Roy Spencer’s Fatal Error: Believing the Vacuum of Space has a Temperature

[Sunsettommy]

Principia Scientific

February 20,2012

Author // John O'Sullivan, guest post

EXCERPT:

Astrophysicists will tell you that the vast emptiness of outer space has no temperature. Space is empty, thus it is temperature-less. But ask a climatologist and you’ll be told space is 'cold.' Such fallacy spawned the fatal error in the junk science known as 'greenhouse gas theory,' also called the 'greenhouse effect' (GHE).

Alberto Miatello has now published his own stunning debunk of Dr. Roy Spencer’s‘Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still’ (July 23, 2010) dissecting how the fallacy of 'cold' outer space allowed climatologists to believe Earths’ atmosphere acted like a ‘blanket’ to help keep our planet ‘warmer than it otherwise would be.’

LINK

[Sunsettommy]

The Vacuum of space can still contain some molecules in some areas of it but at levels so low to have little impact.Certainly not enough to make it "cold" anyway because it requires a lot of existing molecules to be at rest to make cold exist.

Without existing molecules where can heat and cold come from?

[Climate Realist]

Exactly! If a vacuum were really "cold" then a thermos flask would not work.

[Richard111]

My gasted it flabbered! If you look at the night sky through a telescope you will see stars. (pick a night when the sky is clear ) Now those stars are "black body" radiaters. You can SEE the light from those stars because they are HOT!
Those photons are coming from many, many light years away. But on agregate there are enough of them to give a background radiation temperature of between 3 and 4 Kelvin. Note I said "black body"! Everything out there is radiating at some level. (except black holes of course).

So space is cool but not cold. It also does not offer any hinderance to long wave infrared radiation leaving the upper regions of the atmosphere. If there are no clouds in the atmosphere some of the surface radiation also gets right out to space and away.

So in summary. SPACE does not have a temperature. But you will find a background radiation of 3 to 4 Kelvin from any direction in space.

[Climate Realist]

That is a background radiation temp it is not a physical real matter temperature which the global warming theory needs to work.

[Sunsettommy]

(02-20-2012 12:38 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  My gasted it flabbered! If you look at the night sky through a telescope you will see stars. (pick a night when the sky is clear ) Now those stars are "black body" radiaters. You can SEE the light from those stars because they are HOT!
Those photons are coming from many, many light years away. But on agregate there are enough of them to give a background radiation temperature of between 3 and 4 Kelvin. Note I said "black body"! Everything out there is radiating at some level. (except black holes of course).

So space is cool but not cold. It also does not offer any hinderance to long wave infrared radiation leaving the upper regions of the atmosphere. If there are no clouds in the atmosphere some of the surface radiation also gets right out to space and away.

So in summary. SPACE does not have a temperature. But you will find a background radiation of 3 to 4 Kelvin from any direction in space.

But there is so little matter in the vacuum area of space for Conduction to work.That is why energy leaving earth MUST be by radiation for it to make the transfer from the planet to space.

This is why having the atmosphere in the first place make it possible for surface cooling to occur all around the clock.To greatly minimize the temperature swings from very hot to very cold as seen on the moon and other thinly or non gas covered celestial bodies.

[Sunsettommy]

Dr. Spenser has a reply to the threads article:

Yes, Virginia, the “Vacuum” of Space Does have a “Temperature”

[Climate Realist]

(02-21-2012 10:19 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Dr. Spenser has a reply to the threads article:

Yes, Virginia, the “Vacuum” of Space Does have a “Temperature”

Roy is again wrong, the 2.7K radiation is from the background remnant of the big bang, this radiation is from matter a long time ago and appears so cold due to the expansion of space since the big bang.

It is not a real temperature at all! The vacuum of space does not have a temperature. He is talking rubbish!

[Derek]

Later edit by Derek - As suggested by SST.
LINK
I noted this comment on what may become (has already) Roy's (and Claes Johnson) downfall thread by
PhysicistAUS says:
February 21, 2012 at 8:13 PM
" * Space or vacuum, devoid of matter, does not emit anything (excluding virtual short-lived particles). The background radiation passes through it. "

That best explains my view, nothing has no temperature, stuff passing through it,
with no effect upon nothing obviously, may have a temperature. Otherwise sunlight would not reach earth....
It is, after all, a very, very, small amount of matter, otherwise it could not travel across nothing.

So, space has no temperature.
Measuring the temperature of stuff passing through nothing (ie space) does not give nothing a temperature.
That, I think, is the point many miss.

[Climate Realist]

I placed this on SPencers blog!

"Climate Realist says:
February 22, 2012 at 7:07 AM

Roy,

Your example of the IR thermometer is bogus. As Claes said, heat can NEVER pass from a cold ojbect to a warmer object. The IR thermometer is detecting IR, yes, but could not do so if it were unpowered. The detector requires a work input, i.e. a voltage to be able to detect IR. The thermometer itself is detecting IR which is as a result of temperature, it is not detecting the colder temperature by absorbing heat from a colder object.

