency could issue permits to wind-energy companies that would have allowed them to lawfully kill eagles for up to 30 years without first doing an environmental-impact assessment. Permits were previously limited to five years.
Mr. Ashe, an Obama nominee who has headed the FWS since 2011, ignored the advice of a staff member who warned him, according to the ruling, that “real, significant, and cumulative biological impacts will result” if the eagle-kill permits were extended from five to 30 years. Rather than listen to his staff, Mr. Ashe sided with the wind-energy lobby, which pushed hard for the 30-year permits. More than a dozen wind companies have applied for eagle-kill permits.
Bird kills in general, and eagle kills in particular, are a legal and public-relations nightmare for an industry that promotes itself as “green.” The FWS and the Justice Department have been reluctant to prosecute the wind industry for killing protected birds—bringing only two cases against wind-energy companies over the past two years—even though a study published in the March 2013 issue of the Wildlife Society Bulletin found that wind turbines in the U.S. kill some 573,000 birds and 880,000 bats each year. The study also said there is an “urgent need to improve fatality monitoring methods” at wind facilities.
Under the Clean Power Plan, the Energy Department projects that wind-generation capacity will surge from 66 gigawatts in 2014 to some 200 gigawatts in 2030. But for that expansion to happen, the federal government will have to give wind companies formal permission to kill some of our most iconic wildlife. And that’s where the raptor meets the turbine blade.
The Clean Power Plan relies on wind more than any other form of renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Achieving those reductions will require covering roughly 54,000 square miles of land (an area about the size of New York state) with tens of thousands of new turbines.
Those turbines will be killing birds and bats in far greater numbers than they are now. Yet the federal government has no clear policies for how it will handle the impending slaughter or to what extent it will prosecute wind-energy companies for violating the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The rationale being used by renewable-energy promoters and the Obama administration is that future climate change trumps today’s wildlife concerns. Therefore, we have to kill lots of birds and bats with turbines to save them from the possibility of climate change. Never mind that whatever carbon-dioxide cuts we achieve will be swamped by soaring emissions growth in places like Brazil, India and Indonesia.
Meanwhile, the killing by wind turbines continues. On July 25 a wounded female golden eagle was found near a turbine at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area in northern California. A local 2008 study estimated that the Altamont wind facility kills some 60 golden eagles, 2,500 raptors and 7,000 non-raptors each year. The injured eagle was taken to a wildlife hospital where veterinarians found the bird’s wing had been “shredded.” Saving the bird was deemed futile and the eagle was euthanized.
Last week an FWS spokesman told me the agency is “looking into the circumstances surrounding” the eagle death at Altamont.
Mr. Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is the author of “Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong” (PublicAffairs, 2014).
WSJ: Steyer's Calfiornia green scheme fails to create jobs or save energy
Tom Steyer’s Stimulus
A California green scheme fails to create jobs or save energy.
 |
| Billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer speaks during a news conference in Santa Monica, Calif. on Aug. 5. |
Aug. 18, 2015 6:57 p.m. ET THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
How many workers does it take to change an incandescent light bulb in California? Two. One to install its energy-efficient replacement, and another to ensure the job complies with government regulations. Behold Tom Steyer’s green jobs stimulus, which a new report from the Associated Press shows has been a colossal failure even by its proponents’ standards.
In 2012 the hedge-fund billionaire bankrolled a California ballot initiative (Prop. 39) hitting up corporations to finance green construction jobs. The referendum changed the way many corporations that do business across state lines calculate their tax liability. Half of the new revenues were to be earmarked for “clean energy” (e.g., LED and solar panel installations) with the rest flowing into Sacramento’s general fund for the politicians to spend.
Mr. Steyer and friends claimed the initiative would raise more than $500 million annually for green projects and create tens of thousands of jobs. Neither dream has come true. According to AP, the initiative’s clean-energy fund has raised $973 million over the past three years—about a third less than projections because companies have responded by seeking to minimize their tax liabilities.
And little of that has gone toward creating “clean energy.” Funding recipients have frittered away millions completing paperwork—energy surveys, audits, data analytics—to meet California Energy Commission’s guidelines, which require $1.05 of energy savings for every dollar spent. Schools have spent more than half of the $297 million that they’ve received on consultants and auditors. As if California’s regulatory compliance industry needed more work.
AP reports that the initiative has created all of 1,700 jobs over three years, yet the state doesn’t know how much if any energy has been saved. Credit to Mr. Steyer for his grand ambitions. His initiative may beat the 2009 Obama-Pelosi blowout as the country’s least effective jobs stimulus.
