## Postma BAMS Article Submission – Review of the Reviewers

by Robert Kernodle

I am aware of the recent (Jan 2020) article, “An Alternative Global Mean Energy Budget Model Which is Incompatible with Existing Ones”, submitted to BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY by Joseph Postma. My understanding is that two reviewers participated in the jury process for possible publication of this article.

Because Reviewer 2 displayed a seemingly genuine interest in giving constructive criticism, I can only offer a positive assessment there. My impression of the editor and my review of Reviewer 1, however, are not so positive.

To present my review, my convention (where needed) is to bold-italicize relevant text in Postama’s submitted article, followed by only-italicized comments from Reviewer 1 associated with the relevant text, followed by my own plain-text comments about Reviewer 1’s comments.

Let’s begin:

POSTMA, L 9 Abstract: A question then arises out of this incompatibility as to whether or not global energy budget models should be consistent with the Laws of Thermodynamics and Physics and empirical reality, or if there is no requirement of such criteria within science in general.

EDITOR: Of course the answer to the posed question is that the energy cycle must be physically consistent and explain observations. The proposed cycle is incomplete and quite wrong in so many ways, see below.

ME: This comment says nothing about the traditional model that Postma challenges, which is even more incomplete and more wrong than the proposed model by him. As can be seen later, the editor appears to closely mirror the judgment of Reviewer 1, as he completely discounts Reviewer 2.

[referring to the 1997 Kiehl & Trenberth energy-budget diagram] REVIEWER 1: L 21. There are updated versions of this.

ME: One of these “updated versions” appears in a 2009 article by the same authors, located here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf

Here is the updated diagram: https://www.periodni.com/pictures/earth_global_energy_budget.png

Notice the following:
Absorbed by surface from the sun = 161
Absorbed by surface from back radiation = 333

The “updated” diagram, therefore, re-states and even strengthens what Postma clearly points out, namely that back radiation from Earth’s atmosphere is represented as providing over twice the energy as the sun, which is even more than the 1997 version of the diagram showed. The fact that the updated diagram makes an even stronger case for Postma indicates that Reviewer 1 does not understand what the diagram shows to begin with.

POSTMA, L 32: One main point of consistency between these three figures is that solar power is averaged over the surface of the Earth, …

REVIEWER 1: This is not quite correct. The figure depicts the global and annual average, and as such it fully accounts for all of the geometry and rotation of the planet as well as the seasonal cycle.

ME: The figure most assuredly depicts average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere — this point is not in question, in the least. Stating this obvious, accepted point, in no way, “fully accounts for all the geometry and rotations of the planet as well as the seasonal cycle.” Postma uses the term, “solar power”, which is the same thing that Reviewer 1 refers to as “global and annual average”. Solar power IS global and annual average. Merely using different terms for the same thing, then, in no way supports how this figure is presented. This “global and annual average” or “solar power” is, as Postma says, “averaged over the surface of the Earth”. Reviewer 1 seems not to know what solar power means. Reviewer 1 also seems not to understand the point at all about how averaging this quantity over the whole Earth results in a meaningless average.

[referring to Harvard and Penn State traditional, simple models]REVIEWER 1: L 37 and 43. Figs 2 and 3 are redundant with each other and work fine in their limited setting. It is easy to show that without the one-layer atmosphere the surface temperature is a lot colder that with. The greenhouse effect works. A key point is that the sun adds heat and is external to the system.

ME: Figs 2 and 3 are examples, used together to help establish a factual basis for the claim that the models are ubiquitous (in certified, professional, learning institutions, as well as in popular accounts). This is how evidence of multiple appearances is presented — as a listing or partial listing of separate instances. The statement about redundancy, thus, suggests that REVIEWER 1 does not understand the device of listing multiple instances as a standard practice of introducing evidence.

Merely stating that the figures “work fine” is a statement of belief. Merely stating that “it is easy to show” or “the greenhouse effect works” is a statement of belief. Reviewer 1, then, is substituting mere statements of belief for what should more appropriately be facts or references to counter the claims that Postma makes. Reviewer 1 is not offering rational counter arguments. He is offering dogmatic statements of belief.

POSTMA, L 45: … greenhouses actually function by limiting convective cooling.

REVIEWER 1: this is partly true but there is glass which has a full greenhouse effect.

ME: What does Reviewer 1 mean by a “full greenhouse effect”? Reviewer 1 is not clear about the terminology, and so it is not possible to know what such terminology means in relation to what Postma says. The comment, then, should be deemed of no value in determining the acceptability of Postma’s article.

POSTMA, L 60: … Figure 4 which differs in that it does not average sunshine over the whole surface of the Earth as an input.

REVIEWER 1: as such it does not depict a mean state. If it depicts an equilibrium state then the temperature on the night side goes to absolute zero. It is absurd to ignore the connectivity of the atmosphere and also the thermal capacity of the oceans and land.

ME: Figure 4 certainly does not depict a “mean state” for the whole globe based on a hemispheric input. That is the very strength of the figure. That is the precise intent of the figure. What the figure does depict is a “mean state” for the hemisphere — a “mean state” of how energy enters the planet. It does depict an equilibrium state, where equilibrium is established by a hemispheric input of power intensity that transforms, through the many physical Earth processes, to become the output required, over the whole sphere, to establish equilibrium.

There is no indication in the figure whatsoever that “the temperature on the night side goes to absolute zero.” Reviewer 1 clearly does not understand color gradients as graphic representations of a temperature field that varies via latitude and rotational displacement of a globe. If Reviewer 1 did understand such gradients, then the progression of temperatures from pole to equator and from night to day would be recognized in Postma’s Figure 4.

POSTMA, L 72: Certainly the surface of the Earth is rotating…

REVIEWER 1: now has the Earth rotating, but still no atmosphere.

ME: A rotating Earth is an obvious assumption that Postma always depicted. When was Postma’s Earth not rotating? Reviewer 1’s statement here indicates a misunderstanding about this, in the beginning — a misunderstanding that suggests reasoning difficulties on the reviewer’s part. Visual logic, graphic comprehension, a little time spent scrutinizing the figure, and contextual assessment of all statements, at a basic level, are required in order to understand Postma’s presentation. Reviewer 1 seems less than up to this task.

POSTMA, L 78-95: In the standard global energy budget, with solar power being diluted over a total surface area it never actually spreads upon (the entire spherical surface at once), solar power is thus reduced to 168 Wm-2 (per Figure 1) which is an equivalent temperature forcing via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law on a blackbody of 233K (-40C, -40F). In other words, whole-surface-averaged solar power is extremely feeble, and we wouldn’t expect a climate let alone possibly even a gaseous atmosphere at such a low heating potential supplied by the Sun. On the other hand, this alternative global energy budget supplies solar power over only a hemisphere which sunlight ever falls upon, giving an average forcing of 480 Wm-2 or temperature forcing of +303K (+30C, 86F), but which maximizes around the zenith at 960 Wm-2 or 360K (87C, 188F). And so, solar power is capable of performing and producing very different physical responses between these two energy budgets, particularly in the examples of, say, being able to melt ice, or the ability to generate cumulonimbus clouds, etc.

REVIEWER 1: This is quite wrong. Where does the author think the energy goes? As depicted in Fig. 1 most goes through to the surface and heats the ground and oceans.

ME: This short, terse statement about a detailed passage seems to indicate that Reviewer 1 failed to understand any of those details, since no references to the various power or temperature figures were even mentioned by this reviewer. Merely stating that something is “quite wrong” indicates little more than the reviewer’s cognitive dissonance, rather than a reasoned consideration of the facts presented.

What does Reviewer 1 mean by, “most [energy] goes through to the surface and heats the ground and oceans”? Does the reviewer mean the energy on the hemisphere goes through the solid Earth to rise into the ground and oceans on the other (dark) side of the Earth sphere? I do not understand the choice of word, “through”. The comment is not clear enough, therefore, to count as valid, constructive criticism. In fact, it raises serious questions about Reviewer 1’s basic understanding.

POSTMA, L 99-110: “If a physical process increases the total entropy of the universe, that process cannot happen in reverse since this would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Processes that create new entropy 101 are therefore said to be irreversible. […]
“Perhaps the most important type of thermodynamic process is the flow of heat from a hot object to a cold one. We saw […] that 104 this process occurs because the total multiplicity of the combined 105 system thereby increases; hence the total entropy increases also, 106 and heat flow is always irreversible. […]
“Most of the process we observe in life involve large entropy increases are therefore highly irreversible: sunlight warming the Earth […].” – Thermal Physics (pg. 82) (Schroeder 2000)

REVIEWER 1: One needs to be very careful about quoting things like this out of context. In particular the Earth is not a closed system. And perhaps another principle that should be stated is that all bodies radiate related to their absolute temperature. Hence even very cold bodies radiate heat energy toward warmer ones. This is different than conduction of heat which is down gradient. The author needs to frame all of this in terms of energy, not heat.

ME: The caution about quoting passages out-of-context is misplaced, because further context is not required to understand the overriding weight of independent facts within these quotes. The stated facts within the quotes apply directly to the current context in which Postma cites the quotes.

Furthermore, a strong argument can be made that Reviewer 1’s assertion about Earth’s not being a closed system is false:

http://tech-know-group.com/essays/Greenhouse_Effect_Sleight_of_Hand.pdf

For the purposes of determining planetary thermodynamic equilibrium, a clearly-defined, Earth/atmosphere system is properly considered a closed system. Second, there are no exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics. Ever. If “heat” is defined as an energy transition (exchange) from hot to cold, and if no such actual energy transition can occur from cold to hot, then no energy exists (from cold and hot) that can be properly called “heat”, since the direction of temperature change from cold to hot prevents any such energy transition. This fact is what Postma’s selection of quotes demonstrate. Reviewer 1, thus demonstrates little grasp of fundamental knowledge necessary to criticize Postma’s paper, and, therefore, should be disqualified.

POSTMA, L 114-130: The point being here that the standard global energy budget model depicts 324 Wm-2 of “Back Radiation” flowing to the Earth surface from the atmosphere, a quantity nearly two-times larger than the solar input of 168 Wm-2. This implies that the atmosphere heats the surface with a far greater power than the Sun does. However, since the origin of energy and specifically heat is the sunlight and its initial absorption into terrestrial matter, then it is implied that energy originally from the Sun has a second and a third go-around at heating the surface. And this multiple go-around process of “Back Radiation” has the peculiarity that it is from the cooler atmosphere acting upon the warmer surface, given that general relationship. On the other hand, the alternative global energy budget in this paper would require only a unidirectional flow of heat down the temperature gradient, which seems more consistent with physics. That is, incoming sunshine of high intensity flux is capable of directly producing climatological effects as a response to heat flow from the Sun, and this flow should step down in intensity as heat flows down temperature gradients through the system as manifest climate, without requiring reversibility of heat flow.

REVIEWER 1: It is easy to compute the infrared radiation from the surface of the Earth, given its temperature. Indeed that is where the 390 W m-2 comes from. Moreover, the atmosphere is in contact with the surface and has only a slightly lower temperature in the lowest layers where most of the back radiation comes from.

ME: Postma’s focus here is not on 390 W/m^2 going out from the Earth. Rather, his focus is on 324 W/m^2 of back radiation coming towards the Earth. In other words, Reviewer 1 is focused on output, while Postma is focused on input. Output over the whole sphere is not input over the half sphere, and Reviewer 1 seems to fail at making this distinction. The reviewer’s comment, therefore, has no bearing on Postma’s focus — it does not even address Postma’s focus.

POSTMA, L 117: This implies that the atmosphere heats the surface with a far greater power than the Sun does.

REVIEWER 1: This is wrong: it uses only one piece of the flow of energy. The back radiation is less.

ME: Clearly, without question, the diagram shows 169 from the sun is absorbed by the surface, while 324 from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. Reviewer 1, then, is in error — the figures are right there on the diagram to prove this, which raises the question, “Does Reviewer 1 understand how to read the diagram?”

POSTMA, around L 121: And this multiple go-around process of “Back Radiation” has the peculiarity that it is from the cooler atmosphere acting upon the warmer surface, given that general relationship.

REVIEWER 1: How does the author think the atmosphere gets heated? For the most part it is transparent to incoming radiation and most heat is from latent heating (condensation of water) plus sensible heat from eddies. Almost none from conduction.

ME: To establish how the atmosphere gets heated, it is necessary to resolve how the atmosphere does not get heated, which is what Postma’s article addresses. He makes clear that a “greenhouse effect”, as presented in traditional diagrams, is a highly questionable model to describe such a heating process. Reviewer 1 here is not addressing this line of discussion, but rather diverting attention to details of a separate, although certainly related line of discussion, the minutia of which, as Postma states, is not the main focus of his paper.

POSTMA, L 126: … the alternative global energy budget in this paper would require only a unidirectional flow of heat down the temperature gradient, which seems more consistent with physics.

REVIEWER 1: the atmosphere is compressible, not a solid. Temperature depends upon pressure. So there can be a huge difference between the energy vs heat. Relatively cool temperatures at low pressure may contain more energy than higher temperatures at high pressure. It is not correct to assume flows of energy based upon temperature alone!

ME: Postma clearly understands the compressible, gaseous nature of Earth’s atmosphere. He also understands the relationship between temperature and pressure in gases — in fact, this very relationship goes a long way in explaining Earth’s temperature, while discrediting the idea of a “greenhouse effect”.

