The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment

The “steel greenhouse” concept for demonstrating the radiative greenhouse effect has been debunked many times on this blog (the least reason of which its advocates attempt to conserve temperature instead of energy!), but the solution for it sitting in an ambient-temperature environment has never been demonstrated. We will do that now here and will present the maths for both of the scenarios where for a) the ambient-temperature is zero Kelvin, and b) the ambient-temperature is greater than zero.

Willis Eschenbach’s diagram of his steel greenhouse, as advocated by Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer and others.

Advocates of the steel greenhouse think that temperature is a conserved quantity, i.e., that temperatures add together. Their diagram above shows a “core” producing 235 W/m2 out of its surface area, and they think that this is conserved by the shell emitting at the same temperature at 235 W/m2 over a larger surface area. The shell emits more energy than the “nuclear core” produces given the shell’s larger surface area of emission at the same temperature and flux…and so steel greenhouse advocates literally believe that 5 = 1 conserves energy! The problem with these steel greenhouse advocates is that they have absolutely no clue whatsoever at all what they’re doing in any way, shape, form, or hope; they write things down without having the slightest idea of what the words they’re writing down mean and what their end goal even is, to the point that they believe that 5 > 1 is the proof for 5 = 1. That’s literally what they say openly say. They say that 5 > 1 is the proof that 5 = 1. Let that sink in. It’s worse than monkeys on typewriters because at least that would just produce unreadable gibberish. With these guys, they produce readable gibberish, but then they demand that you accept the gibberish for the simple fact that you can read it! They demand that you accept that 5 > 1 is the proof for 5 = 1 because you were able to read that. Energy is not conserved when their shell emits more total energy to the outside than is produced internally to the shell from the core sphere. QED.

The Correct Treatment

We begin with a sphere of radius Rsp internally producing its own power (i.e. energy) of Psp.  If the sphere emits to a 0K environment then its internal power generation is given by its surface temperature Tsp.

1a) Psp = 4πRsp2σTsp4

If the sphere exists in a universal ambient-temperature environment at temperature T0, then the sphere’s minimum temperature would be T0 if it did not produce any internal power.  If the sphere does produce any power then its temperature will rise above T0, and its energy production would then be given by

1b) Psp = 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – T04)

since 4πRsp2σ(T04) is the total energy already-present at the sphere’s surface due to the environment.  Thus, for a given sphere temperature Tsp, less power is required to be produced by the sphere if the sphere already starts off in a universal ambient-temperature environment.  Or identically, if the sphere produces the same amount of power, then in the ambient-temperature environment it will come to a higher temperature.

The ambient-temperature environment is an independent source of thermal energy pre-existent (or at least simultaneously existent) to the presence of the sphere; it is not dependent upon any power production from the sphere.  If the unpowered sphere entered the environment at zero Kelvin, the sphere would then come to the ambient temperature of the environment.  The ambient-temperature environment exists with a temperature greater than zero Kelvin because it either independently produced or received an independent deposit of energy to produce it.  The ambient-temperature environment thus serves as an independent and additional power source for the sphere.  At a minimum the sphere is sustained with the energy required for it to exist at the temperature of the environment even if the sphere started off at zero Kelvin, and if the sphere is taken away from the environment the environment does not have its temperature affected.  The ambient-temperature environment is an infinite “heat sink” that can sustain any introduced object’s temperature at T0, and whose temperature is not affected by any introduced object.

We now introduce a shell of radius R­sh concentric with the sphere, with Rsh > R­sp.  The shell produces no power of its own and will only be heated by the environment and/or the sphere inside it.  With no internal power production from the sphere the shell would likewise be sustained at the temperature of the environment, either zero Kelvin, or T0.  Whatever temperature Tsh the shell is, it emits power Psh­­ to a 0K environment of

2a) Psh = 4πRsh2σTsh4

or if the environment is greater than 0K then to it goes

2b) Psh = 4πRsh2σ(Tsh4 – T04)

What we want to determine for conservation of energy is whether the power emitted outward at the surface of the shell is equal to the power generated by the sphere inside the shell.  That is, equations 2 should be equal to equations 1 for conservation of energy:  Psp = Psh.  The shell’s surface would emit on its interior as well, however, internal emission by the shell will always meet another interior side of the shell (or the sphere), and hence will not leave the shell.  Internal emission by the shell’s surface hence does not lead to a loss of energy for the shell, and hence the energy produced by the sphere will be conserved with the outward emission of the shell to the environment.  Thus for conservation of energy

3a) 4πRsp2σ Tsp4 = 4πRsh2σTsh4

3b) 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – T04) = 4πRsh2σ(Tsh4 – T04)

Equations 3 cannot be proven without knowing the temperature of the shell.  While the shell is warming it is storing energy as internal thermal energy which original came from the sphere, and so during this warming period energy would not be conserved as emission outward from the shell since some energy is being “lost” internally to the shell (energy is conserved if one considers the outward emission of the shell, plus its internal thermal energy).  That is, T­sh is changing while the shell is warming.  Therefore what we want to know is the temperature of the shell after it has finished warming, which state is called thermal equilibrium.  Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object.  It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat.  This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”  And so note once again that energy is generally not heat.

Heat flow, which is typically denoted as “Q”, is produced by the difference in energy emission between two objects.  If we wish that positive Qsp-sh means heat flow from the sphere to the shell, then the heat flow equations are

4a) Qsp-sh = 4πRsp2σTsp4 – 4πRsh2σTsh4

4b) Qsp-sh = 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – T04) – 4πRsh2σ(Tsh4 – T04)

The first term on the right-hand-side in equations 4 is the power produced and emitted outward by the sphere, and the second term in equations 4 is the power emitted internally by the shell. The heat equations go to zero at thermal equilibrium and so solving for the temperature of the shell where Qsp-sh = 0

5a) Tsh4 = Rsp2/Rsh2Tsp4

5b) Tsh4 = Rsp2/Rsh2(Tsp4 – T04) + T04

Given that equations 4 originate from equations 1 and 2, then equations 3 can do nothing but reduce to an identity when incorporating equations 5.  That is, if we substitute equation 5 for Tsh into equation 3 for conservation of energy, we have

3a’) 4πRsp2σ Tsp4 = 4πRsh2σRsp2/Rsh2Tsp4 = 4πσRsp2Tsp4

3b’) 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – T04) = 4πRsh2σ(Rsp2/Rsh2(Tsp4 – T04) + T04 – T04) = 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – T04)

The identity between the sphere and the shell’s externally-emitted power means that conservation of energy has occurred.

Note that in equations 5, the shell temperature is always less than the sphere temperature.  It would be impossible under conservation of energy for the shell to emit at the same surface temperature and surface flux of the sphere but over a larger surface area.  The reduction in shell temperature to that of the sphere goes as Rsp1/2/Rsh1/2, which given the fourth-power dependency of surface flux on temperature is indicative of the inverse square law of radiant intensity with distance.  The surface of the shell cannot emit the same energy density as the surface of the sphere because the shell never experiences that same energy density in the first place, due its internal surfaces’ distance from the sphere; it also cannot because that would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy).

Why is there a difference in how the sphere responds when the sphere’s ambient-temperature environment is provided by an independent environment rather than when provided by the shell?  The difference is that the shell’s temperature above T0 is sustained entirely by the sphere’s power.  If the sphere’s energy production is halted, the shell will immediately begin to cool.  If the sphere’s energy production is then restarted at the same rate as previous, the shell will then be induced to warm back up to the temperature it was previously at, and then will likewise be maintained there given that the shell is losing energy on its exterior.

As for the shell’s interior emission, it cannot act as heat and thus warm the sphere since the sphere is always producing more power or at most (at equilibrium) an equal amount of power that the shell emits.  To raise the sphere’s temperature from emission from the shell would require positive heat flow from the shell to the sphere, but this is never possible because at most the shell emits the same power as the sphere, and never more than the sphere.  To raise an object’s temperature requires either work performed on it or heat transferred into it, and the shell doesn’t perform work on the sphere and it can never send a net difference positive balance of power as heat to the sphere.

The Consequences

The steel greenhouse is one of the best models for demonstrating the impossibility and hence non-existence of the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarmism.  The steel greenhouse has every foundation necessary for it to demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect, yet, when the model is solved utilizing the law of conservation of energy and the definition of heat and thermal equilibrium, no alarming greenhouse effect manifests.  Resting upon this basis, climate politics and a large part of climate science itself is rendered defunct.

The standard derivation of the radiative greenhouse effect, by the climate alarmists, arrives at a different solution because it doesn’t utilize the definition and equation for heat flow and thermal equilibrium; it does utilize conservation of energy, and by this it seeks to claim a sufficient foundation for legitimacy, but without utilizing the definition of heat flow and thermal equilibrium the laws of thermodynamics are incomplete and thus a solution ignoring them is likewise incorrect.  Their error seems to rest solely upon the problem as stated in the thermodynamics text by Schroeder, of confusing energy with heat.

The consensus derivation of the radiative greenhouse effect has been demonstrated as debunked, but an alternative description which is often utilized at this point to attempt to resurrect the same effect is called “slowed-cooling”.  This alternative offer is paradoxical in that slowed-cooling still wouldn’t explain how a temperature higher than the input forcing is achieved in the first place, as this is the foundational element of the standard consensus derivation of the radiative greenhouse effect.  That is, if a body cools down from a -180C forcing input in a slower manner than otherwise, this can’t explain why a temperature higher than -180C would ever be found.  What climate alarmism and its standard radiative greenhouse effect requires is that an input forcing power equivalent to -180C of radiant flux is amplified to a higher absolute temperature by the presence of a shell (i.e. the atmosphere in the case of the Earth).  It doesn’t matter that slowed cooling from an input of -180C results in a higher average closer to (but still below) -180C of a rotating system, what matters is that the -180C forcing input is amplified to a much higher absolute temperature.  And so the “slowed-cooling” offer to resurrect the radiative greenhouse effect is insufficient for its purported obligation, and its development in this post-hoc manner is scientifically disingenuous in any case.

That being said, the shell can indeed lead to the sphere cooling at a slower rate.  If the shell had a high thermal energy capacity then when the power from the sphere is halted the shell would cool but would only lose a small part of its total internal thermal energy over time, thus maintaining a higher (but dropping) temperature over time as compared to if it had a smaller thermal energy capacity and smaller total internal thermal energy.  In this case the minimum temperature of the sphere would be set by the current temperature of the shell given that the shell provides an ambient (but lower-temperature and cooling) environment for the sphere; eventually the entire system still ends at the environment temperature.

The fact is that none of the alarming claims from alarmist climate science rest upon the “slowed-cooling” idea but the basis of the science is on the amplification model, and further, the model of sphere and shell is purely radiative whereas the Earth’s “shell” atmosphere is in contact with the Earth’s surface and the continuous convection of the generally-cooler atmosphere over the general-warmer surface allows the atmosphere to continuously cool that surface.

The full nature of the relations between Earth’s atmosphere and surface is of course quite complex, but one thing is undoubtedly established: the atmosphere cannot and hence does not raise the surface temperature of the Earth above that of the solar input power forcing by radiative means.  There is no radiative greenhouse effect, and therefore the swath of climate alarmism and its politics is rendered invalid.

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

228 Responses to The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment

  1. There is no radiative greenhouse effect but there is a mass induced such effect arising from conduction and convection:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/

  2. Nice to see you coming around to what the Slayer’s have already said long ago Stephen.

  3. But it is still wrong to call it a “greenhouse effect”.

  4. songhees says:

    Latest books and documentary.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    My latest documentary and video of my presentation.

    My website is
    The Trans-mountain Pipeline will add 3/10,000 of 1% CO2 to the atmosphere.
    Besides, CO2 is not a pollutant.
    “Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.


    http://www.drtimball.com
    Dr Andrew Weaver vs Dr Tim Ball in Supreme Court now in Vancouver, BC

  5. AfroPhysics says:

    Excellent work, Joseph.

    It has now been theoretically proven that the smallest Matroska doll will not burst into flames, thereby confirming what every Russian already knows.

  6. Adding on to our previous conversation, if the shell’s emmisivity is less than 1 it can attain a higher temperature to emit the same power as the sphere to the outside environment. The emisivity of the shell, though will rise as it absorbs energy from the sphere so that it’s temperature will never increase above that of the sphere. Nor can the temperature of the sphere be increased by a lower emmisvity shell.

    Is that a correct summation of the emmisivity question?

  7. Or to put it another way. If shell has a surface area 5 times that of the sphere, it can achieve the same temperature as the sphere if it’s emmisivity is 0.2. If cannot have an emmisivity of less than 0.2 if it attains the same temperature as the sphere, because the sphere continues to emit energy and energy cannot be “trapped”. The shell will simply warm until it is the same temperature as the sphere and emit the same energy over a larger surface area at 1/5th the rate.

    Please correct any misunderstandings.

  8. Deleted my last comment.

    Yes WWF that is all correct!

  9. Perhaps you could do a post on that too with the correct mathematics. Alarmists have often used the reduced emmisivity argument on me to argue that the temperature of both the shell and sphere must increase. Never mind that CO2 has a higher emmisivity than O2 or N2. You know how they bait and switch (Spencer’s “experiment” was a good example of fraudulently trying to show proof of concept even though his heat source never increased in temperature, only the objects being warmed by it)

    But it would be cool to see an expansion of the steel greenhouse refutation with hypothetical substances with starting super low emissivities and end temperatures with higher emmisivity shells.

    I find mathematics easier to follow when actual numbers are inserted.

  10. “actual numbers” ? !!!

    That would require real data, outside of computer models, and actual modelling that did NOT ask a person to “imagine” a living, spherical, multifaceted, fluid-solid entity as an abstract, flat, non-substantial, unspecified-dimensional, mental nebula.

    Oh, … and put forth by scientists who envision themselves as cute, fuzzy, little lagomorphs.

    Years ago, I was attracted to THIS explanation:

    http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/climatethermoslayer.pdf

    1. Increased heat forcing of the Ocean surface at low latitudes is balanced by increased vaporization,
    2. increased vaporization increases the heat capacity which decreases the moist adiabatic lapse rate,
    3. if the actual lapse rate is bigger than the actual moist adiabatic rate, then unstable convective overturning is triggered,
    4. unstable overturning causes turbulent convection with increased heat transfer.
    The atmospheric air conditioner thus may respond to increased heat forcing by (i) increased vaporization decreasing the moist adiabatic lapse rate combined with (ii) increased turbulent convection if the actual lapse rate is bigger than the moist adiabatic lapse rate. This is how a boiling pot of water reacts to increased heating.

  11. “I would rather have questions that cannot be answered….than to have answers
    that cannot be questioned” ~ credited to Richard Feynman, unverified

    AGW is one ‘answer’ that is very questionable.

  12. Pingback: The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment | ajmarciniak

  13. Philip Mulholland says:

    Joseph,
    The curious thing about the diagram of the steel greenhouse is its denial of spherical geometry. The error sits there in plain sight. The model has the sphere emitting 235 W/m2 to the shell and the shell then emits 235W/m2 to space. This equivalence of energy density is of course impossible because the surface area of the enclosing shell must be larger than the surface area of the embedded sphere. The only time they are equivalent is when the shell has an identical radius to the sphere, at which point the steel greenhouse ceases to exist.
    As you correctly state the model completely ignores the inverse square law of radiant intensity with distance that clearly applies here.
    “The surface of the shell cannot emit the same energy density as the surface of the sphere because the shell never experiences that same energy density in the first place, due its internal surfaces’ distance from the sphere.”
    Quite so!
    Any counter argument that the distance to the top of the atmosphere is small compared to the radius of the earth is of course bogus and brings us back to a flat earth model of climate. One nice thought experiment that demonstrates the effect of spherical geometry on a planetary scale is to imagine a magic weightless cable 40,075.16km (40,075,160m) long laid out around the world at the equator. The cable touches the surface at all points around the planet. Now cut the cable and introduce a single extra metre of length so that the cable is now 40,075,161m long. How far above the surface does the cable now hover? Simple spherical geometry gives us the answer; the difference in the two circumferences is one metre because 40,075,161 – 40,075,160 = 1 (obviously) so the difference in radius must be 2piR = 1m therefore R = 1/2pi = 159cm
    Yes, that’s right; the cable will rise to a height of 159cm above the ground all the way around the whole length of the equator. So please do not imagine that the surface area of the atmosphere at the tropopause (or whatever emitting surface you wish to choose) has the same area as the planet’s solid surface. It does not. But, but the actual percentage difference in surface area for a 10km atmospheric shell is 0.07% and that’s just rounding error in the model. Really? Ok then my bad, so let’s crack on with flat earth fysics.

  14. I’m still grappling with the seeming paradox of the low emmisivity situation, described in my comment above and the inverse square law applied to radiant heat transfer at a distance. My above comment suggests that it is possible to achieve a shell temperature that is higher than the blackbody temperature of the energy in Watts per unit of surface area impinging on it from the sphere (though not higher than the temperature of the sphere itself). Yet when I examine the sun’s energy impinging on objects on or near earth, none have demonstrated the ability to exceed the blackbody temperature (absorptivity of 1) of the sun’s energy shining on it.

    From my limited physics education and personal study, I think this is to do with Kirchofs law, dictating that an object will have the same absorptivity as emissivity. So that even if an object needs a higher temperature to emit a stated unit of energy, this is cancelled out by the fact that it is only absorbing a fraction of the total energy impinging on it. So for example, a metal such as chrome, which has a very low emissivity can get very hot in the sun, but it doesn’t get hotter than the blackbody tempersture of the sun because it has an equally low absorptivity. It absorbs less energy and it emits less energy, but reaches blackbody like temperatures of the total sun’s energy shining on it. Thus it warms up faster and cools down faster as well.

