I keep on seeing the phrase from alarmists, warmists, and luke-warmists, of this initiating assumption that, in order to conserve energy in the greenhouse diagrams and the related K-T Energy budget, you set the power input equal to the power output. In other words:
“Power In = Power Out”
This is the phrase used by a greenhouse advocate with me in a recent debate. However, in the context of the greenhouse effect and its diagrams, what actually should be referred to is “flux” instead of “power”, since it is flux that the greenhouse and IPCC K-T energy budget diagrams attempt to conserve in place of conserving energy.
Haven’t these people heard of entropy? The fact that for essentially NOTHING in the universe, flux in = flux out, is learned in high-school or even well before that. So who are the people that claim that flux in = flux out, in direct and the most basic violation of thermodynamics? Can you actually really be a physicist while claiming that flux in = flux out, in 100% efficiency? Nothing is 100% efficient, because of our friend entropy. Doesn’t anybody who’s come within ten-feet of science know this? I think I learned that in grade school, in a Christian school, that no matter how efficiently you try to get work out of a system, you can never get as much work out as you put in – there are always losses.
So there’s that, and of course, why else is “flux in” NOT EQUAL TO “flux out”? ‘Flux in’ is not equal to ‘flux out’ because the energy which constitutes those fluxes does not come from the same surface area. For Earth, ‘flux out’ does not equal ‘flux in’ because the energy gets put in on only half the planet, while the ‘energy out’ comes from the whole planet.
There’s twice as much surface area from which energy can come out than to which energy comes in, and so, if the flux out equaled the flux in, there would be twice as much energy coming out as comes in. Equating flux will in general always lead to a basic violation of conservation of energy. Equating flux, in general, is not the correct way to conserve energy. You conserve energy by conserving energy in units of energy, not units of power. The energy in and energy out are equal, but not the power in and power out.
*Note here that there is an interchange of the words “power” and “flux”. One of the tactics that GHE alarmists use is the misapplication of words and terms, and I fell into following that incorrect usage after debating with a GHE alarmist, as you will see partially quoted below. In terms of the IPCC K-T Energy Budget, and all related GHE effect diagrams, what is actually being equated is the flux input and output. You can use the terms “power” if you’re talking with someone who knows what you should be talking about, however, the problem is that the term can be used to obfuscate because it is not actually what the GHE diagrams are based on. The GHE diagrams equate ‘flux in’ and ‘flux out’, not ‘power in’ and ‘power out’. See my comment here (this page, below) for a little more on this. When a person argues that “power in” = “power out” in the context of the greenhouse effect and its diagrams such as K&T, they actually mean to refer to “flux”, and sometimes the terminology switches to that of “power” instead of “flux”, when it is (supposed to be) understood what is being referred to. This is something this author will be more careful about in the future, because typically these changes in phraseology are designed to obfuscate and lead into dead-ends and useless loop-holes of debate, when this author assumes the other party is being honest and understands the intention of the words they introduce in the context.
I mean this is all very basic stuff, which I’ve written on extensively already. The Earth is not flat, Sunshine is not cold, conserving flux is not the same thing as conserving energy, etc.
And that latter seems to be the source of all the climate confusion, among all participants of the debate. Only me and other people at PSI (Principia Scientific International, i.e. “the Slayers”) seem to be stating the factual, traditional-science case that flux is not the same thing as energy, that flux can’t be averaged, that real-time differential heat-flow equations are the only true solution for heat flow and temperature, etc. Some people try to tell me that the Slayers saying those things is only making skeptics look like fools.
Is it true? Is flux the same thing as energy? Can flux be averaged in a non-linear system? Are heat-flow differential equations just some curiosity that don’t really apply to temperature? Does the cold-end of a heated bar make the heated-end warmer? These are all, contradictions in terms.
Anyone who says that the Slayers are trying to make skeptics look foolish, is actually themselves an imposter pretending to be a skeptic or scientist otherwise, who’s role it is to defend the premise of the greenhouse effect, either from outside climate alarm or within. The ones doing it from outside climate alarm, the ones appearing to be skeptics, are called the 5’th Column. If you appear to be a skeptic, but spend a lot of your energy defending the greenhouse effect, and since the greenhouse effect is the sole existential basis for climate alarm, then in fact you are a defender of climate alarm politics. Factual outcomes overrule the pretences.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory: there is a very loud, very vocal, very public, group of people who really want to institute a new form of governance based on their political interpretation of the environment. There’s no theory here. It is very public and very open. They use fear to make their political interpretation of the environment seem credible. Of course it is not credible, it is merely the unfortunate fact that many humans respond to fear. Actually, does anyone even really take them seriously any more? Outside of soul-lost academics, hippies, liberals, and drug users, and the alarmists themselves, normal people don’t and have never really taken the fear seriously.
The only true skeptics are the Slayers and others who independently question the greenhouse effect and understand its basic scientific flaws. The Slayers and similar people are not just being “ultra-skeptics” for the fun of it, to fill that role out of some ultimately irrational desire to question everything like some “semantic philosophers” – no – we’re simply stating the facts of traditional science and traditional theory. Traditional theory, like, the Earth being heated on one-side only, etc.
