Greenhouse Fraud 21: Carnot’s Heat Engine and the Rankine Cycle Disprove the GHE

Prod

I know I shouldn’t goad the people who deserve it as a matter of keeping things “profesh”. But I think some of you need to learn that there are people out there who do know better and who thus are lying on purpose in order to trick you and ultimately, in this context, to control you, harm human knowledge, destroy the credibility of science, harm the future of mankind, and induce poverty on already poverty-stricken peoples.  People like Anthony Watts and “Dr.” Robert Brown and “Dr.” Roy Spencer are helping to harm people and are helping to destroy the credibility, use, and function of true science, and they know it.  You can not have a PhD in physics and be so stupid as to say that cold heats hot, that insulation in your walls determines the burn temperature of the natural gas in your furnace, that as something warm heats up something cold the cold thing heats up the warm thing in proportion, etc.  You can not be an adult and believe that turning on a lightbulb and putting it in front of a mirror will make it shine brighter.  These people and their ilk deserve the highest ridicule and shame that can be offered.  They don’t need to be harmed mind you – they just need to be laughed at and then ignored.

To quote Mr. Watts:

“Let me make this simple, the greenhouse effect is a well established property of radiative physics in our atmosphere, one that I have observed firsthand through experimentation.”

Oh really?  He’s observed it first hand?  Like when he turned on a lightbulb in front of a mirror and demonstrated no greenhouse effect?  Like when the greenhouse effect “radiative physics” ignores the natural lapse rate gradient that already establishes that the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the average?  Like when his “PhD” buddies don’t know what a time-dependent differential thermal equation is?  Boy I guess we should really take him at his word…lol.  Anyway, I’ll stop referencing these fools now lest it begin to appear as an obsession.  (Well, we’ll see… ;)  )

Heat does not Flow from Cold to Hot

Of course, that section title shouldn’t really need to be stated, to pretty much any person in the world in any demographic and any level of education – except for the small number of people in academia and the climate alarmists who believe in the greenhouse effect.

There is a single defined rule for heat transfer that has never been proven wrong or incorrect for classical-level physics, and that is that heat transfer is a function of the difference between the hot and cold temperatures.  This is the very definition of the fundamental thermodynamic concept of heat.  Using the italic ‘f’ to denote a mathematical function, the general equation for heat transfer (Q, which is the rate of energy flow) is:

Q ~ f(Th - Tc)

Sometimes the temperatures will be their own functions for representing energy, and so for a little bit more denotational accuracy:

Q ~ f(f(Th) – f(Tc))

For example, if the energy transfer is purely radiative and the energy basically follows blackbody output, then

Q ~ f(Th4 – Tc4)

which means that the radiative heat transfer is a function of difference between the fourth-powers of the hot and cold temperatures.

Two Hundred Years of Practical Thermodynamics Bypasses the Greenhouse Effect

Alright I’m going to change pace.  I don’t need to write out a huge physics lesson here on Carnot and Rankine as if it is a week’s worth of notes and formula derivation for an undergraduate physics class.  Let’s just get to the point.  Everyone already knows about the heat-flow situation because it has been discussed at length on this blog:

Heat flows from hot to cold; cold does not cause hot to become hotter; hot in warming cold does not become hotter still because it warmed the cold; only the colder temperature rises when it is heated by hot; a temperature can not heat itself.

That long statement is as factual as existence itself and it debunks the atmospheric greenhouse effect in entirety.  You don’t need anything else than that.

But let’s have a look at the Carnot Heat Engine:

Carnot engine diagram (modern) – where heat flows from a high temperature TH furnace through the fluid of the “working body” (working substance) and into the cold sink TC, thus forcing the working substance to do mechanical work W on the surroundings, via cycles of contractions and expansions.

From Wiki:

[The] maximum efficiency \eta is defined to be:

where

 W  is the work done by the system (energy exiting the system as work),

 Q_H  is the heat put into the system (heat energy entering the system),

 T_C  is the absolute temperature of the cold reservoir, and

 T_H  is the absolute temperature of the hot reservoir.

Let’s also have a look at the Rankine Cycle:

Physical layout of the four main devices used in the Rankine cycle

From Wiki:

is the thermodynamic efficiency where

\dot{Q} Heat flow rate to or from the system (energy per unit time)
\dot{m} Mass flow rate (mass per unit time)
\dot{W} Mechanical power consumed by or provided to the system (energy per unit time)
\eta_{therm} Thermodynamic efficiency of the process (net power output per heat input, dimensionless)

How important is the physics and thermodynamics which govern these processes?  From Wiki:

The Rankine cycle, in the form of steam engines, generates about 90% of all electric power used throughout the world

Usefulness of the Greenhouse Effect

Now what does the greenhouse effect (supposedly) do…what does the physics of the greenhouse effect allow you to do?  The physics of the greenhouse effect allows you to take a heat input, and double its power (according to the steel greenhouse model), and in fact, actually allow you to arbitrarily amplify said heat input to any temperature you want depending on how well you engineer such a system (as mathematically proven here, pp. 12-14).

