The Fraud of the AGHE Part 16: Further Summary

I received a question about how the 168 W/m2 solar input from the IPCC energy diagram (last post) can be converted into a temperature.  Here is my reply plus some further elaboration:

_______________

Radiation Wattage can be converted directly into a temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

F = sigma*T4

where F is the radiant wattage, sigma is a physical constant (Stefan-Boltzmann constant) equal to 5.67×10-8, and T is temperature.

So, solve for T:

T = fourth_root(F/sigma).

The IPCC lists the wattage from the Sun as 168 W/m2 (this is actually a wattage flux, or energy flux density, a wattage flowing through a square meter, i.e. Joules per second per square meter).

Then you get T = fourth_root(168/5.67×10-8) = 233K = -40C, which is the temperature that the radiation would induce in matter on the surface when absorbed.  Sunshine induces a heck of a lot higher than -40C…up to 121C (250F) actually.  See the figure below for my own diagram which lists the REAL energy flux values and related temperatures from the Sun/Earth etc.

They’re so blatant about how wrong their diagram is, that they list the atmosphere providing almost twice the amount of power than the Sun does.  324 from backradiation over 168 from the Sun = 192%.  The atmosphere, without being an actual source of energy because there’s no actual chemical, nuclear, or any release of energy going on in the atmosphere, miraculously provides twice the heat of the Sun.  So, I guess when we feel warm sunshine and cool air, we have it backwards?  It is the Sun that feels cool and the air that feels warm…on one side of your body…the side that’s facing the Sun…errr…

So, looking at the IPCC energy numbers, yes indeed there is a problem.  Energy is being invented from nowhere, numbers are just being made up, and then they say that it’s from the atmosphere and greenhouse gases.

The backradiation of 324 W/m2 is equal to +2 Celsius.  So, the IPCC diagram says that an atmosphere at +2C, and sunlight at -40C, combines to make a surface temperature of +15C.  This is all just completely senseless…temperatures don’t add like that!  How did the atmosphere get to +2C if the solar input is only -40C?  Well, they’ll say “the greenhouse effect”, but that’s what they HAVE to say, because they’re trapped in this silly paradigmatic model that doesn’t have anything to do with reality…it is the science of a simulacrum, pseudoscience. It is the surface that is warmed by the hot sunshine and that surface then warms the cooler atmosphere.

Again, think in terms of physics, not numbers created out of a flat-Earth model.  See, what they do is justify the *numbers* by saying that they are “average values”.  They say “well, the AVERAGE solar power is -40C”.  So then they go from this average, and say the solar power *IS* -40C…on average…and then create a model with that number.  But is that number physics?  Does that number produce physics?  It sure can’t produce the physics that we know actually does occur, which is the water cycle and towering thunderhead cumulonimbus clouds, which we know ARE actually created by the Sunshine, and that requires sunshine much warmer than -40C or 168 W/m2 .

So again, there’s something wrong with the math, because those mathematically averaged numbers can’t reproduce the physics that actually dynamically occurs in real time.  Diagrams like the IPCC model *look* like they have science and physics in them, but they don’t.  They can’t represent reality, because they don’t show how Sunshine creates the water cycle.  My diagram above does.  The IPCC diagram is simply bad science, it is simply not real.

The diagram above shows and explains why heat is transferred from the equator to the poles; the IPCC diagram doesn’t show anything about that.  The diagram above shows and explains why the water cycle is created from the Sun; the IPCC diagram can’t explain that and actually contradicts that the Sun does it.  The diagram above explains and shows why sunshine feels so warm; the IPCC diagram contradicts that Sunshine is warm.  The diagram above shows that the Earth is spherical and implies that the Earth is rotating; the IPCC diagram doesn’t show that.

The IPCC diagram is a pretty picture, with some numbers painted on to make it look like science.  Numbers are not science, and numbers are not PHYSICS even if the numbers are averaged values from a dynamic process.  Physics is dynamic, meaning the numbers change constantly, and single-valued numbers simply cannot reproduce the true physical dynamics.  The Earth is dynamic, not static.  It can’t be averaged; if you try to average it out, you get silly ideas produced like Sunshine being -40C…not even being able to melt ice.  Physics is King…if the numbers contradict the physics, then the numbers aren’t correct, even if they might come from a “mathematically valid” operation, such as an average.

