Instead of creating a flat-Earth “global energy budget” such as those which the field of climate science is entirely based upon, as in the figure below, I have created (and updated) a new global energy budget which is instead called “Earth’s Thermodynamic Energy Budget”. This distinction in labels makes all the difference in the world. A question to the reader: Can the mathematics and physics developed for flat Earth theory be empirically or theoretically valid?
These diagrams demonstrate the universal starting point by which climate science then derives its “greenhouse effect”. Look past the math and see what the math is being developed for: What is a flat line representing the entire Earth called?
In climate science, their mathematics of flat Earth theory works out to that sunlight cannot heat anything on the Earth to temperatures above -18 degrees Celsius. If atmospheric absorption and scattering of incoming sunlight is taken into account on their flat Earth theory, then this maximum-heating-temperature of sunlight reduces to -40 degrees Celsius (bottom right diagram of above figure). To make up for the Sun not being able to create the weather or sustain the climate with such an incredibly low heating potential of its light spread over the entire flat Earth, then climate science invents ad-hoc mathematics where this feeble solar heating is reversed and recycled two-times-over to make up the difference, and they call this ad-hoc scheme “the greenhouse effect” even though it isn’t how an actual real greenhouse functions or why real greenhouses get so warm inside.
The definition of ad-hoc is “created for the purpose.” So to be clear, the climate science heat-recycling greenhouse effect is created for the purpose of flat Earth theory, where the mathematics of flat Earth theory dictated that the Sun must not heat the Earth to temperatures above -40 degrees Celsius. Thus, their flat-Earth heat-recycling “greenhouse effect” was created for the purpose of “explaining” higher temperatures and meteorological and climatological phenomena which occur above -40 degrees Celsius. This is flat Earth theory being mathematically developed into modern science.
A well-known example of ad-hoc mathematics being inserted into science was with Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity. When Einstein first solved his equations for relativity he realized that they indicated that the universe should either be expanding or contracting. And thus to satisfy consensus thinking at the time period, and his own agreement with the consensus, he inserted ad-hoc terms into his equations for the purpose of making his theory satisfy a universe that the consensus believed should be static and unchanging in size. Many years later Einstein admitted that this ad-hoc mathematical trick was the greatest blunder of his life, and his equations had these extra terms removed.
Do you wonder if today’s scientists will one day realize the blunder of the ad-hoc mathematics they created which they call a “greenhouse effect”, in order to satisfy their consensus belief that sunshine cannot heat the planet to above -40 degrees Celsius, via their consensus belief that the Earth can be mathematically modeled as flat? These are clearly obvious blunders to any thinking person…but we must wait for the scientific consensus to catch up to us and to adopt spherical-Earth theory as we intellectuals have.
In the thermodynamics textbook by D.V. Schroeder (2000), on page 17 we read:
“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”
It could be said that the entire enterprise of thermodynamic theory is about defining these three concepts and distinguishing them from one another. The distinctions are in fact the most important possible thing in physics and in science, not to mention in all engineering, technology, electricity production, industry, computers…and literally everything we now take for-granted in our modern world. Indeed even in the pre-technological world, although we might not have known it, our campfires and our fire-making ability of rubbing sticks together is all about how these three concepts interrelate to each other.
For example: temperature is not a measure of an object’s total internal thermal energy with respect to another object; the energy of a body cannot be changed without supplying the body with heat (or work), but energy is not always heat; heat is a transient form of energy found only at a boundary between objects, and only exists moving from hot to cold.
This is just the barest of basics, but even these simple preliminary distinctions hint at profound differences in the physics and mathematics which explain them. It took scientists upwards of two-hundred years(!) to figure it all out, and once they did it created the industrial and technological revolution which followed in the 20th Century. We really needed to understand the subtleties involved with these concepts before we could start engineering things to produce useful modern technology. It’s kinda a big deal!
Before proceeding with showing you the new diagram, we should review some definitions and descriptions of the concept of heat which I’ve gathered from several textbook sources:
“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects. We say that “heat” flows from a warm radiator into a cold room, from hot water into a cold ice cube, and from the hot Sun to the cool Earth. The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat”.”
– Thermal Physics, Schroeder (2000)
“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 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 this process occurs because the total multiplicity of the combined system thereby increases; hence the total entropy increases also, 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, Schroeder (2000)
“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established. At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.”
– Thermodynamics, Wylen (1960)
“The temperature of a body alone is what determines whether heat will be transferred from it to another body with which it is in contact or vice versa. A large block of ice at 00C has far more internal energy than a cup of hot water; yet when the water is poured on the ice some of the ice melts and the water becomes cooler, which signifies that energy has passed from the water to the ice.
“When the temperature of a body increases, it is customary to say that heat has been added to it; when the temperature decreases, it is customary to say that heat has been removed from it. When no work is done, ΔU = Q, which says that the internal energy change of the body is equal to the heat transferred to it from the surroundings. One definition of heat is:
Heat is energy transferred across the boundary of a system as a result of a temperature difference only.”
– Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics, Carter (2001)
“How and why does heat energy flow? In other words, we need an expression for the dependence of the flow of heat energy on the temperature field. First we summarize certain qualitative properties of heat flow with which we are all familiar:
- If the temperature is constant in a region, no heat energy flows.
- If there are temperature differences, the heat energy flows from the hotter region to the colder region.”
– Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations, Haberman (1998)
If any readers have their own quotations which they’ve found during their own research which delineate similar distinctions as these quotations, please submit them in the comments and I will update the list above. This list can serve as reference source material when the usual need arises to correct climate-alarmist pseudoscientists and others who believe in the non-existent and impossible flat-Earth climate science greenhouse effect. Be sure to remember that radiative heat transfer follows these rules along with the other physical modes of heat transfer (conduction, diffusion, convection).
Given the importance in science and thermodynamics of the distinctions between energy, heat, and temperature, then should we not create a budget of Earth’s energy inputs and outputs in terms consistent with thermodynamics? Or if that sounds too technical, shouldn’t we at least create a model of the Earth which is not flat, and which corresponds with empirical physical reality? And most importantly, shouldn’t the thermodynamic energy budget model abide by the rules of heat transfer such that heat only flows in one direction and where heat is not reversible or recycled as is done in the scientific consensus flat-Earth climate science version?
Thus I present to you Earth’s Thermodynamic Energy Budget:
The current consensus opinion in science is that flat Earth theory can be used to model the Earth and its energy inputs and outputs, where sunlight falls in a vastly-diluted manner over the entire flat Earth surface at once as an input. They believe that such flat Earth theory is a valid “average” of the Earth. Of course, the true average manner in which sunlight enters and interacts with the Earth is as sunlight falling onto only a hemisphere of the globe at any and at all times. That is, the physics and mathematics by which sunlight interacts with and enters the Earth’s system is as sunlight falling onto a hemisphere. Most of us intellectuals know this, but scientists are still catching up to the fact that this has important mathematical and physical consequences.
The potential of solar heating just before sunlight falls onto the Earth, the power of sunlight at Earth’s distance from the Sun, is +1210C! That is very powerful. When this sunlight falls onto the day-side hemisphere, and after accounting for reflective losses, sunlight still has a potential of +880C heating to plus or minus 26 degrees latitude away from the point directly underneath the Sun and in longitudinal rotation towards and away from that point. Over the entire hemisphere sunlight has a potential heating of +300C. This heat from sunlight provides all of the thermodynamic power required to directly create the physical meteorological responses we call weather, and sustains the climate over the long term.
Consider a towering cumulonimbus cloud which is thousands upon thousands of tons of water vapor raised to thirty-thousand feet in altitude above the surface – the power of the Sun did that! It requires high-temperature high-intensity power to do that which can only come from the Sun in the first place. The scientific consensus’ flat Earth theory sunlight of only -400C could never perform this feat…let alone even melting ice into water, or doing much else.
Don’t you think that it is important to understand this about the Sun and sunlight falling on the Earth? Most scientists do not think so, given over as they are to the consensus belief that the Earth can be modeled as flat and thereby that sunlight is no more powerful at heating the Earth than -400C. The Sun creates these meteorological and climatological effects…not the ad-hoc and false “greenhouse effect” which they’ve created for the purpose of attempting to make flat Earth theory appear more valid.
In the top-right of the Thermodynamic Energy Budget diagram we see the derivation and equation of the lapse rate found in the troposphere, i.e. in the part of the atmosphere where climatological and meteorological effects reside and which contains the vast majority of the mass of the atmosphere. This equation, and its empirically-measured value which matches the equation when factored for the presence of water vapor, all by itself demonstrates that the ad-hoc “greenhouse effect” doesn’t exist given that if it did exist then the value of that lapse rate would have to be enhanced.
In the figure below we see a comparison between the Thermodynamic Energy Budget of the Earth and the scientific consensus non-thermodynamic flat Earth theory energy budget of the Earth. There are really important differences between these energy budgets, because one of them represents the Earth and sunlight as they actually empirically physically interact in accordance with thermodynamic theory, and the other one presents an arbitrary ad-hoc mathematical scheme to correct for the errors of flat Earth theory while being based in flat Earth theory. Only the world’s greatest intellectuals are capable of comprehending this comparison and understanding its value and implications. Are you one of the world’s leading intellectuals? You are if you can confidently state that you think that there is an important scientific and mathematical difference between flat Earth theory and round-Earth theory; this would place you well beyond the intellectualism of the scientific consensus and most of academia.
