Energy Flux Density Exposes Climate Pseudoscience

I hope to make it more clear here the relevance of the climate alarm pseudoscience radiative greenhouse fraud in the light of the physical concept of energy flux density.

Recall this diagram of the mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect, from the University of Washington Department of Atmospheric Sciences:


Keep in mind that the reasoning of this diagram and the others like it form the basis of greenie environmentalist anti-human & anti-social climate alarm and pretty much all of climate science.

What they do in the top left corner is divide the input flux from Sunlight such as to spread it over the entire Earth surface at once.  This is where the divisor of 4 comes from because a cross-section interception disk of light from the Sun has ¼ the surface area as a globe Earth with the same radius.

Is this a physically valid procedure?  Mathematically you can do it, and you can call it an average, and you can say it conserves total energy and everything…but does it make physical sense?  Does it reflect actual physics as reality actually “computes” and performs itself?

If the answer isn’t obvious to you yet, then consider this:  Does a stove temperature equivalent to 2000 W/m^2 of radiation which equals 320 degrees Fahrenheit have the same effect on matter as 2000/4 = 500 W/m^2 which equals 91 degrees Fahrenheit, but applied 4-times longer?

Think of cooking a turkey if it helps.  Or invert the example:  can you use 4-times the energy (with its equivalent transform to temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) but applied in ¼ of the time to get the same end result?

In these examples the exact same total amount of energy was used, but did they have the same effect on matter?  Is there a difference between total energy, and energy flux density?

I know that you all understand this…if you don’t, you must not have ever cooked for yourself, or have simply never thought about why and how cooking works.

The answer is no: although one can mathematically calculate an average input power over time and space with an intermittent source (intermittent because sunshine is only present during the day, on the day-side of Earth), such a calculation does not reflect the actual physics that occurs when the power is applied in the actual time and place, i.e., at the energy flux density, at which it actually occurs.

Think of cooking a turkey!  You can’t use an “average power” to cook it – the effect of energy on matter is totally dependent on the real-time, in-situ flux density of the application of that energy.

So, they make that calculation where they dilute the flux density of solar power into a time and space where it doesn’t exist, find that “sunshine is too cold by itself to heat the Earth” and then so as a result they invent a scheme where the atmosphere must double the heat from the Sun with “greenhouse gases that man emits in his development”.

So do you see the connection there?  To their underlying Satanic anti-development intent?  And their inability to do actual physics for their hatred of mankind?  Or rather, their wish to destroy proper ontological science for their hatred of mankind…

Anyone who thinks that climate alarm is about a social progressive political policy must be severely uninformed on the subject of human development.  Preventing the development of mankind is not a beneficial social policy, and making energy less accessible to poor countries and to poor people is not socialism!  Artificially making energy more expensive (based on reasons of pseudoscience) is not a way to redistribute the wealth away from “Big Oil” or “Corporations”.  What kind of an idiotic idea and reasoning is that!?  If energy is made more expensive and less accessible, then poor people get harmed for that the most.  The increased cost of energy has by far the greatest negative impact on poor people, not on rich people who can afford it without thinking about it.  It allows the rich to get further ahead and to live in abundance while the poor become more and more restricted.  How stupid does a person have to be to think that making energy less accessible and more expensive will harm rich people and benefit poor people?!  These connections made by environmentalist “reasoning” are just so dumb, and seemingly arbitrary and random at that.  And of course, when these things are pointed out, the “socialist progressive” will then actually admit and say that “it is for the good of the environment”, which is an amazing outright admission that their ideology and policy is not about helping poor people and redistributing wealth at all!  They just pretend that restricting energy accessibility and preventing human development is a social policy!  lol!  It’s so bonkers, why do so few people call them out in their deception?!  It is all classic OWO (Old World Order) manipulation of the severely poorly educated and credulous masses prone to fear and hysteria.

Now here for example is a diagram I made to try to better represent the actual energy input and output, reflecting the actual energy density values that actually drive the climate…starting with the actual energy flux density from the Sun:

zoomed in reality
When you look at the energy as it is actually physically applied in space and time, and hence in terms of its energy flux density, then you arrive at a totally opposite result of the climate science paradigm: instead of Sunshine being too cold to even melt ice into water, Sunshine actually heats a region of the planet 1/3 larger than the area of North America with a forcing equivalent to 87 degrees Celsius.  And the Sun-lit hemisphere as a whole is forced at 30 degrees Celsius.  This is certainly warm enough for the Sun to drive the climate all on its own, and it does not (irrationally) require the atmosphere to be an additional source of heat for the climate.  Don’t you think that this is an important distinction, and overturn of paradigms?!  Not to the environmentalist anti-humanist, that’s for sure – they absolute detest such a reality, given their underlying wish to have a reason to halt human development, especially that of the poor.

