This will be “Part 1” of my summary of some of what I’ve written about on the false paradigm of the greenhouse effect (GHE) upon which “climate science” is based. My latest paper can be found at this link:
A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect
(My previous papers can be found here:
Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect
The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect)
Given how much I have written it is not possible to cover the entire gamut in a single post; however, going to single posts on specific topics gives me the opportunity to highlight certain important aspects of my research.
Let us consider energy budgets. If anyone is familiar with my work, then they know about the so-called “P/4 issue”, which indicates that the standard approach of climate science is to average-out the actual real-time power of sunshine by dividing its real power, P, by the number 4. Now to be sure, the real power of sunshine is this value we call “P”. It has a numerical value of about 1370 Watts per square meter. This is the real power of sunshine and it can be converted into a temperature, which has a value of 121 degrees Celsius – boiling hot! Some of this sunshine power is actually reflected by the Earth though, about 30%, and therefore doesn’t cause any heating; when you factor this in, the real power of sunshine is about 960 W/m2 which is a temperature of about 88oC.
Out of the mathematical convenience of not having to treat the system in real-time, and with the real power of sunshine, climate scientists average the real-time power of sunshine over the entire surface of the Earth at once, so that they can get rid of day and night, and also so that they can treat the Earth as flat, which makes things easier for them in the math. By spreading the power of sunshine over the entire Earth at once, so that they don’t have to worry about the difference between day and night, the mathematical number required to do this works out to a division of the real incoming power P by the number 4. It is a result of a geometric math problem of transforming a sphere into a flat plane, which is how climate scientists make the simplifications of the real system to something which is not real but is a convenient “approximation”.
Wait a minute…let’s back up here. Climate scientists take the real power of sunshine, of P = 960 W/m2, equal to +88o Celscius, but divide the power by the number 4 so that they can make the Earth flat and get rid of day and night – for convenience. When they do this, they artificially (it is artificial because it is no longer real, and only a mathematical simplification to make the Earth flat) decrease the power of sunshine to 960/4 = 240 W/m2 which is equal to -18oC.
After having taken a real number, and then converted it into something which is not real – the flat Earth approximation – climate scientists then go on to think that the power of sunshine is far too cold to heat anything by itself because it is only as strong as -18oC. They forget that the simplification they made doesn’t actually correspond with reality, because they’ve taken the real numbers which are actually from reality in the first place, but then mathematically diluted them into very small numbers which aren’t actually found or measured in real-life.
This puts climate scientists into a predicament, of having to figure out why it actually feels so warm under the Sun, and why the temperatures are far above -18oC for most of the planet, particularly on the day-time side where there is actual real sunshine. Instead of questioning if their approximation of no day and night and a flat Earth with cold sunshine is valid or not, climate scientists instead invent an internal mechanism for the surface and atmosphere to self-amplify their own temperatures. This mechanism is called the “Greenhouse Effect”, even though this effect doesn’t actually have anything to do with how a real greenhouse works. They just used the same name for this effect they invented, that makes you think of something else that is warm. But the climate science “Greenhouse Effect” and a real greenhouse do not actually work the same way in any way at all (see pages 49-51, 68, and 77 in “On the Absence of“). So they use base sense-perception, imagining something warm, to get you to think that their new effect is the same thing, when it actually isn’t.
To distinguish the effect of what happens in a real greenhouse, versus the effect that climate science invented that isn’t actually the same as a real greenhouse, we will call the climate science version the “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”, or “AGHE”, for clarity.
The disparity between this climate-science approximation and the real-world is so great, that climate scientists have to postulate that the atmosphere provides twice as much heating power to warm itself up than they think the cold sunshine does in the first place. They even publish this result in their “peer-reviewed” journals, such as this paper here (see the last page).
Nowhere else in science can a substance heat itself up without having a source of chemical or nuclear or other energy, but in climate science a gas can warm itself up spontaneously with its own passive energy by warming up an already-warmer ground surface by some mysterious recycling of its own internal energy. Everybody outside of climate science knows that this is wrong, because you can never get more work (i.e. more heating) out of the energy than what you initially put in and the first time it is used, from the sunshine. So because this is obviously ridiculous, but climate scientists have never been able to either admit or discover their original mathematical error, they have created terms such as “greenhouse effect”, “back-radiation heating”, “delayed cooling”, and many others, to explain this phantom self-heating process they were accidentally forced to invent. In fact, they have all sorts of ways of trying to explain their AGHE, as can be seen here, and most of them contradict each other. This is a result of the AGHE not being based in reality but based on a fictional approximation of a flat earth and cold sunshine, and so by its very nature you can make up almost anything you want to say about it because there is no actual reality-based single way that it exists.
I will end this post with a diagram of a reality-based model I have created which represents the Earth and power of sunshine as it actually exists in reality. It is somewhat more complex than the flat-earth models which create the AGHE, but, it also corresponds with reality, and so the increased complexity is a good thing. If you want to read more about why this model was created, before I write Part 2, you can see this paper here: Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect.
In Part 2 I will explain this model and show that, because it is based on actual reality, it is far superior to the fictional flat earth models of climate science and the AGHE. I will also explain how a reality-based model does not create the need to invent a self-heating mechanism and that the heat is generated solely by sunshine, unlike the climate science models where they have to invent the AGHE.
Until then, take care!
Pingback: On the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect: Part 1, The Failure of IPCC Energy Budgets « Skeptics Chillin'
Can’t fault it – To quote a phrase from a speech you all know well: “we believe these things to be self evident.”
Thank you Joe. It’s all so obvious when explained. You do wonder why so-called intelligent folk still cling on to the patently false flat earth model, and yet call us flat-earthers!
One of your posts should look at the transfer mechanisms at work for both incoming and outgoing energy, how that energy interacts with all the atmospheric components (not just CO2), and the speed at which it does that, e.g. the energy xfer time through the atmosphere.
[Reply: Yes indeed Simon, that is where this work would lead. Hopefully I can get there one day!]
Can this really be true? I mean, can it be true that climate scientists assume a flat earth etc. I am stunned! Has this fallacy not been raised by others? How can revered institutions such as the Royal Society admit this as ‘science’? I look forward to Part 2 with the apprehension that science, at least climate science, has no clothes. Small wonder that weathermen want to keep the distinction between weather and climate – to preserve the reputation of their science perhaps?