It is going to require immense effort on the part of intellectuals to correct the scientific consensus’ acceptance of flat Earth theory in climate science. We have already witnessed previously that the scientific peer-review process in physics and in meteorology journals will reject scientific papers which attempt to explain, as in this blog post, that the shape of the Earth together with the power of sunlight is an important consideration when mathematically modelling the Earth and understanding the creation and the sustaining of its climate. Only the power of true and the highest standards of intellectualism can detect that there is a problem with climate political science alarm’s flat Earth theory. I know that most of you reading are of such a high caliber of mind; if science disallows us from submitting scientific papers which explain the errors of flat Earth theory, and if media companies and government conspire to prevent the intellectual free-speech of truth on this matter, then, what are we to do?
We will not be ruled over and lorded over and lectured about our intelligence and lifestyle by those who believe in flat Earth theory.
Climate of Sophistry 
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
Via WUWT,
https://troymedia.com/environment/fight-climate-extremists-before-they-upend-society/
The new graphics are very helpful!
Great!
Help spread them around everybody! 🙂
Hi Joe,
Your model looks suspiciously like a tidally locked planet!
I’ll send you the bill. 😉
Your assumption! Due to preference.
I should try to figure out when I first dew this model.
The Moon with no gases at all has a higher so called “blackbody” temperature than Earth calculated in exactly the same way – (1 minus albedo) x solar constant divided by four.
The Moon is subject to exactly the same power of radiation as Earth at top of atmosphere.
The Moon with no gases at all is recorded as having surface temperatures reaching 121°C under the normal solar radiation.
The Moon’s surfaces with no gases at all cools at a spectacularly slow rate by radiation alone and take a fortnight of Earth time to reach the cold temperatures recorded and this is completely analogous with Earth except the Earth’s surfaces cools more rapidly due to conduction and convection of the atmosphere.
The poles get no direct sunlight for months at a time but receive “heat” from ocean and atmospheric circulation as well as “latent heat” from the water cycle.
For anyone with half a brain that should be game over !
Yah actually that is a good point affecting the whole alternative “slowed cooling” argument.
Near-surface temperatures at night actually cool FASTER than the rest of the atmospheric column! Thus, with respect to the entire atmospheric column, cooling near the surface is ENHANCED, not “slowed”.
Posted to Reddit. If you up vote more will see. Also I get internet points.
Ok will come.
(^_^) For Philip M,
how about this:
QUESTION for JP: The “Decreasing Cooling Rate” is for when we look at the flow clockwise, right?
Increasing cooling would be for when we look at the flow counterclockwise, right? Maybe there needs to be an arrow rendition there to clarify. If I understand correctly, … my eye wants to see that as “Increasing Cooling Rate”, as we move from day to night.
That’s just there to indicate that as something cools it cools more and more slowly. Similar to nighttime cooling. Then the latent heat block there indicates that cooling is STOPPED by latent heat release.
Okay, that’s a basic that I’m not too in tune with, I guess.
Maybe it needs discussing?
People always feel that they need to figure out what direction the planet is rotating in that model. I left any indication out purposefully! This is an abstract-empirical-theoretical diagram meant to convey concepts. The cooling sweep at the bottom is sufficient to indicate rotation or at the very least rotation should be assumed(!). But the north and south rotational poles could be anywhere around the terminator… 🙂
Rotation could be parallel with the page…it could also be perpendicular to the page. But it is rotating!
“that’s a basic that I’m not too in tune with”
Radiative emission is of course approximately sigma*T^4. So as T decreases from cooling from emission, the rate of emission sigma*T^4 likewise decreases. Thus, as something cools, it cools more and more slowly. Cooling is asymptotic towards zero in other words.
As obvious as that seems, lots of people probably need hand holding there.
See why the flat-Earth model might have broader appeal? (^_^)
Let’s just forget that the Earth is a sphere, … let’s just forget that the Earth is rotating, … let’s just forget that Earth’s atmosphere goes all the way down to the ground. … let’s just forget that there’s night and day, … don’t think about convection or clouds or all those other pesky details too much, … [la la la la la, happy music, butterflies, puppies, cute little critters, Santa, elves, rainbow unicorns, happy, happy, happy] … this is, after all, a simple model. …. Now let’s tack on some not-so-simple math and pretend that it works for our happy, happy flat-Earth-flat-atmosphere world. Kiddies everywhere can understand this. Kiddies can grow up to be adult children still able to understand this. This is what Miss Dubacher taught us in grade school, and what Dr. BrainSnorf taught us, years later, in college. It’s what the in-tur-net sez.
That’s about it! lol
You should try getting this published in the “GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS”,
https://www.agu.org/Publish-with-AGU/Publish
I’d be curious how they would respond. You might have to re-visit the data and equations, making sure they are properly updated and links to resources that support your findings. I think, and I know little of this process, that the more reference supported data you have the harder it would be to deny the material content.
Such if you refer only to your work they are just denying you but if (for example) you could link your work to Einstein and Feynman, well that’s a bigger denial list to face and puts them in a corner. I strongly suggest more reference and linked support and maybe a little less confrontational speech.
Don’t tell them they are wrong, show them an alternate view point instead.
Oh and Dr. Strong has ceased all contact with me meaning one of 2 things 1.He’s going to avoid any debate. 2. He’s seeing if he can take any kind of legal action.
Don’t discount legal action with these people they would stoop that low to protect the lie, Mann did.
It does baffle me that you can’t find one PhD that supports the Sun warms the Earth. How disconnected do you have to be from real world physics to not get that?
I know right!?
“….the triumph of religious appeal over reasoned argument today is found in the radical environmental movement, whose early roots were in German fascism.”
from: https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/philip-cross-the-anti-fascist-left-were-the-real-fascists-all-along
@CD Marshall That’s of course not what these PhDs really say. What they mean is that global warming as seen in the last 100 years or so has not been caused by the sun due to solar flares, small changes in orbit or magnetic fields, etc. So they regard the solar insolation as a constant factor that has no major impact on recent climate changes. This is of course in contradiction with the climate model based on adiabatic compression of gases by gravity, as assumed by Holmes or Ned Nikolov / Karl Zeller. That’s what the real discussion should be about: the greenhouse theory versus the “adiabatic compression of gases by gravity” theory. Or is there another serious theory going around I have missed?
By the way, this is i.m.o a superb article (from Michael Kowalik?) about this controversy:
https://culturalanalysis.net/2019/01/14/the-zeller-nikolov-climate-controversy/
Weather guys/girls,
I have noticed a distinct and repeating pattern since the Southern Hemisphere Summer of the Ocean tropics (Hadley Cell) rising to a higher temperature for days and then dispersing, cooling off a little and that heat moving North and South warming it up by a sizable portion, maybe 10 degrees or more the water off of Antarctica, East of Greenland and west of North America. I have verified this pattern twice in what seems just mere weeks.
Is this normal?
Thank you, Joe: https://principia-scientific.org/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/
“I have noticed a distinct and repeating pattern”
CDM
The natural climate cycle is 60 years. 30 years of zonal weather patterns associated with system warming, followed by 30 years of meridianal weather patterns associated with system cooling.
The switch from zonal to meridianal was signaled in 2005 by a sudden switch in delta LOD (length of day) giving an advance warning of at least 6 years It has been amusing to watch how long it took for the standard science to catch up. Their computer models were tuned to 30 years of zonal weather, and so when the switch finally became fully established weather forecasting was clearly off target for a while until their systems analysis became entrained to the new global pattern.
Meridianal weather in the Ferrel cell produces more warm air and cold air plunges with greater system boundary temperature contrasts with the Polar cell, and more violent cold cored cyclones in winter..
“Or is there another serious theory going around I have missed?”
Fransgnl, the most credible theory is called “Natural Variability”. That theory says the climate is exactly as it should be. And, that is also the result from the relevant physics and Occam’s Razor.
But reality is boring and doesn’t trigger massive funding from braindead politicians.
@fransgnl
I get the impression from your comment there that you might be referring more to subtle variations in solar power. This is NOT what JP is really referring to. It’s really more basic than that, namely acknowledging that the sun is the major driver, EVEN AT SOLAR CONSTANT VALUE.
Greenhouse theory, thus, is the very doctrine that appears to discount this most basic fact, because it places the power of the atmosphere to control the climate ABOVE the power of the sun to control the climate.
JP,
Thanks for the cooling explanation.
What I was focusing on was the fact that as the warmer-air side of Earth rotates past the terminator into the darker side, cooling begins to happen, as a function of the rotation in the dark and in proportion to time spent in the dark. More time spent in the dark means more cooling. Even at a slowed-down rate of cooling, there is still more cooling overall, as we rotate further into the dark.
So, there’s the slowing of cooling, at each slice of a rotation, while there is increased cooling overall, because of the time spent, in TOTAL, cooling at all rates.
Does that make any sense?
Yes of course. Any time in the dark is cooling. But the cooling as a function of time in the dark is an assymptotically decreasing function.
Guys we’ve been wrong all along! Energy/heat can be recycled! Lololol
Is this guy an idiot or lying? Jfc.