The efficiency (η – Greek “eta”) of both of these cycles is the same – it’s a very simple and obvious definition:

η = Wout/Qin

and as for any system that obeys the Laws of Thermodynamics, this value will always be less than one (η < 1), because you can’t have a perfectly efficient (η = 1) system, let alone a more than perfect (η > 1) system.

Engineers are the most brilliant people on the planet and can figure anything out, and so we could easily engineer a system to utilize “greenhouse radiative mechanics” to amplify the heat input temperature to the system.

Using the usual climate numbers, for example, we could input heat energy from outside (Qin) at a temperature of -40C, but produce an availability of heat at a temperature of +15C, which could then be used to do work.  You’d be able to produce work at a temperature of +15C when all you supplied was heat at -40C.

Or generally, you could have an initial system that directly used the heat input for producing work.  Then, you could re-engineer the system to use the radiative greenhouse effect which would allow you to cut in half (or more) the heat input you have to introduce from outside, and have the system amplify this heat back to the working temperature of the original direct-usage system and produce that amount of work once again.  You would get an immediate massive boost in efficiency, and not only that, you could actually get the system to produce more work than you put in in the first place.  Look at the efficiency equation again:

η = Wout/Qin

With the radiative greenhouse effect, you could keep reducing Qin to a smaller and smaller value depending on how well you engineer the “heat trapping”/”backradiation” mechanism, while keeping Wout constant or even increasing it, relative to the direct-usage system.  If Qin gets smaller and smaller then eventually η become larger than one.  This is born out directly in their greenhouse math mechanics, as referenced previously (here, pp. 12-14).

Do you Understand?

Do you understand that the Carnot Heat Engine, the Rankine Cycle, nuclear/gas/coal power plants, function because the greenhouse effect does not exist?  90% of the world’s electric power is produced because the greenhouse effect does not exist.

If the greenhouse effect existed, it would have been noticed by the physicists and engineers who discovered and engineered thermodynamics and created these modern technological thermal power systems, because as it is, all of these systems function without making any regard to the mechanics of the greenhouse effect.  If greenhouse effect mechanics were real, it would have had to have been discovered and factored in, and it would be discussed and part of basic thermodynamic theory.  It manifestly is not, and it obviously is not because the concept of backradiation heating is preposterous on the very face of it.  There exists not a single experimental demonstration of the “physics” of the greenhouse effect as proposed for the atmosphere.

Everything works because there is no greenhouse effect.  And that is a fact.  Study these thermal power systems as much as you want and as much as you can, and get very familiar with them.  Real-world non-climate-alarm systems function because they never have to take into account a greenhouse effect.  Try to make a new cycle incorporating the greenhouse effect and then build it…you’ll be very famous, I promise you that.

For that matter (LOL!):  Real greenhouses function because there is no radiative greenhouse effect!

And isn’t that a convenient hijack of definitions and concepts.  A real greenhouse gets warm because it traps hot air, it prevents air which has been heated by the surfaces inside the greenhouse which have themselves been heated by sunshine, from convecting away (hot air rises, the glass roof stops this) and being replaced by cool air from above.  That is the physical mechanism of a real greenhouse and it has nothing to do with the supposed radiative greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.  The underlying physical mechanisms are completely different, and so the term “greenhouse effect” which should correspond to a factual physical greenhouse and the physical trapping of warm air, gets hijacked and contorted and ambiguated with this other atmospheric radiative conception for the atmosphere.  It’s a total disaster for clarity, definitions, conceptualization, logic, language, etc.  But the most ironic thing about this is, is that the supposed radiative greenhouse effect (which is postulated for the atmosphere) should actually be found and exist in a real physical greenhouse too, because the physics should translate over – but it isn’t!

The only place the supposed radiative greenhouse mechanics exists is within climate alarm – it exists nowhere else in all of industry and all of science and all of physics, etc.  It should exist everywhere else because as a basic principle of physics, it has to be universal, it has to be applicable anywhere else that similar situations exist.  Alas, it is nowhere else to be found.

It should be seen in a real greenhouse of all places for goodness’ sake!  The radiative greenhouse effect isn’t even found there.  How incredibly sad.

Why and How did the GHE get placed into the Atmosphere?

Simple.  Because they leave out the natural lapse rate gradient in any discussion of the physical characteristics of the atmosphere.  That is as simple as how they do it…merely by ignoring the lapse rate gradient, and replacing it with an invented and thermodynamics-violating “radiative” temperature self-amplification mechanism.