The IPCC diagram actually does show some curvature to the Earth, which is cute.  It is a cute subterfuge.  The NUMBERS in that diagram all actually correspond to a FLAT Earth…to what would happen if you flattened the Earth out and stopped it rotating and got rid of day and night and spread the solar power that only impinges on one hemisphere over both hemispheres…flattened out.  That is how, mathematically, the solar power gets numerically reduced to this silly value – via the mathematical operation of transforming a spherical rotating Earth into a flat plane; it just numerically works out via the math that in order to conserve energy in this transformation, the solar power has to be reduced to this silly low value.  What was the mistake?  Transforming the Earth into a flat plane.  The Earth is not a flat plane.  This reduces the dimensionality from 4 (3 space dimensions plus time (rotating)) to 1 (a flat plane is actually symmetric and isotropic and so the dimensionality of the 2-D plane actually reduces to 1-D since there is no spatial or temporal dependence in the plane for any of the values).

So, and this is quite factual and literal – THEY are the ones to subscribe to flat-earth physics; they’re the flat Earther’s…literally, their “science” and NUMBERS  treat the Earth as FLAT.

That’s what their numbers are for – a flat Earth, literally.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The Fraud of the AGHE Part 16: Further Summary

1. viffer says:

Joe – your whole series is an excellent demolition of the mystic greenery and pseudoscience which started the whole GHE scam. If something cooler (the atmosphere) can make something which is already warmer (the surface) even warmer, why aren’t we all chucking ice cubes in kettles to make them boil faster? The atmospheric GHE is a fiendish conflation of junk science (trace amounts of CO2 baking the planet), with the truth that water, as it changes state, can cool the surface and transport heat aloft in to the atmosphere. The water cycle is as close as you can get to chime with the ‘heat blanket’ meme: it has nothing to do with minute amounts of any other alleged ‘greenhouse’ gases, except water vapour. How effective would your greenhouse be if it had no roof, or walls? Please keep fighting the fight. viffer

2. Thanks viffer

3. Allen Eltor says:

Joseph you might not have been accorded an upbringing wherein you remember every book on earth said the earth’s atmosphere was referred to as a blanket, but that it really wasn’t like that.

The people who started these original CO2 scams were claiming that, because the atmosphere has to be (has, as in past tense now, this was the computer models of 20 years ago and – just by chance, NOTICE how LITTLE has HAPPENED in CLIMATE MODELING the past 20 YEARS in spite of all those DOLLARS?
F.R.A.U.D.

I digressed I apologize, the guys in modeling said, they HAD to model the earth in layers, and this simply made layered, blanket type modeling the stuff of the time.

THAT’S how all that layer cake bullshit started, was when the clowns who were explaining they didn’t know if it would get cold, hot, or stay the same, had to express of course to get some funding just how they were modeling the atmosphere.

If it was real science, CAN YOU IMAGINE the LEVELS of CORRECTNESS that could be HAD in foretelling climatic events? My goodness.

Because ginormous piles of known-good info, simply draws analysts.

THESE EVIL HICKS have DESTROYED the world’s METEOROLOGICAL RECORDS for MULTIPLE DECADES.

Go read the juicy excerpts from the “HARRY_README.txt” file.

It’s all there, the core group of men have intentionally allowed the world’s data to be handled in such way things are irretrievable on demand. Most of it’s still there, just scrambled like dropped egg shellls. Mis named, mis dated information and made up weather stations by the D.O.Z.E.N.S. as five THOUSAND VANISHED from Russia bumped the world temperature .3

Hansen and Jones wanted to bump it to .5 for “correction” and everyone pitched a fit so they “corrected” the data for the world, POINT THREE.
====

My father was in law enforcement, a deputy then a chief then an investigator for a large law enforcement group in the U.S. and he raised me amid a library on criminology.

This has been crime since Hansen and Jones and WIGLEY and others were doing the “Exploding Tropopause” scam and announcing they were all on pins and needles that the world could end like in a sci fi movie: while they were C.O.N.N.I.N.G.

Crime always shakes out like crime, as this is shaking out: a bunch of political purgings, books written, BILLIONS upon BILLIONS SCAMMED then PAID out to WHO KNOWS WHO,
and then everyone has to retire, and the older ones worry about getting picked off by a smartassed young lawyer and a judge who realize that everybody’s known for years the climate scam’s a scam.