Good lord…he’s telling YOU that -18C as an input doesn’t make sense…and says that the input is way more intense…as if this is NOT your point!!?? haha
Yes, it is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which lets you transform flux into temperature forcing.
Give him the quotes in the OP about heat, especially the one which says that heat flow is irreversible.
He’s either extremely obtuse, or purposefully conflating and distorting your position and attempting to re-project and mix up your position with that of alarmists, etc etc etc. His comments are insane!
Well this is different. Check out this ridiculous water analogy.
You’re purely looking at the all energy in the system as an instantaneous event. The atmosphere is storing energy that radiates from the earth and re-radiates some of it down at a later time.
Imagine you’re in a large pool of water with a waterfall. A constant stream of water that adds, say, 240L/m2. Some of that water evaporates and comes back down as rain, which adds 120L/m2 of water to the pool, and 120L/m2 evaporates out to space.
All the water in the system came from the waterfall, but when it rains there’s 360L/m2, which is more water than the waterfall is providing at any one instant in time. The water was recycled through the system and re-entered the pool.
This is exactly the same thing that’s happening with the energy in this model. The sun itself is only providing a given amount of energy at any one time, but energy that was added in the past that was radiated out returns later on.
My response
Why are you talking about water?
Your analogy isnt even right in being analogous to energy. Cold doesn’t add to hot my guy!
People feel so free to just make up bare bullshit. How does he know that this is how thermodynamics works? Everything he says directly contradicts those definitions about heat. You cannot analogize matter, which is fermionic, where particles take up their own space no matter what, with photons/energy/heat which is bosonic, where particles *do not* take up their own space.
The amazing thing about this difference is that, unlike where half water would add back to fill in the pool, in the case with energy, if water was like energy/photons/heat, the water would just mix right in with the existing water and not add to it or push it around, etc.
Make fun of the person for having no grasp of thermodynamics. You see that they’re just trying to drag you away with side-distractions from the main point: the GHE diagram says that the atmosphere provides twice the energy than the Sun, and the Sun cannot create the climate, and the Earth is flat with no day and night, and since the Sun cannot create the climate or heat the Earth, then the greenhouse effect does it instead.
^Yes…good response!
Really good analogy boomie that pretty much sums it up,I guess at some point you would be able to redirect the waterfall and pump the extra rainfall out to keep the pool from over flowing. We should probably look at trying to run water up instead of down as this may get away from having to pump. Have a great day.
Exactly. There is no such process as siphoning off half of the heat in order to add it back to the heat source (surface in this case). They tried to do this…and developed thermodynamics theory as a result! lol That is…where the theory from empirical measurement is that such a thing is impossible…violating 2nd Law etc etc etc.
You would wonder how the energy knows when a good time to return to earth would be, I guess at a later point say like maybe closer to spring. That must be why it warms up in the summer
Nice to see the additions/updates. Especially the gravimetric element which explains the so called “deficit” the warmist crowd use as part of the excuse for the silly back-radiation conjecture.
One other argument to throw at the naysayers and greenhouse conjecture worshipers is as follows:
“If you can demonstrate heat flowing from cooler to warmer empirically, I can then make you a perpetual motion machine!”
Exactly! Just engineer it please for us and then I will absolutely believe that it might be possible for the climate too…notwithstanding that we first need to understand that the SUN drives the weather with high-intensity input in the first place…THEN we can figure out if there is still need for a perpetual motion mechanism.
Of course…they cannot demonstrate anything other than their own ability to BS.
But the cooling as a function of time in the dark is an assymptotically decreasing function.
Yes, of course, I see that now better too.
I guess I’m thinking about the entire half of the sphere in the dark, where, even though the cooling rate decreases, the overall accumulation of cooling (if that even is a correct way to say it) is more on the dark side than on the light side of the sphere.
It’s sort of confusing, because more total cooling happens on the dark side than on the light side, which I would think makes the “slowed cooling” claim of greenhouse fans somehow not as strong, because the amount of overall “slowed cooling” on the day side would seem to be easily cancelled by the amount of overall increased cooling on the night side.
There are two different uses of “slowed cooling” seemingly going on here: (1) the latest greenhouse-theory version, and (2) the physics version you are talking about.
The night side cools faster than the day side, but just slowly enough to maintain enough warmth, so when the sun comes back onto it, there is no greater rate of heating than before.
The day side heats faster than the night side, but not so fast that life would be impossible, because the rate of cooling there is still fast enough, given what happens on the night side to balance it all out.
There’s probably a way, using calculus, to show that the amount of “slowed cooling” (ala greenhouse lingo) on the day side is easily overcome by the amount of cooling on the night side, but I don’t have that level of math skill to craft that.
From PennState: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/l2_p5.html
“…downwelling solar radiation at Penn State University on March 11, 2012. At its peak on this date (between 17Z and 18Z), downwelling solar radiation was almost 800 Watts per square meter, so it’s as if eight 100-Watt light bulbs were shining on each square meter of the earth.”
Would eight light bulbs give me a suntan?
––––
“Did you know that the amount of infrared radiation the earth receives from the atmosphere over a 24-hour period is, on average, comparable to (if not greater than) the incoming solar radiation during the day? Pretty amazing!”
Sure is!
–––––
“Notice that the downwelling IR radiation is, on average, around 250 Watts per square meter and doesn’t change much throughout the day. To understand where this radiation comes from, remember that all matter emits radiation at all wavelengths at all times (Planck’s Law). In addition, the atmosphere is a fairly efficient absorber of IR radiation due to atmospheric gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide. In turn, these gases emit IR radiation as well as they absorb it (Kirchoff’s Law), and thus, some of this emitted radiation makes it down to the surface. If I add up the total contribution to the downwelling IR radiation, I get a value of approximately 6,000 Watt-hours per square meter for a whole 24-hour period. Likewise, if I add up the total solar contribution, the value comes out to be around 6,100 Watt-hours per meter squared. Pretty surprising, eh?
I smell a rat!
––––
“think of clouds as “space heaters,”
“the downwelling IR component increases from a low of 250 Watts per square meter in clear sky (around sunrise) to nearly 400 Watts per square meter (later in the day, after 20Z). It turns out that these were pretty warm clouds,”
Definitely toasty!
Of course the “average” of a parameter cannot always be used to describe it’s operation. For example an internal combustion engine, gasoline – if you used the average cylinder pressure as a design criteria – the first time it fires, it will explode – because the peak pressure is an order of magnitude or more higher….
Etc. etc for all manner of real world engineering examples.
Oh my lord they have just invented an entirely new physics via neglect of thermodynamic theory. They have it all worked out…ignoring thermodynamics along the entire way. You can add 100W bulbs and get the same result as source emitting 800W.
Yah that’s right…just use the average fuel consumption…not the max! Same results right!?
Of course in the American Meteorological Soc. diagram above there is —
Absorbed by the Atmosphere=67
Thermals=24
these energy flow just go to ????
Having my coffee this am watching the thermometer at daylight. As daytime heating starts even before light is seen in the east the temp starts to drop quite drastically this am about 2 C in an hour. Even with the sun at a very weak time in its journey across the sky it has enough energy to create convection miles away from where it is actually striking the earth. That’s quite amazing for -18.
@Barry
You could let the water fall down a 1ft drop, then reuse it’s own energy to climb a 2ft incline.
Why hasn’t anyone one tried this lol.
Stupid Roman’s and their aqueducts.
Boomie that’s how I now pump my well water, I had to put a pump into start with to get it going then I realized if just turned the garden hose back down the well that I could use the extra energy to feed water to the house. Interesting though every time the pressure tank runs down you have to start the pump again. I’ll let you know when I’ve worked out that little kink.
Modern Climate “scientists” are half educated cultists.
CO2 represents 400 molecules in one million molecules of ordinary air and Methane represents less than 2.
CO2 is stable, nonreactive, does not burn nor support combustion. The proportion of the emission spectrum from ambient temperatures absorbed by both CO2 and Methane is trivial – they allow more than 90% of wavelengths to pass with zero impact at all.
But the most telling fact that shows just how ignorant these CO2 obsessed delusional cultists are is the fact that CO2 is plant food.
Now everyone supposedly know that but they fail to consider that CO2 is so stable and non reactive that even the power of the solar radiation alone is insufficient to allow plants to break it up and create useful carbon products like sugars and cellulose.
This requires enormous energy input and the use of Chlorophyll – a catalyst which allows for the initial breakup of the CO2 molecule – without it even the Sun’s enormous power cannot break up CO2 molecules.
Anyone who believes CO2 could ever control climate is simply stupid beyond belief.
@Barry
Don’t forget us after you become a trillionair and win a Nobel Prize.
O/T vid link, but the end statement is important:
“The people that run the system will not and can not be punished or be held to account by a system that they control.”
That’s precisely what we face. And all the other academics are in on it and get in on it, not because they understand what they’re supporting (flat Earth theory), but simply because ANY challenge, at all, whatsoever, to their hegemony, to their power, to their social status, cannot be tolerated.
Haha
99% (by mass) of the atmosphere relies ENTIRELY on 0.06 (by mass) of the atmosphere to cool it to space.
