Jeff Condon attempted to rebut my paper, then deleted my response of which I have kept a screen capture. This is typical of the suppression which is common among those battling to support the AGW conjecture.
Author’s response
There is absolutely no need to present equations …
(a) because the document Reference [3] approaches the topic of one-way heat transfer with ample computations
(b) because I have clearly explained in words the very obvious fact that the area between the two Planck curves is the difference in the areas under the curves, because Wien’s Displacement Law confirms that the curve for the cooler body is fully contained within that for the warmer body. This is supported with a graphic and link regarding WDL.
Hence I am obviously saying that the standard equations for radiation between two plates (and similar) still apply. Thus the standard equations for heat transfer also apply. I state that such equations give the correct result in Section 4 which is about quantification in such instances. There is absolutely no need to reiterate standard equation of physics here, but I do never-the-less provide a link (Ref [4]) to an article containing such computations involving the difference of the two Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for the two temperatures involved. This is ample coverage of all the computations that are relevant.
The statement “Thus radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot transfer thermal energy to a warmer surface” is doing nothing more nor less than applying the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Any contrary statement, or implied error, is in fact, in itself, contradicting standard physics.
Engineering applications neither prove nor disprove either hypothesis (one way or two way heat transfer) for the very reason that the mathematical computations give the same result for each hypothesis. (I remind you, the area between the curves = the difference in the areas under the curves.) So, yes, science has already “empirically verified” what is in my hypothesis, just as much as it has in the conjecture made by the early physicists over a hundred years ago, that there “must” be a two-way heat transfer. This was their best guess at the time, perhaps because they had no concept of the resonating and scattering process proven computationally by Claes Johnson, a professor of applied mathematics which is a discipline closely related to physics.
In no way have I undermined “the foundation of literally millions of functioning devices” because I have not come up with anything different in terms of computational results relating to heat transfer, either in quantity or direction.
“How often a photon is absorbed by a solar cell is very well quantified and is based on the material in question”
Well, yes it may be “very well quantified” but, because there has been a philosophy that absorption is a fixed proportion, regardless of the temperature of either source or target, all measurements have been carried out with incident solar radiation or some other light source equivalent to a warmer source of spontaneous radiation. Once again, a reference [10] is provided which explains the methodology. Furthermore, my reading on this particular issue has subsequently confirmed that absorptivity does in fact vary even by a full order of magnitude at different temperatures. More experiments are planned which are expected to confirm these facts.
It would seem that the reviewer has read little more than half the paper, as no comment is made on the content of the Appendix.
If he finds no counter argument to items such as Q.1, Q.2, Q.3 and Q.7 then he would appear to be accepting the conclusions of the body of the paper, regardless of his criticism thereof. For example, in Q.1, I demonstrate that there is no evidence of any anthropogenic effect showing in the temperature records. In Q.3 I discuss the stabilising effect of the “thermal inertia” in the massive quantity of sub-surface thermal energy, right down to the Earth’s core. The conclusion is spelled out at the end of Q.7 namely “This leaves nothing but the resonant scattering hypothesis to explain reality and such a hypothesis negates a key assumption which is fundamental for there to be any validity in the Anthropogenic Global Warming conjecture”
The reviewer has criticised me for not quoting what are standard equations anyway, but he has not addressed nearly half the paper, nor quoted even one sentence therein which he has been able to specifically refute using standard physics.
His hand-waving comments bear no substance, display complete misunderstanding and are lacking in any supportive evidence, either documented as theory, or as empirical evidence, that is contrary to any statement in the paper.
.