Look at this response I got from someone named “Joel Shore” (my italics), during his attempt to claim that “power in” = “power out” (by which he actually meant “flux in” = “flux out”…):
Joel Shore:
By the way, this concept of dividing both sides of the equation by the SAME value is a point that seems to have tripped you up before, Joe. It explains why you have sometimes been confused and said that you should only divide the (energy in) by half of the surface area of the Earth because the sun is only shining on half the Earth in order to get the average. The problem with doing that is that you are starting from an energy balance argument (energy in) = (energy out) but are then dividing both sides by a different number. This is not a legal mathematical step as it does not preserve the equality of the equation. A lot of words about how the sun is only shining over half the Earth does not allow you to perform illegal mathematical steps. I guess dividing both sides of an equation by the same amount is something that goes beyond your mathematical abilities. (I actually doubt that is the case, but to think otherwise is to believe that you are intentionally deceiving others.)
So you see what he’s trying to do there? Kind of clever in the way he’s trying to invert my own own argument. I argue, as traditional science would, that we need to conserve energy, which means that the numerical value for the flux can be a free parameter, whatever it needs to be to satisfy energy conservation, and that trying to conserve flux is the wrong way to go about it. Shore says, instead, that flux/power is what has to be numerically conserved, and that this can stand-in for energy. Conserving power (i.e. flux) is not the same thing as conserving energy…they’re different words, and they’re not synonyms. Is that understandable? Conserving energy forms the basis of physics; conserving flux doesn’t.
We also see open admission that such a concept of the Sun shining over half the Earth is anathema to the greenhouse effect and that style of “thinking”. Isn’t that amazing? His last sentence there is all about mocking the idea that the Sun shines only over half of the Earth – that I use “a lot of words” about it, and that the concept is “mathematically illegal”. These people entities are clever but they’re clever like a rat. The total energy on either side of the equation is entirely conserved when dividing by the respective surface-areas they associate with.
Energy in = Energy out, only. This does not equate to flux in = flux out. Flux in = Flux out is not a fundamental equation or law in physics, and there is no need to worry about preserving it – it isn’t valid in the first place, and it doesn’t form the basis of energy conservation, or physics. If you want to conserve energy, then conserve energy. For that is fundamental physics. The flux is then determined by wherever the energy goes or comes from. Can you believe a “person” would mock my statement, the statement, that the sun shines on only half of the Earth? Is a real human capable of that, in seriousness?
Flux in does not equal Flux out, and this is different from energy in equaling energy out. As long as people don’t understand that, or ignore it, they will remain ignorant of physics, even if they pretend to be educated in it. This confusion is the basis of the greenhouse effect, and the climate alarm which rests upon it.
Climate of Sophistry 
We live in grey body reality. Nowt happens with 100% efficiency. But try telling that to a “climatologist”…
Question for people:
WHAT do you have to be, to make fun of the idea of the Sun shining on half the Earth? I mean, WHAT would do that? What kind of structure would do that? What are its properties? What makes it tick? What motivates it? What kind of goals could it have? What would its purpose be?
Please speculate.
A post on WUWT about the water cycle:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/climate-change-is-dominated-by-the-water-cycle-not-carbon-dioxide
An interesting comment:
The responses on that WUWT thread are spectacular. They know that it is wrong and why it is wrong but can not/will not openly admit that the K/T energy budget, and hence the GHE theory, is wrong. They won’t quite connect the dots. Something prevents it from clicking?
I entered the ‘climate science’ fake debate with brief snippets on talk radio, and ignored by newspaper editors for several years, before i got internet traction with “Hoax of the Century” at InfoWars, on April 13, 2009. As i got deeper into the fake debate, i attended the Richard Lindzen, Gerry North fake debate, described in “No Loophole for Your Soul”, posted at Canada Free Press, Jan 2010. This was the first use of the term “Warmist” to describe the hyper-warmers. The Judith Curry did her fake debate with Mikey Mann, in “Discover” magazine in April 2010. At that point it was obvious that NEITHER side of this fake debate understood Thermodynamics. I wrote “Non Science Nonsense”, posted at CFP. This was the first use of the term “Luke Warmist”. In July 2010, Roy Spencer wrote his “Yes, Virginia, Cold Makes Hot” [paraphrased] and i countered with “Rocket Scientist Need NOT Apply”, also at CFP. I was then contacted by members of the Slayers. The science presented by these brave gentlemen, and as presented at the website Principia-Scientific.org, is the best Earth science currently available. Human superstitions do not dictate physical reality. Thoughtful humans carefully identify and measure all of the relevant parameters, and let empirical reality guide our expanding knowledge.
This is a three sided ‘debate’….the Darth BIG Warmists….the Luke LITTLE Warmists and the Obie NO Warmists. In a three sided debate, two sides are WRONG….and Obie KNOWS science.
Joe, you seem to have aquired the Joel Shore ability to make no sense by interchanging power and energy for example “that no matter how efficiently you try to get work out of a system, you can never get as much power out as you put in – there are always losses.” Work has the units
of Joules while power has the units of Joules/second=Watts. You use both in the same sentance.