Postma also understands the difference between energy, heat, and temperature. The reviewer’s broad statement about more energy in cool temperatures than in high temperatures is just that, a general statement with no qualifying boundaries relating it to Earth’s atmosphere.

This knowledge leads anyone to realize, for example, that while the Artctic ocean certainly has more total energy than a glowing ember of coal, the Arctic ocean certainly cannot make the ember hotter. It is unclear, then, what the reviewer is trying to say here. Is the claim that Earth’s upper atmosphere has more molar mass than Earth’s lower atmosphere, and this somehow would cause the cooler temperature with greater total energy to make warmer an already warmer lower atmosphere with a higher temperature? Does Reviewer 1 believe that the Arctic ocean could make a glowing ember of coal warmer still?

Consequently, it is equally not correct to assume exchanges of energy from cooler temperatures to warmer temperatures that cause warmer temperatures to be even warmer!

POSTMA, L 129: That is, incoming sunshine of high intensity flux is capable of directly producing climatological effects as a response to heat flow from the Sun, …

REVIEWER 1: But it can’t actually, as described above.

ME: Remarkably, Reviewer 1 here categorically denies that high intensity flux from Earth’s sun directly produces Earth’s climate.

POSTMA, L 132: … and this flow should step down in intensity as heat flows down temperature gradients through the system as manifest climate, without requiring reversibility of heat flow.

REVIEWER 1: You confuse heat flow with energy flow.

ME: Higher-energy intensity transferred to a lower-energy-intensity arrangement is heat, by definition. Lower-energy intensity transferred to a higher-energy-intensity arrangement is simply unreal, non-existent, and absent from any correct understanding of thermodynamics. There is no confusion, therefore, but proper understanding of when to use the terms correctly.

POSTMA, L 149 on (to the end of the article): In the alternative model presented in Figure 4 with sunlight falling upon the Earth in a realistic fashion, one would immediately identify that the climate is the result of solar heat flow through the atmosphere. …

REVIEWER 1: This is all nonsense. None of it has been demonstrated and the principles upon which it is based are wrong. For instance, what about the hemisphere in the dark?

For a more complete view of the Earth system flows of energy I suggest you look at
Trenberth, K. E., and D. P. Stepaniak, 2004: The flow of energy through the Earth’s climate system. Symons Lecture 2004. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 130, 2677-2701
Available from Trenberth’s web site:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/QJRMSenergyflow04.pdf

ME: This is Reviewer 1’s comment on the entire remaining portion of Postma’s article, from L 149 to the end, reducing it to one word, “nonsense”, not even trying to comprehend the summation and recollection of the facts presented, merely protesting that nothing has been demonstrated and that Postma’s principles are “wrong”.

Amazingly, Reviewer 1 then directs Postma to study the very material, whose shortcomings his whole article focused on, indicating that Reviewer 1 is oblivious to the fact that Postma has already addressed this exact material, and harbors extreme bias that prevents coherent, rational assessment of any questioning of this material.

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

### 213 Responses to Guest Post: Review of the Reviewers by RK

1. historyscoper says:

Congratulations on discovering their weak Sun trick. It is just one of the many con games they use to fool the public, including scientists, especially IPCC climate science students.

Another big trick to scare the public is their graph of Earth’s radiation showing a big notch for CO2, when actually they’ve manipulated the axes to make it appear way closer to the Earth avg. temp peak than it is. They never label the abscissa in Planck radiation temperature in C else no one would be alarmed any more, rather they’d be ROTFL and demanding their carbon tax money back.

This isn’t science it’s war by global Marxism to take over the world. They don’t play fair, and you should never expect their puppet orgs. like the AMS to publish the truth. We must win the war by going direct to the public. The entire IPCC should be dismantled and its damage to the world ended. Rather than try to reason with IPCC stooges, why not just start a Dumbass Gallery (Hall of Shame?) and list their names with an image of a dope with the word DUMBASS stamped on his forehead? 🙂

2. Barry says:

A very good review of the reviewer. KR it almost seems as though rather than reviewing Postmas paper he wants to reaffirm the back radiation theory that the paper is disputing. This gives the impression that the peer review system at AMS is very corrupt or at least bias toward their own narrative. A closed mind can never give an honest review as it is incapable of entertaining any thoughts but it’s own. Thanks for your efforts

3. Marshall Rosenthal says:

AN INTERESTING TRIP THROUGH THE PHYSICS OF CLIMATE…

4. Rudi K says:

Certainly this review of reviewer 1 makes sense to me (another physicist).

The climate is undeniably a rather complicated thermodynamic system. The amount of heat transported around the atmosphere by convection and water vapour latent heat transfer, for example, dwarfs the few extra W/m2 of radiative forcing from GHG changes that cause such excitement, and the hydrosphere provides an enormous heat sink.

Surely the approach should be first to build a sufficiently realistic thermodynamic model of the atmospheric system, that takes into account the heating and heat transport due to diurnal, latitudinal and annual variations in insolation (as Joe seems to be proposing), as well as the gravitational, radiative and other factors that determine atmospheric temperature gradients and surface temperatures.

Only then can it be sensible to consider the likely effects of perturbations from changes in radiative forcing due to GHGs, alongside perturbations due to natural long term variability in insolation, cloud composition and cover, aerosols, ocean heat transport, …the list goes on.

Of course this is not a small undertaking. But until it has been carried out, it is hard to see how climate science can claim to be anything more than a patchwork of observations, partial analyses and hunches.

5. “Reviewer 1 is oblivious to the fact that Postma has already addressed this exact material, and harbors extreme bias that prevents coherent, rational assessment of any questioning of this material.”———Reviewer 1 exhibits the classic traits of machine intelligence. They operate from programmed answers. They possess no skills for logic and reasoning. They are oblivious to the structure and flow of a debate and focused on key programmed information. Is it possible some among us are not human but machine minds in a human suit? The holographic universe may include holographic humans with no souls. If quantum mechanics tells us anything, it is that there is no end to weirdness.

6. Nice to see you Beverly! And yes indeed…Reviewer 1 simply cannot be explained in normal human terms…let alone scientific terms!

7. Here is another sad example of the ubiquitous appearance of the highly questionable “greenhouse effect” in materials conceived as teaching aids:

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/scientists-confirm-greenhouse-effect-humans-co2

8. It’s all such BS.

9. ammcl@btopenworld.com says:

Dear Joe, This review is, in my humble opinion, brilliant. I carefully read both the first and second reviewer of you submission when you first sent it along with your video and now this is really good. I’m only a humble non-scientist but I cannot agree more with RK. Well done sir. I also re-watched a lecture by Dr Richard Lindzen at the Royal Society in London and he seemed to my surprise, to reach the same -18⁰C that you are arguing against. I have been in touch with him before and  I’d like to send him your paper and the link to these comments. I assume you have no objection  In the meantime I have some mathematics to learn and at 73 it is f***ing difficult.  However my maths teacher is beautiful…….. David

10. Send the video and related things everywhere.

11. The reviewer was probably Trenberth!

12. tom0mason says:

Well I almost hate to say it but the ME: reviewer appears to have made much headway in understanding what you are trying to show. Hurray! 🙂
Reviewer 1 is obviously lost in the mystery and majik of the ‘backradiation’ consensus and is afraid to deviate from his beliefs. Hopefully he will get his comeuppance soon when others in the science community realize that all he has to offer is an incurious parroting of whatever is the prevailing dogma of the day.
I wonder if Reviewer 1 is hokeystick Mann himself given the distraction methods he employs in his ‘argument’. 🙂

13. Probably a better notation for “ME” would have been “RK”.

For those who might think it represents initials, “ME” = “me speaking now”. (^_^)

I wonder whether BAMA will institute some sort of non-disclosure rule to potential journal contributors, forbidding them to share and discuss comments. Non-transparency would seem to make a lot of sense, given that atmospheric non-transparency to CO2 seems to be their cherished castle.

14. Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.

15. Possibly one of the most telling places of Reviewer 1’s incomprehension is here, deserving a closer look:

POSTMA, L 32: One main point of consistency between these three figures [Trenberth diagram, Harvard diagram, and Penn State diagram] is that solar power is averaged over the surface of the Earth, …

REVIEWER 1: This is not quite correct. The figure depicts the global and annual average, and as such it fully accounts for all of the geometry and rotation of the planet as well as the seasonal cycle.

The term, “solar power”, as JP uses it, obviously means the solar constant. The “constant” part of “solar constant”, of course, is not really constant, but rather an average over the seasonal cycle, during which the Earth moves farther away sometimes in its elliptical orbit, and closer sometimes. But, at approximately the average distance of Earth from the sun during the seasonal cycle, there is an average figure for this “solar power” or “solar constant”. This is a meaningful average that results from a real physical flux of light, in real time, onto a real surface area (an Earth HEMISPHERE).

This is NOT, however, the “average” that JP is talking about, … REVIEWER 1 !

Instead, the average that JP is talking about is the average resulting from taking this “solar power”/”solar constant” average and then averaging it again over the ENTIRE spherical surface area of Earth at once. This results in a quantity that is unreal, because no amount of solar flux EVER falls on the dark side of Earth, while it is in the dark. THIS average, is a meaningless average, because nowhere does it allow enough intensity to cause the physical processes that result in Earth’s weather and climate.

Because the reviewer seems to understand that the “solar power” figure is an average in its own right (correctly accounting for the seasonal cycle, as stated), the reviewer resists seeing further into the broader, more basic geometrical fiasco that JP talks about. The seasonal-cycle average for the “solar constant”, then, in no way whatsoever, accounts for either the geometry (and geometrical misstep) that JP clearly points out or the rotation of the planet.

The rotation of the planet that JP talks about puts an Earth hemisphere on the DARK SIDE, where NO flux exists, yet where the three diagrams assign flux anyway. This is false accounting.

False accounting is NO accounting of any value, and so the reviewer, in some sort of confused, denying-of plain-reality state of mind, mentally misplaces one average for another, using a complete misunderstanding to justify a boldly clueless claim.
_____________________________________________________________

https://www2.pvlighthouse.com.au/resources/courses/altermatt/The%20Solar%20Spectrum/Measurement%20of%20the%20solar%20constant.aspx

The flux of solar radiation energy that arrives at the outermost layers of the atmosphere is called the total solar irradiance (TSI). It varies slightly in an annual cycle (by about 3%) because the earth revolves around the sun on an elliptic orbit.

The long-term average of the TSI is called the solar constant S. Its reference-value is 1366.1 W/m2, which is near the average of the measurements shown in the figure below:

16. What he pretends to object to is precisely what I explain is the mathematical procedure of doing what he states. The comment is complete inversion. The strangest sophistry.

17. boomie789 says:

Can someone make sure I’m representing Postma’s work accurately? Some climate alarmist did an AMA on Reddit today.

ALARMIST-“The earth somehow gets hotter(has more energy) than the heat(energy) provided. If that where the case actual greenhouses would also demonstrate this runaway heating feedback loop.” (quoting me)

Actually, as the Earth gets warmer, it radiates more heat out to outer space, which stops the feedback loop and causes the Earth to stabilize at a higher temperature.

BOOMIE-Where did the extra heat come from?

ALARMIST-The heat is coming from the sun — it would have escaped our atmosphere had we not wrapped ourselves in a blanket of CO2.

http://howglobalwarmingworks.org/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

BOOMIE- You are not arguing the model.

The model does not say C02 is trapping heat more efficiently, which would also block it just as much.

The model is claiming back radiation from the atmosphere(special infra red backradiation of C02 specifically) is reflecting back twice the energy the sun provided. Defying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

18. Joseph E Postma says:

“Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan grassroots climate organization”

OMG barf! What a bunch of parasites and losers.

By now Robert you are more than capable of arguing with these fools. It is always about them running away from any position at all…they just claim warming somehow, but never admit how, just word salad etc.

19. boomie789 says:

Soooo. I didn’t say anything stupid right?

20. boomie789 says:

My Name is Brendon

21. Joseph E Postma says:

Sorry – Boomie, not Robert.

No that comment is great! They will never admit what’s wrong though.

They’re just a non-partisan citizen group…wanting to make sure whoever is in power is interpreting the weather in the correct political way that creates taxes for flat Earth weather. Got it. Idiots.

22. boomie789 says:

Ok. So when ever someone brings up the blanket, I think that is the best thing to say.

If the C02 concentration increasing traps the heat better, it would block it just as much, for no net heat gain.

Is that correct?

23. Joseph E Postma says:

That is basically correct, however the “blanket argument” is a sophist misdirection on their part in the first place. The climate greenhouse effect is not about how a blanket works…which works by stopping convection, i.e. air circulation around a body. CO2 in the air doesn’t stop air-circulation, hence, CO2 in the air is NOT like a blanket…although they like to pretend that because it is great sophistry and generates confusion and convolution of concepts etc.

The climate greenhouse effect is the *radiative* phenomenon as depicted in those flat Earth models, where GHG’s provide twice the energy as the Sun does, because they’ve made sunshine too cold to create the weather or heat anything above far below freezing.

Once you point that out, which you did, then their tactic is to switch to other definitions “by analogy” or “works like” type of arguments. And that’s just what they did: “no it’s not that…its a blanket…the sun is the heat source but CO2 is like a blanket.” etc.