[Reply: Yes, it is true. Read the posts I have so far and read them again until it sinks in. It is the most simple concept but for some reason the most difficult for people to understand. Without a flat-earth model, there is no reason to invent an AGHE. When they say they actually do have more complex models, they won’t show them, and, if they did, they wouldn’t have to have the GHE in them if they were actually similar to my “reality” model.]
Joe, about the P/4 thing. Let us say, if the Earth did not rotate and we consider only the temperature of the hemisphere looking to the sun, would P/2 be correct?
[Reply: P/2 would be closer as I wrote about in my first papers, but it would actually be best to use the integrated average projection factor of the insolation, which is 2/pi = 0.637, which works out to a value of 49oC]
I have a little bit odd idea that if we replaced the hemisphere with a circle of the same radius, the temperature would be the same. A possible explanation would be like this: the angle does not matter, every single point of the surface would receive the same amount of IR from the Sun in both cases.
[Reply: If you go from a hemisphere or sphere to a flat surface of the same area, you have to dilute the actual energy flux density (i.e. temperature, or power) of the radiation. And that is the whole problem, because it no longer corresponds to what actually occurs. What actually occurs is the full flux density as the input, able to warm and drive and sustain the climate all by itself. Only the resulting output energy flux density is what is calculated with the P/4. So, P/4 is not the input, it is the output, and if you model P/4 as the input, then you reverse everything, even the role of the climate. See Parts 2 & 3.]
Joe, in my example the areas are not equal, because we have a circle and a hemisphere of the same radius.
Let us forget the climate and the whole sphere for a while. Do you agree that the surface temperature would be the same for both the circle and the hemisphere and why exactly?
[Reply: In that case, the same radius, but plane vs. hemisphere, the input temperature and flux density will not be the same. This is actually already described in my model where it shows the “disk” plane of sunshine input, then getting distributed over a hemisphere of the same radius, then exiting over a whole sphere.]
I am actually questioning the notion of distribution in this particular case. I suspect it is not like distribution of a certain amount of ink over a larger area and getting thus a thinner layer. Talking about analogies, I imagine dropping a disk and a hemisphere into water. But let us not go deep into analogies.
My (temporary :)) point is that being continuous the same IR equally affects every single point of both disk’s and hemisphere’ surface and this must cause the same temperature. And I do not see why it is correct to apply the notion of distribution (over a larger area) here.
[Reply: The mapping of an input disk over a hemisphere does cause an uneven distribution of the energy. If it was flat then there would be no change in the flux density, but, each ray of light gets “projected” onto larger and larger surface area as the angle between the incoming ray and the surface it strikes increases. At the zenith the rays are head-on, but at the sides the rays are more “glancing”, and so they have less power on the surface.]
Maybe there is no such a thing like a “ray of light”, it is just an idiom. It is not like a bunch of straw. Why not rather think of it like ocean, water, something continuous? Because if it is continuous indeed, then there are no “glancing rays” or “incoming rays” and the angle does not matter.
Is there any scientific reason to think of IR radiation like of a bunch of straw (rays)? I do not think so. It is rather something continuous and therefore there is no distribution depending on the angle. Anyway, it still seems to be at least a logical hypothesis.
[Reply: If there is another way to treat how incident light projects onto an angled surface, I am not aware of it, and I am not sure anyone else is. We know that there is a given energy flux density per square meter when directly incident; the density of this power simply gets reduced per square meter when it hits an angled surface.]
Greg, why, when Joe’s whole purpose is to bring reality to the fore, do you want to push it back into an artificial model again? I’m sure you can feel the difference between the morning/evening sun and the midday sun. We need reality in this debate, and Joe’s point is that reality (3D model) is not hard to understand and that the use of an ‘averaged value in a flat-earth model, whether /2 or /4, is what got us into this sorry mess in the first place.
What strikes me as amazingly stupid on the pro-AGW/flat-earth ‘climate scientists’ part, is that they didn’t follow the basic rule of maths that any high school child would know, and that is when you apply a factor on one side of the equation, you apply the same factor to the other as well, otherwise you fail. To have applied the /4 in the flat-earth model then not applied a similar factor to the rest of the model is bizarre.
Ilma630 says: “Greg, why, when Joe’s whole purpose is to bring reality to the fore, do you want to push it back into an artificial model again?”
OK, let me tell you something. No model is necessary, because the Wood’s experiment demonstrates that “trapped radiation” does not cause warming, anyway any significant warming. This is so simple. The whole “trapped radiation”/”greenhouse effect” concept has no basis in real science.
Second, if there are some calculations with the result that there is “trapped radiation”/”back radiation” warming, then these calculations are automatically false, because they contradict the reality.
At the same time it might be useful to find and demonstrate errors in those false models/calculations. This is the reason why I am dealing with this “-18C” thing.
[Reply: Yes I see the point of your questions Greg, no worries! Great comment. Finding the false calculations in those models is much of what my work has been about.]
Joe, I understand too what you have been doing. It might surprise you, but it was reading some of your papers recently, that prompt me to start thinking about that sphere/disk thing.
Anyway, if my hypothesis about sort of continuous solar radiation is correct, the warmists’ main calculation would be done immediately. As a side effect yours would be done too, sorry, but I think it is worth it.
Coming back to the main point, you said in your reply: “If there is another way to treat how incident light projects onto an angled surface, I am not aware of it, and I am not sure anyone else is. We know that there is a given energy flux density per square meter when directly incident; the density of this power simply gets reduced per square meter when it hits an angled surface.”
Well, there is another theoretical way since yesterday :). The cardinal question is now, what is proven experimentally. Is there any experimental proof, that, let us say, in vacuum (to exclude convection interferences) an exposed to the Sun angled surface would get less warm?
[Reply: It is simply such a fundamental geometric result that basic mathematics itself, i.e. the sine and cosine functions etc., would have to mean something else entirely. It is so fundamental it would be akin to saying that triangles don’t have 3 sides…that sort of thing. To test it, you could likely do it in the atmosphere under properly controlled condition. But, geometry itself would have to be wrong if the cosine function didn’t do what it is derived to do.]