    These are my thoughts at least. I would like to have them properly critiqued and corrected.

  15. Pingback: The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment | Principia Scientific International

  16. But, but the actual percentage difference in surface area for a 10km atmospheric shell is 0.07% and that’s just rounding error in the model.

    So, we should ignore this 0.07% difference in surface area, but totally loose our shit over the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere of this 0.07%, ignoring the gross molecular, fluid-dynamic energy of the other 99.96%, particularly underplaying the thermal capacity and phase changes of 1% or 2%.

    Earth’s atmospheric profile sure seems to treat 10km as more than a “rounding error” amount — as pressure, density, temperature, and speed of sound change significantly from sea level to the top of this “insignificant” dimension.

  17. Bryan says:

    All atoms are really mostly empty space.
    So the diagram above could represent an atom
    The ‘Core’ could represent the Nucleus and the ‘shell’ the outer electrons.
    So why doesn’t an IR active atom heat itself
    Why doesn’t the surface of any object self heat the interior of that object?

  18. “But, but the actual percentage difference in surface area for a 10km atmospheric shell is 0.07% and that’s just rounding error in the model.”

    OMG that’s so damned ridiculous. The model, idiots, should work generally, so then what DOES happen if you make the shell large?

    At what point does the rounding error stop being a rounding error? At what percentage of violation of conservation of energy does violation of conservation of energy occur?

    Conservation of energy is binary. You either do it or you don’t! And there’s no approximations in such a simple shere-shell model giving rounding errors in the second place!

    “That’s just rounding error in the model”……. Can you f*cking believe these moron, idiot, lying pieces of filth!?!!?? Oh your model violated conservation of energy, but that’s just rounding error. It also didn’t utilize the equations for heat flow, but that’s just for steam engines.

    Robert, I remember when I first got into it with them over the steel greenhouse, they gave me that reply. Where did you just find that? I am sure it made me angry back then, but today it makes my blood ice-cold. Let’s track the f*ckers down who said that, and we’re going to go after them for it this time.

  19. Joseph E Postma says:

    WWF I haven’t forgot about you…will return on your comments.

  20. JP,

    I found it in Philip Mulholland’s post in this thread above, on 2017/10/20 at 4:16 AM near the end, trusting that he had it right, … as I appropriated it for my sarcasm.

    Phillip? … source?

  21. Joseph E Postma says:

    Can’t keep up today.
    Yes, great comment Philip!!
    https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/#comment-31393
    I remember that phrase (about 0.07% error not mattering because of rounding!! lol!!!!) being stated to me years ago…Philip must remember it too or have seen it recently some place. I think it was actually Willis who said it…the damned dumb goblin bastard.

  22. CONCLUSION: The atmosphere itself, up to 10Km, is merely a rounding error. There is NO atmosphere, then, for purposes of modeling, and so if there is NO atmosphere, then there can be NO 0.04% CO2 part of NO atmosphere, because 0.04% x 0 = 0.

    Yet, here I am, breathing, living, typing words about the non-existence of the thing that allows me to exist to type this.

  23. Joseph E Postma says:

    Can you believe they get away with saying things like that? Can you believe that Willis says that, and then Watts & Spencer defend him?!

    The universe has to evolve a pain-response mechanism for this level of abject stupidity. How has the mind of all things gotten away with no evolved response mechanism like this? Especially if existence is a mental construct?!

  24. Rosco says:

    Why didn’t they use 240 and 480 – would make the maths easier ?

  25. Rosco says:

    Whenever someone points to some other examples involving radiation shields which disagree with their beloved model they always state it is a different problem and their interpretation is right because it has a constant power input.

    All the examples I ever see that do not show back radiation always state something like example 1023 such as “consider a black sphere or radius R at temperature T which radiates to distant black surroundings at T = 0K.”

    How can it radiate at T in a 0K environment unless it is powered ?

  26. Rosco says:

    How about this ?

  27. Rosco says:

    Sorry – It can be difficult to get the dropbox things right.

    Joe can delete the previous post and I’ve tried to reduce it –

    If it doesn’t work I’ll give up.

  28. Rosco says:

    Still not right but the algebra is complete.

  29. Philip Mulholland says:

    Sorry guys, I missed out the sarc tag.
    Robert: I had to go back to February 2013 to find the original source for my rounding error jibe:-
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/
    [UPDATE: Misunderstandings revealed in the comments demonstrated that I lacked clarity. To expand, let me note that because the difference in exterior surface area of the shell and the surface is only 0.03%, I am making the simplifying assumption that they are equal. This clarifies the situation greatly. Yes, it introduces a whopping error of 0.3% in the calculations, which people have jumped all over in the comments as if it meant something … really, folks, 0.3%? I am also making the simplifying assumption that both the planet and shell are “blackbodies”, meaning they absorb all of the infrared that hits them.]

  30. Rosco,

    Keep your image WIDTH … at around 700 pixels, and your image will fit into this dialogue box.

    I haven’t tested the max width, because I’m scared, and so I play it safe with around 700 pixels WIDE, and let the proportional height fall as it may, since this does not seem to be a limiting factor.

    640 pixels wide is a good place to start to see how it looks, but I would NOT go much above 700. I guess I need to do a test now.

  31. Joseph E Postma says:

    Willis: “Misunderstandings revealed in the comments demonstrated that I lacked clarity. To expand, let me note that because the difference in exterior surface area of the shell and the surface is only 0.03%, I am making the simplifying assumption that they are equal. This clarifies the situation greatly. Yes, it introduces a whopping error of 0.3% in the calculations, which people have jumped all over in the comments as if it meant something … really, folks, 0.3%?”

    Oh so you see guys? Our problem with his violation of conservation of energy was only because he lacked CLARITY that he was OK with doing this, and hence what do we have to complain about!? He had to go to all of the trouble of making it CLEAR to our silly little minds that he doesn’t mind violating conservation of energy – we should have been smart enough to understand that he was OK with this and if he’s OK with it then conservation of energy is also OK. Jumping all over in the comments about violating conservation of energy was so silly of us, with our thinking that it meant something! It doesn’t mean anything because Willis obviously knows that already…if Willis obviously knows that already then how come WE don’t know that violating conservation of energy doesn’t mean anything??!!

    Can you believe the g-damned gall of these people!? And Roy and Anthony both stood up for this and repeated it!

    Can you imagine the degree of narcissistic arrogance and Dunning-Kruger Syndrome in effect here for these people to try to tell us that WE have a problem with demanding conservation of energy, while they tell us that it is meaningless!!??

    *RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE**RAGE*RAGE*

    Where is that fucker Willis? We need to go have a chat with him.

  32. Rosco, I checked the size of your image, and it is 1157 pixels wide, which is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too wide.

    … not sure what software you use to create it, or if you are able to reduce pixel dimensions, but a reduction of width is what needs to happen, in order to get it to fit right.

  33. Here, I reduced it for you:

  34. I think there are problems with subscripts at the start…and also the sphere-shell temperature isn’t correct at the end. Please go look at the OP as it’s worked out there.

  35. To get bigger type, you have to be able to know that you are working on a canvas or background or page size of 700 pixels (that’s what I reduced your image to), and then adjust your font size according to your preference, which means that you will get MORE lines of BIGGER text, instead of FEWER lines of SMALLER text, as it reads now.

    I prefer your bigger text, which would mean MORE lines that would add to the vertical height of the document file, when you created it as such.

    Sorry to take up space here to try to help with this, but I know it must be frustrating, and I couldn’t allow that. (^_^)

  36. Yeah, I’m seeing what I think are typos in the subscripts that sort of developed a mind of their own and ended up propagating into a result that I don’t think was intended (I could be wrong):

  37. Rosco says:

    Robert – thanks for highlighting the original typo but it is the only mistake in my analysis !

    The rest of your red markings are indeed wrong !

    The first red circled Tsphere obviously should be Tshell but this is insignificant as the rest of the algebra is absolutely correct !

    What matters is the SB equations which I have exactly right in every line following this first typo and the inverse square law which I also have exactly right.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

    Young and Freedman Page 488 Inverse square law for intensity –

    I(1)/I(2) = r(2)^2/r(1)^2.

    As the radius of the shell MUST always be larger than the radius of the sphere my final ratio is also exactly right ! For rsphere = 1 and rshell = 2 the ratio is 1/2.

    As you can see you got it backwards in your final “correction”.

    As you can see the initial typo is irrelevant and my algebra is exactly right !

    It is an interesting and surprising result but the algebra and equations are exactly what ALL the physics texts state !

    How can it be wrong ?

  38. Rosco says:

    NASA gives the following details for the Sun:-

    https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html

    Radius – 695,700 km.
    Surface emission – 62.94 x 10^6 J/m^2 sec = W/m^2.

    The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is the sum of (Aphelion + Perihelion) which is approximately 149.6 x 10^6 km.

    I(Earth) = I(Sun) x (R(Sun)/R(Earth orbit))^2

    I(Earth) = 62.94 x 10^6 x (695,700/149.6 x 10^6)^2 = 62.94 x 10^6 x ~2.163 x 10^-5.

    I(Earth) = ~1361 W/m2 – See Planetary fact sheet at

    https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

    Solar irradiance (W/m2) 1361.0

    How is any of my algebra wrong ?

  39. Rosco says:

    The whole point of all of my posts is that although the algebra and the various laws I used above are correct the results are unreasonable.

    One has to be extremely careful when writing equations.

    If the surface of the Sun at radius 695,700 km has an effective temperature of 5772 K then applying the algebra arrived at means the temperature of a sphere at Earth’s radius is 5772 x (695,700/149.6 x 10^6) is 26.84 K.

    There is still nothing wrong with the algebra.

  40. @ Rosco. “There is still nothing wrong with the algebra”. No just the physics as the inverse square law needs to be applied to the energy output that crated the temperature, not the temperature itself. Though I’m assuming that is the whole point of your example

  41. Yep, Rosco, I was DEFINITELY wrong after the first red typo.

    Inverse-square-law dumb, dumb at the helm here.

    Shell radius always bigger than sphere radius, yes, duh, … and somehow my eyes saw the reverse [mouth breather moment].

    Conceded, I totally screwed up. I am the one who got it backwards. When I make mistakes, I make ’em big, but my lessons learned are directly proportional to the magnitude of my errors.

    I will try not to make this a habit. It’s the rabbit’s fault for messing with my mind in that other thread.

    If I could reverse time, take it all back, then I would, but, alas, I don’t believe in time travel, and so we will just have to live with it, I guess. Sorry.

  42. I’ve got to cleanse my mind and read your contribution again, Rosco.

    That dumbassity of mine deserves a Postma rant.

    Okay, I’m done beating myself up now.

  43. It is as if we loose the original relationship between temperature and radiation, and we supplant that relationship with a relationship between temperature and RADIUS.

    “Radius” and “radiation” both start with “r-a-d-i”. Funny how algebra “knows” nothing of this, and yet the coincidental “hijacking” of one word with those letters occurs to allow another word with those letters to dictate.

    Or is that just a stupid way of looking at it?

  44. Rosco says:

    “wickedwenchfan says:
    2017/10/20 at 8:52 PM
    @ Rosco. “There is still nothing wrong with the algebra”. No just the physics as the inverse square law needs to be applied to the energy output that crated the temperature, not the temperature itself. Though I’m assuming that is the whole point of your example”

    The SB law IS the intensity of the energy output at each sphere/shell.

    The inverse square law is applied appropriately.

    The point is that although the initial equations are right and the algebra is right the answer is absurd.

    This happens so often it is not funny!

    I think Joe’s stuff is OK though.

  45. Philip Mulholland says:

    Robert
    Here is the link you wanted to the original source comment in the thread:-
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/#comment-1218556
    mikerossander February 6, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    To Mike M, Joe Public and Sarge – Energy is conserved and yes, you could reframe the entire example in watts instead of watts per square meter. It is irrelevant to the thought-experiment, however, because you can make the shell arbitrarily small as long as it is infinitesimally separated from the planet. The effect would be identical if the shell were one millimeter out rather than the severely exaggerated separation shown in Figure 2. And while that one-millimeter increase in radius would increase the surface area very slightly, it’s WAY below the rounding error of the system.

  46. Philip Mulholland says:

    Here is something I wrote in Feb 2013 but never posted. It is based on my father’s explanation to me of the power and the limitations of assumptions:-
    What’s in a difference of 0.3%, nothing or something? Well let’s see, but first a digression via geometry, because geometry is fundamentally at the heart of this whole issue. Consider the simple case of the three sided figure, the triangle, we are taught at school that the internal angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. Is this an immutable law of arithmetic or rather an assumption of mathematics? Is it possible to have a triangle in which the internal angles sum to more than 180 degrees? The simple answer to that question is yes.
    Suppose you start a journey at the north pole and head due south along the Greenwich meridian until you reach the equator. Here you turn right 90 degrees and head due west along the equator until you reach the 90 West meridian. Here you again turn right 90 degrees and head due north until you return to the pole. You arrive at your destination along a route that is 90 degrees from your original way south. Your journey consists of a triangle in which the three internal angles you have turned through sum to 270 degrees.
    The original contention that the internal angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees is true for planar geometry. The assumption of planar geometry is implicit in making this rule. But the surface of a sphere is not a plane, so by recognising that triangles can be constructed on the surface of an orb we find that valid triangles can be created with internal angles that sum to more than 180 degrees. To achieve this paradigm shift we have abandoned the assumption of planar geometry and moved instead to the realm of spherical geometry.
    And my point is? We cannot use planar geometry when modelling the earth, we must use spherical geometry. Consider this simple point. At the surface of a sphere, any sphere, there is always more “up” than down. For example you are in a jet plane in level flight at an altitude of 10 kilometres. You look out through the window and the earth is below your line of sight. A ray of energy travelling in the direction of flight will not intercept the earth, it will pass horizontally through the attenuated air and out into space. At 10 kilometres altitude there is more solid angle surrounding you that points to space, than points to the ground. There is clearly more “up” than down at the top of the weather layer, and this is true for all levels in the atmosphere right down to ground level.

  47. Thanks for the reference and comment Philip. Who knew you could just invent a rounding error to explain away the failures of your maths!? Lol!

  48. Rosco wrote:

    The point is that although the initial equations are right and the algebra is right, the answer is absurd.

    … and this bugs me to the point of wanting to clarify why algebra can lead to this.

    Rosco has referenced Planck’s law on several occasions, and so I’m thinking that new insight might come from studying this for a while:

  49. I know that there are numerous ways to express Planck’s Law, but I chose one to start.
    I notice that four constants appear — “h”, “c”, “e”, “k”. That’s a hefty dose of constants in one equation.

    The algebra seems to fail at accounting for how temperature determines radiance for individual wavelengths . It’s almost as if radiance is some sort of FUNCTION that is being treated as a simple VARIABLE in the algebra, but I can’t quite determine where/ how this occurs, or if this impression of mine has any substance.

    I am way out of my league in trying to mathematically analyze things here, and so I could be really wrong, even in my raw impressions.

    In other words, I am suspecting some sort of fundamental, flawed, basic assumption in the algebra. Otherwise, why would it produce an absurd result?

  50. Planck’s Law is a function of wavelength

  51. Rosco says:

    Hoping this works

  52. Oh look at this guys. This is just amazing!

  53. I’ve always been a fan of admitting the reality of macro FLUID dynamics dominating micro THERMOdynamics in the troposphere.

    wickedwenchfan’s shared video link supports this nicely, … in a rational way.

    Still, we have to be able to dismantle the errors in the delusions that keep this sense of reality subdued.

    Progression of enlightenment:
    (1) Earth is like a greenhouse.
    (2) Earth is NOT like a greenhouse, but we’re gonna talk about it like it is anyway.
    (3) CO2 causes the warming that we re-define “greenhouse” to mean with reference to a planet, which remember, is NOT like a real greenhouse, but we like the word, and so we keep it anyway to describe something else.
    (4) CO2 that HUMANS produce increases the “greenhouse effect” to catastrophic proportions by back radiating heat.
    (5) Okay, we really meant by “slowing cooling”, the “greenhouse effect” causes catastrophic warming.
    (6) Well, maybe it’s NOT so catastrophic after all.
    (7) Wait, it’s NOT CO2 at all, and it’s NOT radiation, but rather pressure of the fluid mass of our atmosphere under gravity’s influence. But, hey, let’s maybe call this a “greenhouse effect” too.
    (8) F**k the “greenhouse” part. Let’s finally stop believing in Santa Clause, and develop our language accordingly.
    (9) Below the troposphere, let’s shift the narrative away from thermodynamics, towards fluid dynamics.
    (10) We’ve finally grown up.

  54. geran says:

    Allowing all of their assumptions, hopefully everyone agrees the sphere, by itself, would have an S/B temperature of approximately 254 K.

    Next, does everyone agree that after adding the shell, and equilibrium is reached, the sphere temperature would still be 254 K?

    That is the crux of the issue, and needs to be clearly understood. Adding the perfectly radiating shell can NOT raise the temperature of the sphere.

  55. Pingback: Incomplete Thermodynamics | Climate of Sophistry

  56. Pingback: Climate Science Uses Incomplete Thermodynamics | Principia Scientific International

  57. Question about units of measure used in this video:

    Specifically, … units of measure for the gas constant — I did a screen shot and crop to show what his slide shows, and I circled in red what I have a question about:

    Is m^3 correct, or should it be m^2 ?

    What is the whole constant, written out with all the units, so I can see exactly what the lingo is ?

  58. AfroPhysics says:

    “My” formula is cleaner and easier to remember.

