Definition of twilight:
NOUN
- the soft glowing light from the sky when the sun is below the horizon, caused by the reflection of the sun’s rays from the atmosphere.
synonyms: half-light · semi-darkness · dimness · gloom
So there you have it, in a word or three: “soft glowing light”
Do we live in a twilight world? Some of us do actually, for weeks at a time within the Arctic Circle and the Antarctic, when the sun no longer rises above the horizon but it is not yet totally dark during the epic Arctic or Antarctic winter months.
Why the question?
Well, as you may not be aware, the entire climate alarm scenario over the human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is based on the entire earth living in a 24-hour twilight.
Shocked yet? You should be. The world’s greatest scientists have devised a scheme whereby the only manner in which our emissions of CO2 can be regarded as threatening to our very existence is by mathematically transforming our world into perpetual twilight.
Here is how that was done by two professors, Kiehl and Trenberth:
Mathematicians the world over can see nothing wrong with this because, mathematically speaking, it is perfect!
Input equals output, perfect!
As one famous mathematics professor once told me “as long as input equals output you can do anything in between.”
But that’s not true…you cannot have a free lunch in between!
Now comes the sleight of hand: Incoming Solar Radiation is indeed 342 W/m2 on average, but … we do not live in an average world!
We live in a world where one hemisphere is in daylight whilst the other half is in darkness and although the numbers can be added and divided by two to create an “average” sun, such a sun does not exist!
Why do we write about this?
Once you realise that the sun does not shine as per the “average” input, you realise that there is no need to create a simulacral phenomenon called the “radiative greenhouse effect” and without such an effect there is also no need to invent “climate forcing” by CO2 in order to make our world “warmer than is would be” – the sun does it all on its own!
To put it mathematically: 12 hours daylight + 12 hours darkness ≠ 24 hours twilight.
The reality of the world we live in is quite simply one of a continuous spending of the energy we receive from the sun and it doesn’t matter what we do with that energy, it can never be increased, not by water vapour, not by CO2 or by any other means. That energy can be converted or transformed, yes, but it can never be increased.
The actual amount of energy that our sun sends us through space is just perfect to maintain the world as we know it, with all of its weird weather, all of its storms, rain, snow, heat or cold.
Solar variations alone are sufficient to make the climate changes that we have seen over the millennia that we have data for.
Our world can not be made warmer than it should or would be by adding CO2 to its atmosphere, that would be truly miraculous.
Now that you know why climate alarm over the emissions of human CO2 is based on a sleight of hand the time has come to stand up and be counted to stop the erosion of your freedom.
– Hans Schreuder and Joe Postma
Climate of Sophistry 
This is why climate alarmists are dimwits — their brains are always partially in the dark.
Don’t you love metaphors?
Nice.
Golems. They’re golems. The BoTS have created golems. And they’re stupid, stupid golems.
golem In Jewish tradition, the golem is most widely known as an artificial creature created by magic, often to serve its creator.
I had to look it up.
IPCC magic, thus, produces the climate-science consensus golems, yes?
Yes.
The Brotherhood of the Shadows, it is said, is trying to perfect human bodies which have no individual soul animating them, and are only controlled by their (BotS’s) will instead.
How long is twilight?
The literal answer is 312 nautical miles but it depends on a few factors, such as Latitude and altitude of the observer. (The difference between the depression angle of the Sun at sunrise and sunset (0.8°) and that for the beginning or end of civil twilight is 5.2°, which is the dimension of the twilight zone around the earth. This, in turn, can be converted into a distance of 312 nm because 1′ of arc on the surface of the Earth is equal to 1 nm.)
But this answer is for Civil Twilight (as opposed to Astronomical or Nautical Twilight).
Anyway the point is nothing is ever as simple as it seems!
The other day I was researching the interaction of radiation and matter and I found the Penn State Meteo site…
[“Always keep in mind that atmospheric radiation moves at the speed of light and that all objects are always radiating. Moreover, as soon as an object absorbs radiation and increases its temperature, its emitted radiation will increase. Thus energy is not “trapped” in the atmosphere and greenhouse gases do not “trap heat.” We will see instead that greenhouse gases act like another radiation energy source for Earth’s surface.”]