[Reply: See Appendix H and Appendix I in my paper . The atmosphere isn’t like a greenhouse nor is it like insulation in a house…the atmosphere is the opposite of those things…we build those things to do the opposite of the atmosphere.]
Of course, I understand the geometric implication, but it is only valid if we deal with a sort of bunch of separate lines or “rays”. Like you have a bunch of parallel straight lines hitting a flat surface. Then yes, the angled surface of the same area would be hit by less lines.
But this geometric approach does not make sense if we have something continuous. Think of putting a hemisphere into water or hitting a pinpoint by toothpaste out of the tube.
And somehow I am inclined to think about IR radiation rather as toothpaste than as a bunch of rays with empty spaces between them. But only an experiment can give the ultimate answer, because analogies can sometimes mislead (just remember the false greenhouse analogy and Nobel Prize winner Arrhenius).
[Reply: Yes the geometry does still work with continuous radiation.]
How do you know that?
[Reply: Because I don’t know any other way to derive it, and this way is based on math that goes back to elementary geometry. The example of water being poured over still applies to the geometry. In that case, it is the force of the stream which is experienced. If a board was inundated with a stream of water, there would be a certain force on it. If the board was tilted 90 degrees, the force would go away because it would slice through the water, not stopping any of it. In between 0 & 90 degrees, you go from full force to zero force. It is a cosine function.]
I think that what Greg was trying to say, but from a different ‘perspective’, is that:
When we observe Sol ‘through’ the Earth from ~2+ AU, we see the ‘silhouette’ of Earth’s sphere as a ‘flat disc’. Thus, the Earth’s sphere (barring small anomalies) is absorbing, reflecting and ‘obscuring’ insolation for the area of Earth’s 2D profile at its orbital distance of 1 AU. It follows that Earth affects, and is affected, by the radius of its spherical profile.
Do you imply that the ‘small anomalies’ are significant? Possibly! 🙂
Best regards, Ray Dart.
[Reply: The disk cross-section of absorption is what appears at the top of the model coming in. Cheers.]
I never claimed the atmosphere is “like a greenhouse”. I never even claimed it is “like insulation”.
[Reply: Then stop arguing about how home insulation is just like the atmosphere… Also, you’re now contradicting what most “experts” say about the atmosphere and greenhouse effect…glad to see you disagreeing them!]
FWIW, I agree with you, Joe, and disagree with Greg on the directionality of light. Photons DO travel in straight lines (or “rays”) unless they are scattered from some thing. The mere fact that the sunlight “looks like” it is coming from one direction is proof that the light is indeed heading is a particular direction and is not like “being immersed in water” with equal light from all directions.
On the other hand, the thermal radiation from the clouds and atmosphere do indeed come from all directions (at least the upper hemisphere when standing on the ground) since the atmosphere are clouds are in all directions.
[Reply: The thermal radiation from the atmosphere doesn’t cause heating at the surface or do much else (because the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere and it has higher emissivity). It is simply contained passive thermal energy that escapes TOA as readily as it wants…radiation leaves the surface to outer space in less than a millisecond..even if scattered a few times on the way out.]
Joe says: “[Reply: Because I don’t know any other way to derive it, and this way is based on math that goes back to elementary geometry. The example of water being poured over still applies to the geometry. In that case, it is the force of the stream which is experienced. If a board was inundated with a stream of water, there would be a certain force on it. If the board was tilted 90 degrees, the force would go away because it would slice through the water, not stopping any of it. In between 0 & 90 degrees, you go from full force to zero force. It is a cosine function.]”
Actually, this a very nice example of using analogies. Note that you chose a “force analogy” and not a “wet analogy”. What about a “board just getting wet analogy”? No cosine function in this case, am I right?
I mean, you need to go away from analogies as a means of proving anything. Analogies can only help to get ideas.
And as I said, you know another way now, this makes 2. I am not absolutely sure which one is correct, but you do not know it either. If there is no experimental proof, then you have no certainty and neither do warmists. But you can not beat a speculation with another speculation. This is about proven-unproven.
Or just imagine I would publish a calculation based on my hypothesis. How would you react? By saying “it is false because I don’t know any other way to derive it”? And this after actually this other way being presented?
Again, it is not that I am sure, but you did not presented anything other than analogies, so you can not be sure either.
[Reply: It was your analogy. The math of how to solve the problem can actually be written down and performed in reality, not in analogy.]
It is getting pretty meaningless to discuss things here since you clearly are going to snip things that you don’t want to actually address, and then provide immaterial soundbites (“radiation leaves the surface to outer space in less than a millisecond”) as if they explained anything about the point I was trying to make (but that no one can see because you didn’t post it) .
One last point on my way out this evening. Feel free to snip it again if you feel you can’t provide an answer to my actual point.
“Also, you’re now contradicting what most “experts” say about the atmosphere and greenhouse effect…glad to see you disagreeing them!”
Could you point to ONE SPECIFIC THING that I said that disagrees with “the experts” (true experts talking real science, not watered down blogs trying to “dumb down” to reach mass audiences). The fact that you THINK I am disagreeing with the “experts” shows that you are not understanding .. unless you can show clearly where I am different from the standard “AGHE experts”.
[Reply: I’m snipping useless, stupid, and therefore annoying things. Anyone who is familiar with this can follow along well enough. Yes, you said that you didn’t claim the atmosphere was like a greenhouse or like insulation on a house, after you did just argue that it was like those things (which I had snipped, and provided you the reference to my Appendices in my paper instead). After it was snipped then you turned around and said you didn’t claim the atmosphere was just like the insulation on a house. If you now disagree that the atmosphere is just like insulation on a house, you go against mainstream GHE orthodoxy, and what you had asked and argued for where I had snipped out originally…]
tjfolkerts says: “FWIW, I agree with you, Joe, and disagree with Greg on the directionality of light. Photons DO travel in straight lines (or “rays”) unless they are scattered from some thing. ”
Really, in straight lines? I could ask you who proved that, but I have an easier question. Please, tell me, what the distance between those straight lines is. You need some distance to justify the geometric approach. If there is no (zero) distance between them, then you can not apply cosine etc.