Then worse you introduce entropy, Joules/temperature, a construct invented to distingush, work,
from the energy we can no longer find, only to be able to say that “energy is conserved”!
Then even worse you consider that the power from the Sun cannot all be radiated to space because of entropy. You never say what is radiated to space, work/second, entropy/second or both! AFAIK any discourse with Joel Shore leads to the same symptoms. Beware of such discourse, talking with only sane folk fou a while lets the symptoms dissipate.
@Graham, yes, it is interesting isn’t it? People are saying the EXACT same things I would say, that the Slayers would say. Can they not connect the dots?
@Will, yes, indeed, communicating with Shore is a challenge in and of itself. Will try to make some changes to the text to correct the problems you identify. Thanks!
Thank you Joe. For a non scientist truth seeker like me, your posts – and commentary – are of enormous value. Thanks also to Faux Science Slayer for the great comment above. The mythic lies confronting us are many and coordinated with one fierce and murderous desire – a scientific totalitarian global dictatorship. Deuteronomy 7:5 describes our dutiful response.
” But thus shall ye deal with them . . . ye shall destroy their altars, break down their images and cut out their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.”
Go get em!
Joe, Power in = Power out, is not a conservation of something, but only a necessary condition of powered thermodynamic equilibrium. Consider any geometry with many passive objects and one
powered (Watts) object and one isotherm (must provide or dissapate any power in order to maintain that temperature), The geometry has nothing else. At thermodynamic equilibrium, each object will dissapate to elsewhere, the exact same power, it receives, and all the supplied power is dissapated from the isotherm. This is true for any method of heat transfer, or any combinations of heat transfer methods. The powered object will always have the highest temperature, as determined by geometry, and the isotherm the lowest temperature. Every object will spontaneously adjust its temperature so that any flux from a higher temperature is identically dissapated to an object with a lower temperature, that object must also adjiust its temperature such that all power exits via the isotherm. If any object has sufficent thermal mass, the thermodynamic equilibrium may take thousands of years. The temperature of all variable objects is influnced by that one thermal time constant. Complex thermo is a bitch, and “any” simplification “will” result in an error. Most smart folk with a sense of self preservation will flap wings and say “beats the shit out of me” ! Only Climatologists and other idiots say they know!
“I do not know” is always a valid answer.
Thanks Will, agreed with most of that. When I mention “power”, it is units of W/m^2 (J/s/m^2), as in radiant power via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It is this power which is not equal in terms of input and output. Only energy, in units of Joules, is equal for input and output. Power isn’t numerically conserved, but energy is. The attempt to make power a conserved quantity, instead of energy, is what leads to the confusion of climate alarm, and the greenhouse effect.
Joe, Perhaps it is only semantics, but by your dimensional analysis, you understand what you are saying, I can figure what you mean, but Joel will only attack, as there is no attempt to understand your words. The scientific term is “flux” (power transfer per unit area). Why that word, I do not know, but if you divide flux by distance, you are now back to “power density”, W/m^3, go figure.
I do not know why you are hung up on conservation of energy. The Earth oceans have so much sensible heat that it is almost an isotherm, and can emit or absorb any amount of power or energy with no measurable temperature difference. The Climate Clown speak of deap ocean “warming” is as much of a hoax as the CO2 thing! Shore only posts to get folk to say “power” when he says “power” whan you are trying to figure out “flux”.
Been there done that, best go snuggle with someone you really like!
BTW that is Stefan-Boltzmann equation, not Law, and Stefan’s constant, sigma. Boltzmann has his own constant (lower case k). All that other nonsense has been added to Wiki by the Climate Clowns, the most professional political lobbyists of all time. We can never regain public confidence by correcting fake science. We must expose the intentional fraud! Only after that can any understanding of this planet begin. Folk are not stupid but gulable, religion satisfies the wish to know. One can be just as satisfied by finding someone trustworthy that also does not know, but is willing to wonder about that with you. There is always someone that can and will get “your” money Thanx for reading my rant.
For your amusement: This will likely be deleated by sunsettommy at PSI.
[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]It’s tough to discuss physics without equations to define the terms. So let me help (feel free to disagree or add your own defining equations, Joe).
[b]Power In[/b] = rate of heat input to a heat engine from the hot reservoir:
[i]P_in = d(Q_hot) / dt[/i]
[b]Power Out[/b] = rate of mechanical work done by a heat engine:
[i]P_out = dW / dt[/i]
[b]”Lost” Power[/b] is power that does not come out as mechanical work.
[i]P_Lost = d(Q_cold) / dt[/i]
[b]Efficiency[/b] is how well heat is converted to mechanical work:
[i]η = P_out / P_in[/i] = 1 – (P_Lost/P_in)
If we can agree on equations and specific descriptions of the ideas, then we can move ahead. If not, there is no point in simply throwing ill-defined words back and forth.[/quote]
[b]”Lost” Power[/b] is power that does not come out as mechanical work.