Back to the first diagram.  We’ve talked elswhere about how they like to stop the logical progression of heating that they invented for the diagram at a single iteration, because it coincidentally gets them in the ball park.  Another thing you can do with it is add another layer.  The layer can just be glass, as in a glass greenhouse box.  So, add another layer.  Add several more layers.  Try working it out yourself on paper if you want to see how their reasoning works, but every time you add a layer, the layers below it need to double in flux output.  So, add 5 layers of glass that are transparent to shortwave but opaque to longwave EM radiation.

For a noon-time input of ~1000 W/m^2, then a device you build like this with 5 layers should have a bottom-layer temperature equivalent to 25*1000 = 32,000 W/m^2 which is 594 degrees Celsius = 1100 Fahrenheit.  Such devices have been built, and Joseph Fourier himself worked with one, and they found the bottom-layer temperature only reached the temperature of the forcing input from sunshine.

Calculate the temperature result for 10, 15, and 20 panes of glass.  Can you think of ways such results would be useful?  Why don’t any devices like this exist?  Why do we use a magnifying glass to concentrate Sunlight and start a fire, rather than flat panes of glass held over a target?

Do you really think that merely adding panes of glass to a box with sunlight falling on it will cause it to rise in internal flux as 2n number of panes of glass?  Empiricism doesn’t demonstrate that result, and there’s something irrational about it in its own right, although one can certainly imagine such a scenario and even mathematically justify it!

And even if physics did work that way, their radiative greenhouse postulate scheme is still wrong because real-time solar power has an effect on matter (the climate) on its own that their averaged power value simply does not reproduce.

Climate alarm science is pseudoscience, almost total sophistry.  It is the greatest, and golden, opportunity we have to overturn the paradigm of scientific materialism by exposing just how much of a fraud mainstream academic materialist science actually is.  It’s perhaps even more embarrassing than even Hockney has realized.  It is so amazingly stupid that anyone would 1) accept climate alarm pseudoscience and 2) think that it’s a beneficial social policy (WTF!!!), that it boggles the mind…but then again, what would you expect?  But then again again, it is very interesting to note which subset segment of the population that actually goes along with it.  You’ve been identified.

Thesis: total sophistry;

Antithesis: blind skepticism;

Synthesis: intuitive reason.

But in fact, science has never experienced blind skepticism – it’s not skeptical of itself at all!  In the case of climate alarm, I would rather call it “stupid” skepticism because none of the skeptics ever ask the right questions or criticize the correct things!  I’ve always felt that there is some underlying archetypal element to the climate greenhouse effect, which makes people defend it irrationally and with sophistry, like any Abrahamist would and does in their proper environment.

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Energy Flux Density Exposes Climate Pseudoscience

  1. Pingback: Energy Flux Density Exposes Climate Pseudoscience | ajmarciniak

  2. Derek Alker says:

    P/4. A globe can only have 4 times the surface area of the same diameter black body surface disc, NOT an actually physical disc. An actual disc has to have two sides, so P/4 should be P/2.

    Therefore P/4 IS a black body assumption.

  3. Shawn Marshall says:

    So is there no responsible scientist working for UNIPCC that would take up your model as a legitimate proposal? Albeit without your florid prose attached? There must be a way to formalize your challenge since the existing model has unphysical flaws.

  4. It’s not about blackbody Derek. The area of interception of sunlight is one side of the disk cross section of the globe.

  5. I don’t know Shawn. But I will publish something soon.

  6. geran says:

    Go Joseph!

    The “divide-by-4” nonsense is at the root of the GHE. This is where the bogus 255 K comes from. They (IPCC, et al) calculate Earth’s “effective temperature” by dividing 959 W/m^2 by 4. (1370 W/m^2, adjusted for albedo = 959 W/m^2)

    (959/4 = 239.75)
    S = sigma*T^4
    239.75 = (5.67*T^4)/10^8, or
    T = 255 K

    Then, they compare Earth’s observed average temp of 288 K. Subtracting they then state that the 33 K difference is “caused” by GHE/CO2. The 33 K is “caused” by the sophistry/pseudoscience/lunacy of dividing-by-4!