… and I just saw Big Foot stroll by my window [He says, “Hi” — I assume that’s what the grunt meant].
Why is this not more openly controversial?
Joseph, that is exactly the problem two days ago the premier of Alberta stated that they have to move away from oil and gas and embrace the new energy (what ever that is). This coming from a province that has made its living developing its fossil fuels. But of coarse it is politically expedient now days to just get on board with the scam and forget about real science. We will soon return to the dark ages and the people responsible for it will just carry on with the next scam leaving the public to pick up the pieces.
Some say that humans can only survive by believing in lies and being lied to.
Only 5% or less of us actually wish to function via critical thinking. For the rest…any old lying BS is far preferable to mental engagement.
What is amazing is that this 95% ratio falls over most of academia…and the 5% who wish to live via critical thinking engagement are mostly outside of academia.
That’s another 95%/5% ratio…where only about 5% of people in academia care about critical thinking engagement. Given that it is the same ratio as the general public, then it means that there is no real difference in critical thinking engagement inside of academia vs. outside. And that tells us about the actual requirement to become an academic: NO extra critical thinking required!
Of course academia is structured that way: you get high grades and scholarships by remembering things, not thinking about them. I remember during undergrad some students who were said to have eidetic memories and ACED everything…but they didn’t have any particular passion for physics and astronomy like I did at all, the field meant nothing greater to them…getting good grades was simply something that they were always rewarded for, and getting high grades in the hardest courses most of all. But simply by remembering things.
It is amazing, but we do not actually test for critical thinking engagement…we test AND train for memory recall ability. Having a high memory-recall ability is thus a form of Dunning-Kruger effect…where people get into high positions in academia and science due to memory recall ability but without actually having any improved critical thinking engagement over the general populace. In fact it makes academics stupider because now they really believe themselves and others like them to be smart…when they are in fact dull, unoriginal, quite average, disengaged with real critical thinking, etc. Maybe that explains why they can’t hold a rational argument on topic…and come up with these cockamamie alternative explanations off the top of their heads which have nothing to do with the reference subject matter. They’re so disengaged from critical thinking that you can slip flat Earth theory right passed their faces, and they’ll accept it, because they were trained not to critically think but only to remember and repeat. It has literally become impossible for them to critically understand and engage with trivial subject matter. It doesn’t matter that the subject matter is rationally and cognitively trivial…what matters is that the subject matter is not something they’ve ever had to remember before, and hence they can’t figure out what words to use when engaging on it, and so they just say all sorts of insane things that have no connection and make no critical sense at all, entirely missing the most trivial of points.
That’s horrific Barry.
We…people like us, who are mentally engaged…we live in the Twilight Zone or something!
We should have narrators in the morning when we wake: “Here is the case of Joe, who wakes up every morning to find that he’s entered the TWILIGHT ZONE where academia believes in flat Earth theory.”
Decades ago it was said that universities were there to give people an education and provoke thought,it now seems that it is simply a memory coarse. These academics have gotten so caught up in their own beliefs that they not only don’t encourage differing thoughts but actually condemn them. It’s a hard way to get an education.
Amazing how philosophy and science use to be in concert and now have spread so far away from each other. Ancient Greece would be so disappointed in academia today. Challenging the core beliefs is now agaisnt the laws. Universities of higher learning have now become indoctrination facilities for State Law.
I know a little philosophy
Moral Absolutism- Right and wrong have been the same everywhere for all time. Everyone Has the same inalienable rights. A man cannot take, or give you your rights, he is a child of god just like you. Propagated by largely Christianity/Monotheism.
Moral Relativism- What is right for me, is whats right. What is wrong for me, is wrong. That will be different than every other man. Conceding that men are the taker and giver of rights. That what is right and wrong can change from place to place, person to person, time to time. Nihilistic/satanic.
I’d say only about 1/3 of USA/CA is Moral Absolutist anymore, and declining.
Human rights and morals are formed through reason and logic.
A prosperous society cannot form until enough men are granted autonomy. When they agree to fair competition.
For instance a society based on slave labor can never be as rich, educated, and safe as the modern west. The reason the south lagged behind the north was slave labor.
If we do not respect our rights to life, liberty and property you will fall into degeneracy and eventually devolve back into beast. Hunter and gathers at best.
High functioning society’s require trust, morals, and principles.
So the reason we have all these nice things, knowledge, and security. Is because we discovered morals through intelligence and rationality. They have come closer to the mind of God. Some countries more than others.
@Philip Mulholland,
Thank you Phillip, I don’t recall ever hearing of this before. If you take a latitude strip in the center of the Southern Atlantic skipping below 0 polar temperatures, the average comes out to around 15C even though the middle is 27C.
More interesting to me is that NW Australia and the ocean off its coast is the hottest spot on the planet.
Joseph, Great stuff. How does the Nikolov & Zeller model fit into your new energy balance picture? What is the adiabatic contribution to the surface temperature? Do you agree that that the thermal effect of the atmosphere is adiabatic and relative to the solar input?
My diagram and the reference to the adiabatic gradient falls entirely in line with N&Z. I entirely endorse their work. It’s 100% compatible with my own.
I’m more interested in pointing out the fundamental logical, theoretical, philosophical, scientific and empirical fraud of the climate GHE and its basis, while generally pointing to the adiabatic gradient and that it explains everything the alarmists are confused about. N&Z have fully developed the analysis and consequences of it.
‘Thank you.
Forgive me if you have addressed this elsewhere, but what about this 3rd pathetic explanation for the GHE we hear that GHGs work by raising the effective radiating level to a higher colder point in the atmosphere?
Well of course firstly the fact that they change the entire mechanism and its explanation to 100% different concepts and physics tells us that there is in fact NO mechanism at all, and they’re just lying and changing reference frames as needed. Secondly, Richard Lindzen found that there is no warming signature or “tropospheric hotspot” that would have to be observed if this mechanism were true.
Thirdly, never forget that they’re in this position in the first place of having to create some mechanism and some explanation because they think that the earth is flat, and sunshine is cold.
Relevant…watch it all:
As she says, we are being traumatized and suffering psychological damage from watching this bullying and being forced to accept inverted justice. Being forced to believe that the sun can’t heat the earth but the atmosphere is what actually does it, etc. Etc. Etc.
That is a really good video, subscribed.
A little white pill after watching, it’s nothing new. Their techniques are ancient, instinctual.
We’ve been dealing with this problem since the dawn of civilization.
Be a shame to evolve this far to lie our self’s back into feudalism.
boomie789
The reason the south lagged behind the north was slave labor.
I’m not sure that this is entirely true. Not to defend slave labor by any means, I get the impression that the South was more agricultural than the North, because of the favorable climate. Hence, the North advanced faster in the manufacturing realm. Also, the population density of the North was far greater than the South, which probably influenced how many people were doing what.
@DogFace … (^_^) [I have a young, crazy German shepherd]
You might find the following of interest:
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-effective-radiating-level-erl-is.html
@Robert
During slavery northern buisness men went south to investigate southern buisness.
They concluded that slavery is inherently inefficient and less profitable than just paying the lowest wage you can.
It stagnates innovation. Since the ruling class own slaves, automation devalues their slaves. Your value is how many slaves you own
EK: “A person with great passion may not have eidetic memory but if they have persistence with imagination at the helm, well they will pursue with vigilance because in truth they strive forward not because it is comfortable but rather it is worthy of pursuance. Like a ship’s captain, they keep their eyes on the treasure yet to be discovered, all the while keeping their wits about them as they fight all adversities.”
JP: Beautiful! That was me, indeed. I was impassioned with astronomy and the majesty of our universe.
Now, today, I can see things that the eidetic memory people cannot: flat Earth theory at the basis of climate alarm, for example!
It’s getting serious folks…
There ya go.
But they don’t actually want to solve any real problems such as predatory capitalism…they want to destroy the social capitalism which has raised us all up, so that they THEY can then predate even more and stop us from saying anything against it.
They’re just predators…that’s all these people are. Well…predators actually improve their prey. Thus, these people are actually merely parasites. Parasites with a big appetite.
Well said Joseph, more and more our bureaucracies just turn into societal leaches,basically just feeding off the taxpayer and adding no real value. Anytime you ask anything from any of them they have an excuse ready for why they can’t help,usually no funds available for anything public. However seems to be no end of money for little pet projects pensions and ridiculous wages.
All part of the climate fear agenda,don’t question us just send your money and we will save you with wind power or some other ridiculous program.
What a dishonest troll this Sven is, after giving him textbook proof of the difference between heat,temperature and energy he says this…
“sorry, but you are mixing up heat, energy, temperature and photons. Every energy transfer causes a temperature change. Heat transfer is the result of an energy transfer but not the same. Photons have a certain amount of energy but this energy can simply add up to other sources of energy.”
They are unrepentant consummate liars and sophists and con artists. That comment is projection + sophistry.
CD, that appears to be the standard ending reply. When you have provided the most minute detail of explanation, they tell you that you are confused, or you do not understand the basics, or you lack sufficient intelligence to grasp the truth.
In other words, they project their own deficiencies onto you, as a final inversion of reality.
Sometimes they even pretend to be “sorry” that you are so confused, even when their assumption about your supposed “confusion” has been disproved by everything you laid out for them, and their arrogant irrationality blinds them to all but their own self importance.