Is 0.04% of the air like a blanket? If this is the case isn’t the rest of the air already a blanket? If there’s a difference, what’s the difference? Aha…the difference is the supposed radiative mechanism where GHG’s provide twice the energy as the Sun does due to their flat Earth accounting.

Understand that these people are constantly lying with intent and with skill. Identify the lie(s). Then pull them apart. It took me a long time to become an expert at it.

24. Joseph E Postma says:

“CCL is a volunteer organization of over 180,000 people dedicated to creating the political will for a livable planet. This means doing something about carbon emissions as soon as possible.”

Do you FN understand what they’re saying here? The planet is already livable. Life on this planet comes FROM carbon emissions. Hence…you see what they’re saying?

They’re talking about destroying all life on this planet and the CO2 life is based on.

25. boomie789 says:

Thank you so much.

Life always finds a way.

26. boomie789 says:

I wouldn’t have bothered you with this one but you might want to see what he says about “thermal inertia”. I haven’t heard that one yet. I think that Stephen guy might have mentioned it on this forum. I just mainly attack the “learning tool” argument.

No rush I’m about to go to bed. If you don’t reply I wont be bothered, I don’t need to know that to defeat his argument anyway.

Hey, so I got my PhD researching planetary atmospheres. You raise a few points…

This climate model.

So that’s actually a 1-D radiative transfer toy model. You’re definitely right, it should not be used to predict climate – in fact, I wouldn’t even call it a climate model.

We use it to teach undergrads how the greenhouse effect works because it’s literally the simplest model you can build that produces close matches to the actual temperatures observed on some of the planets. But again…it’s way, way too simple to model climate. No one should use it to do real science, and none of the climate models I’ve used or have seen use any kind of radiative transfer this simple.

They have taken the suns energy and divided it by 4 and spread it over the entire surface area of the earth at once.

Making it a useless model with no basis in reality whatsoever.

So this actually depends on two things: how fast the planet rotates vs. how quickly it cools off to space. The 1/4 approximation works really well at predicting the average temperature of a body, so long as a point on the surface of the nightside of the planet can get back into the sunlight before it loses most of its heat to space. If it loses too much heat, the rate at which it cools to space also slows down, and the approximation no longer holds.

The approximation works well for predicting average temperatures on Mars, Earth, and most of the asteroids. On the other hand, it’s terrible for predicting the average temperature of places like the Moon and Mercury.

If you want to understand more watch this. It’s Canadian astrophysicists Joseph Postma explaining that there is no such thing as a radiative greenhouse effect.

So his mistake is actually pretty close to the beginning, around 6:00 in. He’s forgetting about thermal inertia.

Your turkey example is a good one. Imagine you put a thermometer on each side of it, put it on a spit, and rotated it over a fire. Now if you rotate it really slowly, then yeah, you’re probably going to see a temperature difference between the side facing the fire and the side facing away. As you turn the spit faster and faster, though, the two thermometers will start getting closer and closer in temperature, converging on the average temperature of the turkey.

If you work the math, it turns out that having one hot fire will produce the exact same average temperature as surrounding the turkey with fire that’s 1/4 as hot…so long as it’s rotating faster than the dark side can cool. Again, that’s why this fails miserably if you want to estimate the temperatures of Mercury or the Moon.

Just FYI, even Roy Spencer (who makes a lot of mistakes like this) debunks this argument correctly.

They stole the name green house because what happens in a green house has nothing to do with their made up greenhouse effect.

You’re definitely correct that actual greenhouses are not primarily heated by the greenhouse effect. You can build a greenhouse out of panes of salt (which is transparent to infrared light) and it will climb to almost the same temperature as a glass greenhouse; ultimately it’s suppressed convection that causes the vast majority of heating, the same reason that blankets keep you warm.

I’m not sure it’s quite right to say the name was “stolen”, though. The name actually comes from back in the 1820’s when Fourier correctly realized that Earth was a fair bit warmer than it should be if warmed only by the Sun, and wondered if the atmosphere might be responsible. He became aware of de Saussure’s experiments on the heating of air between glass, thought they were similar to his own theory, and mistakenly named his theory the “greenhouse effect” (though he did also recognize that suppressed convection was an important difference between the two).

It’s definitely a misnomer, and it kinda sucks we’re stuck with the name…but I guess we still call them koala “bears”, too.

BOOMIE- Same old arguments.

Why is it ok to defy the laws of thermodynamics and misapply conservation of energy in that model? You kinda glossed over that.

Which you claim is only a simple learning tool. The REAL models are for the big boys. Go ahead and show me the REAL model then.

It’s in a computer isn’t it? And you can’t really show it to me I presume?

27. Joseph E Postma says:

“We use it to teach undergrads how the greenhouse effect works because it’s literally the simplest model you can build that produces close matches to the actual temperatures observed on some of the planets. But again…it’s way, way too simple to model climate. No one should use it to do real science, and none of the climate models I’ve used or have seen use any kind of radiative transfer this simple.”

Precisely. They use it to teach how the GHE works. And it involves heat recycling and reverse heat flow, which is a violation of thermodynamic law. QED. Of course it only represents the gross mechanism, not the particulars. But is actually represents nothing that exists or is possible at all. It is a fiction. And it is the starting point from which the rest of the “science” follows. Thus, fiction follows.

“So this actually depends on two things: how fast the planet rotates vs. how quickly it cools off to space. The 1/4 approximation works really well at predicting the average temperature of a body, so long as a point on the surface of the nightside of the planet can get back into the sunlight before it loses most of its heat to space.”

This is retarded. The 1/4 comes from geometry, from the ratio of a disk area to that of a sphere, and hence is independent of rotation or ANY other consideration. It comes from averaging solar input over the entire surface at once. These people literally have no clue what they’re talking about…but of course that is precisely what they mean to do, is to not be consistent or rational about anything they talk about, such as to sow confusion. They NEED all of this to be confusing and inconsistent.

Thermal inertia is a made up term. I have never found it in thermodynamics textbooks. It is another invented term to sow sophistry. If it means anything…it would simply be that large masses/higher heat capacities cool and warm more slowly than smaller ones.

“If you work the math, it turns out that having one hot fire will produce the exact same average temperature as surrounding the turkey with fire that’s 1/4 as hot”

Again…these are morons that simply say things consistent with being moronic, which means of course that it is inconsistent and missing the point. You cannot cook a turkey at 86F, but you can at 325F. You cannot create meteorological responses (the weather, the climate) with -40C solar input, but you can with real-time solar input as I have in my diagram.

“You’re definitely correct that actual greenhouses are not primarily heated by the greenhouse effect. You can build a greenhouse out of panes of salt (which is transparent to infrared light) and it will climb to almost the same temperature as a glass greenhouse; ultimately it’s suppressed convection that causes the vast majority of heating, the same reason that blankets keep you warm.”

So cute how they’re being quasi-honest here…but missing the point that real greenhouses SHOULD demonstrate the radiative greenhouse effect of climate science, but they DO NOT. Real greenhouses are empirical proof that the radiative greenhouse effect does not function, does not exist.

“when Fourier correctly realized that Earth was a fair bit warmer than it should be if warmed only by the Sun”

The Earth is exactly the temperature it is supposed to be, as seen from space. The bottom of the atmosphere is only the warmest slice of the whole ensemble though, and the whole rest of the atmosphere is colder than this slice at the bottom where we live. It is warmest at the bottom slice of the atmosphere due to the adiabatic gradient, and this is exactly what should be. The bottom slice of atmosphere is NOT warmer than it should be.

It is an important difference…between what occurs in a real greenhouse vs the climate greenhouse effect. Maintaining this ambiguity only benefits them…as I have explained, they NEED and LOVE ambiguity and confusion and inconsistency…this is their goal.

28. Joseph E Postma says:

Ask them why they think that the planet isn’t livable. Ask them why they think that carbon makes the planet unlivable! These people are psychotic freaks.

29. boomie789 says:

He threw more bullshit at me. I’m pretty much done with this guy he is just confusing everyone. If you want I’ll post your responses to him, or you could. I can’t possibly try to address this. I don’t know if it is even best to. He is just a pigeon shitting on the chess board.

Why is it ok to defy the laws of thermodynamics and misapply conservation of energy in that model?

So the derivation of the 1/4 approximation only works because it’s from directly applying the conservation of energy as an equality condition:

Total Solar energy absorbed = Total emitted infrared out

The total solar energy absorbed will be the strength of sunlight at the distance of Earth (we’ll call it F), minus the sunlight that’s reflected (A, the albedo), multiplied by how many square meters are absorbing sunlight. Note that Earth absorbs sunlight over its cross-section facing the Sun (πr2):

Total Solar energy absorbed = F (1 – A) πr2

The amount of emission is going to follow the Stefan-Boltzmann law and depend on temperature to the fourth power, multiplied by a constant that converts temperature to emitted power (σ), multiplied by the emissivity of the surface (ε, how good it is at emitting infrared), multiplied by how many square meters are emitting. Note that unlike sunlight, Earth emits infrared over it’s entire surface (4πr2):

Total emitted infrared out = 4πr2 εσT4

Now we apply the conservation of energy, and set the two equal:

F (1 – A) πr2 = 4πr2 εσT4

Now notice something: the two πr2 terms cancel, but the 4 remains. That’s the source of the 1/4 approximation.

If we solve for temperature:

T = (F(1-A) / (4εσ))1/4

…we get what’s known as the “equilibrium temperature”: the average temperature of a planet if only heated by the Sun. When you apply this equation to a fast-rotating asteroid, it works really well. When you solve this equation with the values for Earth, though you find the planet would only be 255 Kelvin (-18 C) if heated only by the Sun, about 33 degrees off from measured values; ergo there must be some other heating mechanism. It’s also no coincidence that it works much better for Mars (thin atmosphere, accurate to within 5 degrees) but terrible for Venus (crazy thick atmosphere, off by 500 degrees).

Finally, notice the F in the numerator and the 4 in the denominator – we literally could have replaced a Sun that only shines on one side of the planet with one 1/4 as bright that shines over the entire surface of the planet, and the equation would be exactly the same and produce exactly the same answer.

Go ahead and show me the REAL model then.

Here’s one example – the correlated-k method is pretty great. It’s a computationally fast radiative transfer model that still produces accuracies to within 1%. The Lebesgue integrals are a little tricky at first, but turn out to be really cool.

Another alternative, if you need really need that extra one percent and don’t mind your simulation taking much longer is to just integrate the radiative transfer equations wavelength-by-wavelength.

Also I think I got my first death Wish

“You are a shill but at least you are going to die, do you get paid enough to build your own bunker? Otherwise I would suggest a change in careers.”

I do really want to buy a bunker lol.

30. Joseph E Postma says:

“When you apply this equation to a fast-rotating asteroid, it works really well. When you solve this equation with the values for Earth, though you find the planet would only be 255 Kelvin (-18 C) if heated only by the Sun, about 33 degrees off from measured values; ergo there must be some other heating mechanism.”

WRONG. The planet Earth *IS* 255K (-18C). This IS Earth’s effective temperature. However, there is a distribution of temperature in the atmosphere from warmest at the bottom to coolest at the top, with the average in the middle. The difference between the average middle and the warmest bottom is EXACTLY what it is supposed to be given the adiabatic gradient. Note the claim to the “other heating mechanism”…by which of course they refer to GHG’s. GHG’s do not produce new energy and are not a heat source, nor is any gas in the atmosphere. There is NO other heat source or heating mechanism…it is just the Sun.

“It’s also no coincidence that it works much better for Mars (thin atmosphere, accurate to within 5 degrees) but terrible for Venus (crazy thick atmosphere, off by 500 degrees).”

Again, they’re comparing the bottom-of-atmosphere temperature, which is the warmest slice of the entire atmosphere, to the average. The bottom has to be warmer, and on Venus too it is exactly as much warmer as it should be due to the adiabatic gradient. Venus’ effective temperature is exactly what it is supposed to be…NOT 500 degrees off. This is another example of the sleight-of-hand they use, comparing what is the actual effective temperature to the warmest part of the atmosphere which does NOT represent the entire atmosphere or its average.

“Finally, notice the F in the numerator and the 4 in the denominator – we literally could have replaced a Sun that only shines on one side of the planet with one 1/4 as bright that shines over the entire surface of the planet, and the equation would be exactly the same and produce exactly the same answer.”

That is precisely how the conservation of energy formula together with Stefan-Boltzmann Law is calculated! lol He is merely stating precisely what it is. Yes, what they do is precisely “replaced a Sun that only shines on one side of the planet with one 1/4 as bright that shines over the entire surface of the planet”! That is exactly what they did…and used the 1/4 Sun as the input, which then cannot create the climate. My model keeps the input on one side and then the Sun CAN create the climate which obviously it must and does.

Just because they have a more complex model…does not excuse that their entire approach is based on a false non-existent greenhouse effect. They program the more complex models with the faulty understanding and belief in a non-existent “greenhouse effect” they established earlier.

-Yes of course, use these for replies as you wish. Just know that these people only wish to lie, and you will never make any apparent progress with them. Thus, post the replies just to expose them.

31. I swear that these freaks have been studying my writing and papers, as they’re now using all the things which I have explained before as if it’s their own. They’re trying to make themselves sound more sophisticated and knowledgeable whereas they did not previously refer to any of these things at all, such as what Fourier actually did with de Saussure and where the 1/4 comes from and what it means etc.

32. So now they refer to them but just pretend it’s all fine and part of what they know as if it’s all no big deal. They’re attempting to program and subliminally condition you/people this way.