[i]P_Lost = d(Q_cold) / dt[/i]
This is the one you cannot explain:
even though you put in terms of power
rather than energy. The classical definition of entropy is delta Q devided by some T. no delta T, nor unit T, nor absolute T
Now you change that to “Lost Power”
As the energy transfered to a cold sink divided by elapsed time.
Is energy conserved by the creation of entropy, or is it “lost” as the integral
of “lost power” over time.
Joe,
At any given instant, there are very few places on Earth where energy in ever equals energy out. This is without doubt given the geometry and motion, but it is further complicated by the many ways in which energy can be stored for later release.; meaning the total energy in also rarely equals the total energy out at any given instant.
The problem with the corruption of the Science is that JS, TF, rgb, and more, are all educators, or at least they claim to be. Their simplistic garbage couched in convoluted explanations gives the illusion that they are doing something difficult and complicated; which dazzles their young students, who are happy when they don’t have to get into that level of detail to get a good grade in the course.
The problem we face is that the real math, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and chemistry necessary to follow what is going on is well beyond the capabilities of most people, even if they are well versed and willing to try; so explaining the science tends to fail.
I think the only hope of gaining traction in the quest to educate the masses that there is no greenhouse effect lies in the global cooling that we are currently experiencing and continue to face.
I say this, because last night I got a call from an old friend who lives in Rapid City, SD, who I hadn’t heard from since years ago when I told him that Global Warming due to CO2 was BS, and he couldn’t believe that I could be right and all those “Scientists” were wrong. But they didn’t prepare him for what happened last weekend.
Dave
Joe, thanks for another excellent article. I’ve just pointed a blog commentator to this article, as he was saying that because CO2 traps energy, the temp rises so the outbound radiation (power?) rises to maintain equilibrium. He said nothing about an increase in inbound energy and nothing about energy conservation. Like so many, he was magically conjuring this extra energy out of nothing. This is the sort of sophistry we’re dealing with, and as you say, as clever as a rat.
@ Will 2013/10/07 at 10:44 PM
Thanks. Agreed with the tactics to trick people into using words that aren’t as precise as they should be. The thing about conservation of energy is just to make the point that conservation of flux or power density is not the same thing. Flux does not need to be numerically conserved, but energy does. It makes a difference in that if you try to conserve numerical flux, the Sun can no longer create the water cycle; if you conserve energy, this problem doesn’t appear. The method of making the Sun unable to create the water cycle is what forces the climate clowns to invent the GHE, so that the water cycle creates the water cycle with the heat from the water cycle, basically.
@Dave – the snowstorm last weekend?
Yes indeed, input and output is not locally conserved. More energy enters than leaves in the tropical regions, plus a bit more latitude. Globally energy is conserved. Only a real-time model can handle what to do about that.
@Will 2013/10/08 at 12:51 AM
My reply:
Joe,
The recent snow fall in SD set a record for early snow depth. Unofficially according to my friend, a seasoned snow veteran, six feet or so in many places with drifts more than twice that. The official depth was closer to four feet. I think his worries about the ice cap evaporated, or maybe sublimed.
When you say “Globally energy is conserved”, are you allowing for the variable lag time between incoming energy being stored and the later release of that energy? At any instant, the global input wouldn’t necessarily (or likely) equal global output, would it?
Dave
Yes you are correct in that statement too, Dave:
“are you allowing for the variable lag time between incoming energy being stored and the later release of that energy? At any instant, the global input wouldn’t necessarily (or likely) equal global output, would it?”
The real-time differential thermal equations do model that at at least a basic level. For example, summer high’s coming only well-after the summer solstice, and winter low only after the winter solstice. So, they can do that, and show why that occurs. Longer term things can be modeled too, if you KNOW what they are, such as orbital variations, as these would modulate the solar input.
But yah man, that’s precisely it – that’s the sort of physics and science that actually needs to be done! You’re entirely correct in pointing it out.
Joe I don’t usually refer to something on WUWT, but the comments in this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/climate-change-is-dominated-by-the-water-cycle-not-carbon-dioxide/#more-95288 are so amusing and sad at the same time. There is someone posting as Anomalatys who accurately interprets the K-T diagram (cartoon?) in terms of “energy” flow and how the atmosphere is shown adding heat to the surface. The explanation is similar to what we have read in articles here, so perhaps I can guess the identity of Anomalatys!
Anyway the comments are worth a read because they show up the ignorance of many commentators who think they are very knowledgeable about science, which is the sad part. But if you have been following Joe’s explanations here then you will also find many comments funny.
Here is the start of the “wind up” by Anomalatys where he gives others the opportunity to think for themselves about the flawed IPCC K-T diagram, but they don’t grab it:
Anomalatys says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:53 pm
But isn’t the water cycle created by the Sun? I don’t know how the Sun can create the water cycle if the IPCC K-T diagram says the sun provides only 168 W/m^2 of input power, which is only -40F if converted into a temperature that sunlight would induce on a surface if totally absorbed. -40F can’t melt ice, can it? But direct sunshine DOES melt ice, doesn’t it? And create the water cycle? I guess the energy from the water cycle must come back to help create the water cycle in the first place.
This should have given people something to think about, but comments which attempted to answer this tried to make out that Anomalatys didn’t understand physics!