You do your best, but all you can do in the end, when you encounter a stone-cold idiot, is just walk away.
He just spins relentlessly. If you do trap him like all honest trolls, he stops responding. Which I have trapped him and seems to forget I have trapped him several times that made him stop responding.
A month later he comes back like it never happened. My favorite trolls are the ones who come back and say, “didn’t I destroy you last time and you’re back for more?” Well knowing it was the other way around or they just stopped commenting. More than not YT doesn’t give me notifications of responses a convenient way for the troll to claim “You ran away.”
Found this on Hanlon’s razor at: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
“I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent – their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy – they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent – he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.”
Now this is interesting…found this on the NOAA website
“Imagine our weather if Earth were completely motionless, had a flat dry landscape and an untilted axis. This of course is not the case; if it were, the weather would be very different. The local weather that impacts our daily lives results from large global patterns in the atmosphere caused by the interactions of solar radiation, Earth’s large ocean, diverse landscapes, and motion in space.”
It goes on to explain that ‘the sun is hot and creates the weather’
But on the same website on a page titled ‘Basics of the Carbon Cycle and the Greenhouse Effect’
is the usual crapola of the sun being too cool etc etc. To give them some credit for responding to criticism from you lot, their graphic is now a curved earth not flat! Still doesn’t rotate mind you but hey…baby steps.
Talking of which….https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/02/13/delingpole-sorry-gove-but-americans-just-dont-believe-in-the-climate-change-fairy/
Amazing Rick. They don’t seem to realize the blatant contradiction they’ve set up.
Sven has replied again to me, each comment is crazier than the last. This one is so jumbled I can hardly make sense of it. Either he is an idiot or quite the spinster.
“Sorry but what do you really mean that a photon “cannot emit above its spectrum”.
A photon has a certain energy. The energy aka wavelength is bound to the temperature of the emitting molecule. So when some molecule with a temperature of 1000°K absorbs a photon from a 1°K molecule it will have a resulting temperature of 1001°K (exagerated the energy of the photon of cause). So this molecule will now emit with 1001°K.
This is the molecular/atomic level statistically the 1000°K object will transfer more energy to the 1°K object and cool down. Temperature of an object is a statistical value not a fixed temperature for each atom/molecule.”
If that clown is trying to claim that a photon from a 1 K object can raise the temperature of a 1000 K object to 1001 K, then he is a member of the “bake a turkey with ice cubes” tribe.
I think Spencer is one of the chiefs in that tribe….
CD,
He is an idiot spinster — the best (worst) of both worlds.
This is probably a stupid question but bear in mind where it comes from. Hoping someone can give me some guidance. I understand the energy in,energy out but having trouble getting my head around the work that the sun does on earth is this energy used up in growing plants,etc or is it simply converted into a different form of energy then emitted out again. If someone bothers try to keep it simple,remember the source
Thanks Barry
@CD…yep, that’s what you get when you allow yourself to entirely ignore thermodynamics…which we will recall is precisely what that one reviewer asked me to do: “put all this in terms of energy, not heat.”!! You mean, in terms outside of thermodynamics then!? lol
BTW look at these comments from the PSI link of this post: https://principia-scientific.org/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/
First there’s this Rosie who is probably Zoe…taking pot shots without actually saying what her concern is…AS IF “she” actually has anything to be concerned about. But then this one from Spooner, which I’ll cover in sections:
Spooner: “You belabor the semantics of words written in antiquity and confuse real-time system dynamics with the time-averaged accountancy of thermodynamics.”
Actually…we STILL use the terms heat, energy, and temperature. Although I know that this realization must really upset them. And what is reality? Is reality experienced real-time, or is reality experienced as an average? And finally, semantics: “Semantics is the linguistic and philosophical study of meaning in language, programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics. It is concerned with the relationship between signifiers—like words, phrases, signs, and symbols—and what they stand for in reality” Yes…just as they wish to stop using the “antiquated words” of heat, energy, and temperature, they wish to also not be concerned with the semantic of their use and meaning.
Guys…we are dealing with such obvious frauds. This is on purpose.
Spooner: “It’s true that a cold object cannot add more energy on balance to a warmer object, but not true to suggest energy is not moving in all directions all the time.”
Did I ever state such a thing. We all know this: the heat flow equation shows energy moving in all direction…but the action of raising a temperature can only occur in the single direction net flow from hot to cold. This is of course why these frauds always try to sophize with alternative definitions or semantics of “net”. Again…they’re doing this on purpose. They’re sophizing on purpose.
Spooner: “The steady-state of any system is a balance of dynamic energy potentials. To not think so is insanity.”
And I did not state anything against such a thing. In fact, the steady state is when dU = Q + W = 0.
Spooner: “Thermodynamics is the time-averaged accountancy not the dynamic (real-time) mechanisms.”
This is the best sentence of all! No…I do not see the term “dynamic” in thermodynamics…do you? Let’s see…the First Law again: dU = Q + W. dU is a change in time, Q (heat) is something that happens dynamically, and W (work) is certainly dynamic. In fact…it appears that thermodynamics is ALL ABOUT dynamic processes! We say Denis Rancourt with Stephen Wells attempt this argument…that thermodynamics cannot be used for dynamic systems or analysis, but only steady-state system. Rancourt is a physicist. Why would he, and they, come up with this silly argument? Because they’re FN doing it on purpose!
Spooner: “Radiative heat transfer between surfaces depends on the orientation of the surfaces relative to each other as well as their radiative properties and temperatures.”
That’s true.
Spooner: “It is constant and in all directions from all objects > 0K.”
That’s not true in regards to *heat* which is what he had been talking about in the previous sentence. Again, they really hate the semantics, the distinction between energy and heat, don’t they!
Spooner: “To suggest otherwise is to imply energy from cooler objects is annihilated in certain directions, ”
Nope…that’s only a silly idea they invent for sophistry.
Spooner: “when the net heat flow is merely the Occam’s razor of (a -b).”
Here’s the inverse-reverse projection now, entirely inconsistent with the first part of his sentence. Yes, indeed, heat is the result of (a – b), but this doesn’t mean their either a or b is “annihilated”. Of course they’ve inserted that term “net” here, which is redundant, etc.
Basically their argument with the “net” sophistry is: Both a and b are heat, and also a – b is heat. I guess I’ve never thought to couch their “net” argument in this way…because it has always been such sophistry because anyone who understands the term “net” understands that it means only the left-over. But they have this ridiculous “net” argument reinterpretation where they say “heat flows in all directions and all energy is heat, but the net flow of heat is (a – b)”. So again, they say: both a and b are heat, and also a minus b is heat. NOPE!
Spooner: “This is how the equations for radiative heat transfer are derived, and why they work. No need to invoke voodoo.”
Sophist scum.
“the work that the sun does on earth is this energy used up in growing plants,etc or is it simply converted into a different form of energy then emitted out again”
Heat and work are very similar, but I think that we would mostly consider solar energy to perform heating, which then creates weather and sustains the climate. For sure though, some energy is used for growing plants.
Either way, it all eventually comes back out again as waste heat at a much lower level of intensity. Even though plants take some energy up in work and negentropy, given a constant level of plant/animal growth and decay then the energy comes back out of life too, again at a much lower level of intensity.
Just as some solar energy is “held” in the weather and the climate, there is existing weather and climate which is dissipating energy previously gathered from the Sun, and so it is with life.
Thanks Joseph that is pretty much the way I understood it but didn’t want to confuse the issue for others. I’m still learning.
Spooner: “Thermodynamics is the time-averaged accountancy not the dynamic (real-time) mechanisms.”
“Accountancy” of what ?
Isn’t the “what” of “accountancy” under consideration … “energy”?
Flux is NOT subject to Spooner’s “time-averaged accountancy”, because flux is NOT conserved. Rather, ENERGY is !
If you don’t believe me, then let’s do some “time-averaged accounting” on the color blue:
A spherical rubber ball is the color blue. Half the rubber ball is half blue.
So, the blue of the blue rubber ball = 0.5Blue + 0.5Blue = Blue
When a light shines on the blue ball, half of it is light blue and half is dark blue. So, on AVERAGE, when a light shines on the blue ball, the color of the ball is (light blue + dark blue)/2.
What color is the illuminated ball, then? The “time-averaged accountancy” answer is … (light blue + dark blue)/2.
And let’s talk about the phrase, “time-averaged accountancy”. Oh, man! — that is such pseudo-confabulated pretentiousness.
From 18.20 to 20.23,
“..like a tree after a strangling fig has eaten around it..”
Here is my reply to Spoontastic over at PSI:
John Spooner wrote:
[“You belabor the semantics of words written in antiquity and confuse real-time system dynamics with the time-averaged accountancy of thermodynamics.”]
Most words were written in antiquity, John. Which words are you referring to here? I can only guess that you mean the words, “heat” and “energy”.
These words, like all words, evolved from their antique meanings to their mature meanings. The fact that words originate in antiquity, therefore, does NOT negate how they evolved in modern times to mean what they mean today. Your implication, then, that word-origin date debases current-usage validity is unfounded.