33. So cut to the chase:

1) Their climate GHE should be able to be experimentally confirmed in real greenhouses, but it isn’t. This is an empirical disproof.

2) Their climate GHE necessitates recycling and reverse flow of heat, which is of course a violation of theory. Hence it is theoretically invalid which goes with the empirical disproof.

3) The origin of their climate GHE is in their flat Earth models where the Sun cannot create the climate, and thus their GHE is then postulated to make up for what their flat Earth cold sunshine cannot do in such a model. In reality of course the Sun does do it all, but their empirically invalid starting point for deriving their GHE explains why they then run into the theoretical problems as above which of course has its own lack of empirical support.

QED.

34. boomie789 says:

It’s the top controversial comment. Half of the people upvoted, half downvoted.

“How does it feel to be in a death cult?”

35. Joseph E Postma says:

That is a good comment about the “death cult”. That is exactly what they are.

Just post my comments and this final one to finish it off:

1) Their climate GHE should be able to be experimentally confirmed in real greenhouses, but it isn’t. This is an empirical disproof.

2) Their climate GHE necessitates recycling and reverse flow of heat, which is of course a violation of theory. Hence it is theoretically invalid which goes with the empirical disproof.

3) The origin of their climate GHE is in their flat Earth models where the Sun cannot create the climate, and thus their GHE is then postulated to make up for what their flat Earth cold sunshine cannot do in such a model. In reality of course the Sun does do it all, but their empirically invalid starting point for deriving their GHE explains why they then run into the theoretical problems as above which of course has its own lack of empirical support.

36. boomie789 says:

Done.

I’ll add that at the end of the post from now on as well.

37. So that’s actually a 1-D radiative transfer toy model. You’re definitely right, it should not be used to predict climate – in fact, I wouldn’t even call it a climate model.

It most definitely is NOT a climate model, and it most definitely is NOT used to predict climate. A climate model is a complex computer program. Any discussion of this diagram as a climate model, then, as the commentator suggests, should not even happen. He correctly labels it a 1-D radiative transfer toy model. But he does not go far enough — it is a BROKEN toy model. Worse, it is a toy model of something that does NOT exist, … not even in the simplest sense.

We use it to teach undergrads how the greenhouse effect works because it’s literally the simplest model you can build that produces close matches to the actual temperatures observed on some of the planets.

The close matches to planetary temperatures, however, are measures of OUTPUT radiation intensity. That’s what a planetary temperature is — what the planet radiates OUTWARD, as seen from space. The planet is the whole sphere! The sphere AS A WHOLE radiates OUTWARD at this power intensity.

But the long gray arrow, pointing downward, assigned the value of F(1-a)/4, is labeled what? — “Incoming Solar Flux” See the “in”? Do you realize what “in” means? It means INPUT. “Incoming Solar Flux” means “input”, or solar flux coming INTO the planet, … NOT flux going out of the planet.

Further, this F(1-a)/4 quantity is depicted graphically as striking a surface area that is a FLAT surface area, representing the ENTIRE surface area of the Earth.

Solar INPUT is assigned a value that is one fourth of its actual INPUT value, and depicted as striking a flat surface representing the ENTIRE surface area of the Earth at once.

The figure, as drawn, can ONLY mean this literally. It is NOT a mere representation of how to estimate a planetary temperature. It is a representation of a flat, static Earth (not rotating), with no night, RECEIVING one fourth the solar flux, spread out simultaneously, instantaneously over the entire surface area of the Earth at once. THIS is what you are teaching undergrads — the most intellectually fresh, vulnerable, impressionable minds possible. You are teaching them fantasy, … non-reality, … mythology, … fiction.

But again…it’s way, way too simple to model climate.

It’s not even a climate model, although there is a way to show that it emulates the output of climate models quite well, which means that climate models seem to embody its essence.

No one should use it to do real science, and none of the climate models I’ve used or have seen use any kind of radiative transfer this simple.

I could not agree more that “no one should use it to do real science.” No one should use it to teach beginning science either. As for the complex climate models, they have their own, far more complex problems, which, interestingly and as I pointed out, seem to embody this simple diagram, nonetheless.

38. Even though I (like JP) found Reviewer 2’s comments to be in the genuine spirit of constructive critique, I am compelled to focus on one comment, in an attempt to foster greater clarity:

POSTMA, Lines 59-61: An alternative global annual energy budget model is here presented in Figure 4 which differs in that it does not average sunshine over the whole surface of the Earth as an input.

REVIEWER 2: So, you seem to be saying that it is the instantaneous (i.e., Earth disc) rather than the long-term averaged receipt of the solar flux that is the key starting difference between the standard and alternative models– correct?

RK: I am not clear on Reviewer 2’s reference to “long-term averaged receipt of the solar flux”. Solar flux is already an “instantaneous” value — it is energy-per-second-per-square-meter.

The standard model shows a value of one fourth solar flux as “instantaneous” power intensity, while the alternative model shows a value of ACTUAL solar flux as the “instantaneous” power intensity.

Again, even with Reviewer 2, I think that there might be some confusion over two (possibly three) different averages. Solar flux, AS an instantaneous measure, is itself an average quantity determined over the seasonal cycle, as Earth moves from its closest point to its farthest point from the sun. It is itself a long-term average quantity. As projected onto a disc and applied to an Earth hemisphere it is, furthermore, an average power input quantity. Both these averages are real and proximate to the defining surfaces for which they are determined

Consequently, one fourth of a long-term average/averaged quantity is also a long-term average/averaged quantity, except it is just one fourth of the actual average/averaged quantity.

So, no, Reviewer 2, this is not quite what JP is saying, as I understand it. “Instantaneous”, then, is not the word I would use to describe the focus. Rather, I would use the words, “proximate” and “ontologically real”.

The input flux value of the standard model is NOT proximate to the actual surface area that it strikes, and so the standard model’s flux is NOT ontologically real. The alternative model places the flux proximate to the actual area it strikes, and so the alternative model is ontologically real.

This, therefore, is a comparison of fiction to reality. The standard model represents fiction, while the alternative model represents reality.

39. boomie789 says:

The PhD is back. Responding to you.

Oh man, you are so close to having the correct answer here:

This IS Earth’s effective temperature.

You’re right, “effective temperature” is literally the exact same as the equilibrium temperature we already calculated using the 1/4 approximation; people literally use the two terms interchangeably. Again, you can derive this temperature using either the full strength Sun on one side, or a 1/4 strength Sun on all sides; there will be no difference in the effective temperature you derive. Also notice that at no point do you need to invoke the greenhouse effect in the derivation of that temperature – I only brought it up after the fact that the effective temperature is not the same as the surface temperature.

If you put a satellite in space and aim back down to Earth, the amount of energy it will detect radiating from the Earth is equal to the amount of energy you would expect a 255K blackbody to emit, even though it’s warmer than that on the surface. This essentially tells us the atmosphere is blocking the emission from the surface, and we’re only seeing the 255K emission from some point in the atmosphere.

However, there is a distribution of temperature in the atmosphere from warmest at the bottom to coolest at the top, with the average in the middle.

This part is almost correct.

255K is not necessarily the average temperature of the atmosphere, nor is it necessarily located right in the middle of the atmosphere. Instead, 255K will be the temperature at the height where infrared photons can efficiently escape out to space. In other words, it needs to be a height in the atmosphere where there’s a balance between being transparent enough for a substantial fraction of infrared photons to escape, but also opaque enough for that layer of the atmosphere to still emit infrared efficiently and block surface emission.

If you work the equations, you can find this height from [the Eddington Approximation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_depth_(astrophysics)), and it tells us this height will occur where the optical depth is equal to 2/3. Optical depth is just a measure of total transparency, and the height where optical depth = 2/3 means a photon has a e-2/3 = 51% chance of getting absorbed before escaping the planet.

It turns out the Eddington Approximation works equally well for stars in the visible wavelengths as it does for planets in infrared wavelengths. Just like we define the photosphere of the Sun to be where the optical depth is 2/3, the location in the Earth’s atmosphere where it’s actually 255K will also be where the optical depth is 2/3.

The difference between the average middle and the warmest bottom is EXACTLY what it is supposed to be given the adiabatic gradient.

Correct, below that optical depth = 2/3 height, the temperature of the atmosphere will more-or-less increase as the adiabatic lapse rate (depending a bit on daily weather and moisture).

We can use the actual vertical temperature profile to find the layer of the atmosphere where the effective temperature = the actual temperature, equivalent to the atmospheric layer that’s emitting efficiently out to space:

In the case of Mars, the effective temperature is 218K, but the actual surface temperature is 223K. That difference tells us the atmospheric layer emitting out to space is very, very close to the ground.

For Earth, the effective temperature is 255K, but the actual surface temperature is 288K. That 33 degree difference tells us the atmospheric layer emitting out to space is a fair bit higher up than it was on Mars; looking at our graph of vertical temperatures, it’s about 5 km up.

For Venus, the effective temperature is 230K (even though it’s closer to the Sun, Venus is so reflective that it absorbs less sunlight than Earth), while the surface temperature is 743K. That huge difference tells us the atmospheric layer that can efficiently emit to space is very high up in the atmosphere. Looking at out graph, it’s way up at 80 km above the surface.

Notice that the height in the atmosphere where effective temperature = actual temperature scales directly with how many infrared absorbers are in the atmosphere.

Now let’s think about this a moment: what happens if we start adding more infrared absorbers to the atmosphere of Earth? As the optical depth of the atmosphere increases, the height of efficient emission must also rise to match the location where optical depth = 2/3.

Let’s say we’ve added enough extra absorbers that the height of the efficient emission layer rises from 5 km to 6 km. There’s suddenly a problem, though: unlike at 5 km, the actual temperature at 6 km layer is colder than 255K. That means that layer can’t emit as much (remember, total emission scales as temperature to the fourth power). That means there’s an imbalance – the Sun is still cranking out the same amount of energy, but the planet isn’t losing it as quickly. That’s a disequilbrium (more heat in than heat out), and so the 6 km layer will heat up until it’s at 255K to match the energy in.

Now what’s going to happen to surface temperature if the 6 km layer heats up to 255K? You said it yourself – the temperature below that height must increase following the adiabatic gradient. A 255 K temperature at 6 km instead of 5 km means there’s an extra kilometer for the temperature to continue its adiabatic lapse rate increase as you move downwards in the atmosphere, and so the surface temperature must be higher when there are more infrared absorbers in the atmosphere.

40. Joseph E Postma says:

This is another example of how they simply change explanations mid-stream. The climate greenhouse effect is NOT about raising the emission height. *It is about backradiation, heat recycling, reverse heat flow, and sunshine too cold to create the climate.*

These people will take anything that you explain, then turn it around and pretend it is theirs. That is what they are doing now. However, what he describes is not at all in any way whatsoever what their GHE is all about or how it works. They are making up something else now entirely different than how they explained their GHE works previously, which was supposed to be about backradiation. But now it is about raising emission height. Do you see their duplicity? This in itself indicates, is proof, that they have no actual theoretical foundation or physical explanation at all…because what they want, carbon taxes and a falsely-named GHE…can be anything at any time.

This is the classic switcheroo sophist method we’ve encountered for years. When the backradiation argument for the GHE is exposed and you explain the adiabatic gradient and how it demonstrates that no backradiation GHE is needed, then they switch to saying that their GHE is due to the adiabatic gradient and raising emission height. You see how inconsistent that is? How duplicitous it is?

And as for the emission height thing, this is also disproven empirically because the upper troposhere has NOT been measured to be increasing in temperature.

Also, don’t forget that they use the Earth’s effective temperature of 255K *as the solar input*. They treat the Earth as having an input of 255K or 240 W/m^2. They call this an average, but it is non-physical, and it comes from flat Earth theory, and it would mean that the Sun cannot create the weather. All false. They have no foundation, and they have no consistent theoretical explanation, and they have no empirical demonstration.

Laugh at them for being so inconsistent, make fun of them for having no actual explanation for their GHE, ridicule them for having no empirical proof of their theoretically-undefinable GHE, etc.

41. boomie789 says:

“That’s a disequilbrium (more heat in than heat out)”

Doesn’t that violate the 2nd law of thermo dynamics?

42. Yes it’s a basic confusion between heat vs. energy. They try to get around the laws of thermodynamics any way they can with any sophistical phrasing they can come up with. Matter emits spontaneously everything it needs to…it is not even meaningful to discuss a disequilibrium of heat. Heat is NOT what needs to come out. Only energy does. And the energy always does come out because radiative emission is spontaneous.

Remember…all of this starts as theoretical propositions they need to make after they start with cold sunshine that cannot create the climate, because they’ve started with flat earth theory with diluted and feeble sunshine spread over the entire earth as an input.

Always go back to where they start and how ridiculous this starting point is. They will then bait you into minutiae and distractions, convolutions and distortions and sophistry to hide away from it. Be aware of their tactics.

43. Everything they say after their starting point is false by simple extension. They even admitted to you earlier that they do in fact start with that flat earth model where sunshine cannot create the climate. All of their supposed science after that is pseudoscience.

44. boomie789 says:

Thank you for helping me.