Do you see the lapse rate gradient in the IPCC energy budget or in any of the GHE diagrams?  I mean this is one of, if not the, most fundamental features of the atmosphere and it can be demonstrated with very basic undergraduate-level physics: U = mgh + mCpT so that when dU = 0, dT/dh = -g/Cp.  This is the most basic and fundamental theory of energy conservation there is, and it is empirically confirmed precisely, and when you add in water vapour to the math the adjusted “wet” value is again precisely empirically confirmed.  And meteorological theory precisely confirms these values and others methods of derivation also confirm these values.  It’s the most fundamental thing about the atmosphere that can possibly exist, particularly if you care about energy conservation.

And so the IPCC and GHE energy budgets, in their pretense of conserving energy,  leave it out.  They make no reference to it anywhere.  In its place, they invent a radiative mechanism to perform what the lapse rate already naturally explains – that the bottom of the atmosphere has to be warmer than the blackbody average of the system as seen from outer-space.  It is just that simple.

Honesty

If someone can create a thermal power system that uses the greenhouse effect which will (given the pretext of what the GHE can do) increase the efficiency of the system beyond unity or even beyond existing Rankine & Carnot power systems, and demonstrate it (no mere wishful thinking about steel greenhouses!), then I will be more than happy to concede that I have to reevaluate things because I would not wish to deny such a wonderful and positive advancement to the human condition.

But really, we can forget about that right away, because the whole concept is already proven as a fraud and it is a fraud just on the face of it.  To repeat the most intelligent words that could ever grace climate science (not that they ever will!):

Heat flows from hot to cold; cold does not cause hot to become hotter; hot in warming cold does not become hotter still because it warmed the cold; only the colder temperature rises when it is heated by hot; a temperature can not heat itself.

And as Greg House would point out:  Does the thermal energy from your face, reflected back to your face, make your face hotter still?

You have to be the retarded Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, or Robert Brown (etc…Shore, Folkerts, Colose, Curry, Allen, Monckton…etc.) to get upset and discombobulated at that question.

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

44 Responses to Greenhouse Fraud 21: Carnot’s Heat Engine and the Rankine Cycle Disprove the GHE

  1. Greg House says:

    Joe, I like the article, but maybe it needs some restructuring, because I am not sure that most readers will read the whole thing, so they might miss the part I like most, namely the last one. Wouldn’t it be better to put the part “I know I shouldn’t goad the people who deserve it …” first, then let the readers enjoy the Carnage Circle part :) followed maybe by a short optimistic conclusion?

  2. Hmm..alright well that’s easy enough. If you think the prodding will keep people interested to see the full Slaying(!), that’s probably fun and smart. Have a look now.

  3. Greg House says:

    This is much better. Lay persons who will not overcome the special part and possibly stop reading will still get the easy understandable one.

  4. “Climatology” is outcome based education, with the predetermined outcome to demonize Carbon based energy and over $150 billion of wasted tax money to purchase bobble headed professors with NO interdisciplinary oversight. Discover magazine published a FAKE debate between charlatan Mann and FAKE ‘denier’ Curry in April of 2010. I replied with an article published at Canada Free Press, “Non Science Nonsense” with the first use of the term “Luke Warmist”. I contacted Judy ‘Luke’ Curry at Georgia Tech with multiple emails and finally a telephone call in May. I suggested she audit an engineering Thermo class over her summer sabbatical, which she agree to do. I contacted her again in Sept, and asked how her Thermo class went. She replied that she “did not understand anything they were saying so she only attended one class”.

    Meanwhile, in July 2010, Dr Roy Spencer posted his silly “Yes, Virginia, Cold Does Make Hot” [paraphrase] and i replied at CFP with “Rocket Scientists Need NOT Apply”. Back radiation is just one of the mortal, congenital defects of this sham science along with the flat disc model, the goofy ‘radiative’ balance and meaningless ‘mean’ Earth temperature. The body of evidence against this FRAUD is expanding and all “converts” are to Traditional Physics, as expressed by the Publications tab at the Principia Scientific International website. It takes more Thermodynamics to get an undergraduate degree in Engineering than a PhD in Clima-clownology…which is the modern alchemy and a disgrace to science.

  5. Oh yah I forgot that story and history with Curry. Here’s your typical climatologist, Judith Curry, very successfully publishing papers as far as climate science is concerned, and her thoughts on thermodynamics?: “did not understand anything they were saying so she only attended one class”.

    There must in fact be NO thermodynamics that is covered in a Climatology PhD at all…other than the flat-disk Earth greenhouse…ha.