OK, I thought…
[“Let’s first look at the general energy balance—the radiative equilibrium—of the Earth system (see figure below). The solar irradiance is essentially composed of parallel radiation beams (or radiances) that strike half the globe. At the same time, outgoing infrared radiation is emitted to space in all directions from both the sunlit and dark sides of the globe.”]
Again, fair enough…
The they went and spoiled it all by showing this diagram…
From page:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/649
How does the planet surface emit (way) more units of radiation than it receives?
And, earlier in the syllabus, they quote K&T:
[A study by Kiehl and Trenberth (1997, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78, p. 197) determined the contributions to the greenhouse effect. It was shown that 81% of the greenhouse effect is due to greenhouse gases and 19% is due to clouds. Of the greenhouse effect resulting from gases, 60% is contributed by water vapor, 26% by carbon dioxide, and 14% by ozone, nitrous oxide, and methane.]
The figure of 26% is so ridiculous (and evidentially impossible) that I wondered why would they teach stuff based on ridiculous assumptions? Even when they have made reasonably sensible statements earlier in the piece?
It is so obviously false to average the Sun’s irradiance in a diagram which then assumes the averaged number can be representative of the real world. They don’t take the intensity of the radiation into account.
**
Jo, would I be correct in thinking that a potentially suitable analogy would be that of comparing insolation versus LWIR with light intensity from light bulbs (or torches)?
So, the reason that radiation from atmospheric CO2 (backradiation) cannot make the Earth’s surface warmer is that the (back)radiation does not possess the energy required in order for the receiving molecules to ‘make the jump’ to a higher internal energy state. In the same way, a room with one 80W bulb would be brighter than the same room with 3 x 30W bulbs. This would show that they can’t simply ‘sum’ radiation figures in W/m2 which they seem to do all the time to enforce their confirmation bias.
Would that be correct?
Regards,
Arfur
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1018871188127092/permalink/2552129858134543/
I have linked a post I made on a global warming debating page on Facebook. See the thread in the comment section where I am arguing with Luke Warmer Michael J Dunn.
Feel free to give me some more suggestions, clarify or correct the maximum natural attainable temperature claim I make against the bloke and if any of you are on Facebook, please join the thread and help me tear this arrogant swine a new asshole.
The fight goes on and the Sophists are trying to move the goalposts once more.
Arfur,
The room as a whole may be brighter with 3x30w bulbs, but with an 80w bulb there will be a much brighter spot within the room somewhere and darker areas elsewhere.
The GHE back radiation idea would be that the 30W bulbs themselves would get brighter filaments due to adding more bulbs. Which of course is nonsense
wickedwenchfan,
Many thanks for your response. Ok, if that was a poor analogy, how about this one (and note I am only looking for a suitable analogy to counter the back radiation heats the Earth postulation)…
If you take a 30W torch and place it a distance from a large white sheet of paper so that the lit circle is 1 square meter.
Then place a 10W torch on the opposite side of the sheet and again adjust the distance until the lit circle is 1 square meter. Would I be right in thinking this could be conceived as 30 W/m2 one way and 10 W/m2 in the opposite way?
Does the presence of the 10W light mean the the original white circle gets brighter? I.e, does the radiation from a lower power source (lower temperature in the real world) add to the circle or is it irrelevant?
If I am correct, would you consider this to be a suitable analogy?
Thanks,
Arfur
[“Always keep in mind that atmospheric radiation moves at the speed of light and that all objects are always radiating. Moreover, as soon as an object absorbs radiation and increases its temperature, its emitted radiation will increase. Thus energy is not “trapped” in the atmosphere and greenhouse gases do not “trap heat.” We will see instead that greenhouse gases act like another radiation energy source for Earth’s surface.”]
Oh wow, someone’s been paying attention is trying to get really cute now. Denying that GHG’s trap heat? Ah, but there’s the slip: greenhouse gases are NOT another radiation energy source! Any thermal energy the atmosphere has is downstream and a result of energy which has been collected from the ORIGINAL source, sunlight. The energy the atmosphere has is entirely sustained by the input, and is NOT another independent energy source. Lying golems!
As for the rest, they simply have no clue or idea what they’re doing. It is so funny how for a scientists all you need to do is say x% and y% and z% and it shuts them up on the spot, afraid to look any further into it.
