So the last post had a neat way of looking at it, but I improved on the graphic demonstration.
First let us remind ourselves of the pseudoscientific greenhouse effect:
A fancy diagram with straight lines and numbers on it seems to really be able to confuse, and convince, pseudoscientists into believing anything.
Now let’s look at this realistically in terms of power and heat:
So, we have heat (power) coming in from the Sun (left cord). This warms up the ground surface (supplies power to power bar). Heat comes out of the surface and goes into the atmosphere (power goes from the plug to the black extension cord). Heat then goes from the atmosphere back to the surface (power goes from the black extension cord back into the power bar). This doubles the amount heat (power) provided by the Sun (input cord). If you plug in another extension cord to one of the free receptacles, you will have twice the power.
Of course, that doubled heat or power should now go back into the atmosphere (first black extension cord), and come back and cause more heating again. This is of course ignored for convenience…the process arbitrarily stops at one cycle because if you simply follow the logic, the scheme betrays its sophistry. Hence, ignore the logic.
Climate of Sophistry 
Joe, can you colour the arrows in your photo, and make the blue arrow twice the width of the black and red arrows? Maybe putting 240 (black and red) and 480 (blue) into the arrows too.
My own way of looking at this, as I refer to it, the four arrows version of GH “theory”, is one ignores the red arrow out to space. Ok, so we have a black arrow heating the surface, and a red arrow supposedly heating the surface. But, the surface has not emitted anything yet to warm the atmosphere!!!! How can the atmosphere be emitting BEFORE it is warmed??? That’s it, it is that simple. The “theory” counts the supposed warming effect of atmospheric back radiation of earth’s surface BEFORE the surface has warmed the atmosphere….. Energy / heat is created from NOTHING….
The order HAS TO BE black arrow, blue arrow, red arrow (all the same size), BUT then there would be nothing left to emit to space, so, to make the “theory” work you are supposed to read it black and red arrows FIRST, at the same time, THEN a blue arrow twice the size, because it has added the black and red arrows together…… Hence, the atmosphere is being depicted as emitting BEFORE it has been heated…..
Yes exactly Derek that is precisely the paradox, and thanks for outlining it here so clearly. I have always thought of that but never thought to write it out, so thank you for writing out the temporal paradox so clearly.
Exactly, it assumes the atmosphere is emitting before it has even been heated up. It is that simply wrong.
Now if the atmosphere, when warmed up, then causes the ground to warm up, which causes the atmosphere to warm up, then you get the logical runaway problem which they seek to avoid at all costs. Hence, they just start with a static system which is actually impossible to have ever been created in the first place!
Isn’t it amazing? It is amazing that they can have been this perfectly anti-logical and sophist.
This nonsense only got started because these “climate scientists” had only learned school algebra. If we us F as the symbol for flux in watts/ sq.m then adding fluxes with school algebra we get
F1 + F2 = F3. which, with the example shown, is F3 = 239.7 + 239.7 = 479.4 watts/ sq.m. To many people this seems logical and it isn’t questioned.
However before going further we need to revise our “radiation flux algebra”, which is different to the school algebra used in the diagram. If we have 2 (or more) radiation fluxes acting on the same area, then using “radiation flux algebra”:
If F1 is greater than F2 then F1 + F2 = F1 watts/ sq.m.
If F2 is greater than F1 then F1 + F2 = F2 watts/ sq.m.
If F1 = F2 then F1 + F2 = either F1 or F2 watts/sq.m.(take your pick)
(These equations are derived from the fact that radiation fluxes (intensities) cannot be added together to change the value of the greater flux).
So substituting the values in the diagram for F1 + F2 we get:239.7 + 239.7 = 239.7 watts/ sq.m which means that the surface temperature doesn’t increase or change.
“Back radiation” can’t increase the temperature of its source when using “radiation flux algebra”.
In the K&T diagram in AR4/5 the right hanf side contains the GHE energy. I asked on another site what initiated that flow and what were the feedbacks controlling the flow at that level? No answer. I wonder why??
Thanks Joe, another hard hit onto this particular nail’s head.
Joe.
I will try once again! Your physical is correct, but your explanation of the physical only helps the alarmists! It shows that skeptics use the same technical bull shit as alarmists! Yes, good, skeptics “learn” to deploy alarmist arrows of misinformation in an opposing vector!
1)Is that your goal? 2) Is your own learning your goal? 3) Is your goal your learning plus then learning of others?
I Reject #1,
I Accept #2, how can I help?
I Embrace #3, What do you need, Money?, Careful thought?, Lovely Ladies?, Careful criticism?, other?
Joe, to be effective, you must be comfortable with James Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetic radiation, and John Poyntings conversion to vector mathematics. The whole idea that heat “energy” leading toward, “mass” leading toward, “temperature” leading toward, “surface area” leading toward, “electromagnetic radiation”, is so tortuous, I wish to inflict that “again” on no human including myself. Your Alarmist Climate Pseudoscientists have only demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Who, What, When, Where, Why, How, Of thermal radiation in any direction. This lack of understanding by those that claim to know “leaders”, need be attacked and destroyed because of that “claim to know”, while knowingly knowing they know not! Not any need to reveal that the rest of us know nots, also know not!
Sorry for the attempt on philosophical!
I liked the work on measuring whatever I thought I was measuring, even to the thunking on a digital readout, to get the best better bestest guess. Years later I found I was measuring something way different. I was still measuring something the bestest, I could, at this time and place. Beware any climate scientist, that attempts to change even one digit! I will get you in this lifetime, the next, the next, or forever!
Hi Joe
I hope you didn’t switch on the power, but I guess you would know what happens.