  6. Max™ says:

    If that’s true then I am impressed at the idea that a field dealing with the flows of energy within the atmosphere doesn’t need a rigorous understanding of thermodynamics, the field dealing with flows of energy in general

  7. I think the only exposure they THINK they get to thermodynamics, is the flat-Earth-physics model. I think that’s what they must think thermodynamics is…

  8. AS says:

    Joe. QED. Again.

    Just one suggested change, lest the hard of thinking and the analogy merchants start blogging that you are denying that it gets hotter than outside in a real greenhouse. The subtlety of “The radiative greenhouse effect isn’t even found there” [in a real greenhouse]. will simply not register with such mouth breathers.

    I’d just add for them that it’s hotter inside than outside a real greenhouse purely because the structure physically prevents cooling by convection.

    Moving on, the common misconception amongst these fools and charlatans is a dogged belief that the earth’s surface would be freezing cold (to mimic by generalising) if there was no atmosphere, when the opposite is true (see PSI publications). They just don’t get it that the atmosphere has an overall cooling effect on the surface, via the water cycle.

  9. Hi AS, Yes I was wondering about that. If readers think I’m saying that REAL greenhouses don’t get warm, then that would sound silly indeed. Are readers that unaware of the issue? I guess they could be. That’s why I said “And isn’t that a convenient hijack of definitions and concepts.”, but I left it at that. I can add something about real greenhouses…well, that’s why this next: “It should be seen in a real greenhouse of all places for goodness’ sake! The radiative greenhouse effect isn’t even found there.”

    I’ll look at it though and see if I can add a quick blurb to make the differentiation for newbies.

  10. OK I added a paragraph under “For that matter (LOL!): Real greenhouses function because there is no radiative greenhouse effect!” to make the differentiation more clear.

  11. AS says:

    @JoePostma

    Sorted. Tick.

  12. James says:

    This is a welcome site, thank you Joseph.

    The ‘over unity’ aspect to the GHE reasoning struck me a few years ago as an obvious flaw. As you said, if only engineers could replicate this magic for power production…

    Here’s 2 arguments I use to explain my skepticism with the GHE. First, the GHE was always a fudge factor, or fiction as you recently said. So when the fudge factor is no longer needed, then the theories to explain it should likewise evaporate, along with the political austerity measures.

    Second, by the warmists’ own reasoning, the secondary surface heating, or GHE, is caused by heat leaving the surface the first time – which means the surface got colder… this is like a person leaving a room, then re-entering to increase the number of people in attendance.

    But ultimately your recent observations about scientists is fundamental:

    JEP:” The truth is that most scientists don’t actually like knowledge and aren’t actually intellectuals or interested in reason – they just like to make a salary talking about other people’s ideas, and never going beyond them. The last thing they might do is question or analyse any known limitations of these ideas, for their career is based on trusting them and talking about them.”

    And I think it goes beyond career, and science. We don’t as a whole question reality, we don’t have time is the usual excuse, or the energy. We are a kept people, “just doing our jobs”.

  13. Yah that’s a good term: “A kept people”. That’s academic science for you, definitely.

  14. Carl Brehmer says:

    “They just don’t get it that the atmosphere has an overall cooling effect on the surface, via the water cycle.”

    The fact is, it may very well be that the average surface temperature of the Earth would be cooler if it didn’t have an atmosphere, but that has never been the relevant question. The relevant question is whether or not the surface temperature would be cooler if the atmosphere did not have water vapor and/or carbon dioxide in it. In other words, if the atmosphere does keep the surface warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere, is the mechanism by which that occurs the “greenhouse effect” or is it some other thermodynamic process?

    The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis contains two premises:
    1) The ground is warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere and
    2) this is because of the “greenhouse effect”

    The fallacy of premise #2 does not necessarily mean that premise #1 is false as well if there is some other thermodynamic process in play that is affecting the temperature of ground level air. It can be observed that the ground is perpetually warmer than the atmosphere and cools primarily by transferring heat to the atmosphere, but the rate of that heat transfer is modulated by the temperature of the atmosphere that is in contact with the ground. It is axiomatic that the ground cannot cool to a temperature below the temperature of ground level air, because once parity of temperature is reached heat flow stops.

    In this article Joe mentioned the temperature lapse rate, which exists because there is an intra-tropospheric thermal energy imbalance. Kilogram for kilogram the air at ground level has significantly more internal thermal energy within it compared to the air at 11 km in altitude–enough to raise the average temperature at ground level about 70 C above the average temperature of the air at the tropopause. Since water vapor is known to decrease this temperature lapse rate it decreases this energy imbalance which results in cooler surface temperatures, but water vapor does not drop the surface level air temperature down to what it would be if there where no intra-tropospheric temperature lapse rate to begin with.

    As it is, the average temperature of tropospheric air (top to bottom) is around -18 to -20 C, but because of the existence of the intra-tropospheric energy imbalance there is extra thermal energy present in ground level air. This raises the temperature of the air that is touching the ground, which, in turn according to Newton’s Law of Cooling, does slow the rate at which the ground is able to cool at night.