  7. Well the thing is, the earth’s effective temperature IS actually 255K! They confuse themselves again with that by comparing it to the near-surface air temperature and calling that the average when it isn’t representative of the average at all.

  8. geran says:


    (And, I loved the example of cooking the turkey.)

  9. ” “The suppression of the right hemisphere by electroconvulsive [ECT] therapy leaves patients inclined to accept conclusions that are absurd but based on strictly-true logic. After electroconsulsive therapy to the left hemisphere the same absurd conclusions are indignantly rejected.”– Wikipedia

    Scientists are like ECT patients who, cut off from right brain intuition and emotion, accept absurd, autistic conclusions […]. All scientists are desperately in need of ECT treatment. Fry their brains!”

    – ‘The War of the Ghosts and Machines’, Mike Hockney.

    Isn’t that exactly what see here in the foundation of climate alarm!!! No intuition and the acceptance of “logic” which is actually sophistry.

  10. markstoval says:

    The turkey example makes a lot of sense. It also reminded me of a question that I have been meaning to ask.

    I was taught and experience has shown that it takes more power to keep an object at a higher temperature. Going from 76 down to 72 on my thermostat in the winter does not make a lot of difference to my comfort but it really impacts my electric bill. I guess I am trying to say that the hotter the object the more it tries to shed its heat. (I know that language may be sloppy)

    So, the question is why do the alarmists never mention that as the earth warms up it becomes increasingly hard to stay at that temperature since the planet would radiate ever more out to space. Seems to me there must be a limiting factor of some sort as the planet warms as long as energy in stays constant. CO2 does not warm the planet anyway, but those who think it does should address the fact that as CO2 warms the planet then the planet works harder to radiate the heat off planet.

  11. johnmarshall says:

    Thanks Joe.

  12. Well exactly Mark that’s how they get around the limit…the ghe can heat indefinitely without requiring more heat input.

  13. Pingback: Ontological Mathematics, Boundary Conditions, Physics, & Empiricism | Climate of Sophistry

  14. Rosco says:

    The real problem with climate science is that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is applied incorrectly.

    Universities teach gobbledygook as shown in the diagram as “science” – it is taken from the University of Washington website. It is as universal as it is bullshit !

    Let’s ignore the divide by 4 thingy even though we know it is bullshit. Let’s just accept the University lecture’s claims about the 239.7 W/sqm from both the sun and the atmosphere for the sake of analysis of the validity of the main point – the simple arithmetic sum of fluxes.

    What is explicitly stated in this diagram is that the 239.7 W/sqm back radiation from the atmosphere has the same heating potential as the 239.7 W/sqm from the Sun – this is explicitly stated – there can be no argument on that point.

    The problem with this type of claim is that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation simply gives the total power emitted by an object at a specific temperature. It does not totally define any radiative flux and does not define its heating potential.

    239.7 W/sqm emitted by the atmosphere at a temperature of ~255 K is so different to the solar radiation emitted by the Sun at ~5778 K and scaled to 239.7 W/sqm by the inverse square law only a moron could consider them to be equal in power even if the numerical values are the same.

    Everyone knows this but is fooled into believing these PhD hacks know better – but they either don’t know better or are liars !

    If the atmospheric radiation had the same heating potential as the solar radiation you should be able to focus the IR using metallic parabolic mirrors and induce combustion in the same manner such an effect can be induced using the sunlight.

    Even if you generated a flux incident on such a parabolic mirror of say 1370 W/sqm it wouldn’t induce combustion as the solar radiation can.

    Only a fool compares two distinctly different radiation fluxes and calls them equal.

    Tricksters like to obfuscate this truth with claims such as “A black surface being irradiated by a nearby 200W incandescent bulb will increase in temperature if it is then also irradiated by an adjacent 100W bulb.”

    This claim was made in a document criticising the “Slayer’s Sky Dragon book” – why they agreed to discuss with an obvious distorter of truth is beyond me !

    What the statement ignores – as do all the other “experts” who cling to the ridiculous idea that adding flux values regardless of the source is valid – is that both the 100 watt and 200 watt bulb are emitting radiation from a source that is significantly hotter than the illuminated black surface !

    This is not the case in the “greenhouse effect” and is just another lie purporting to confuse the gullible.

    Even a torch with a typical incandescent bulb may increase the temperature very slightly but the radiation from an air mass at ~255 K would not – indisputably !