45. For sure. Understand that we are dealing with the most sophisticated purposeful pseudoscience utilizing the most subtle methods of rhetoric and sophistry ever devised. We are all aware of such things as Biblical Creationism, etc. But this political pseudoscience exploits humanity’s greatest weakness in knowledge which exists even at the academic level: our knowledge of thermodynamics, the 1st and 2nd law and how they work together, the distinction between heat, energy and temperature, etc. The end of their plan results in us being taxed for the use of the carbon in our bodies at best…at worst the vilification of the life molecule ends in eradication of life on earth.

46. boomie789 says:

John Cook is doing an AMA on Feb 25. Ill try and crash that party as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

47. John Cook is a *cognitive scientist* as per that Wiki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

Do you get that! Do you see my point now!!??? Holy cow. They are clinically devising and developing this pseudoscience by studying our psychology and the way we think, etc!

A cognitive scientist! Involved in this. Think about that!

48. boomie789 says:

Do you remember me mentioning James McGinn? He claims Convection storm theory was devised to appeal to mass psychology

Just listen up to the 3min mark and he should grab your attention.

Much of Science Involves Models That Have Been Dumbed-Down to Pander to the Public
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Much-of-Science-Involves-Models-That-Have-Been-Dumbed-Down-to-Pander-to-the-Public-e9c1vd

Is moist air heavier than dry air? If you google it 99% of the answers are going to be no. This blew my mind.

This means that when a given volume of air is made more moist by adding water molecules, heavier molecules are replaced with lighter molecules. Therefore, moist air is lighter than dry air if both are at the same temperature and pressure.

What do you have to say about that? If I haven’t bothered you enough already.

49. Not sure. I have had very negative dealings with James.

The most important thing is that we destroy this ghe carbon hatred pseudoscience.

50. Now let’s think about this a moment: what happens if we start adding more infrared absorbers to the atmosphere of Earth? As the optical depth of the atmosphere increases, the height of efficient emission must also rise to match the location where optical depth = 2/3.

I am not so quick to accept the underlying assumption here, which I think is that the distribution (or stacking) of extra CO2 is only upward. Why would we assume this?

What I am thinking is, as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, it distributes (both up and down) in such a way that more is below the original height of emission, and more is above the original height of emission, in accordance to how gravity distributes gas concentrations with height. I see additional CO2 simply redistributing around the original emission height (some above it, some below it), in such a way that this height remains where it has always been, probably near the center of mass of the atmospheric mass, as a whole.

Let’s say we’ve added enough extra absorbers that the height of the efficient emission layer rises from 5 km to 6 km. There’s suddenly a problem, though: unlike at 5 km, the actual temperature at 6 km layer is colder than 255K. That means that layer can’t emit as much (remember, total emission scales as temperature to the fourth power). That means there’s an imbalance – the Sun is still cranking out the same amount of energy, but the planet isn’t losing it as quickly. That’s a disequilbrium (more heat in than heat out), and so the 6 km layer will heat up until it’s at 255K to match the energy in.

Even if emission height did rise, I do not think that there would be any problem. Emission would happen as it always had, just from MORE surface area within the volume of the whole atmosphere, since more of that volume would now be infrared-emitting molecules, which would seem to cause MORE emission, NOT less.

Actual data shows that MORE — NOT less — emission has, in fact, been happening for the past 60 or so years:

51. boomie789 says:

I’m sorry to hear that.

52. boomie789 says:

Thanks for answering as well Robert.

You seem to be as knowledgeable as JP to my understanding. Well done.

53. CD Marshall says:

Entertainment tonight: This is a physicist who is an expert on climate and proof we are doomed…

54. Joseph E Postma says:

God that’s retarded…they just make BS up as they go along. So cute how they pretend to be so professional.

55. CD Marshall says:

He actually said w/o the ghg the Sun would just hit the Earth and re-emit immediately to space causing the planet to be freezing cold and yes he used the words “traps heat”, and the best part was at 6:00 to about 6:25.

The “physicists” starts at 3:03

56. Sorry, CD, I can’t watch the vid, because I’m already at my monthly allotment of stupid.

57. CD Marshall says:

I was pondering this video in my sleep, yes my mind does that, it works while I sleep I use to write whole chapters in my sleep when I was writing then next day just jot it down. Anyway if you look at this guy’s mannerisms they are the same as Professor Mike Merrifield’s from the 60 symbols video who stated that the GHGe does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. In other words, more “covering up” than explaining, I just saw the alien face on both of them from They Live.
Merrifield on explaining the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This one deserves some popcorn…

58. CD Marshall says:

Robert watch it with popcorn and pretend it’s science fiction that’s what I do with Bigfoot shows, I’m watching one now and *SPOILER ALERT* it ends the same as all the rest, exactly where it began with nothing.

I wrote a short story about that once didn’t circulate well at the time but it was about someone in a crone’s mind trap (Voro Somnium: eater of dreams or something like that), the only way out was the point where you entered from reality and stepped into the trap, if you couldn’t find that or remember where it was you would be stuck in her trap forever while she drained your thoughts, her food as it were. The trick was you had to realize you were in her mind trap which those not trained (the general public) never knew until they were brain dead.

How ironic isn’t it? The Climate gatekeeper’s are Voro Somnium draining the minds of the innocent until they are brain dead, never knowing where the real science was left and replaced by the dream science.

59. Barry says:

Just reading Dr Roy’s latest now saying that maybe earth is using up the extra co2 and therefore it isn’t having as big an effect as predicted ( no kidding) . Still on admission that it probably has nothing to do with temperature but I feel the wind shifting direction.

60. Malcolm A Smith says:

Of course one question that should be asked, How do we know what the optimum temperature should be. Earth was much warmer the the past and as we all know it was a thriving world.

61. CD Marshall says:

The general populace is selfish, “optimum temperature” often is referred to the human species as it exists now not what the Earth and it’s other inhabitants require. For instance, it is believed jungles thrive in no less than 550 ppm of CO2.

In the California drought of 1987-92 plants long since thought extinct began growing becasue the climate was “optimum” for those species of plant.

Earth always has a back up plan for climate change.

62. Accounts that I have read about how far back Earth would have been habitable for humans seem to come to some agreement on a figure of about 300 million years ago,even though, if I remember correctly, our official arrival here was about 200 thousand years ago.

For climate alarmists, “optimum” means a comfortable setting provided by fossil-fuel enabled air conditioning or central heat, allowing them to avoid heat stress or shivering, in order to get their thoughts perfectly orchestrated to write damning articles about fossil fuel.

We, thus, live in the hypocricene.

63. Barry says:

The whole agw crowd know that the climate changing really has no effect on people that are alive today. They have to use scare tactics to convince children that they won’t live long enough to see their children grow up. They don’t tell them that even if all their predictions were right that the impact of it as far as the ice melting , plants dying , polar bear dying and earth becoming uninhabitable would only be thousands of years in the future. That said hard to convince the public to pay a carbon tax to alleviate a problem that would only effect their great grandchildrens great grand children. Always remember why the IPCC went this direction in the first place, MONEY

64. CD Marshall says:

The current version of “human” seems to be a more warm temperature species so why are they bitch’n about warming I’ll never know. They use to be comfortable naked so I’d say that was a much warmer climate than a 15C average…maybe back then 30C was an average?

65. CD, are we watching the same video?

What I watched there does not seem at all to be what you and JP commented on. It seems to speak in favor of NOT putting so much trust in childlike explanations or complex climate models — one is too simple, to the point of being wrong, and one is not complex enough, to the point of being unsuitable for prediction tools.

66. Yes I did realize that too Robert after initially thinking that it was supposed to be about supporting climate alarm. However they don’t get the point that there is no greenhouse effect.

67. CD Marshall says:

6:00 to about 6:25 is what I felt was disappointing on the first video: He thinks CO2 creates warming and he is an “expert” on climate but is confusing water vapor condensation with IR reflection. I just don’t know how an actual climate expert with decades of experience can not know the difference between the two?

However I did site another video that seemed not to show up. This is from the same guy who claims global warming does not break any laws of physics from 60 symbols, a Professor Mike Merrifield? Maybe I forgot to send it? Anyway he is using the Schrodinger’s cat method to explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics claiming that it has both been proven and disproved at the same time.

I found both videos to be disappointing coming from actual physicists.

68. Yeah, their terminology seems a bit careless — “trapping heat”, etc. — but, at least, even with careless terminology use, they still manage to lean more towards a non-alarmist perspective, which is something positive.

As is often the case, though, they don’t take it quite far enough. Overall, it was a soft approach, … easing a rational foot into the door of climate alarmism.

Baby steps for baby-thinking minds? (^_^)

69. CD Marshall says:

Joseph my posts got yanked hence the confusion. If you could post the latest one and skip the repeats it should cover the confusions. Guess it thought I was spam again.

70. CD Marshall says:

Anyway my issue with the the first video with the climate physicist is that he connected the water vapor process in with the IR responsive gas process, that I found disappointing. Condensation being taught as I recall in 2nd grade? Yet a physicist who is a heck of a lot smarter than I should ever confuse the IR process (with water vapor)and claim w/o IR the Earth would be colder than it would be w/o it and NOT connecting that to water vapor I find hard to believe. I guess I expected more from a physicist whose expertise is climate!

So that does bring the second question is he this ignorant or complacent? I just find it hard to believe that a physicist (arguably the most intelligent people in the world) is this naive by choice.

Yes I know we are all human and to be human is an ideology based on imperfection, no one is above mistakes. Yet this is such a simple misconception from someone whose intellectual cognitive process is so far out of perception of the normal human mind it would be hard to follow that for example, would be like not knowing rain drops downwards.

Then again being on media causes anxiety and he may not be comfortable on social media and anxiety makes you go brain dead. That is why lawyers thrive at promoting anxiety to make people say something wrong on purpose in court. My brother is one of the few gifted people who causes anxiety in lawyers a skill I utilize when appropriate.

The second video which never showed was a 60 symbols video where he does strange and unnatural things to the 2nd law of physics that I found baffling. He claimed that the 2nd law is both true and false, “double speak” the preferred speech of climate frauds.

71. The general statement that Earth would be colder did strike me as wrong.

Doesn’t it depend on which SIDE of the Earth we are talking about? Wouldn’t direct sunshine on a planet with no atmosphere produce incredibly hot temps, while the dark side would be incredibly cold?

An atmosphere, such as here on Earth, serves to regulate this vast disparity — keeping the sun-facing side relatively cool-yet-warm enough for life to thrive, and the dark side relatively warm-yet-cool enough for life to survive.

72. CD Marshall says:

Robert, not w/o an atmosphere w/o greenhouse gases besides water vapor (CO2, CH4,O3 and so on). Which (in theory) would make it 0.06C/0.6C cooler? Night and Day would remain somewhat the same. However without ghgs more radiation would enter the planet making it even warmer (in theory?) just quicker to cool where water vapor was not prevalent at night.

If I have my facts right.

That’s what I mean by honest confusion or deliberate obfuscation. See how easy it is to get that crossed? They seem to double speak on everything. Without greenhouse gases doesn’t mean without an atmosphere but they cross the two up anyway claiming that the surface would be -18C average like the Moon (which even that is not correct).

73. Joseph E Postma says:

That’s about it, yes…magic gases, that are colder, cause a warmer thing to warm up some more.

The average temperature of the atmosphere is much colder than a typical ice-cube from the refrigerator, yet the atmosphere supplies twice the energy and heat than the Sun does!

74. boomie789 says:

75. Mark S. says:

I have a question please. Why would GHG’s re-radiating IR be much different than say rocks, concrete or steal bars re-radiating IR (or your favorite, ice cubes) . I assume they aren’t different in principle but don’t know for sure.

Anyway, why do “they” single out GHG’s for their back radiation and not more solid objects. Would not 2 buildings be radiating towards each other, parts of a bridge ect.

Only the magic gases can cause a cascade of temperature increase?

76. Rosco says:

“Why would GHG’s re-radiating IR be much different than say rocks, concrete or steal bars re-radiating IR (or your favorite, ice cubes) . I assume they aren’t different in principle but don’t know for sure.”

Firstly gases do not emit anything even closely resembling black body radiation – they do not emit a continuous spectrum – whilst most solids do.

The only radiation laws used are based on black body continuous spectrum emissions – to apply these laws (Planck’s, the Stefan-Boltzmann and Wien’s laws) to gases is totally unscientific !

Secondly the first reviewer is an idiot for even using the zero K anology – 0 K can only exist where there is no mass !

To believe the Earth’s surfaces could possibly cool from 30°C to zero K in 12 hours is stupid beyond belief and to think Joe’s model implies this BS is even stupider !

77. Rosco says:

This is how stupid reviewers like no 1 are.

The ISS orbits at 408 km. “The ISS is currently (Dec. 20) in a 404 x 415 km orbit, or a mean altitude of 409.4 km. That corresponds to an orbital period of 92.75 minutes.”

This is what idiots claim the temperatures the ISS is subject to.

“science.nasa.gov › science-news › science-at-nasa

Consider, for example, the International Space Station (ISS). Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space Station’s Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C), while thermometers on the dark side would plunge to minus 250 degrees F (-157 C).”

So at 408 km above Earth subject to Earth’s emitted radiation levels of ~240 W/m2 – remember Earth is huge cf the ISS – the temperature swings from 121°C to minus 157°C in 46 minutes !

That is so fucking stupid I can’t believe qualified people could be so stupid.

The stresses induced by such temperature swings every 46 minutes (121 – minus 157 – 121 etc) would have caused the thing to fall out of the sky in tiny pieces years ago – take it from someone who got distinctions in stress analysis in his degree !