Mr. Steyer told AP the initiative has nonetheless accomplished its goal of closing a “corporate loophole.” But then results rarely matter for the supporters of green subsidies. Their good intentions in spending other peoples’ money is enough.
New paper finds another solar amplification mechanism by which solar activity & cosmic rays control climate
A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds another potential solar amplification mechanism mediated by galactic cosmic rays [GCRs] (and distinct from Svensmark's cosmic ray theory of climate). The author demonstrates:
Graphics from the paper and abstract below:
- Solar modulation of GCR [Galactic Cosmic Rays] is translated down to the Earth climate.
- •
- The mediator of solar influence are energetic particles.
- •
- GCR impacts the O3 [ozone] budget in the lower stratosphere.
- •
- O3 influences the temperature and humidity near tropopause, and greenhouse effect.
- •
- Effectiveness of this mechanism depends on geomagnetic field intensity.
"In this paper we show that bi-decadal variability of solar magnetic field, modulating the intensity of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) at the outer boundary of heliosphere, could be easily tracked down to the Earth's surface. The mediator of this influence is the lower stratospheric ozone, while the mechanism of signal translation consists of: (i) GCR impact on the lower stratospheric ozone balance; (ii) modulation of temperature and humidity near the tropopause by the ozone variations; (iii) increase or decrease of the greenhouse effect, depending on the sign of the humidity changes. The efficiency of such a mechanism depends critically on the level of maximum secondary ionisation created by GCR (i.e. the Pfotzer maximum) − determined in turn by heterogeneous Earth's magnetic field..."
The paper adds to over 100 potential solar amplification mechanisms described in the literature.
As to the false belief that solar activity does not correlate to global temperatures, the sunspot 'integral', the accumulated mean sunspot activity, and Fourier analysis all demonstrate this belief to be false:
- •
- Solar modulation of GCR [Galactic Cosmic Rays] is translated down to the Earth climate.
- •
- The mediator of solar influence are energetic particles.
- •
- GCR impacts the O3 budget in the lower stratosphere.
- •
- O3 influences the temperature and humidity near tropopause, and greenhouse effect.
- •
- Effectiveness of this mechanism depends on geomagnetic field intensity.
Abstract
The Sun's contribution to climate variations was highly questioned recently. In this paper we show that bi-decadal variability of solar magnetic field, modulating the intensity of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) at the outer boundary of heliosphere, could be easily tracked down to the Earth's surface. The mediator of this influence is the lower stratospheric ozone, while the mechanism of signal translation consists of: (i) GCR impact on the lower stratospheric ozone balance; (ii) modulation of temperature and humidity near the tropopause by the ozone variations; (iii) increase or decrease of the greenhouse effect, depending on the sign of the humidity changes. The efficiency of such a mechanism depends critically on the level of maximum secondary ionisation created by GCR (i.e. the Pfotzer maximum) − determined in turn by heterogeneous Earth's magnetic field. Thus, the positioning of the Pfotzer max in the driest lowermost stratosphere favours autocatalytic ozone production in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere (NH), while in the SH − no suitable conditions for activation of this mechanism exist. Consequently, the geomagnetic modulation of precipitating energetic particles – heterogeneously distributed over the globe – is imprinted on the relation between ozone and humidity in the lower stratosphere (LS). The applied test for causality reveals that during the examined period 1957–2012 there are two main centers of action in the winter NH, with tight and almost stationary ozone control on the near tropopause humidity. Being indirectly influenced by the solar protons, the variability of the SH lower stratospheric ozone, however, is much weaker. As a consequence, the causality test detects that the ozone dominates in the interplay with ULTS humidity only in the summer extra-tropics.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Why climate modelers seeking funds & fame have distorted climate science
Kyoji Kimoto, a Japanese chemist, scientist, and fuel-cell computer modeler & inventor, has submitted his latest work as a third guest post to The Hockey Schtick, and explains why false, unphysical assumptions and mathematical errors first made by Cess, Manabe, Hansen, et al, continue to be propagated today in the latest state-of-the-art IPCC climate models underlying the basis of climate alarm.
Among other matters, Kimoto discusses the mathematical error which led to exaggeration of the Planck feedback parameter, and why the false assumption of a fixed lapse rate exaggerates potential warming from doubled CO2 by a factor of at least 10 times.
Please also see Kimoto's prior posts here, and his previously published paper regarding the Planck feedback parameter miscalculation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoQjdtVklDb0RrYmM/view?usp=sharing
Why are cloudy nights warmer? Not from greenhouse gas 'back-radiation'
Why are cloudy nights warmer? Is it due to a greenhouse effect from water vapor, inhibition of convection, higher relative humidity, temperature of the cloud bottoms being higher than the clear sky, or ?
