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”…):
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.