You are making the classic warmist mistake of confusing IR with heat. One may give rise to the other but they are not the same thing. Radiation itself is not heat. In a vacuum, the IR from any object has no temperature itself. It may only raise the temperature of an object cooler than that of it’s origin. This is new science! That is why you and many others are resisting – this represents a massive paradigm shift.

A better test would be to use a mercury thermometer that works by directly absorbing kinetic heat and not by IR. So, take a mercury thermometer at room temperature and place it in either the fridge or the freezer and the temperature will drop. The colder fridge or freezer will NEVER warm the mercury thermometer that is at 20C, they will always cool it.

I suspect this corruption of basic physics is due to ulterior motives. In your case, Roy, your work on cloud feedbacks depends on there being a greenhouse effect due to back/downwelling IR. Take this away and much of your research and that of others becomes worthless. Others, such as Monkton have political motives of “compromise” etc for accepting the greenhouse theory.

Such is the progress of science, embrace it! You are not right on this, just confused and stubborn, albeit with understandable cause (ie. the validity of your own research).

regards

Climate Realist
Reply
Climate Realist says:
February 22, 2012 at 7:09 AM

Moving heat from a cold object to a warm object is like expecting water to flow uphill against gravity. It will never do so unless you apply a work input, i.e. a pump.

Such is the basic level of this physics. Or are you about to challenge the direction of gravity?

regards

Climate Realist
"

[Sunsettommy]

(02-22-2012 05:59 AM)Derek Wrote:  I noted this comment on what may become (has already) Roy's (and Claes Johnson) downfall thread by
PhysicistAUS says:
February 21, 2012 at 8:13 PM
" * Space or vacuum, devoid of matter, does not emit anything (excluding virtual short-lived particles). The background radiation passes through it. "

That best explains my view, nothing has no temperature, stuff passing through it,
with no effect upon nothing obviously, may have a temperature. Otherwise sunlight would not reach earth....
It is, after all, a very, very, small amount of matter, otherwise it could not travel across nothing.

So, space has no temperature.
Measuring the temperature of stuff passing through nothing (ie space) does not give nothing a temperature.
That, I think, is the point many miss.

Link to the comment?

Later edit by Derek - Is this correct?
LINK

[Sunsettommy]

(02-22-2012 04:56 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 10:19 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Dr. Spenser has a reply to the threads article:

Yes, Virginia, the “Vacuum” of Space Does have a “Temperature”

Roy is again wrong, the 2.7K radiation is from the background remnant of the big bang, this radiation is from matter a long time ago and appears so cold due to the expansion of space since the big bang.

It is not a real temperature at all! The vacuum of space does not have a temperature. He is talking rubbish!

There are some people who say the observed background radiation is not from a long ago big bang.Just simply the averaging cosmic noise from all the radiating bodies of at least regional interstellar space.The many suns and explosions that sends the energy through the vacuum of space from all directions.

[Climate Realist]

(02-22-2012 06:29 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 04:56 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 10:19 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Dr. Spenser has a reply to the threads article:

Yes, Virginia, the “Vacuum” of Space Does have a “Temperature”

Roy is again wrong, the 2.7K radiation is from the background remnant of the big bang, this radiation is from matter a long time ago and appears so cold due to the expansion of space since the big bang.

It is not a real temperature at all! The vacuum of space does not have a temperature. He is talking rubbish!

There are some people who say the observed background radiation is not from a long ago big bang.Just simply the averaging cosmic noise from all the radiating bodies of at least regional interstellar space.The many suns and explosions that sends the energy through the vacuum of space from all directions.

Yes, that as well, but the space itself, i.e. vacuum can have no temperature, unless you count the odd atom per square mile that is supposed to be there. Even in interstellar space. Personally, I think there is a lot more matter in dark interstellar space than science currently recognises, comets, gas, dust, etc. And this matter makes up the "missing 90%". No need at all for odd theories of "dark matter" etc.

You need matter to have a temperature. At the very least a very thin gas.

[Sunsettommy]

(02-22-2012 07:13 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 06:29 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 04:56 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 10:19 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Dr. Spenser has a reply to the threads article:

Yes, Virginia, the “Vacuum” of Space Does have a “Temperature”

Roy is again wrong, the 2.7K radiation is from the background remnant of the big bang, this radiation is from matter a long time ago and appears so cold due to the expansion of space since the big bang.

It is not a real temperature at all! The vacuum of space does not have a temperature. He is talking rubbish!

There are some people who say the observed background radiation is not from a long ago big bang.Just simply the averaging cosmic noise from all the radiating bodies of at least regional interstellar space.The many suns and explosions that sends the energy through the vacuum of space from all directions.

Yes, that as well, but the space itself, i.e. vacuum can have no temperature, unless you count the odd atom per square mile that is supposed to be there. Even in interstellar space. Personally, I think there is a lot more matter in dark interstellar space than science currently recognises, comets, gas, dust, etc. And this matter makes up the "missing 90%". No need at all for odd theories of "dark matter" etc.

You need matter to have a temperature. At the very least a very thin gas.

Agreed.

[Derek]

Given a photon is radiation, which has an energy level, and given a photon has a miniscule amount of mass.

Does this pose the question is there a lower limit where mass is no longer mass, it is radiation?