Most everyone knowledgeable on this subject has heard of the “K&T Energy Budget”.
Kiehl and Trenberth (1997).
So how did Kiehl and Trenberth help debunk climate alarm?
We have energy incoming from the Sun…that’s the 342 W/m^2. Well sure, the Sun is a source of energy, it is powered by nuclear reactions which liberate energy.
And then we have energy incoming from “greenhouse gas backradiation”. There’s 168 + 67 = 235 absorbed energy coming from the Sun…and then there’s 324 coming from the atmosphere, 38% more energy than from the Sun.
It just magically appears over there, on the right hand side of their diagram.
Now the sun has a nuclear power source of energy.
The atmosphere has no source of energy, no source of power, has no chemical or nuclear reactions going on to liberate energy.
It is thus impossible for the atmosphere to be a source of energy, let alone to provide 38% more energy than comes from the Sun.
This debunks climate alarm science, without any additional consideration required, since this is the “reasoning” it subscribes to in general. Climate alarm is based on the impossible, and the nonsensical. It’s from these types of energy budgets that alarm is created. Well yes, these diagrams are indeed alarming, for their amazing mind-boggling obvious errors.
And why do Kiehl and Trenberth, and climate alarm, get into such a mess? Of course, it’s because they don’t get the incoming energy from the Sun correct in the first place. Their “168 absorbed by surface” means that Sunlight could only ever make a surface it strikes to heat up to -40 degrees Celsius.
Wow, that’s pretty cold. Can’t sunlight melt ice? Isn’t much, much warmer sunshine actually responsible for driving the climate? Yes and yes, but this is contradicted and denied by Kiehl and Trenberth’s pseudoscience.
So who’s wrong? Is the Sun wrong, or is Kiehl and Trenberth wrong?
It’s pretty easy to see who.
Climate of Sophistry 
The question is how can anyone accept such a mess? This IS climate science in a nutshell, together with “global temperature”.
Maybe even if a few people started counting everything in the picture, they got lost very fast, just look e.g. at the different values for “absorbed by surface” left and right, so they let it go. It is a mystery that such things can do the trick. Or maybe climate scientists are simply damn stupid. Such a type: good memory but damn stupid. Can memorize anything but stupid.
Indeed…can memorize, but otherwise quite stupid. Like trained chimps.
Actually, chimps are still smarter. You have to be a real human degenerate dumbass to be an alarmist climate scientist.
Obviously, Joseph, you are a good physicist but not necessarily a good teacher. The budget model by K&T is complicated in the first place and some people have tremendous difficulties in understanding diagrams and graphs. They may understand, however, simple book keeping.
Quite often people have two means of storing money, a bank account and a wallet. So I remodel as follows: earth = bank account and atmosphere = wallet. The sun = employer, paying you each month 342 dollar. Some income is simply wasted: your bank takes it for the good services. As usual, the services are split in order to complicate things. From the confused diagram we may infer that it is 77 + 30 = 107 dollar. So you get each month 342-107 = 235 dollar.
For some reason you get each month a part of your wage in cash to be put directly into your wallet, which is 67 dollar. The rest is on your account, equalling 168 dollar. That’s your monthly income of 235 dollar, to be used for your expenses.
We know that the earth stores some energy in fossil fuels but in our model we assume that you do not spare money. Neither do we assume that you borrow money from an external source. Your monthly expenses equal your income. At the top of the diagram we may see that the expenses are 235 dollar in total (OLR).
Working our way down, we may infer that the rest must be a specification of all expenses but we can also see that there is traffic between bank account and wallet, which has nothing to do with expenses. In principle, it is trivial traffic. If you deposit some wallet money on your bank account, it is not income, as explained by Joseph.
From the mess of arrows we may infer three kinds of expense, or 165 + 30 + 40 = 235 dollar. Thanks god, we have that.
The rest is traffic between bank account and wallet. Here a miracle seems to happen. How can you transfer 350 dollar from bank account to wallet, if the former contained 168 dollar at the start? This can only be achieved by pumping around some money, from bank account to wallet and back. However, the bank account can never contain more than 235 dollar (your monthly income). That 350 dollar must be the sum of all trivial transactions in time.
The issue must be difficult to follow in the diagram because pumping around happens in time. You can do that daily, e.g. transfer the content of your wallet to the bank and in the other direction next, all at the same day. So you can on the second day transfer 235 dollar to your wallet, back radiate it (or a part of it) in the evening, repeat this the next day, etc. You can do this every minute or second by which you can transfer millions of dollars in total.
This game must be subject to certain rules, imposed by your bank but invisible in the diagram. My rudimentary knowledge of thermodynamics says that energy flows from warm to cold. This implies that the emitter cannot become colder than the receiver and that the process must stop at an equilibrium. I translated W/m^2 into dollars and can easily make physical errors in the model. Who cares? Should we say that the bank only allows you to deposit money if it is more than the amount on your account? Already from the start pumping around is forbidden and the K&T diagram must be physically wrong.
For the remainder it is confused book keeping and arbitrary without rules. So what rules determine in this game that in one month you take 350 dollar from the bank and return 324 dollar in total?
I’m curious about the statement that the 324 W/m^2 has no apparent source.
For the atmosphere, there is 67+24+78+350=519 absorbed by it, and 324+165+30=519 emitted from it.
For the surface, there is 168+324=492 absorbed by it, and 24+78+390=492 emitted from it.
And the 168+67=235 absorbed by the earth system as a whole is matched by the 235 from the earth system emitted in the top right flow.
So everything seems to be in order, at least as far as the law of conservation of energy is concerned. The source of the 324 W/m^2 is the 519 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere, isn’t it?
@Mindert,
Stop analogizing, and just look at reality. Is the atmosphere a source of energy, is it a source of power, is it a source of heat? Is it like the Sun, as a source of power and heat? No, to all of those things.
@Quokka & Mindert,
It is a circular argument. Where does the backradiation of more power than from the Sun come from? It comes from the warm surface. Where does the warm surface come from? It comes from backradiation. This is a logical error. There are no circular arguments in actual physics.
These budgets are simply wrong. The system and heat flow can not be budgeted in this way. These budgets are not what’s happening. These budgets aren’t happening. These budgets are not what is going on. These budgets are not occurring. These budgets don’t reflect what exists. These budgets don’t show what exists. These budgets don’t physically exist. These budgets are not physics. These budgets are not reality.
A diagram which does begin to reflect reality is something like this:
The climate-science energy budgets can’t use the Sun to create let alone drive the climate. The Sun is a partial, minor force in the climate science budgets. It provides barely any heat, barely any temperature: -40C. This is not what exists. This is not what drives the climate. This is not what is occurring. This can not melt ice, create clouds, etc. It is a wrong phase-space of thought, and of physics. The temperature regime of the Sun on the Earth is in the wrong phase-space of matter – it is in the phase-space of solid ice, rather than the liquid and vaporous H2O that it actually creates.
The true phase-space of Sunlight is only what it does in real time. Only in real-time is when physics occurs. Only in real time is when potential is converted into action. Only in real-time, does sunlight hit the Earth. Only in real-time, is sunlight very hot, and drives the climate.
Only in the invention of where real-time sunlight is feeble and freezing cold because it is averaged over 24 hours of the entire surface of the Earth, do you invent a scheme where the atmosphere provides more heat than the Sun. The atmosphere does not provide more heat than the Sun. The atmosphere isn’t even a source of energy, in the first place.
You can not take the power value of sunlight of what it is in real time, and average that over 24 hours. That’s a blatant logical error.
The original initial power value they use for incoming Sunlight is its real-time, instantaneous value. They then take this real-time instantaneous value, and distribute it in both space and time where it doesn’t actually exist, i.e., the whole surface of the planet at once. Real-time sunlight does not exist over the entire surface of the planet at once. This is not what exists. This is not what is occurring. This is not what occurs. Real-time sunlight does not exist, occur, or act, on the entire surface of the Earth at once, nor in a uniform manner. Real-time sunlight is not uniformly distributed over the entire surface of the planet at once. A uniform redistribution of real-time sunlight is not what exists. It is not what is occurring. It is not what is driving the climate. It is not what is creating the climate. It is not what is combining with other aspects of the climate to create the climate.
Do you understand?
Quokka, a part of system can not get more energy than enters the system. On paper you can make things absorb whatever you like, but not in reality.
Joe, the “spherical average system output” is incorrect, it is a fallacy, a sophistry climate “scientists” invented. You can only get 240 W/m2 average and the -18°C if a hemisphere completely cools up, it would be then average between 480 and 0. This is not what happens, is it? The Sun has been shining without a break, as far as I know. That just leaving aside the problem of making average temperature out of average flux. Besides, it is absolutely unnecessary to make simple things clear by complicated explanations almost no one can follow. And it provides the trolls with the opportunity to obfuscate the whole matter.
That’s why only a real-time local analysis can actually represent any real physics. That’s why there is no global temperature, but only local physics.
This video explains the concept of phase-spaces & temperatures, how & why the phase-space of the actual real-time active temperature of input sunlight is what is real and what is important and what is physical and what drives the phase-space of the climate.
The climate science energy budget models which require their sophistical greenhouse effect contradict everything about the real-time, actual, active, existent power of sunlight’s temperature phase-space and its resulting effect on matter.
Right, real time. So, if we ignore the problem of averaging I mentioned above and simplify the rotation by assuming there is just a sudden half-turn, then we get this. The Sun warms the one hemisphere up to 30°C and then it becomes the dark side and cools slowly, maybe by 1-2 degrees an hour. As a result the average temperature will be about that +15°C. This is the real “effective temperature” without “greenhouse effect”. No room for any “greenhouse effect” at all.
Joseph – Apparently, the behavior of a fluid gaseous open atmosphere covering a rotating planet that orbits the sun is difficult to comprehend. And man has a well established history of fearing what we don’t understand.
If there were measurable back-radiation from the atmosphere, then we would be measuring it. If it’s not possible to distinguish this radiation from the sun’s own radiation, then we’d be measuring it at night. And if the atmosphere were a source of back-radiation, then it necessarily follows that more of the same atmosphere would mean more back-radiation. And we would easily determine from charts of data that the phase of the moon influences this back radiation, since the moon controls atmospheric tides. We have no such proof because we’re not measuring it. We’re not measuring it, because it doesn’t exist.
It’s not that we’re denying the science of the greenhouse gas theory, it’s that there is no science to support it. It is a vacuous theory, with no laws, axioms or postulates. There is nothing to reason with, nothing to test against. This complete lack of science is compelling proof enough that the theory has no merit.
And seems to be only lack of people’s rational merit which keeps it going.
Dear Joseph, I said at the start that our income is from the sun only and ‘If you deposit some wallet money on your bank account, it is not income, as explained by Joseph’. You said ‘look at reality. Is the atmosphere a source of energy, is it a source of power, is it a source of heat? Is it like the Sun, as a source of power and heat? This is precisely what I said. Do we have a language problem or did you not read my text?
Is your wallet a source of money for your bank account? If this transfer were allowed, it is, but not a source of income for you as the owner of both. No book keeper will make this error. I pointed out that the hybrid model of K&T allows for a transfer of 350 W/m^2 from earth to atmosphere which is more than the 168 W/m^2 it received from the sun. This is a serious conservation error which can only be repaired by assuming that it is a sum of transfers over time within a loop. Without additional rules this introduces traffic of infinite amounts. Besides these formal problems, I explained that as a physical model it must fail because energy cannot flow from cold to warm. If you don’t agree with me, can you tell me where?
I didn’t read your text 🙂
Right, it is a conservation error, and it is an error due to money not being able to flow from cold to hot. Money, energy, can only go from a bigger account to a smaller account – the smaller account can not add to the budget of the bigger account. Those are the rules for thermodynamics, even if they aren’t the rules for money.
Any internal or external outputs can only equal what is put in, from the Sun. Then, not to mention they don’t get that right anyway, etc.
So there is this apparent 324 W/m-2 back radiation shining day and night, They have measured it (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/full.) That’s a significant amount of alleged energy. So how come on a cool night, when my car is parked on the street in the open with the windows rolled up, it’s not blazing hot in the interior? I mean that’s like over 3-100 Watt light bulbs shining over a square meter surface. Electromagnetic radiation is electromagnetic radiation, and it’s striking my car. What’s the deal? Am I missing something?
Yah, especially with the windows closed then at night they should be providing a radiative greenhouse effect inside the car, thus trapping that incoming backradiation inside the car and doubling its flux, so that you have 324*2 = 648 W/m^2 inside the car. That would be 54 degrees Celsius!
Strange that only when there’s sunlight coming inside the car with closed windows, that the dashboard might get to 54C, and never hotter than the temperature input by the sunlight…
For some time now the “K&T Energy Budget” has been called a “cartoon”. And, that is a most proper description…
Joseph,
But the K&T diagram doesn’t even mention temperature, it seems to be just talking about total amounts of energy without regard as to how it’s distributed. Obviously they can’t mean that everywhere on the Earth’s surface is bathed in a steady 168 W/m^2. I interpret it to mean that the amount of sunlight absorbed by the earth surface is 168, multiplied by the number of square meters on the earth surface. There must be a (fairly constant) wattage that the earth surface absorbs from the sun at any single point in time. If you divide that figure by the area of the earth in square meters, is it, or is it not, about 168?
<blockquote
It is a circular argument. Where does the backradiation of more power than from the Sun come from? It comes from the warm surface. Where does the warm surface come from? It comes from backradiation. This is a logical error. There are no circular arguments in actual physics.
How can it be a logical error for two bodies to be radiating at each other? Surely it happens? If I have a large hot flat plate floating in space, it will radiate energy, and cool down as a result. (Let’s imagine it has really good insulation placed on the back side, so it only loses heat from one side) If another similar plate is placed parallel to it, hot sides facing, it will still be radiating just like it was before, but it won’t be cooling down any more (assuming large enough that edge effects are negligible), and that must be because the other plate is radiating energy back at it, at the same rate at which it is losing it. There’s a lot of energy exchange happening, even though there’s no power input at all. Or so I understand, anyway.
Those number values are convertable to temperature, and those number values indicate the action that the energy is able to have where it is absorbed. The 168 from the sunlight does not have the potential to create the action that sunlight actually performs in physics on matter. Hence, the physics is wrong, because the numbers actually have to be able to do what the physics actually does – else, what are the numbers actually modelling, but fiction.