Stupid beyond belief !

78. CD Marshall says:

If I may be so bold, emitting photons does not always equal absorption. A photon emitted from CO2 does not automatically equal absorption again of those emissions to the surface or other gases in the atmosphere or for that matter an automatic absorption of a photon from CO2 in the first place.

Same thing for an ice cube emission does not always equal absorption. That’s the easy explanation some one else can do the harder one.

79. Jopo says:

What would happen if I was to put a lump 10kgs of Dry Ice on my Living room table in Winter with all the doors and windows shut?
Would my living room warm up?

80. Jopo says:

Sublimation, Co2. Instant heating!

81. CD Marshall says:

How do I write out order of magnitude on a normal keyboard? For example could someone show me the SB equation written out as standard keyboard style? Thank you kind gents and gentlewoman few we may or may not have.

82. Rudi K says:

Some questions Boomie789 could ask his PhD, now that he has shifted the goalposts to a an analysis in terms of IR emissions as seen from space, optical depth/altitudes and lapse rates…

Observations [1] show that the optical depth of the atmosphere did not change 1950 to 2010, despite CO2 increases. Observations [1][2] identify that the concentrations of H20 vapour in the upper troposphere reduced in recent decades, despite a warmer surface and (slightly) increased H20 in the lower troposphere.

[1] F. M. Miskolczi. The greenhouse effect and the infrared radiative structure of the earth’s atmosphere. Development in Earth Science, 2, 2014.

[2] W. C. Gilbert. The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere. Energy & environment, 21(4):263–275, 2010.

Questions:

1 Any explanations for the mechanisms at work behind the observations?

2. Why do GCM’s assume surface heating means more upper troposphere H20 (and a positive feedback effect on surface temperatures – rather than a negative feedback )?

3. Why would the environmental lapse rate of 6.5 K/km (US Standard Atmosphere) not reduce with increased lower troposphere H20 (delivering a negative feedback effect by reducing the temperature difference between the surface and the altitude at which outbound IR occurs)?

4. Why would more lower troposphere H20 not increase low level cloud formation (delivering a negative feedback i.e. cooling effect.)?

83. Joseph E Postma says:

@CD: F = s*T^4 ??????

Powers are usually denoted with a caret.

84. CD Marshall says:

Thank you I guess this is right just for this equation? 5.67 x 10^-8.

85. Joseph E Postma says:

Yep.

86. boomie789 says:

Thanks Rudi.

I am reluctant to get away from the fundamental flaws in the model. As long as you always bring the conversation back to this model.

Humor them if you can, But once you bring up this model their primary goal is to distance themselves from it. Once you start arguing the minutia they are winning. Always bring it back to the points Postma clarified. Imagine your average Joe trying to comprehend this, that’s what the alarmist are doing.

They are trying to make sure the average person stays confused and inured.

Postma- 1) Their climate GHE should be able to be experimentally confirmed in real greenhouses, but it isn’t. This is an empirical disproof. 2) Their climate GHE necessitates recycling and reverse flow of heat, which is of course a violation of theory. Hence it is theoretically invalid which goes with the empirical disproof. 3) The origin of their climate GHE is in their flat Earth models where the Sun cannot create the climate, and thus their GHE is then postulated to make up for what their flat Earth cold sunshine cannot do in such a model. In reality of course the Sun does do it all, but their empirically invalid starting point for deriving their GHE explains why they then run into the theoretical problems as above which of course has its own lack of empirical support.

87. Let’s get rid of some of that confusing stuff in the picture, then:

There.

Oh, I forgot to point out that the thick green line is FLAT.

88. boomie789 says:

Good idea!

89. boomie789 says:

Is this Correct? Something like this could be useful. Who has a good definition for the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

If someone could make a better one that would be cool.

90. Joseph E Postma says:

I see what you’re doing there…especially highlighting the recycling of energy to create more heat.

Robert may wish to pick up on it.

91. What I am trying to demonstrate is that recycling energy to create more heat is a catastrophic result of violating conventions for conserved and non-conserved quantities.

Flux is not conserved.

Cancelling out or dividing out the pi^2 expressions of the hemisphere and sphere areas, to arrive at the 4 divisor is paramount to saying that the area of a hemisphere is the same as the area of a sphere, and that the INPUT-hemisphere area is the same area as the OUTPUT-sphere area, for purposes of defining flux.

Setting input hemispheric flux equal to output spherical flux, in order to justify equilibrium, is the fundamental starting point of the mathematical madness. Basic concepts — even more basic than recycling energy — do not allow this, as I currently am led to understand this.

92. boomie789 says:

That is PhD material, above me and most people.

93. boomie789 says:

Here is a updated version. Space left open for others. I want something that a person with only a high school education could understand.

94. geran says:

Boomie, why are you clinging to a failed model?

95. boomie789 says:

lol

96. geran says:

If you’re trying to understand, why not use Postma’s model?

You appear to be trying to understand a failed model. You can’t make sense out of a failed model. Earth is not a blackbody sphere. The atmosphere does NOT warm the planet. The atmosphere does NOT “trap heat”.

So why are you using a failed model?

97. He’s just demonstrating the failure geran.

98. boomie789 says:

I just want a breakdown of it and its flaws digestible by the average person I meet on the internet.
I want normal people to be able to understand how nonsense it is. How ridiculous it is to teach that model in college.

If you’re ever standing in front of the supreme court trying to explain what the hell happened, you’re going to have to explain that ridiculous model.

I’m trying to learn too.

99. Did you see that “Lars Asks…” post a few weeks back? It has a good summary of the whole fiasco and of my work and demonstrations etc.

100. geran says:

But sorry if I was misled. I don’t have time to search the entire thread.

101. boomie789 says:

That’s to long. I’ll look at it but they won’t. I want to make a 1 page debunk of the model.

I’ll make it, but i need to make sure I’m right. Posting this for later use.

I’ll look through that pdf and rewatch some vids.

To dismantle it, detail by detail. Otherwise, those adhering to it will not look at the proposed better model, because they do not understand what is wrong with their own model.

Problem is that people to whom you might need to explain the flaws do not even understand the basic conventions of how information is presented, how proper conventions are adhered to, and how rational thinking progresses.

It’s a deeper problem than understanding what is presented. It’s a problem of understanding HOW to understand, … how understanding unfolds, … how one thought pattern has advantages over another, … how reasoning is sometimes better than emotion.

103. boomie789,

Honestly, I think the diagram or any diagram like it, with even those few arrows and equations, will boggle the minds of many people. When you add even more arrows to explain the flawed arrows, you add more visual clutter that confuses already confused minds even more.

I have an internet friend who does incredible graphics of what he calls “visual logic”, but, as I once told him, I do not think vision is THAT logical. Vision is even less logical than thought. Once you get past stick figures and smiley faces, you’re entering the zone where people stair at you like you’ve got two heads, eyes glazed over, mouths held agape.

People today are hindered by attention-span atrophy, … wanting something right now, … without any effort to study, process, or create understanding for themselves. They want to be fed, and they want only to consume, react, transmit, rinse and repeat, like and be liked, with as little effort as possible.

104. geran says:

I have no problem with dismantling pseudoscience. My problem is with accepting it.

For example, in the last graphic boomie presented, where does the “fσTs^4” come from? The very first step in dismantling is to throw out that “fσTs^4” nonsense. The surface only emits once, not twice!

105. boomie789 says:

Can you tell me what the orange one is?

106. geran says:

If you mean the extra “fσTs^4” coming from the surface, it’s pseudoscience.

107. Joseph E Postma says:

The f there means the fraction absorbed.

They are right though that it gets too technical. You are also right that is should be boiled down to something obvious and simple. Hence my own diagram and comparing it to the standard diagram and then stating flat Earth vs. spherical Earth, cold sunshine vs. hot sunshine.

There must be some way to boil that down further…into a meme or something. I have made graphics for my videos for example.

108. boomie789 says:

everything in this is at least correct? added some more.

109. Joseph E Postma says:

Yes I think it’s correct if you understand the point of it all 🙂

110. geran says:

There’s no need to divide by 4. Incoming is just TSI, adjusted for albedo.

And the atmosphere is not warming the surface. The back-radiation (σTA^4) needs to be shown reflected back. I think it’s called “back-back-radiation”. 🙂

111. boomie789 says:

Where should I remove the divide by four?

I think the back-back radiation is implied lol.

Im hoping to add it to my Reddit post to help people understand.

112. jopo says:

On the local blog site I visit often the argy bargy of the internet is fun. A recent thread from and supported by some guys on the world being Flat. I.e Flat Earth theory.
I just stay away from that. Of no interest and i actually believe that peeps are just being whums by claiming this. Nonetheless many of the climate alarmist on this blog site make comment to ridicule the poster.

I finally chimed in with this

“I am bemused that Climate alarmist who are happy to MOCK the flat earth theory are NOT capable of seeing the irony that their 99.7% Settled Science Logic is build upon a Peer review consensus science (LOL) that uses a Flat Earth to validate what does not happen in the real world.”

113. boomie789,

I hate to say, but your attempt at visually explaining the flaws, while noble, creates so much visual clutter in one dose that most people will run away from it, I think.

I suggest a step-by-step, graphic approach, like I started doing with this:

This might be the first graphic, showing the MOST basic flaw. Actually, this might be enough, because every other flaw rests on this one. I could stop there.

But if we must proceed, next, maybe start breaking down the other arrows, what they are supposed to mean, but not all at once — ILLUSTRATE IN DOSES — one picture per dose.

Also, maybe replace the math expressions with plain-language verbal expressions only, describing succinctly what those math expressions are saying.

One of my peeves is how the atmosphere is represented as ONLY a thick line, as if all Earth air is compressed into a thick pane of glass (to salvage the greenhouse-glass analogy?). … The atmosphere is NOT, of course, some thick, compressed layer of air, separated by a void of nothingness, from the Earth’s surface. … I mean, why is that damn void even there?! … The atmosphere enfolds the surface, really, as a gaseous extension of the surface. … There exists a solid-liquid/gaseous SYSTEM that is Earth.

So, flat Earth, 1/4 solar power, unreal separation of atmosphere as a separate “surface” — those are big glaring graphic misrepresentations.

114. Barry says:

I as a lay person applaud your efforts to keep it simple but if you make it to simple it can be simply discounted, I think that mr Postmas explanation is understandable without being easily picked apart. Remember that because some of us don’t have an education doesn’t mean we are stupid. I think anyone who goes to the trouble to try and follow this will be smart enough to get the lack of reality in their model.

115. Good one jopo lol!

116. boomie789 says:

Thanks for the feedback. I’ll mull over it some more. You’re probably right.

117. Barry,

I am not saying keep it too simple. I am saying (to boomie789) keep it partitioned and accumulated in a step wise fashion, in such a way that it can be smoothly ingested, instead of visually cramming everything into one image.

Present the whole picture, and then break that whole down into parts, and then reassemble again into the whole.

This is how dance is taught — show the whole sequence, … break it down into steps, … practice the steps, … and then put it back together to form the flow of the whole that was first presented.

118. For example, I just did a little relabeling on the Harvard diagram to make it more understandable:

I changed the subscripts, from numerals to words, so people can see right off what “T” is being talked about, instead of having to first learn that “T0” means “temperature of surface” and “T1” means “temperature of atmosphere”, and then have to remember that, as they work through thinking about the math. “S” becomes “sun”.

And so now, all they have to keep up with is what “A”, “f”, and sigma mean, which is enough in itself.

119. Barry says:

Yes I agree that is a good approach and yes at the end it then makes the whole picture easier to see.

120. Barry says:

Yes I think that is most helpful for those of us who have to go searching for definitions in the middle of it all to try and make sense of it

121. geran says:

I feel mentally handicapped because I cannot quickly display a sketch like Robert and boomie. So, please excuse the fact that I have to use words to describe a sketch.

At the atmosphere level, the incoming has to match the outgoing.

(E is emitted by Earth, A is emitted by atmosphere.)

Incoming is E + A

Outgoing is E + A + A = E + 2A

E does NOT equal E + 2A

You need to show the surface emitting BOTH E and A, to balance. Then:

Incoming is E + 2A

Outgoing is E + 2A

122. geran says:

To clarify, the A “emitted” by Earth is just the relection of the back-radiation.

Sheesh, it takes a lot of words….

123. boomie789 says:

What about something like this? This is fun btw.

124. Joseph E Postma says:

Yep that’s good boomie.

125. geran says:

Which one?

It’s a hard choice…. Real Earth reality or Flat Earth pseudoscience?

🙂

126. Barry says:

For me and I think most lay people who do not even have the basic numbers to plug into the equation I think it would be very helpful to see a video like in a class room presentation with a simple explanation for each character and then plug in real numbers to see the different outcome.

127. boomie789 says:

255k =-18C and 90.125k= -18C? Im just seeing that.

128. Rudi K. says:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is key to much of this discussion.

Have you looked at the paper [1]? This contains a picture of a round earth in Table 1. Further in, Figure 5 sets out energy and entropy flux budgets alongside each other. This illustrates how actual heat fluxes balance in terms of convection/evaporation, net insolation and net outgoing IR, all without any non-physical (virtual) back-radiation from colder surfaces to warmer ones. Each heat flux is analysed both in terms of energy flux and in terms of entropy flux. The point of the paper is that the Second Law is as important as the First Law in shaping climate mechanisms.

