In Part 1, we discussed how the idea for the atmospheric greenhouse effect (AGHE) originated in the first place, and that it was due to a simple and needles mathematical error of diluting the power of sunshine from its real value to a value which is far too cold and doesn’t actually have anything to do with reality.
Many of the climate scientists I have discussed this problem with say that the difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth is irrelevant, because the diluted and cold “average” value of sunshine power is simply how much strength it has over an entire day, and so the result, they claim, is the same.
But is this correct? Well, if you’ve read the “Copernicus” paper, you would understand how obvious it is that unrealistic freezing cold sunshine at -18oC can’t do any of the same things that the real power of sunshine can actually do all by itself. You can only get the fictional model with -18oC solar input to do the same things which the real model with real sunshine can do by itself, if you invent a fictional heating mechanism to make up the difference. That was the whole point of inventing the AGHE in the first place!
So, no, a fictional flat Earth model and a real model couldn’t be any more different. They are different, and so they are different. They don’t do the same thing.
Other climate scientists, on the other hand, have admitted that the flat Earth/cold Sunshine model isn’t actually real, and that they’re only used for teaching, and that it was silly for me to criticize it. However, they only admitted that such models were fiction after I had exposed it and forced them into saying so: they weren’t very open about it at all. Also, why would we use something fictional that doesn’t actually physically exist to teach the exact same thing which is claimed to exist? Why would we teach non-reality physics as reality? How incredibly contradictory. It would be good for these climate scientists to resolve their disagreement with the other bunch who claim that the difference between fiction and reality makes no difference. The one thing no one can admit, however, is that without the cold-sunshine paradigm, there is no reason to invent the AGHE at all.
So let us have a look at the reality-based model once again and briefly develop an understanding of how reality actually works with the real power of sunshine. An updated version (it is a work in progress) of the global energy model is shown below.
Reality-based model of the global energy flow which does not require the artificial creation of an AGHE.
What this model represents is an actual schematic of reality, that allows for representation and indication for real-time realistic inputs and outputs, and starts to incorporate internal responses of the system. The smaller print may be fairly too small to read easily, so the text on the left-hand side of the diagram is copied here:
“Climate is all internal response effects. Internal cycling of energy (i.e. all weather phenomena including “backradiation”) is not production of new energy or new heat or higher temperatures. Most climate effects are cooling phenomena, except for the release of latent heat which prevents cooling and keeps things warmer than otherwise.”
That quote is a very important thing to understand. At the top of the diagram we see the real (physically actual) input power of sunshine, and the shading of the top-hemisphere correctly indicates that this input sunshine gets non-linearly (unevenly) distributed on one side of the planet only. The correct and physically real mathematical distribution of this energy represents an input temperature on the day-time side of +49oC. Isn’t that just an incredible difference from the way climate science incorrectly dilutes the power of solar heating to -18oC?
The circle on the top of sphere indicates the to-scale surface area at which the solar heating power is 90% or more of its maximum power of +88oC; it is a huge surface area and is about 30% larger in area than the entire continent of North America. So there is clearly a vast area that is being heated with quite a lot of power from the real Sun.
With such strong heating and realistic energy input, it now becomes clear that all the weather and all the actions of the climate are natural responses to the actual solar input. The input temperature is +49oC but the day-time side never actually achieves this temperature because the atmosphere and climate start generating clouds and perform many other cooling functions. During the night these functions continue to cool, except for latent heat release which prevents cooling and will provide energy output to space without actually allowing a decrease in the temperature. This is why gardeners mist their plots before a night that is expected to produce frost: the latent heat from the water prevents the temperature from dropping that low. There are centuries worth of latent heat in the oceans and about 10 days’ worth of such in the atmosphere, and this is what helps keep the system warmer overnight and at the poles. Eventually, all the energy escapes that comes in, and has a power temperature of about -18oC.
Now here is the really interesting to understand in regards to the error of the AGHE models and climate science: they start at the end, on the right hand side of the diagram, and then try to represent the processes in the reverse order that they actually occur. That is, they start with the cold energy output, reverse the situation, and model it as the input. Then, because this artificial input is too cold, they use the weather and climate to generate more heat, which is the reverse of the cooling function they actually provide in reality. The climate generates heat in this reverse situation, in the exact proportion by which it actually causes cooling in reality!
So isn’t it amazing how the logic of that works out? Not only is the climate-science understanding of reality based on fiction, and processes invented as fiction to save the appearances, but it ends up that this fiction functions in reverse to actual reality. The weather and the climate is used to generate more heat and higher temperatures, so that they can match what the real actual input of solar energy is already doing in the first place! It is just amazing that what a small group of people think of as science can be so incredibly and perfectly backwards from reality.
It gives a whole new meaning to the term “flat-earther’s”!
Stay subscribed for my next post.