People like Mann. I should just sue him in small claims every time I buy flower seeds for a seasonal warming that never comes, and just make him show up time, after time, after time,

because in there
there isn’t any lawyer.

In there,
you either show up and tell a story a professional bullshit comber believes and prove it
or you get told pay the man some money because the city judge at small claims doesn’t give a shit about your high and mightiness: in fact, many people who are small claims judges say it with a very, wry smile; my pop’s law enforcement experiences showed me there’s ways to handle people so they simply get tired of being afraid.

LIke when you caught them trying to justify their magic light bulb that gives off 168 watts to the magic mirror that gives BACK, 324, and gives 324 MORE UP to the SKY out of the BACK of the mirror – don’t forget their mis-representational CARTOON is only H.A.L.F. the M.A.G.I.C.A.L. BACKERDISM STORY.

There’s that OTHER 324 leaving the BACK of the MAGIC LIGHT BULB that GAVE off 168 WATTS, had a MIRROR held up to it and started giving off 390 watts, while the
MAGIC
MIRROR
GAVE BACK 324 to the LIGHT bulb
AND 324 to the SKY aBOVE, folks.

Not 324 watts. SIX HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT.

Ya’w Mimbur awl thim FIDDIE-FIDDIE Up&DoWNiSMS YaW wuzuH HEARIN abowt frum
BACKERDISM
SINTRUL?
Wayle gess what yaw?

There’s a big t.h.r.e.e. twenty f.o.u.r. leaving the BACK of the MAGIC MIRRUR

Wayle, I reckon thim’s sum MIGHTY MAGIC BACKERDISMs.

Ya’W.

=====
It’s crime and everyobody can see it’s crime and Al Gore simply made that kind of crime legal as long as he could buy/manipulate/intimidate anybody on earth.

Welcome to the psychopath rodeo kids.

Where GROWN MEN claim they believe in a MIRROR accepting 168 watts AND EMITTING 648.

Telling entire panels “I don’t see this breaking the laws of physics.”

And the panels agreeing with those statements.

4. Allen Eltor says:

I would imagine Joseph you CAN remember when every book you saw explained that to little kids you say a blanket but that it’s actually more complicated than that, and not really true.

Maybe that stuff was already going on by the time you were in middle school or so…

It’s just criminal what these people did to the world’s scientific physics educational systems

5. John Marshall says:

The atmosphere reduces energy arriving at the surface. Various constituent gasses help remove heat from the surface, the best being water vapour removing heat as latent heat of evapouration, to radiate that heat to space. So the atmosphere cools the surface which is not what a blanket does.

Thanks for the continued slaying Joe.

6. Mr. Postma,
You dd not respond at PSI with 15, I will try again here; You say:
“Radiation Wattage can be converted directly into a temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
F = sigma*T4
where F is the radiant wattage, sigma is a physical constant (Stefan-Boltzmann constant) equal to 5.67×10-8, and T is temperature.”
Never BECAUSE:
Stefan-Boltzmann Law: Is but a creation of Nuevo Science and the Climate Clowns!
There is a Stefan-Boltzmann equation:
P =A*epsilon*sigma*(Ta^4-Tb^4)
where:
P is the Maximun power that may be transfered between two infinate emissive parallel plates,.
A is the area under consideration of one of the plates.
epsilon is the product of the effective emissivities of the two plates.
sigma is a physical constant (Stefan’s constant) equal to 5.67×10-8 Watts per meter^2,
there is no Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Ta is the absolute temperature of one plate (with Ta^4 the radiative potential of that plate).
Tb is the absolute temperature of other plate (with Tb^4 the radiative potential of that plate).
Both temperatures must be finite and not zero because the radiative potential of zero Kelvin is (not a number)!
Note: the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is only a maximum (potential) power,
the power is also limited by any restriction on solid angle (assumed PI steradian), and by the transmissivity of any media the thermal radiation may pass through.
Your attempted use of the fake “S-B law” only gives athority to the lies of the Climate Clowns.
Are you aware of how well the flat earth model sutes the goals of the Climate Clowns?
This is my comment to 15 at PSI:
Mr. Postma,
The GHGE Was a deliberate falsehood not a blunder.
Again here most all of what you say is correct. The current model cannot model. GHGE is a lie. The Climate Clowns have not a clue, etc.
In your papers you seem stop half way through, and then accept some Clown expression as “not true” but perhaps mistaken! Take your -40 F figure, direct from the Clown lying premise that the surface temperature a planet can be determined by calculating some numbers using the S-B equation.
Why do you do this. I know that is a deliberate lie, you know the same. However you seem convinced you can counter the lies with science! You cannot! the Clowns are not interested in science at all.
What you are working against, are planed and deliberate lies since James Hansens 1988 paper, and Algore’s movie. Not one word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph in the early papers is the truth. Even the puncuation is suspect. Such scientific fraud must be addresed as fraud not as a blunder.

