# Proof: cold can be turned into warm.

There is a certain vociferous group who refuse to accept that a cold object such as a blanket or the sky can make a warmer object warmer. After a few drinks, I found a very simple way to prove then wrong.
To demonstrate this I have taken one of many glasses of warm English beer which for the sake of argument I have assumed has had some ice added to in the top to make it cold so that now the top half is cold.
We can write the equation of black body – or perhaps this is insipid English beer and not for example Guinness I should call it brown-bodied radiation – whatever – the formula across the gap between the two halves is as follows:

Ep= πR2 σT4

Where R is the radius of the glass in pes**,  T the temperature in Réaumurs (R), σ the stephan Bolzman constant (obviously in What’s per Pes squared per Reaumur’s quartered.)
From this we can immediately see that if the lower half is at 1 Réaumurs and the top half and 2 Réaumurs, then the warmer half will have a heat flow of around 18What’s per pes squared, into the colder thus satisfying the second law of Thermodynomites. [oops how do you turn the smellchecker on?]
However, if we now imagine a glass that is only half fool of cold liquid with an infinite space above equivalent to the emptiness of space as envisaged by this vociferous group which is at absolute zero Réaumurs, we can see that this will be warmer because those who argue that back radiation is impossible, would now argue that it is not half fool of cold but instead half empty with hot.

Thus miraculously, the cold beer is warmer.

Your round.

**I’ve taken the Pes because this is the standard in this area.

This entry was posted in Climate, Humour. Bookmark the permalink.

### 12 Responses to Proof: cold can be turned into warm.

1. Been though this blanket thing on RS. Missing some information here. This example has to include some continuous heat input. A blanket will slow the heat transfer rate, Btu/h, watts. In order to maintain the original heat transfer rate, the hot object must get hotter. Or the cold object gets colder. With the added insulation the differential has to increase for the same rate. Without the continual heat input, a closed system, the hot object will still get colder and the cold object will still get warmer, although at slower rates w/ the blanket.

2. Derek Alker says:

????????? What a silly post.
Do you realise that when you write –
“There is a certain vociferous group who refuse to accept that a cold object such as a blanket or the sky can make a warmer object warmer. After a few drinks, I found a very simple way to prove then wrong.”
You are violating the second law of thermodynamics?
1) Liquids conduct, a black body does not. THAT, a black body, is the concept that the Stefan Boltzman equation is ONLY supposed to describe. Wien’s Law is also ONLY for a black body, AND, peak frequency of emission = power of emission = amount emitted is also a black body ONLY description.
2) Blankets reduce the rate of cooling, which is not making the hotter object hotter. The hot object just retains more of it’s heat for longer. Wrap a hot brick in a blanket, it stays warmer for longer, BUT at no point does it, or will it EVER get hotter than it originally was. The insulated brick just cools more slowly to the ambient temperature. Unless of course one introduces a heater, much like a human body constantly produces heat….
3) In bed, regardless of the number of blankets, I can not raise my temperature above the maximum temperature my body produces (core temperature I think it is referred to)…..BUT if the blanket DID make me warmer I would be far hotter than that temperature. THAT does not happen, again due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics…….
Mike, think about it, black body is NOT an explanation, it is a description. A description of an imaginary surface, of no mass, in a vacuum.
Thus a black body, and a “grey body” (which is ONLY a black body with surface albedo)
both omit –
i) Thermal mass of the solid / liquid / gas.
ii) Conduction gains or losses of sensible heat.
iii) Latent heat gains or losses.
iv) Energy gains or losses due to change of state.
v) The physical properties of the solid, liquid. or gas.
vi) Changes in physical properties of the solid / liquid / gas with change of state.
Please think about what you are arguing is the case, when it can not be, because you have misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misrepresented what the black body concept IS in your attempts to explain what happens in actual thermodynamic reality with unphysical pseudo black body based “explanations”.