Climate of Sophistry 
Pingback: The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 2: Moving to Reality « Tallbloke's Talkshop
Just more common sense… code alpha+
Pingback: The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 2: Moving to Reality « Skeptics Chillin'
“The correct and physically real mathematical distribution of this energy represents an input temperature on the day-time side of +49oC. Isn’t that just an incredible difference from the way climate science incorrectly dilutes the power of solar heating to -18oC?”
On the other hand, your model will put the cold side at 2.7K = – 270 C (the temperature of deep space — or maybe slightly higher than 2.7 K due to geothermal energy flows). That seems like an even MORE unrealistic model than saying the whole surface is -18 C.
[Reply: My model is rotating, not static. Rotation is an intrinsic property of the model.]
And before you say that the cold side only slowly cools as the earth rotates, remember that the warm side would only slowly warm. The simple fact is that a uniform model for radiation will give and average temperature -18C (ie the same everywhere) and any other model for distribution of radiation will give a lower average temperature. Some places would be above -18C, and some would be below -18C, but to balance the radiation in and out, the average WILL be lower than -18C. Your model suggests an EVEN GREATER need for the AGHE.
[Reply: A rotating model also gives a temperature of -18oC for the Earth, and the temperature of the Earth IS radiatively -18oC. The ground is just the part of the Earth average which is supposed to be warmer, because it is where the heat is generated by sunshine at far higher than -18oC.]
Joe’s model provides proof that the atmosphere cools the planet on the sunward side by absorbing heat and warms it through the night by releasing heat.
“Climate is all internal response effects. Internal cycling of energy (i.e. all weather phenomena including “backradiation”) is not production of new energy or new heat or higher temperatures. Most climate effects are cooling phenomena, except for the release of latent heat which prevents cooling and keeps things warmer than otherwise.”
It also goes the extra mile by showing that it is heated non-linearly since the earth is a sphere. Additionally, it shows how the atmosphere cools non-linearly through the night. So yes, the cold side does slowly cool through the night and the warm side does indeed, slowly warm throughout the day. Also, yes, some places would be warmer or colder due to the amount of direct sunlight they were exposed to during the day. (In the winter, it is definitely warmer at the equator than it is in Canada)
What the reality model shows is that atmospheric heat comes from the sun, not from some made up, unsubstantiated wild idea of an AGHE. That is the big problem. The AGHE claims that the earth is warmed from a sun that provides only -18C worth of heat. It then simply states, without substantiation, that this radiative energy somehow bounces back and forth in the atmosphere to magically amplify itself and heat things up to the temperatures we actually encounter. In Joe’s reality based model, it shows a sun providing an average of 49C that drives the climate causing cooling by the atmosphere throughout the day to cool things down. Then, during the night, this energy is released and slowly cools and keeps things from getting to extreme cold. Simply put, if there wasn’t an atmosphere we would experience day and nightime variations similar to the dark and light side of the moon. Up to 115°C during the day and down to -180°C through the night. If the sun only provides -18C of heat energy then please explain to me why the sunward side of the moon reaches +115C. Since the moon obviously has no atmosphere, what “effect” would cause this increase in temperature from a sun outputting only -18C of heat? The sun obviously provides more heat energy than -18C. This is the root error with how and why the AGHE is invented out of the flat earth model.
[Reply: Indeed, the moon is a good example of how strong the sunshine actually is on the Earth, and is proof of how much cooling the atmosphere actually provides during the day time. That the Earth stays warmer over night is not due to any AGHE, but simply because there’s additional thermal mass on top of the surface in the form of the atmosphere, which has low emissivity, and which also releases latent heat from water vapor and prevents excess cooling. The cooling-preventing effect of latent heat has nothing to do with the AGHE, and it is the only place heat energy can be said to be trapped in the system.]
Joe says: “ A rotating model also gives a temperature of -18oC for the Earth, and the temperature of the Earth IS radiatively -18oC.”
Ah .. you are confusing two different ideas.
The “effective black body temperature” of the “radiating surface” of a sphere with albedo 0.3 at a distance 1 AU from the sun is -18C, independent of the rotation (or GHG’s for that matter). But that is a very specific statement about radiation balance on average, and this will be the temperature of the surface only when the incoming light is uniformly distributed over the whole sphere.
[Reply: Sorry that seems confusing for you TJ. This is exactly what occurs for the planet Earth. It’s temperature IS -18C.]
The “average” temperature (for instance, measure the temperature of each square meter of surface and average those numbers) of the “radiating surface” will be lower than this if the incoming light is not uniform. A non-rotating sphere will have a MUCH lower average temperature than -18C. A rotating sphere will have a somewhat lower average temperature than -18C. But no matter how you try to play with rotation speeds or heat capacity, you will get an average temperature below -18C,
[Reply: The Earth IS rotating, and it DOES have an average temperature of -18C]
(Of course, you could effectively raise the level where the radiation occurs — eg GHGs. This can raise the surface temperature while keeping the “effective surface temperature of the radiating surface” at -18C.)
Please be careful to use “effective black body temperature” when that is what you mean, and “average” temperature when that is what you mean. Your reply yo me seems to be mixing up these two ideas.