“So, the reason that radiation from atmospheric CO2 (backradiation) cannot make the Earth’s surface warmer is that the (back)radiation does not possess the energy required in order for the receiving molecules to ‘make the jump’ to a higher internal energy state. ”
Forgetting about analogies, the reason is the law of heat flow, and the First Law of Thermodynamics. By the FIRST Law, the atmosphere has no heat to send the surface, hence, cannot heat the surface. It is the most trivial thing ever.
More great illustration of the peddlers of snake oils JP.
These people are formerly accountants that got caught cooking the books I think JP. If they worked in the park as con-men they would have a couple walnut shells, a pea and a lot of other peoples money. It’s about the same game.
“Look over here while I rob you and be polite while I am doing it.”- Every conman ever.
One of these days I am going to see the contraption on tv “Cook your steak perfectly with just a dozen ice cubes”. I think I will stick with my
Hardwood charcoal.
Dragged my cursor out of the text box and left that glorious part out. I love cooking steak on hardwood charcoals. Ripping hot. Medium Rare. I hope none of the globull wieners are horrified too much. LOL
@joseph
“Any thermal energy the atmosphere has is downstream and a result of energy which has been collected from the ORIGINAL source, sunlight. The energy the atmosphere has is entirely sustained by the input, and is NOT another independent energy source”
“the reason is the law of heat flow, and the First Law of Thermodynamics. By the FIRST Law, the atmosphere has no heat to send the surface, hence, cannot heat the surface.”
Thank you! I think I will copy this and keep it somewhere close by. Sometimes it’s just efficiently articulating things that is the biggest issue in debates with sophists. The above is beautifully succinct.
@Afur
Your second analogy has two light sources. The earth has only one. (See Joseph’s excellent explanation above). For your analogy you would need to replace the second lightbulb with a sheet of dark paper that absorbed some of the light shining through it and “back radiated half of the” light it absorbed back onto the sheet of white paper “thus making it brighter than it otherwise would have been, due to a slower rate of dimming”. At least that is what I imagine the true believers would say!
Sorry I just have to share this. This is what a guy with a PhD in physics just had the gall to say to me, when I told him there was no experimental evidence of the heating past the point of a blackbody temperature via “back radiation”:
“Stephen Wells There is generally NO “experimental” evidence for meteorological phenomena. We have to conduct physical experiments to characterize materials and discrete phenomena, and use theory to elucidate the effects. This is no different. And what is relevant here is correspondence between theory and experiment. If an experiment gives results that invalidate a theory, then the theory is set aside (or should be…it doesn’t always work out that way). Now, can anyone produce experimental evidence that the Greenhouse Effect is absent? An absolute lack of backwelling IR radiation would be a good poser.
“In your case, you have no idea, because you truly do not understand radiative heat transfer. Or science, for that matter. There is no such thing as experimental “proof” of a theory; all you can get is consistency with a theory. Sometimes, there can be competing theories for the same observational evidence. As I mentioned above, however, experiments can disprove a theory.
God that’s so dumb. That name sounds familiar too…familiar as in reminds me of some sophist.
Man if you were to listen to this guy, absolute truth is the last thing possible and so any wishy-washy expedient temporary truth is as good as any other.
Well…alarmist greenhouse theory violates the law of heat flow theory, so that’s one inconsistency. Of course, they just claim it doesn’t. And for another, the existing lapse rate of the atmosphere IS empirical evidence that the alarmist greenhouse effect is not producing the result it is claimed to. Although, they get around this by pretending that the alarmist greenhouse effect creates the lapse rate, and let us just ignore the real physics that actually derives it.
This guy is such a sophist, so clueless, even by his ridiculous standards for truth is the alarmist greenhouse effect empirically refuted, but he doesn’t know or care. A sick, sick mind.
Stephen Wells is me. His name is Michael J Dunn. His comment starts with tagging me. I thought I’d better mention this incase it is my name you are familiar with, not his and we’re about to accidentally denounce me 😀
John O’Sullivan kindly published a few articles of mine in PSI late last year, where I tried to explain things in layman’s language. Your work is referenced in one of the articles, so that might be where you have heard my name mentioned. I’ve always used wickedwenchfan on here as Wicked Wench was the name of my wife’s rock band and I used to use any and all means to promote it when she still had it.