    T = PW/GD

    P = Pressure (kPa)
    W = Avg. Molar Weight of Air (g/mol)
    G = Gas Constant (J/mol K)
    D = Air Density (kg/m^3)

    (101.325*28.964)/(8.314*1.225) – 273.15 = 15C

  59. I just think the video is a slam dunk against the GHE. It’s O level mathematics and physics that anyone can follow and that anyone can get check the numbers for. It works on every planet with an atmosphere over 10kpa. Ask an alarmist or Luke warmer to do the same with Greenhouse Effect mathematics. “I can predict the temperature of seven bodies in the solar system with a simple formula. Show me your formula and let’s see how quickly it fails!”

  60. Rosco says:

    Basically it is a simple re-arrangement of the “Universal Gas Law” PV = nRT.

    R = 8.3144598(48) kg m2 mol−1 K−1 s−2.

    Did that here for all the planets using NASA’s Planetary Fact Sheets.

    https://principia-scientific.org/the-ideal-gas-law-the-planets-and-the-fraud-of-climate-science/

    Mars is the only exception in that the black body temperature is similar to the calculated values

    I don’t write the titles – John O’Sullivan does that.

  61. … just confirming the “meters” part of the gas constant. Thanks, Rosco.

    … looks like the m^3 in the video slide, noted with “R”, is a typo, then. I just wanted a second pair of eyes on this.

    Editors love their titles. It’s not a bad title — a bit of drama, yes, but not over the top, in my judgment. I’ll read that whole article. … saves me from doing the calculations, which I was going to do as an exercise. I know others have done this too, but your article looks so clear, I’ll just tune in really closely and save my energy for something else. (^_^)

  62. Philip Mulholland says:

    Robert
    That is one sneaky equation.
    R should be 8.31441 Joules per kelvin per mole.
    He started with the standard gas equation PV = nRT, so I guess that m^3 is the rearranged volume term.
    Are you trying to do dimensional analysis on it and see were you get?

  63. Philip M,

    I was just worried that what I was seeing at Wikipedia and what I was seeing Rosco writing (with a m^2 term) might indicate an error in the rearrangement leading to that “one sneaky equation”.

    Dimensional analysis would be good, I guess.

  64. Anybody who looks at the gas-law results and balks because they think this says solar input does not matter is totally missing the picture. I won’t name names (GH – okay, just initials), but I get the impression that many people who might object to the gas-law picture has not thought deeply enough about the implications.

    I’m still working on the depth of my own thoughts on this, but here is sort of where I am:

    I don’t need to know exact figures for the sun’s input, if I want to follow a recipe to bake a cake. The sun is such a given that we can treat it as such, and proceed more directly with what figures we are interested in dealing with most related to the specific thing we are interested in. Of course, the sun matters, but the point is that we do not have to know exactly how, in order to determine specific effects of its mattering.

    I know that, on any given day, in order to bake a cake, I need a certain quantity of flour, eggs, sugar, milk — a certain oven temperature, cake containers, cooking time. I do not need any data about solar input in this endeavor, however. Of course, the sun’s input enables me to bake the cake – it provides heat to keep me alive, light to grow the plants that I eat to keep me alive. I suppose that there are exact measurements that I could relate to how much sun is required to produce so much biomass to enable me to consume so many calories, to produce so many physiological reactions to fire my muscles to measure the flour, sugar, milk, etc. But I do NOT need these figures to bake the cake. The solar input is a different problem for a different focus.

    WHY the solar input allows the gas-law results to happen is a different problem. It’s not that the sun does not matter — it’s just that HOW the sun matters is a different problem.

    An atmospheric focus can be a focus on ATMOSPHERE — namely gases, and so a gas-law solution does NOT seem so farfetched, if a reasonable amount of gas (i.e., atmosphere) is present for the gas law to apply.

  65. The big picture does NOT involve an “either/or” approach, I think.

    Rather, it involves a “both/and” approach, and knowing when to apply one approach more strongly than another … or … even others.

    Solar input, atmospheric pressure, gravity, etc. all figure in. But we ARE talking about gases, when we talk about atmospheres, and there are multiple, complex ways seemingly that we have to think, in order to account for all the “whys” about the reasons gases do what they do.

    It’s NOT just a couple gases at low concentrations working at an atomic scale. There’s also molecular scale involved, … and a macro-fluid scale involved.

    It’s really more complex than we might want it to be, I think, — much more complex than a singular focus on thermodynamics alone, or gravity alone, or gas pressure alone.

  66. AfroPhysics says:

    Whatevs, my formula is cooler.

    T=PW/GD

    T is Power of God. Can’t forget it.

  67. What stands out to me is that the properties of the gasses that we need to know to solve the equation are not related in anyway whatsoever to their IR absorption bands. We have terms for density, atomic structure, pressure and with these we can derive an accurate mean temperature. This is profound. This is a slam dunk. Game over.
    Especially as the equation for CO2 absorption given in Hansen’s paper and others fails the second you try and apply it to Venus. How can a diminishing logarithmic progression lead to a compounding increase in “trapped” energy?

  68. Philip Mulholland says:

    AfroPhysics: I love your formula T = PW/GD, it’s so clean.
    Symbol Property Dimensions Metric
    P Pressure M.L^-1.T^-2 Force per unit Area (kPa)
    W Avg. Molar Weight of Air M.mol^-1 Mass per mol (g/mol)
    G Gas Constant M.L^2.T^-2.mol^-1.K^-1 8.31441 Joules per mole per kelvin
    D Air Density M.L^-3 Mass per unit Volume (kg/m3)

    Equation for K
    PW has dimensions M.L^-1.T^-2.M.mol^-1
    GD has dimensions M.L^2.T^-2.mol^-1.K^-1.M.L^-3
    Cancellation above and below the line leaves us with K = 1/K^-1
    Neat!

  69. 1000Frolly says:

    Glad you guys liked my video!
    Keep going,
    1000Frolly

  70. I’m still confused over the gas-constant units. Obviously, it can be written in different ways. It’s just confusing for somebody coming into this for the first time (like moi) to see a m^2 sometimes and then a m^3 sometimes in the expression of it.

    m^3 seems more intuitive to me, because we are dealing with a gas that occupies a VOLUME. I guess breaking it down into its most drawn out units (where no further reduction in units is possible) might help.

  71. Okay, I think I figured it out now — 1000Frolly is using “Pascals”, which has a “meter” unit in it that
    subtracts one of the “m”s from the expression, when you express the “kilograms” part.

  72. Still, though, this part of a slide from the video poses problems in clarity of understanding:

    It mentions “m^3” in the same phrase as “kilograms” (i.e., “m^3, kelvin^-1, moles^-1, kilograms”), which I think should be “pascals⋅m^3⋅kelvin^-1moles^-1”

    … again, for clarity and consistency with standards, … for first timers.

    Or do I still have it wrong? (^_^)

  73. Rosco says:

    The gas law calculations alone cannot explain planetary surface temperatures.

    For example in Antarctica or the Arctic the answer is always completely wrong.

  74. AfroPhysics says:

    Thank you, Philip.

    Rosco, can you show us that it’s wrong near the poles?

    Are you using correct values for Pressure,Avg. Molar Weight, Density?

  75. frolly says:

    Rosco, this is a straw man.
    What we are calculating with this formula is the AVERAGE near-surface planetary temperature!
    Nothing else.

  76. That’s what I was thinking too, frolly, — the near-surface average.

    I was also thinking that no other ONE process can explain planetary temperature either.

    It’s a combination of things, where one thing might dominate in one region, say, and another thing might dominate on average in another. This is why the whole idea of ONE “planetary temperature” seems shaky to me.

  77. Rosco says:

    “Rosco, this is a straw man.
    What we are calculating with this formula is the AVERAGE near-surface planetary temperature!
    Nothing else.”

    That argument is complete rubbish.

    Using the calculation says that the average surface temperature is ~288 K.

    The average temperature in a significant portion of the globe is nothing like this value – indisputable.

    “Rosco, can you show us that it’s wrong near the poles?”

    Just look at the temperatures – the atmosphere is basically the same worldwide – 99% N2 and O2, similar changes in pressure, varying amounts of trace gases.

    The gas laws alone cannot explain surface temperatures.

    Surely everyone realizes by now there is no such thing as a meaningful global average surface temperature ?

  78. I also take it that one of the terms in the equation is derived from a different equation that includes mean solar input. Otherwise there would be no significant temperature difference between planets when one solved the ideal gas law equation. All of the terms values for each planet have been convieniently provided from outside sources, but we have no explanation of how the non constant numbers themselves were derived. Looking at the notes on the video, I see the Nikolov Zeller paper. I assume that is where we will find the answer.

  79. AfroPhysics says:

    Rosco, you need to use local parameters. For example, the poles vary from 990 to 1025 millibars of pressure within a year.

  80. Surely everyone realizes by now there is no such thing as a meaningful global average surface temperature ?

    Surely, I certainly do. But surely NOT everyone does, because to admit this outright en mass would render a great number of financial resources, hours of data analyzing, jobs associated with all this, textbook publishing royalties, website narratives and designs based on those narratives, … careers, pay checks, school curricula, and so forth defunct, … all useless lies now out of style, forcing a redo of everything.

  81. frolly says:

    “That argument is complete rubbish.
    Using the calculation says that the average surface temperature is ~288 K.
    The average temperature in a significant portion of the globe is nothing like this value – indisputable.”
    .
    You say that the argument is complete rubbish, and yet in the next sentence, you say the calculation says 288K! This is the correct average global near-surface atmospheric temperature, according to every global temperature data-set we have; balloon, satellite and surface.
    Then your last sentence is something completely obvious, which is a red herring because again, the formula ONLY calculates an average near-surface atmospheric temperature and nothing else.

    As to why it produces only an average temperature, that is obvious too; it’s because we are only using global averages of gas parameters for our inputs – and using an average height for the tropopause. As for insolation, and other variables such as albedo, they are already baked-in to these atmospheric averages.
    At the poles, of course its much colder than the average; the tropopause is much lower for a start – which will provide less auto-compression. In the tropics its hotter partly because you have the reverse situation.

  82. frolly says:

    To Wickedwenchfan
    “All of the terms values for each planet have been conveniently provided from outside sources, but we have no explanation of how the non constant numbers themselves were derived.”
    .
    This is not true; I have provided at least one source paper for each of the planets on each slide. All references are also in the video blub.
    This planetary gas data is also on the NASA fact sheet site;
    NASA fact sheet data on the planets, (2017). https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/

  83. AfroPhysics says:

    Kinetic theory of gases ensures that T=PW/GD can NEVER be wrong in any situation above 0.1 bar. If it seems that way, your parameters are not local to experiment.

  84. AfroPhysics says:

    The byooty of T=PW/GD is that it quickly reveals what climate cranks (alarmists) most fear to reveal: that every type of gas contributes to global average temperature, not just the holy IR consuming greenhorse gases – the stinky stuff they gripe about so much. Because the universal gas law incorporates all heat transfer mechanisms (radiative, convective, conductive) it is a more accurate measure of how our atmosphere works than just considering the radiative component (SB Law, Albedo, Spectrum Widths). Since temperature rises by both heat and Work, any formula which excludes Work is doomed to failure (like in real life).

    Climate cranks don’t believe gravity Works, so only stinky greenhorse gases could raise our temperature above “sun-earth heat balance”.

    But gravity does work (can you believe people in the 21st century still doubt this? yet they call themselves scientists), this does raise temperature in accordance to universal gas law.

  85. @ Frolly

    As I said at the end of my last comment, I note the Nikolov and Zeller paper in your notes, which I do know used average solar insolation in their calculations to derive the whichever variable in the equation that requires it. Which one of the terms it is appropriate for, I don’t know, as my abilities in this are limited by lack of knowledge/education.

    All I meant by my “convieniently provided” comment was that the calculation wasn’t shown in the video itself, only the figures for the calculation. I do not doubt the profoundness of the equation, I simply pointed out that people such as myself are still left ignorant as to where the distance from the sun factors into things.

    If you would care to make a follow up video showing everyone how to do that calculation, that would be absolutely awesome!

  86. frolly says:

    Wickedwenchfan
    “…one of the terms in the equation is derived from a different equation that includes mean solar input.”
    .
    No, none are.
    We use the gas constant, which applies in this case because of the units we are using.
    We calculate the mean molar mass in the troposphere from the gases measured to be present.
    We measure the ‘average’ near-surface pressure as best we can.
    We measure the average near-surface density as near we can.
    There is no term needed from solar insolation or intensity, albedo, greenhouse effect, gravity or for that matter even auto-compression. This is where Nikolov and Zeller (among others) went wrong and complicated things unnecessarily.
    Why the formula works without any ‘direct’ input into the equation from any of these, is because they are already automatically baked-into the 3-gas parameter pie at the surface. What bakes them in is mainly the combination of gases, gravity, insolation and convection height.
    Although terms for insolation intensity and auto-compression are not needed in the formula, these two are still what completely determine the final temperature.

  87. Rosco said what the formula says, of course. He said this to show that the number that the formula produces differs significantly from temperatures at the poles. Without presenting what the formula says, he could not make his point. This is NOT a contradiction, but rather a pointing out of the number from the formula for which he wishes to make a comment.

    While the average planetary near surface temperature seems like a shaky concept, … still interesting is the fact that the formula can CONSISTENTLY arrive at such shaky concepts for planets with thick atmospheres. There are probably regions on those planets too, where the temperature varies greatly from what the formula says the average is. Does this somehow redeem the idea of global average near surface temperature? — I don’t know. Is it a valid concept sometimes and not so valid a concept at other times? Is there a time to use it and a time not to use it? — I don’t know.

  88. @Frolly

    Well all I can say to that is FUCKING FANTASTIC! Well done!

    Can I pick your brains further?

    The density term. Is that always a measured number or an estimated number? If the latter how does one get an useable accurate enough estimate? If calculated, can you show me the calculation?

    In the video you calculate temperature at 1BAR for the gas giants. If I wanted to calculate say Jupiter at 20BAR how would I calculate the density change. I ask because a few standard astronomy websites mebtion 20C of Jupiter at 20 atmospheres. It’s what convinced me the Venusian surface at 92 atmospheres was caused by the pressure not the GHE.

    For the poles shouldn’t the equation work as well? The pressure would remain similar but the density would change dramatically with cooling. Again, it comes back to this term and how to estimate it if it can’t be measured.

    If you can help me understand this, you unleash a powerful weapon against the GHE scientists. If a layman like me with only a grade B O Level in Physics and Maths can go toe to toe with PHDs with this formula, other ordinary folks will stop being intimidated.

    I can do serious damage with this.

  89. AfroPhysics says:

    wwf, density of gases can be measured with a Dasymeter.

  90. Gary Ashe says:

    Can i watch, Wicked ?. Seriously i love reading comment battles.
    Same as any of the other guys here, Rosco has been at it for years, couldnt even begin to estimate the comment battles i have read on the net, Alan Eltor, all the normal warmist retards.

    I just wish Joseph would get out more so to speak, hard to find jJsephs previous explosives.
    I found a few over at Priciipia, but not many anywhere else, i thought you must of had a pop at at john small j crook at sometime.

  91. Rosco says:

    “AfroPhysics says:
    2017/10/25 at 5:24 PM
    Rosco, you need to use local parameters. For example, the poles vary from 990 to 1025 millibars of pressure within a year.”

    Using these values gives results ~281 for 990 mb and ~291 for 1025 mb.

    NEITHER of these values is EVER RIGHT for the poles and a significant portion of the globe – this is indisputable !

    How about this:-

    The Magellan probe of Venus’ atmosphere recorded various parameters as it descended to the surface.

    At ~1000 mb – about the same as the calculated Earth’s surface temperature – it recorded a temperature of ~339 K.

    Venus is closer to the Sun and NASA says the average orbital radius is ~108.21 million km while Earth’s is ~149.6 million km.

    Venus receives (149.6/108.21)^2 = ~1.91 times the radiant energy that Earth receives – inverse square law.

    Applying the SB law relationship involving the fourth root we find the Venus temperature at 1000 mb to be the 288 calculated for Earth times the fourth root of(149.6/108.21)^2 = ~1.176 times 288 = 338.6 K which is what Magellan recorded.

    The relationship I showed many comments above is exactly the same.

    This result despite the obvious fact that Venus’ atmosphere is completely different to Earth’s and the gas laws calculations would NOT give this answer if we knew the parameters.

    Clearly the Sun isn’t irrelevant and the gas laws alone do not explain the observed temperatures.

  92. 1000Frolly says:

    Rosco
    I have already explained about the poles and the tropics.
    Earth
    On Earth the poles have a tropopause just ~8km high as compared to the equator at ~28km.
    Remember that this discrepancy is only because of the SUN! And the three gas parameters we are using also change due to different insolation intensities. Why is the 8km and 28km difference important?
    Well auto-compression really operates at an average of 6.5C/km – and only in the troposphere! You can therefore say that the very different temperatures at the poles and the tropics are entirely because of the sun. So no-one is saying that the sun is irrelevant at all. It is very relevant, – and provides the first 255K of Earth’s 288K temperature.

    Venus
    This is what the NASA sote says about Venus;
    “Its thick atmosphere traps heat in a runaway greenhouse effect, … … The thick atmosphere traps the Sun’s heat, resulting in surface temperatures higher than 880 degrees Fahrenheit”.
    All of which is utter nonsense and easily disprovable.
    For a start, Earth receives 10 times more direct solar insolation at the surface than Venus does;
    Moroz, V., Ekonomov, A., Moshkin, B., Revercomb, H., Sromovsky, L., Schofield, J., . . . Tomasko, M. G. (1985). Solar and thermal radiation in the Venus atmosphere. Advances in Space Research, 5(11), 197-232.

