Picture of CMB from Resonance, not Radiative Heating

The Cosmic Microwave Radiation (CMB) shows a blackbody spectrum of temperature 2.725 K

peaking at a wave length of about 0.2 cm beyond the far infrared spectrum. CMB is detected by radio-telescopes by resonance like radio antennas resonating with incoming radio waves thus generating a weak electrical signal which can be amplified into detection.

It would be difficult to detect CMB by thermal IR-imaging since the signal is very weak and thermal detection would require a detector at lower temperature than 2.725 K.

The concept of Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the cold atmosphere to the warm Earth surface plays a key role in CO2 alarmism. CMB is here presented as an ultimate form of DLR with the argument that a picture of CMB shows that DLR is real. If even the cold dark space is contributing to global warming, then global warming must be real, right?

Let us now scrutinize this argument in the setting of mathematical model of blackbody radiation studied in Computational Blackbody Radiation, in the case of a radio-telescope as CMB-detector. The model takes the form of set oscillators with damping (see here for some more details)

• $U_{tt} - U_{xx} - \gamma U_{ttt} - h^2U_{xxt} = f$

where the subindices indicate differentiation with respect to space $x$ and time $t$, and

1. $U_{tt} - U_{xx}$ represents the oscillators in a wave model
2. $- \gamma U_{ttt}$ is a dissipative term modeling outgoing radiation
3. $- h^2U_{xxt}$ is a dissipative modeling internal heating
4. $f$ is incoming forcing/microwaves,

where $\gamma$ represents the constant in Planck's radiation law and $h$ represents a smallest mesh size, connected to dissipative losses as outgoing radiation and internal heating, respectively.

Microwaves are characterized by low frequency and long wave length (compared to visible and

infrared light) and in this case the dissipative loss of internal heating is small and is not detectable while the resonance can be detected after amplification just like a radio antenna is capable of detecting a weak radio wave by resonance followed by amplification.

Pictures of CMB are thus produced by an IR-camera in the form of a radio-telescope which works by resonance and not radiative heating. A CMB picture can therefore not be used as evidence that the weak glow of CMB acts as in a weak form of radiative heating named DLR or backradiation. This is because the CMB picture is not obtained from detection of radiative heating, but from resonance and amplification.

We conclude that a CMB picture is not any evidence of DLR, because no DLR is detected.

Learning by Seeing

Everyday you may learn something new. I just discovered that I made a mistake in the recent post on IR-detectors believing that an optical lens may increase the radiance from a target onto a detector, because a (positive) lens increases the amplitude of the incoming light waves by making the rays converge.

But then I missed that the viewing angle also increases which makes the radiance the same after the lens as before. This means that the detector even with an optical lens cannot reach a higher temperature than the target, in full accordance with the 2nd law.

IR Detectors and True-SB

In the previous post From Correct Planck Law to True-SB and False-SB I derived the following Stefan-Boltzmann Law based on the new proof of Planck's radiation law presented in Computational Blackbody Radiation in Slaying the Skydragon:

(True-SB) $R(T,T_b) =\int_{T_b}^{T}\gamma T f^2 df + \int_0^{T_b}\gamma (T - T_b) f^2df \equiv I_1 + I_2$,

where $R(T,T_b)$ is the radiance from a blackbody of temperature $T$ into a blackbody background of temperature $T_b < T$.

Here the first integral $I_1$ is the radiance from the blackbody absorbed as heat by the background above the cut-off of the background and $I_2$ the net heat absorbed below cut-off as the difference between absorbed and emitted radiation.

Let us see what (True-SB) can tell us about the possible design of IR detectors, where $T$ is the temperature of the object to be detected and $T_b$ that of the detector. There are two types of detectors to consider (see here):

1. cooled with $T_b < T$
2. un-cooled with possibly $T_b > T$.

In a cooled detector with $T_b < T$ both $I_1$ and $I_2$ are positive and $R(T,T_b)$ can

be directly recorded as heating transferred into an electric signal by a thermocouple. (For a star a large distance only $I_1$ is recorded, with the help of optical magnification of the input,

but this is not IR.)

In an un-cooled detector the heat transfer would be away from the detector if $T_b>T$, and

in principle the object could be detected from recording the cooling of the detector. But this is

a form of negative detection which may be difficult to get to work in practice.

More interesting is to explore what (True-SB) suggests for the design by heating in the case the object has lower temperature than the detector:

In this case the signal from the object does not contain frequencies above the cut-off of the detector and so $I_1=0$, but by magnifying the signal optically (by a lense) the radiation below cut-off can be changed into

• $I_2(M)= \int_0^{T_b}\gamma (MT - T_b) f^2df$

where $M>1$ is a magnification factor and $I_2(M)$ may thus become positive even if $T_b > T$.

We sum up the experience from (True-SB):

1. If the temperature of the detector is lower than the object, then direct recording of heating is possible (with $I_1>0$ and possibly also $I_2>0$ ).
2. If the temperature of the detector is higher than that of the object, then heating may be recorded after optical input magnification (with $I_2>0$).

Note added: I made a mistake believing that a lens can magnify radiance, which I correct in Learning by Seeing.

