- Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.
Transfer of heat energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface is the same as backradiation, and since I am a firm denier of backradiation, there is a high risk that Fred is aiming his attack on some-one like me, probably directly addressing my simple person.
OK, so I am giving skeptics a bad name? What have I done to deserve this evaluation?
Well, I have given a new proof of Planck's radiation law, which is closer to physics than Planck's original derivation, because it does not rely on statistics, understanding that statistics is not physics but just statistics.
My proof shows that backradiation is physically impossible because it is unstable and cannot be realized by spontaneous physics, as an expression of the 2nd law.
I don't think Fred has read my proof, maybe not even Planck's original one. I ask him to do so, and then compare the merits of the proofs, and after that possibly change his statement that I am giving him a bad name. How about that Fred?
And Fred, isn't it important also for skeptics to obey the 2nd Law? Isn't the 2nd Law more than a simplistic argument which one can discard without much thought?
I expand the argument in
0 comments:
Post a Comment