    Since the greenhouse effect works by direct insolation heating the surface, and then emitted LW supposedly being ‘trapped’ by greenhouse gases, this idea obviously fails at the first step.
    Secondly, the Venusian atmosphere is not even a gas for the first 4km of height; its a super-critical fluid. Third, the Venus atmosphere stays just as hot though the 58-day night as during the day. How can the greenhouse effect work when there is no sun?
    Fourth, (and this relates to what you were saying about radiant energy) Venus actually receives much less solar warmth than Earth does because of the big difference in albedo;
    (2,644/4) x (1-0.75) = 165 W/m² for Venus vs (1,366/4) x (1-0.29) = 242 W/m² for Earth. As Venus receives much less solar radiation than the Earth does, how can it possibly maintain a very much higher temperature profile in its atmosphere from the GHE, given that at 0.04% CO2, Earth’s atmosphere is already virtually saturated as far as the GHE goes from that gas?

  93. frolly says:

    Rosco

    Earth
    On Earth the poles have a tropopause just ~8km high as compared to the equator at ~28km.
    Remember that this discrepancy is only because of the SUN! And the three gas parameters we are using also change due to different insolation intensities. Why is the 8km and 28km difference important?
    Well auto-compression really operates at an average of 6.5C/km – and only in the troposphere! You can therefore say that the very different temperatures at the poles and the tropics are entirely because of the sun. So no-one is saying that the sun is irrelevant at all. It is very relevant, – and provides the first 255K of Earth’s 288K temperature.

    Venus
    This is what the NASA sote says about Venus;
    “Its thick atmosphere traps heat in a runaway greenhouse effect, … … The thick atmosphere traps the Sun’s heat, resulting in surface temperatures higher than 880 degrees Fahrenheit”.
    All of which is utter nonsense and easily disprovable.
    For a start, Earth receives 10 times more direct solar insolation at the surface than Venus does;
    Moroz, V., Ekonomov, A., Moshkin, B., Revercomb, H., Sromovsky, L., Schofield, J., . . . Tomasko, M. G. (1985). Solar and thermal radiation in the Venus atmosphere. Advances in Space Research, 5(11), 197-232.

    Since the greenhouse effect works by direct insolation heating the surface, and then emitted LW supposedly being ‘trapped’ by greenhouse gases, this idea obviously fails at the first step.
    Secondly, the Venusian atmosphere is not even a gas for the first 4km of height; its a super-critical fluid. Third, the Venus atmosphere stays just as hot though the 58-day night as during the day. How can the greenhouse effect work when there is no sun?
    Fourth, (and this relates to what you were saying about radiant energy) Venus actually receives much less solar warmth than Earth does because of the big difference in albedo;
    (2,644/4) x (1-0.75) = 165 W/m² for Venus vs (1,366/4) x (1-0.29) = 242 W/m² for Earth. As Venus receives much less solar radiation than the Earth does, how can it possibly maintain a very much higher temperature profile in its atmosphere from the GHE, given that at 0.04% CO2, Earth’s atmosphere is already virtually saturated as far as the GHE goes from that gas?

  94. @AfroPhysics can a Dasymeter be operated from a spacecraft above an atmosphere and measure various depths?

    At Gary. Yes please come and watch. I come on this blog to learn, when I go elsewhere I take what I have learned, translate to layman’s English and go to war!

    @frolly if you would be so kind as to look at my previous comment again… much appreciated.

    @Rosco I am assuming the ideal gas law works everywhere and that the failure of your calculations at the poles and at 1 atmosphere pressure on Venus is due to you keeping the density term constant. Like pressure it is a variable term, so if temperature drops on the left hand side of the equation, the variable terms on the right side of the equation must adjust to balance. I am waiting for Frolly to confirm this or correct this statement from me, though.

    We all should eventually to be able to come at planetary temperature calculations from multiple angles and be accurate with any method. One thing I do know about mathematics and physics is that numbers always add up to the same answer regardless of method if the theory is correct. This is one of the major reasons that I rejected the GHE assertions as you take any of their sums and place them on a different planet and they fail spectacularly

  95. AfroPhysics says:

    Rosco, it’s hard to take you seriously when you only vary the pressure. Did you not notice the density parameter?

    Let’s go to the south pole:

    (68.13*28.964)/(8.314*1.06) – 273.15 = -49.3C

    http://icecube.wisc.edu/pole/weather


    Average Annual Temperature -57.1°F (-49.5°C)
    Average Pressure 681.3 mbs

  96. AfroPhysics says:

    WWF, yes of course. You’re only limited by rope length.

  97. frolly says:

    AfroPhysics
    Yes, I get an average of 223.9 Kelvin for the south pole. (-49C)

    Wickedwenchfan
    This low temperature is largely due to the height above sea level at the South Pole, that results in a much lower atmospheric pressure. The density does not change a lot by comparison.

    A 1% increase in atmospheric pressure causes approximately a +2.9C change in temperatures.
    A 1% increase in atmospheric density causes approximately a -2.8C change in temperatures.
    A 1% increase in molar weight causes approximately a +2.9C change in temperatures.

  98. frolly says:

    The formula works perfectly for the South Pole.
    Taught me a lesson; I should have calculated it instead of simply assuming that it wouldn’t !

  99. Here’s another idea. We have in the video the calculation for Earth’s atmosphere with CO2 and water vapour in the mix. Why not do the calculation with it removed? There should be a miniscule change in mass and perhaps a miniscule change in pressure and denisity ( I will leave it to you guys to say what that would be. ). I’m betting we would get less than a 1k change. Certainly not the 33k claimed. The comparison would just be the icing on the cake

  100. AfroPhysics says:

    WWF, it’s already been for just co2.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/adding-to-list-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11.html?m=1

    “If the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases from 0.035% to its double value of 0.070%, the atmospheric pressure will increase slightly (by 0.00015 atm). Consequently the temperature at sea level will increase by about 0.01°C and the increase in temperature at an altitude of 10 km will be less than 0.03°C. These amounts are negligible compared to the natural temporal fluctuations of the global temperature.”

    http://devinplombier44.free.fr/CoolingOfAtmosphere.pdf

  101. frolly says:

    Afrophysics
    “Consequently the temperature at sea level will increase by about 0.01°C and the increase in temperature at an altitude of 10 km will be less than 0.03°C.”
    .
    The first part sounds accurate, and seems to also allow for a lowering of O2 due to the burning of fossil fuels. This is in effect the climate sensitivity.
    The second part sounds odd, since we know that above the troposphere, more CO2 cause cooling – not warming. However, depending where on Earth they are talking about, 10km may still be in the troposphere.
    The strong cooling due to more CO2 in the stratosphere and the mesosphere has been measured;
    Clough, S. A., Iacono, M. J., & Moncet, J. L. (1992). Line‐by‐line calculations of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: Application to water vapor. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 97(D14), 15761-15785.
    If we can show that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is anything less than 0.5C, then the whole CO2 house of cards will totally collapse.

  102. frolly says:

    Wickedwenchfan
    Density of Jupiter at 20 bar;
    T = PW/GD
    Swap T with D to get density;
    D = PW/GT
    D = 2026 x 2.2 / 8.314 x 293.15
    D = 1.83 kg/m3

  103. Gold gentlemen. Pure gold.

  104. Philip Mulholland says:

    WWF
    It’s hard to know where to start with this, so I’ll just jump in with both feet.
    First a big shout out to Rosco for forcing Frolly to do the calculation for the South Pole. The formula works in spades – awesome. Thanks Rosco.
    Frolly
    The really nice thing about your contribution is the depth of your historic perspective when you go back to the works of Loschmidt in the 1860’s and his use of a derivation of Maxwell’s Ideal gas law, and then discuss the significance of the Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction and the compressional heating of a gas in a gravitational field. History of Science in action!
    Comparative Planetology was always my favourite part of Environmental Science so I want to go right back to basics:-
    1. The sun illuminates the planets.
    2. Solar radiation intensity is dependent on a planet’s orbital distance from the sun.
    3. The inverse square law of radiation means that planets close to the sun intercept a more intense insolation that those that orbit further away.
    4. Planetary atmospheres are gravitational bound to the solid surface of terrestrial planets.
    5. Planetary mass determines the strength of the gravitational field and hence the value of gravity at the solid surface.
    6. The strength of the gravitational field determines the escape velocity for a given planetary body.
    7. The escape velocity determines the minimum molecular weight of a gas that can remain in the planet’s atmosphere under a given insolation.
    8. Surface temperature determines the atmospheric residence time for a gas with a given molecular weight in a given gravitational field.
    So now we know why two terrestrial bodies that orbit the sun at the same distance and therefore are illuminated by the same radiation intensity can have different atmospheric compositions. The small body, with a low surface gravity, can only retain a high molecular weight atmosphere, whereas the planetary body with the larger mass and higher gravitational field can retain gases with a lower molecular weight under the same insolation.
    Our Earth has an atmosphere but our Moon does not.
    Venus has an atmosphere with a higher molecular weight than the Earth
    Mars used to have a dense planetary atmosphere when the sun was much younger and therefore emitted less intense radiation, but now it does not.
    Mercury is too close to the sun and so cannot retain a low molecular weight atmosphere of any significant mass.
    Low gravity Titan has a higher molecular weight nitrogen atmosphere than its parent body Saturn, which has a gravitational field that is strong enough to retain an atmosphere that includes hydrogen gas.
    For me the key take home message is this: A combination of distance from the sun and a planet’s gravity determines average molecular weight of a planet’s atmosphere.
    So which method of calculating a planet’s average annual temperature is correct? The radiation energy transfer hypothesis of Stefan-Boltzmann or the pressure induced gradient hypotheses of Loschmidt, involving Maxwell’s Ideal gas law, the Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction and the compressional heating of a gas in a gravitational field?
    Well this simplest answer is that both methods of computing temperature are correct, it is just that one – the radiation cooling hypothesis of Stefan-Boltzmann, only applies to the stratosphere and above where the gas pressures are below 10 kPa. The second – the pressure induced gradient hypotheses of Loschmidt involving heating by adiabatic auto-compression, only applies in the troposphere; where the atmospheric pressures are greater than 10 kPa and vertical mass motion and atmospheric advection dominate in the weather layer. So now we know, what we have always known, that in the troposphere Weather rules Climate, and the only easy way to alter the average climate of a planet, short of changing its orbit or blowing up the sun, is to increase its atmospheric mass by adding a high molecular weight molecule.
    (And I haven’t even mentioned yet the stabilising effect on climate of the Earth’s rapid daily rotation rate, its control on the Coriolis force and the latitudinal reach of the Hadley cell.)

  105. Rosco says:

    The gas law computations cannot explain temperatures on their own – surely this is obvious ?

    Anywhere at 9,300 feet above sea level is chilly – the dry adiabatic lapse rate is ~3°C/1000 feet.

    There is nothing new or revolutionary in any of this – it is simply another explanation for the atmospheric lapse rate.

    I had a post on PSI in 2014 with the same calculations for every planet in NASA’s fact sheets – still doesn’t mean I believe the results mean much. The calculated results are much closer to NASA’s values – a couple of K or less difference mostly – than the blackbody temperatures but so what ?

    My opinion is the NASA Planetary Fact Sheets are just calculations.

    Even where I live at 27° South the temperature can drop below 273 K in winter and I’m at sea level and it can hit 313 K. All with no significant change in atmospheric parameters.

    According to these claims we could move our planet out beyond Pluto and remain toasty warm.

  106. “According to these claims we could move our planet out beyond Pluto and remain toasty warm”. You have obviously not been paying attention to the discussion Rosco. No we couldn’t because density would increase and temperatures would decrease. Take a look at the calculations for 1000kpa for Neptune.

    You could do the calculation for any local weather event and it would be accurate. Simply change the average values for the planet for the specific values for the location and time of day and the formula works.

  107. Philip Mulholland says:

    by adding a high molecular weight molecule gas.
    ‘O, wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us!
    It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An’ foolish notion.’

  108. Gary Ashe says:

    WWF
    Do you and Frolly fancy floating this in rabbit rabbit hutch over at E-lie’s .
    And i do believe you owe an old Sou a visit, she had quite the crush on you, you made an impression that got ”silliest denier” award, for your ”silly” beliefs, ”as if theres no greenhouse effect, thats the same as saying theres no gravity lol lol lol, how are these people so stupid””. or similar.
    And so forth, i read 2 threads about your posts at fat Anthony’s over at hot whopper, old brain fart Miriam, i have seen her bullshit all over the place aswell for years, go over with the equation and take her pants down.
    You owe it to yourself, Miriam and an interested bystander, lets watch her sophistical 2 step tap dance, flap flap.
    Anyway, where else will i find you expounding your climate creationist ”right-wing ideology”.
    Thanks.
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/04/is-climate-science-denial-going-out-of.html

  109. Gary Ashe says:

    I Was thinking sun to blue plate atmosphere inflated green balloon lateral gravitational field sticking the balloon to the plate.
    Would that be fun.

  110. I’m just amazed that anything from NASA could have the phrase, “trap heat”, in it.

    Heat cannot be trapped. … and the NASA scientists damn well know this.

    How did we ever get to the moon? I guess it was NASA’s ability to trap work that enabled this. “Trapping” all those man hours got us there. NASA wants to write poetically. Okay, I get it now.

  111. Rosco says:

    “You have obviously not been paying attention to the discussion Rosco. No we couldn’t because density would increase and temperatures would decrease. Take a look at the calculations for 1000kpa for Neptune.”

    Seriously ?

    Firstly here is MY calculation for Neptune from an article I wrote in 2014 which was posted on PSI.
    I used PV = nRT and mb instead of kPa hence a different value for n. I used NASA’s values. I do know how to do this and did it over three years ago.

    “Neptune
    PV = nRT
    1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
    T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K”

    I could show similar calculations for ALL of the planets that have an atmosphere that were included in that article !

    I calculated ~77 K for Uranus, ~133 K for Saturn, ~169 for Jupiter, ~294 for Earth (NASA’s density is 1.217 not 1225), a diurnal range for Mars of ~182 K to ~238 K with an average of 210 K, and ~750 K for Venus.

    All of these calculated values are within ~1% of the NASA Fact Sheet values and far more representative than so-called black body temperatures which differ by huge margins.

    In your quote you just say density would increase and temperatures would decrease.

    This is nothing more than circular logic. How would density increase without an increase in pressure or a decrease in temperature ?

    And it is an admission of the importance of the solar radiation on Earth’s atmosphere as is the fact that where the Sun don’t shine the atmospheric height reduces.

  112. I never said solar radiance doesn’t affect the equation. Just the opposite if you look at my earlier comments. In them, I’m trying to figure out where the sun would influence the equation. I also ask questions to try and determine if one can predict the numbers in the equation for different planets or locations here on earth as the sun’s influence changes.

    Yes the atmospheric height should rise or fall with a difference in solar energy.
    This is how the equation can calculate temperature without knowing what the sun’s energy is. Because whatever it is, gasses in an atmosphere will expand/contract to accommodate.
    I come on this blog to learn physics, not to preach it, and I acknowledge that all of the regulars on here have a better education and knowledge of it than I do. However, please don’t appeal to your own authority when making arguments to me. Where you have been published is no more relevant for you than it is for an alarmist. It doesn’t make you infallible.

    The relavence of this equation cannot be understated. None of you seem to realise just how powerful it is. It is profound because it is simple. It is profound because it accurately predicts an increase in temperatures with an increase in volume of ALL gasses, not just Greenhouse ones.

    You guys can continue to jerk yourselves off over the finer details if you like. But as for myself, I now have a weapon that I can wield and I’m going to wield it. I can teach this to people who gave up on mathematics in high school. I can show them the con so that they can understand it and wield the weapon themselves. So that they will be confident even if arguing against a star sophist such as Brian Cox or Neil deGrasse Tyson.

  113. AfroPhysics says:

    Frolly,

    ““Consequently the temperature at sea level will increase by about 0.01°C and the increase in temperature at an altitude of 10 km will be less than 0.03°C.”

    “The second part sounds odd, since we know that above the troposphere, more CO2 cause cooling – not warming. ”

    It sounded odd to me at first too, but I think it’s been figured out. Credit goes to Bob Phin and his uber sexy wife, Zoe. I think they’re Panamanian.

    The pressure at 10km (assuming averaged sphere – fuck the tropics/poles) is 265 mbar.

    You see, there is a grey (warming) spot at the intersection of 265 mbar and 666 wavenumber. This warming spot is related to some phase change in co2. CO2 has a temperature dependant sublimation point at ~-80C.

    Therefore there is some warming from co2 at 10km.

    In the stratosphere, I agree.

  114. Gary Ashe says:

    Have you ever checked out Conolly and Conolly Afro, it is mostly beyond me.
    This suggests that the atmosphere above the tropopause has a lower molar density, at a given pressure, than the tropospheric trend would suggest. The atmospheric composition and humidity above and below the tropopause are nearly identical, so composition is not the cause of this change.
    The formation of oxygen and nitrogen multimers is a state change that can be called a phase change. If multimers form in the tropopause, they release the energy of formation to the surroundings. This may increase the temperature of the surroundings. The larger multimers have more degrees of freedom than the diatomic monomers (for example O2) and every additional degree of freedom increases the internal energy of a mole of multimers by ½RT. R is the universal gas constant and T is temperature. This is described in more detail in Connolly and Connolly, paper 2, section 2.2. In their section 2.2, the heat of formation (or enthalpy of formation) of the multimer is designated as ΔH. The molar enthalpy (H) of a gas is defined as,
    H = U + PV (1)
    Where U is the internal energy of the gas, P is pressure and V is the volume.
    U = ½αRT (2)
    The internal energy of the gas is equal to ½ of the degrees of freedom (α) times the gas constant (8.3145) times temperature (T). Degrees of freedom of a gas are defined here as the number of independent ways a gas can have energy. This includes translation, rotation and vibration. Internal energy is the sum of the energy in all the degrees of freedom of the gas. If ΔH is set to zero for a diatomic monomer, it is 4RT with 34 degrees of freedom (α) for a tetramer, according to table 2 from Connolly and Connolly paper 2. So, the heat of formation of a multimer can be significant and will affect the temperature of the tropopause and stratosphere.
    I Like this guy, a ”review of the C&C papers are here, it is the 4th or 5th article down the page.
    https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/climate-blog/

  115. Rosco says:

    The gas laws state that for constant volume the change in temperature due to increasing pressure is P1/T1 = P2/T2.