The atmosphere is not a source of power or energy. Sunlight is – it is nuclear powered, the liberation of new energy. Hence, the atmosphere can’t be treated like a source of power, since it doesn’t liberate energy, is not a source of energy, etc. Let alone that the atmosphere provides more energy than from the Sun.
Look, it is not a matter of figuring out how to make these budgets work. It is a matter of comprehending that they are wrong, and rejecting them in their entirety, and never trying it again, and never trying to make them work again.
(cont’d) And then, in going to physics and math and numbers which can actually do what reality does, because they reflect the ontology of reality, rather than some political ontology with numbers that don’t match reality, which require the invention of energy from a gas which doesn’t actually liberate any energy at all.
The sun is a source of energy because its nuclear reactions liberate raw free energy. There is no corresponding process in the Earth atmosphere either chemically or nuclear, thus it can not be treated as a source of energy, at all.
Like the shell of the steel greenhouse, the atmosphere is simply a passive receiver. It can’t change the temperature of the surface without itself being a source of heat or work, which it isn’t, because it produces no heat or work. This is the first law of thermodynamics.
Joe, believe it or not, but I have to tell you one thing. What this Quokka says is wrong, but is expressed in such a way that can successfully deceive the general public. You answers on the other hand are very difficult to follow. So, who do you think wins the readers minds?
I don’t see how that can be the case. Take the thought experiment of the two large parallel plates radiating at each other that I gave in my last comment. Take one plate, which is a part of the system – it is absorbing energy from the other plate. So it clearly is getting more energy than is entering the system (which is zero).
You know, there are indeed a lot of idiots who would accept your science. Standing ovation.
Quokka, you said: “Take one plate, which is a part of the system – it is absorbing energy from the other plate.”
If the two plates are at the same temperature, then there will be NO energy transfer. If one plate is at a higher temperature than the other, then the two plates will move to equilibrium so that each is at the same temperature. No new energy is being created.
Dear Quokka, take two spots on the earth at a short distance, having the same temperature. The sun emits radiation to those spots and warms them. Let a cloud between the sun and one of those spots block the radiation. Then one spot will become warmer than the other. A wind will start to blow between them, by which we can power a wind mill.
Let’s now substitute for the sun another celestial object like the new moon, being cooler than the earth but above absolute zero. It is said (by Spencer for example) that a cold object by its (back) radiation slows down the cooling rate of a warmer object. Let again a cloud block the moon radiation to one of the spots. Then the other spot will cool faster, which induces a temperature difference again. Consequently, the dark moon will also power our wind mill. This is an unexpected source of sustainable energy if the theory of back radiation were true.
The proper thought experiment to match the context is one plate which is powered, which is a heat source, and the other which is the passive receiver. The passive plate warms up, and it never sends heat to the source plate because it is not a source of heat or energy. Since the areas are equal, you have the simple Q’ = A*sigma*(Th^4 – Tc^4). The temperature of the hot plate is given by its own internal power source, and so is pre-determined when we consider no other objects around. Then we add the passive plate and get the Q’ equation just written. All heat, the Q’, flows from the hot to cool, thus heating up the cool, ending when Q’ = 0, so that Th = Tc. At that point, the other side of the passive plate radiates away the energy it gets from Th. The scenario is very similar to the sphere and shell, except there is no inverse-square reduction in flux from the heat source (considering distance from plate << width of plate).
geran:
Yep, no new energy is being created. I tried hard to make that clear in my example. But there is energy transfer. Both plates are radiating, because all objects above a non-zero temperature radiate, don’t they? That would cause them to cool down, except that they don’t, because the other plate radiates the same amount of energy back at them. And the whole system stays at the same temperature, which is what you would expect, since it is surrounded by insulation.
Quokka says: “Both plates are radiating, because all objects above a non-zero temperature radiate, don’t they? ”
===========================
This is irrelevant to the climate scam. Their main point is that the “greenhouse gases” bring back to the surface more energy than they get from the surface and, again, more than comes from the Sun, which is absolutely absurd. This fact makes the climate fraud clear to anyone.
Do they or don’t they? If we can’t agree what’s happening in this, which is one of the simplest scenarios possible, how can we possibly analyze more complicated cases.
Well no, that was my original point: they don’t. The diagram has 350 going up, and only 324 coming down again.
Greg, if I made a mistake, please point out what it was.
I am only interested in pointing out climate scam mistakes.
350 can’t go up if only 168 comes in, and the deficit can’t be invented out of the atmosphere since it isn’t a source of energy. These diagrams are wrong and not in the reference frame of reality and physics. They’re to be rejected, and understood why to reject.
The average temperature of the earth’s surface is about 15C, as I recall, and the amount of radiation you would expect from an object at that temperature Stefan-Boltzmann is – what a surprise – 390 W/m^2. Exactly what’s in the K&T diagram, so that matches up well. The only way I can think of that the earth would emit much less than that would be if its emissivity was significantly less than 1, which I don’t think is the case. If not 390 W/m^2, how much does the earth emit, and why?
Absolutely false!
Plate A can only “get” energy from Plate B if Plate B is more energetic (warmer) than Plate A, otherwise, you are creating energy from nothing! … OMG … this is so freaking obvious.
If Plate A and Plate B are at equilibrium to one another, neither Plate can absorb energy from the other. In essence, they are invisible to one another and don’t even know the other is there. If one of the plates is more energetic (warmer, higher frequency vibrational state) than the other, then the lesser energetic (cooler, lower frequency vibrational state) can absorb (get excited) energy from the other, otherwise, as stated above, any object with the same energetic state (same temperature) or lower (cooler) is completely transparent, cannot be seen nor felt by the higher energy plate. ie: 1st Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy), and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (spatial homogeneity of matter and energy, especially of temperature. Thermal energy can only flow downhill, from warmer to cooler).
Quokka, your Plate A and Plate B “thought experiment” is one of the oldest and most worn out “thought experiments” there is, and has been soundly, roundly and empirically refuted time and again. Spencer tried to use this same “thought experiment” argument to claim that “Yes Virginia, a cooler object can make a warmer object warmer still”, and he soundly lost his ass in the argument. Your “thought experiment” is physically impossible in this universe. There is no way you can slice it, dice it, twist it or skew it. It cannot, under any circumstances, work. Time for you to move along.
Quite frankly, and I think probably to Greg’s point(s), I find it breathtaking to even be having this discussion anymore. If you cannot understand why this is so, then you need to move along and pay more attention to something you can grasp, like needlepoint perhaps. Physics and our physical world is obviously well outside your grasp. Ever thought of counting mile markers? Might be a good start for you.
Don’t send him away, Squid. Not everybody is an expert in physics. I remember that as a lay man I once asked a question to Spencer during his Virginia hype. The discussion went on and on, like a medieval debate. I quite naively asked him whether he believed that when the sun, Jupiter, and Saturn become aligned, the temperature of the sun would drop because the back radiation from Saturn would be blocked for some time. From one of his visitors I got the response that the effect would be too small to be measured, which I found not very convincing. Spencer only ridiculed me with an astrological text, quite funny and very convincing. The question is completely logical when the thesis is that back radiation influences the cooling rate of an emitter. It is quite difficult to discover how precisely this violates thermodynamics. It is the same story with the many proposals of a perpetual mobile. Only the end product tells that energy is created out of nothing. We are at a point in history that even scientific organisations endorse the violation of thermodynamics and condemn the deniers to teeth gnashing in hell. In the spirit of the old science, Quokka may devote more time to inventing an experiment falsifying his theoretical considerations.
Reblogged this on CbFool.
Mindert Eiting says: “The question is completely logical when the thesis is that back radiation influences the cooling rate of an emitter. … Quokka may devote more time to inventing an experiment falsifying his theoretical considerations.”
=========================================
The climate scam (“greenhouse effect”) is not about “back radiation influencing the cooling rate of an emitter”, it is about back radiation RAISING THE TEMPERATURE of an emitter. All this talk on the Internet about reducing the cooling rate is either ignorance or obfuscation, depending on which side it comes from.
Climate fraudsters have already presented a few fake experiments, no need to ask them for more.
GH:
Exactly. Reduced cooling has nothing to do with it. Neither does reduced cooling leading to higher average over time. It is about the active raising of the temperature of the source, which is impossible via the 1st Law of Thermo, and basic experience, and the mathematics of heat transfer, etc.
Spot on Greg!
I cannot count the number of times I have heard the line “..but it slows cooling..” in the context that the “back radiation” raises the temperature of the emitter. I also cannot count the number of times I have had to exclaim “slowing cooling does not increase temperature”. But alas, the “slows cooling” sophistication continues unabated.
Mindert, I don’t mean to send Quokka away, to the contrary. I am simply suggesting that he/she start learning from experts on the subject such as Joseph Postma (and many others). Quokka continues to dance around the same tired out bush with the same tired out “thought experiment” seemingly without learning a thing. My suggestion to him/her is to take up needlepoint until such time that he/she can absorb the information presented and understand why he/she is wrong with his/her “thought experiment”. Perhaps once a little more learned, Quokka can re-engage in meaningful discussion.
As a personal note, I would like to thank Joseph, Greg, Geran, and all the other fine folks for their constructive and informative discussions and truth. I cannot fully express my eternal gratitude to these folks teaching me so much. No matter how the CAGW scam plays out in the end, at least I will leave this planet with the understanding and truth that these fine folks so selflessly have gifted to me.
Thank you all again!
What would be the simplest way to explain that slowed cooling is not the same as warming? I mean to an honest and logical person who may well not be educated in science or is long out of school. (like the majority of the populous)
Any thoughts?
Joseph E Postma says: 2015/01/15 at 6:27 PM
“Those number values are convertable to temperature, and those number values indicate the action that the energy is able to have where it is absorbed.”
Hate to bring this up Joseph, but this is where you are totally mistaken! You equate action (work times time), (force x distance x time) with temperature. There is no such equation. Temperature is related to mass only by the specific heat of that mass. Not only that, Temperature of such mass “must” change whenever there is a differential of sensible heat power in, to power, out of that mass. Radiative transfer that results as a transfer of sensible heat from A to B is no exception.
The brainwashing by PhD academics leads you to accept that radiative flux is always and only proportional to some radiance of that mass itself. This is the BIG LIE! Electromagnetic radiation never works that way, whether powered by termal sensible heat, or electrically! Any EM flux is always limited by any opposing radiance (field strength) at each frequency. When the opposing radiances are equal there is no radiative flux whatsoever.
I hate thought problems this can be done maybe; here goes: One gram of air mixture powered by one microwatt independent of the temperature of that air (Cesium source). Inclose that gram of air by an adjustable temperature internally reflective sphere. Such electromagnetic reflection (index -1 at all frequencies) will force the exact same radiance from the sphere as from that gram of air.
In addition we peer at the emissive bands of that gram of air to determine its temperature and adjust the temperature of the shell to match. This results in a complete adiabatic barrier between the air and shell. No power is allowed to leave the air in any know manner
Start with that air and sphere at 15 degrees Celsius, and whach what happen to the temperature of the shell. After one year the temperature must be 18.17 degrees Celsius, after two years 21.34 degrees Celsius, after 100 years 332 degrees Celsius.,
There is no limit on the temperature of that one gram of air, if none of that one microwatt continious power is ever allowed to dissipate.
“The 168 (W/m^2) from the sunlight does not have the potential to create the action that sunlight actually performs in physics on matter. Hence, the physics is wrong, because the numbers actually have to be able to do what the physics actually does – else, what are the numbers actually modelling, but fiction.”
Correct but only because of electromagnetic radiative flux dissipation of such power to space.
Quokka says: 2015/01/16 at 6:28 PM
“Both plates are radiating, because all objects above a non-zero temperature radiate, don’t they? ”
No! The brainwashing by PhD academics leads you to accept that radiative flux is always and only proportional to some radiance of that mass itself. This is the BIG LIE! Electromagnetic radiation never works that way, whether powered by termal sensible heat, or electrically! Any EM flux is always limited by any opposing radiance (field strength) at each frequency. When the opposing radiances are equal there is no radiative flux whatsoever. When the opposing radiance is greater the mass can only absorb. It is this opposing radiance from the atmosphere that almost eliminates actual EM flux from the surface. That same atmospheric radiance provides this Earth with a superior thermal radiative exitance to space, the atmospheric WV!!
The only way atmospheric CO2 can affect temperature is by altering the WV content of this atmosphere. The 97% incompetent ClimAstrologists have no clue as to how this may happen. No trapping, no greenhouse anything, no conspiracy is required, only the self announced 97% incompetence!!
Will, in the context of the power of sunlight and its potential to create action (physics), in this case it is OK to think about the flux in terms of a temperature forcing, as in a differential equation with a forcing term etc.
Slowed cooling does not mean hotter? lol These things would be self-evident if not for the sophistry of climate pseudoscience.
Well, if I stick a thermometer in my coffee and wrap the mug with a huggy, will the temperature go up? … answer: No, it most certainly will not, even though I have “slowed” the cooling.
Can’t really make it much simpler than that. As Joseph points out, these things are really “self-evident”. Heating requires work. Slowed cooling is not work.
Further, the very definition of cooling is just that, cooling no matter the rate, slowed or not.
Joseph E Postma says: ` 2015/01/17 at 3:56 PM
” Will, in the context of the power of sunlight and its potential to create action (physics), in this case it is OK to think about the flux in terms of a temperature forcing, as in a differential equation with a forcing term etc”
Joseph,
Solar flux if it ever happens is never, a temperature forcing, It is but an exchange of energy that may or may not imply some change in temperature. Generation of latent heat of evaporation implies no change in such temperature.
Part of the problem is the the obvious difference between the mathematical equality operator (=) implying reversibility and the assignment operator Pascal (:=) implying no reversibility. Take the post normal concept of delta U = ( Q-W). Q and W cannot appear in any equation as they are disjoint (different concepts). Either may have a proper assignment. I hate U , so let me return to S (entropy) and do proper assignment. Q ( energy) := (W ( force x distance) – S), the “compression” of a gas with entropy (-S)! and the opposite assignment W(work) := ( Q (energy) – S) “Horse power” plowing an area with addition entropy (-S). This is the increase in entropy (-S) no mater what you may be trying to do in a closed system!