The word, “heat”, so I understand, evolved from an antique meaning of a sort of fluid stuff that flowed from place to place. Postma certainly does NOT endorse this antique meaning. So, what are you talking about? “Heat” has a clear meaning in the evolved science of thermodynamics. This is the meaning that Postma encourages us to use. Correct word usage is the goal of clear communication. Are you complaining about clear communication, John?
There is nothing “belabored” in the act of encouraging correct use of words with clearly defined meanings, to foster clear communication. Science is the one place where this should have the highest priority.
Your claim about confusing real-time system dynamics with time-averaged accountancy of thermodynamics introduces a concept that I have never heard of. Where, in thermodynamics, is the phrase, “time-averaged accountancy” ever used? I’m guessing nowhere. Ever. That’s a phrase that you invented for a method that does not even exist, so that you could compare what thermodynamics actually is with some make-believe thing that you want it to be, providing you with a fake basis where you could make your claim that somebody is confused, because they do not share your fictional, non-existent “time-averaged accountancy” method.
There’s no such thing, John. Simple as that. You are just making up the phrase to have words to play with to fool yourself and others into believing that you know what you are talking about, which you have NOT convinced me that you do.
That one comment alone was enough for me.
So thermoDYNAMICS is not dynamic then?
Overheard: An argument between an alarmist and Mother Nature.
“So you think you can prevent my regeneration by stopping controlled burns do you? And you believe you can build your towns and cities on the banks of my rivers and remain forever dry? Well boy have I got news for you! And what’s this bullshit about CO2 raising the temperature? What excuse are you going to give when I go into my next cooling cycle? You people are UNBELIEVABLE!”
She then turned on her heels and stormed out muttering to herself, “Bah, Earthlings….arrogant FN morons.”
QUICK THOUGHT: Radiative greenhouse “theory” uses thermostatics.
If I’m shining 1370w/m^2(121C) on a blacktop, then another source shines 240w/m^2(-18) on the same spot, what will the temperature be? (surface?)
If I presented this question to an alarmist they would think the temperature increases?
What about instead of 240w/m^2, it’s 1000w/m^2?
CDM @ 2020/02/11 at 5:54 PM
This book is a good source for information about the forecast techniques developed by Russian Meteorology.
Klyashtorin, L.B. and Lyubushin, A.A., 2007. Cyclic climate changes and fish productivity. Moscow: VNIRO publishing.
#Page 10
#Page 11
It is probably no accident that the Russian climate model is closest to the the observed natural climate response.
boomie, “Cold” can NOT raise the temperature of “hot”.
So an object at equilibrium absorbing 1370 W/m^2 will not then absorb 1000 W/m^2 from another source. Not all photons are always absorbed.
That’s why you can’t raise the temperature of your room with blocks of ice. A block of ice is emitting 300 W/m^2. Warmist clowns believe 10 such blocks of ice would be emitting 3000 W/m^2, because they believe flux simply adds. (They must believe that to believe the false religion of GHE.)
@Geran
Right, thank you.
I’m imagining cold and in my mind’s eye it seems like it might bring the temp down.
You are a savage in those comments Postma linked.
“I’m imagining cold and in my mind’s eye it seems like it might bring the temp down.”
I agree. If low energy photons could be absorbed by a surface with average higher molecular vibration frequency then we would expect a lowering of temperature. That parallels with conduction, where a colder object next to a hot object results in a lower temperature of the hot object.
“You are a savage in those comments Postma linked.”
I tend to oppose pseudoscience, sometimes with the necessary clarity…..
“So an object at equilibrium absorbing 1370 W/m^2 will not then absorb 1000 W/m^2 from another source.”
Absolutely wrong !
At this link – https://principia-scientific.org/publications/Ross-GHE-Experiment.pdf – I detail an actual experiment I conducted many years ago where I used 2 identical “spotlights” to heat a thermometer and measured temperature, time, ambient temperature and carried out numerous calculations.
Though the spotlights were of equal power – 150 W – I placed them at different distances to the thermometer so that the effect was that each was delivering different power fluxes to the thermometer which could be estimated by the inverse square law.
One spotlight could only heat the thermometer to 30°C and the other, being significantly closer, heated it to 37°C.
It made no difference which one I turned on first and allowed for an approximate equilibrium – the temperature always rose to 48°C when both were turned on.
People always make the mistake outlined in the statement above – what matters is the temperature of the object being irradiated, its specific heat capacity and the NATURE of the radiation incident upon it.
Visible light has completely different spectral properties and thermal capacities to IR.
Rosco, I had not seen your experiment before. It looks very interesting. I’m not sure it makes what I said wrong, but to be fair I will study your experiment in detail. I should have time this weekend.
To fight the IPCC let me help you finally understand why an ice cube-driven flamethrower isn’t possible.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-discussions-of-thermal-infrared-radiation-confusing/answer/TL-Winslow
The question in climate isn’t if you add more energy to the climate will it warm up of coarse it will in the experiment you have simply turned up the burner on the stove from 150 watts to 300 watts the problem in the climate debate is that the agw cult want to use one heat lamp and then add an ice cube on the other side of the thermometer. And no the thermometer will not get warmer.
Thanks Phillip, downloaded it. Wouldn’t happen to know anything about extreme storm waves off the top of your head would you?
The explanation for it seems a little vague. How does a 60-100 foot wave suddenly collapse with no energy? That goes agaisnt everything I have so far understood about how energy works unless that energy is somehow going below the water’s surface.
Anyway, thank you for the link.
Rosco,
A simple question, what was the actual temperature of each lamp? This will impact my analysis on the rest of this subject. Unless of course I am missing the point of the subject which happens more than naught.
From NASA: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page2.php
..”the average intensity of solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere directly facing the Sun is about 1,360 watts per square meter,…”
“The progressive decrease in the angle of solar illumination with increasing latitude reduces the average solar irradiance by ……… one-half.”
I removed “an additional” from the last sentence to clarify the “one-half” bit.
Equals 680 watts per sqm. which is the real power.
But they slipped this in first…
“Only half the Earth is ever lit by the Sun at one time, which halves the total solar irradiance.’
So that they can then say…
“Averaged over the entire planet, the amount of sunlight arriving at the top of Earth’s atmosphere is only one-fourth of the total solar irradiance, or approximately 340 watts per square meter.”
Which is not the real power.
I didn’t note the wording “at equilibrium” in geran’s’ statement.
Thus the statement could be correct if the temperature of the object exceeds the temperature the other radiation can induce.
My experiment cannot measure the incident radiation but the emitted radiation and relies on temperatures measured.
The temperature of the object should not exceed the maximum temperature of the hottest lamp, is why I’m curious.
“Equals 680 watts per sqm. which is the real power.”
Pablo, for some reason they did not mention albedo. So the “680” should be 480, as in Postma’s model. This issue is becoming more and more interesting. If the clowns try to deny 480, they must then deny their own model which uses 240!
Rosco, thank’s for the correction. I’m slugging through your experiment. Did you realize the Washington U. link (in Section 1) no longer works? I wonder if your paper had any effect? You’ve inspired me to do some experimenting this weekend.
So more from my pet troll…
“Show me the physical law where absorption depends on temperature. You are claiming that this is relevant so there must be a corresponding physical law which I don’t know.”
He is referring to photons of course. Not sure what his point is anymore he jumps from one to the other like a frog on Leap Year.
Note how they don’t use the correct terms either, which benefits their creation of confusion. The concern in thermodynamic language is over heat transfer due to temperature difference. The physical law, they would ignore of course, are the mathematical definitions of the heat equation.
CD, adding to JP’s reference to thermodynamics, photon absorption is covered extensively in quantum physics. The applicable “physical law” is that the wavelength of the photon must match the wavelength of the molecule/atom, to be absorbed. One material may be a good absorber for certain wavelengths, and a poor absorber for other wavelengths. The types of molecules and atoms are a factor. The surface temperature can change everything. Even the angle of incidence becomes a factor at low angles.
The clowns want to believe that “all photons are always absorbed”, although they won’t always admit that. But, I have seen some even claim that photons from Earth can warm the Sun! They want to believe “all photons are always absorbed” because that makes it easier to perpetrate the GHE hoax.
The longer the wavelength, the harder it is to be absorbed. Not all photons are always absorbed, as can be demonstrated by turning on a light in a dark room. The objects you then see are reflecting, i.e., NOT absorbing, photons.
Probably you’ve seen this Joseph but other may not have —
From https://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html —
At the end of the piece they do genuflect to the CO2 gods though because the last 40-50 years or so have been so hot globally without any obvious solar effect (don’t mentions oceans heating up or other causes of natural climatic variability).
Darn it! I forgot the title on the piece above —
Sun’s Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms
Rosco, if you are in the house,
I’m looking at boomie789’s set up again:
If I’m shining 1370w/m^2(121C) on a blacktop, then another source shines 240w/m^2(-18) on the same spot, what will the temperature be? (surface?)
When I first saw it, questions that occurred to me were:
* What is the blacktop made of?
* What is the temperature of the blacktop?
* How long is each source shining on the blacktop?
Next — and tell me if I’m wrong here — I thought:
* The 1370 W/m^2 source is radiating energy towards the blacktop.
* The 240 W/m^2 source is also radiating energy towards the blacktop.