How to Fool the World by Measuring DLR

CO2 alarmism is based on backradiation or Downwelling Longwave Radiation presented as follows:

• The Down-welling Long-wave Radiation (DLR) flux (W.m-2) is defined as the thermal irradiance reaching the surface in the thermal infrared spectrum (4 - 100 µm). It is determined by the radiation that originates from a shallow layer close to the surface, about one third being emitted by the lowest 10 meters and 80% by the 500-meter layer.
• The DLR is derived from several sensors (METEOSAT, MSG) using various approaches, in the framework of projects GEOLAND and AMMA.

The algorithm used in GEOLAND computes DLR by (in principle)

• DLR = sigma Ta^4

where Ta is the measured atmospheric temperature (more precisely a frequency spectrum characteristic of the temperature). The algorithm to compute DLR reflects a Stefan-Bolzmann's radiation law (SB) of the form

(1) Q = sigma Te^4 - sigma Ta^4,

where Te is the Earth surface/instrument temperature, expressing the net heat transfer Q as the difference between two-way gross heat transfer back and forth. DLR is then identified with the second term, see also the The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program.

But this form of SB is not found in the physics literature, where instead SB is written as

(2) Q = sigma (Te^4 - Ta^4),

which expresses net heat transfer from warm to cold. In this version it is impossible to single out the term sigma Ta^4 and claim it to represent DLR. In this version of SB there is no DLR, no back radiation, only net heat transfer.

We now see the trick: Rewrite (2) as (1) by an algebraic manipulation and then interpret

the miraculously appearing term sigma Ta^4 as DLR:

• By a purely algebraic manipulation a massive physical flux of energy DLR has been created.
• With massive DLR it is possible to stir up CO2 alarm.

This trick has fooled a whole world of climate scientists. Does it fool you?

Recall that CO2 alarmism is based on making the effect of something small (CO2) into something big (increase of global temp by 3C), and this inflation is based on replacing small one-way net heat transfer by (the difference of) gross two-way transfer.

It is like creating something out of nothing by writing 0 = 100 - 100, which miraculously creates 100 out of 0.

But this inflation is fictional and is based on an incorrect interpretation of the SB law in the literature. It is surprising that so many people get fooled by the simple algebraic trick used.

PS Measuring temperature by recording frequency spectrum is possible by using SB. But to measure two-way transfer of heat energy is a different issue.

Result of Debate on Fiction of Backradiation

After 6 months and 2000 comments on Judy Curry's blog about my refutation of the basic postulate of CO2 climate alarmism of backradiation, I can make the following sum up:

1. My new derivation of Planck's radiation law has stood the test. Nobody has shown that it is incorrect.
2. In my version of Planck's law there is no radiative transfer of heat from one blackbody to a warmer blackbody, only from a warmer to a colder. In other words, there is no backradiation.
3. The reason is that such a process would be unstable and real physics cannot operate with unstable processes. Backradiation thus is fiction without reality.
4. Backradiation is not described in the physics literature.
5. Backradiation has been invented out of the blue to serve CO2 alarmism by supplying gross two-way radiative transfer of heat energy back and forth between the Earth surface and the atmosphere, and the instability of this exchange is the root of the alarmism.
6. CO2 alarmism based on a fiction of backradiation is fiction.

I ask Judy to make her own sum up of the debate and compare with mine.

PS Measuring backradiation or DLR by an IR camera is also fiction. DLR is computed by Stefan-Boltzmann Q = sigma T^4 from measured temperature T and thus is self-fulfilling: Since Stefan-Boltzmann in the alarmist version is postulated to include backradiation/DLR, the instrument records DLR because it uses Stefan-Boltzmann and not because it directly measures real backradiation. DS

Judy Curry and "BackRadiation"

In the comment Febr 1 12:28 to the thread on Slaying the Sky Dragon on Judy Curry's blog, Judy asks me:

• Do you dispute that if you put an infrared radiometer on the surface of the earth and point it upwards, that it will measure an IR radiance or irradiance (depending on how the instrument is configured)? Go to http://www.arm.gov for decades worth of such measurements. And that this infrared radiation comes from IR emission by gases such as CO2 and H2O and also clouds? If you say yes, well this is what people are calling back radiation (a term that I don’t use myself). If you say no, then I will call you a crank – all your manipulations of Maxwell’s equation will not make this downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere go away.

I address this question in Section 7.4 of my Sky Dragon article Computational Blackbody Radiation, and Judy's question indicates that she has not read my article. I explain there that an IR camera (infrared radiometer) directed to the sky measures the frequency of incoming light and computes by Wien's displacement law the temperature T of the emitter, and then by Stefan-Boltzmann's law Q = sigma T^4 associates a "downwelling IR-flux from the atmosphere" of size Q.

The IR camera thus measures frequency/temperature which by SB is translated to "downwelling IR-flux" or "backradiation". So everything hinges on this translation. Is it

correct?

Is it correct to use SB in the form Q = sigma T^4? No, because this law gives the radiated

energy from a blackbody into an environment of 0 K. But the Earth surface is not at 0 K,

but even warmer than the atmospheric emitter. The translation Q = sigma T^4 is thus incorrect in the sense that it indicates a fictitious "downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere" obtained by an erronous translation.

Judy calls me a "crank" because I say "no to downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere".

Let me then remind Judy that just saying "crank" does not mean that I am a crank in reality, and just saying "downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere" does not mean that in reality there is anything like that. Right Judy?