Now consider what temperature (T) may be as an equality! (=)! T now becomes Q/(-S). Thus temperature (T) “equals the complex conjugate of S as scaled by lost “energy” to S”!.
Please give me any alternate concept for Temperature!
It appears that “action” has two variants. Work accumulated over time, as an apartment complex being constructed by work over time, and a “QUANTUM” the immediate energy or effort required, within the specific time interval. An Americas Cup sailing vessel plus trained crew to compete in the next race. Both are actions, but cannot ever be equated! In both cases the energy is destroyed as per Emmy Noether (1917)
Will, GFY, will you. You are not better than “greenhouse effect” trolls.
Sorry Joe.
Greg House says: 2015/01/17 at 6:22 PM
” Will, GFY, will you. You are not better than “greenhouse effect” trolls.”
Greg, I have nothing to sell! It is difficult to discern what “may be”, even with the help of yourself, Joseph, an many others that can and do think! I remain mired somehow in “Beats the Shit out of me”!!
On the bright side(!).I endulged in a Tyson climate debate recently,..debunked it by reflecting much of the knowlage(light)i have absorbed here.The parents scoffed utilizing the ‘common sence argument'(i.e. repeat a lie often enough it becomes accepted as truth)yet not one could explain why!(they may as well refer to the koran!)..The children seen right through the sophistry and could easily comprehend tyson’s fraults and this lead them to some very intuitive thoughts and questions about life,the universe,singularities,energy,light,black holes,event horizons,fourier mathermatics etc…and on top of that they were very critical of the ‘know nothing’ education system and promptly began ‘teaching’ their parents..Wamo!
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”-Voltaire
There is “The God Series” …Capisce…!
Nice, Paul.
paul says: 15/01/17 at 9:24 PM
“On the bright side(!).I endulged in a Tyson climate debate recently,..debunked it by reflecting much of the knowlage(light)i have absorbed here.The parents scoffed utilizing the ‘common sence argument'(i.e. repeat a lie often enough it becomes accepted as truth)yet not one could explain why!(they may as well refer to the koran!)..The children seen right through the sophistry and could easily comprehend tyson’s fraults and this lead them to some very intuitive thoughts and questions about life,the universe,singularities,energy,light,black holes,event horizons,fourier mathermatics etc…and on top of that they were very critical of the ‘know nothing’ education system and promptly began ‘teaching’ their parents..Wamo!”
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”-Voltaire
There is “The God Series” …Capisce…
Yes, thank you Paul,
In this near Earth environment there is only a very smart apprentice GOD. One that could identify, and realizes that “all knowing” and “all powerful” are strictly incommensurate, chose one! This near Earth apprentice GOD chose all powerful! This all powerful, created engineers to construct an entity that I do not understand, you do not understand, and no critter large or small upon this construct can ever understand! Else I must fire your young ass, and get engineers that can do what this all powerful must do.
What an amazing wonderful Earth that nothing can understand.
Just look at those young squirrels that do not understand how this planet can be so much fun, including some young girly squirrel-lets!
Now fool earthling, please demonstrate your understanding, or your incompetence.!!
May i suggest the laws of thermodynamics apply to entelechydynamics or monad dynamics.
Here we go beyond materialistic science and climate alarmist propaganda to a non-physical substance,Thinking dynamics!.so to put it another way are the like’s of tyson suggesting dumb’things’ make smart ‘things’??! wtf!.dialetically this may seem a contradiction untill we reach a long overdue synthesis.
However,you cannot make a smart ‘thing’ dumber(although some selfish ‘smarts’ do try),but you sure can make a dumb ‘thing’ smarter and even a smart ‘thing’ even smarter.Its a one way street!
What i am suggesting may seem out of context with the climate alarmist debate….or is it?
Paul, I suspect that there is an underlying archetypal subconscious/unconscious ploy at play here. If cold is dumb and hot is smart (cold is lower frequency, little Becoming, hot is higher frequency, more Becoming), then dumb can’t make smart smarter. Lower frequencies can’t sample or add to higher frequencies due to aliasing, but higher frequency can sample lower frequency, and when added to a lower frequency structure, then increases its energy flux density and temperature. Indeed, it does seem there is some thermodynamic relationships here, and I have suspected that the destruction of our understanding of thermodynamics via climate alarm along with its Abrahamic archetypal content is some subtle materialist ploy to deny mind and retard our development.
Smarter can make dumber smarter, although it is difficult and only works via the brute-force method of hands-on learning via the dialectic, at low levels. But for evolution to occur, then this requires a teleology, a teleological form of evolution, for the Omega Point to represent the “infinitely hot-source” that we’re all being heated up towards. Smart is pulling us up. Cold, dumb, is not pushing us forward or heating us up; it only retards and slows. Cold does not make hot hotter. Dumb does not make smart smarter. However, cold does give work for the hot to do, as dumb gives work for the smart to do.
Your intuition & insight serves you well. God level, or almost there 🙂
So, it seems that some “powers that be” are trying to make people’s minds cold by inverting the truth of thermodynamics via climate alarm, to increase the amount of work that the smart need to do, so that “they” can further maintain whatever the situation is that they would like to to maintain. Which would probably relate to having cold-minded slaves.
Will, read the God Series, and know.
squid2112 says, 2015/01/17 at 11:53 AM:
“I (…) cannot count the number of times I have had to exclaim “slowing cooling does not increase temperature”. But alas, the “slows cooling” sophistication continues unabated.”
If you by ‘cooling’ mean an actual decrease in temperature, then of course slowing such cooling would not increase the temperature again. That’s rather obvious.
If you however mean a system’s Q_out (Q_c), the energy it expels as heat to its cold reservoir, reducing this would surely be able to increase the system’s temperature IF the system’s Q_in (Q_h) (from its hot reservoir, its heat source) remains the same. Q_in > Q_out gives +Q (net heat in/out of the system), thus +U and thus +T.
You mustn’t forget that we’re dealing with two separate heat transfers here, not just one.
Another “cold warms hot” guy.
Are you guys working here? Because you do not seem to be that stupid.
That’s not how it works Kristian.
Q’ does not remain fixed – it tends to zero. Q’ is not an input.
Your terms are incorrect.
Kristian you haven’t been following along – read basically the last 4 or 5 posts.
From Mindert:
I think the problem here is that the cloud blocking the dark moon is going to be warmer than the moon, so blocking the moon is not going to decrease the amount of energy getting to the earth. As to harnessing the energy from the dark moon: the moon’s dark is both colder than the atmosphere, and a very tiny fraction of the angular area of the sky, so the energy is negligible. But you may equally wonder why we don’t harness the much greater energy backradiated from the atmosphere back to the ground? That would be because it is diffuse, high-entropy energy. To be able to use the energy, you’d have to be able to concentrate the energy into a smaller volume, so it could do work, i.e. lower its entropy. But of course because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it would take more energy to do that than you would get back in return.
From squid:
A more accurate example might be: suppose I have a cup of coffee, with a small heating element in it, drawing energy from outside, that has reached equilibrium. If I wrap the cup in a huggy, will the temperature go up? And now, the answer is: yes, it most certainly will.
This is, after all, why people wrap their hot water systems in insulation, though the purpose there is not to increase the temperature, but to reduce the amount of time the heating element needs to run for. But if the insulation lets you get the same temperature with less power, obviously it would increase the temperature if you kept the same power level the same.
Sorry this is wrong. Adding a layer of steel on top of the inner sphere in the steel greenhouse example doesn’t make the sphere hotter. Nor if the sphere were wrapped in a blanket. You can’t take analogies of everyday things where there is an ambient environment with air and convective cooling etc., and infer that some radiative analogue occurs with a radiative greenhouse effect.
The coffee isn’t the source of heat in any case, just as the atmosphere isn’t. Wrapping the coffee cup with insulation won’t increase temperature of the source of heat, the heating element, just like the atmosphere can’t increase the temperature of its source of heat, which is the surface.
That’s why there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
A brilliant example of climate fraudsters demagogy, thank you.
This example can indeed confuse unprepared people, since you did not mention cooling by air convection under usual circumstances, that is where the air temperature is BELOW coffee temperature. So in this particular case the insulation would reduce cooling.
However, and this is what climate liars always forget to mention, if the air temperature is ABOVE the coffee temperature, the insulation would keep coffee COLDER.
Climate scam as usual.
I’m sorry, does anyone else *seriously* believe that if you add insulation around a hot water heater, and keep running it for the same amount of time, it won’t get hotter? We all know that when you dial up the thermostat on a hot water unit, the heater runs for longer to get the higher temperature – that’s why it costs more. When you install insulation on it, it will then run less often to maintain the same temperature, saving money. Obviously, if you then make the heater run as often as it used to, *by turning up the thermostat*, the tank will get hotter. Is this, or is this not, true? (Please address this example directly, without any “look over here at this shiny steel greenhouse” misdirections)
That’s not what we disagreed with Quokka.
And firstly, we don’t need to state simple things here that have no purpose to the cause, secondly, we’re not adding a layer of insulation around the atmosphere, third, you can’t make the coffee hotter by adding creme, or anything else, to it – the most you can do is change the heat capacity of the coffee, and this does not change its final temperature.
To use the analogy: the heating element is the heat generated by the action of sunlight on the surface, then the coffee is the atmosphere, then there is no analogue at all for putting insulation around the mug, or around the hot water heater, etc., because we’re not wrapping the Earth’s atmosphere with insulation. For the coffee, if you add cream it can’t raise its temperature, no matter if the coffee is still on the warmer and you let equilibrium be achieved again; likewise if you add something to the atmosphere (CO2), it can’t change its equilibrium temperature.
Joseph E Postma says: 2015/01/18 at 11:38 AM
“Will, read the God Series, and know.”
Why? What does your God Series have to do with electromagnetic radiation?
You find that out near the end.
Huh? You said “Sorry this is wrong” immediately after quoting my coffee cup and hot water heater examples. But you were actually disagreeing with some other argument that I wasn’t making? How silly of me not to realize that…
It was wrong as an analogy to the greenhouse effect, and otherwise had no reason for being stated.
Joseph E Postma says, 2015/01/18 at 12:50 PM:
“Your terms are incorrect.”
How are my terms incorrect?
I’m talking about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Joe. At dynamic equilibirum (steady state), of course Q remains fixed. It is 0. As much energy comes in per unit time as what goes out. This is pretty basic stuff. ΔU = Q – W. There is no energy transfer to/from the system in the form of ‘work’ [W]. So it’s zero. Which gives: ΔU = Q. Q here is the ‘net heat’, the balance between the energy transferred TO the system as heat (from its hot reservoir) and the energy transferred FROM the system as heat (to its cold reservoir). If these two terms are equal, Q is zero and so is the change in the system’s ‘internal energy’ [ΔU]. We have reached a steady state.
Look, the nuclear power source of the sphere is essentially its hot reservoir (heat source), while the shell is its cold reservoir (heat sink). The nuclear source heats the sphere (Q_in, Q_h), the sphere in turn ‘cools’ (in the sense of ‘losing energy’) to the shell (Q_out, Q_c), heating it. Finally, the shell itself ‘cools’ to space. The energy always flows one way only here. From source to sink. Unidirectionally from the nuclear power source to the sphere to the shell to space. There is no “back radiation” flux anywhere. Only a transfer of energy as radiative heat, from hot to cold. This goes without saying.
However, the rate at which the energy is passed on down the gradient, from one system to the next, has a clear bearing on how fast and how much energy piles up in each system at any particular time.
When the sphere has equilibrated with its nuclear power source, radiating 240 W/m^2 to space from its surface at 255K, then finally its Q_out equals exactly its Q_in and so its Q and hence its ΔU (and ΔT) settles to zero.
Putting the shell up around the sphere at this point, this balance will be perturbed as the radiative heat flux from the sphere starts warming the shell to temperatures beyond the hypothetical absolute zero of space. Then its Q_out can no longer balance its (constant) Q_in. Why not? The Stefan-Boltzmann radiative heat transfer equation explains why: P/A = σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4). As T_c starts rising, P/A (the radiative heat flux from sphere to shell) will naturally decrease (if keeping T_h the same). If this used to be 240 W/m^2, it will now become smaller than this.
So what, you might ask?
Well, there is still energy at an equivalent of 240 W/m^2 continuously entering the sphere from its nuclear energy source within. So now 240 W/m^2 come IN, but less than 240 W/m^2 go OUT. Which can mean only one thing: T_h will have to rise also. To restore balance between the sphere’s Q_in and Q_out.
This is how it works when a system is simultaneously involved in TWO heat transfers, not just one.
Quokka,
“I’m sorry, does anyone else *seriously* believe that if you add insulation around a hot water heater, and keep running it for the same amount of time, it won’t get hotter? We all know that when you dial up the thermostat on a hot water unit, the heater runs for longer to get the higher temperature – that’s why it costs more. When you install insulation on it, it will then run less often to maintain the same temperature, saving money. Obviously, if you then make the heater run as often as it used to, *by turning up the thermostat*, the tank will get hotter. Is this, or is this not, true? (Please address this example directly, without any “look over here at this shiny steel greenhouse” misdirections).”
Solving Tornadoes:
LOL. So, let me get this straight, Quokka. Are you saying that CO2 causes the the sun to shine brighter/longer/hotter?
No Kristian, Q’ goes to zero when steady state is reached. The radiative emission remains fixed from the source, but this is not Q’.
Q’ is the heat flow, not the energy from the source. Q’ between the sphere and the shell goes to zero when the shell achieves the temperature it can given the flux from the sphere. At that point the shell is emitting on its exterior all of the energy it receives from the sphere. The shell never sends heat to the sphere, and the sphere doesn’t warm up because it heated up the shell. This is all the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Kristian. There can be no “pile up” at the sphere because the shell loses all of the energy it receives from the sphere on its exterior.
Again, read the posts, and the discussion comments therein, because this has all already been discussed:
Joseph E Postma says, 2015/01/18 at 4:42 PM:
“To use the analogy: the heating element is the heat generated by the action of sunlight on the surface, then the coffee is the atmosphere, then there is no analogue at all for putting insulation around the mug, or around the hot water heater, etc., because we’re not wrapping the Earth’s atmosphere with insulation.”