    My car’s pneumatic tyres are inflated to 32 PSI or roughly 2.28 times atmospheric pressure.

    T2 = T1*P2/P1 = 288 x 2.28 = ~658 K.

    Now that’s what I call hot wheels !

  116. frolly says:

    Rosco;
    “There is nothing new or revolutionary in any of this – it is simply another explanation for the atmospheric lapse rate.”
    .
    Yes you are right, as I said in my video. Meteorologists call it the Lapse Rate, mining ventilation engineers call it Auto-Compression and astronomers call it the Kelvin-Helmhotz and some physicists call it a pressure-induced gradient.
    Whatever you call it, its real and contributes to the near-surface temperatures of all planets with thick atmospheres. The real question for us is; where does that leave the supposed 33C warming from the so-called greenhouse effect?
    .
    I had a look at your 2014 material, it is terrific and you were half-way there. You need to think on this and realize that what this proves is that an increase in atmospheric CO2 of the magnitude being projected by the IPCC in any scenario, will have no measurable effect on the Earth’s lower atmospheric temperature; this is what is important.
    Again, the Sun (or the lack of it) has a massive effect – look at the reality of the possible range of gas changes; for example Titan – and the massively higher atmospheric density it has, even though it has almost the same gases as Earth and far less surface gravity than Earth. This high density can only be caused by the lack of insolation out at Saturn’s distance.
    .
    “According to these claims we could move our planet out beyond Pluto and remain toasty warm.”
    .
    Not in any atmosphere we could survive in, no – but maybe if we move Venus out there, what would happen to its atmosphere? Given sufficient gas pressure it could be warm; even out at Pluto.
    .
    “My opinion is the NASA Planetary Fact Sheets are just calculations.”
    .
    Rosco;
    “There is nothing new or revolutionary in any of this – it is simply another explanation for the atmospheric lapse rate.”
    .
    Yes you are right, as I said in my video. Meteorologists call it the Lapse Rate, mining ventilation engineers call it Auto-Compression and astronomers call it the Kelvin-Helmhotz and some physicists call it a pressure-induced gradient.
    Whatever you call it, its real and contributes to the near-surface temperatures of all planets with thick atmospheres. The real question for us is; where does that leave the supposed 33C warming from the so-called greenhouse effect?
    .
    I had a look at your 2014 material, it is terrific and you were half-way there. You need to think on this and realize that what this proves is that an increase in atmospheric CO2 of the magnitude being projected by the IPCC in any scenario, will have no measurable effect on the Earth’s lower atmospheric temperature; this is what is important.
    Again, the Sun (or the lack of it) has a massive effect – look at the reality of the possible range of gas changes; for example Titan – and the massively higher atmospheric density it has, even though it has almost the same gases as Earth and far less surface gravity than Earth. This high density can only be caused by the lack of insolation out at Saturn’s distance.
    .
    “According to these claims we could move our planet out beyond Pluto and remain toasty warm.”
    .
    Not in any atmosphere we could survive in, no – but maybe if we move Venus out there, what would happen to its atmosphere? Given sufficient gas pressure it could be warm; even out at Pluto.
    .
    “My opinion is the NASA Planetary Fact Sheets are just calculations.”
    .
    Some of the are, certainly – probably for some of the parameters of the gas giants. So what we need then are real measurements of planetary atmospheres – in particular density and pressures. This in no way alters the reality of the formula we are using, since the actual density and pressures are unlikely to be significantly different from those calculated (if they were) on these planets.

  117. frolly says:

    I accidentally doubled-up on my post and can’t change it! Apologies.

  118. frolly says:

    Philip
    Thanks for the kind words.
    Going back to basics is a great idea, and give the confused state of the field of climate science, this should happen right now.
    The reasons for planetary atmospheric differences were a little more complicated than those listed items. For example, speaking of a temperature gradient – there was one in the solar nebula when the planets were forming. This caused volitiles such as water ice, methane, and ammonia to condense further out in the nebula and Iron, silicone oxides and rocks to distribute more evenly across the nebula. This material accreted into the planets and as the proto-Stellar disk contracted it threw off 99% of the nebula’s angular momentum, which was taken up by the planets and now resides there.
    When the proto-Sun gave off its strong T-Tauri wind the inner solar system was cleared of most light gases, which were pushed out to ~5AU. This formation scenario caused the planets to line up along a signature density curve with Mercury being the densest, and Saturn being the least dense and the further-out planets going up again in density. (I know – the Earth is actually the densest planet – but that is a special case because of the core of Thea joining the Proto-Earth’s core during the collision which formed the Moon – so increasing its density and causing the Moon’s density to be much lower).
    Which brings us to this statement;
    “A combination of distance from the sun and a planet’s gravity determines average molecular weight of a planet’s atmosphere.”
    This can be said to be fairly accurate, although I might prefer to say;
    “A combination of distance from the sun and a planet’s gravity has a bearing on the average molecular weight of a planet’s atmosphere.”
    .

  119. Philip Mulholland says:

    Thanks Frolly, More than happy to take your astronomer’s expertise when it comes to matters of planetary formation from the solar nebula. This observation is new for me:-
    “Saturn being the least dense and the further-out planets (Neptune & Uranus) going up again in density.”

    “A combination of distance from the sun and a planet’s gravity has a bearing on the average molecular weight of a planet’s atmosphere.”
    When it comes to the molecular weight of an atmosphere I was thinking in particular about Venus with its dense CO2 atmosphere and the impact of high energy solar radiation on molecular stability. Nitrogen, with its triple covalent molecular bond is a very stable molecule, but nitrogen is not abundant on Venus, so I expect that this lack of nitrogen gas goes back to the original density gradient of the formation nebula. This lack of nitrogen also implies that Venus had a smaller proto-atmosphere than the Earth.
    Carbon dioxide, with is two double covalent molecular bonds, is a stable gas whereas the water molecule, that is common on Earth, is lighter than both nitrogen and CO2 and also less stable. Water easily undergoes photodissociation ionisation in the upper atmosphere of a planet like Venus that is close to the sun, with the consequent loss to space of the liberated hydrogen ions. Although Carbon dioxide is a volatile gas, carbon is of course an abundant element in the planetary nebula, it can be sequestered in minerals (as either oxidised, native element or reduced forms) and be released as CO2 gas by geochemical processes throughout the lifetime of a planet. The CO2 on Venus is therefore an evolved atmosphere; both the high molecular weight of CO2 and its strong covalent bonds are a requirement for long residence time in the Venusian atmosphere. The high molecular weight gas CO2 is abundant on Venus, both because of the temperature dependent effect of escape velocity that liberates the lighter gases to space and also the photodissociation stability of its double covalent molecular bonds that allows the CO2 to remain.

  120. Philip Mulholland says:

    Done it again (7 Uranus & 8 Neptune).

  121. frolly says:

    Philip
    That is interesting about Venus.
    To be relevant, the key solar system bodies we need to predict temperatures for with a simple formula are Venus, Earth and Titan.
    Titan is interesting because it is a small body, obviously with a low surface gravity – and yet a very thick atmosphere, which is mostly Nitrogen.
    How bodies like Venus and Titan got and maintain their atmospheres will assist towards a greater understanding of why planetary temperatures are what they are.
    A second area of research is how solar insolation interacts with planetary gases to change their constitution and other parameters.

  122. I think the establishment narrative on Titan is an absolute hoot. Mainly Nitrogen but also around 5% Methane too. The “Greenhouse Gas” that’s even more Greenhousy than CO2. The 0.00018% concentration on Earth that is also rising “at an alarming rate” and even more likely to cause thermageddon, is subject to a “reverse greenhouse effect” on Titan apparently! No mathematics to back up this claim of course. Just “trust the experts”

  123. Philip Mulholland says:

    Frolly
    “A second area of research is how solar insolation interacts with planetary gases to change their constitution and other parameters.”
    I agree as this information would help establish which high molecular weight, chemically inert and photostable gases would be suitable candidates for terraforming Mars.

  124. I get the feeling that some people might consider this guy “too far out there”, but I always found this table of his fascinating:


    Copied From: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

  125. Philip Mulholland says:

    Andy May, Michael Connolly & Ronan Connolly have just posted this on WUWT:-
    The Atmospheric Lapse Rate and Molar Density
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/28/the-atmospheric-lapse-rate-and-molar-density/

  126. Gary Ashe says:

    My posts are still in moderation, i linked to Connelly & connolly, i could see their theory fitted here.

  127. frolly says:

    Robert
    I have heard of Huffman before.
    He appears to be correct to me, on his main take-away – and that is that there is no greenhouse effect on Venus (or Earth) of any significance to worry about. I cannot see any reason to argue with him there. As to his figures, I have not looked into them.

  128. From … http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

    I have divided Huffman’s original words into more sentences, to separate them for greater clarity of my own understanding in the following summary:

    * Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun on average.

    * Venus is 62.25 million miles from the Sun on average.

    * The intensity of Sun radiation diminishes as 1/(distance from sun)^2

    * Consequently, the intensity of Sun radiation that Earth receives is greater than Venus by the fraction, 93/62.25 = 1.91, which means Venus receives 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives on average.

    * The radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it.

    * The radiating temperature of Venus, then, should be the fourth-root of 1.91 = 1.176 times the radiating temperature of Earth.

    * Since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that SAME pressure level in the Earth atmosphere. … This is INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres.

    In one of his comments, he states:

    … we have to compare atmospheric temperatures at equal pressures in the two atmospheres, and when we do that we find the Venus atmospheric temperature is always just 17% higher than the corresponding (same pressure level) temperature in Earth’s atmosphere — and that essentially constant factor is due solely to the two planets’ relative distances from the Sun, nothing else (in particular, not due to the great difference in the amount of carbon dioxide in the two atmospheres).

  129. Huffman, keeps it simple. Venus temperatures have been measured by probes. His table of temperatures at various pressures was taken from the Magellan mission in the early 90’s.
    The “out there” part of his website isn’t the Venus Earth comparison, but from his original reason for starting the blog with the name “end of the mystery” where he argues a creationist view of Earth. As you have to purchase his book to get full details of this hypothesis and because my funds are limited I haven’t done him that honour and so I can’t comment on how “out there” this hypothesis is.

    I have chatted with him through e mail a few times and he’s certainly not “out there” personality wise and was very helpful to me in regards to teaching me some basic physics.

  130. Some might say that I’m “out there”, and so I would never reject a person’s thoughts based on any such assessment. (^_^) Otherwise, I would have to reject my own thoughts.

    What seems reasonable to me is that what does the “trapping” in Earth’s atmosphere is gravity, NOT CO2, and what is being “trapped” BY GRAVITY is mass — a mass of molecules.

    The closer to the surface we get, the more mass that is “trapped”, which means the DENSITY is greater, which means that more molecules exist to get “warmed”. The higher up in the atmosphere we go, the less mass that is “trapped” at that height, hence, fewer molecules to “participate” in the heating.

    When you reach a certain height, where mass and density become less of a factor, then other things can take over and dominate at those heights, given THOSE masses, given THOSE densities at THOSE heights.

  131. frolly says:

    Robert
    I am also ‘out there’ that is; out there in logic/empirical science-based land where everything is being measured and does not rely on billion-dollar computers spitting out fake models.
    As you say; its simple. But the UN / IPCC never do science or simple; they only follow a political path which benefits them and their ideology.

  132. I think the whole CO2-catastrophic-warming scenario got so big, because, at first, pollution was confused with the notion that CO2 absorbs a certain band of infrared radiation, and absorption of radiation got confused with absorption of heat.

    Coal-fired power plants were at a stage where they did not control the REAL pollution, as they do today, and so a trend got started to associated REAL pollution with the CO2-heating confusion.

    Probably a lot more people realized that this was bunk early on, but these people also hated the REAL pollution, and they figured that demonizing CO2 (although wrong) could accomplish a good goal of scaring people into getting coal-fired plants to get out of Dodge. Subsequently, lots more people jumped on that bandwagon for the wrong reasons to achieve a right cause, and things got out of hand, … never correcting themselves, once the coal-fired plants got better at pollution control.

    By then, it was too late. Text books, careers, grant-funding, reputations, academic curricula, and so much more had crystallized around the pollution-is-CO2-traps-heat confusion. And here we are still stuck in that old paradigm founded on two confusions, locked in place by economic addiction to it.

  133. Philip Mulholland says:

    Frolly,
    The equation you have presented is so important that I believe it requires further clarification.
    Because, as you say, it is based on the works of Loschmidt in the 1860s and his use of a derivation of Maxwell’s Ideal gas law, you will forgive me if I use the variation of your analysis presented above by AfroPhysics. T = PW/GD
    Where
    T is the temperature in kelvin
    P is Pressure (Force per unit Area) in kPascals
    W is the Avg. Molar Weight of Air in g/mol
    G is the Universal Gas Constant in Joules per mol per kelvin
    D is the Air Density (Mass per unit Volume) in kg per cubic metre
    What is so important about this is that we can now see that the whole farrago of the greenhouse gas in the troposphere – providing the fictitious concept of back radiation from low temperature air aloft that heats the ground below in an aphysical process that traps heat –itself an impossibility because heat is not temperature, heat is difference in temperature, for what it truly is – Junk science.
    We have two layers in our atmosphere the troposphere (the planetary weather layer) where pressures are greater than 10 kPa and temperature is governed by an equation of state derived from Maxwell’s ideal gas law. Above that we have a second layer, the stratosphere (the planetary climate layer) where pressures are less than 10 kPa and temperature is governed by an equation of state, the Stefan–Boltzmann law that describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.
    To misapply the Stefan–Boltzmann equation from the stratosphere to the troposphere in a curve fitting exercise of schoolchild extrapolation and then find that the -33C error this junk analysis creates can be explained by the magic of back radiation is truly terrible.

  134. “The whole -33C error”, as Philip Mulholland calls it, seems like much more than an “error”. It seems like a complete inability to understand any difference between a planetary RADIATING temperature and a planetary NEAR-SURFACE-AVERAGE temperature.

    The instant you add an atmosphere of appreciable mass, the planet is NOT an ideal black body any more FOR THIS SAME SURFACE … BELOW THIS ATMOSPHERE. The radiating surface is NOT the surface at the bottom of this atmosphere.

    The radiating surface of the massive-atmosphere planet must now be located at some level higher up in the atmosphere itself, and, seemingly, the location of this radiating surface would be between the bottom of the atmosphere and the top of the atmosphere. To repeat, the radiating surface of the planet (as figured for determining planetary radiating temperature) … is … NOT … near … the … surface … at the bottom of the atmosphere!

    To conflate two surfaces into one is to ELIMINATE the larger radius that determines the shell of the atmosphere where the black-body-radiating surface is now located, which is the same as ELIMINATING the significance of the very atmosphere that determines this larger radius.

    In other words, how can a person argue that the atmosphere is significant, and yet, in the same breath, argue that the radius that determines the atmosphere is NOT significantly greater than the radius of the planet? This is a blatant contradiction.

    If you [rhetorical “you”] admit that the atmosphere IS significant, then you must admit that the RADIUS defining the atmosphere IS significant, which means you have to admit that the reference surface determining planetary radiating temperature is NOT at the surface, NOT located at the BOTTOM of the atmosphere.

    Consequently, when you compare Earth’s PLANETARY-radiating temperature (whose reference radiating-surface is high up in the atmosphere) with Earth’s near-surface-average temperature (whose reference radiating-surface is at the bottom of the atmosphere) , you are NOT comparing the same temperatures! Rather, you are comparing a temperature whose reference surface is high in the atmosphere with another temperature whose reference surface is at the bottom of the atmosphere.

    Performing a subtraction operation on these two temperatures only means that you have found a difference between two DIFFERENT reference frames, NOT a difference between a planet without an atmosphere and a planet with an atmosphere.

    You have NOT calculated a “greenhouse effect” at all. At best, you happen to be lucky, and you have calculated the difference in temperatures between two different heights in the same atmosphere, whose radial significance you deny, in order to conflate the two reference surfaces for the sake of contriving a “greenhouse effect”.

    This is self delusion, if you do not understand what you are doing, and simply telling a lie, if you do [rhetorical “you”, remember].

  135. See? — the trick is to say that the atmosphere is significant in causing warming, but then deny the existence of the atmosphere altogether, in order to equate the surface BELOW the atmosphere to the atmosphere ABOVE the surface.

    Admit it. Then deny it. Then equate what you denied with what you admitted.

    Sophistry, at its best, I think JP might say, … if my reasoning is correct.

  136. Yes, I have seen it, but I read it again. Thanks.

  137. frolly says:

    Philip I think you have clarified it very well. Many folk do not get how important this is immediately.