[Reply: I am afraid you are confused. The average temperature of the Earth IS -18C. The ground is just the part of the average which is supposed to be warmer because that is where the high temperature radiation is converted into heat in the first place. See pg. 5 & 6 here.]
Joe continues the discussion … “I am afraid you are confused. The average temperature of the Earth IS -18C. “
Don’t take someone’s word for it — calculate it yourself. The “effective blackbody temperature” is found by assuming radiative balance. In other words, the energy arriving every second to the entire earth equals the energy leaving every second from the entire earth.
A few quick calculations should convince you that the average power (averaged over the whole earth) is 240 W/m^2. This is a robust result for any sphere with albedo = 0.3 located 1 AU from the sun. But this is power, not temperature! to find the average temperature, you need to make assumptions about the distribution of that power.
[Reply: That average power of 240 W/m^2 output does correspond to a temperature, of -18C. It is the temperature of the Earth on average. This is standard physics.]
For example, if you assume the temperature is the same everywhere, then each square meter radiates 240 W/m^2 and each square meter is that 255 K = -18 C you mention, so the average temperature is -18 C
But now consider a DIFFERENT scenario — half the world is warmer, radiating 360 W/m^2 and half radiates 120 W/m^2. WE STILL HAVE RADIATIVE BALANCE with an average of 240 W/m^2 as required. But now half the world is + 9 C and half the world is -58 C. The global average temperature = (+9 – 58) / 2 = -20.5 C.
The average temperature of this world is COLDER than that of the first, even though the effective blackbody temperature is the same as before. These two numbers are NOT the same thing!
[Reply: You’re stating obvious things which have nothing to do with the Earth. The Earth outputs 240 W/m^2 on average; this is a temperature of -18C on average. The ground surface is just the part of the average which is warmest because the high temperature sunlight is first absorbed there.]
[SIDE NOTE: Notice that this number is not vastly different from -18C. Even with a system that is not uniform temperature, the difference between “average” temperature and “effective black body temperature” is often not that much. The “thermal inertia” of the earth keeps it from cooling off quickly at night, but also keeps it from warming quickly during the day. But “effective BB temperature” and “average temperature” are fundamentally different and need to be recognized as being conceptually distinct.]
The mistake you make is to have the “day side” in radiative equilibrium (with the same amount of power in as power out) but you ignore the radiation from the other side! Since you already have radiative equilibrium from one half of the earth by itself, the night side cannot radiate any appreciable energy (or the earth as a whole would be experiencing obvious long-term cooling). To not radiate, the backside would have to be 0. This would give an average temperature somewhere around (0.1 * 88C) + (0.4 * 49 C) + (0.5 * -273 C) = -108 C
even though the effective blackbody temperature is STILL -18 C for your model.
Put another way, you assume “thermal inertia” will prevent cooling on the night side, but you underplay the effect of “thermal inertia” on the warm side. Even reasonably rough calculations show that your numbers simply don’t work out.
[Reply: My model demonstrates the actual, real-time power input in terms of energy and its temperature-forcing equivalent. It also lists the average output. Differential calculus takes care of the details. This is the last post on this subject I will post for you, because it has been answered, and I don’t want to waste time jumping through additional fictional scenarios and comparisons for me to answer.]
tjfolkerts,
if you were to actually MEASURE the temperature of the earth for radiation purposes you would need to measure everything that actually radiates to space!! This includes solid surface, water, and all levels of the atmosphere. THIS is what should be equivalent to -18c NOT the SURFACE BY ITSELF!!!
tjfolkerts,
Please mathematically describe your idea of “thermal inertia”. The sun does not put anything in motion so I’m not sure what you’re trying to describe. Are you trying to say that the atmosphere will continue to increase in temperature after sunset….. void of any energy input from the sun?
[Reply: The term “thermal inertia’ doesn’t exist outside of climate science. Indeed, show us the mathematical definition!]
Way cool! Some extremely valid points! I appreciate you penning this article and the rest of the website is also very good.
“Climate is all internal response effects. Internal cycling of energy (i.e. all weather phenomena including “backradiation”) is not production of new energy or new heat or higher temperatures. Most climate effects are cooling phenomena, except for the release of latent heat which prevents cooling and keeps things warmer than otherwise.”
Don’t you mean release of latent heat delays cooling, not preventing it?
As always, a great post the alarmists fear to discuss!
Pingback: No new energy | Roald j. Larsen
@roaldjlarsen
Yes latent heat delays cooling…that’s what was intended to mean with “prevent”.
Joseph,
As a master of typos I spot them well. Your first paragraph, you have needles for needless.
Although most political science is like having needles stuck in you I’m sure that’s not what you meant.
Cheers!
Thermal Inertia
Thermal inertia can be defined as the ‘property of a material that expresses the degree of slowness with which its temperature reaches that of the environment’ Ng et al. 2011.
From: Exergy Analysis and Thermoeconomics of Buildings, 2020
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/thermal-inertia
In other words: thermal capacity times mass.
Inertia is a stupid term to use for it.