You appear to misunderstand the analogy. The heating element heats the coffee, just like the Sun heats the surface of the Earth, which means the analogy is: ‘heating element = Sun’, ‘coffee = Earth’s surface’. The insulation put up around the coffee is equivalent to the atmosphere. The Earth’s surface needs to shed most of its energy to the atmosphere and get it transported up through it in order to get it removed all the way out to space, the ultimate heat sink. In the same way, the heated coffee needs to shed its energy through the insulating layer rather than directly to the air surrounding the cup, its final heat sink.
The atmosphere simply insulates the solar-heated surface of the Earth. By being warmer (and heavier) than space.
There is precisely the mistake. If P/A is the radiative heat flux from the sphere to the shell, and this has to remain constant, then what is T_h^4? Your terms are wrong and have been misplaced, double-placed, and misinterpreted.
P/A is σ*T_h^4. P/A is not equal to Q’. Q’ is the heat flow, and as you seemed to agree, Q’ tends to zero as equilibrium is achieved. Yet you’re trying to say that Q’ = P/A and must remain constant. This is wrong.
Q’ is the instantaneous heat flow and it tends to zero as thermal equilibrium, steady state, is achieved. Your equation should be Q’ = σ(P/A – T_c^4); this places the terms in the right place and with the correct meaning, but the math isn’t quite complete yet as the source term needs inverse square scaling. It’s all on the links I’ve provided for you, plus this one:
The correct equation for the heat flow at the shell from the sphere:
Q’sh = Ash*σ*[Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 – Tsh4]
and so
Tsh = Tsp * (rsp/rsh)1/2
where Tsh is determined by the power source, what you’ve written as P/A.
Quokka said ‘I think the problem here is that the cloud blocking the dark moon is going to be warmer than the moon’. Etc.
You try to escape by smoke and mirrors. Cloud of liquid hydrogen droplets would suffice. If you can find a shady spot under the sun, you can also find it under the moon (with same apparent size). You do not need an atmosphere at all for the experiment. The claim is that back radiation slows down the cooling rate of an emitter. So you should shield it in one condition and not in the other (paradigm of the experimental/control group design). The set-up implies a temperature difference, and that implies work. In the case of hot radiation one spot becomes warmer than the other, in the case of cold radiation one spot should become less cool than the other. Both texts have the same meaning: warmer is the same as less cooler.
So we have a design with emitter E and two receivers A and B. At the start T(A) = T(B), without time notation. Shielding B (preventing it to be a receiver) gives T(A)>T(B). If this were always true, it would be for T(E)>T(A) and T(E)<=T(A). The latter violates the Second Law.
Joseph E Postma says, 2015/01/18 at 5:14 PM:
“No Kristian, Q’ goes to zero when steady state is reached. The radiative emission remains fixed from the source, but this is not Q’.”
Joe, you’re talking about this situation as if there is only one heat transfer. If there were only the heat transfer between the sphere and the shell, then you would be right, then the heat flux between them would go to zero upon reaching final equilibrium.
But you can’t have that situation when heat is coming up from behind through another, simultaneously occurring heat transfer, the one constantly operating between the nuclear power source and the sphere. The sphere can’t have no heat going OUT when the heat IN remains constant. Then energy supplied from its source will pile up inside its mass. Its Q_out needs to equal its Q_in. In order to maintain the dynamic equilibrium. Just like the shell needs to shed as much energy per unit time AS HEAT from its outer surface to space as comes in AS HEAT to its inner surface from the sphere. At dynamic equilibrium.
[JP: The nuclear source is the source of power, the source of raw energy. It represents power, P, not Q’, heat. This power if emitting uniformly over the sphere gives it its uniform temperature. It is energy that needs to be conserved, not the heat flow. P_out needs to equal P_in, whereas the Q’ between the sphere and shell at the shell goes to zero. You’re clearly ignoring the links and maths I’ve been linking for you to answer this.]
“Q’ is the heat flow, not the energy from the source. Q’ between the sphere and the shell goes to zero when the shell achieves the temperature it can given the flux from the sphere. At that point the shell is emitting on its exterior all of the energy it receives from the sphere. The shell never sends heat to the sphere, and the sphere doesn’t warm up because it heated up the shell. This is all the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Kristian. There can be no “pile up” at the sphere because the shell loses all of the energy it receives from the sphere on its exterior.”
This makes no sense. The radiative heat is all there is, Joe. THAT is the energy transferred from the sphere to the shell. The heat is what we always physically detect. Because that is the actual energy transfer in a heat transfer. The two temperature terms on the righthand side of the equation is merely mathematical constructs. They are not real, separate fluxes of energy. They are potentials only. They would only be real, separate fluxes of energy (as a matter of fact, radiative heat fluxes) if the opposing objects were thermally isolated from one another and radiating into a vacuum at 0 K.
You seem to adhere firmly to the bidirectional principle, only thinking that the “back radiation” somehow doesn’t ‘do’ anything. Even though, thermodynamically, it must. You say: “There can be no “pile up” at the sphere because the shell loses all of the energy it receives from the sphere on its exterior.” But this is exactly what WOULD happen in your scenario. It loses all energy, but gets just as much back from the shell, hence heat = 0. Hence ‘piling up’ of “back radiated” energy?!! And you appear fine with this. I’m surprised. When the heat is zero, Joe, there is no energy transfer, by definition, by the most fundamental principles of thermodynamics.
[JP: Here is the definition of radiative heat flow: Q’ = A*σ*(Th^4 – Tc^4). Therefore there is no heat from the shell to the sphere since heat only goes from hot to cold, and therefore the sphere can’t rise in temperature further when it heats up the shell. This is First Law of Thermodynamics stuff. And the math is in the link for you. Thermodynamically, a cold source does not heat up a warmer source.
Q’ goes to zero when steady state is reached, so that Th = Tc (as from the previous equation which is for plane parallel, or as per the other equation from the previous comment if you add in inverse square for the sphere and shell…i.e. Tsh = Tsp * (rsp/rsh)1/2).
When Q’ = 0, then all of the power from the source, which is the σ*Th^4 term, is lost on the outside of the shell, which is the σ*Tc^4 term.]
Sorry that’s just complete nonsense Kristian.
The heating element for the atmosphere is the Earth’s surface, but the power source for the Earth surface heating element is the sunshine. Just like how the power source for the heating element inside the coffee comes from elsewhere, but the element is the heat source. So your analogy is wrong – the Sun is the power source, not the heating element…that’s your mistake. The electrical grid is the power source, not the heating element. The electrical grid = the sun.
The only correct analogy would be: outside power source for heating element = sunshine; heating element = earth surface; coffee = atmosphere; insulation around coffee mug = analogy for climate pseudoscience greenhouse effect breaks down because there is no insulation being put around the atmosphere, and adding anything to the coffee doesn’t change its equilibrium temperature.
Always be sure to check your logic before making comments; otherwise, learn from your mistakes. The Sun is the power source, the electrical grid is the power source. The Earth surface is the heat source, the heating element is the heat source, etc.
Clever sophistry though, your attempt to explain it that way. Very nice job of sophistry – not that you intended it, just hope you see the correction now.
Joseph E Postma says, 2015/01/18 at 5:28 PM:
“There is precisely the mistake. If P/A is the radiative heat flux from the sphere to the shell, and this has to remain constant, then what is T_h^4? Your terms are wrong and have been misplaced, double-placed, and misinterpreted.”
Nope. T_h^4 isn’t anything. It is just a mathematical term to help calculate the heat if knowing the two opposing temperatures. The heat (the P/A) is the actual, physical transfer of energy between the sphere and the shell. The T-terms on the righthand side are just potentials generating the spontaneous transfer. They WOULD’VE been separate radiative heat fluxes only if the two objects were thermally isolated and radiating straight into a surrounding vacuum at 0 K.
[JP: A “potential” can only exist if there is energy behind it, therefore the T_h^4 and T_c^4 terms represent real energy and temperatures. There’s no such thing as a phantom potential that “isn’t anything”, that isn’t real, as this is simply completely illogical and irrational. P/A is the surface flux of the source, the sphere, and determines its temperature. This is still real when a shell is put around the sphere (lol!). And this energy is what is required to maintain the shell’s temperature because once steady state is reached, the shell loses all of the energy it receives from the sphere, i.e. when Q’ = 0.
“T_h^4 isn’t anything. It is just a mathematical term to help calculate the heat if knowing the two opposing temperatures.”
Umm….T_h is one of the temperatures! It is certainly something.
Anyway, you’re obviously another troll, probably one of the same ones, under yet a new name. Kind of like another Cotton…yes. It was fun debunking your sophistry with the coffee mug though.]
Kristian says: “The insulation put up around the coffee is equivalent to the atmosphere.”
===================================
This so blatantly wrong that I strongly disagree with Joe’s estimation “not that you intended it”. It is the same old pattern of fooling people we are well familiar with.
We have “greenhouse effect” fraud exposed by simple arithmetical means, so it is quite understandable that fraudsters would come and take us to coffee, blankets and the usual stuff.
Joseph E Postma says, 2015/01/18 at 5:50 PM:
“So your analogy is wrong – the Sun is the power source, not the heating element…that’s your mistake. The electrical grid is the power source, not the heating element. The electrical grid = the sun.”
It’s an analogy, Joe. It’s very simple. The heating element functions as the provider of energy through heat to the coffee. Thus it is EQUIVALENT TO the Sun and the coffee is equivalent to the surface of the Earth. What’s the point in stating that the energy ultimately comes from the ‘electrical grid’? I mean, it only makes it appear as though you’re trying to avoid the issue. You might as well say that the energy radiated from the Sun to us originally came from the nuclear fusion process going on inside the Sun. So what? It doesn’t matter. The heating element is the thing heating the coffee, USING energy from the electrical grid. What difference does it make!? It is still equivalent to the Sun heating the surface of the Earth.
Well, anyway, we don’t seem to get anywhere, the opinions here seem to be pretty entrenched. So I’ll withdraw. Sorry I bothered you with my obvious ‘sophistry’ 🙂
And so you’ve ignored the logic of how the analogy was wrong and why this was important, and how it has nothing to do with radiative greenhouse effect anyway.
And you talk about entrenched…lol. There is always shame in bowing out when your analogy is debunked.
No, the heating element is where the energy gets dissipated as heat, to cause heating. Hence, where is the actual energy coming from in the first place? The electrical grid. And same went for surface of Earth – the surface is the heater, but it gets its energy from the Sun.
So yes, the heating element is what heats the coffee, just as the surface of the Earth is what heats the atmosphere. But we’re not putting insulation around the atmosphere.
You can’t just make up illogical analogies and then expect people to accept the necessarily half-baked conclusions. It identifies you as a sophist 🙂
Although you also have the -g/Cp thing happening in the atmosphere too, leading to the bottom of the atmosphere being warmer than the middle-average.
m Joseph E Postma says, 2015/01/18 at 5:28 PM:
Who pray tell said this?
————————————————————————————————————————-
Putting the shell up around the sphere at this point, this balance will be perturbed as the radiative heat flux from the sphere starts warming the shell to temperatures beyond the hypothetical absolute zero of space. Then its Q_out can no longer balance its (constant) Q_in. Why not? The Stefan-Boltzmann radiative heat transfer equation explains why: P/A = σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4). As T_c starts rising, P/A (the radiative heat flux from sphere to shell) will naturally decrease (if keeping T_h the same). If this used to be 240 W/m^2, it will now become smaller than this.
———————————————————————————————————???
T_h cannot remain the same as it must radiate P power outward P is the isopower, space is the isotherm, both T_h and T_c are the two “variables” that you solve for!!! T_c must radiate P from its surface area to space or any other lower temperature. T_h must radiate the same P to the shell. Solve for both Ts and the surface flux P/A of the shell and the sphere. Nothing can can radiate proportional to its own T^4 as there is no zero Kelvin.
Joseph E Postma says, 2015/01/18 at 5:28 PM
(“There is precisely the mistake. If P/A is the radiative heat flux from the sphere to the shell, and this has to remain constant, then what is T_h^4? Your terms are wrong and have been misplaced, double-placed, and misinterpreted.”)
You two seem to be on the Echenbach shell thingy and not on the Earth and its Atmosphere correct ? If so:
T_h is the temperature the sphere must achieve to be able to radiate P power
T_h^4 Is proportional to the radiance of the sphere T_c^4 is proportional to the radiance of the shell. The only flux is in the direction of the lower radiance and always proportional to the “difference” in the two radiances.
From the surface of the earth no radiative flux need be generated
Kristian says: 2015/01/18 at 5:54 PM
Nope. T_h^4 isn’t anything. It is just a mathematical term to help calculate the heat if knowing the two opposing temperatures. The heat (the P/A) is the actual, physical transfer of energy between the sphere and the shell. The T-terms on the righthand side are just potentials generating the spontaneous transfer. They WOULD’VE been separate radiative heat fluxes only if the two objects were thermally isolated and radiating straight into a surrounding vacuum at 0 K.
Correct!
[JP: A “potential” can only exist if there is energy behind it, therefore the T_h^4 and T_c^4 terms represent real energy and temperatures.]
An electromagnetic field potential requires no energy to maintain. power is needed only if flux is generated. Any temperature surface without a power source will decrease tn temperature and radiance.
[JP:There’s no such thing as a phantom potential that “isn’t anything”, that isn’t real, as this is simply completely illogical and irrational.]
Field strength is easily measured The measured ‘radiance” is not flux it is only “field strength” normalized for distance.
[JP:P/A is the surface flux of the source, the sphere, and determines its temperature.].
Only as related to the enclosing environment. The shell is at higher temperature than its surroundings and the source (sphere) must be at a higher temperature than the shell for it to radiate anything.
[JP:This is still real when a shell is put around the sphere (lol!). And this energy is what is required to maintain the shell’s temperature because once steady state is reached, the shell loses all of the energy it receives from the sphere, i.e. when Q’ = 0.]
What might be your Q’? If a change in energy or temperature of the shell this is correct If the power transfer between shell and surrounds or radiative power between sphere and shell both remain exactly at P.
[JP:“T_h^4 isn’t anything. It is just a mathematical term to help calculate the heat if knowing the two opposing temperatures.” Umm….T_h is one of the temperatures! It is certainly something.]
T_h^4 is 0ne of the two “terms” inside the parentheses of the S-B equation, nothing else. Solving the value inside the parenthesis gives a value proportional to the one way flux. To use the terms independently, violates arithmetic, science, and is a great part of the largest scam in history.