    As Joe eluded to in this article, there are those who believe that it is the “greenhouse effect” that creates the atmospheric temperature lapse rate. This is impossible since the “most potent greenhouse gas” water vapor is universally recognized to lower the lapse rate and that which lowers the lapse rate cannot be that which creates it in the first place.

    So, what creates this intra-tropospheric energy imbalance if not the “greenhouse effect”? I personally favor ascribing it to the fact that tropospheric air is in constant motion, which includes significant vertical movement of air through changes in pressure. The well established mathematical formulas contained within this article in which work and internal energy are interchangeable hold the key. As air descends its surroundings does work on it and that work energy instantaneously raises the internal energy of the descending air. Ascending air on the other hand does work on its surroundings, which instantaneously lowers the internal energy of ascending air. The result is that the air at the tropopause is as much “too cold” as the ground level air is “too warm”.

    Ergo the surface of the Earth is, indeed, warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere, but that is because of the adiabatic process described above, which creates a temperature lapse rate within the troposphere, and not because of a “greenhouse effect”.

    Carl

  15. Greg House says:

    Carl Brehmer says: “The fact is, it may very well be that the average surface temperature of the Earth would be cooler if it didn’t have an atmosphere, but that has never been the relevant question.”
    =====================================================

    I guess, Carl, this may well be the most unbelievable thing you’ve ever written. How is atmosphere supposed to warm surface? What physical mechanism could achieve that,Carl? Let me guess: back radiation? Back conduction? There must be something, I’d like to know what.

  16. AS says:

    Phew. 648 words, most of them gratuitous – you can assume I get the gist of the gas laws and lapse rates. I’m guessing you don’t tweet.

    If the earth had the lunar atmosphere (both being roughly equidistant from the sun), would the solar-illuminated half of the earth be warmer, or cooler, than with the current atmosphere?

    Please, no more dissertations. Warmer, or cooler?

  17. Dan V. says:

    There is a much simpler way of experimentally proving the absence of the real-time GHE, without resorting to light bulbs or mirrors.
    The starting point is Carl Brehmer’s measurements, documented in this paper (Joseph E Postma – A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect, Oct 22, 2012, page 64): On a sunny summer day, early afternoon, in Arizona (~35 deg. N), the soil temperature was recorded to be about 345 K, (163 deg. F, or 73 deg. C.) According to SB law, this amounted to about 803 W/m^2 of insolation, including albedo.
    Next, we apply the Harvard GHE model (page 72) to this real-time measurement, and assume the recommended GHG IR absorption rate of 0.77. The IR back-radiation power flux density can be calculated (with the formula Qbr=Qs(f/(2-f)), where Qbr is the back-radiation, Qs is the insolation, and f is the GHG IR absorption rate) to be equal to 503 W/m^2, or 63% of the insolation. Adding Qbr, according to the false GHE theory, to the insolation Qs yields 1,304 W/m^2 as the total power flux density heating the ground, or 63% more than insolation alone. Again, applying the SB law, results in an absurd soil temperature of 390 K, 243 deg. F, 117 deg. C) – above the water boiling temperature! Carl Brehmer’s experimental measurements prove beyond any doubt that the GHE is not real and the soil temperature depends only on the insolation alone. Although an IR camera aimed at the sky might indicate a temperature higher than 0 K (the “evidence” of IR back-radiation and GHE in warmists’ opinion), the soil thermometer does not register any additional warming from the IR radiation, beyond that caused by insolation alone.
    To summarize, the Harvard model predicts a total power flux density (insolation plus IR back-radiation) warming the soil of 1.63 times the insolation alone, causing a temperature (in K) increase of 13% over the insolation temperature. This is equivalent to having a second sun in the sky, albeit only 63% as strong as the real one, which is obviously absurd.
    So, here’s a proposed simple experiment for locations below about 45 deg. of latitude: On a sunny summer day, in early afternoon, place a thermometer on the ground and leave it there for about half an hour, then read the temperature. If you get between about 60 and 70 deg. C (140 to 160 deg. F), then you have proof that the GHE is not real. You would have to read between about 103 and 114 deg. C (218 to 238 deg F) for the GHE to be real. These temperatures would be so obviously higher that you would not require any precise instruments or procedures to observe them. Just place a black pan with water in the sunlight and see if it boils!
    We should challenge Watts, Spencer, and Eschenbach to try this simple experiment in their backyards and explain how their temperature measurements in K are 13% higher than those expected from insolation alone.
    We should challenge anybody, anywhere on Earth, to measure a soil (or any other object on the ground, such as a piece of black cardboard) insolation temperature higher than 87.5 deg C, as illustrated on page 43 of the above document, to validate the existence of the GHE.