    And if you still think that 239.7 W/sqm from the Sun IS the same as 239.7 W/sqm from a ~255k source plot the Planck curves and see.

    The idea is absurd !

  15. All very well said Rosco.

  16. Richard111 says:

    A layman’s thoughts on the performance of CO2.
    Is CO2 gas in the atmosphere absolved from energy transfer via conduction?
    I read about thermal equilibrium in small unit volumes in the atmosphere. This implies, to me, that each and every CO2 molecule will acquire a vibrational energy level roughly equal to the local air temperature driven by kinetic collisions with local N2 and O2 molecules. Thus most CO2 molecules in the troposphere, or at any altitude warmer than -30C, will be able to emit energy over the 13 to 17 micron band. I understand that having emitted a photon in that band it could absorb an identical
    photon but this will not change the vibrational energy level in the molecule, and, how is it calculated that CO2 will absorb more photons from the surface than from the surrounding atmosphere?
    I fail to see how surface radiation ‘warms’ the atmosphere because of CO2. Black body radiation rules do show that the surface can emit a small percentage of its total flux, about 1% from the surface, in the 4.3 micron band, assuming a temperature of 15C (288K). CO2 will absorb 4.3 micron photons but, as I understand it, CANNOT emit a 4.3 micron photon unless the CO2 molecule has a temperature close to 400C (674K Wien’s law), an unlikely temperature in the atmosphere, but this can, and probably does, increase the intensity of CO2 emission over the 13 to 17 micron band.
    Within the rules of thermal radiation, as I understand, that 13 to 17 micron band amounts to some 18% of the total flux emitted from the surface at a temperature of 15C (288K). The atmosphere above will be radiating down to the surface at a much lower intensity over this same band thus slightly reducing the rate of cooling of the surface over that band.
    I read in blog comments that a pyrgeometer will show that radiation from the atmosphere. Of course it will if it is any good! But it does not imply that it is ‘backradiation’. Now use the pyrgeometer to measure the surface radiation over the same band and note the NET result. A reduction in the rate of cooling of the surface which will vary with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but in no ways is this a warming of the surface.
    Apply the above argument to a 10/10ths low level cloud bank and you will see that radiative cooling of the surface almost stops allowing previously absorbed heat to reach the surface resulting in an INCREASE of air temperature. This again is not ‘backradiation’ doing any warming. It is simply the ‘blanket effect’ which is easily observed by noting local air temperature during a warm, clear sunny day, and then recording the temperature drop after sunset, sky must remain clear. If a cloud bank then appears overhead during the night you will record an increase in temperature. Note that it is the surface warming the air. This observation shows up best when wind is very light.
    Obviously this layman is screwed up as even sceptics don’t agree with the above but won’t explain what is wrong.

  17. RF says:

    In the post linked following, and its accompanying comments, I think you’ll find just about every example of GHE sophistry described on JP’s blog, and perhaps even a few new varieties. Overall it’s a quite good example of how these conversations generally fall into a never-ending tit-for-tat of largely irrelevant minutia with the forest, so to speak, getting lost for the trees. But then, maybe that’s the whole idea.

  18. Love the Turkey analogy!

  19. Sophia Wells says:

    Like 🙂

  20. Ed Bo says:

    The problem with the “turkey analogy” is that it’s completely wrong. Joe’s oven for roasting his turkey, like any domestic thermal system, gas or electric, uses “on/off” control. So it may be fully on with a power input P of 5000 watts for one minute, and off for three minutes, continually cycling this way. The time-averaged power is P/4, or 1250 watts.

    Now, there is a small amount of temperature oscillation from this on/off cycling. But if the cycle time is small relative to the thermal capacitance (and so thermal time constant) of the oven and turkey, this oscillation is of no importance.

    So the oven in operation works very much like the day/night cycling of solar input to locations on the earth.

  21. That’s a completely sophistical criticism. Simplify to a constant input oven. And in any case the time-averaged power input of the regular oven is still P = 1250 Watts to maintain its higher temperature, whereas the GHE oven would be P/4 of that. And note too that the average 1250 Watts of the regular oven isn’t what does the cooking: the input of 5000 Watts which is a much higher temperature is what does the cooking. So, your sophistry helps prove the point of the “turkey analogy”. Thank you.

  22. Ed Bo says:

    The P/4 argument has to do with the solar input to the earth — it is independent of any greenhouse effect. The sun is much hotter than the earth, and the oven’s heating element is much hotter than the turkey (no matter what fraction of the time it is on).