From Solving Tornadoes:
No idea how anyone could conclude that from anything I said. We were, after all, talking about a case in which the input power to a system was being kept constant.
Will, you guys are using P (power) wrong, and you’re using Q’ (heat) wrong. Q’ is not equal to P.
You fellows’ P/A = σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4) or P = A*σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4) is wrong.
The correct equation is Q’ = A*σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4), and P, what is being referred to as the input power, is the A*σ(T_h^4) term. That is, Q’ = P – A*σ*T_c^4.
So, P remains constant, and Q’ tends to zero.
Now to write the equation correctly since we’re still talking about the sphere and shell, then we have:
Q’sh = Ash*σ*[Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 – Tsh4]
Start with the sphere. It has an input power P, which determines its surface flux as P/Asp, which determines its temperature as P/Asp = σTsp4. So, the input power P = AspσTsp4.
Going back to Q’sh, the equation simplifies to
Q’sh = Asp*σ*Tsp4 – Ash*σ*Tsh4
= P – Ash*σ*Tsh4
Thus, input power is constant, the shell loses all the energy it receives from the power from the sphere when Q’ = 0, and the sphere doesn’t rise in temperature.
Quokka, are these not your words:
“Obviously, if you then make the heater run as often as it used to, *by turning up the thermostat*, the tank will get hotter.”
I never cease to be amazed how anyone can defend K & T’s energy budget !
Climate alarmists claim the diagram is meant to represent some form “reality” and thus “prove” greenhouse warming.
They then tell us we must switch to solar energy !
Now my solar panels have the following properties:-
745 x 1581 mm for total surface area of ~1.2 square metres.
Maximum efficiency 15.6 % at 1000 Watts insolation – obviously efficiency decreases as input power decreases.
Rated power of 200 Watts +- 3% – this is a “nominal” figure with “up to 195 Watts” actually proven under testing.
Total power at insolation of 235 W/sqm. = 1.2 x 15.6/100 x 235 = ~44 Watts versus rated power of 200 Watts.
You decide who the liar is – the solar power manufacturer or K & T.
Then climate alarmists smugly claim sceptics don’t understand averages – which is the real purpose of energy budgets.
Just like we don’t understand a cake mix in an oven for 1 hour at 180 degrees C is subject to a total power input of ~2.39 kWhrs.
And just like we don’t understand the same cake mix in a deep freeze at minus 18 degrees C for 10 hours is subject to a total power input of ~2.39 kWhrs.
Yum !
That’s exactly the difference between physics and sophistry. I mean, they teach little children these ideas about cooking food, and the difference in physics that occurs if you try such averaging methods…lol.
Joseph E Postma says: 2015/01/19 at 8:30 AM
Will Janoschka says: 2015/01/18 at 11:30 PM
(“What might be your Q’? If a change in energy or temperature of the shell this is correct If the power transfer between shell and surrounds or radiative power between sphere and shell both remain exactly at P.”)
“Will, you guys are using P (power) wrong, and you’re using Q’ (heat) wrong. Q’ is not equal to P.”
Gee I ask What might be your Q’, with hints? All I get from Joe is what it is not, “it”is not P. Again Is Q’ the “change”in energy or temperature of the shell or of the sphere? If Q’ is not this, it must remain as your fantasy.
Perhaps you can define Q’ in words rather than a make believe equation.
“You fellows’ P/A = σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4) or P = A*σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4) is wrong.”
As long as you “avoid” using zero Kelvin as one of the temperatures, (zero Kelvin is an asymptote and cannot be raised to any power greater than unity. As a maximum flux or power the S-B equation has been demonstrated over and over as correct.
In my physical demonstration both Ts were slightly higher than calculated, as my guess at emissivity was also to high. Change the temperature of space “isotherm” to 0 Celsius with a radius of 6 cm. the shell radius to 4.5 cm and the sphere radius to 3 cm. Let P be the sensible heat continuously generated by a 5 watt powered resistor. Please compute Tsphere, and Tshell. recalculate Tsphere with only the shell removed. Now explain your calculations and from measurement determine the correct emissivity to use!
Joe, your misconception of zero is obvious!
Joseph E Postma says: 2015/01/19 at 8:30 AM
“The correct equation is Q’ = A*σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4), and P, what is being referred to as the input power, is the A*σ(T_h^4) term. That is, Q’ = P – A*σ*T_c^4.
So, P remains constant, and Q’ tends to zero.”
“Now to write the equation correctly since we’re still talking about the sphere and shell, then we have: Q’sh = Ash*σ*[Tsp4 * (rsp/rsh)2 – Tsh4]”
“Start with the sphere. It has an input power P, which determines its surface flux as P/Asp, which determines its temperature as P/Asp = σTsp4. So, the input power P = AspσTsp4.”
No never! P is simply P an isopower that will adjust the temperature of the sphere to whatever is required to dissipate that power to the shell at whatever temperature the shell must become to dissipate power P to space.
Joseph E Postma says: 2015/01/19 at 8:30 AM
“Going back to Q’sh, the equation simplifies to
Q’sh = Asp*σ*Tsp4 – Ash*σ*Tsh4 = P – Ash*σ*Tsh4″
Thus, input power is constant, the shell loses all the energy it receives from the power from the sphere when Q’ = 0, and the sphere doesn’t rise in temperature.”
Joe this is correct except for “the sphere doesn’t rise in temperature.”
The only way the sphere can possibly radiate power P under P = Asp*σ(T_sp^4 – T_sh^4) is for T_sp to increase above T_sh so that difference in the parenthesis provides just that P.
Please stop with the Climate Clown nonsense, that via “thermal electromagnetic radiation” anything must, or can possibly, emit strictly according to self T_h^4.
Electromagnetic radiative flux refuses to behave as in your mechanistic concept. Such flux is “always limited” by any opposing “radiance” proportional to T_c^4. The temperature effect from Willis “is correct”, It is the explanation of Willis and you, that contradict all of Maxwell’s equations and violate Kirchhoff’s laws of electromagnetic radiation. What nonsense of EMR does your God series present?
I simply cannot believe people can’t see what you write –
“So, P remains constant, and Q’ tends to zero”; and,
“Thus, input power is constant, the shell loses all the energy it receives from the power from the sphere when Q’ = 0, and the sphere doesn’t rise in temperature.”
Is exactly what EVERY physics text writes.
Steel Greenhouse supporters all make the same mistake of treating the NET energy as some sort of real flux and of course it isn’t.
Again this is exactly what EVERY physics text writes.
It is merely the difference between the flux emitted by 2 objects at different temperatures – nothing more !
In the net equation the sphere emits a real flux because it has a temperature. Likewise for the shell.
I have seen logic twisted in amazing ways including that P = Ae sigmaT^4 only happens in a zero Kelvin vacuum environment. This “fact” is then used to torture the energy out of nothing Steel Greenhouse effect !
The fact that this is total bullshit is self evident – surely ?
How did real physicists like Stefan, Boltzmann and Planck derive their equations on Earth if it is only true in a zero Kelvin vacuum environment ??
They ignore the fact that without a source of energy in a “zero Kelvin vacuum environment” everything will slowly cool to the environmental conditions.
The Shell in the Steel Greenhouse REQUIRES all of the output from the sphere to simply maintain itself at a temperature where it radiates half over double surface area.
There is no “back radiation” accumulating.
I have never seen one reputable reference source that says that a radiation shield causes the emitter to increase in temperature despite all claiming the radiation emission is reduced by a factor of half.
The total output from the sphere is required to cause half that output by the shell.
That may not be correct BUT it is what every reputable text reference says.
And of course this satisfies the SB equation with q(net) = 50%. The advocates of the Steel Greenhouse ignore the very real requirement that ALL of the sphere’s output is “used” up by the shell.
This “back radiation” heating to preserve flux is simply a delusion !
Joseph E Postma says:
2015/01/18 at 3:02 PM
Joseph, I don’t see how you do it. At this point I think I would totally blow my stack. You know, you have been criticized from time to time for being harsh. I would like to now criticize you for NOT being harsh.
My goodness … why is it that every time one points out something so simple, such an incredibly simple and empirically observable process to someone, they have to come back with some stupid ass bullshit extension to sophisticate what you have empirically demonstrated to them, something that is irrefutable!!!
Quokka, sorry to tell you yet again. Joseph and I are correct! … YOU are yet again demonstrably wrong! for all of the reasons Joe has just laid out for you. Sheeeeeesh….
Greg House says:
2015/01/18 at 3:07 PM
Yes, good observation and well put!
Joseph, What nonsense of EMR does your God series present?
Perhaps it presents the same mechanical concept as Miles Mathis?
Thermal electromagnetic flux requires no mass whatsoever, only a temperature and some power to maintain that temperature under a transfer of power. All mass can have zero magnitude. In such case all re-thermalisation to radiative equilibrium is at the speed of light over any physical distance EMR is always relativistic never mechanical!
From SolvingTornadoes, who said “LOL. So, let me get this straight, Quokka. Are you saying that CO2 causes the the sun to shine brighter/longer/hotter?”.
That’s right. The tank, in this case, is the object receiving the energy, not the object sending the energy. So, not really analogous to the sun. Turning up the thermostat does not have the grid supply more power than it used to; it was done, as I explicitly stated, to have the grid once again supply the same amount of power that it originally did. Not too hard to comprehend, I would have thought.
Please read carefully these words, which you actually quoted above: “if you then make the heater run as often as it used to”. Particularly the last 6 of them.
B I N G O ! ! !
Spot on Greg! …. I throw out an extremely simple example to show that “slowing cooling” is NOT “additional heating” … And since the sophists cannot refute what I have said, they begin to twist and turn and extend and nash to try to complicate the whole thing so badly, in hopes that they can somehow trick you into believing their sophistry. Complete rubbish! That’s all that they are capable of. Pure, unadulterated crap!
Back to my coffee “thought experiment” … I have done as Quokka has suggested. This time I placed my coffee into a sealed thermal coffee cup (with closed lid, etc..) to reduce the cooling effect of convection. Now, I have added to my coffee cup a heating element. An element that can only heat itself to 200°F (or 93.33°C). Get that? … the ELEMENT is restricted to a temperature of 200°F by way of the amount of energy (electricity) supplied to it. I check my thermometer and voila! … it also reads 200°F … now, I have surrounded the enclosed coffee mug with 200lbs (90.71kg) of fiberglass insulation, and I let it all sit there for 12hrs just as is. In the morning I awake to go check my thermometer. What do you suppose my thermometer is reading now? What temperature is the heating element now? What temperature is the coffee now?
200°F … YES, BOTH 200 FREAKING DEGREES! … [end of story]
Sheeesh … this is not brain surgery here, although, at this point, I would almost contend that brain surgery would probably be an easier task …. sheeeesh…
And for you sophists out there, you can replace the 200lbs of fiberglass insulation with a steel shell (cage, suit, whatever) and the results will be exactly the same. Just as Joseph has painstakingly detailed with specific maths that strictly adhere to physical law (aka: PHYSICS).
haha nice Squid! Cool stuff! 🙂
The point Quokka is that your analogy is illogical. It’s not salvageable and there is no point in anyone agreeing to the illogical terms just so that a sophistical point can be made out of those terms.
As I understand it one of the main claims about the validity of K & T’s energy budget is that the values are “measured” – presumably by pyrgeometers.
A pyrgeometer uses the same algebraic manipulations of the SB equation as the Steel Greenhouse effect !
“The pyrgeometer’s thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below
E(net) = U(emf)/S.”
“E(in) = U(emf)/S + sigmaT^4.”
The pyrgeometer has shields which effectively screen all shortwave radiation below 3 microns thus ensuring only longwave radiation enters to be detected by the device.
The problems I see with the explanation of these devices are :-
1. I am not convinced that the algebraic manipulations of the SB equation are any more valid than in the Steel Greenhouse effect; and,
2. The screening “window” may well not transmit shortwave radiation but what happens to it ?
Of course it is absorbed, heats the window and is emitted as long wave radiation – some out and some in.
And this longwave from the “window” may well be significantly more than the longwave from the atmosphere thus the value of U(emf)/S CANNOT be due to longwave radiation from the atmosphere alone – if at all.
Even if these devices are employing sound technology they simply must be recording shortwave radiation absorbed by the window and transformed into long wave as the “window” is an excellent absorber and emitter.
So what does the value of U(emf)/S really measure ?
And how much do these devices costs ?
They start at >$5000 – a whole new industry and money making scheme based on climate alarm !
They just measure the balance of heat flow Rosco, and convert the resulting voltage to a temperature from calibration in manufacture etc. They do not work by cold heating hot, but by hot heating cold only.
http://climateblogcritique.homestead.com/PSI.html
The 168W/m^2 is the correct mean for reasons explained in the linked page on our group’s website.
No the Sun does not melt ice in all cases. It is usually conduction from ambient air that is above freezing point which does the melting. Consider snow on the top of Mt Everest. The solar radiation is even more intense up there with less absorption and reflection by clouds and atmosphere. Yet the snow never melts away – not in a billion years.
[JP: Note that this is an alias for Doug Cotton, internet climate troll extraordinaire. Henceforth auto-send to spam bin.
The value of the average isn’t the problem. We’re not disagreeing with the value of the average. The problem is that this average represents nothing about the reality of the physics that actually occurs in real-time by the action induced by sunlight. It is that action which drives the climate. So what then is real, and what should we consider to learn about the physics: the real time action, or the abstract average? The answer is obvious but to internet trolls, criminals, and insane people.
Snow on the top of Mt. Everest has almost unit albedo, and the air is very cold. Give the sunshine something dark to shine on and protect it from the cold wind, and you will definitely see temperature approaching 100C from that sunlight. Just because the air is extremely cold on top of a mountain doesn’t mean that the Sun doesn’t drive the climate.]
The Sun’s direct solar radiation cannot explain the Venus surface temperature, nor that of Earth. The explanation of the observed heating on Earth, Venus etc is at http://##########
[JP: No one claimed it for Venus. Direct sunshine does indeed dictate why surface temperatures can get as high as 70C or more on the Earth. Then we also have the latent heat release from water affecting night time temperatures locally, and global temperatures due to the ocean. And then we also have the -g/Cp atmospheric temperature gradient as popularized by Hans Jelbring, which dictates purely mathematically that the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the average of the atmosphere, and the average is necessarily not found at the bottom, but the middle.