    About the rearrangement by AfroPhysics; there is nothing wrong with a rearrangement as such, but the correct, commonly-used gas law terms and engineering terms should still be used; i.e.;

    T = Pn/Rρ

    T = near-surface atmospheric temperature in Kelvin
    P = near-surface atmospheric pressure in kPa
    R = gas constant for; m³, kelvin⁻¹, moles⁻¹, kilograms = 8.314
    ρ = near-surface atmospheric density in kg/m³
    n = near-surface atmospheric mean molecular weight

  138. Philip Mulholland says:

    Thanks Frolly

  139. This is the kind of thing that annoys me

    http://www.popsci.com.au/space/uranus-is-probably-full-of-giant-diamonds,471718

    Read any article on any astronomy website and you will find them talking about atmospheric compression raising temperatures. This is how you know it’s a deliberate fraud and not just stupidity

  140. @Frolly

    I hear on the grapevine you are living in Australia. Is that correct? And if yes, which State?

  141. What is the formal explanation for the seemingly contrary facts that, at great depths of the ocean, where pressures are high, temperatures are low, and yet, in gaseous atmospheres, at great depths, where pressures are high, temperatures are high?

    It’s a bit confusing. In caves, below the ground surface, the air is quite chilly. But then going really deep, things seem to heat up. The situation does not appear to be one of simple pressure dependency.

  142. Water is interesting because it achieves its highest density at around 2C-4C. If it gets cooler or warmer it expands (most notably ice). So both warm water and ice are more buoyant and will float. I will leave it to people with more education on the subject to say why this is so.

    Air in caves tends to settle at stable temperatures close to the mean of the Earth at the cave’s latitude. Whether ambient temperature is held by the rocks at depth, solar fluctuations of night and day being negated by the large heat capacity of the earth, or some other reason, I find it difficult to get consistent answers for. Density and pressure would still fit the formula though. Each time the sun comes up density decreases as the air warms. In a cave the air, I sumise is neither warming or cooling and will better reflect the mean. Descending into the earth, pressure will increase and temperatures will rise.

  143. So, there appear to be multiple approaches to dismantling that 33-degree number.

  144. wildeco2014 says:

    Water is a liquid which is nowhere as compressible as gas so the gas laws don’t apply and since colder water is denser it sinks to the bottom.
    There is no insolation to heat ocean bottoms so as to conduct energy to the waters above
    whereas atmospheres are heated by insolation reaching the surfaces beneath them.
    The temperature of the air in caves depends on the height of the cave. A cave in a mountainside well above sea level will be cold. A cave in land beneath sea level will be warm.

  145. Hi Gary,

    For some reason I only just got notified of your comment about my fame on the alarmist blog! Hahahaha that is so cool!
    I’ve just tried to post on there but I don’t think it liked the WordPress log in.

    I will have another go, just for “shits and giggles”!

  146. Thanks, wildeco2014.

    Liquid vs. gas vs. solid — gas law — got it.

  147. … still thinking about the 33-degree “greenhouse effect” claim:

    The more I think about it and read about it, the less intelligent it seems.

    People who claim this 33-degree “greenhouse effect” seem to accept the physical reality of an atmosphere that has tangible, sensible dimensions defining it. They seem to accept that the physical reality of the atmosphere means a physical mass, 0.06 % of which mass dictates temperature [CO2 is 0.06% of Earth’s atmosphere by weight].

    But then these same people eliminate a defining requirement of the atmospheric shell — a DIFFERENT and LARGER radius than the surface for which they are considering a temperature. They dismiss THIS particular 0.06% — difference (between Earth radius and Earth-with-atmosphere radius] — as negligible, thereby prompting them to collapse the reality of the Earth-with-atmosphere radius into the reality of the Earth-only radius, as though the two are now the same.

    They can accept the significance of a 0.06% mass controlling the temperature, but they cannot accept the significance of a 0.06% radial dimensional difference between surface and atmospheric shell that DEFINES this mass, where their preferred significant 0.06% mass has any real meaning.

    I cannot see how any rational thinking could allow a 0.06% mass to exist in a mass that comes to lack a non-existent radius to define the volume of this 0.06% mass.

    Rational thinking does not follow from selectively applying and ignoring measures of reality simultaneously.

    And how could anyone consider planetary radiating temperature the same phenomenon as near-surface-average temperature? Planetary radiating temperature involves the WHOLE VOLUME of the atmosphere, whereas near-surface-average temperature involves only a SMALL PARTIAL VOLUME of this SAME atmosphere. Moreover, the temperature measure of the WHOLE volume ENCASES the dynamics that determine the temperature of the SMALL partial volume. Near-surface-average temperature, then, is a sort of “subset” of planetary radiating temperature. The two temperatures are NOT comparable.

    Where, in math and physics, does it say that the radiating temperature of a black body is equivalent to the average of a sum of different points on the black body that have different temperatures individually? Surely, this is some magical integration from some magical field of calculus that I have never heard of.

  148. frolly says:

    Wickedwenchfan
    Victoria.

  149. Frolly, if you are ever in WA please get in touch. I would love to buy you a pint and just learn what I can from you whilst you enjoy it. Wicked Wench was my wife’s rock band. If you look up the Facebook page for that you can message through there, to get my contact details (which I won’t post on here for obvious reasons).
    I’m promoting the hell out of your videos at the moment. They’ve just blown me away!

  150. AfroPhysics says:

    wwf, how wicked is your wife?

    frolly, convention is over rated. but to each his own, i guess.

  151. tjfolkerts says:

    “Internal emission by the shell’s surface hence does not lead to a loss of energy for the shell, and hence the energy produced by the sphere will be conserved with the outward emission of the shell to the environment. “

    The fundamental error lies here.

    The sphere is composed of a specific set of atoms that define one thermodynamic ‘system’.
    The shell is composed of a different specific set of atoms that define a different, separate ‘system’.

    If energy leaves an atom of one system and goes to an atom of a different system, then — well — it has been removed the first system and added to the second system. It doesn’t matter if one system is physically inside the other. It is still two different systems.

    Specifically, if a photon leaves the shell and subsequently hits the shell again, then the energy has returned to the shell (ie it has not left). However, if a photon leaves the shell and hits the sphere, then the energy leaves the shell. Pure and simple. The energy joins the energy of the set of atoms that make up the sphere and is definitely not still part of the energy of the set of atoms that make up the shell.

  152. Here’s your fundamental error Folkerts you disgusting piece of goblin filth trash…btw, before we get to that, how many freshly aborted human baby fetuses did you eat for breakfast today, you sick disgusting fuck?

    However, if a photon leaves the shell and hits the sphere, then the energy leaves the shell. Pure and simple.

    View factors, you fucking idiot. Any photon that goes from the shell to the sphere is replaced by a photon from the sphere to the shell (in fact, by more from the sphere to the shell or at most an equal amount). View factors are the most important thing in radiative heat transfer, but hey, why the hell would we expect you to care about them since you’re perfectly fine with Willis’ violation of conservation of energy! LOL!

    Since the sphere still loses more photons to the shell than the shell sends to the sphere, or at most an equal amount go back and forth, then the shell can never add more energy to the sphere because the sphere is always losing more (or at most an equal amount).

    The thermodynamic state of the shell is totally 100% dependent upon the sphere. The shell is thus not an independent system, given that its state is 100% dependent upon the sphere.

    But why would you care about logic and physics like that, disgusting goblin filth that you are?

    You define “separate” systems in a way that is irrelevant. When the thermodynamic state of a passive second body is 100% dependent upon a primary source of energy in another body, this is the definition of dependence by the very statement of the situation. But of course, you, being a disgusting freak of nature, a nothing, a naught, a goblin, would somehow think that the definition of dependence is the same thing as total independence. You are one sick fuck, one sick, filthy, gross, disgusting goblin, to (LOL!) state that something which is defined as being dependent instead defines independence. (LOLOL!!!) Only the sickest of fucks make themselves that apparent. I’m sure you’re proud of yourself and your goblin kind to be so brazen…the goblin order must think you quite “brave”, in whatever your disgusting version of “brave” is for you filth, to be that brazen about your intent.

    And in any case, the equations for heat flow from the actual real laws of thermodynamics, show that the shell can never send heat to the sphere, no matter if you define them as separate or not. No heat from the shell means no temperature increase for the sphere, and the equation accounts for every single photon being exchanged including the ones “going from the shell to the sphere”. But of course, your goblin filth just dispenses with the equation for heat flow, and the view factors therein, etc. After-all, why would your goblin order filth use what has been known as mathematical fact by humans for hundreds of years? Your purpose here isn’t to build, but to destroy, and by trying to get humans to forget and dispense with thermodynamics you thus seek the destruction of every power plant on Earth and our usage of electricity, etc. We, real humans, your mortal enemy, see what you’re doing. You’re trying to destroy modern human civilization by removing our ability to use thermodynamics, which would put us back to the days of alchemy in the dark ages and the killing of 95% of the human population. We see that that’s your goal, Tim Folkerts…you sick, sick, disgusting goblin trash.

    Tick tock.

  153. AfroPhysics,

    My wife is very wicked indeed.
    The fact that her band is now getting accidentally promoted on an alarmist blog is absolutely hilarious. I also wear the label HotWhopper has given me, of most extremist Denier, with enmense pride!

  154. frolly says:

    Robert, re; the 33C greenhouse effect. The formula I presented in my two videos;


    Totally rules out any possibility of a “33C Greenhouse Effect” of the type proposed by climate alarmists. The reason is that they claim a 0.03% increase in atmospheric CO2 must result in a global temperature rise of ~3C. (The so-called ‘climate sensitivity’).
    Anything like this magnitude of warming is completely ruled out by this derivation of the Ideal Gas law.
    Instead, the warming would be of the order 0.01C that is, three hundred times smaller than the climate sensitivity in the IPCC reports. And even that tiny number would be a maximum, since if you burn fossil fuels to create CO2, then you will also consume Oxygen, so reducing that gas in the atmosphere – offsetting the gain in CO2.

  155. frolly says:

    I have never been to Perth, but I will take you up on the offer if I ever get there.
    You have some good folk over there, I’m thinking of David Evans & his wife Jo Nova of course.

  156. Indeed. Though you will need to convince Dave and Jo of your falsification of the GHE. They are avid “Luke Warmers”. Jo just did a great presentation on the Renewable Energy debacle, though, which I filmed for her.
    I should see her again on 14th when she is speaking with Professor Ian Plimer
    I will be sure to put the equation to them both, then.

  157. Gary Ashe says:

    ”since if you burn fossil fuels to create CO2, then you will also consume Oxygen, so reducing that gas in the atmosphere – offsetting the gain in CO2.”
    There is that word Folly ”burn”, they talk about the billions upon billions of tonnes of Co2 released from hydro-carbons, we do not inject the stuff, we burn it.
    We create all that heat at the surface on top of all other heat at the surface.
    No-one ever mentions it, concrete tarmac etc etc ”storing heat” thus making night-time temps warmer, which is global warming in a nutshell rising night-time minimum temperatures.
    All those cooling towers belching out slow moving heat, all the central heating and vehicle engines pumping heat out, slow flowing conducting heat.
    So either it doesn’t matter, and that is why no-one mentions it ever, or it is slight of hand, like concentrating on the back-radiation, and not the ”forward” radiation.
    I mean more radiating gases radiate more energy to space, for the same input from the sun, eventually a deficit would build up, our oceans would cool, our batteries would drain i think.
    Radiating gases are cooling gases imo

  158. Gary Ashe says:

    I am making a distinction between the ”urban heat island” effect of energy being stored in mass, i mean the heat we create in engine blocks, powerlines/cables and generation etc, every which way the human race burns ”stuff”.
    No-one ever mentions it, same as more back-radiation means more forward radiation of equal measure, atleast from the TOA it would seem to me, the contradiction of more energy radiating [ forward ] out is ”trapping energy” .

  159. Philip Mulholland says:

    frolly

    Instead, the warming would be of the order 0.01C that is, three hundred times smaller than the climate sensitivity in the IPCC reports. And even that tiny number would be a maximum, since if you burn fossil fuels to create CO2, then you will also consume Oxygen, so reducing that gas in the atmosphere – offsetting the gain in CO2.

    I totally agree. With combustion we are not adding CO2 with a molecular weight of 44 to the atmosphere. Instead we are converting O2, with a molecular weight of 32, by adding carbon with an atomic weight of 12.

    Bad news for all those industries that consume limestone as a primary feed stock and release CO2 into the air from mineral carbonates. /sarc

  160. Yesterday, I decided to go back to a presentation of the “greenhouse effect” by Harvard University, in order to analyze it for flaws:

    http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

    But, as I was reading through it, I realized how unclear the explanation is. For example, the article does NOT say what formulas are being used, … it does NOT justify why the division by four happens, … it just seems to throw the math formulas out there, and readers are supposed to trust it, without question.

    Also, I noticed the level of detail presented about atomic vibrations and infrared absorbing characteristics of CO2 — quite a jolt to the mind for someone coming onto it for the first time — as if this seemingly impressive detail serves to convince someone that the authors are experts in what they do. It now impresses ME more as a smokescreen, however, where the minutia of details in one view of the process serve to cloak the gross oversimplification of details in another view of the process.

    It seems like a tactic now — to exhaust a reader’s attention, and to tax a reader’s mind with a bunch of stuff about atomic structure, vibrations, spectral absorption, etc. — in order to make the reader’s mind tired at the point where the key model is introduced — so tired that the mind will not question what comes next.

    The equations look impressive. The flow of language seems well constructed. Hmmm, these guys really seem to know what they are talking about.

    And then we see:

    The concepts presented in the previous sections allow us to build a simple model of the greenhouse effect. In this model, we view the atmosphere as an isothermal layer placed some distance above the surface of the Earth ( Figure 7-12 ).

    Having looked over this Harvard “Chapter 7” multiple times now, I have come to the conclusion that, NO, “the concepts presented in the previous sections” do NOT allow such a simple model of the greenhouse effect !

    You want me to share your view of the atmosphere as an ISOTHERMAL layer? … obviously a THIN ISOTHERMAL layer … separated ENTIRELY from the surface?, … placed (in this form as a distinct, separate, thin layer) at an evacuated span above the surface?, … NOT touching the surface?, … NOT progressing through various stages of temperature?, … pressure?, … density?

    How does ANYTHING in the “previous sections” allow this smashing of the earth/atmosphere system into your flat arrangement of a plane and smashed-into-homegeneous atmosphere?

    I think that your view is totally unrealistic — a myth, a cartoon, a mind game, and I cannot adopt such a view. I do NOT see how, in any way, shape or form that the “concepts presented in the previous sections” allow you to build such a “simple model of the greenhouse effect.”

    How about you imagine that your right hand is a homogeneous, five-pronged pancake of epidermis. I can then tell you all manner of CORRECT things about how epidermis works — the physics, anatomy, physiology — all proven, all correct, all hardly questioned by established science. Problem is, your hand is NOT a thin pancake. Your hand is NOT a homogeneous mass of epidermis. Your fundamental assumption is grossly out of step with the reality that the details of your “simple model” ascribe to the reality being modeled.

    This model is not only “flat earth physics”, but also fantasy physics.

  161. Oh, in the case of CO2, all that stuff about atomic vibrations, spectral infrared absorption characteristics, etc. applies to 0.06% of the mass of Earth’s atmosphere. Never mind that it does not apply to much of the other 99% of the atmospheric mass (so it is commonly believed).

    Why isn’t the minutia of details about convection in this larger mass so avidly discussed?

  162. CO2 radiative effects = ants riding on a taxi cab roof.

  163. The concepts presented in the previous sections allow us to build a simple model of the greenhouse effect:

  164. Rosco says:

    Robert says:

    “For example, the article does NOT say what formulas are being used, … it does NOT justify why the division by four happens, … it just seems to throw the math formulas out there, and readers are supposed to trust it, without question.”

    This explains how they arrive at the 1/4 factor. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is at the heartof “climate science”.

    However they get things totally mixed up from here on.

    The 1/4 thingie is clearly not related to the solar insolation but the Earth’s radiation ! The solar radiation is at least 4 times as powerful – really there is no comparison between the solar radiation and Earth’s IR radiation as they have no spectral equivalence ! Adding them up as if they do is just plain dumb – ALL satellite engineers understand this !

    If the “radiative equilibrium” nonsense is right then a cake with 1m2 surface area will absorb 2390 Whours in an oven at 180°C for one hour and 2390 Whours in an “oven” at minus 18°C for 10 hours.

    This is how absurd their ideas are – there is no comparison !

    Blackbody radiation was observed from experiments conducted in the 19th century. Stefan observed the power emitted was proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. Boltzmann arrived at the same relationship through a mathematical analysis – hence the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    However, no one was able to calculate the value for the constant of proportionality which we know as sigma. This was seen as a major failure and something that required a solution “at all costs” as Planck said when he adopted the idea of quantized energy emission – a departure from Classical Physics.

    Using Planck’s law the value of sigma could be calculated and verified.

    Blackbody radiation is a continuous spectrum which can now be plotted using Planck’s equation.

    “Climate science” adopts a simple model of an atmospheric layer to enable their claims the Stefan-Boltzmann equation applies.

    The problem for this assertion is that NO GAS EVER emits a continuous spectrum and therefore applying blackbody equations is just plain wrong !

    “Also, I noticed the level of detail presented about atomic vibrations and infrared absorbing characteristics of CO2”

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/on5hkmvwqyv831z/co2_ir.bmp?dl=0

    Notice the commentsin blue on this graph

    “Synthetic stretch Predicted at 1537 cm-1 Not IR active.”

    “Asymetric stretch Predicted at 2640 cm-1 Observed at 2345 cm-1”

    Their equations don’t work !