This is sadly lost on many client scientists, who seem to disregard the Second Law, for example, take the introduction to [2]:

“In a single second, Earth absorbs $1.22 \times 10^{17}$ joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly $800,000 \K$ after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”

The statement appears even though the temperature of the sun’s surface is only $5777 \K$ and the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits heat transfer from a colder body to a warmer one?? No mention of “entropy” anywhere in [2].

If leading climate scientists avoid the subject of entropy, what grounds do we have for trusting that the energy balances in GCMs are consistent with the Second Law?

[1] H. Ozawa, A. Ohmura, R. D. Lorenz, and T. Pujol. The second law of thermodynamics and the global climate system: A review of the maximum entropy production principle. Reviews of Geophysics, 41(4), 2003.

[2] R. T. Pierrehumbert. Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. In AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 1401, pages 232–244. AIP, 2011.

129. Joseph E Postma says:

Great comment Rudi!

130. boomie789,

Yeah, I think that latest diagram is really good — a nice educational tool, very well organized, easy to follow by the numbers.

One small correction, though, which greenhouse zombies will surely delight in pointing out: I believe that a slight typo appeared in the original diagram (it’s Joe’s, right?) — I think that the “sigma TA^4” needs to be … “f sigma TA^4”.

The Skeptical-Science website master-sophist seemed to take great pleasure in pointing this out, some years back, which, as you can discover, in Joe’s equation work, cancelled out anyway, and so it was not critical to that particular result, which he masterfully pointed out in a rebuttal to the butt.

Now to answer JP’s graphical question, “Which one?”, here’s the graphical answer:

131. boomie789 says:

@ Robert

You are talking about the math I added to the far right? or #6/#8? Can’t follow.

My math is wrong there. I’m realizing I don’t actually understand how that divide by four works. I thought it was 360.5/4, but that is 90, not 255 lol. Specifically the top right.

132. geran says:

Here, the divide-by-4 nonsense is taken out. Of course the atmosphere doesn’t emit as a black body, but the arrows show how the energy would balance if it did.

https://postimg.cc/K177J7mg

133. geran says:

Rudi K., that nonsense was originated by super-clown Pierrehumbert. It violates several laws of physics, which is why Pierrehumbert can get his papers accepted throughout Institutionalized Pseudoscience.

I hadn’t seen it for years, thanks for mentioning it. Everyone needs to see and understand what nonsense is out there:

“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 × 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800,000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”

The super-clown doesn’t understand radiative physics, heat transfer, or thermodynamics.

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Pierrehumbert-2011.pdf

134. boomie789 says:

I get it now, I need to divide the energy. Not the temperature in kelvin.

Still don’t know where the typo is.

135. boomie789 says:

Last Time, I think it’s done. I wanted to show the math that leads to the -18C. People know what that means, they can visualize it. People will know that cold+cold doesn’t equal hot.

136. boomie789,

Maybe this will clarify my earlier comment about the “typo”.

Here is Joseph’s response:

https://principia-scientific.org/postma-debunks-skeptical-science-greenhouse-gas-defense/

to Skeptical Science’s ATTEMPTED (but failed) debunk:

https://skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm

I actually seem to be seeing frequent representations without the “f” I’m referencing. It’s probably a picky detail. Maybe Joe will confirm or refute it’s significance for your particular use.

137. Wow that was a long time ago. I had everything all figured out back then already!

138. In fact it is a travesty that this has continued as long as it has. I didn’t realize I said everything that needs to be said that long ago.

It is a travesty that this is still going on…

139. boomie789 says:

Like that?

140. I like the improved graphic, … (^_^) with atmosphere added … for idiots who lack the common sense to realize that an Earth/atmosphere SYSTEM was a foregone conclusion, subsumed in the original spherical representation, to begin with, … without being spelled out.

Maybe you should label the colors too. This is blue for air. This is bright yellow for really hot sun. This is orange for less hot sun. This is yellow-blue for a temperature gradient moving from warmer to cooler. … etc.

Oh, and maybe add a big ol’ curved arrow to show that the planet is rotating — and label that too. (^_^)

And, I dunno, words like “hemispherical” (five syllables) might be too big. For fun, overlay a mostly transparent smiley face.

141. @boomie789

I think that’s it, … if my understanding it correct.

142. Barry says:

This is looking good I think even I can grasp it well enough now to explain it to someone. Thanks for your effort guys.

143. boomie789,

QUESTION: In the #8 rectangle of your diagram, should there be a “plus sign” between the quantities at the tips of those diverging lines?

144. boomie789 says:

lol, I can’t tell if you’re messing with me or serious. To show that are added together for the total output? I’m going to go with no, it’s obviously inferred right?

Why Not?

145. boomie789 says:

Fixed the corner for our friends with OCD.

146. (^_^) … boomie789,

The “plus sign” really does make a big difference in clarity.

… the little things, ya know.

Again, nicely done illustration.

147. In a slightly different style than boomie789, I also did a breakdown of the broken-down, “simple greenhouse model”. The way I am presenting it here is as a series of .png images, which means you cannot copy/paste text from them [like anybody would want to (^_^)]. At the ende, I’ve also included a link to a .pdf version:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/arzjihvxvu5h98i/WhatsWrongWithGreenhouseModel.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1zmeq7v90fb4ecr/WhatsWrongWithGreenhouseModel_2.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zjb3ppl69fy70dh/WhatsWrongWithGreenhouseModel_3.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2ubjewh8kojsgu/WhatsWrongWithGreenhouseModel_4.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8bhsb6cm5blvqpd/WhatsWrongWithGreenhouseModel_ASSEMBLED.pdf?dl=0

148. Well, at the moment, the images are not materializing (only showing as links) — maybe they will show later? — I don’t know. Anyhow, the .pdf is there.

149. Barry says:

I think they like that surface,surface look because it leaves more of an impression of a greenhouse roof that would be trapping the heat . At a glance it makes it look like the atmosphere starts somewhere well above earth where it’s gathering all that radiation and then sending back to the surface.

150. Barry, I think you are right — the surface-surface look preserves the illusion of a glass roof that “traps” stuff — like heat, which is NOT stuff that can be trapped, but, … oh well …, they talk as if it is anyway.

Never mind reality, and what the definition of “heat” is, and good use of language, and all such pesky business — there’s a paradigm to preserve, so screw all that ! (^_^)

151. I was just thinking about the “slowed cooling” or “reduced cooling efficiency”, updated version of the “greenhouse effect”:

The energy radiating from the ground/water “surface” is the same energy that comes back on itself from the atmosphere. No further energy or work has been added to that energy, right?

So, this is a situation where energy comes back on itself, to interfere with itself in such a way that it reduces its flow up top, which would mean it reduces its flow into the atmosphere, which means that what comes out of the atmosphere is now reduced, right?

But now there are two versions of this energy — a fast-flow version at the start that makes itself a slower-flow version of itself, which would seem to set up a paradox of the energy’s infinite “slowing” of itself, until it NEVER flowed out.

Just like the infinite heating paradox with the “added heat” version, there seems to be an infinite cooling paradox with the “slowed cooling version”, which is just the same paradox, approached from the opposite direction, so to speak.

Thoughts?

152. geran says:

Robert, I think the “slowing the cooling” is their admission that they have started to understand the GHE violates the Second Law. They still are violating the Second Law, but they do it is steps, so as not to be noticed.

Step 1) CO2 slows the cooling of the Earth
Step 2) That means the surface remains at a higher temperature
Step 3) Then, when the sun comes up, surface will rise to higher temperatures than it would otherwise.

Still pseudoscience, just with more sophisty thrown in.

153. Yah…but that happens anyway by the simple presence of poorly radiating thermal mass. That is: the atmosphere keeps it cooler in daytime and warmer at night. Water vapour in particular keeps it warmer at night. But of course they’re always trying to hijack reality with alternative pseudoscience.

154. geran says:

Plus they fail to realize that the sun coming up is NOT new energy to the system, since the sun constantly warms the system.

155. CD Marshall says:

Geran,
Explain that one please. Not new energy to the system?

156. geran says:

“…since the sun constantly warms the system.”

157. Barry says:

I think their downfall in all of this was lumping all these gases together under the ghg name. If you were to eliminate co2 from the atmosphere it probably would have the effect that it’s percentage of overall ghg effect the climate (not much). If you were to eliminate water vapour I think we would have a very noticeable problem. Now they are grasping at straws with the slowing down the cooling theory, which is it then back radiation or slowing the natural cooling. Next week they come up with heating up the clouds on its way by trapping more heat. It’s all so ridiculous when you get caught in a fabrication you just change the narrative to arrive at the same conclusion.

158. boomie789 says:

If they start talking about slowed cooling, that’s not what their model represents.

In the model the atmosphere provides 2x the energy the sun does, don’t let them take you on a ride.

159. Barry says:

Boomie 789
They aren’t really interested in trying to defend their model any longer as it defies all logic. As Joseph pointed out that’s all just hand waving physics that we aren’t capable of understanding. So now will tell you the real problem is the slowing the cooling theory. This sounds logical to people on the streets, when it no longer has the required effect we will change our theory once again. Eventually they will back themselves into a corner that a smart 4 year old will be able to see through this hoax. I hope I live long enough

160. Exactly you guys. They can’t even stick to their own arguments and just hand-wave as needed.

161. CD Marshall says:

LOL I need a little more, please. How is the Sun constantly warming the system if it’s nighttime? Or am I confusing directly warming the system with passively warming the system? Or is the Sun passive aggressively warming the system?

What am I missing here?

162. geran says:

CD, Earth rotates on its axis, as it constantly receives solar energy. The rotation causes day and night. The sun never shuts down.

163. CD Marshall says:

While I am at it (again) how do we know OLR is increasing?
These are some of the things I found not really helping…
CERES:

Solar Insulation
https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_INSOL_M

Anymore help would be appreciated. I’m debating someone who wants to know how I know OLR is increasing and I discovered I actually have no current data on the subject. The charts I have cutoff at 2015.

So how do we know it is increasing?

164. geran,

I’m thinking about the “slowed cooling” sequence you listed:

Step 1) CO2 slows the cooling of the Earth
Step 2) That means the surface remains at a higher temperature
Step 3) Then, when the sun comes up, surface will rise to higher temperatures

Doesn’t slowed cooling of the Earth mean less radiation reaching the atmosphere? If so, then how is the atmosphere ever able to get warm enough to radiate the higher level of energy it had at the beginning of this loop … to radiate the required quantity to do the slowing? Which means how did the atmosphere ever have the required energy to radiate that quantity back to keep the surface as warm as it was before this loop started?

So, I’m thinking:

Step 1) CO2 slows the cooling of the Earth
Step 2) Less radiation reaches the atmosphere
Step 3) Atmosphere never able to warm enough to radiate that amount of energy to do that amount of slowing
Step 4) Slowing must not have been done after all.
Step 5) Surface still cools, atmosphere still warms, atmosphere still radiates, as it should, as the energy gradient stacks up from warm to cool, until the height at which the coolest warmth can radiate away.

In the “slowed cooling” approach, I am not seeing how the atmosphere gets its energy at the required level to do that slowing of that energy given to it by the surface. There seems to be a circular conundrum, when that energy does anything to itself, whether adding to itself or restricting itself.

It makes no sense for that energy to act on itself in any way that changes what it started out being.

Adding to itself to “add heat” to the surface or inhibiting itself to “slow cooling” at the surface, energy cannot f^#% itself like this, can it?

And if people are arguing that the Harvard Chapter 7 explanation is not the proper explanation, then why is Harvard still represented as teaching it this way? And why are so many other educational settings allowing it still to be taught this way?

165. CD Marshall says:

Much better, thank you geran. Just the way it sounded to me was night was still getting energy from the Sun hence my confusion.

166. geran says:

Robert, the pseudoscience nonsense of “slowing the cooling” refers to the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared. The clowns then believe that Earth can then never cool itself, energy is “trapped” and can never leave, and therefore must “warm the planet”.

Let me emphasize: PSEUDOSCIENCE NONSENSE.

167. CD Marshall says:

Aren’t they also confusing the water cycle of latent heat with IR which literally have nothing to do with each other?

168. geran,

I get the general idea of “slowed cooling”. I’m just trying to nail down the exact mechanism that cannot exist for it to be real.

“Slowed cooling” means what, in terms of what the energy packets are really doing? What are the photons (?) doing to slow anything? Are they stacking up against one another to increase photon density? And wouldn’t this have to happen all the way down to the surface of the Earth? Which would mean that Earth was not emitting at the same intensity as claimed? Which introduces a paradox? — how did the Earth emit at the intensity to produce the intensity of “slowing” to begin with?

169. geran says:

Robert, trying to understand “slow the cooling” is like trying to understand any of the pseudoscience. It can’t be done.

I believe the nonsense started with Spencer, about 4-5 years ago, but I can’t prove that. One or more of the GHE clowns must have finally realized they were violating the Second Law. So “slow the cooling” was their attempt to get around the Second Law. Again, this is just my guess, but I know Spencer uses “slow the cooling”.

170. And it’s NOT how the derivation from their diagrams is done in the first place anyway! It’s a straight up LIE.

171. geran says:

This is just one quote from Spencer, about 6 years ago. There are many more, if someone has the time to search his blog.

“The same is true of the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere represent a sort of “radiative lid”, reducing the rate at which the Earth’s surface cools to outer space.