* These are two independent radiators, unlike in the greenhouse effect, where the second source —
the atmosphere — is recycling the first source’s energy.
So, I was thinking that the 1370 source probably has already heated the blacktop to the point where the 240 source could add NOTHING to it, yes? … no?
And if the blacktop were already at equilibrium with the 1370 source, then the 1000 source also could add NOTHING to it, yes? … no?
These sorts of exercises help nail critical ideas, and just when I think I get it, I realize that maybe I do not quite yet.
Thanks for further insight.
Robert I happen to be heating a small room with one of those parabolic electric radiant heater right now as I am drywalling it. If you place the heater in front of a wall it heats up and then emits that warmth back into the room. It occured to me that if I doubled the heaters let’s say to 2 1000 watt hearers I would be doubling the heat transfer to the wall but the wall doesn’t know if I have added a second heater or if I have just replaced the first heater with a 2000 watt heater. It only knows that it is receiving the 2000 watts. Am I missing something(to be clear I don’t really think the wall knows anything)
That’s a good question Barry I’ll come back to you later…busy today.
There are two fundamental errors in the flat earth model in addition to the flat earth assumption. The layer model assumes that the atmosphere radiates as a black body (also doubtful) with the energy emitted shown as fσT4 both up and down. This is wrong, a black body emits that in total, not in two directions. The energy in the system is automatically doubled. This is the entire basis of the greenhouse warming. The model also assumes an equilibrium (energy in = energy out) at the surface, the edge of the atmosphere and all points in between. This is not a valid assumption. The only law of physics that can apply is the law of conservation of energy at all points in the system. I suspect that makes the modelling too complex and the models are wrong because the fundamental assumptions are wrong.
Well said morpheus.
Yes, I knew Washington Uni’s link has been taken down – pity really as it was easy to use to show the mistake because of the straight forward manner they present the algebra.
I want people to consider that no matter how much we think we know we should be really careful about formulating “equations” where there is no certainty in anything at all.
When I began the simple experiment in 2013 I was convinced that the closest light would dominate the heating of the thermometer and the other would have little effect – because I was not thinking straight.
It appears that the net form allows for a solution but the simple algebraic addition of flux is just wrong.
Robert I know the two lights are not like the “greenhouse effect” but it demonstrates the stupidity of their algebra.
But if a surface is heated by 2 discreet fluxes where the emission temperature exceeds the induced temperature both will heat the surface. My experiment conducted in the air shows that conduction and convection are more significant than radiation.
You can prove this your self easily. Light a candle and bring your hand close to the flame from the side – you can feel the heat from the radiation. But under no circumstances place you hand above the convecting hot combustion products convecting up from the flame – you will quickly burn your skin.
morpheusonacid – their model is based on the notion that a “flat plate” of say metal emits ~478 W/m2 at ~30°C and it emits 478 W/m2 over 2 sides up and down – the utter stupidity of comparing a freely convecting atmosphere where they say only 400 molecules of CO2 in a million molecules of ordinary air matters seems to elude them completely !
The buffoons like to quote Fourier as supporting their nonsense but Fourier said nothing to support them at all. When discussing a real greenhouse compared to the atmosphere he wrote :-
“In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described.”
And sure IF “all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them,” the atmosphere would be a real greenhouse but still only heated to the maximum the Sun can induce and no “back radiative” heating.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is extremely limited in application yet “know it all” climatologists rush in (don’t fools do this) and present all sorts of models exploiting it – most, if not all, of them wrong. No wonder the models fail continuously.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives no information about the flux except the total power emitted.
As can be seen from the graph I showed above the solar radiation plotted by Planck’s law and scaled to 1370 W/m2 by the inverse square law is totally different from the radiation emitted by an object at 394 K – eg the lunar surface under the “noon day” Sun.
The solar radiation can be concentrated to cause far more heating than 394 K as Joe showed with the magnifying glass or as the solar thermal “tower of power” electricity plants demonstrate – they also provide nice fried avian species !
So there is no way that climate “science” can formulate valid equations by ADDING flux because they completely fail to allow for the different nature of the fluxes.
Doing the exact same algebraic manipulations using the SB law and the Planck equivalents plots demonstrates this elegantly.
I have no more answers than most but I have limitless questions and I do not buy the greenhouse effect at all – it is as Joe says – sophistry or more simply bull shit.
What morpheusonacid said:
The layer model assumes that the atmosphere radiates as a black body (also doubtful) with the energy emitted shown as fσT4 both up and down. This is wrong, a black body emits that in total, not in two directions. The energy in the system is automatically doubled. This is the entire basis of the greenhouse warming.
… sheds light on something that always bothers me, but that seems generally accepted at face value, … namely that the atmosphere, in the simple greenhouse model, has TWO radiating surfaces (one up, one down), which neatly divides up radiation — which I have always questioned as really being divided up this way.
I seem to remember somewhere reading that classical thermodynamics defines flux as occurring, NOT as a simple directional field coming off a plane that can be represented with parallel arrows, but rather as a 360-degree radial phenomenon at EACH point on the surface.
So, each point on the surface would have to have arrows coming out all the way around it in all planes. … EACH POINT — that’s an indeterminate (infinite) number of points, EACH radiating like individual suns. I take this to mean that flux is a radial phenomenon occurring simultaneously in all possible directions, at all possible points at once on the surface, which has zero thickness (so no “up”/”down”). There is NO “up” and “down” division — that’s just a perspective of the viewer.
So, who decided that this means half up and half down for each observer? It’s radial (all directions) at each point.
If your observer perspective is looking up, then maybe you can describe it as “down”, or if your perspective is looking down, then maybe you can describe it as “up”. But saying that there is an “up” and a “down” seems to be giving two opposite perspectives to the same observer at once — making one person two people (two faced?)
Just gotta drop this here for a minute…wait for “greenhouse gases are flammable” lolol
I’ve read through that twice. I’m not sure I understood it, but it was interesting.
@Postma
Trump Cracks me up
“crystal clean water” the way he talks is hilarious.
Flammable C02 @5:30
Zoe in disguise? Another stalker? Strange article at PSI:
https://principia-scientific.org/towards-a-rational-climate-change-model-part-1
Great comment from Zack: “Not sure why this person felt the need to reference Postma…they say nothing in contradiction or in opposition to anything Postma has said. Kind of a rambling, meaningless, contentless piece. We’ve seen Postma-stalkers come and go…hopefully not a new one.”
One of her comments was asking what the temp of earth would be if we removed the sun hypothetically, I’m not sure if she is serious or not but it would seem that she thinks the internal heat of the earth would keep us warm. Personally I give us about a week before we’re all popcicles.
Yah…that’s definitely my Zoe…one of my most attractive stalkers for sure. She thinks that the flat Earth theory model is all totally fine…but backradiation isn’t from the atmosphere “because that’s impossible, but it is from geothermal.”
So…she wants to keep the flat Earth theory accounting where the Sun can’t heat the Earth or create and sustain the weather/climate, and where there’s some additional energy source which provides twice more energy than the Sun…but instead of it being “backradiation” she wants it to be geothermal….providing twice the energy than the Sun. She went on about this here for months…finally banned her…because the heat from geothermal is known and measured…and flat Earth theory would be the WRONG way to try to incorporate it anyway!
These people are sick, sick demented freaks, and they seem to really want to keep their flat Earth theory no matter what mechanisms need to change to make it work.
So why are their particle physicists and never wave physicists? Isn’t that bias agaisnt waves? How insulting!
Seriously though,
Does anyone know a trustworthy source to study Quantum Physics? Introductory of course, any links would be appreciated, in particular photons and I don’t want to hear about that darn cat!
Joseph,
Either Rosie and Zoe aren’t the same person or she ‘s good at acting (or just mocking us) or has a personality disorder. The odd coincidence of her publishing right after you “out of nowhere” is a little strange but not evidence inducing.
Now having personal experience with personality disorders (in my family) I can verify you can’t tell they are the same person (they don’t even know that) unless you knew them already. They will actually write completely different, even use the opposite hand, totally different speech patterns and accents, it is really strange stuff. They however most notably befriend you and then turn on you, having a self destructive personality. Those with dual or multi personality disorders certainly have a destructive personality. on one side they can be sweet, kind, helpful and brilliant but can turn on you in a moment, becoming a ravenous lycanthrope under the full moon.
However personality disorders are usually the result of a nervous breakdown, or a traumatic experience in one’s life so bad they had to slip out of reality to cope, and perhaps lose themselves in other “realities”. Or sadly born with a mental disorder.
What happens when you have traumatic experiences in your life and face then head on? Well you become a special forces soldier like my brother, or a physicist like you. Most all the highly successful people in the world know how to deal with hardship and face it head on coming out of it stronger than before, notably with a very strong and healthy thinking mind.
Or in my case you just wrote about them in fiction. Some of my worse nightmares became the foundations for some of my best short stories. My brain learned along time ago how to control my dreams and make them work for me, once you realize you are dreaming (and some can’t) you can take control of the dream at that point and remove any fear or anxiety from it. Instead of the monster chasing you start chasing the monster! The absolutely most insane thing about my dreams are the magnificent detail of everything in it. Most people dream vague and distant, not me I can walk into a shop and see every single object on a shelf and take note of it in detail.