  165. Rosco says:

    Looks like I didn’t share the last dropbox link

  166. frolly says:

    Robert
    Loved your “Simple Model” of the GHE!
    Especially the elephants and the tortoise.

  167. Philip Mulholland says:

    frolly
    Your equation is correct and it is so powerful that you are going to get challenges.
    I am still struggling with your chosen units for the Universal Gas Constant R.

    R = gas constant for; m³, kelvin⁻¹, moles⁻¹, kilograms = 8.314

    I think that you need to express R in terms of m³, Pa, kelvin⁻¹, mol⁻¹
    I find that Pascals (Force per unit area) and not kilograms are needed in order to achieve a Dimensional Analysis balance:-

    Relationship— T=Pn/Rρ
    Property— Dimensions— Metric— Units
    T— K— Near-surface atmospheric temperature— Kelvin
    P— M.L-1.T-2— Near-surface atmospheric pressure— kPa
    R— L3.M.L-1.T-2.K-1.mol-1— Gas Constant = 8.314— m³, Pa, kelvin⁻¹, mol⁻¹
    ρ— M.L-3— Near-surface atmospheric density— kg/m³
    n— M.mol-1— Near-surface atmospheric mean molecular weight— g/mol

    Relationship— T (i.e. K)=
    P.n— M.L-1.T-2.M.mol-1
    R.ρ— L3.M.L-1.T-2.mol-1.K-1.M.L-3

    1. Simplify for L (Length)— T=
    P.n— M.T-2.M.mol-1
    R.ρ— M.T-2.mol-1.K-1.M

    2. Simplify for mol— T=
    P.n— M.T-2.M
    R.ρ— M.T-2.K-1.M

    3. Simplify for M (Mass)— T=
    P.n— T-2
    R.ρ— T-2.K-1

    4. Simplify for T (Time)— T=
    P.n— 1
    R.ρ— K-1

    5. Balance— T = 1/K-1

  168. frolly says:

    I see your point Philip, thanks.
    What do you think R in the terms J  K−1 mol−1 ?
    1000Frolly

  169. Philip Mulholland says:

    It’s just a matter of using the correct other components in the equation. The structure of the equation (either your derivation or AfroPhysics alternate form) is rock solid.

  170. Gary Ashe says:

    How does Folly now get his work published and into the wider science community, these red / blue team exercises are afoot, Pruitt’s EPA have asked the Heartland foundation for nominee lists.

    Folly’s work needs a Heartland type sponsor surely ?.

  171. Rosco said:

    “Climate science” adopts a simple model of an atmospheric layer to enable their claims the Stefan-Boltzmann equation applies.

    Thanks for all the detail in your reply.

    This “adopting a simple model” thing, to me, far exceeds the dumbness of the specific dumb details that you pointed out, stemming FROM the even more fundamental dumbness.

    Not only does applying S-B equations to gas seem wrong, but, even more, assuming that the atmosphere is isothermic seems grossly wrong. How was such an assumption ever allowed?

    Assume that liquid water is a solid. Thus, we may now apply equations to calculate the ability of a three-meter, cylindrical column of water to withstand a sheering force of “such and such”. … Assume that the air above a table top is squished into a thin layer “some distance above” the table top, where now (in our assumption) a vacuum or nebulously defined, empty space exists between the table top and the squished-together air we just imagined above it. Thus, we may now apply equations, where air resistance is not an issue on the table-top surface itself, for the bugs that crawl upon it — the little suckers can skate on it like Olympic champs. Isn’t modelling fun?

  172. Just to clarify, Rosco, … I was referring to “dumb details” that the Harvard article states — “dumb”, because of the AUTHOR’s dumbness, which YOU just pointed out,

    … NOT dumbness on your part, … in case the sentence could read like that. I would never dream of even a suggestion of this attribution to you. (^_^)

  173. Another thing, Rosco,

    On Dropbox image links, for WordPress blog postings, I eliminate the “?dl=0” portion of the image’s link address — in its HTML. This seems to work consistently for WordPress postings. Other places, no — there’s yet another coding trick that you can apply in those cases.

  174. A complete understanding of all the following is a bit out of my league (little league), but, if I understand the major points, then it REALLY shakes things up:

    And here is the discussion, where I came across the information:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/new-paper-questions-basic-physics.html

    … just when people think they have good footing, another slippery slope comes along.

    The “greenhouse theory”, thus, slides into oblivion, when enough people grasp the MANY slippery slopes it claims to have firm grounding.

    I feel more visual parodies coming on.

  175. Rosco says:

    I suggest people read Robitaille’s paper “The little heat engine”

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0117v1.pdf

    From that disgusting character assissination website “Rational Wiki”

    “Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille (born 1961) is an accomplished radiologist and a Nobel disease-type crank. As director of magnetic resonance imaging research for the Department of Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000[1] he made major advances in the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), leading the project to build the 8 Tesla Ultra High Field human MRI scanner.
    In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics”

    And that is what happens to an expert in radiology who dares to challenge the “settled science” of climate alarm !

    Use your genius to invent better magnetic resonance imaging and be rewarded by being sacked for not accepting climate science !

    Who would understand radiation physics better – Robitaille or any of the hacks associated with climate alarm or those at Rational Wiki ??

    I know who my money’s on.

  176. frolly says:

    Gary,
    I certainly do need a sponsor. Have started a Patreon account this week, as the $300 per month I get from YouTube doesn’t go far.

  177. Nobel disease-type crank … funny, … coming from a settled-science disease-type crank.

    Anyhow, I used the Harvard “greenhouse theory” diagram parody that I whipped up as the basis for a serious re-do that I now offer as a piece of art, in the spirit of showcasing a sense of mythology down through the ages.

    I will try to embed a shameless promotional link here, but I’m not sure whether WordPress will execute it. Here goes:

    Do NOT dare question Einstein, Planck, or any of the other iconic figures of science, or you will surely be labelled a “crank” without the slightest attention paid to the substance of what you are trying to convey. Do NOT try to explain the realities of the subtleties of these icons in any critical light whatsoever, or else … CRANK.

    Yet Al Gore, Michael Mann et al. rule the day. Such a joke.

  178. Okay, the embed link failed. Good to know.

  179. Such insights seem to present compelling reasons to MINIMIZE discussions about radiative heat transfer in regard to Earth’s atmospheric temperature regulation, … or drop such discussions completely as an insignificant.

    If I understand Robitaille correctly, determining radiative characteristics of the sun now becomes open to question. I mean, if the sun is now NOT correctly considered a black body, then what about climatology calculations that treat the sun as such?

    If we are talking about gases (atmospheric gases en mass), then gas laws seem, at least, to be an important part of the conversation — more important than radiation, … near the surface, anyway.

  180. Rosco says:

    Robert – Robitaille isn’t asserting that the Sun does NOT emit radiation similar to black body radiation – what he says is there is no evidence that any gases emit such radiation and therefore the model of the Sun where it is a big ball of hydrogen gas undergoing fusion has no empirical support.

    Robitaille correctly asserts that liquids and gases DO NOT follow the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    The cavity radiation experiments during the nineteenth century are the ONLY empirical evidence for Blackbody Radiation.

    These experiments established the graphs we today know as a Planck curve. No-one solved the relationship between the observed emissions until Planck, “in an act of desperation” as he said, abandoned classical physics and assumed the idea of quanta.

    Previous attempts by Rayleigh-Jeans suffered from the “ultraviolet catastrophe” where their equation worked well at long wavelengths but produced infinite energy as wavelengths became shorter.

    Wien’s attempt – NOT his displacement law which remains valid – had the opposite problem.

    The basics of the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship – that is that power is proportional to temperature to the fourth power – were established but the “constant” of proportionality that we know as sigma was unknown !

    This was considered the most pressing scientific problem of the time.

    Only Planck’s theorem provided the solution that fitted the experimental data and allowed for the evaluation of “sigma” with the value we know today which is ~5.67 x 10^-8.

    Thus the Stefan-Boltzmann law is explicitly tied to Planck’s law as the integral under any Planck curve plotted for any temperature. Wien’s displacement law can be derived by setting the derivative of Planck’s equation to zero which must occur at the peak of the curve – Planck’s law does not produce any curve where there is any local minimum. The curve simply begins at zero, rises to a single maximum and declines toward zero again.

    As liquids and gases do not emit radiation that fits Planck’s law the Stefan-Boltzmann law likely does not apply. One would not apply any scientific law to circumstances where experiment explicitly says it does not apply – except for climate science.

    As Robitaille explains eloquently in his “Little Heat Engine” paper this is because both liquids and gases have other degrees of freedom available to them to dissipate heat energy – convection, changes in viscosity etc – that are not available to interior of the cavity oven which lead to the formulation of Planck’s and the Stefan-Boltzmann laws.

    Gases especially do not emit continuous spectra which disqualifies them from obeying the Stefan-Boltzmann law which depends on the emission of continuous spectra as empirically derived from the cavity radiation experiments.

    Robitaille DOES NOT claim the Sun DOES NOT emit radiation similar to blackbody radiation !

    What he does say it is impossible for any known combination of gases to emit this type of radiation and therefore the Sun cannot possibly be a “ball” of hydrogen gas undergoing fusion. To emit the type of radiation the Sun emits requires a solid surface under ALL the known laws of radiation physics.

    Until science can reproduce high pressure gas fusion this question about whether or not hydrogen gas an emit a continuous spectrum remains a valid criticism of the gas model of stars.

    There is no doubt about the type of spectrum emitted, there is no doubt that Planck’s law forms the basis for astronomy determining the temperature of stars through spectral analysis and there is no doubt that NO gas has ever been shown to emit a continuous spectrum to date.

  181. Rosco wrote:

    Robert – Robitaille isn’t asserting that the Sun does NOT emit radiation similar to black body radiation – what he says is there is no evidence that any gases emit such radiation and therefore the model of the Sun where it is a big ball of hydrogen gas undergoing fusion has no empirical support.

    To me, this, at first, reads like a contradictory sentence. But then I see that he might be questioning the theory of the sun’s makeup and functioning, okay. But then, I get the implication that he still might consider the sun a black-body radiator. So, what might he be saying the sun is? — not a solid, surely. … not a liquid, surely. Plasma/electricity maybe? But then is there any black-body support for any alternate solar mechanism thing? Now it gets nebulous as to exactly what he is saying.

  182. AfroPhysics says:

    Great graphics, Robert, as usual. How fitting to place the Harvard model with ancient mystical system!

    Robitaille model is interesting. The sun as condensed matter? Very fascinating. I suppose he believes that the gas giant planets are not all gas. I think that is correct. His beef with Kirchoff’s Law will take me time to process.

    Folkerts, I enjoyed reading Betty tearing you to shreds. Then I enjoyed Joseph finishing the job. You are done. Pack up your bags and go back to goblin city. I believe that’s just under the Gates of Hell, Darvaza, Turkmenistan.

    Frolly, you rock. Your channel goes to 11 😉
    The number 1 youtube channel for climate reality.

  183. Pingback: The Alarmist Radiative Greenhouse Effect’s Final End | Climate of Sophistry

  184. Philip Mulholland says:

    frolly,
    I have been thinking of the astonishing result that both you and AfroPhysics have achieved by using the Ideal Gas Law equation of state to determine the mean annual temperature of the South Pole
    What this discovery implies is that the stratosphere isothermal temperature is a datum for the whole planet. What this further implies is that the South Pole is a special case where we observe the full effect of adiabatic auto-compression in the descending dry air of the polar vortex at a place where there can be no energy loss at the surface by evaporation.
    The process by which the surface of a spherical, rotating, orbiting planet unevenly intercepts high grade solar energy from its parent sun and subsequently emits to space a uniform evenly distributed output of low grade thermal radiation forms the defining character of planetary climate.
    The Stratosphere is an isothermal shell of low pressure gas that surrounds the Troposphere and provides a thermal datum that governs the operational parameters of the high pressure gases in the weather machine below. In a very real sense the Stratosphere is the exhaust system of the planet’s atmosphere. Just as the temperature of the exhaust gases from a heat engine cannot be used to power the engine itself, so it is also impossible for the exhaust heat content of the Stratosphere to power the weather machine by warming the planet’s surface below.
    Apart from the dry desert of the high ice plateau of east Antarctica, the only other land surface location where I think this relationship of using the derived Ideal Gas Law equation of state to predict mean annual surface temperature may hold; where the dry descending air is undergoing heating by adiabatic auto-compression (and there is no energy loss from the ground to the atmosphere by surface evaporation), is the Atacama desert of South America.

  185. Philip,

    … looking past the troposphere for climate truth? — Blasphemy!

    You mean the WHOLE atmosphere participates? — Heathen! — Repent!

    There’s just no money in this. Surely no fame, like Al Gorgeously Gorged (yeah, I’m being not so nice now).

  186. frolly says:

    Philip Thanks for your input.
    I have learned not to assume, but instead to calculate for any specific places.
    We do know that the formula we have been using (T = Pn/Rρ) works for average planetary temperatures on any body with >10kPa atmosphere. For example, it clearly does not work for Mars; this needs to be explored in new work, to explain and detail the new temperature rule completely.
    Then specific areas of planets need to be looked at, we know it works for the South Pole for a start. Other areas need to be assessed to assess the accuracy there. Then work needs to be done on the climate sensitivity, and a paper published on that. There is so much work to be done! And everything – as you guys no doubt already know – as volunteers, without any money to live on at all !!!

  187. Pingback: The Alarmist Radiative Greenhouse Effect's Final End | Principia Scientific International

  188. nasty says:

    “The shell’s surface would emit on its interior as well, however, internal emission by the shell will always meet another interior side of the shell (or the sphere), and hence will not leave the shell. Internal emission by the shell’s surface hence does not lead to a loss of energy for the shell”

    I disagree with this statement.

    For a thin gap between shells, all of the internal emission of the shell goes to the sphere. It has left the shell and must be accounted for in conservation of energy for the shell.

    Thus the right side of eqn 3a is incorrect, it should be x 2, plus input of environment flux.

    This nullifies all that follows.

  189. Nope. For a thin shell-sphere gap, where almost all of the emission from the shell would intersect the sphere, the flow of heat is still from the sphere to shell until equilibrium is reached. The heat flow equation shows that the energy is conserved because the shell doesn’t lose any energy to the sphere since it is gaining energy from the sphere. By definition if the shell is gaining energy (heat) from the sphere then it cannot be losing energy to the sphere. The energy is conserved to the outside of the system.

    If you do it with the x2 method, you get the mathematical self-contradiction of the scheme thus disproving itself, as proven here.

    So, this post is correct and follows very basic thermodynamics and logic and reason, while your scheme nullifies itself with its sophistry and internal inconsistency and self-contradictions.

  190. nasty says:

    ” The heat flow equation shows that the energy is conserved because the shell doesn’t lose any energy to the sphere since it is gaining energy from the sphere.”

    Sure, but you must include all gains and losses of energy for the shell. When all are included, they sum to zero. You have conflated gains and losses of the sphere and shell together. You must treat the shell as a free body, just as we do for forces when solving mechanics problems. The term for inward energy flux from the shell needs to be included.

    [JP: It is included, by the heat flow equation. It is treated like a free body, by the heat flow equation. The heat flow equation shows that energy is gained by the shell in its sphere-facing side. So, what’s happening is precisely as you ask, and the sphere has no reason to become warmer due to the presence of the shell. The RGHE solution contradicts itself with a paradox, hence disproving itself, as shown here.]

  191. nasty says:

    BTW, your solutions for this problem, and the green-blue plate problem, are at odds with well understood technology, multi-layered insulation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation, used to insulate in space and for cryogenics. Your approach cannot explain how MLI works.

    [JP: Hey nasty fuck-o, you fucking retard. You disgusting, brain-dead fucking retard. Why don’t you read the link you provided?

    “Clearly, increasing the number of layers and decreasing the emissivity both lower the heat transfer coefficient, which is equivalent to a higher insulation value.”

    MLI functions because of an emissivity effect, and because if there are more layers to get through it then takes more time to get though N > 1 layers than it does N = 1 layers.

    Are you fucking retarded? Do you think that adding layers will reverse heat flow?

    What do you do at Northeastern University? Oh god…it’s not even a real university is it. Sustainability research…that’s what you do. So you do policy…that’s what you do. Fucking retard. Do you know how physics is done? It’s done by lines. By lines of mathematics. Why don’t you write down the lines of math and follow them through as was done here to find the problem with the math yourself? Can you do basic algebra? Can you solve the asymptote of a differential? Do you the fucking math you retarded fuck-face!]

  192. nasty says:

    So I see my comments wont get through. Why? Are they making your contractions too clear? Fine. I can discuss my experience here with your followers at other blogs.

    [JP: My contractions? No, it’s your fucking disgusting kind that thinks that the height of modern and futuristic society is for men to have vaginas and uteri, you fucking idiot.

    Oh no….you’re going to discuss your experience here with other people!!?? Oh my! I mean my self-awareness and consciousness and IQ is SO FUCKING LOW and I’m so autistic that I would have never extrapolated or thought that you might be something more than text on a computer screen, that your might -gasp!- be another actual person who might actually have a life and go for coffee breaks with people and have dinner with other people and talk about your day and your interests with other people…no no no, this is quite the epiphany for me!

    You dumb fuck! You retarded, ass-hat, fuck-face, moron!! FUCK YOU ARE STUPID!!!!! Since your’re so fucking retarded: BTW that paragraph above was satire, and it was about how fucking retarded YOU must be to say “I can discuss my experience here with your followers at other blogs” as if it’s a threat…lol! You are barely conscious… You actually don’t have any other interaction with people than on-line, do you…lol! In the future, if we survive the idiocy of the likes of you in the current time, we need to implement controls to prevent chimps from playing with firearms…you’re just too fucking retarded to use the technology, let alone, good god, be doing policy about it.