Only AS understood that this was a “wind up” to see what reactions would ensue:
AS says:
October 7, 2013 at 2:44 pm
@Anomalatys
Loving it. Just loving it. You’re like a cat with the world’s stupidest mouse, which is being slain.
Some commentators point out that what Anomalatys is highlighting is nonsense, but they attribute it to him and not realise it is what the IPCC are in effect saying in the diagram they use, so they attack Anomalatys! How ignorant is that?
Gail Combs (7.10pm) quotes other “energy balance” references. I only looked at one and it adds together flux densities which Joe has already shown is nonsense in physics. She obviously does not understand you can’t add flux densities together!
wayne (1.46pm) points out that the 168W/sqm input is an average. Well done. So he realises that you can’t work with averages because they are meaningless in real life! He should be praising Joe’s real time spherical model, although I doubt he has ever read it.
I have only mentioned a few of the comments revealing how scientifically ignorant the majority of WUWT supporters are, with the exception of Anomalatys and AS.
As a side issue, having been away for a while, I had expected Joe to answer Tim Flockert’s “high school student” arithmetic in his Equating Flux article at Principia International. I had expected to read the usual “educating” style of reply! Only by ridiculing some of these people will they stop making fools of themselves.
Wow, that’s very enlightening, D.M…(!) A lot can be learned from that thread 😉
Great analysis too btw!
Look at this stupidity:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/08/messaging-fail-almost-half-of-a-pew-survey-respondents-dont-know-the-co2-warms-the-atmosphere-claim/
Watts is upset that people don’t know that CO2 causes warming…now why would that be?
I like this:
“No object that has heat transferred to it spontaneously from a higher temperature “source” by any means, can spontaneously return any of that heat to the source by any means. Such would be a violation of 2LTD.”
Hence why they try to obfuscate their way around that fact.
And so: Nor does the heat energy from a source make itself a higher temperature when heating up a cooler object, as this would also be a violation of 2LTD.
“Joseph E Postma says:
2013/10/08 at 9:30 AM
Look at this stupidity:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/08/messaging-fail-almost-half-of-a-pew-survey-respondents-dont-know-the-co2-warms-the-atmosphere-claim/
Watts is upset that people don’t know that CO2 causes warming…now why would that be?”
========
Seen in another ludicrous thread there, where some guest blogger tried to confess he knows, that there’s only the Scientific Principia guys who disagree about the Magic GaiS, Y’aW,
religion:
===
October 8, 2013 at 11:40 pm
S.R.V. says:
THIS GROUP
[ then quoting the author] “I’ve appropriated the term “Skeptics” to cover the broad tent of opinion which accepts that there has been some global warming since the LIA, to which human activities would have made some (probably trivial) contribution, through increased GHG emissions.”
and this group:
…Lukewarmers are a subset of skeptics, who believe net feedbacks from warming to be slightly positive.”
====
“Are the same people. If you believe carbon dioxide can heat the atmosphere however trivially you are in fact a luke warmer,and there are of course, in fact, degrees of that set.
SKEPTICS are those who are SKEPTICAL: i.e do not accept,
the story that
(1) the atmosphere heats the earth,
(2)a specific component – atmospheric infrared resonant gas(es) is responsible for the handling of nearly ALL the heat.
All the rest of you are warmers: from Luke Warm to Hair On Fire Zealots.
You either believe the earth’s atmosphere heats the earth or you don’t.
If you do, you’re a warmer.
95% of you are afraid of an experiment I showed my wife just now as I explained your article and comments to her.
She’s an engineering scientist in bridge and roadway design, managing the software suites the engineers who design bridges and roadways through various terrains from cliffside oceanic to swamp. She’s scientific method savvy and I use her as my stand-up comedy audience as I make fun of, ridicule, and mock warmers who can’t fathom which way a thermometer goes, even when THEY DO THE EXPERIMENTS.
The level of scientific grasp among warmers really is past abysmal and here’s how bad it is:
I was speaking to my wife about this subject of various divisions.
I pointed out to her that 95% of you people here,
believe the atmosphere,
is responsibe for warming the earth.
So she was in the bathroom sitting on the toilet, trying to tweeze a little hair that had turned back and grown in, along a crease in her knee. I was in the next room sitting in front of the computer and I saw a sorta ovid shaped, an egg-shapped jar, of hand creme she buys to put on our dog’s paws so the dogs don’t scratch stuff they do launches onto and off around the house.
There was a milk crate, you know, a plasti milk crate, just like all of em, sitting in the corner of the bathroom where she sometimes sits or I do, when bathing these dogs.
I picked up the hand creme and walked to the tub. I sat the hand creme in the floor of the tub, and I told my wife, “THAT’S the EARTH.”
I turned on the shower, with the water, warm, and we have a kinda cool one where there’s a big round face on the shower head the size of a sunflower: like 6 inches across, and I turned this
warm water, representing sunlight slamming into the earth,
and I said THAT’S the SUN.
I told her “there’s a gas atmosphere around the planet which blocks, prevents from getting to earth, about 40% of all the sunlight otherwise to impinge against the planet’s surface.