Pure pseudoscience from a clown that has no understanding of the relevant physics.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/what-determines-temperature/

172. Exactly. That’s a total FN lie even directly on the terms of climate science itself!

173. CD Marshall says:

No mention of CO2 at all?

“The amount of terrestrial radiation that is released into space and, by extension, the amount of cloud cover and water vapor that intercepts that radiation in the atmosphere defines the Daily Outgoing Longwave…”

174. geran says:

CD, that “OLR” means nothing. It has no value. It is a contrived computer program. Again, they don’t know what they’re doing, or they’re trying to fool us. Incompetence or dishonesty?

The site mentions two satellites, TIROS-N and Eumetsat MetOp-A/B. TIROS-N was decommissioned in the early 1980s. MetOp has has trouble with measurement errors. NOAA has tried to kluge together all the “adjusted” data to make a visual graphic, which can’t be meaningfully interpreted. A computer program processing inadequate, incorrect data is then adjusted to result in whatever representation they want to show. Millions of dollars wasted to produce GIGO.

To have anything useful they would have to have actual spectra, comparing ground measurements with corresponding directly overhead satellite measurments. Comparing actual spectra at the surface with actual surface temperatures and the exact overhead satellite could be something meaningful. With enough such measurements, over several years’ time, they might have something that could be studied. At this time all they have is garbage.

175. CD Marshall says:

Thanks geran. So no one has any real data on OLR I gather?

176. geran says:

GOV agencies that receive millions of dollars have the obligation to produce something of value. If they can’t, reduce their funding. It’s that simple.

If that plan were followed, we would soon be getting meaningful results.

The concept is basic. PIck a spot on the ground. Capture the spectral display of upwelling from the surface, along with the surface temperature. Compare that to the spectral display from a satellite passing overhead at the same time. Collect such data from numerous sites for years, and you have something. I have yet to see anything close to that.

177. Philip Mulholland recently made a comment at WUWT that immediately summoned the GHE attach dogs:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/09/message-to-the-media-how-dare-you-naomi-seibt/#comment-2912532

Still amazing, yet so predictable.

178. Joseph E Postma says:

Wow look at that comment by Greg calling Philip a “radiative flat Earther” for denying the GHE.

Look at that inversion! You think that these people aren’t coordinated and don’t know precisely what they’re doing!? Why would they *project* with that flat Earther accusation? Because they know that we’ve been exposing THEM for being precisely that.

179. Joseph E Postma says:

“MarkW February 9, 2020 at 7:19 am

You see…these people must be kept as far away as possible from any definitions of heat and the 1st Law of thermo…and that’s what WUWT makes sure of.

180. geran says:

MarkW is one of the clowns that believes he can bake a turkey with ice cubes.

181. My comment to that comment of Mark W was simply this: “Unbelievable.” I haven’t gone back to see whether he added me to his clown show

“If it radiates, then it warms.” … That’s like saying, “If it speaks, then it is genius.”

182. Joseph E Postma says:

Now that’s an excellent analogy…lol.

183. Philip Mulholland says:

It reminded me of my Junior School playground in 1961 when the circle formed and the chant went up: Fight! Fight! Fight!

184. geran says:

Philip, I really admire your “cool” over there. You were the “adult in the room”. No one could responsibly respond to your points, all they could do was attack.

Good job.

185. Rick Lasslett says:

Hi guys, I’m new here.
I’m a nobody with no qualifications and a master of nothing except I have half a brain and a critical thinking mind. (which I guess puts me ahead of the Climate Jihadists for a start)
I want to thank all you guys along with Joe for the education and entertainment of this site and the Tube videos.
My contribution is this –
Whenever I have tried to explain the absurdity of the ‘science’ to someone, their eyes glaze over within 10 seconds and they revert to the old ‘ well 97% of scientists must be right’ BS.
So armed with your information and keep in mind I am not talking to scientists but just your average Joe….excuse the pun, am I correct in framing the conversation this way?

Q: “Let me ask you a survey question: is the temperature outside always -18C, and is it the same anywhere on earth day or night?”
A: -‘well of course not’
“Congratulations, you have just become a Climate Denier because that is the entire basis on which they build their greenhouse effect / global warming hoax!”

If they actually have the lights on inside their head, I can then explain how -18C is arrived at by these clowns, and that averaging the intensity of the sun is like saying – the average rainfall for yesterday was 1” and it doesn’t matter whether it was light showers over the whole day or if the entire inch came down in 60 seconds, the effect would be the same. If they are at all worth talking to, they would know the effect would be dramatically different!

I am not qualified to get into the minutia of thermodynamics or atmospheric physics and neither are my acquaintances so I would just hammer the above point as many times as needed for it to sink in?

Am I missing anything here?

186. Joseph E Postma says:

Hi Rick!

Did you see the new post here? It has some good graphics that might help:

https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/02/10/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/

And no you’re not missing anything. That’s a good question and good answer.

You can also ask people: “is the science of flat Earth theory legitimate science?”

Anyone would say NO. Then show them the first diagram in that linked post. Here:

What is the math being developed *******FOR*******?????? What is the science in those diagrams being developed FOR?

It’s FOR flat Earth.

When people then ask how it could be so stupid…tell them: it’s not stupid, its a method for massive global political economic control, for taxes at the least. But yes…academics are also that stupid too.

187. geran says:

Rick, you don’t have to worry about being too technical if you use easy examples like ice cubes. Ask them if they can raise the temperature of a room that is at 15º C (59º F) using only ice cubes?

Even very uneducated people should be able to correctly answer “no”. Then inform them that the AGW/GHE pseudoscience claims that things as cold as ice cubes, and colder, can raise Earth above 15º C.

188. CD Marshall says:

So I haven’t came across anyone in a long time who got into the flux/temperature confusion so I became a little rusty on the subject.

Honestly it would make a great post or video.

So someone stated this, “But radiation law or Stefan-Boltzman law states that the emitted energy is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. So something cold is emitting way less energy than something warm. Higher latitudes emit less energy due to being colder.”

>He seems to be mixing different laws together to justify a desired outcome.

For starters can someone explain this further:

“Also, flux is not simply energy – it is energy per second per square meter, and can be converted to a temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Flux is local. The input flux is NOT equal to the output flux even though the total energy is the same, and, it is the local flux which determines what physical reactions take place.” -Joseph

“For a blackbody sphere, energy-in = energy-out, 960(A) Joules = 240(4A) Joules. But flux-in does NOT equal flux-out, 960 W/m^2 ≠ 240 W/m^2.” -Geran

As always thank you for your help I would be last without you guys. How is Pierre doing these days?

189. geran says:

CD, I’m not sure what you want explained further, but I saw my quote so I will elaborate a little.

Maybe if I rewrite it in a different format, it will be clearer:

For a blackbody sphere,

Energy_in = Energy_out
960 * A (Joules) = 240 * 4 * A (Joules)

But Flux_in does NOT equal Flux_out, 960 W/m^2 ≠ 240 W/m^2.

As Joseph stated, “flux is not simply energy”. The area impacted must be used to convert to energy. Flux cannot be treated as a simple scalar. That’s one of the reasons that flux cannot be simply added/subtracted, or divided by 4!

190. “Flux” is watts per meter squared.

Watts” is joules per second.

so ….
“Flux” is … joules per second per meter squared.

“Energy” is joules.

so …

ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT means joules = joules

FLUX IN = FLUX OUT means …
joules-per-second-per-meter-squared = joules-per-second-per-meter-squared

Flux is defined for a specific surface area. Hence, flux coming INTO Earth does so over the specific surface area of a HEMISPHERE. This flux, over this specific surface area delivers a quantity of energy.

Flux going OUT from Earth does so over the specific surface area of a SPHERE. This flux, over THIS specific surface area relinquishes a quantity of energy, and that quantity of energy is the same QUANTITY of energy that came in on the hemisphere, thus satisfying the requirement of ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT.

This is why >W/m^2 = W/m^2 does NOT equal joules = joules.

191. Joseph E Postma says:

Excellent Robert!

Such simple things…TRIVIAL things, truly…but entirely beyond the intellectualism and critical thinking engagement level of physics academia!

What a world.

192. You meant, … Watt a world.

193. CD Marshall says:

I admit I am a moron among genius but the whole flux thing as I understand it is a bit tricky.

Flux in is perfectly understandable, you have a point of entry. Flux out doesn’t have a point of exit, the whole planet is a point of exit.

Obviously it’s not flux in and flux out in the truest sense, it’s flux in [energy used and converted] and flux out isn’t really a flux its a general exhaust.

New energy in old energy pushed out or is it just unused energy pushed out first?

So the headache for me is how is the system processing the energy forced out and where it is being forced out first, second and so forth. I mean its not like your head where you have a point of heat dispersion on top of the head. Or maybe it is like that?

194. geran says:

CD, you may be making this harder than it has to be. Do you understand a blackbody sphere receiving 960 Watts/m^2, and emitting 240 Watts/m^2?

195. CD,

Focus on this:
“Flux” is DEFINED for a SURFACE AREA.

There has to be an area, before it can be defined — a specific area.

So, there is NOT a “point of entry” for incoming flux. Rather, there is an AREA of entry for incoming flux. That area is the area of Earth’s HEMISPHERE.

Similarly for outgoing flux — it is defined for a specific area — NOT a point. THAT area is Earth’s SPHERE.

W/m^2 — see that “m^2” — that’s the area for which the W (“watts”, which is the flow of energy through time — “joules/sec” — that the specific area absorbs or emits.

Energy-through-time over the hemisphere area = Energy-through-time over the sphere area
Hemisphere flux multiplied by hemisphere area = sphere flux multiplied by sphere area
Greater flux over smaller area = smaller flux over greater area

196. CD Marshall says:

Yes but isn’t that 240×4 which would still equal 960 overall in a 24 hour period?

I think I see what you’re saying flux in is a constant input 24 hours a day and so is flux out. Just flux in is concentrated at a point of entry moving 24hours a day and flux out is emitting over the whole sphere 24 hours a day.

197. It’s not that it’s over 24 hours. 240×4 = 960 every second.

198. Solar flux is a constant input for 12 hours — day and night side of sphere, remember — so THAT input for the HEMISPHERE has to equal the output for the same 12 hours for the SPHERE.

Night and day, remember, again.

So, I figured for 12 hours as follows:

199. I think the official energy tally is 5.16 something or other times 10^21 joules, but you see that the equality holds for ENERGY, hopefully, using the proper idea of what “flux” is defined for.

200. There are probably some more complexities involving angles throughout the progression of the 12 hours of rotation that my basic calculation does not encompass, but I’m hoping that even this serves to show the relationship of flux to surface area, and how a large flux over a smaller surface area can yield the same energy as a small flux over a larger surface area.

Flux is flow (of energy) … through time … for a specific surface area.

201. CD Marshall says:

Constant flow, I think that was the point I was not connecting. Flux is a constant flow of energy in and energy out?

So there is no real way of figuring out how much energy the Earth holds? After billions of years it is saturated and the so called “radiative forcing” is non sense (I already knew that just never gave it much thought).

Radiative forcing is not a subject I have much experience in understanding on a global scale I just know in an open atmosphere it is a ludicrous concept.

202. Not sure I understand what you mean by “how much energy Earth holds”.

Energy is not a stuff that can be held. Energy is a sort of motion that shapes and moves stuff, or is the result of stuff shaping and moving, or the configuration of stuff that has potential to shape and move. When you get right down to it, “energy” is hard to pin down — it’s a way to talk about stuff and stuff moving. (^_^)

Energy is constantly flowing in, yes, but only on ONE side of a hemisphere … of a sphere that is rotating — that’s the confusing thing, I guess.

… whereas, energy is constantly flowing out, BUT on BOTH sides of a sphere.

I wouldn’t want to get into a discussion with a really young child about exactly what energy is, because, at some point, in the flurry of “but why”s, I would run out of answers, showing that I ultimately don’t have a clue — I’ve just sort of learned how to talk about it. (^_^)

Talking about energy correctly means knowing how it relates to the word, “flux”.

Flux is not just energy — it is related to area, and to get just an energy quantity out of it, you have to figure the area for which it is defined, and the time over which it occurs.

203. CD Marshall says:

Robert, stored energy is energy, is it not? Heat can’t be stored but energy can.

204. CD,

I guess I really am not confident enough to answer your question.

I know that we use the phrase, “store energy”, but now, as I think about it, I’m not sure what sense this really makes, on the deepest level of thought.

I’m not schooled enough in the formal conventions of talking about “stored energy” to be able to shed any light on the question, given the current widely accepted paradigm of what this phrase seems to mean to many.

Help!

205. CD,

Furthermore, your question continues to raise all sorts of other questions in my mind.

For example, if all the plant life on Earth uses sunlight to create carbohydrates, then isn’t energy “stored” in those carbohydrates? And if all that energy is “stored” in living things, then how can it radiate out? [going to tomo’s point]

Is it really total energy equilibrium we are talking about with respect to the sun/Earth system, when we talk about the sun’s heating potential, or are we somehow talking about a subset of energy? — a particular class of energy? — a particular partition of energy, just with respect to Earth’s atmosphere? And how do our equations manage to separate this? How can we know that we are talking about only the sun’s heating potential on Earth’s climate?

Why does the emission-temperature procedure work? — if plants and living things are “storing” the sun’s energy?