You haven’t added anything to this debate Cotton, just stole other people’s work and invented some idea that heat “creeps” from cold to hot, from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom, instead of “flows“, as if that change in wording makes a difference…lol.
And when asked for the math to demonstrate and explain your hypothesis, your response to us at PSI was that “physics isn’t limited to mathematics and mathematical proofs or demonstrations”. LOL!
Right, can’t forget the leaches and the alchemical allegories! That’s where real physics is found!
Stop seeking approval from us Doug. We’ve unanimously rejected your work.]
Postma writes: “Is the atmosphere a source of energy?”
Yes. Because it absorbs incident solar radiation which it then transfers to the surface, not by radiation but by downward convective heat transfer as we can deduce from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It may have taken many years to accumulate that energy in the solid Earth and oceans, but so what? The energy can’t escape because the temperature gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
[JP: The sun has raw energy being released inside it due to atoms reducing their nuclear binding energy via fusion and thus liberating energy. In chemical processes energy is released from electron-orbital changes in energy.
The atmosphere has no such process occurring inside it, thus is not a source of energy.
Just because an object has a temperature does not mean it is a power source. The atmosphere is not a source of power, and has no internal source of power. It is a passive receiver only. It does not provide more heat via radiation to the surface.]
Quokka says
“I’m sorry, does anyone else *seriously* believe that if you add insulation around a hot water heater, and keep running it for the same amount of time, it won’t get hotter? We all know that when you dial up the thermostat on a hot water unit, the heater runs for longer to get the higher temperature – that’s why it costs more. When you install insulation on it, it will then run less often to maintain the same temperature, saving money. Obviously, if you then make the heater run as often as it used to, *by turning up the thermostat*, the tank will get hotter. Is this, or is this not, true? (Please address this example directly, without any “look over here at this shiny steel greenhouse” misdirections)
Well I’m sorry but I don’t get your point.
Of course the final temperature is determined by the energy input and losses.
BUT climate science is NOT claiming a reduced cooling rate under constant input from the Sun causes global warming – they explicitly claim a “back radiative” greenhouse effect due to “radiation trapping” and re-emission of radiation heating the surface more than the Sun can.
It is right there in the K& T diagram – 168 versus 324 !
The theoretical maximum the Sun could heat the Earth’s surfaces to is about 87 degrees C based on an albedo of about 0.3 and “instantaneous” response to input radiation heating. The highest surface temperature – NOT air temperature – recorded is 70.7 degrees C observed by Landsat in a desert with almost no humidity – i.e. low GHG concentrations.
It is obvious our atmosphere, but more importantly water, reduces the maximum heating effect of the solar radiation. The oceans store enormous quantities of energy with very little increase in temperature compared to land surfaces due to the heat capacity of water and the ability to convect the heat around.
If greenhouse gases act as insulation why does K & T claim they are responsible for ~83% of Earth’s energy loss ? 195/235 x 100 = ~83 %.
I think there is irrefutable evidence that gases have a low radiative power as Professor Wood stated more than a century ago.
At northern or southern latitudes the dominant factor determining the temperature is the time when the Sun does not shine. During the period after the Sun sets the surfaces convect and radiate their energy away even though the oceans and atmosphere circulate warmth from the tropics.
The temperature drops over a period of time – not instantaneously.
I heard a prominent Australian warmist quote that the Earth’s period is significantly longer today than the past – 24 hours versus 18 hours. The change is a small fraction of a second per year.
To my mind such an 18 hour period Earth must be hotter than today – true the solar heating time is reduced but so is the cooling period and the heating effect is much more powerful.
Ignoring the period in favour of the so-called “blackbody” value does not agree with observations – such an earth should be no different in temperature. GHG concentrations appear to have little correlation with the historical temperature proxy records.
Similarly an Earth with zero Axial tilt would be hotter – there would be very little area where the sun didn’t heat.
The period he was quoting was the Jurassic which was significantly warmer than today and definitely not due to man made Greenhouse Gas emissions.
But Quokka I’m not sure I get your point.
squid2112 says: 2015/01/19 at 3:52 PM
“Back to my coffee “thought experiment” … I have done as Quokka has suggested. This time I placed my coffee into a sealed thermal coffee cup (with closed lid, etc..) to reduce the cooling effect of convection. Now, I have added to my coffee cup a heating element. An element that can only heat itself to 200°F (or 93.33°C).”
Why is it restricted to 200°F (or 93.33°C)? Does it have some sort of thermostat, to prevent in from burning the house down, as is required by law in the US?
“Get that? … the ELEMENT is restricted to a temperature of 200°F by way of the amount of energy (electricity) supplied to it.”
Not at all it can only be limited by thermostat (stopping any more power, or be able to dissipate exactly that power “somehow” at that temperature). Without dissipation of exactly that power the temperature is unlimited. This is the all of thermodynamics!! All temperatures and all flux must spontaneously correct themselves until “proper” thermodynamic equilibrium ( post normal science called steady state for some unexplained reason).
“I check my thermometer and voila! … it also reads 200°F … now, I have surrounded the enclosed coffee mug with 200lbs (90.71kg) of fiberglass insulation, and I let it all sit there for 12hrs just as is. In the morning I awake to go check my thermometer. What do you suppose my thermometer is reading now? What temperature is the heating element now? What temperature is the coffee now?
200°F … YES, BOTH 200 FREAKING DEGREES! … [end of story]”
Can you do no arithmetic whatsoever? Even with a small continuous 5 watt heater (not shut off) and 1 kilogram of coffee After 12 hours that very 5 Watts would have accumulated 2.16 kiloJoules of energy attempting to increase the temperature of that coffee to 219.44 °F. By that time the whole thing would have asploded! Then the heater would burn your house down. Is not wonderful that the thermostat “is required by law in the US”, so that someone that cannot do sixth grade arithmetic, also cannot burn the house down?
Will, if there is an independent ambient thermal environment, then this environment has its own source of power or reason for existing. If there is an ambient environment, then the temperature of the powered object is not supported entirely by the manual input of additional power it is given. The additional power just bumps the temperature of the powered source up a bit, it doesn’t maintain the entire temperature of the source since the ambient environment already provided a temperature to the source before power was applied to it.
If we have the sphere and shell, and everything is at the same ambient temperature, then Q’ = 0 = Psp – Psh because Psp = Psh = Pamb. No heat flows anywhere. Now all you do is add some power Pin to the sphere, thus,
(Pamb + Pin)sp = Asp*σ*Tsp4
and then from before the usual equation for heat flow,
Q’sh = Asp*σ*Tsp4 – Ash*σ*Tsh4
Therefore
Q’ = (Pamb + Pin)sp – Ash*σ*Tsh4
The sphere has a higher temperature from the new power, and then the shell rises in temperature due to the additional source of power from the sphere inside it, and the shell emits the additional power to the ambient environment on its exterior because when Q’ = 0 at steady state
Ash*σ*Tsh4 = (Pamb + Pin)sp
The new power term is accounted for along with the ambient power, resulting in a higher shell temperature than if there were no ambient thermal environment at all. All energy is conserved. There is no backradiation heating and there is no pileup, or whatever you want to call it.
If the second term isn’t the shell, but is still just the ambient environment, then all we have is
Q’ = (Pamb + Pin) – Pamb = Pin
and that can stay that way if the ambient environment is an infinite heat sink, no matter if it is at 0K or not. The temperature of the powered object is not supported entirely by its manual input power when there is an ambient thermal environment, and so your equation with P replaced for Q’ on the left hand side is wrong.
You guys keep putting P on the left hand side and claim it has to remain constant. You simply do not understand the heat flow equation and have probably never seen it in a textbook. Read that textbook and learn.
It is Q’ on the left hand side, and Q’ represents the amount of energy going in to object B to raise is temperature. And Q’ tends to zero, given the input and the receiver. Q’ for the sphere is never positive from the shell to the sphere. All power and energy is accounted for and the sphere is given no possible reason to rise in temperature due to the shell being present.
@Will, insulation doesn’t make the furnace burn hotter. And it won’t make the element hotter. Insulation is about reducing convection and impeding loss of warm air, not making the source hotter.
If the sphere from the steel greenhouse were wrapped in another layer of steel, this wouldn’t increase temperature. And you can replace that layer of steel with a layer of anything else with the same emissivity – it won’t increase the temperature of the sphere, or the element, etc. As Squid has easily demonstrated at home. There is no such thing as “heat pile up”. That simply doesn’t exist. Like unicorns. You can think of it…but it doesn’t occur.
Rosco says: “GHG concentrations appear to have little correlation with the historical temperature proxy records”
==========================
I do not think it is a good idea to refer to “global temperature” nonsense, particularly when the “greenhouse effect” scam has already been refuted by the simplest arithmetical means easily comprehensible to everyone.
Dr Alex Hamilton says: 2015/01/19 at 5:10 PM
Postma writes: (“Is the atmosphere a source of energy?”)
“Yes. Because it absorbs incident solar radiation which it then transfers to the surface, not by radiation but by downward convective heat transfer as we can deduce from the Second Law of Thermodynamics”
NO never, Please reread your 2LTD as expressed by Clausius. This has nothing to do with entropy only with the necessary conditions for spontaneous power transfer, the negative of
work.
“It may have taken many years to accumulate that energy in the solid Earth and oceans, but so what? The energy can’t escape because the temperature gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.”
The lapse rate is a thermostatic and hydrostatic gradient administered by gravitational force. Both convection and latent heat of evaporation are never limited by gravity. They are enhanced by gravity to maintain all equilibrium including EM flux, and hydrodynamic equilibrium.
Joseph E Postma says: 2015/01/19 at 7:02 PM
“@Will, insulation doesn’t make the furnace burn hotter. And it won’t make the element hotter. Insulation is about reducing convection and impeding loss of warm air, not making the source hotter.”
Indeed it is the constant “power” implying infinite energy as sensible heat that must increase temperature over time with any restriction of power dissipation. It is the Weasel words like warming, heating, cooling, colder, and hotter! that I reject from Climate Clowns!! State a meaning, (definition) that you cannot run away from and hide under a rock.
“If the sphere from the steel greenhouse were wrapped in another layer of steel, this wouldn’t increase temperature. And you can replace that layer of steel with a layer of anything else with the same emissivity – it won’t increase the temperature of the sphere, or the element, etc. As Squid has easily demonstrated at home. There is no such thing as “heat pile up”. That simply doesn’t exist. Like unicorns. You can think of it…but it doesn’t occur.”
Each layer implies a rethermalization for that for EMR that changes the reactive impedance of space to a dissipative resistance Excess entropy E/T (specific heat) must pile up at the lowest temperature, or be dispatched viaother EMR to some lower “radiance”. I like pink unicorns, yellow giraffes, and lovely dancing young girlies! I understand the limitations, but refuse to be philosophically limited by this mean, hard to measure, physical! I agree, if I cannot measure “it” in this physical, “it” remains a fantasy, but still part of the whole “real”.
Any “restriction” of exit flux from an isopower must spontaneously result in the increased
temperature of that isopower, and perhaps of all other mass, and mass less surface in the way to the lowest temperature isotherm, to compensate, for return to equilibrium..This always must and does occur, according to every detection, observation, or measurement, of this physical, ever done!
“It is the Weasel words like warming, heating, cooling, colder, and hotter! that I reject from Climate Clowns!! State a meaning, (definition) that you cannot run away from and hide under a rock.”
They will not do that until all us serfs approach each “Weasel word” with big boots to stomp the words or the rocks. Leave the OK, sometimes cute Weasels, some food! .
Joseph E Postma says: 2015/01/19 at 6:16 PM
“Will, if there is an independent ambient thermal environment, then this environment has its own source of power or reason for existing. If there is an ambient environment, then the temperature of the powered object is not supported entirely by the manual input of additional power it is given. The additional power just bumps the temperature of the powered source up a bit, it doesn’t maintain the entire temperature of the source since the ambient environment already provided a temperature to the source before power was applied to it”
Blah, blah, blah. Total post normal or Climate Clown nonsense.
“If we have the sphere and shell, and everything is at the same ambient temperature, then Q’ = 0 = Psp – Psh because Psp = Psh = Pamb. No heat flows anywhere. Now all you do is add some power Pin to the sphere, thus, (Pamb + Pin)sp = Asp*σ*Tsp4”
Please demonstrate where any surface provided with power P can ever be at the same ambient temperature as anything else. With an isopower, the power transfer from the isopower, to “else” the only constant. P transfer is the “only” constant. All else must be equilibrium, temperature and P sometimes called flux, P/A of the only emitter.
“and then from before the usual equation for heat flow, Q’sh = Asp*σ*Tsp4 – Ash*σ*Tsh4”
Joe you insist on equations (a cookbook) but with no possible understanding of the construction of that lovely “apfull strudel”. Such construction must include, understanding and much skill.
The change in energy or temperature of any mass must be zero at any thermodynamic “actual” equilibrium. This never means that there is no power transfer or flux between different temperatures, only that there is no change in all power transfer or temperature of that mass or surface with no mass. As per Gus Kirchhoff, at radiative equilibrium, All power into a surface is identical in value to all power leaving that surface. There is no need for the frequencies of such EMR remain equal, only that power in, is identical to power out, else some change in energy or temperature must occur. Any surface with no mass cannot change energy. Such a surface can only change temperature, at the speed of light.
Joesph, It took me 40 years to get this far. Perhaps you guys can point out my necessary errors, as no earthling can understand, by definition.
@Joe Postma
“And why do Kiehl and Trenberth, and climate alarm, get into such a mess?”
Because they use the two-stream-formulation, an unfortunate habitude from astronomy.
Joe Postma makes the same error. Ferenc Miskolczi makes the same error.
But both are aware to be careful with the interpretation. NASA gives K&T diagrams where they subtract the huge back-radiation from the atmospheric absorption.
The two-stream-formulation gives huge back-radiation, huge atmospheric absorption, huge LW surface flux. It is inherent to the Schwarzschild procedure.
When the two-stream-formulation is used, it should be used correctly and not interpreting the upward component and the downward component as real radiations.