“[Reply: The thermal radiation from the atmosphere doesn’t cause heating at the surface or do much else (because the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere and it has higher emissivity). It is simply contained passive thermal energy that escapes TOA as readily as it wants…radiation leaves the surface to outer space in less than a millisecond..even if scattered a few times on the way out.]”
“It is simply contained passive thermal energy that escapes TOA”
If it’s ‘on the move’, it ain’t ‘passive’. It’s ‘active’. I think you mean ”sensible’ thermal energy’ here?
Take care with the ‘atmosphere’ here Joe! The ‘thermosphere’ is a lot hotter than the Earth’s surface and is only punctuated for its ‘insolation period’ by the size of the Earth’s disc in the ‘dark side’ of Earth’s shadow.
Best regards, Ray.
[Reply: Thanks. The thermosphere is so rarefied that, even at high temperature, it contains hardly any heat/energy. We send stuff through it all the time. Typically we refer to the troposphere and leave out the higher parts because they have little effect on what’s happening at the surface.
In any thermal ensemble, particles are vibrating and on the move. This is a passive property. It is only active heating and heat transfer when going from hot to cool. Thermal radiation is the same way.]
Joe says: [Reply: …The math of how to solve the problem can actually be written down and performed in reality, not in analogy.]
I am not questioning the math, I am questioning the physics behind it and I do not see any physical basis. I recognise that it might be correct, but the other approach might be correct as well. We need to look closely, what physical experimental evidence we really have. If we (and warmists) do not have any, then their calculation should be declared kind of “null and void” because of lack of (physical) evidence.
“[Reply: Thanks. The thermosphere is so rarefied that, even at high temperature, it contains hardly any heat/energy. We send stuff through it all the time. Typically we refer to the troposphere and leave out the higher parts because they have little effect on what’s happening at the surface.
In any thermal ensemble, particles are vibrating and on the move. This is a passive property. It is only active heating and heat transfer when going from hot to cool. Thermal radiation is the same way.]”
Your moderation has let you down. My last post was ‘for your eyes only’, but it was ‘published’! This will be my last post here!!!
The thermosphere ref was a ‘hint’ that there are ‘teleconnections’ between the ‘tropo and other altitudes’. If you wish to ignore these observations, then so be it.
“In any thermal ensemble, particles are vibrating and on the move. This is a passive property. It is only active heating and heat transfer when going from hot to cool. Thermal radiation is the same way.”
‘Particles’ are only ‘NON vibrating’ when they’re at ‘zero degrees K’! I think we all realise that it’s the ‘particle’ (molecular) kinetic that establishes the temp of a substance, but we also recognise that a higher energy level bleeds into a lower energy level (without the need for an energy attractor). However, you’re avoiding the transition of a high ‘Planck level energy’ (insolation) to a lower level ‘Planck energy’ for OLR! Namely, ‘The Greenhouse Effect’ (it’s a ‘frequency change’ thing)!
As you’re not open to discussion.
[Reply: I didn’t see a reason why it should be for my eyes only as the point about the thermosphere is interesting physics. It is very hot but contains very little heat energy because it is so thin. I don’t know why it would upset you, posting that. Particles are “on the move” whenever they have a temperature, but just because they’re moving doesn’t mean they’re heating anything; heating only happens when they meet a colder ensemble. The transition of a “high Planck level energy” to a “low Planck energy level” is what happens when high energy sunshine is converted into heat and then re-radiated as low energy infrared, at which point it can’t induce more heating than the sunshine already did, unless the air mass moves into a colder surface region than itself at which point it could send some heat energy to the surface via conduction and radiation. But it certainly never amplifies itself or causes more heating than the sunshine already provided in the first place.
Bye bye! :)]
Greg House says: 2012/11/08 at 5:39 PM “Please, tell me, what the distance between those straight lines is.”
I have no idea what this request even means! Some photons are close to each other; some are far apart. But I don’t need to know where some other photons are in order to calculate a cosine. Experiments for centuries have shown that light travels straight. Models assume it. Theory predicts it. I really don;t know what else to say to this odd request!
tjfolkerts, maybe I misunderstood your point, but it is not about light travelling straight or along a zigzag path. It is about whether we can handle radiation like a bunch of lines/rays or like something continuous. Depending on that you will get different results. And my point is that I do not see any physical basis to choose one approach over the other. Such things should be tested experimentally. Imagination and analogies can easily lead in a wrong direction.
[Reply: Greg, if there is another way to handle it, then you will have to solve it yourself because no one else in the world is thinking what you’re thinking on this. If the usual geometric approach isn’t the correct way to do it, then please show us what other way you think it should be done. We can’t solve it for you because we wouldn’t even know where to start.
Thanks for your posts but I will have to not allow any more posts debating this particular issue, unless you actually demonstrate the alternative approach – because that would actually be pretty unique and a worthwhile addition! Cheers.]
I thought I did it. The alternative approach would be in the ideal case to calculate temperature of a certain exposed to IR from the Sun area regardless of the form, so a hemisphere of certain area would be of the same temperature as a flat disk or whatever of the same area. In other words, a tilted board would still have the same temperature.
As for debating, until now you have demonstrated a certain familiar math approach, but you failed to demonstrate any physical basis for it. You just handle it your way. It can be correct, but it is not proven, so it can be incorrect, too.
[Reply: Oh I see. Well, the usual geometric approach is the physical basis, and I know of no other physical basis to approach it. If a tilted surface gets to the same temperature, then that would indeed be very interesting. Please test it and let me know if works.]
I am really glad that you suggest my hypothetical alternative approach should be tested. This is exactly what I mean by “physical basis”.
Now, please, make the next step forward and recognise that your approach lacks this physical experimental basis exactly like mine. Objectively, there are 2 untested approaches. Or maybe the test had been done already, but we do not know.
[Reply: My approach is based on the reality of the terrestrial sphericity and the implicitly related fundamental geometry. I understand that tests can be made of the predictions…I discussed this and presented some in my paper. This work will hopefully be able to continue. If what you say is what occurs, then it will be demonstrated eventually by the data. Cheers.]
Joe, without being a physicist and freely admitting that the maths can quickly get beyond me, I am seeing this as being theoretically compatible with the work of Nikolov and Zeller (Unified Theory of Climate – 2012) and the basic idea that ambient atmospheric temperature is a function of incoming energy and atmospheric pressure. Would you agree with that?