Stephen Wilde, who has been a member of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968, answers the question:
Stephen Wilde, who has been a member of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968, answers the question:
The answer depends on whether it is day or night.
Note that the question is only valid for individual clouds because clouds that form part of horizontally advecting air masses involve different thermal mechanisms.
The question is also only valid for stratiform or fair weather cumulus clouds which are not actively involved in upward convection because surfaces beneath active convective cells are affected by winds flowing in from around the convecting cell.
In daytime an individual cloud both reduces convection and increases humidity beneath it which allows indirect, even diffuse, insolation to continue warming the surface and air beneath the cloud. That is why a cloud passing over a water surface can cause a rise in temperature beneath it. The condensate in the cloud blocks cooling convection and the higher humidity reduces cooling evaporation from the water surface. AGW theory says that the cloud radiates IR downward to raise the surface temperature which I consider to be wrong.
At night time an individual cloud reduces radiative loss to space because the cloud is at (or sometimes above, due to advection) the temperature along the lapse rate slope which is attributable to its height. For maximum radiative loss one needs an atmosphere that is perfectly transparent to IR and the presence of any material reducing that transparency must reduce the rate of radiative loss.
An interesting factor at this point is that IR is susceptible to transparency being reduced by the pressure and density of non-radiative gases because collisional activity can divert IR from photon release to conduction and convection. That is less of an issue with more energetic wavelengths which are not so affected by pressure and mass density. One of the mistakes of AGW radiative theory is to fail to see that IR behaves differently to other wavelengths in the presence of mass compressed by gravity. See the Catling paper in support of that point.
The night time cloud cannot warm the ground but it can reduce radiative cooling which then becomes limited to the temperature of the lapse rate slope at cloud base.
The ground will cool to a lower temperature beneath higher clouds because they are at a higher and colder location along the lapse rate slope.
Clouds at the surface (fog) can stop surface radiative cooling altogether if the fog is deep enough but sometimes the fog layer is shallow and allows radiative cooling of the surface to continue until freezing fog forms.
Clouds high up, for example cirrus clouds, may inhibit radiative cooling of the surface very little.
Note though that the presence of clouds at night is generally indicative of advection of warmer air across the radiating surface so that the amount of radiative inhibition caused solely by the presence of the cloud is hard to separate out.
A surface rarely cools to the temperature of a high cloud because other factors are involved in the cooling process such as the length of day and night, the energy stored in the surface materials, the amount of local air mixing and the regional synoptic situation.
In no case is downward IR from the cloud doing any active warming. In all cases the cloud is simply reducing the capability of the surface to cool itself using different mechanisms day and night.
Why greenhouse gases accelerate convective cooling in the troposphere
Stephen Wilde has alerted us to a new chapter on planetary atmospheres published in Treatise on Geophysics, 2nd Ed, Volume 10, 2015, which underlies a number of points made in his prior HS post
Erasing AGW: How Convection Responds To Greenhouse Gases To Maintain The Hydrostatic Equilibrium Of The Atmosphere.
Stephen writes,
Section 10.13.2.4 of the chapter discusses convective stability and provides derivations of the same mathematics underlying the HS 'greenhouse equation.'
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoVm0wRGkzVFZHNTg/view?usp=sharing
Erasing AGW: How Convection Responds To Greenhouse Gases To Maintain The Hydrostatic Equilibrium Of The Atmosphere.
Stephen writes,
"Amongst much else he says this:The author also notes "convection dominates lower tropospheres" in the radiative-convective equilibrium of Earth's troposphere and other planets with thick atmospheres. In other words, if greenhouse gas "radiative forcing" [a term not used by the author one single time] increases, a compensatory increase in convection (and evaporation) will negate and erase any such warming at the surface from greenhouse gas "radiative forcing."
“At high pressures, collisions generally occur before an excited atom or
molecule undergoes radiative decay and emits a photon in a
random direction, with the result that vibrational or rotational
energy is converted into KE [Kinetic Energy] and heat, called thermalization
or quenching.”
So, the higher the pressure at a surface beneath an atmosphere, the more
likely is energy transfer by collisions in place of photon emission.
Thus the denser the air at the surface the more readily energy will be
passed from GHGs to non GHGs.and the less photon emission there will be
relative to temperature.
The 'ideal' adiabatic lapse rate slope set by mass and gravity marks the steady decline in the probability of photon emission relative to collisional activity as one descends through atmospheric mass. All the actual lapse rates have to average out to that 'ideal' lapse rate for an atmosphere to be retained.
