And the Winner is …… Hydro Flask!

Guest Post by Dan Fauth

When I wrote my previous paper “The Hydro Flask Challenge to Anthropogenic Climate Change” (link: https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/04/06/the-hydro-flask-challenge-to-anthropogenic-climate-change ), I didn’t expect to write a sequel to the article. During the writing of that article I experienced one of those “light bulb” moments.  My epiphany occurred when I postulated that a Hydro Flask with hot liquid inside should cool slower if it is upside down rather than right side up. If this doesn’t make sense to you, you should read or re-read the article. This postulate is not the epiphany; it will become obvious in the paragraphs that follow.

One of the strengths of science can be stated as follows: “You may conduct 10 thousand experiments and not prove a theory correct, but you can conduct one experiment and prove that theory wrong”.

That being said, within the realm of science we have certain Laws.  You may wonder how a theory gets to become a Law.  I did and the answer is pretty odd.  As it turns out, over time failure to prove a theory wrong can lead to it becoming a Law of Science.  Some examples are The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, The Inverse Square Law of Gravitation and the Laws of Thermodynamics.  Thousands if not millions of experiments have been performed and not one has disproven these laws.  So we can see that the Laws of Science are created by a process of unanimous consensus among scientists.

We’ve all heard the mantra that has become one of the main pillars of support for the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), “97% of scientists agree that the climate is changing and man, as a result of burning fossil fuels, is the culprit”.  Again, if you haven’t yet read “The Hydro Flask Challenge to Anthropogenic Climate Change” please read it now.  That paper explains that the “Radiative Greenhouse Effect (RGHE)” is the foundational theory on which ACC depends.  If that theory were proven false, the whole notion of man-caused climate change due to excessive CO2 and methane emissions just falls apart.  Conversely if we can get to a 100% consensus or in other words unanimous agreement among scientists on this issue, then we can rename the theory of the radiative greenhouse effect the “Law of the Radiative Greenhouse Effect”.

This will not happen and the reason is that the theory of the RGHE has already been proven false.  In 1909, Professor Robert Wood conducted a series of experiments which empirically demonstrated that the RGHE does not exist.  More recent experiments appear to be lacking in the scientific literature, so the learnings of that bygone era have largely faded into the mists of time and though previously disproven, the theory of the RGHE still manages to sustain the ACC meme.

The Hydro Flask is about to destroy this foundation of Anthropogenic Climate Change.  As you learned in my previous paper, surface cooling of planet Earth and rejection of the daily solar heat load back to space in order to keep earthly temperatures in balance utilizes four techniques.  The most efficient of these is evaporation which cools the waters which compose about 70% of the Earth’s surface.  Even much of the solid surface contains moisture, so evaporative cooling is also prevalent on solid ground.  The exceptions are the desert areas and frozen areas.  The next most efficient mechanism for surface cooling is conduction which when present in fluid containing systems, such as our atmosphere, initiates convection which greatly enhances the effectiveness of conduction.  Radiation is also of utmost importance in maintaining the Earth’s temperature balance, but it is utilized to a significant degree only outside of the biosphere where life on Earth resides. This radiative cooling primarily occurs in the upper and outer portions of our atmosphere where thermal molecular contact is lost due to the greatly reduced density of air as the atmosphere gradually gives way to the vacuum of space.

Let’s examine how NASA, the IPCC and all of the other governmental purveyors of climate change alarm twist language to fool the public into believing in the RGHE and ACC.  Here’s a prime example in just one sentence: “Much of the energy absorbed at the Earth’s surface is radiated upward as infrared (IR) thermal energy”.

Link: (http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/methane/intro/greenhouse.html )

Allegedly NASA and NOAA have satellites and surface based instrumentation that supports this statement. How would a common independent scientist ever hope to refute this simple statement containing that most important technical term “Much”.

Now to help clarify what “Much” might mean, let’s examine NASA’s Earth’s energy budget shown below. This diagram shows 163.3 watts/m² of sunshine warming the Earth’s surface and 340.3 watts/m² back-radiating to the Earth’s surface for a total power input of 503.6 watts/m². You may think this is a misprint since “back radiation” provides more than twice the surface heat input from the sun.   Outgoing from the surface we have 18.4 watts/m² shown as thermals (this would be conduction/convection) and 86.4 watts/m² as latent heat (evaporation) and the remainder 398.2 watts/m² as radiation.  So, for the NASA diagram “much” would mean that 79% of the Earth’s surface heat is emitted as infrared radiation.