    Thanks for my encounter with bicameral retardation for this week, you fucking disgusting dumb fuck.

    YOUR VAGINA! OHHHH, WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF YOUR VAGINA!]

  193. You’d think that an outpouring of rage by one person would alter another person’s approach, … from a position of certainty to a position of reviewing the basics and questioning their application.

    Some people are, however, truly blocked from certain paths by their own makeup. There ARE, for example, people who cannot feel the rhythm of music and repeat it in the tapping of their hand. Seriously, many years ago, I tried to teach someone to feel musical rhythm and reproduce it by tapping their hand on the speaker from which it was coming, and this person could not do it.

    I guess you just have to realize when you meet someone who is lacking, and not let it get to you. I could not believe that someone could NOT tap their hand to musical rhythm, but, yep, there they were, standing right before me, … NOT able to do it, and I learned that day how we are NOT all equal.

    This leads to a disturbing suspicion that there are other, more subtle types of lacking that cause certain people to miss the cadence in mental constructs, because they lack an ability to form resonant compositions of deeply consistent, harmonious thought. This is why some people can get PhD’s without being able to establish a deeply consistent, harmonious connection between all the information that they have encountered. There is an ability to fragment, recombine, and habitually re-create the knowledge that they have ingested, … to the point of distorting it beyond some consistency that it was designed to have.

    And there are social forces that enable collectives of people to nurture certain distortions of information, … even technical information, and to propagate these distortions via other people who lack exposure to enough of the basics (upon which distortions are based) to spot the distortions.

    This blog has raised my awareness of both the word and meaning of the word, “sophistry”. I used to think that it dealt with magic. But, even more than magic, it deals with deception — deception of oneself, as well as deception of others. Some sophists do not realize that they are what they are because they are self-sophists or people deceiving themselves, and in deceiving themselves, they deceive others.

    I cannot be sure who the intentional sophists might be. I tend to think that most are unintentional sophists, who just have a certain lacking that disables them from even knowing what they are.

  194. Joseph E Postma says:

    Great commentary.

    We must realize that there are different mental species of humans, and that they are as different as cats and dogs. Just as cats and dogs can’t mate, two different mental species of humans cannot have their minds “mate” and process and comprehend information in any similar way whatsoever that could lead to a “productive” communication.

    We are different, totally different, and all of this toddler-emotional retardation about us all being equal has failed us terribly. Our differences are much more important than our similarities, as our similarities are by definition NOT that which make us unique or present a problem. The rationalist is not equal to the emotionalist, and the rationalist understands this while the emotionalist gets enraged by it.

  195. nasty says:

    “MLI functions because of an emissivity effect, and because if there are more layers to get through it then takes more time to get though N > 1 layers than it does N = 1 layers.”

    No if you read the article, you would see that MLI works by successive plates being cooler and radiating less, even with emmisivity of 1.

    They noted the correct solution to the blue-green plate problem here. Which does agree with textbook physics, but does not agree with your solution. Perhaps this is what upsets you so much?

    “contractions” –meant contradictions.

  196. That Wiki link doesn’t show the “blue-green plate effect” you dumb fuck! hahaha The equations there DEBUNK the “green plate effect”! You will note that nowhere does it state in its description of how MLI works that it causes the source to get hotter! You fucking pathetic lying piece of shit!

    Again, why don’t you actually do the math for the steel greenhouse and show us your result. Work it all out step by step, dick head…hahaha.

    “MLI works by successive plates being cooler and radiating less, even with emmisivity of 1”

    Yes, because “there are more layers to get through it then takes more time to get though N > 1 layers than it does N = 1 layers.”

    You fucking moron. You pathetic fucking loser that is too afraid to even use your real name here. Just can’t actually be who you are, can you? You people just have to keep hiding behind aliases because you’re too pathetic and disgusting to stand for what you lie about.

    No, this isn’t me upset…lol! This is me enjoying my life telling retarded lying morons what I and the rest of the world of real humans think about them! hahaha

  197. Actually let’s work out the math for MLI. The equations can be found in this TEXTBOOK on pages 32 and 33.

    Set Qdot equal to zero to find the end-state of the system, i.e. the thermal equilibrium state, and what do you know, the plate on the other side of the MLI becomes equal to the source-place temperature. Therefore you are a liar, you are misrepresenting the Wiki link, and you are an idiot just like ol’ Eli.

    For e = 1:

    Q12_noshield = A*s*(T1^4 – T2^4)

    Q12_nshields = (1 / (N + 1)) * Q12_noshield

    End state of the system is when Q = 0, and so

    0 = Q12_nshields = Q12_noshield

    0 = A*s*(T1^4 – T2^4)

    T1 = T2

    Thus, the green plate effect is refuted, by textbook physics.

    The remaining question is, after having seen this – Why are you still such a fucking moron that can’t accept what Wiki and physics textbooks tell you!? lol

  198. nasty says:

    If you are so confident in your correctness, why do you need to alter my comments to make them agree with you and why do you feel the need to belittle people who simply disagree with you??

    [JP: Oh you’re simply disagreeing with me. That’s cute…so innocent right, just a disagreement. No you sick fucks – you are liars, you are sophists, you enjoy what you are, you alter history, ignore mathematics, change definitions, and pretend to provide references that support you just for show when they actually always debunk you. You are sick disgusting fucks that deserve no respect, and so I alter your comments because your alias is meaningless because you won’t post under your real name, and so, I enjoy watching how angry it makes you guys that your precious aliases are abused because they seem to mean so much to you. So sad! Use your real name you coward. Man up and stand for what you argue for…or are you just too pathetic?]

  199. nasty says:

    No you have not done that correctly. Q = 1/NxQ no shield. Obviously if T2 =T1 than MLI is failing to produce the desired effect of insulating!

    [JP: That’s exactly what I wrote, moron. “Q = 1/NxQ no shield” That’s exactly what I wrote. Let’s do it again:

    Q12_noshield = A*s*(T1^4 – T2^4)

    Q12_nshields = (1 / (N + 1)) * Q12_noshield

    End state of the system is when Q = 0, and so

    0 = Q12_nshields = (1 / (N + 1)) * Q12_noshield

    0 = (1 / (N + 1)) * A*s*(T1^4 – T2^4)

    0 = A*s*(T1^4 – T2^4)

    T1 = T2

    This is the simplest of algebra. It is the most basic of thermodynamics taught in first and second year undergraduate physics. T1 = T2 is the end-point, but with layers it takes longer to get there than with no layers. Welcome to insulation. You wear a coat in winter and it takes longer to get cold. You wear a coat under the sun and it takes longer to feel the heat from the Sun. It works for satellites because they are typically in Sun for 45 minutes, and out of Sun for 45 minutes, and so the insulation modulates the temperature extremes (+121C on blackbody to -100 ambient local to Earth on dark-side) so that the internal instrument temperatures don’t change so fast. T1 = T2 is the equilibrium end point, always. What you change is how long it takes to get there.]

  200. nasty says:

    If Q goes to 0 as you say, then why is Q remaining unchanged for the two plate case, relative to the one plate case in your solution? All very contradictory.

    [JP: Q goes to zero for BOTH cases, idiot. Because thermodynamics is consistent. What changes is the time to get to Q = 0 .]

  201. nasty says:

    You work at a university? You are aware that I work at university? That I am a scientist? Then you know that science is about inquiry and questioning? Wow. Just wow.

    [JP: Prove it. Prove that you’re a scientist. Use your real name and tell us your position and what exactly you do for science. And more importantly, come back when you can solve the steel greenhouse yourself, showing all your work. All your posts will be trashed until you do both of those. Don’t be a coward, man-up, use your real name. And show us the worked example of your steel greenhouse solution, explaining each step.]

  202. I pulled some ice out of the freezer last night to demonstrate how the radiation from a cooler object doesn’t increase the temperature of a warmer object. Amazing how ordinary people can grasp this concept but people who claim to work at universities struggle to get their head around it

  203. QUESTIONS: Do MLI blankets remain facing the sun for an indefinite time while in orbit, or are they subject to rotation into shadow, where temps go to extreme lows? Also, do spacecraft have heat venting technology and heat producing technology to remove and/or add warmth, as required?

    If an MLI remains constantly facing the sun in outer space, what happens to the side facing away from the sun? I’m thinking that these blankets go in and out of extreme hot and extreme cold, and that they are designed according to the amount of time this alternate exposure permits the reality of physical materials to cool or heat in this amount of time.

    It seems a bit more complicated than just visualizing a blanket in space, just sitting there constantly between the sun and the blanket’s shadow. Just sitting there, what would the temperature profile of the blanket be throughout all its layers? You’ve got extreme hot on the sun side and extreme shadow on the cool side. How does that work out for what is in between?

  204. I guess another good general question might be: How does insulation work in a vacuum?

    if not inhibiting convection, then what’s the mechanism? … since there is no air.

  205. nasty says:

    “The heat equations go to zero at thermal equilibrium and so solving for the temperature of the shell where Qsp-sh = 0”

    This the key point. Qsp-sh should not go to 0. If it did, then there is no way for Q to be transported through and out of the system to the surroundings, which is required to keep a steady state.

    [JP: Qsp-sh going to zero does not mean that energy is not being transferred – the heat equation contains the Stefan-Boltzmann terms which shows that the objects are indeed always emitting. It is just that the energy no longer acts as heat, i.e. no longer does any work. The energy is then emitted to the outside of the shell, to space, conserving energy. Thermal equilibrium is when Q = 0, just like mechanical equilibrium when opposing forces balance out at F = 0. We know from experience and thermodynamics that all systems reach thermal equilibrium, and so your statement implies that Q = 0 is not possible and hence thermal equilibrium is not possible, and so, your statement is wrong.]

  206. nas·ty
    /ˈnastē/

    adjective
    1. highly unpleasant, especially to the senses; physically nauseating.
    2. (of a person or animal) behaving in an unpleasant or spiteful way.

    noun informal
    noun: nasty; plural noun: nasties

    1. an unpleasant or harmful person or thing.
    “bacteria and other nasties”

    Yeah, I think that I would use my real name, especially if I were a scientist. Why nasty, if not wanting to convey this definition?

  207. Yah weird right!!!!

  208. So, now you are trying to construct meaningful dialogue with a rabbit and a physically nauseating thing.

  209. Oh no !
    At WUWT, a recent post has blown up to over five hundred comments, and in one of the comments, Willis is hawking his steel greenhouse again, … and someone is praising him for it:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/19/radiative-heat-transfer-by-co2-or-whats-the-quality-of-your-radiation/comment-page-1/#comment-2671283
    Oh no, the steel greenhorse lives.

  210. Yeah I’ve left a couple of comments on there myself, though how long they remain before being deleted remains to be seen

  211. AfroPhysics says:

    I just got finished reading this interaction:
    https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/11/green-plate-challenge.html?m=1
    So funny. It just goes to show the goblins just flip flop their wrong definitions and completely ignore everything they’re told. Rinse and repeat.
    Argumentum ad ratarded nausea

  212. In the grand scientific tradition of The Steel Greenhouse and The Green Plate Effect, I offer an heretofore undiscovered revelation that I deem The Steel Green Candle.

    The Steel Green Candle is a thought experiment designed to illicit the truth of how brightness of a candle can increase over time WITHOUT adding any further power to the initial source of its brightness.

    Simply depending on the time of first observation and the subsequent elapsed time from that initial observation, an observer can increase the brightness of the candle by altering his/her/? point of view along an arc of the circumference of the circle around which the viewer travels in the given elapsed time.

    For example, at time t=0, the observer notes a brightness, B, of 12 lumens. At time t=t180, the time it takes to move from his/her/? initial position to a position 180 degrees away, the candle doubles in brightness from B=12 lumens to B180=24 lumens, … SIMPLY as a result of two 180-degree opposing views of the same candle.

    Looking at the candle at time t=0 counts as one observation at the zero angle, but because the same person views the candle from the opposite side at the 180-degree angle, it is permitted to add the value of this point of view at 180 degrees to the value of the previous point of view at 0 degrees to arrive at double the value of brightness at the initial point of view.

    In general, the amount by which the candle brightness increases is proportional to the arc distance traveled by the observer to the circumference of the circular path around which he/she/? travels.

    To illustrate the concept, I have constructed the following graphic:

  213. Joseph E Postma says:

    Cute.

    But seriously. By steel greenhouse RGHE logic you should be able to take a parabolic mirror and shine the candle light back onto the wick, and make the wick burn hotter.

  214. Oh, but I am moving BEYOND the “Steel Greenhouse” into my OWN domain of sophistry.

    I am honored, however, that my thought…(less) experiment could serve as yet another plane on which to clarify the contributions of … [clear throat] … “giants”, upon whose shoulders I stand.

  215. But, yes, seriously, yesterday it really hit me how ridiculous the “steel greenhouse” is.

    Just a quick, mindless view of the diagram led my brain to a flash realization that the power of the sphere is blatantly doubled, …as if reflected off the shell, and then added to itself. Never mind the surface-area arguments, the doubling (as if by reflection) of the SAME SOURCE OF POWER seems ridiculous enough without any math explanations.

    This led me to ask, “How can he just double the power like that?” How can he say that the shell radiates what the sphere radiates, and then just because the shell has two surfaces, he can have that same power coming off the other side of the shell … AGAIN?

    How can he add the power coming off the shell to the power coming off the sphere, when he cannot add the power coming off both sides of the shell to get double the power coming off the shell that contradicts the only half he shows coming off the shell?

    Or why can he not realize that the power coming off the shell somehow “meshes” with the power coming off the sphere to become the SAME power?

    That’s why I came up with the Steel Green Candle — because it seemed like he just chose a different point of view, 180 degrees from another point of view, adding the values of two view points instead of the values of two fluxes.

  216. … or why the new 470 coming off the sphere does not become the new 470 coming of the inside of the shell, and why this doesn’t now add 470 more to the new 470 coming off the sphere to cause an even newer 940 coming of the sphere, and so on, in an endless, self-contradictory loop?

  217. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yes exactly!

  218. Speaking of Willis,

    I just gave a long reply (at WUWT) to one of his smarty-pants replies to moi:

    I was nice, but I’m still not sure if the comment will stand moderation, … just because I, at least, give the illusion of attempting to hold my ground. In the event that the post gets deleted there, here’s a part of it that might serve as food for future thought:

    WILLIS:
    However, since you are here, and you think the term has a scientific meaning, perhaps you could give us a good clear definition of “trapping heat” in the atmosphere.

    MOI:
    Why would you think that I think the term has any scientific meaning. The term is crap. I think Nikolov knows that it’s crap too, but he used it as a device to hold people’s attention a bit, without saying that it’s crap, while he put forth more info from his point of view. The straw man that I am seeing is raising an issue about the term at all in Nikolov’s context, since it was used merely to set the stage of discourse, rather than as a label for stating a belief via the term’s clear definition.

    The “clear” definition of “trapping heat” that you might seek is purposefully veiled in the totality of faulty discourse defending the “greenhouse effect”. All the math, all the elaborate descriptions, all the minutia devoted to the “greenhouse effect” is shadowed by this convenient umbrella idea of “trapping heat” or “trapping radiation”.

    Supposed educators use the term haphazardly, aimed at people from childhood to adulthood, conditioning their minds to have a sense of heat or radiation as some “stuff” that gets caught in a trap, and then, after all the years of childhood and early adulthood, they then get blasted for using a term as adults that they were NEVER taught any better prior to adulthood. Very convenient, I’d say — nurturing child-like minds, so that sophisticated minds can dissect them as faulty-thinking minds, while sophisticated WRONG arguments are peddled, based primarily on appeal to adult-mind authority.

    Very scientific! [sarcasm intended]

    To me, Willis is making an issue where there should be no issue, regarding Ned Nikolov’s use of a phrase in one of his comments. He claims that Nikolov is erecting a “straw man”, and I would claim that HE is erecting a straw man by even making this claim. Then he tries to drag me into his fantasy of scientific validation of a phrase that I see as intentionally ill-defined.

  219. Did you ask him about his rounding error and his model steel greenhouse which debunks the RGHE? lol

  220. I just get pissed at his criticism of Nikolov’s mathematics as being retrofitted.
    As the mathematics for a gravitational model is the same for all planets and all the formulas tried get within a pretty low margin of error, the ignorance of his statement defies belief. Try using the earth greenhouse effect mathematics for CO2 (change in forcing= sigma natural log (old CO2 concentration/new concentration) ) and see how well that pans out on Venus! Try taking claims of Methane here on earth and apply these arithmetic to the moon Titan!

    Jeez talk about hypocrisy!

  221. Why is it so offensive to these people’s minds to view a mass of air closest to Earth’s surface as a sort of container with an invisible, pressure-induced, fluid “ceiling”?

    Just as greenhouse-theory proponents used to need reference to a a solid glass ceiling, now those who balk at a pressure-induced thermal effect seem to demand reference to some sort of SOLID ceiling for gases, in order for pressure laws to be valid in a fluid atmosphere.

    At any given altitude, gravity determines the height of a “ceiling”, and that “ceiling” has to do work to support the mass of the gas above it, as well as endure pressure from its own density pushing against that “ceiling”, all the while being heated by a continual input of energy from the sun, which makes the molecules move faster in a given layer of greater density (caused by pressure) than another layer (of less density and less pressure). I might not have it quite right yet, but I’m trying to find the “elevator speech” that Willis seems to demand to explain it.

    This might be a good topic for a completely separate thread. I think the steel-greenhouse horse has been fairly well trashed. Now I’d like to see this solid-bias-preventing-pressure-models attitude trashed.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s