r

This is a direct continuation of the previous post Planck’s Proof vs New Proof.

The idea of “backradiation” which serves to motivate CO2 alarmism, can be traced back to Planck’s monumental treatise The Theory of Heat Radiation from 1914, where Planck on page 1 describes the physics of radiative heat transfer as follows:

*All heat rays which at a given instant pass through the same point of the medium are perfectly independent of one another.*

This statement can be read as a support of “backradiation” with two-directed “heat rays” transferring heat energy back and forth between the Earth surface and the atmosphere, about 300 W/m2 of the same size as the total influx from the Sun.

In fact, Planck gives explicit support to backradiation as Prevost’s principle (page 6):

*A body A at 100 C emits toward a body B at 0 C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward a body B at 1000 C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B´is due entirely to the fact that B is weaker and B´a stronger emitter than A.*

The following questions present themselves:

*Is the physics of radiative heat transfer really a physics of two-way independent “heat rays” as two-way streams of quanta of energy or photons like the two-way stream of cars on a busy highway?*
*Is Planck’s “emission of radiation from A towards B” the same as transfer of heat energy from A to B?*
*Is radiative heat transfer carried out by two-way “heat rays” as streams of light quanta?*

It seems that physicists evade these questions and resort to compromises such as wave-particle duality with light both particles and waves. The result is confusion. In particular, “radiation” as electromagnetic waves is confused with “radiation” as transfer of heat energy by electromagnetic waves. This is like confusing the content of a letter with the paper carrying the message.

So there we are 100 years after Planck with the same old questions:

*What is the physics of radiative heat transfer?*
*Is there a physics of “heat rays”?*
*Is “backradiation” physics or fiction?*

I give my answer in Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation and Computational Blackbody Radiation. Is it too much to ask for an answer by physicists who are active today? Or shall we seek an answer by a renewed deeper study of the old writings by Planck? Shall we try to give “heat ray” a meaning or shall we put it into the wardrobe of scientific illusions? Is CO2 alarmism based on an elementary mistake by Planck?

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

## Tor

I looked at your proof.

You introduce the form of the cut of by assuming a form ‘in accordance with Wien’s displacement law”.

But, Wien’s displacement law is a result from the spectra you are going to prove (Planck’s law).

Hence you are proving the correct spectra by introducing the correct spectra.