I picked up the milk crate which of course has it’s squares and various triangular bracings to make it sustain holding cartons of liquid, yet remain lightweight: like the earth’s atmosphere, the crate, makes a screen: that BLOCKS some 20 or 30% of the WATER, from hitting the cold-creme plastic egg-shaped container.
I said to my wife, “95% of the people at the world’s most popular science site,
CAN’T FIGURE OUT THE CRATE STOPPING SOME of that HOT WATER from HITTING
that HAND CREME JAR,
COOLS
that
JAR.”
She’s in engineering software management and only deals with real scientists, who do real work, where real science makes things stand up, or real people, die in accidents,
so she understands what a scientific illiterate sounds like, and will fall for.
She said to me “They don’t understand that?
“Who are these people? ”
=====
Who these people are folks, are you guys.
=====
If a man cant take a hand creme jar,
spray it with hot water,
then put a milk crate over it and ask you the queston
“Is the milk crate causing the temperature of the jar, to RISE, or FALL?”
and get the right answer: the crate blocks about 20 or 30% of the water so the heat energy impacting the jar is LESS, therefore the milk crate COOLED the jar,
then that’s the I.D.E.N.T.I.C.A.L.. position persons wishing to conduct scientifically accurate conversation with warmer religionists faces.
You can’t even call warming warming, and cooling cooling.
Your field of pseudo-bigfoot science calls adding screen blocking thermal input, HEATING it.
Not COOLING it.
So where is your credibility vis-a-vis the real sciences of the world were we don’t tolerate that kind of drivel passed off as reality based thinking?
Sadly it puts climate scientists into the absolute bottom of the bin. They’re the LAST people you expect to answer ANY question correctly.
Here’s another one from the real skeptics to the warmers – you here who – by virtue of stating outright you think the atmosphere heats the planet, are definitionally at LEAST a lukewarmer –
If you have a mass and you are irradiating that mass with a light, the mass, will have a temperature it eventually reaches.
If you then, place a second, smaller mass, in direct physical contact with that mass – say it’s a black marble – and you attach ANOTHER MASS, that the LIGHT can’t HEAT, but that can remove, through direct physical contact, – lets say you put that black marble into a pool of water that is contained below and on the sides in glass, the top’s open, and at first you heat the marble, and arrive at a temperature for it – this is the earth, without any atmosphere –
you read a certain temperature for the marble.
Now: you lower the marble, AND the light, THREE INCHES, until the MARBLE, is IMMERSED in the DISTILLED water WHICH THE LIGHT CAN NOT HEAT to anywhere NEAR the level it can the marble –
In REAL SCIENCE the question ‘WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TEMPERATURE of the MARBLE when the ADDITIONAL MASS of the COOL FLUID BATH surrounds it?”
the answer is “THE MARBLE is COOLED by the FLUID BATH it is IMMERSED in.”
====
Here, where magical thermodynamics rules the local world, that marble is WARMED by the FRIGID FLUID BATH the marble’s immersed in.
——
Do those of you who come here for science really believe that when you place a screen between a heat source and a marble, blocking 40% of the energy that would otherwise warm the marble, the screen WARMS the marble?
If you do,
you understand, that nobody’s ever going to take you serious anywhere but the Magic Gais-o-sphere, right?
You’re not going to try to take this kind of perversity and sell it on the free marketplace of ideas because you’re going to be mocked and ridiculed so tersely you’ll wonder if maybe the Hari Krishnas at the airport would be a more popular science group for you to join.
Don’t just say ‘Yes, I believe,”
just because there seem to be 14 million dimwits on the internet who’ll say it first.
Joe, Tou may no longer find tyhis on PSI any longer.
To answer your question in a reasonable way consider:
*So, what is “the effect” that cool objects have on warmer objects?”
“The effect you seek is that it causes, via some method, warmer objects to become warmer still, particularly if the colder object is being heated by the warmer object. You say this is not heating…lol.”
“Your words are pure sophistry and the attempt to hide in semantics”
If any object at any temperature interferes with the heat dissapation of a powered object, the powered object will spontaniously increase in temperature to compinsate for that interferance. With this increase in temperature there is no increase in flux of the powered object. With this there still is no transfer of heat energy from colder to hotter.
This is true quite independent, of any mistaken claim of Roy Spencer. A spontanious increase in temperature does not necessarily indicate “warming” or heat thansfer to. The temperature of Roy’s inner sphere with no “shell” would also increase in temperature by the same amount if the emissivity of the sphere were halved. The Climate Clowns, and educators, have never measured the emissivity of the earth at every wavelength and every angle from normal. They claim nonsense. They claim an albedo of 30% then ASSUME the earth is a greybody, resulting in nonsense, that requires some fantasy to explain.
Nitrogen and oxygen can hardly emit at all or don’t emit at all – clearly the atmosphere must have a very low emissivity already. If you WANT to use 240 W/m^2 as an input, then the emissivity to get +15C is something like 65%, which is actually still relatively high. Insulation doesn’t cause the temperature of the flame in the furnace to become hotter.