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

You forgot to mention that the warm water is under the cold – so a physical impossibility (above 4C.)
Derek: “Blankets reduce the rate of cooling, which is not making the hotter object hotter.”
Applying the blanker makes the person warmer. This is the meaning of warm from its original in Old English where it means “to get warm”: SoL
Genim þreó snæda, gerest æfter wearme
where it is explicitly linked with going to bed and “keep warm”.
We even have warmth coming from the clouds:
Wearmlíc wolcna scúr
In contrast the verb hætan means to heat, make hot so
Hæt scenc fulne wínes
So, the full cup of wine actively heated or e,g,
For sunnan hætan
Where again the heat is from the sun

3. Derek Alker says:

“Applying the blanker makes the person warmer.”
Mike, the presence of a blanket reduces the rate of cooling the person experiences, hence the person feels, and IS warmer, BECAUSE (given the heat the person produces remains constant), they are cooling more SLOWLY, because of the presence of a blanket. ie, same input, less lost = warmer. How much warmer? Their temperature will rise until the balance between input and losses is equal…..
I am lost for words Mike, next you will be telling me space is cold………

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

Without the blanket they are cooler. With the blanket they are warmer. It is therefore logically true that the blanket causes the warming.
Blanket: warm
~blanket: ~warm
Therefore logic requires you to accept:
blanket -> warming
You are rejecting this very simple logic.

• Derek Alker says:

Mike how can you not understand the simple fact that the presence of a blanket reduces the rate of cooling the person experiences???
Think about two hot bricks, one wrapped in a blanket, one not. Which one cools quicker? And, why?
This is very simple, very basic physics….
I can not accept that a blanket creates warming. THAT is unphysical.
The presence of a blanket reduces the rate of cooling. THAT is physical, and THAT I accept. Why you seemingly do not and will not perplexes me…

• Mike Mellor says:

Yes Derek but unlike the brick in the blanket, the earth has a continuous heat input. Imagine that the brick has some kind of heating element attached to it. If the rate of heat loss is greater than the rate of heat input, the brick will cool. Put a blanket over the brick to slow the rate of heat loss and the brick will heat up. The rate of heat loss will also increase until a new equilibrium temperature is reached.
Basically that’s the way an oven works.
Interestingly, I see that Steve Goddard is working on a synthesis of the greenhouse effect with the atmospheric mass effect. Both he and Notalot have raised the question why there is no observable difference in global temperatures at different points in the earth’s orbit, although the difference in incoming radiation from perihelion to aphelion is around 6.9%. Theoretically (using the same formula as Mike H) that should result in a temperature swing of over 4K.

4. Derek Alker says:

“Yes Derek but unlike the brick in the blanket, the earth has a continuous heat input.”
But, all over all of the time…. P/4 is unphysical, one should not think that way, it can only lead to false conclusions, at best.
“Imagine that the brick has some kind of heating element attached to it. If the rate of heat loss is greater than the rate of heat input, the brick will cool. Put a blanket over the brick to slow the rate of heat loss and the brick will heat up. The rate of heat loss will also increase until a new equilibrium temperature is reached.”
Yes, I have already said that exact same thing. I compared a brick and a human body, the later having a heat source, whilst it is still alive. I said “Mike, the presence of a blanket reduces the rate of cooling the person experiences, hence the person feels, and IS warmer, BECAUSE (given the heat the person produces remains constant), they are cooling more SLOWLY, because of the presence of a blanket. ie, same input, less lost = warmer. How much warmer? Their temperature will rise until the balance between input and losses is equal….. ”
“Interestingly, I see that Steve Goddard is working on a synthesis of the greenhouse effect with the atmospheric mass effect.”
I gathered that from one of Stephen Wild’s replies yesterday. Unfortunately the oceans have a heat capacity of over a thousand times that of the atmosphere, and they are warmed, we know not how much, by geothermal inputs. To say they are barking up the wrong tree, is about as polite as I can get. Atmospheric mass determines oceanic temperature, what utter unphysical rubbish. What a joke. So, if I raise the air temperature in my bathroom by a couple of degrees the bath will warm by a couple of degrees……NO…… But, as I said to Stephen yesterday, if I run a hot bath I will have a hot bathroom. If I run a cold bath I will have a cold bathroom. What I did not add, or state, as I assumed it was so obvious it did not need stating is that this is BECAUSE the bath water has a far, far greater HEAT CAPACITY than the air in the bathroom.
“Both he and Notalot have raised the question why there is no observable difference in global temperatures at different points in the earth’s orbit, although the difference in incoming radiation from perihelion to aphelion is around 6.9%. ”
Dooooh, HEAT CAPACITY…. Slow to warm, slow to cool….. Very, very basic physics….
“Theoretically (using the same formula as Mike H) that should result in a temperature swing of over 4K.”
LOL, I suppose the formula does not include heat capacity… AND, the air measured at any particular location is never the same air from one hour to the next, or minute, or day, or year, etc, etc, etc. ie, false comparison anyway.
BUT you are avoiding the issue, Mike. THE issue is does the blanket create warming, or reduce the rate of cooling? HINT – The former is unphysical.
yours,
Derek Alker.

5. IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties is where climate science “experts” admit what they don’t know about some really important stuff. They are uncertain about the connection between climate change and extreme weather especially drought. Like the 3” drought that hit Phoenix. They are uncertain about how the ice caps and sheets behave. Instead of gone missing they are bigger than ever. They are uncertain about heating in the ocean below 2,000 meters which is 50% of it, but they “wag” that’s where the missing heat of the AGW hiatus went, maybe. They are uncertain about the magnitude of the CO2 feedback loop, which is not surprising since after 17 plus years of rising CO2 and no rising temperatures it’s pretty clear whatever the magnitude, CO2 makes no difference.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
Barring some serious flaw in science or method, Miatello’s paper should be the death certificate for AGW/CCC.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

All the IPCC “know” about the climate is contained in their climate models. The climate models have singularly failed to predict the climate even one year ahead and the decadal forecast was completley useless as the universal failure to predict the pause clearly demonstrates. This shows that “what they don’t know” (aka natural variation) is certainly as big or likely bigger than what they thought they knew. Therefore because they got it so wrong what they know must be smaller than what they thought they knew so what they know is almost certainly smaller than natural variation (aka what they don’t know).

6. The thermostat in my house is set for 65 F. It’s 30 F outside. The current R value of insulation allows X Btu/h heat flow. If by magic I double the R value, 2R, with lots of wool blankets the heat flow becomes .5 X Btu/h. If the thermostat does not shut down the furnace, the house is going to get really hot because in order to move X Btu per hour through 2*R insulation the differential will have to double, from 35 to 70, i.e. or 100 F. Instead the thermostat cuts the furnace output in half.
So if CO2 goes from R to 2R at a constant heat flow rate the surface temp has to double to maintain the balance, unless the water cycle thermostat soaks it all up.

7. CO2 absorbs LWIR, work/heat is imparted, CO2 re back radiates – radiation at a lower energy and even longer wavelength, radio/microwave, heating water vapor. There’s that water vapor again.
So where does that heat go?
1. Raising the temperature of dry air at 0.24 Btu/lb-F. 1 watt = 3.14 Btu/h so 1 lb air would go up 3.14/0.24=13 F
2. Raising the temperature of water droplets at 1.0 Btu/lb-F. 1 watt = 3.14 Btu/h so 1 lb water would go up 3.14/1.0=3.14 F
3. Water absorbed into the air and raising the relative humidity without raising the temperature at all. An increase of about 15 to 20 % RH would cover it.
For the past 18 years CO2 has increased yet the temperature has not. Wonder where all that heat went? Hmmmm. How ’bout clouds?

Comments are closed.