[Reply: Yes what you state should be realistic. The temperature of the gas on any planet we know increases in temperature with depth, and, the solar energy generating high-temperatures on the surface of Earth is what drives everything, etc. I have not studied their work though, so I don’t know what the details are. Any approach that uses real values and approaches the problem from an actually-physical perspective will be more valid than what is currently used.]
Your approach is based on the apparently unproven/untested idea of applicability of certain math to a certain case.
[Reply: Use a plane of some sort and hold it face up under a light bulb at night, then tilt it the plane and watch as the reflection gets dimmer.
Sorry but any more posts on this topic will now be trashed, as per the guidelines stated earlier.]
Trashed, I see. Unfortunately, you debate approach is not essentially different from the one of warmists I debated. Here you are, the same properties: not understanding the notion of “proven”, suggestion that I, not them should test and prove their assertion, not understanding misleading nature of analogies, twisting words like “physical basis” and eventually the desire to trash what they do not like.
And last not least, you suggestion to use a plane and a bulb is of the same quality as theirs to use a blanket to prove the “greenhouse effect”.
[Reply: Greg, I’ve been tolerant of your speculation that geometry doesn’t apply to geometry, and that math doesn’t apply to math, because you’ve been polite. You are now well and far into the range of pure sophistry, particularly your last sentence. Arguing that geometry doesn’t apply to geometrical situations was sophist from the start.
There will be no more bullshit sophist garbage polluting these brilliant pages of rational clarity.
If anyone disagrees, I don’t really give a damn.]
“your speculation that geometry doesn’t apply to geometry, and that math doesn’t apply to math…” ???
OK, let us come back back to your bulb experiment for a change. And please note, that I am doing that because I actually like you and understand your pain I caused with my realistic critical thinking.
So, please, use a bulb and a small mirror you can tilt easily and report whether the reflection gets dimmer.
[Reply: Actually, we did do the test to see how geometry affects the intensity of sunlight in my paper. It was indeed found to perfectly follow the cosine of the altitude angle. See Figure 8 pg 25 of my paper]
I think you have been very tolerant of Greg House and have been more than fair. He is not advancing an argument, instead he is simply repeating it, over and over.
A quick explanation of how/why the geometry would have an effect. Given the reality based idea that the atmosphere in fact provides a cooling effect through various means. Simply put, sunlight has more atmosphere to travel through when coming in on an angle. If coming straight down, more heat energy can reach the ground since it travels through less atmosphere. Maybe this concept will satisfy Greg.
[Reply: Yes that is a factor, but it is really about the dilution of the flux density as a fixed amount of energy gets spread over a larger and larger surface area.]
For sure:) Just trying to give Greg another way of seeing why the angle makes a difference:)
Bart says: “Just trying to give Greg another way of seeing why the angle makes a difference:)”
Thank you Bart. unfortunately I can not address the issue on this blog any more, and it is not that I do not want to… Anyway, I find the issue interesting and promising and I intend to keep digging on other blogs. See you 🙂
Everyone loves it when people get together and share ideas. Great blog, continue the good work!
I read with interest. Thanks Joseph.
As a matter of interest climatologists take temperature readings average them out and get to the average (?) of +15C whereas they say that it should be -15C, according to the SB black body laws.. Well I have taken the max surface temperature reading, around +50C, the minimum, -80C, and averaged those. Answer -15C
This is obviously wrong to average like this but those two max/min temperatures have been measured and it is possible that they occurred on the same day and time. To average a time series leads to errors.
Is Greg House actually Hugh Laurie?
Have you, could you apply your analysis to the temperatures of Venus or Mars? It could be an interesting comparison. Is Mars’ atmosphere too thin for your model to work? Is Venus too thick? Isn’t Venus described as having a “runaway greenhouse effect”? Which must mean a very large “back radiation” effect. But perhaps your model applied to Venus would show that “back radiation” is again, a misleading and incorrect concept. Or that something else is going on ??
[Reply: Venus is difficult because hardly any direct radiation actually makes it to its surface, because of all the clouds. On the other hand, you do have the very thick (~100km!) atmosphere and any atmosphere on any planet increases in temperature with depth, naturally, even if only composed of hydrogen and helium. As I show in my papers, the lapse rate comes out of a very simple application of local thermodynamic equilibrium of a gas with a thermal capacity in a gravitational field…it has nothing to do with GHG backradiation, but only on the specific thermal capacity and strength of gravity. So with such a thick atmosphere and a surface of equilibrium so high in altitude, the natural lapse rate simply causes the atmosphere to be warmer and warmer down to the surface. That’s what is going on on Venus. I think that for any of these situations, the 2-D model equation on pg. 31 is what we need to actually see how heat is being distributed within the atmosphere; it is very clear that cold can not heat warm, and that the atmosphere simply holds heat energy because it has a temperature, but the only place this energy gets trapped or delayed from cooling is in latent heat (no-how and no-place else!). I think the 2-D equation and some real-time simulations of it with real-time values will tell us what happening, and that it would be essential in physically describing/explaining the ZEB Plot.]
Here’s one for the believers in the “averageing” of solar radiation.
Would a spherical “blackbody” have a different “blackbody” temperature to a cubic “blackbody” exposed to the same radiation power ?
The methodologies of climate “science” say Yes
For a sphere P/4 = sigma T^4
For a cube P/6 = sigma T^4
All that aside how does that supposedly work anyway ? The “blackbody” is still exposed to, and absorbing the full radiative power – not some fraction of it – so surely using “blackbody” radiation is merely speculative non-science especially when there is a real object to observe – the Moon.
I once wrote on Roy Spencer’s blog that the period of the Moon was the reason the temperature drops to such low levels and that Earth sans atmosphere and oceans would never reach such lows in 12 hours – I was pilloried as “dangerous” and anti science – by a guy who says:-
1. Earth radiates to “cold”space – conveniently forgetting that the space at Earth’s orbit around the Sun is awash in powerful radiation capable of heating planets to over 390 K ! Even in the area where this radiation is blocked the temperature remains at ~100 K after some 354 Earth hours with no “input”.
It is clear that the Moon suffers extreme swings of temperature but from lunar noon to lunar sunrise is about 531 Earth hours to achieve a temperature change of ~290 K.