Will Janoschka says: “A spontaneous increase in temperature does not necessarily indicate “warming””
=======================================
And the Nobel Prize 2013 for re-inventing English Language goes to Will Janoschka! Congratulations! (standing ovation) 😆
“Will Janoschka says: “A spontaneous increase in temperature does not necessarily indicate “warming”” And the Nobel Prize 2013 for re-inventing English Language goes to Will Janoschka! Congratulations! (standing ovation) 😆
Greg, is “your” definition of warming really “an increase in temperature”? Example: a boiling pot of water. Heat is added contiounsly to the water , but the temperature of the water does not change! Is the water warming? Another: A 5 watt resistior on a aluminum plate with a thermometer. In your cold oven dissapating 5 watts, the plate will reach temperature T1, Increase the oven temperature by 100 degree Celsius. If the plate is highly reflective, dissapation from the plate is onlr\y by conduction and convection, the plate temperature will increase by 100 Cellsius, as the 5 watts, same flux, must increase to dissapate the 5 Watts.to a higher temperature enviroment. The oven did no warming as the flux is always from plate to oven.
Question for both Greg and Joe.
If I make the plate highly emissive for some radiative transfer but reduce the air pressure from 14.7 to 3.5 psi absolute to reduce C&C, and repeat the above we have: Cold oven plate temperature T2. Increasing oven temperature by 100 Celsius we have plate temperature T3.
Please state temperatures T2 and T3 in relation to T1! Why are they at these temperatures?
Did the oven ever “warm” the plate even though the oven did increase background temperature in both cases. Dr. Latour can help with the conduction, but would need ,more geometry for convection. If you cannot pin folk like Roy, Tim, and Joel down on the meaning of every word they write they will run rings around any thinking person. That is their goal in life!~
Joe, anything that absorbs and re-emits the same thermal radiation “must” in some way interfere with the original radiative geometry! Not taught in schools!
Joe, I see over at PSI that you still have communicating with Joel Shore symtoms.
Let me try this since the KT chart deala only with one constant surface ared, power energy and flux areall either conserved or not. There is no distintinction/ except for some time delay..
The problem for our side is that we assume people are going to have an honest debate and we assume they mean WHAT they SHOULD mean when they say things. This just gets turned around on us. I will try to stick to only ENERGY and FLUX in the future…since that is what concerns my analyses and the GHE and IPCC diagrams…
Will Janoschka says: “Greg, is “your” definition of warming really “an increase in temperature”?”
===================================
It is not just humble me. Let’s look it up in a WordWeb dictionary:
Noun: warming
1. The process of becoming warmer; a rising temperature
Greg, Why not look it up in a science or thermodynamics reference. It is just the ambuguity ofn definition thar result in this nonsense. Please try to rewright my to examples ysing your concept of “warming’ Som folk say a coat warms! Wrong not at all for a dead body.s
Joe, The KT drawing is not that. The only real flux is the one of latent heat transfer. all others are using thermal radiation and are only values of Radiative Intensity or radiance. Radiance onlly is a potential with units of flux. It only indicates the maximum flux that could be to a black surface at zero Kelvin. Actual flux is always determined by the difference in two different potentials.. The KT drawing has ine radiance 40 W/M^2 to space from the surface . That is a guess, of the 8-14 micrin flux to space. That flux as measured is about 1/2 that valus as the surface is nither black nor Lambertian. That diagram does a fine job of screwing with your mind as intended. It cannot be explained in physical terms.
Will Janoschka says: “It is just the ambuguity ofn definition thar result in this nonsense. Please try to rewright my to examples ysing your concept of “warming’ Som folk say a coat warms! Wrong not at all for a dead body.s”
==========================================
OK, a coat does not warm a dead body, but does the temperature increases :lol:?
The point is, we should keep it simple and avoid confusing the “target audience”.
I recommend always imagine that we are like talking before average American lawmakers. I f you can not explain things to them or similar persons, how are you going to win?
Greg,
You butted in, now butt out. I do not talt to lawmakers, no do I have any desire to win anything!
Greg, thanks for the needed definition of warming.!
Once again went through and tried to clean up the language in the post…as terms were being interchanged that shouldn’t have been. That was me assuming it was OK to do that, given that debate opponents always do it and I assume they know what they meant to say and that readers also would know. I think in terms of the UNITS which are being implied by the context, rather than the specific words which might simply be used “liberally” but not intending to change the context, since changing the context wouldn’t make sense but being “loose with your terms” does, given the context. But it turns out they do that in order to screw with you later. From henceforth, conserving power has nothing to do with how the greenhouse diagrams are set up…because they’re based on trying to conserve flux, not power. Hopefully by now, people have got it all sorted out.
noun: “warming”
1. The process of becoming warmer; a rising temperature.”
Verb “warn”
1. make or become warm.
adj. “warm, warm·er, warm·est, warm-ing”
1. Somewhat hotter than temperate; having or producing a comfortable and agreeable
degree of heat; moderately hot: a warm climate.