In this blog the iron shield is mentioned several times, and analyzed with the two-stream formulation. For that reason I wrote a paper which I call the engineering proof that back-radiation cannot exist:
Click to access Prevost_no_back-radiation-v2.pdf
@Will
You might be interested in another paper which I wrote recently
Click to access vacuum.pdf
JWR, where in these posts does “Joe Postma makes the same error”? I may not be able to follow all of the math for your papers but you seem to be saying the same thing that Joseph is using a different method. The two paths lead to the same destination.
From Squid:
sigh… so much wrongness, so little time.
For starters, the temperature of the element can vary quite a bit, and is not necessarily closely related to the temperature of the coffee. You could have an element that reaches 93C. But you could instead have a much smaller element at much higher temperature, e.g. 1000C, that actually supplied the same amount of energy, for the same amount of heating.
[JP: lol! This statement changes nothing about what Squid says he did. Sure you can have different elements at different temperatures…Squid used the one he did. The coffee should be hotter than the element, as that was your original claim Quokka, but it wasn’t.]
Second, the 93C is not an inherent property of the element, it will depend on the environment it’s in. It’s going to reach different temperatures depending on whether you hold it up in the air, stick it into a cup of coffee, or dip it into the Arctic Ocean.
However, let’s assume we have an element such that when you put it in a cup of coffee, when the system reaches a steady state it is at 93C.
Now wrap the insulation around the system. Since the heat is unable to escape to the outside, it is going to build up on the inside. Eventually it is going to heat up enough to create enough of a thermal gradient for the outside of the insulation to emit the same amount of energy that is coming in through the element, at which point the system will be in equilibrium. If the insulation is efficient enough, that may require the coffee to be hotter than 93C – say, 99C. And, since the element is sitting in a 99C fluid, it too will acquire a temperature of 99C.
[JP: There is no such thing as heat pile up. What you request is exactly what Squid says he did…wrap insulation around the system. People do not understand what insulation is. Insulation does not cause heat pile up, rather it simply reduces convective cooling and air flow exchange in a gaseous environment. You can wrap a heat source with as much insulation as you want…all that will happen is that the insulation reaches the temperature of the heat source; the heat source does not rise in temperature. The coffee will not get hotter than the heating element…lol. Imagine if we could heat coffee, i.e. water, this way? You just wrap enough insulation, and then suddenly a tiny input heating element at 30C can cause water to boil because of “heat pile up”…lol. Then you could use a steam generator to power the 30C element, and use the excess energy for other stuff. You got to be a complete idiot. This violates all of thermodynamics. You don’t think the math would show that, and that we would use that? We’ve been trying to do stuff like that for hundreds of years. The discovery of the laws of thermodynamics are the result of those attempts.]
Joe’s response to Squid:
Huh? First you seemed to disagree that putting insulation around a container with a constant energy source inside (either coffee cup or hot water tank) would cause the temperature in the container to increase. Then you agreed that in fact the temperature would increase. Now, Squid comes up with what is, as far as I can tell, essentially the same setup (energy source, inside a container which has more insulation applied to it), and suddenly, once again, you seem to agree that the temperature won’t increase.
[JP: Do you just make up random BS as you go along? Do you have a hard time keeping track? lol Indeed, the temperature of the source won’t increase. It was your illogic and nonsensical analogy which was straightened out and debunked, with your other remarks, that you seem to have never understood. Your analogy was flawed, and nonsensical.]
And a good thing too, considering the way you butcher it.
[JP: Oh so now that someone actually did the experiment, you no longer accept it. lol!
Squid is correct: put insulation around a heating element, and it will not make the heating element get hotter. It will simply heat up the insulation. He had a heating element inside a cup of coffee, then wrapped the mug with insulation. The heating element didn’t increase in temperature. QED. Your comments about using a different element were completely beside the point and a sophist attempt to feign criticism. We see through their vacuity.]
@Will, read the textbook. It says no such thing. You’re just making things up.
If the steel greenhouse worked the way as claimed, you could power steam engine and get more work out than you put it. You could layer a few shells around the inner source, make the inner source multiple times hotter than the tiny coal at the centre, then flood it with water and have instant explosive steam generation. Then repeat over and over. They found back in the 1700’s and 1800’s that reality didn’t work this way.
Please familiarize yourself with a textbook on radiative transfer physics.
@Will, the textbook is standard radiative physics, as it always has been. It is not post-normal…lol. Climate pseudoscience is post-normal! lol
The shell, when heated by the sphere, is not and does not represent an independent ambient environment. The shell’s temperature only exists because of the sphere, hence is not an ambient environment. An ambient environment, such as the cosmic microwave background at 2.7K, is a true independent thermal environment because it has its own reason for existing and its own source of energy – the energy permeating the universe left over from the Big Bang.
That’s not what I claimed, what are you talking about. The equation is:
(Pamb + Pin)sp = Asp*σ*Tsp4
hence an object that is supplied additional power will rise in temperature. Yes, of course, the local ambient environment could then be filled with that energy and rise in temperature, to the same temperature. The extremity of the environment is where the heat continues to act in rising the temperature at further and further distance.
That’s exactly what the equation you quoted says…lol nice attempt at inversion:
Q’sh = Asp*σ*Tsp4 – Ash*σ*Tsh4
So, Q’ goes to zero, and the power is emitted from the sphere to the shell, from the shell to outerspace.
They have this exact problem worked out for you in the textbook.
And all this time you’ve never bothered to refer to a textbook on radiative transfer? Keep trying. However you’ve been oblivious here, so, not sure it will help.
What the heck are you talking about JWR…
The post is about making the point that K&T doesn’t represent anything real because physics occurs in real time with the actual potential of action of sunlight, not the diluted average sunlight.
Yes, we know that backradiation doesn’t cause heating.
@ Quokka says:
2015/01/20 at 5:58 AM
OMG! … Can the sophistry get any deeper? … WOW! … [rolling eyes, shaking head] … incredible
Quokka,
I will finish with you with this: The coffee experiment that I just outline above is 100% accurate, correct and irrefutable (empirically testable even). PROVE ME WRONG!! … to reiterate … I said “PROVE” me wrong … nothing less will do.
Finale: You are a moron in the Nth degree… nothing but a babble of sophistry …
I have so little info on what Squid did – frankly, I took his claim to have actually done the experiment as literary license (he actually had 90kg of fiberglass lying about?) – that I can’t assess this experiment. I know next to nothing about the nature and power of his heating element, effectiveness of the insulation, how he measured the temperature of the element, whether he even compared the coffee temperatures with and without insulation applied.
Utter nonsense. Quite obviously, this setup only returns the energy that is put into it. If you used insulation to trap the heat from a small input to get water to boiling temperature, then used the steam from that to run a generator, you would dissipate that saved energy very quickly. You would then have a long wait for the temperature to build up again before you could repeat the process. No one is claiming that a tiny input would allow continuous generation of a greater output.
[JP: Umm yes, that is exactly what you claimed, and what is claimed with the steel greenhouse, etc. It doesn’t matter what power you use – we would build tea kettle’s in such a way that they trapped heat inside with heat pile up and made the water boil faster and easier with whatever input. We don’t, because that’s not how reality behaves. With a 30C heating element, the water will only ever get to 30C, etc. We would have charts and equations for this heat pile up in steam power generation stations, and we would have generation stations calibrated for just the right amount of heat pile-up to generate extra temperature and hotter water and steam vs. how much raw resource you need to burn, to make it optimally efficient. None of that is true because heat pile up is fantasy, and you are a sophist 🙂
I think you can take a break from here for while. Thanks for helping in honing my skills in debunking this type of thing.]
Joseph E Postma says: 2015/01/20 at 7:33 AM
“What the heck are you talking about JWR? The post is about making the point that K&T doesn’t represent anything real because physics occurs in real time with the actual potential of action of sunlight, not the diluted average sunlight. Yes, we know that backradiation doesn’t cause heating.
Joseph, no one disagrees with that, nor with, the concept of Willis is BS, nor with the K&T cartoon is BS. Please demonstrate why your claims are “not” the very same BS? All of your claims use the same false logic. Please define your “the actual potential of action of sunlight”, in actual understandable words, not some cookbook formula. Has this something to do with your dialectic of God/s? What is heating? This atmosphere can and does result in a higher surface temperature because of gravitational compression of that same atmosphere. This same atmosphere is a much better radiator if excess sensible heat than the surface can possibly be.
Why not stop the Sophistry and try to figure “how dey do dat”? This unknown remains because of increasing Sophistry, on all sides, rather than some effort.
[JP: Will you can take a break from here too.
So you’re saying that no one disagrees that the greenhouse effect is bunk, as is K&T, and so what you’re doing here is to just say that my claims are the same BS. Will, you need to be able to understand math and physics, and to read a textbook on radiative transfer that hasn’t been contaminated by climate pseudoscience.
I have shown the math, and explained it, and it is the fundamental physics of thermodynamics, not a “cookbook”…lol. I have discussed the -g/Cp issue many times elsewhere, in any case, not that that’s what this thread is about. We all know about -g/Cp and how it means that the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the average middle, and how latent heat makes air rise at a low lapse rate, rise further than expected because of latent heat release pumping into it as it cools, then fall back down at a higher lapse rate.
We’re here focusing on how pseudoscientific climate alarm and its sophistical reinterpretation of the greenhouse effect is.]
Since I don’t believe that, I’m fairly sure I haven’t claimed it. Perhaps you could tell me what I said that made you think I had?
[JP: It’s the basis of the steel greenhouse argument and the radiative greenhouse effect, and your analogy was an attempt to create it in yet another way. Don’t be obtuse.]
We don’t build tea kettles like that because the amount of heat lost when you heat a kettle for a couple of minutes is not worth worrying about. We do do it for hot water systems because they are much bigger and run 24 hours a day. Putting insulation on them allows the same heat to be maintained with less power. Or, equivalently, to keep the water hotter (“piling up” the heat, if you prefer to think of it that way) with the same amount of power. (talking here only of the heat of the water, not of the element)
[JP: Um, any saving of energy = saving of money and is worth it. And as said in any case, it’s not used in power generation plants.
It does not make the water hotter than the heating element. Insulation does not make the source of heat, or what is between the source of heat and the insulation, hotter than the source of heat. And in the example of the steel sphere, where the sphere is the source of heat, its temperature is given only by its power input, so that P/A = s*T^4. The sphere, the heating element, can’t get hotter than this because there is no additional power supplied to it by insulation or by a shell around it, etc. The insulation, or the shell, etc., only gets to the same temperature, or less, given by the initial temperature from the sphere.
Sorry Quokka but this is obviously beyond your level of intelligence, or you’re a troll. I’m putting your handle in the auto-spam. Regards.]
Quokka,
Besides being a sophist, you have very poor reading comprehension skills. What part of “thought experiment” did you not understand? Did you actually carry out the “thought experiment” that you described?
The differences between your “thought experiment” and my “thought experiment” are that one could actually perform mine, and relatively easily (I would encourage you to do so), and, mine is very simple and very straightforward, no sophistical nonsense. I don’t have to add this, and add that, and subtract a little of this, and not in a specific type of vacuum or any of that other nonsense that is purely aimed at confusing and distracting the audience while you switch the cards (typical street corner and parlor trick).
Here Quokka, here is another “thought experiment” that you can relatively easily setup and test that will test exactly the very same principal.
Get yourself a nice 60W incandescent light bulb. Open your deep freezer and screw it into the socket. Close the lid and let it sit overnight to be sure the bulb has come to thermal equilibrium with the ambient temperature in the freezer (about -10F, -23C, 250k).
While this is happening, get yourself an instrument to measure color temperature (http://www.isuzuoptics.com.tw/product/CS100.htm). In the morning, open the freeze lid and check the color temperature of the light emitted from the bulb. For a 60W light bulb, most typical temperature will be about 2700k, which means, the filament of the bulb is being heated to exactly 2700k degrees.
Now, take that very same light bulb and plug it into the socket of your oven. Turn your oven on “clean” and allow it to come to maximum temperature (about 500C, or 932F, or 773k). Once again, open the door and using your instrument, measure the color temperature of the bulb.
Now, what did you find? … Without actually performing the experiment physically, I can assure you that your results will be exactly and precisely as follows:
Freezer Bulb Temp: 2700k
Oven Bulb Temp: 2700k
And not “just about” … but exactly and precisely these temperatures. Meaning, there is absolutely no difference in temperature between the freezer bulb and the oven bulb. Despite the huge difference in ambient temperature, there is no effect on the temperature of the filament within the bulb. Even though the bulb is being bombarded with far higher frequency photons (radiation) in the oven than the freezer, both the freezer and the oven are at a lower thermal temperature than the bulb and therefore, because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, they cannot add any additional thermal energy to the bulb. period .. end of story…
Now, I know the first thing you are going to say is “well the oven isn’t getting hot enough at only 500C)” … To which I will reply with two comments. Firstly you are exactly correct! That is, anything at or below 2700k is not possible to add any additional heating to the bulb. Secondly, if you don’t believe the experiment, do the same thing by placing the bulb in a ceramic kiln and measure the temperature there. You can bring the kiln up to a 2700k temperature and the bulb will still measure exactly the same 2700k temperature it did in the freezer. Unfortunately, my mother no longer makes pottery and has since sold off all of her kiln’s or I could very precisely perform this experiment myself. If I can find someone with a kiln, I will attempt the very experiment empirically and finally put to rest, once and for all, this absurd notion that a cooler object (or ambient temp) can make a warmer object even warmer.
I am so sick and tired of dumbasses like you that wish to refute the painfully obvious physical FACTS that are right in front of your nose, and instead wish to engage in sophistical bullshit by adding this, and adding that, to the equations to try to twist the story for your own desired outcome. You, and people like you, have been told thousands of times that the sophistical bullshit that you keep spewing forth is impossible, not just by fine folks like Joseph, but also by hundreds of years worth of academic texts, empirical experiments carried out for centuries, and still you folks believe that you can create the magical Perpetuum Mobile. You are no better than the thousands of con artists who came before you, all promising the Perpetuum Mobile that will power the world, which is the equivalent of the so-called “greenhouse effect”. For it too is nothing more than a Perpetuum Mobile and is impossible within this universe!