D.M. says:
2014/05/05 at 4:15 PM
>>>>>
(Note to D.M.–I am NOT disagreeing with you. Often, when I try to add clarity to what someone else has already written, they think I am arguing. I an NOT arguing. I agree with what you wrote, I only want to clarify, in case someone else tries to argue with you.)
When they (climate “scientists”) try to calculate Earth’s energy balance, they always confuse energy with power. What they don’t seem to understand is solar irradiance is a “photon flux”, not energy. And, any time you are dealing with photons, you are dealing with quantum physics. That is a fact seemingly totally ignored by the folks that Joe mentioned above.
So, now to add clarity to what D.M. wrote [bracketed]:
[If F1 is greater than F2 then F1 + F2 = F1 watts/ sq.m.]
[If F2 is greater than F1 then F1 + F2 = F2 watts/ sq.m.]
Above statements are absolutely true if “greater” refers to energy carried by photons.
[If F1 = F2 then F1 + F2 = either F1 or F2 watts/sq.m.(take your pick)]
One exception to this statement–In the special case where F1 and F2 are from the same exact emitter (same temp., same emissivity, and same photon flux) then they DO add (F1+F2), so that the total is greater than either. A perfect example if a magnifying glass focusing solar rays on a surface.
Again, it all has to do with quantum physics. 1000 Watts/sq.m. does NOT always equal 1000 Watts/sq.m., unless the emission (photon creation) is identical.
For example, consider F1=1000 Watts/sq.m. emitted from an ideal cavity resonator. (Emissivity = 1.0)
Then the 1000 Watts/sq.m. would have the emission temperature of 364.4K, consequently photons would have corresponding energies and wavelengths.
However, if F2 = 1000 Watts/sq.m. is emitted from a non-ideal emitter, emissivity = 0.5 say, it would require an emission temperature of 433.4K, consequently photons would have DIFFERENT (from F1) energies and wavelengths.
In this example, F1 and F2 would “carry” different energy level photons and the “greater” energy level photons would dominate. So, F1 + F2 = F2. Just as D.M. indicates.
(Hoping to add clarity, not confusion!)
I do not pretend to understand any more than basics of physics BUT I do know that to correctly assess the heating effect of fluxes you need to consider not only the algebraic value of the flux but also the characteristics of the emitter.
geran is right in his final few paragraphs – I don’t claim to know much quantum physics BUT I do know that you cannot induce any thermal heating in an object at ambient temperature by placing a large block of ice in close proximity even though technically you are introducing a new source of energy to the system.
Many climate scientists assert the opposite of this readily observed fact. You know who you are don’t you “Bobby” ?
Joe,
I read an interesting paper by James Hansen entitled, “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications (2011)” Hansen starts out by describing the Greenhouse effect:
“The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse effect, is simple. An increase of gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This added opacity causes the planet’s heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between the energy absorbed from the Sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until planetary energy balance is restored.”
The content further on in the paper is fascinating since Hansen makes several remarkable admissions. Bear with me in this rather long post, because the conclusions are monumental, IMHO.
Hansen starts out by stating::
“Earth’s energy imbalance and its changes will determine the future of Earth’s climate. It is thus imperative to measure Earth’s energy imbalance and the factors that are changing it.”
He then states:
“The required measurement accuracy is ∼ 0.1 W m−2, in view of the fact that estimated current (2005–2010) energy imbalance is 0.58 W m-2”.
Here starts some of the remarkable comments regarding energy balance measurement:
“The difficulty with the satellite approach becomes clear by considering first the suggestion of measuring Earth’s reflected sunlight and emitted heat from a satellite at the Lagrange L1 point, which is a location between the Sun and Earth at which the gravitational pulls from these bodies are equal and opposite. From this location the satellite would continually stare at the sunlit half of Earth. The notion that a single satellite at this point could measure Earth’s energy imbalance to 0.1 W m −2 is prima facie preposterous. Earth emits and scatters radiation in all directions, i.e., into 4π steradians. How can measurement of radiation in a single direction provide a proxy for radiation in all directions?”
Hansen goes on further:
“It is implausible that changes in the angular distribution of radiation could be modeled to the needed accuracy, and the objective is to measure the imbalance, not guess at it. There is also the difficulty of maintaining sensor calibrations to accuracy 0.1 W m−2, i.e., 0.04 percent. That accuracy is beyond the state-of-the art, even for short periods, and that accuracy would need to be maintained for decades”
The above satellite was in a fixed location. Hansen goes on:
“These same problems, the changing angular distribution of the scattered and emitted radiation fields and maintaining extreme precision of sensors over long periods, must be faced
by Earth-orbiting satellites”
He then states:
“The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds
and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-yr-mean imbalance of 6.5 W m−2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W m-2″
The CERES satellite measurement was off by a factor of almost 8 in trying to measure the alleged theoretical energy imbalance of 0.85 W m-2. Joe, they simply cannot measure the energy imbalance. If you cannot measure or verify what your hypothesis predicts, the hypothesis cannot be proven, and remains unproven. Scientific Method 101′
:
Wow he actually said all that. And not one alarmist noticed.
I would encourage all who understand the package of lies about GHE, watch this video by Deborah Traveres, who gives us the history of the dissolution of our freedoms, of which the hoax concerning “global warming” is a key part.
You want to know about the New World Order? And the Old World Order?
Old World Order
New World Order
We do indeed have plans for a New World Order. Better get aware on what’s coming.
Joe,
I meant to provide a link to the above referenced Hansen paper. Here it is:
Click to access acp-11-13421-2011.pdf