Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

Maol wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 3:27 pm Heat can only flow from where it is to where it isn't. Only flow from hotter to colder, warm to cool. Heat cannot move from cool to warm or from cold to hot, it has never happened and never will, like water and gravity, it can only flow downhill.

Heat entering the planet on the day side exits the planet on the night side.

Maol wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 10:58 am There is not such thing that can act as a check valve to allow heat to flow one way but not the other, no such heat diode exists. When there is a temperature difference, heat always flows downhills from hot to cold, higher temperature always flows toward lower temperature, nothing can stop this phenomenon.

In the electrical analogy to use the word "diode" does not imply anything but the appropriation of the word do describe a check valve allowing flow one way but not the other when a temperature difference exists.

The physics of thermodynamics clearly demonstrates there is no one way valve for heat. If a temperature difference exists, heat flow occurs.

There is the electrical analogy of resistance, evident in insulation and thermal barrier materials, but the effect is only to slow the heat movement and acts only in an omnidirectional sense, equally in all directions from higher temperature toward lower temperature. Heat flow can be slowed but it cannot be stopped.

The fallacy of the 'greenhouse effect' ignores this.

Maol wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 2:01 pm There is no such thing as a heat diode.

I have reproduced the full text of a number of articles that seem to be chronically misquoted or misunderstood. This is possibly because access is difficult, and so my objective is that by improving access, perhaps the many people who misquote these papers will endeavour to read what is written before citing it. Fourier, putatively the father of the "Greenhouse Effect" says something quite different in the text of his work (Fourier, 1824; Fourier, 1827; Burgess, 1837). Tyndall (1861), who first proposes the radiation trap on which the "Greenhouse Effect" is based, not only misquotes Fourier but bases his own heat transfer theory on the assumption of luminiferous aether - an idea Fourier impled might change substantially. Moreover, Tyndall confused opacity and absorption, in spite of the significant visible reflection presented by chlorine gas - which he examined. This is perhaps because he neglected to consider gaseous reflection of wavelengths outside the visible spectrum. Tyndall is celebrated as the scientist who proved the "Greenhouse Effect" when in actual fact, his work on the infrared absorption of gases failed to address absorption as opposed to opacity. Moreover, his speculations on climate were hypothetical and rooted in his own aethereal heat transfer mechanism, which was refuted in 1887. Moving on from the "Greenhouse Effect" to natural sources of carbon dioxide, Gerlach (1991) is spectacularly misrepresented as a tally of measured volcanic carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, Gerlach (1991) is a guess based on a grand total of seven subaerial volcano emission measurements, three hydrothermal vent site emission measurements, and corroboration with even more tenuous estimates available at the time.

This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.