Pingback: The Atmosphere is not Insulation or a Blanket | Climate of Sophistry
Thermodynamic equlibrium has no drivers. Global warming alarmism is based on co2 as the driver. So the atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium if it warms from the alleged greenhouse effect. Equal in and out at the top of the atmosphere would indicate no gain in energy…just a redistribution.
For the guy who comments on the “magical perpetuum mobile” he should look at this link. The over unity engine exists and is being developed. But its not the same as an atmosphere.
http://www.rexresearch.com/tewari/tewari.htm
Skeptics have good reason to be a tad angry with what is now recognised to be the looney Earth Energy Budget cartoons of Trenberth et al.
Another thing I’ve noticed is that the cunning bastard Trenberth has got 342w/sq.m, incoming solar at the TOA and 324w/sq.m incoming as “backradiation” from the atmosphere.
The first figure is a genuine “wrong” calculation derived from the TSI….but the “backradiation” figure, pulled from Trenberth’s ass, is deliberately choosen to even more confuse any poor student with a whisker of dyslexia…..324..342..324..342.
Trenberth could never consider in 1997, that the truth would out, and his connivances and concoctions be exposed in the future. What a disgrace.
Indeed. The atmosphere is not a source of power.
@Loz says:
2015/01/25 at 7:40 AM
Pfffffttt….
That is not a Perpetuum Mobile machine. And, it’s not even clear whether or not it works.
From the abstract : “High Efficiency Space Power Generator”
Do you understand what a Perpetuum Mobile is? … Ask Google, it knows everything!
@Jo:
This thread has been very helpful …
Among other things, I’m a building designer, specialising in CRD (climate-responsive design) in the tropics. As someone who has done mathematical modelling, I have always been aware of the serious errors manifest in GCMs. Another error discovered recently, eg solar zenith angle wrong – Zhou et al 2015. Also very suspicious of the “it’s CO2 wot done it” meme, having done a fair bit of CO2 monitoring over recent years, mostly in checking confined indoor workspaces, but lately monitoring outdoor air as dataloggers are now much cheaper. I read and agree with Chilingar et al 2008.
I could never understand this Trenberth energy balance diagram. The diagram I am aware of is:
Comes from “Manual of Tropical Housing and Building” 1974. Trenberth has 342W/m2 in-bound.
Around here, summer, clear sky, it’s invariably over 600W/m2 at the ground. So he is averaging? Flat surface? No rotation? Dangerous … I spotted the rather odd “back radiation” thing that exceeds the power of the sun. The only phenomenon I know of comparable with this is the fact that afternoon sun is more important than morning sun as it is passing through already heated air.
I also noticed two other errors: thermals and evapo-transpiration. These should have a value of zero.
Surely there must be other energy balance diagrams that are closer to reality?
There are no realistic such diagrams in climate science or really in science at all. Makes sense that engineering might have better ones. I came up with one to try to describe the fundamentals:
It is assumed that the reader can understand that the model is rotating, but just showing what static features exist such as sunlight only occurring on one side of the planet at a time, etc.
However, it now appears that you can’t expect people to understand that, since they’ve been convinced that the sun shines 24/7 at 1/4 its intensity thus requiring the atmosphere to be a source of heat – see of course the K&T diagram of this op, and this model which underlies it:
Thanks climate science (pseudoscience) for making everyone retarded. Well, I guess it just brought out what was in them already…
Thanks Joseph,
“There are no realistic such diagrams in climate science or really in science at all.”
I made the mistake of doing an image search on “energy balance earth” and wish I hadn’t.
50% K&T or embroidered versions, most others worse …
“Makes sense that engineering might have better ones.”
Yes. I’ll track the one you found above.
Also found something on an air quality assessment site that deals with the issue tangentially, and looks like it hasn’t been “got at”.
A bit puzzled that no one else in my area of CRD has spotted the inconsistencies. Most seem to be peddling carbon footprint reduction these days. (But don’t seem interested in planting trees).
“the one you found above” is yours 🙂
I’ll read the shorter paper, then the longer one. Should keep me out of mischief for a while.
K and T cartoon never answers the question of where atmospheric movement gets its energy from. AFAIK everywhere there is a gaseous atmosphere there are winds, partly driven by the planet’s rotation but also by the billions (trillions?) of tons of water vapor dynamically entering, moving thousands of kilometers, and then leaving the atmosphere. How much energy does that take? When did they measure the energy balance of the water cycle, or measure the energy requirements for cloud creation, cloud energy disposition and dissipation?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Of course there are many other things missing. Nature has arrange for life on this planet to hoard away solar energy, and it does it continuously by small increments. Just look at the ancient forests, with trees made of hundred year old CO2, water, other micro-nutrients, and energy from a younger sun. Or all the dead microbes, animals, and plants that, upon dying, end-up as the sludge at the darkest depths of the oceans. Some of this detritus stays there virtually unchanged for hundreds maybe thousands of years. Originally these lifeforms directly or indirectly got their energy from the sun. So how much energy is hoarded away as chemical bonds in the billions of tons of sludge that accumulates worldwide every decade?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Finally as you say “And why do Kiehl and Trenberth, and climate alarm, get into such a mess? Of course, it’s because they don’t get the incoming energy from the Sun correct in the first place. Their “168 absorbed by surface” means that Sunlight could only ever make a surface it strikes to heat up to -40 degrees Celsius.”
Is that why there is so much sea-ice and the Great Lakes are frozen? 🙂
Posted on Andrew Bolt’s blog:
barney rubble: Thank you for the references and excuse me for initially being too dismissive of your comment, but a reference helps to understand the basis of your concerns.
To me, at first glance, the numbers in the diagram don’t seem to stack up either.
But if Postma is going to write this sort of stuff:
“This debunks climate alarm science, without any additional consideration required, since this is the “reasoning” it subscribes to in general. Climate alarm is based on the impossible, and the nonsensical. It’s from these types of energy budgets that alarm is created. Well yes, these diagrams are indeed alarming, for their amazing mind-boggling obvious errors.”
And this in the comments:
“Actually, chimps are still smarter. You have to be a real human degenerate dumbass to be an alarmist climate scientist.”
he should read and understand the paper from which the diagram is taken.
J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth, 1997: Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 197–208.
Postma writes:
“We have energy incoming from the Sun…that’s the 342 W/m^2.
And then we have energy incoming from “greenhouse gas backradiation”. There’s 168 + 67 = 235 absorbed energy coming from the Sun…and then there’s 324 coming from the atmosphere, 38% more energy than from the Sun. It just magically appears over there, on the right hand side of their diagram.”
Yes, 324/235 = 138%
However the energy of the greenhouse gas backradiation is less than the total coming in from the sun, 342 W m−2, so no violation of the first law of thermodynamics there.
It was actually the 390 W m−2 surface radiation that first drew my attention, but Postma does not mention that number.
The paper explains where these ‘magically appearing’ numbers actually come from.
Of that 342 W m−2 of incoming solar radiation, 107 is refelected back into space without heating the surface, leaving that 235 absorbed by the earth/atmosphere system. That is balanced by the 235 outgoing longwave (infra red) radiation. So the system is at thermal equilibrium, neither heating up nor cooling down. (Actually as explained in the paper and elsewhere, more accurate numbers put the outgoing IR radiation at slightly less than the incoming. This can be attributed to the increasing CO2 concentration trapping more outgoing IR radiation, causing the planet to warm.)
So where does that 390 W m−2 come from?
When you start applying energy to an object, it absorbs more incoming energy than it emits as outgoing energy. The excess is the energy absorbed by the object andis stored as heat. At thermal equilibrium the outgoing equals the incoming and the object no longer heats up. When you remove the energy source the object cools. No more incoming energy, just outgoing as the stored energy is released.
So that 390 W m−2 represents the energy stored by the earth before equilibrium is reached.
As the paper explains, the average surface temperature of the earth is 15 C corresponding to a ‘black body’ emission of 390 W m−2 .
No magical appearance there. Some of that goes into heating the atmosphere on the way out, including the energy trapped and backradiated by greenhouse gases. So nothing magical about that 324 W m−2 either.
There is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics, so Postma’s abusive debunking of Kiehl and Trenberth is debunked.
It was never going to be the case that the authors were going to violate the first law, nor that any referee was going to let them get away with it.
I understand that non-scientists may feel they are not equipped to tackle specialist scientific papers. I found the paper heavy going, although the only bit of information I needed was there buried in the text, the 15 C accounting for that 390 W m−2. So I give you a pass if you did not make the effort. Postma has no excuse.
If a blog makes extraordinary claims, and you are confused after looking at the actual paper, be very ‘skeptical’ about the claims made on the blog.
Philip, the point is that the diagram treats the atmosphere as a power source, when it is not a power source – it is not an energy source. It also makes the unphysical mistake of averaging the solar power over the entire surface of the Earth at once, and then uses the power from the atmosphere (and the atmosphere is not a source of power) to generate the weather, when in fact the weather is generated by the Sun in real time. So the ontology of the diagram is incorrect, and says wrong things about what actually does what. It’s actually not possible to create a valid 2-D average model representation; you can do it, but it doesn’t mean anything, because the real system is 3-D and also time-dependent. No, as an average, it is not reflective of reality; reality is real time, not averaged. The diagram creates a false paradigm or boundary condition.
This is a little more abstract but it is the start of something more like reality, with solar input driving the weather and temperature because it does actually have the power to do so all on its own:
The atmosphere does not apply more radiative heat to the surface via a radiative greenhouse effect. More reality-based is looking at the natural adiabatic gradient and its mathematical requirement that the bottom of the atmosphere will be hottest, which means that the required average temperature of the atmosphere will be found above the surface.
Mr Postma, thank you for the reply, but I must still disagree with the basic claim you make in your criticism of the diagram. That there is a fundamental error in the energy budget due to the “magical appearance” of 324 W/m^2. back radiation and that it treats this as a primary energy source.
True the diagram is not very informative as to where the numbers come from, including the 390 of W m−2 surface radiation which I saw as more problematic, but neither of these is counted as a primary source of energy. They are both derived from the sun.
The paper gives the 15 C temperature of the earth (actually earth- atmosphere system) is the source of the 390 of W m−2 ‘surface’ radiation. The surface measurement is actually the temperature of atmosphere as measured by a thermometer in Stevenson boxes about 1.5 m off the ground.
The 324 W m−2 back radiation is given in table 2 on page 201 as the longwave downward flux on a cloudy day. Its deriviation is explained in the text:
Figure 1 shows upward longwave spectral emission from the earth’s surface and at the top of the atmosphere for the cloudy sky case. … Atmospheric absorption and emission by various gaseous constituents (H2O, CO2, O3, CH4, and N2O) and clouds leads to the spectral emission at the top of the atmosphere.
So there is no violation of the first law with energy magically appearing. It all ultimately derives from the sun.
Critics may of course disagree with the calculations and the models used by the authors in the paper, but that is another matter.
Philip, you must realize that you simply repeated back to me what you had said already. I know that one can rationalize the diagram, just as one can rationalize Ptolemy and epicycles. And so my point is that like Ptolemy and epicycles, the diagram is based on a false ontology and says things about the Earth climate system that the Earth climate system doesn’t actually do, just like how the solar system in Ptolemy’s approach doesn’t actually do what is modeled.
So allow me now to repeat back to you what I had said:
The point being that the diagram does not represent reality. Just as Ptolemy’s model doesn’t actually represent reality even though it can be successfully used to model the positions of the planets. The underlying difference matters because extrapolations from the false underlying model, such as climate alarm, or epicycles, will have no basis in reality as they are extensions from a model which has no basis in reality.
Philip Shehan says: “However the energy of the greenhouse gas backradiation is less than the total coming in from the sun, 342 W m−2, so no violation of the first law of thermodynamics there.”
==========================
Joe, the guy gave you the perfect opportunity to expose him as a fraudster for that obvious trick quoted above. No need to go beyond that in my humble opinion.
Yes Mr Postma I was repeating what I had already said as you were repeating what you had already said, that the fundamental problem with Kiehl and Trenberths paper was that “the point is that the diagram treats the atmosphere as a power source, when it is not a power source – it is not an energy source.”
To repeat my same point again more briefly:
The diagram may not specify where that atmospheric backradiation comes from(nor the surface radiation from the earth either), but the text of the paper makes it clear that the atmosphere is not treated as a primary power source generating its own energy, but that the energy comes from the sun, via the earth’s surface.
Yes Philip I understand that, and even with that explanation of what the diagram purports, it still does wrong things with the climate, still says wrong things about the system, and still wrongly treats the atmosphere as a source of radiative heat with greater radiative power than the absorbed power of sunlight, even with the primary energy source being the Sun. That is why the diagram is wrong, not right.
Dr. Postma,
Those 324 W/m2 of down welling infrared irradiance (backradiaiton) have never been measured and they do not exist based on observations. Arhenious (1896) said the radiative theory was not tested. Back-radiation was based only on theoretical calculations such as Callander (1938) and Möller (1951). The first to allege measuring backradiaiton was Sidney and Schwartzmann (1954). They were instrument manufacturer promoting their product. The instrument was a pyrgeometer based on using thermocouples or a set of them (thermopile). They are the only instruments recommended by the World Meteorological Organization for measuring backradiaiton, example NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory/Global Monitoring division (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html). NOAA uses Eppley type pyrgeometer and shows backradiaiton 24 hours a day. You will find from Eppley user’s instruction manual and other manufacturers manuals that pyrgeometers do not actually harvest radiation, they are programmed to assume that backradiaiton exists and it is equal to surface radiation. This is misleading, and of course and has to be corrected.
The alleged measured backradiaiton, 324 W/m2, at midnight, are too large to be missed by our scenes. We do not feel them because they do not exist. In theory, if a solar oven is pointed to a clear sky at midnight, one should be able to harvest a lot of heat. But we do not, we harvest cold instead: http://solarcooking.org/plans/funnel.htm
Also, Infrared astronomy is based on detecting minute infrared radiation from the cosmos. In the presence of 324 W/m2 of backradiaiton, Infrared astronomy cannot exist. Either infrared astronomy is fiction or backradiaiton is fiction. The answer is clear: Backradiaition is fiction, just ask infrared astronomers.
The laws of thermodynamics are clear: energy flows from hot to cold. The cold atmosphere cannot transfer energy to the warm surface without the aid of external mechanical energy. Such energy is unavailable to carbon dioxide molecules. Therefore, backradiation cannot exist, in agreement with observations.