  18. Will Janoschka says:

    I guess, Carl, this may well be the most unbelievable thing you’ve ever written. How is atmosphere supposed to warm surface? What physical mechanism could achieve that,Carl? Let me guess: back radiation? Back conduction? There must be something, I’d like to know what.

    Nothing Greg, You are way out of line! If you take the whole surface and atmosphere together,
    if absorptivity at 0.2 to 0.8 microns, were higher than emissivity at 5 to 200 microns all of earth must reach a higher temperature. The opposite is also true! Please show your interpertation
    of emissivity vs. wavelenght of this planet, with and without its current atmosphere! I cannot do that! You cannot do that! Carl cannot do that! The 97% of the Climate Clowns cannot do that.
    This is the nature, and the political power of the scam! Greg, stick with your good politics assay!
    Your science is for shit!

  19. Holy cow cheers Dan ;) Someone who understands the paper and the physics and the conclusion! Yah you’re right all we need to do is ask them to demonstrate what they claim…like seriously.

  20. Will Janoschka says:

    Joe, You have asked for help in defeating the Clowns!
    Two areas that may he[p:
    1. Cataloging all that “is (not known) but claimed”!
    2. Defeating the academic arrogance that permeates science!

    I must be carful here! You have been attacked by the three (or four) most idiotic professers on this planet\! I think you can get over that with some really good single Malt Scotch, enjoyed
    with someone you really really like. I was not that beat up! Please ask about doing 1 or 2 above! -will-

  21. Greg House says:

    Yeah, Will, you are such a scientist, standing ovation. We are not talking about things like totally reflective surface surrounded by an atmosphere that absorbs something, we are talking about our usual conditions on Earth. Carl said “Earth”, note it.

  22. Greg House says:

    Dan V. says: “There is a much simpler way of experimentally proving the absence of the real-time GHE, without resorting to light bulbs or mirrors.
    The starting point is Carl Brehmer’s measurements, documented in this paper (Joseph E Postma – A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect, Oct 22, 2012, page 64): On a sunny summer day, early afternoon, in Arizona (~35 deg. N), the soil temperature was recorded to be about 345 K, (163 deg. F, or 73 deg. C.) According to SB law, this amounted to about 803 W/m^2 of insolation, including albedo.
    Next, we apply the Harvard GHE model (page 72) to this real-time measurement, and assume the recommended GHG IR absorption rate of 0.77. The IR back-radiation power flux density can be calculated (with the formula Qbr=Qs(f/(2-f)), where Qbr is the back-radiation, Qs is the insolation, and f is the GHG IR absorption rate) to be equal to 503 W/m^2, or 63% of the insolation. Adding Qbr, according to the false GHE theory, to the insolation Qs yields 1,304 W/m^2 as the total power flux density heating the ground, or 63% more than insolation alone. Again, applying the SB law, results in an absurd soil temperature of 390 K, 243 deg. F, 117 deg. C) – above the water boiling temperature!”
    ==============================================

    Dan, I guess you can not do that, because if you assume GHE, then it is already there in the result of the measurement, you can not count it twice and say “you see, it is too much”.

  23. Greg he’s discussing my paper and how Carl and I tested for the GHE using its own math against empirical observation…no GHE was there, only traditional thermal mechanics.

  24. Greg House says:

    Joe, maybe I was reading too fast, but in my humble understanding there was a real time measurement and then GHE was hypothetically added and then the calculated result was unreal, is it right? So, I mean, this approach is not quite kosher, because if you assume GHE, you can, of course, e.g. subtract it from the real time measurement and get a hypothetical temperature in absence of the assumed GHE. But you can not hypothetically add this assumed GHE to the real time measurement and claim the result to be unreal, because it would be double counting. The assumed GHE is hypothetically already there in the first real time measurement. It is not that I suddenly believe in GHE, I only mean the approach.

  25. Yah but it was all accounted for in the math Greg…theory vs. observation. THEIR ghe prediction was disproven by observation. I mean real greenhouses don’t even have this ghe in them…

  26. Allen Eltor says:

    A man, told you,
    he could spin a sphere suspended in a vacuum,
    and get T.

    Turn on the sun
    for T1

    Immerse sphere,
    in a special mix of
    frigid, fluid, energy reflective,
    insulating (energy blocking) gas bath,
    block 22% of the energy
    previously bathing the target sensors
    and make every,
    single,
    thermal sensor
    on that entire planet,

    show MORE HEAT arrive
    than @ T1

    =======
    More energy arriving at every thermal sensor on the planet’s surface
    AFTER you wrap the sphere with insulation blocking 22% of incoming energy.

    Fluid insulation, refrigerated by water’s evaporation/convection/energy dump cycle.
    Frigid insulation whose temperature is lower than the sphere’s sensors.