Oh ok. Yah I think it was a different Stephen. No worries anyway! Yes makes sense that Dunn(ce) idiot said that.
He is now asserting that satellites are designed to stop temperatures exceeding the blackbody temperatures of the sun’s energy impinging on them.
“Stephen Wells “Nasty piece of work” Glad to see that your main argument consists of name-calling; that is the surest clue (to me) that you have no command of your subject. Since I have worked with radiation propagating through the atmosphere in a professional setting (high-energy laser weapons), I am quite comfortable that I am on the side of physics.
Let us consider an example of radiant temperature equilibrium for a special space satellite. We would have a disk, absorption coefficient (A) = emission coefficient (E) = 1, facing the sun. Solar input is on one face of the disk, but both faces radiate at a common temperature. The balance equation would be
Isun * (pi R^2) * A = E * sig * 2 (pi R^2) * T^4, where Isun is the solar intensity (watts/m2), sig is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and E = A,—or, solving for T,
Tblackbody = [Isun / 2 sig]^0.25
Now, let us suppose the back side of the disk has an emission coefficient, E, much less than unity. The balance equation would then be Isun * (pi R^2) * A = (A + E) * sig * (pi R^2) * T^4, and the solution would be
Tgreybody = [Isun * A / (A + E) sig]^0.25
So, when E = 1, the blackbody result is recovered. But if E (back-side) = 0.1, the greybody temperature is 16% greater than the blackbody temperature.
We run these problems all the time when designing satellites to be comfortable when continuously illuminated by the Sun.\”
I have responded that the atmosphere is not a laser and that if the problem is so common that it has to be actively stopped from occurring he should be able to supply an experiment showing where it actually physically occurred.
These people are unconscious. They have no mind.
Nothing he shows there is about the alarmist greenhouse effect. What he does show is that reducing emissivity causes the temperature of the surface to increase…which CONTRADICTS alarmist radiative greenhouse theory. Because GHG’s are said to INCREASE emissivity, not reduce it, and, they don’t have an effect on the surface itself’s emissivity anyway. If GHG’s are good emitters, then they REDUCE temperature, according to his very own, and correct, math and physics.
First, it was greenhouse gases trap heat, adding heat to the surface.
Then, it was greenhouse gases slow cooling, causing the surface to be warmer than it would otherwise be.
Then, it was greenhouse gases decrease cooling, yahddah, yahddah, yahddah.
Picture what “slowed cooling” or “reduced cooling” is. What would happen? Where would the slowing be located?
Where are the gases located that “slow cooling”? — all throughout the troposphere, right? But how are they doing that “slowing”. The gases absorb the IR and, blam, emit. Then what? — the emitted radiation encounters radiation coming up from the surface and holds it back? Then what? That held back radiation, in turn, holds back radiation behind it, and so on, all the way down to the surface from which the radiation originates.
So, holding back the surface radiation would be a process that would propagate downwards from the location of first encounter of the slowing radiation with the radiation being slowed, to the surface itself. The surface radiation itself would have to be “slowed” or impeded, which would mean that the temperature of the surface would be less, right? — because it is emitting less, because it has been slowed down? — which would mean the temperature would be lower now, right?
“Slowed cooling” seems to mean nothing but an absurd contradiction, in terms of causing any warmth, because slower cooling means that the surface is NOT as warm as the imaginary surface temperature being slowed in order to heat more.
All those variations of stating how the surface is warmed are the same contradiction in different terms, so it seems.
I think that physical mixing from convection and circulation must do it. But yes it would be good to see an actual plot of abundances vs. altitude.
Laurence,
Check out this website. It addresses your question.
http://www.calqlata.com/Maths/Formulas_Atmosphere.html
How is it possible for CO2 to reach the Troposphere when it is the heaviest of all atmospheric gases, with SG of 1.52 compared with .9723 for Nitrogen and 1.1 for Oxygen. A CO2 molecule cannot possibly defeat Earth’s gravity. What evidence exists of the actual composition of atmospheric gases in the Troposphere.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.
If CO2 “traps heat in the atmosphere”, why does it go so cold so quickly when there is a full solar eclipse? I have experienced it, quite scary and surreal.