I've been saying that for a while.
Just as I have been saying all along, atmospheric mass reduces photon
emission in favour of collisional activity so that the surface temperature
can rise without destabilising radiative equilibrium with space.
Since the surface is heated unevenly, convection then stores that additional
surface energy in the form of potential energy within rising and falling
columns of air. That potential energy is taken up and returned towards the
surface in a never ending cycle for so long as there is an atmosphere.
The descending column inhibits convection beneath it and so continuing insolation can raise surface temperature beneath the column above the Stefan-Boltzmann prediction.
Earth, as a whole, radiates 255k to space but 33k is recycled within convective
overturning and it is that 33k which provides the necessary energy for the
motion involved in convective overturning."
Section 10.13.2.4 of the chapter discusses convective stability and provides derivations of the same mathematics underlying the HS 'greenhouse equation.'
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoVm0wRGkzVFZHNTg/view?usp=sharing
Quantum Physics Predicts Doubling of CO2 Levels Can Only Warm Earth By < 0.4C
In relation to the recent posts falsifying CAGW on the basis of Planck's quantum theory, this essay by geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch explains why The Effect of a Doubling of the Concentration of CO2 in the Atmosphere as Depicted by Quantum Physics
"is only in the order of a few tenths of a degree C, and definitely less than 0.4°C.CAGW once again falsified by quantum mechanics.
At the current rate of increase of 2ppmv/year it will take 193 years to achieve this doubling. A 0.4°C temperature increase caused by this doubling of CO2 in 193 years is only a year to year temperature increase of just 0.002°C; i.e. 0.18°C by 2100."
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
WSJ: Obama’s Climate Plan Will Increase Poverty & Redistribution
Obama’s Climate Plan and Poverty
The EPA’s new anticarbon rule is full of redistribution to offset its harm to the poor.
President Obama says that critics of his plan to decarbonize the economy are “the special interests and their allies in Congress” repeating “the same stale arguments” about “killing jobs and businesses and freedom.” He adds that “even more cynical, we’ve got critics of this plan who are actually claiming that this will harm minority and low-income communities.”
Is he thinking of critics who work at the Environmental Protection Agency? Perhaps so, because multiple new antipoverty transfer programs are built into the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan. The fine print is there, for anyone who cares to look, 1,317 pages into the rule’s 1,560-page preamble.
The EPA authors are careful to reiterate that “its benefits will greatly exceed its costs.” (Sure.) But then they ever so gingerly observe that “it is also important to ensure that to the extent there are increases in electricity costs, that those do not fall disproportionately on those least able to afford them.”
In particular, the EPA is concerned about “low-income communities, communities of color, and indigenous communities.” The agency orders states “to evaluate the effects of their plans on vulnerable communities and to take the steps necessary to ensure that all communities benefit from the implementation of this rule.” These are the themes of “environmental justice,” the political grievance school that argues for income redistribution to offset the allegedly disproportionate damage to the poor and minorities from pollution.
Opinion Journal Video
Editorial Board Member Joe Rago on who pays for the regulatory agency’s three million gallon spill of heavy metals into a tributary of the Animas River. Photo credit: Associated Press.
It is more accurate to say that any economic disparities arise from the rule itself. Regulations that artificially raise energy prices are regressive. By definition the poor—er, low-income community members—spend a larger share of their incomes on fuel and utilities than the well-to-do climate activists of Marin County and Hyde Park.
As energy prices rise, they spill into other basic needs like food, via fertilizer and feed, and housing, via building materials like cement. Everyone ends up with less disposable income and a diminished standard of living, but low-income workers really are worst off.
The EPA thus requires states to set up “financial assistance programs” only for those living near or below the poverty line. As a model other than straight cash subsidies, the EPA cites a Maryland program that offers “free installation of energy conservation materials” such as window insulation and furnace retrofits. Another is New York, which hands out compact florescent lightbulbs and even new refrigerators. The resulting energy efficiency savings, the EPA helpfully notes, are “of particular value to low-income households who can least afford high energy bills.”
At the federal level, the EPA is creating a program that gives twice as large a subsidy for renewable and efficiency projects that are built in inner-city neighborhoods and disadvantaged rural areas. There will be job retraining for laid-off coal miners. The agency also plans to install more solar generation on top of or around public housing. So while it will raise their utility bills, at least the poor will get a complementary photovoltaic panel.
Perhaps it is bad manners to suggest that the poor themselves might prefer higher incomes rather than the EPA’s form of carbon justice. U.S. economic growth is already much slower than it should be, and the new EPA climate-change rule will make it worse by subtracting billions of dollars every year from potential GDP by misallocating capital and undermining business confidence. This will result in few opportunities and smaller wage gains, with damage to the poorest Americans in particular.