    A frigid gas bath
    composed of nitrogen and oxygen,
    doped with a 1% shot of
    phase change refrigerant,
    water,

    made the thermal sensors across the entire planet,
    rise,
    when you added it.
    =======
    You have been deceived.
    =======
    There is no magic, frigid,
    refrigerated, fluid gas bath,
    heating sensors immersed in it.
    =======

    Will Janoschka says:
    2013/11/11 at 6:11 PM

    “I met a man with a frigid refrigerated bath that made the temperature of thermal sensors immersed in it,
    RISE!”

  27. Allen Eltor says:

    Belief in magic gas is proof that if you tell someone long enough, you invented insulation that blocks 20% of total energy in but made the target’s energy sensors show more arrive,

    they’ll pay you money for a degree to pass that information on.

  28. Allen Eltor says:

    With that first post I was hoping for blog hilarity mastery, full on – with the redundancy yet somehow not boring and all,
    but that was an obvious fail.

    I calculated how to do it ahead of time – using my “Magic-Gais Multi-Flow Multiplier”
    which allows one to block energy in, to create higher target sensor temperature, using only your computer calculator, at home.
    It goes a lot faster if you have a big giant teraflop computer though (obviously).

    Yeah – you just re-do the numbers, and wherever there’s a (minus) you don’t like
    you change it to (plus).

    You don’t even have to change the insulation in your house, just the way you look at it and all of a sudden, your energy flows free and clear and beautiful as a tear from a polar bear’s eye when a baby seal whose brains it’s just caved in, is ripped out of it’s paws by a passing Orca.

    =======
    See, I interpolated through using the Climatology Constant, BS [forBackerdistical Statisticality].

    I thought I was (minus) sparklingly wit and humor.
    I eventually figured it out that if I added another bland boring repetition, it would be back to zero stupidity;

    and then, if I iterated it all once again, I would be of course, (plus) or net positive, humor and wit,

    but apparently it works the same way here,
    as in Climate Scamathematics:

    I tripled the bullshit just like they said, but it only made it sound three times as stupid.

    Instead of incalculably smarter.

  29. hahaha…crazy :)

  30. I liked this one:

    “Belief in magic gas is proof that if you tell someone long enough, you invented insulation that blocks 20% of total energy in but made the target’s energy sensors show more arrive,

    they’ll pay you money for a degree to pass that information on

    Exactly.

  31. Dan V. says:

    Greg says: “…But you cannot hypothetically add this assumed GHE to the real time measurement and claim the result to be unreal, because it would be double counting. The assumed GHE is hypothetically already there in the first real time measurement.”
    OK, let’s do it backwards, i.e. assume that the GHE is real and included in Carl’s observation – the soil temperature of 345 K. This corresponds to a total power flux density of 803 W/m^2 heating the soil. From this, we calculate the absorbed insolation component, as predicted by the Harvard GHE model, and get 803 / 1.63 = ~ 493 W/m^2; next, accounting for the soil abledo (measured at about 0.26), we get the incoming insolation at ground level to be equal to about 666 W/m^2, which is an absurd value! Since the TOA insolation is about 1,300 W/m^2, what is the explanation for this massive attenuation? Where did all this power go? Secondly, Carl measured the real ground insolation with a pyranometer and found it to be about 1,050 W/m^2, proving the absurdity of the GHE model. Anyway you approach the Harvard GHE model, forward or backward, you get absurd results, contradicted by the empirical observations, a.k.a. THE REALITY!
    And this is no rocket science. It’s hard to believe that the world is spending $1 billion a day on this nonsense.

  32. Will Janoschka says:

    @ Greg House “Yeah, Will, you are such a scientist, standing ovation. We are not talking about things like totally reflective surface surrounded by an atmosphere that absorbs something, we are talking about our usual conditions on Earth. Carl said “Earth”, note it”
    .I find nothing technically incorect with Carl’s post!
    I was commenting here, that no one on this planet has measured the effective emissivity of the earth, from 0.2 microns to 2.3 microns vs. efective emissivity from 2.4 microns to 200 microns..
    The Clowns claim are they are the same such that the the S-B is valid! Since you, me, Carl, or anyone else. The temperature of the Earth surface with or without some atmosphere must be unknown! All that claim knowledge must be scammers,. Good lead in to my post of “what is not known!