This energy budget does not appear to fit the hierarchy and efficiencies of the heat transfer techniques as I have previously described.  Something is clearly out of whack!

This is where the Hydro Flask may shed some light.  You may recall from my earlier article the following paragraphs:

“Liquids are less dense at higher temperatures, so with coffee, the hottest coffee is at the top. As the coffee cools from heat conduction at the top of the flask, this cooling effect causes the top layer of coffee to become denser, so it moves toward the bottom of the flask.  Convection has been induced in the coffee.  As described previously, this convection enhances the heat transfer efficiency dramatically by always keeping the hottest coffee at the top.

With the cold beer, the warmest part of the beer is at the top as with the coffee, but the “warm” beer is becoming warmer, so it doesn’t sink and initiate convection. The warmest part of the beer stays put and doesn’t enhance cooling of the beer. Thus the beer stays cold much longer than the coffee stays hot.

The implication here is that if you turn your coffee flask upside down, so that the hottest least dense coffee is at the top, which is now the bottom of the flask next to the vacuum, the coffee should stay hot for much longer because you have stopped convection in its tracks.  Using this technique, you may get many more hours of hot coffee available to you.  The physics says this will work. Try it and see!”

The 40 ounce Hydro Flask has an outer shell that is 3.6 inch (9.2 cm) diameter x 10.8 inches (27.4 cm) tall.  The inner shell is connected to the outer shell only at the top rim with a vacuum existing between the inner and out walls.  The only area where conduction can take place is at the top rim and the flask stopper, which is made of low conductivity plastic.  Based on these dimensions, the conductive surface area compared to the area adjacent to the vacuum space is only about 7% of the total surface area of the Hydro Flask.

My postulate that the upside-down Hydro Flask will retain heat measurably better than the right side-up Hydro Flask can only be true if the amount of radiant heat transferred across the vacuum is very small compared to the amount of conductive heat transfer.  There it is: The Epiphany! You may recognize that in this experiment we have tricked radiant infrared heat into separating itself from conductive heat transfer by presenting two distinctly separate options for heat transfer out of the Hydro Flask. Conduction can only use the conductive surfaces composing 7% of the surface area and radiation can only cross the vacuum gap adjoining 93% of the surface area.  So, if we find a significant temperature difference in spite of the small window for conductive heat transfer compared to the large window for radiation, it will demonstrate that thermal conduction is a vastly more dominant means of heat transfer at ambient Earth temperatures than radiant heating.

You can perform this experiment in your own kitchen.  All it takes is two identical Hydro Flasks, a pot of heated water, two ceramic dinner plates and a candy thermometer.

The experiment is as follows:

1. Heat the pot of water to boiling.
2. Preheat the Hydro Flasks with hot tap water or boiling water. Allow 5 minutes to heat the inner shell.
3. Empty the Hydro Flasks and immediately fill them to brim with boiling hot water.
4. Measure the water temperature in each flask and record the time and temperature. Close the flask stoppers securely.
5. Place each flask on a plate, one right side up and one upside down. The plates are good thermal insulators and will help to thermally isolate the flasks from more conductive surfaces such as kitchen counter tops.
6. After the desired amount of time, place both flasks right side up for a few minutes to allow the hottest, least dense water in the upside down flask time to rise to the top.
7. Measure the temperature in each flask and record the time and temperature.

At the elevation where I live in Colorado, 6800 feet above sea level, water boils at 199 ⁰F (93 C).  Immediately before filling my pre-warmed 40 oz. Hydro Flasks with the hot water, I stirred the boiling water to try to homogenize it.  Upon filling the two flasks, the initial temperature was 192⁰F (89 C) in each flask.  After 25 hours, I righted the upside down flask and the results were as follows: Right side up flask: 104.2⁰F (40.1 C); Upside down flask: 114.8⁰F (46.0 C).  Astonishing; a 10.4 ⁰F (5.9 C) difference!