It is clear the heating power of the solar radiation is way more powerful with the same change in temperature of 290 K in around 1/4 of a lunar day ~177 Earth hours. I actually believe it would be much less time than this as the low angle incident solar radiation would not have a great heating effect until reasonably “high in the lunar sky”.
Anyway, at the rate of cooling on the Moon I’d hate to be waiting for hot water to freeze which occurs in 8 – 10 hours in my freezer at minus 15 C..
2. Cold objects radiate (true) and this radiation is capable of heating warmer objects which is extremely doubtful – clearly cold objects do not “conduct” their heat to warm objects when in contact but seperate them and this magical radiation does – why do objects in contact not radiate ?
Climate science is anti science and needs a complete honest overhaul !
Why do they still insist on hiding their workings if the science is so robust ??
Finally – do you consider it possible that radiation from the Sun could difffract around planetary surfaces – such as the Moon – providing some sort of “minimum” temperature proportional to the radiation of the illuminated side – ie the radiation in the space in the “shadow” of a planet is not the few watts found in deep space used to establish that space is cold ? Or is it simply a factor of established physical properties such as specific heat ?
By this I mean – is it possible the Moon may not cool any more than it does even if its period was longer because of the proximity to the Sun ?
I am truly intrigued that the cooling rate of the Moon has not been fully measured against time (or has it ? if so where can I get the data ?) – surely the fact that the Moon’s regolith with known physical properties radiating to space cools at such a slow rate completely destroys the “greenhouse effect” – why would the Earth lose radiation to “cold” space at a rate faster than the Moon.
In 18 hours the Earth is never going to “cool” like the Moon in 531.
[Reply: “Climate science is anti science and needs a complete honest overhaul”
Greenieism in general is anti-human at its core. Evolution will discard with haste a species that grows to hate itself, and typical environmentalists and greenies hate humanity and hate themselves.
I never see mass mentioned in all the musings of climate “science”. Mass and energy are intimately intertwined – to my viewpoint converting energy to mass is the only manner of “trapping” energy on Earth for more than inconsequential time frames.
Even if “backradiation” was a viable construct mass must be considered. With the atmospheric mass density being thousandths of the mass per sq metre of the Earth’s surfaces, the specific heat of the vast majority of the Earth’s surface 4 times greater than that of air, and the small concentrations of GHGs the radiation coming from them cannot possibly influence the temperature of the surface very much.
Flat earth models, I first found out about this through reading “Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas” : ” You can knock me down with a feather” Yes but is is true. So much for the alarmists calling the realists “flat earthers” Amazing! I would love it if you posted more about the LATEST computer models. I just read this: REFUTATION OF THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” THEORY ON A THERMODYNAMIC AND HYDROSTATIC BASIS. Alberto Miatello. Wow I loved it. Thomas H. Huxley stated: “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact,” and “The deepest sin of the human mind is to believe things without evidence.”
There is an ongoing forum on Amazon: Customer Discussions, “Global Warming is the most SERIOUS problem of our generation” discussion in the “Science” forum. I seem to be almost alone here. Please come and help! http://www.amazon.com/forum/science/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdThread=Tx3W4L4L7T3U6CJ
I thank you so much!
[Reply: They don’t let anyone actually see the “latest computer models”, and the reason is probably because the GHE is simply INSERTED as an ad-hoc parameter, based on the warming vs. CO2 concentration from the 20’th Century, which is an entirely pseudoscientific assumption/implied correlation in and of itself in any case. Do you understand how stupid people must have to be to think that global warming is “the most serious problem”? Do you have any idea how out of touch with reality and insane people need to be to believe such a thing?]
Greg, it will always be warmer at the equator than at the poles. It does not matter if sunshine is a ray or a wave.
Joseph, I have been thinking about the problem of black and white spheres sitting in the sun in space and how one might predict their average temperature or core temperature if solid. I have been playing with equation 9 from “Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect” and plugging in values for albedo ranging from 0 to 1. The answers are vastly different – too different to pass face value credibility. I hope one day an astronaut will be able to do the experiment as a simple demonstration similar to the hammer vs feather drop on the moon.
But we still need to be able to compute what the physics tells us will be the right answer. I am bothered by the inclusion of the albedo term in equation 5 and the exclusion of the albedo term in equation 6. I can’t see that this makes sense.
Le – emitted power of earth
Ae – surface area of earth
alb – albedo of earth (1-alb) = emissivity
sbc – stefan boltzman constant
Te – Temperature of earth
Ts – Temperature of sun
Rs – Radius of sun
de – distance to earth from sun
p – projection factor for radiating sphere
(roots written as raising to power of inverse fraction)
Your Equation 9 is (in text so I can post it) Te=Ts(Rs^2(1-alb))/(de^2*p)}^1/4.
I think equation 6 should include an albedo term, so becoming: Le = sbc*Te^4*Ae*(1-alb)
and thus equation 9 should be Te=Ts(Rs^2(1-alb))/(de^2*p*(1-alb))}^1/4.
Ultimately, the albedo terms cancel so we are left with Te=Ts(Rs^2)/(de^2*p)}^1/4
This can be rearranged as Te=Ts (Rs^1/2)/(de^1/2*p^1/4}
We find mathematically that albedo makes no difference to equilbrium temperature. Temperature at earth distance of a spherical object in space is 5.7deg C. I think this makes sense. This is similar to Stefan -Boltzmann Law and Kirchoff’s law effectively saying that blackbody temperature is independent of atomic or molecular composition, and albedo.
I cross checked with Tallboke’s computation http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/what-temperature-would-earths-surface-be-without-greenhouse-gases/, which gives the same answer, but Tallbloke assumed a perfect blackbody with emissivity of 1. Mathematically, I think albedo has no net effect on equilibrium temperature.
The question remains whether *any* GHG, which effectively must change “reflectance” or “emissivity” or “absorption” bidirectionally across any wavelength can act to change equilibrium temperature of any body in space. I have not seen any evidence to the contrary yet.
Further to my previous post, changing the projection factor to 2 as an approximation of a black disc free to radiate to the earth’s surface (which is cooler but not as cold as space) as well as to the sun results in a temperature of 58.4 degC, which is not far off the temperature of hot objects in the sun.