  33. Will Janoschka says:

    Good lead in to my post of “what is not known”!
    Hi Joe, My comments on your blog! What is (known/what is not known), in every case, rapidly approaches zero. In old science i.e. Thermodynamics, the rate is slow, as most understand the immensity of what is not known. With the Climate Clowns, everything is unknown, but with no acknowledgment of the unknown, thus any trivial conjecture becomes “what is known”:. This appeals much to the folk that have little interest in “knowing” but want “gimme”.,
    My point here is to identify and catalog the unkown such as:
    1. “back radiation” cannot be demonstrated, nor falsified. It is a conjecture that has not even one repeatible example, thus is discarded as any physical science. Back radiation continues as a real concept with those that “believe”. What is and what is not?
    2. I have more, but kitten demands petting upon!

  34. Will Janoschka says:

    “Do you Understand”?
    I certanly do not!!!!!

    “Do you understand that the Carnot Heat Engine, the Rankine Cycle, nuclear/gas/coal power plants, function because the greenhouse effect does not exist? 90% of the world’s electric power is produced because the greenhouse effect does not exist!
    No,
    The Carnot cycle, the Rankine cycle, the Sterling cycle, and the Vulliamy cycle do not give a shit of the so called greenhouse effect. They all work well with the last two pumping heat uphill with good effeciency.. The Clausius second law defines “spontaniously”. . Energy flux never goes “spontaniously” in a direction opposing the total potential field. Clausius as careful as he was, never said that energy flux “must” go in the direction of the potential field.
    What happens is highly dependent on the geometry of all potential fields, including but not restricted to thermal, gravitational, pressure, or electric, all static or time varing, Do we need a better legal discription of what we do not know??
    Thanks for reading,

  35. Take a look at the greenhouse sophistry in this new paper…

    New paper shows the ‘simple basic physics’ of greenhouse theory exaggerate global warming by a factor of 8 times

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/new-paper-shows-simple-basic-physics-of.html

  36. Kitten demands petting upon…lol!!!

    I agree entirely with this: ““back radiation” cannot be demonstrated, nor falsified.” The unfalsifiability part is a real problem. It is unfalsifiable because its whole argument only exists by analogy! And any numbers of analogy. So that when one fails, another can take its place. Now we have Joel Shore on WUWT saying that backradiation is like water flowing BACK into the sink once it leaves the drain! How does the water get back into the sink from the bottom of the drain? Well, not with any outside independent work and energy of course, but because that’s what the greenhouse effect does!

    These people are sick mental and moral degenerates.

  37. “Simple basic physics” is outside of the realm of climate science. They don’t know what simple basic physics is. It is also outside most of academic science today too.

  38. Allen Eltor says:

    Hey yo I was at What’sUpWithTwerk’s
    and a “Magic GAiS, Ya’LL!”
    scammer
    told me and the rest of the people in the thread,
    he calculated the temperatures of every sensor on a globe illuminated in vacuum,
    rising,

    when the vacuum was replaced by an atmosphere of pressure worth’s
    frigid,
    refrigerated
    gas bath,
    blocking/reflecting 22% of source energy
    even arriving at them

    Reduce energy in, 22% using insulation,
    and since it’s Magic Insulation
    energy at target rises.

    He was crowing about it.

  39. D.M. says:

    Hi Joe,
    I have had a look at this same article on PSI and the comments section. Greg has been doing a good job against another commentator “Curt” who states he teaches thermodynamics at a university. Well I am rather worried about the standard of education at that university! The first comment he makes is that you state in another article that power in does not equal power out, and he states that is nonsense and violates the physical laws which you don’t understand. Does Curt not know the difference between Watts (power) and Watts/sq.m.(flux density)? I almost switched off at that point but later he states that “back radiation” exists and can be observed and measured. Perhaps you should ask him how this done so that the real scientific can learn. (Maybe he is referring to the light bulb experiment !).
    Then he says “With the earth absorbing an average of about 240 W/m2 and its surface emitting an average of about 390 W/m2 (and these are from real measurements), you cannot get to an energy balance without the greenhouse effect.” Wow! 240W/m2 into half the earth’s surface (12hrs) with 390W/m2 from the whole earth’s surface (24hrs), all due to the magic gas! And this guy has the nerve to criticise you Joe (and Greg)!

  40. Richard111 says:

    Had a discussion about greenhouses. I asked for an explanation of double and triple glazing and why it is considered necessary. That ended that discussion. :-)
    I read a comment somewhere recently, can’t find it again, that greenery, forests and such, absorb a lot of sunshine energy that is used to create the sugars and starches and such in growing plants. This is NOT HEAT. Where is this shown in global heat budgets?

  41. Greg House says:

    D.M. says: “And this guy has the nerve to criticise you Joe (and Greg)!”
    =========================================

    I would say he has been doing a good job, given that he has no scientific point, so he very clever uses various demagogic tricks to win the readers’ minds.

    We should never underestimate the effect skillful lying has on unprepared minds.

  42. Exactly…very good point. That is their ONLY strength…in being able to lie.

  43. Pingback: These items caught my eye – 17 Feb 2014 | grumpydenier

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s