Please let us take the lies apart from the very start, For example The truths that the lied about:
1. You cannot determine the emittance (exitance) of a surface from its radiance in one direction.
2. You cannot assume that irradiance is absorbed by anything.
3. All radiative heat transfer is limited not only by the temperature and emissivity of the ….emitter, but also by the temperature and emissivity of the absorber.
4. A Blackbody surface is a theoretical concept only, no such a surface exists anywhere.
5. Neither astronomical, nor Bond albedo, represents the percentage of single point source ….power reflected from a near spherical surface,or surface+atmosphere.
6. The S-B equation is a single equation that has no meaning whatsoever if the temperatures are separated into two equations.
7. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, as presented by Clausius has never been falsified.
8. Any demonstration of radiative heat transfer from a cold object to a higher temperature object would indeed falsify the 2LTD as presented by Clausius.

Thesre are just some of the lies I remember from the first papers on AGW. All Clowns since then refer to and depend on these lies.

The Criminal charge is “Consperacy to defraud the U.S. Government”. Take Hansen and each of his (et-al), They were government employees,tasked with providing correct scientific data on some subject. They all chose to lie instead for some reason. The papers themselves prove the guilt. Even a apprentice prosecutor would take no more than 6 minutes to have each admit that they knew they were lying, or should have known they were lying. That is all a PHD will get you today.

7. Will Janoschka says:

Ass****, IT was in moderation now it is gone!

[JP: Oh settle down ...wordpress drops them from the display after a while...doesn't necessarily mean it's been trashed.]

8. Yes indeed Will it is all lies and bad science. In philosophical terms it is called a simulacrum – they simply manufactured the appearance of doing science in order to take over politics. They out-flanked merit and rationalism by manufacturing fear clothed in the appearance of (but not actual) science.

Now, for all intents and purposes, your statement here doesn’t affect my analysis and demonstration of their fraud. Yes, I am aware of how well the flat Earth model suits them…that’s why I write about it and talk about how it is physically and mathematically meaningless.

9. Max™ says:

Small addition, you’ve pointed out before but neglected to include here that if you flatten the planet into a plane it would receive the full ~1360 across the surface, the projection across a sphere reduces the average received by the side facing the sun to about half or ~680, the albedo takes that down to about ~476, but a real world equivalent of the flattened IPCC diagram would need to be further than Mars if it was only getting ~238.

10. Yes, indeed Max. Good to see you again.

11. Truthseeker says:

Joe, do you have any comment about Roy Spencer’s latest post about re-visiting Wood’s 1909 greenhouse experiment?

12. Yes, we already did the relevant experiment using observational data of the atmosphere’s very own postulated greenhouse effect. That is what this paper was about. There is no greenhouse effect.

What Roy might try to do is bungle the numbers and the measurements and ignore what you’re actually supposed to measure, just like Watts did with his stupid light-bulb ruse. But no worries, we already know what the results should be and what the correct way to do the experiment is, and we already did it with the atmosphere itself. Roy has no way out of this one…but I am sure he will try, just like they did with the light bulbs. All they gotta do is be idiots and PRETEND they did science, and all the other idiots then fall for it.

13. Truthseeker says:

Please check my logic.

Radiation is a vector (direction and magnitude)
Heat is a state (magnitude)

Adding them together is non-sensical even if they are both forms of energy.

Since radiation is not intelligent and goes equally in all directions, the net effect of all those vectors must be zero, which means the net effect of radiation must be zero.

This seems too simple. Am I missing something?

14. Hi TS, yes indeed you are correct about the vector vs. scalar thing. It does complicate things, and is related to the problem of incorrectly averaging a vector flux, which artificially results in far too little energy from the Sun and hence the invention of the GHE, etc. Radiation does have an effect of course within the vector direction of its flux, but scalar-averaging the vector flux is incorrect.