For these reasons, a recent study commissioned by the National Black Chamber of Commerce estimates that the EPA plan will increase the black poverty rate to 32% in 2025 from 26% today. Hispanic poverty will rise to 29% from 23%. No fewer than 28 states raised such economic hardships in their comments to the EPA, to no avail.
The contradiction of modern climate liberals is that they promise lower energy bills and a wind-and-solar jobs boom, with zero trade-offs. But then they demand more redistribution to mitigate the economic and human damage that are the real outcome of their policies. Instead of offering to weatherize the homes of the least fortunate, how about trying to increase prosperity?
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Planck's Law proves why radiation from a cold object cannot warm or increase the energy of a warmer object
The Arrhenius greenhouse effect falsely assumes radiation from a cold "blackbody" emitter of radiation can warm or increase the energy content of a warmer "blackbody," in essence that a "blackbody" [CO2] emitting 15 micron radiation at a corresponding blackbody temperature of 193K [-80C] can warm a much warmer blackbody at 255K (-18C) by 33K up to 288K (15C), the temperature of the Earth surface. However, Planck’s Law and the theory of blackbody radiation proves why this does not spontaneously occur in nature, and why the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Boltzmann/Feynmann/US Std Atmosphere gravito-thermal greenhouse theory is the only physically correct greenhouse theory.
Planck’s Law and the theory of blackbody radiation proves why low frequency/energy photons (eg 15um photons from CO2) cannot transfer any quantum energy to a higher frequency/energy/temperature blackbody because all of those lower frequency/energy microstates & orbitals are already completely filled or saturated in the hotter body. This fact alone from quantum mechanics falsifies CAGW.
As shown on these calculated Planck blackbody curves from 220K to 320K, CO2 (+H2O overlap) absorbs and emits in the LWIR [LongWave InfraRed] the same as a true blackbody would at an emitting temperature of ~217K over the LWIR band from ~12um to ~17um:
Planck’s Law and the theory of blackbody radiation proves why low frequency/energy photons (eg 15um photons from CO2) cannot transfer any quantum energy to a higher frequency/energy/temperature blackbody because all of those lower frequency/energy microstates & orbitals are already completely filled or saturated in the hotter body. This fact alone from quantum mechanics falsifies CAGW.
As shown on these calculated Planck blackbody curves from 220K to 320K, CO2 (+H2O overlap) absorbs and emits in the LWIR [LongWave InfraRed] the same as a true blackbody would at an emitting temperature of ~217K over the LWIR band from ~12um to ~17um:
Even though CO2 has emissivity less than a true blackbody and line emissions centered around 15um, and observations also show CO2 emissivity decreases with temperature unlike a true blackbody, for purposes of this simple question, we’ll assume (like climate scientists incorrectly do) that CO2 emits and absorbs as a true blackbody.
Can a blackbody at 217K cause a blackbody at 255K to warm by 33K to 288K as the Arrhenius theory claims? No, this is absolutely forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics on both a macro and quantum/micro basis (see Chapter 13 linked here).
The lower energy/temperature/frequency microstates of a blackbody at a given temperature are by definition “saturated” in a perfect blackbody absorber/emitter and that explains why classical physics shown by the dashed lines in fig 4.8 does not occur in nature and instead a Planck curve of emission and absorption is found in nature. If those lower energy/temperature/frequency microstates of a blackbody were not saturated, then any energy level photons could be thermalized by a blackbody and the frequency vs. blackbody energy intensity curve would go to infinity as shown by the (false) dashed lines in fig 4.8. Also note, the dashed red & blue lines of the false blackbody in fig 4.8 are at higher intensity levels for each given frequency than that predicted by Planck's law. This demonstrates as well that lower frequency/energy photons cannot warm a blackbody at higher frequency/energy/temperature and that heat transfer is one-way only from hot to cold blackbodies (despite the fact that radiation between them is bidirectional).
As explained in the prior post, this discrepancy between the predictions of classical physics vs. what was observed in nature led Planck to "invent" quantum theory to explain blackbody emission and absorption:
To falsely assume that a photon of any energy level can be thermalized by a blackbody at a given temperature would result in the dashed red and blue function in fig 4.8, which does not happen in nature. Therefore, Planck devised quantum theory to explain why blackbodies instead follow a Planck curve shown by the solid blue and red lines below (corresponding to different blackbody temperatures) and contain "cutoff frequencies for thermalization":
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)