Computations of thermal emission for the space shuttle include the term for emissivity, as my suggested equation 6.
“results in a temperature of 58.4 degC, which is not far off the temperature of hot objects in the sun”
In fact you can get much hotter than that still, in the Sun. This is how the Sun creates the water cycle, with its high insolation temperature “forcing”. The IPCC climate models contradict that the Sun can do this! They say the Sun is always -18C only, in insolation forcing at the surface.
Joseph, have been having a discussion on scienceofdoom blog about how to predict the average temperature of spheres of different absorptivity and emissivity (eg white or polished metal or black) lit by sunlight in space.
Pekka has come up with a formula for this = 279K (α/ε)^0.25, which is a simplification of your equation 9 for a sphere earth distance from the sun, but assumes that absorptivity and emissivity are not equal. Interestingly, Pekka seems to be agreeing that the blackbody temperature of earth should be 6degC, not -18degC usually quoted by greenhouse proponents.
Now I’m a bit puzzled, because I thought Kirchoff’s law was about absorptivity being equal to emissivity at radiative thermal equilibrium. The special surface coatings used on solar collectors are assumed to be able to enhance absorption in the sun and also reduce emission at night. (Not that that would have any practical benefit, so I bet the measurements at night have not been made. But why be game to try an experiment when one can wave hands that it’s already been done thousands of times before.
Anyway, if one believes the reason for planetary temperature is due to an absorptivity vs emissivity difference, then I don’t think one would call the physics of this a “greenhouse effect”. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone else suggest that this is the reason we get planetary temperature predictions wrong.
Nobody is game for a showdown in the physics lab, since I can’t possibly be right to suggest that radiative thermal equilibrium temperature of a sphere in space is independent of all physical properties. I might be wrong but i’d love to see real data that proves it, not more wavee handee.
@blouis79 2013/11/27 at 3:42 AM
Emissivity is almost a blackhole for knowledge in climate science…they avoid it like the plague. That’s because the atmosphere already has an extremely low emissivity because 99% of it, O2 and N2, don’t radiate. That means the atmosphere can have a much higher temperature “than otherwise”. Now, if GHG’s emit, it means they have high emissivity, which means they cool. What this means is that the fundamentals of climate science, aren’t based on science, or logic, or rationality, etc.
Presently, there appears to me to be substantial confusion manifest in difference of opinion over the formulae used by various people to predict earth’s surface temperature under radiative thermal equilibrium.
Joe, I am still interested in your (and others) input on:
1. Should the equation for predicting earth temperature should account for both albedo effect on absoprtion and albedo effect on emission?
2. How do we prove the correctness of any formula to predict the temperature of earth under conditions of radiative thermal equilibrium?
3. Should a passively radiated sphere in space be able to change its radiative thermal equilibrium temperature by changing its surface composition or color?
4. Would people be happy that a simple coloured sphere (say polished metal vs white vs black) temperature measurement (in space or experimental equivalent using a solar cooker setup at night to simulate radiative cooling to space) would help to clarify the science of radiative thermal equilibrium?
2. Thermal equilibrium doesn’t really exist. Need a real-time PDE for a column of air + surface & subsoil to correctly model the heat flow.
3. If those changes mean changes in albedo and emissivity, then yes.
4. It would demonstrate the effect of emissivity, but this isn’t all that useful since it is already well known.
Joe, perhaps I have obscured a bit the fundamental question I am still seeing to answer.
For Q1 above, your equation 6 in “Understanding the thermodynamic atmosphere effect” omits the albedo correction for emission. Adding this term raises the predicted “mean” surface temperature from your published -18C to 5.7C.
For Q2, I am suggesting that we can measure the temperature of a sphere of “albedo” of 0.3 in comparison to spheres with albedos close to zero and close to 1. I hypothesise that at equilibrium according to my interpretation of Kirchoff’s law, that absorptivity = emissivity. If correct, then any sphere of any albedo/absorptivity/emissivity will be exactly the same temperature. The idea is that because one is using exactly the same surface to absorb as emit, that higher absorptivity (of solar radiation) tending to cause warming is balanced by higher emissivity (to space) causing cooling, and the only factor than matters is the projection factor.
Because the predicted temperatures of “colored” spheres (meaning ones of different surface materials with different absorptivity/emissivity) by different people appear vastly different, then the measurements required to validate the application of the equations only need accuracy to the order of magnitude of degrees C or K. For example, your published calculation resulting in -18C vs my altered version which results in 5.7C. Surely it would be a simple thing to measure the temperature of a conductive sphere in a vacuum (to exclude conduction and convection) in the sun, free to radiate to space (just like earth) and measure its core and/or surface temperature (core temperature being a proxy for mean surface temperature).
For Q4, because I don’t have access to space to run my experiment with spheres, I will have to have a go at a backyard experiment using a reverse solar cooker to simulate the nighttime cooling. Maybe a parabolic reflector at an angle not pointing at the sun, but with an aperture in the side wall to permit sunlight to strike the sphere would suffice…..
Everybody appears to know all about heat absoprion by “color” and heat emission by “color”. But has anyone published predictions of and experimentally verified temperatues of spheres in space illuminated by the sun????
For a sphere, the cooling surface is four times as large as the warming surface. The possibilty that resulting temperature in the balance of absorption/emission could result in perhaps no difference in temperature of spheres of different colors would be a simple demonstration of physics akin to the feather vs hammer drop on the moon to illustrate gravity. Is the answer to sphere temperature well known????
So I was pointed to this presentation on satellite temperature, which was really helpful.
Click to access Satellite_TC.pdf
The case of the black sphere is on slide 29, where α=ε=1. Note that the equation for sphere temperature has no terms for α nor ε, because if they are equal, they cancel out. In the chart on slide 32, the sand blasted aluminum has α=ε=0.2, and has exactly the same temperature as the black sphere α=ε=1.
The quoted examples where α is not equal to ε show different temperatures. The question is can α be different from ε at radiative thermal equilibrium, where according to Planck’s law they must be the same across all wavelengths.