2. Having the natural heat of living beings: a warm body.
3. Preserving or imparting heat: a warm overcoat.
4. Having or causing a sensation of unusually high body heat, as from exercise or hard work.
5. Marked by enthusiasm; ardent: warm support.
6. Characterized by liveliness, excitement, or disagreement; heated: a warm debate.
7. Marked by or revealing friendliness or sincerity; cordial: warm greetings.
8. Loving; passionate: a warm embrace.
9. Excitable, impetuous, or quick to be aroused: a warm temper.
10. Predominantly red or yellow in tone: a warm sunset.
11. Recently made; fresh: a warm trail.
12. Close to discovering, guessing, or finding something, as in certain games.
13. Informal Uncomfortable because of danger or annoyance: Things are warm for the bookies..
scientific “warm or warming”
1. Ambigious noun, verb, adjective.
2. Not to be used in scientific discourse.
Can be a process, result of a process, a feeling, or any combination thereof, or anything else the speaker or writer wishes to ambugiously present.
Wow. Now yes…imagine that having come in the depth of winter.
Historic data shows that ice-ages can start within just a few years – it doesn’t take long to get the ball rolling. (And incidentally, ice-ages start when CO2 concentration is HIIIIIGH. Hear that? HIGH!!!!!!! …as per the ice-core records).
So…this is what the start of an ice-age would look like…lucky the snow will be able to melt away this time before real winter sets in…and then hopefully it doesn’t happen again. But this is how you get glaciers a mile high…a few years of snow like that!
Hi Joe, I see you are starting to get out of theb funk via Joel Shore.
Your answer to David Indicates your are not quite back yet. Example:
“The first problem is that the flux into the surface from the Sun is 161 W/m^2. This means that the Sun can’t melt ice and create the water cycle.”
That is not really true, the average Solar sensible heat of 161 watts is for every sq meter of earth surface or 1.61 x 10^8 watts for every sq kilometer. This is only the sensible hea ( (temperature changing) budget. It is not the Solar 80 W/n^2 that does do the latent heat conversion. If that 161 W/m^2 also did the phase change near the surface, it would create an additional tonne of water vapor from ice every 15 seconds continiously! This would of course triple the precipitation and cloud cover of the earth, reducing reducing incoming Solar surface flux to zero.
The Climate Clowns are profesional fraudsters and the presentation is always like that of a magician! If you wish to understand what a magician “is” doing never look “where he is pointing”.
The Clowns always point to the same things:
1. Global temperature averages tell the story!
2. Thermal radiation “from the surface” controls the temperatures!
3. Human activity affects radiation from the surface thus temperature!
4. Our models show how the earth works or will work!
There are lots more but these four are always present, and all are deliberate lies!
1. At every location the variation of temperature is the main point of climate at that location.
2 94% of the thermal radiation leaving for cold space originates “from the atmosphere”!
3. Poluting oceans, building reflective surfaces, reducing forest cover do, but is insugnificant.!
4. Their models show only the “model”. With nice four color PP presentations.
The Clowns understand why and what they do. It is very effective for influencing lawmakers and others who have to be retrained so as to remember to breathe! A static flat surface earth
is “more” than they can understand. What do you propose?
David,Thank you, and you are correct up to your use of the word emotive. In science emotion is to be discarded. In politics emotion is all that “is”. Please clarify of what you are speaking
I think I dropped my camouflage ball cap out in that field last summer.
So basically, for the K/T energy budget to balance correctly, the total of the outputs in W/m2 should be exactly half the total of the input in W/m2. Then the amounts of energy (in joules) involved would be equal…since what’s coming in at any second is only reaching exactly half the Earth’s surface, whereas what’s going out is leaving from the entire Earth’s surface area in that same second.
Yes basically, Graham. The flux numbers won’t be equal but the energy in Joules will be. Energy in Joules is what has to be conserved numerically, NOT flux!
But really we need to go all the way to full real-time and local conditions…you can’t actually create an equation that represents the entire Earth or even halves of it at once. This is literally a mathematical and physics impossibility…and is something the IPCC and GHE budgets simply ignore…they ignore hundreds of years of calculus and differential equations.
Thanks for your reply. I think I understand what you are getting at with the bigger picture, but I’d just like to point out, this K/T budget being wrong is absolutely huge. I, as a layman, can understand, thanks to your clear explanations, the very fundamental flaw in this diagram…the fluxes (total input and output) should not balance…for the energy budget to balance (i.e for energy to be conserved)…but they have them balancing in the diagram.
What I’m trying to say is, this could be the best way to start to get your message across. If I can understand it, I can assure you, many many people can understand it. Could there perhaps be something in you or PSI publishing a paper JUST as a rebuttal to the original K/T energy budget papers? I think that you have this covered in other papers you have published already, but having a separate paper just for that…it’s harder for people to challenge it. What you’re saying is simply irrefutable as far as I can see. To me it is clear that the K/T budget is DEFINITELY wrong…and now I’m saying…take baby steps. Publish a paper first just to demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever that this budget is wrong. Work on getting this accepted first. I think people have been brainwashed too much…the current work you and others have published overwhelms them. They reject it out of hand because its all too much against their programming at once. Take it slower, one step at a time, perhaps people will come round eventually. Just a thought.