    You say, “Simplify to a constant input oven.” That is exactly what diagrams like K&T — which you harshly criticize — do! They use 1365/4 = 341 W/m^2 as a “constant input sun” and you object strenuously. And they do not claim a further 341/4 division, as you imply.

    You also say, “the input of 5000 Watts which is a much higher temperature is what does the cooking.” Last time I checked, Watts was not a not a unit of temperature. A 5000-watt input to a system can come from a wide variety of temperatures.

    And again you say, “the average 1250 Watts of the regular oven isn’t what does the cooking.” Baloney! If a constant 1250-watt input could maintain an oven temperature of 175C, a typical turkey-cooking temperature, it would work virtually the same as a 5000-watt input on for a quarter of the time.

  23. Ed Bo you are making the exact point of the article and reinforcing its premise and conclusion. 5000 W in one square meter would be 271C or 520 Fahrenheit, which applied for an hour would burn the turkey. Whereas 1250 W in one square meter is only 112C or 233 Fahrenheit and applied for four hours would hardly cook it at all. Same total energy, but totally different result in physics. Thus proving that P/4 is physically invalid and does not have the same effect as P.

    Thanks for the help, and for introducing this new angle of sophistry to help me defeat it. Best regards!

  24. Ed Bo says:

    I see I was mistaken. Thanks for the education and correcting my sophistry.

  25. Ed Bo says:

    Sorry, I realize now that it was total sophistry to introduce the idea of an oven that cycles on and off with a very, very hot heating element (~800C) to maintain a high temperature (~180C) due to its own power input and thus NOT needing backradiation to make the oven hotter than the input to get the cooking done, versus the climate alarm greenhouse effect averaging method which makes the solar heat input far too cold to “cook the climate” by itself and thus requiring backradiation to get the job done. It was sophistry to try to make my earlier argument: the oven doesn’t use backradiation to make the temperature hotter than the heating elements! LOL! Thanks for the help.

  26. Well this is something that I always wonder about: are you people dishonorable or just unintelligent when you sophize like that? Seems to be a bit of both.

  27. *note that I’ve edited Ed Bo’s comments above to make him appear as if he is an actual human 🙂 lol!

  28. Derek Alker says:

    Joseph, whilst looking through a few things towards writing up the modeling history of climatology, Hans sent me a few of Alan’s old documents. At the start of one of the documents Alan notes the below. I think it might be of use / help, in regards of the supposed notion that atmospheric back radiation adds energy to earth’s surface, when it can not….

    “Gerlich and Tscheuschner: a body cannot simultaneously be interacting with and also be in equilibrium with a second body. The interactive net transfer concept FORBIDS thermal equilibrium from ever being reached, which constitutes a violation of thermodynamic laws PER SE. For thermal equilibrium to even exist, heat HAS to be transferred in only one direction.”

  29. Derek Alker says:

    Joseph, AND, Alan notes this –
    “Thursday, ‎April ‎11, ‎2013
    In 1871’s An Elementary Treatise On Heat, Balfour Stewart indulged in some idle speculation. He imagined that the atmosphere was like an envelope of glass surrounding the earth and that this promoted a higher temperature, much as occurs in a greenhouse. Stewart described the physics thusly:

    Now let R’ denote the radiation of this envelope outwards into space, then R’ will also approximately denote the radiation of the envelope inwards towards the sphere, since as the envelope is very thin, both its surfaces may be imagined to be of the same temperature. Hence the radiant heat which leaves the envelope will be 2 R’…

    So simply adding a layer of glass will give you two times the radiant power that you had before. Everything else proceeded from that silly blunder, because other armchair scientists eagerly seized on Stewart’s empty conjecture as The Answer, the very Truth.”

    THAT is the start of radiative transfer theory being applied to earth in a 2PP model.
    THAT is “greenhouse”. Which IS modeled AGW. All done, regardless of the heat capacity of earth’s surface, ie, regardless of the LAWS of thermodynamics…

    Alan Siddons showed that on the above date. That is the start of the climate modeling timeline that I can easily show (with published academic papers) ends with Hansen in 1988….
    Accepted physics then, and now, hidden in too complex to understand computer models, that can only be described as
    Black Body Based Balderdash (BBBB).

    NB – Yes, another word does spring to mind than Balderdash, but I am being polite… LOL.

  30. Very nice Derek, thanks. Excellent quotations. That is exactly what I have solved.

  31. Pingback: Photonic Mental Agency | Climate of Sophistry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s