Some people are claiming that selective surfaces have α not equal to ε, but the question remains whether this can hold for the equilibrium state. Nobody has been able to direct me to any evidence that this is true in space. A very simple experiment to do in space – to measure the temperature of spheres subject to solar illuminance and free to radiate to space. Other slides show that the resulting temperature can easily be affect by proximity to a large object not at zero kelvin, so the resulting experimental temperatures are not as predicted.
Remaining is the question of whether any gas can behave possibly as a selective surface where α is not equal ε. Have not been able to find yet any experimental verification of this.
At this point, it seems to me that the “average” temperature of any sphere in space is dependent only on solar illuminance. Earth surafce temperature is a reflection of chaotic thermodynamics of the atmosphere, but is limited to the average predicted radiative equilibrium temperature of about 5.7 degrees C.
The Earth is not in thermal equilibrium because the temperature at any point on the surface in generally moving either up or down. Also there is a latitudinal variation in energy input vs. output which is constant, so, no the Earth is not in thermal equilibrium. Energy can be conserved but this doesn’t mean thermal equilibrium. And so α=ε doesn’t need to be obeyed. Also consider the difference between the actual ground surface temperature, vs. the near surface air temperature; the former we have absolutely no data or clue about since we don’t measure it, and it is only the latter one we measure. Well, the ε of the atmosphere is expected to be very very low because O2 and N2 do not emit. Since these are the things climate alarm avoid discussing, it is obviously part of the REAL science which explains the atmosphere.
Joe, of course you are right about the flawed measurement of global “temperature” and the calculation of “mean” by averaging “temperatures”, which is a basic mathematical error similar to the incorrect computation of average speed being the average of the speeds and not total distance/total time. Gerlich and Tscheuschner have I think adequately explained that the concept of “mean surface temperature” is mathematical nonsense.
What I am trying to do is to try to clarify if over the long-term the “mean” termperature of [earth+atmosphere] as a sphere lit by the sun (and heated by a molten core) should be inherently stable or unstable.
It is generally quoted that GHGs make the earth absorb more heat in the sun than it emits at night. I fail to see that this effect both exists and is proven to exist. The math and physics of sphere temperature suggests it is entirely possible that temperature is dependent only on projection factor and is completely independent of surface composition. If a black sphere with α=ε=1 is the same temperature as a light sphere α=ε=0.2, then how much different does a few percent change in albedo make, unless the albedo is asymmetrically lower in the sun (causing more heat absorption in the day) and higher at night (causing reduced heat emission). It is entirely possible that no GHG can make any difference to the “mean” termperature of [earth+atmosphere].
If we accept that this is true, then we can discuss the chaotic atmosphere effects and cyclic changes in surface temperature knowing that in the long-term the earth is a stable temperature and will regress towards the “mean” termperature of [earth+atmosphere] = about 5.7degC.
I would like to ask a question if you please. Since the Earth is an emmisive body which radiates energy in exactly the same manner, though at a much smaller magnitude or luminosity, as the Sun would not a portion of that energy in addition to the energy directly reflected by Earth’s albedo flow back towards the Sun? Would this not be true of every planet in the solar system as well as any other objects such as the moon? So if the greenhouse theory were correct would the Sun not be getting incrementally hotter over the course of billions upon billions of years? I think it doesn’t matter if that energy transfer happens by radiation instead of conduction except radiation would be slower. Even if the energy being directed back towards the Sun is relatively very small the length of time involved is enormous. The amount of energy “back radiated” over billions upon billions of years would be a not insignificant amount. Would this not also result in a compounded interest type of reaction as well? Assuming “back radiated” energy could in fact warm the sun then the final result would be an increase in “back radiated” energy.
In effect the Sun and all emissive bodies in the solar system should be in the process of gradual heating.
This is of course obsurd. Still, it seems to me this is a logical deduction based upon the greenhouse theory.
That’s exactly the flaw in their logic MF1962.
Pingback: The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 1: The Failure of IPCC Energy Budgets | Roald j. Larsen
The physical testing of how light imparts less energy on the poles than on the equator can be done by substuting light for water. Place a disk in the path of oncoming waves. More force (energy) hits the front of the disk than the sides. The wave is either absorbed at the front or bounced (reflected) back with a much lower amplitude. The waves at the side are not impeded on their journey and continue maintaining almost the same amount of energy.
This as Joe points out, can be and is represented mathematically.
“Climate scientists take the real power of sunshine, of P = 960 W/m2, equal to +88o Celscius, but divide the power by the number 4 so that they can make the Earth flat and get rid of day and night – for convenience.”
Pingback: The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 1: The Failure of IPCC Energy Budgets – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts
I believe we have communicated on another site (Quora), but thought to make a couple of related points.
1. The BB temperature of Earth without an atmosphere is what you show as -18C (255K) as the “Spherical average output”. Planck and Stefan-Boltzmann agree.
2. There is no greenhouse effect, as you (and I, and http://geologist-1011.net/net/greenhouse/ and others have said. Fourier never accepted it as a model. Arrhenius erred.
3. An excellent explanation of Earth’s temperature is given by the USSA (US Standard Atmosphere http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a035728.pdf). Using gas laws and physics from Maxwell, it is shown that the major impact of solar energy is distributed by the adiabats of water vapor rising (making and rising of which are work (and latent heat thereby)). USSA relegates CO2 to the status of “trace gases”.
4. My own analysis of IPCC also found many errors of ignorance (and potentially fraud, though I had not concluded that at the time), as well as misrepresented facts by James Hansen. I presented my paper at Bergen Community College in 2006 and have since put up its video on You’Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ixT-_MYZgY&lc=z22fix4xkzygc1ueracdp430gmlup3av1hpnoun4vixw03c010c
5. A minor point: Equilibrium does not imply uniformity. Even ordinary chemical reactions at equilibrium are not static.
6. A point for thought. If the Earth had no atmosphere but water vapor, it might be a “greenhouse” in the sense it was always covered with clouds, with higher albedo limiting the surface input, and only allowing radiative loss via condensation. The fact that there is a non-condensing gas atmosphere allows heat exchange by simple thermal processes (direct transfer of translational momentum), so all the atmosphere is at the same temperature.
Do you really think the IPCC is based on the simple first approximation you describe?
All of climate science is based on the flat Earth approximation…it is fundamental pedagogy and transfers to the entire paradigm of climate research, and results in peer-review publications which are based on the same conception.