I conducted this experiment several more times, one time switching the Hydro Flasks to make sure that the result was not caused by some quality control issue in the Hydro Flasks.  The results were consistent.  For the second test run, I checked the temperatures after only 3 hours, and found that the temperature differential was already 8 ⁰F (4.4 C).  I conducted a third test run starting at only 147 ⁰F (63.9 C) closer to typical hot coffee temperatures.  In this case, after just three hours the temperature differential between the upside down flask and the right side up flask was 4.5 ⁰F (2.5 C) with the upside down flask temperature having only dropped 8 ⁰F (4.4 C) to 139 ⁰F (59.2 C).

You may be aware that the higher the starting temperature differential between the hotter source and the cooler receptor, in this case the air outside the Hydro Flask, the greater the driving force to equalize temperatures, hence the greater temperature differentials observed after starting with boiling water compared to the differentials starting with hot coffee temperatures.

As I pointed out in my previous paper, the deception which is used to trick you into believing the theory of the radiative greenhouse effect demands your belief that “much” (79%!) “of the energy absorbed at the Earth’s surface is radiated upward as infrared (IR) thermal energy”.

If this is a false statement and infrared thermal energy is not substantially emitted by the Earth’s surface, then the radiative greenhouse effect, even if it didn’t violate the Laws of Thermodynamics (which it does; and why is this so hard to understand?), cannot exist and likewise ACC.

Now you must ask yourself, if water at very near the boiling point doesn’t have the ability to generate infrared radiation capable of crossing the tiny vacuum gap of the Hydro Flask, is it possible that land and oceans with surface temperatures typically less than 100 ⁰F (38 C) can emit 79% of the surface thermal energy in the form of infrared radiation?  Of course not!

With that being said, let me repeat some of my closing statement from my earlier paper: “Within the troposphere, evaporation/condensation, conduction and convection rule our climate, and no greenhouse effect is remotely possible or needed.”

The Hydro Flask again reveals the deception hidden within the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change swindle.

Game, Set and Match.  The winner ….. HYDRO FLASK!

My previous paper generated some comments and I believe it is worth repeating my response to an important theme here.  The insidious degree to which unscientific nonsense has permeated the climate change narrative is simply astonishing to behold and it would not have been possible without the conspiracy of silence among most of the world’s scientists.  For the government bureaucracies, the media, the attorneys and the financial sector, lying for power and financial gain is something of an art form.  We have come to expect it. For the scientific community, not so much and I’m truly disappointed.

This is my explanation as to how the scientific community has been co-opted:

“Several off-line commenters have expressed some discomfort with my statement: “All of the fear mongering government agencies and university science departments whose funding is dependent on this climate of fear ….”  My insinuation here is clearly that government agency personnel and university scientists have sacrificed their integrity for a paycheck.  The belief system that I have challenged is that scientists in matters of personal integrity should be placed on a pedestal well above the politicians, lawyers, bankers and car salesmen who we know from experience should not be fully trusted. It is impossible to put yourself in the place of a climate change beneficiary, but we can try.

Here’s one fictitious example: Let’s pretend that I’m a climate scientist fresh out of school with a Ph.D. in atmospheric chemistry.  NASA has hired me at good pay and my first project is investigating the “Methane Hot Spot” in the San Juan Natural Gas Basin of northern New Mexico. I love my work and I’m good at it.  I enjoy the select company of my highly trained peers from NOAA and other government agencies. The “Radiative Greenhouse Effect (RGHE)” is the foundation upon which all anthropogenic climate change is structured.  We don’t talk about it, we don’t discuss it, and it’s not even included in our Physics text books.  It is the goose that laid our golden egg.  The government is handing over boatloads of tax dollars that if not spent on science would otherwise be squandered on other lesser pursuits.  If I admit the fraudulent nature of carbon based climate change, I’ll be labeled a heretic, my co-workers will hate me and I’ll likely lose my job.  All I have to do is keep quiet.  I am not about to bite the hand that feeds me.”

Now me talking: “I don’t know that I would act differently.”  Since I’m not in their position, I don’t have a problem tackling the falsity of the RGHE and climate change.  I’m standing up for Science, but that doesn’t mean I have more integrity.  I just have less to lose.

By Dan Fauth,

Independent Scientist and Engineer

April 12, 2016