Psychology 101 lesson is now officially over.
So if anyone has the time to glance at this is this legit to study or not? I’m looking through it as I speak so I may find out it on my own. Any input as usual is highly respected from my peers, technically you are mostly my over peers and master peers and I a humble under peer, semantics as it were.
http://astrowww.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/index.php
http://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/absorption/physics_of_absorption
CD,
Yes, lucid dreaming where you are in control to a degree.
I too have glimpses of this.
A protection mechanism from delirious nightmares as a boy I guess.
Flying dreams are regular too…some times flying high but often only just about getting off the ground!
Pablo,
LOL. I use to have those as a kid, where I was jumping like Superman high over the trees, almost weightless. Wouldn’t that be great to do that on the Moon?
I tried to bring a little reality to that PSI post by Rosie. I was trying to alert readers. Very few seemed to get it.
Rosie is seeking to profit off the hoax, like so many others. This “geo-thermal” gig is nothing more than another way to attract people to a blog, or sell a book. We’ve seen it all in another form—“heat creep”.
We never heard of Rosie before JP presented his model for publication. She immediately tried to claim fame by challenging the model. Like Zoe, she’s a moth, seeking to be in the light, only she wants to distract, pervert, and corrupt the message. She has no background in the relevant physics. He educational background is in geography.
She claimed she was going to show Postma wrong, but now she has morphed into just trying to be the head of a new movement to keep the nonsense going:
”But this initiative, if it is going to turn into a counter movement, is going to need people to put personal gripes to one side and work together.”
Just like DC, Zoe, and many others, she just wants to keep it going. People that understand the relevant physics know that the GHE is all pseudoscience, and a waste of time and money. But there’s too much money to be made from keeping a hoax going.
Geran.
” But there’s too much money to be made from keeping a hoax going”
You’ve also described the “Middle East Peace Talks”.
Why does that lady just think she can do that? Is she insane? How did she connect those dots?
I’ve read manifestos written by people saner than her.
The Jumping dreams are super common, I had those as well.
Lately I’ve had the reoccurring dream of being in a co-ed prison work camp.
I usually wake up before I’m stabbed with a fork. (Seriously)
I do read and watch a lot about prisons though.
geran,
Your patience at PSI is admirable.
Getting back to albedo though, I was thinking that to average out cloud albedo over the sunlit hemisphere is to diminish the real heating power of the sun on clear days. Similar to smearing sunshine over the whole sphere. Any thoughts?
Rosie comes out of nowhere and “conveniently” challenges Joseph immediately on publication at PSI, whoever they are it’s a set up. The coincidence probability is looking like a far weaker explanation.
Presenting themselves as an ally for a while and then turning on the group is a very familiar tactic isn’t it?
You’re correct, Pablo. I have seen surface readings of solar as high as 1100 Watts/m^2. I don’t know what the record is, but it was probably on a clear day in Australia, in January. 1100 Watts/m^2 would raise a flat, non-conducting, blackbody surface to the boiling point of water! (Maximum surface readings, with zero albedo, would be over 1400 Watts/m^2, corresponding to about 123.5 ºC, 254 ºF.)
Almost everyone agrees that clouds are one of the largest factors affecting surface temperatures, since solar is “constant”. And cloud formation is one of the ways that Earth can regulate its temperature–too warm > more clouds, too cold > less clouds.
That’s one of the reasons “averaging” is such a trap. The errors are way beyond any imaginary “radiative forcing”.
Maybe we should do a full, complete assessment of the geothermal premise, with all the numbers and diagrams laid out clearly. Accept her challenge to work through it all — let’s do it here maybe to compare what we come up with to what she espouses.
I’m not sure where to start.
Fortunately we do have a geoscientist or two in the ranks. Certainly that would be an issue for miners and oil exploration which means an incredible amount of money and research has gone into this.
Geothermal energy is not cheap I keep hearing how cheap it is but but they slip in “with tax reductions” hoping no one knows what that means. When the tax reduction is removed it would probably be higher than normal gas, always the punch line.
@Robert
That would be like making a thourough presentation debunking flat earth theory.
Zoe and Rosie obviously never heard of “geothermal”, so now they are fascinated by it.
Wiki: “This is 0.087 watt/square meter on average (0.03 percent of solar power absorbed by the Earth”
Skeptics know to think first and emotionalize later, always remembering that famous quote “It’s the sun, stupid!”
And understand why the ocean at depth is above freezing.
I’m not sure what point they are even trying to get to. Until you accept that the sun creates the weather and the weather creates climateits pretty hard to dispel the myths around co2. Of coarse there are other small influences on both the weather and climate such as geography and volcanoes but the main driver is the sun. If you are filling a bucket with a garden hose and an eye dropper,yes the eye dropper adds water but the garden hose will get you home in time for lunch.
Some seemingly common sense thinking dispels geothermal energy as having any influence on Earth’s climate:
The sun is an extremely hot entity, and, even though separated by many millions of miles from Earth (with only space to reduce its impact), enough energy gets to us to fry us on the daylight side, but why don’t we fry? — ANSWER: a thin (relatively speaking) layer of gases. GASES — these are all that keep all that sun energy from frying us.
Remember, a thin layer of GASES can reduce the influence of the sun this much.
Earth’s core is pretty hot too, but, unlike with the sun, it is really close to the surface, but, unlike the sun too, there is a huge thickness of solid stuff — NOT gases — separating Earth’s surface from Earth’s core energy. THAT much thickness of solid stuff reduces the flux of energy from Earth’s really hot core to a mere 0.087 W/m^2 on average — a reasonable average, because this average does not depend on averaging over areas where the flux does not exist — it exists over the whole globe, physically in reality [unlike “average solar flux” — an unreasonable average].
So, let’s see: The sun delivers, on average [a reasonable average], 480 W/m^2 of flux to Earth’s hemisphere, while Earth’s core delivers, on average, 0.087 W/m^2 of flux to Earth’s hemisphere. In other words, the sun delivers over 5,500 times more flux to Earth’s hemisphere than Earth’s core does. The difference between 480 W/m^2 and 480.087 W/m^2, thus, seems negligible.
Also, we have to consider that the deepest parts of the ocean (closest to Earth’s core) are close to FREEZING.
Then there are the ages on Earth, when lots of the planet was covered in ice — even with the sun still there. Sun and Earth together could not stop the ice ages, so how is it that Earth’s geothermal energy does squat to influence the climate.
Not very scientific, and not very flowery and breezy on the delivery, but common sense tends not to be that.
Sorry Zoe (and alternate personas), I’m still not buying it.
So if the sun turned off the oceans would freeze right?
Except maybe at underwater volcanoes or something.
Well put Robert, in the Canadian prairies in the winter time we can expect 6-8 feet of frozen ground even with the sunshine. I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone would think that the geothermal of earth adds anything to the tremendous power of the sun.
A radiant driveway requires 37 watts per square foot to melt snow and ice.
Thats 400 watts per square meter!
How many watts per square meter are they claiming geothermal is providing?
@CD Marshall
0.087 W/m^2 on average
From Robert’s comment
I’ve never seen them state a number…they just make the claim. As pointed out many times though and above…the measured number is negligible.
ahhh ok. ty Postma
Still thinking about underwater volcanoes on a frozen earth. Would it burn a steam hole all the way through? Or make an underwater lake? Or maybe even a steam bomb?
All those things probably…depending on local circumstances.
Makes me think of Europa. Gravity from Jupiter stretches and compresses the core of Europa, generating heat. Supposed to be a giant under ice ocean.
The major reason why Earth’s surfaces aren’t unbearably hot is the fact that 70% of the globe is covered by oceans and water has a specific heat 4 times that of the atmosphere. Despite the Sun being able to heat the lunar surface to ~120°C and Earth’s surfaces to potentially ~87°C due to albedo primarily of the atmosphere is water.
If you want to see climate extremes travel forward to when the Earth is at Perihelion coinciding with the NH summer and at Aphelion coinciding with the NH winter.
“I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone would think that the geothermal of earth adds anything to the tremendous power of the sun.”
But you cannot deny that the temperature below the surface exists – according to the National Geographic Society “The temperature of the mantle varies greatly, from 1000° Celsius (1832° Fahrenheit) near its boundary with the crust, to 3700° Celsius… ” The crust is an impressive insulator but has a temperature which is real – I do not see anyone proposing temperatures under Antarctic ice remote from volcanic activity approaching 200 K and supposedly this would emit ~91 W/m2.
How then do you explain the established agreement over Jupiter having temperatures deep in its atmosphere up to six times hotter than the surface of the sun whilst the TOA radiation is of the order of ~50 W/m2 ?
The only planets where the sun generates the climate are those where the atmosphere is transparent enough to allow the radiation to reach the ground level – Earth and Mars.
We believe that Venus’ atmosphere prevents the majority of the Sun’s radiation reaching the ground, and thus Venus isn’t driven by the solar radiation at the ground level, and reflects ~80% visible light due to the sulphuric acid clouds which encircle the planet nearly 60 kilometres above the surface. Apparently they also strongly absorb in the band from 1.6 micron to ~6.5 micron – much more strongly than water over the same wavelengths.
“Despite the Sun being able to heat the lunar surface to ~120°C and Earth’s surfaces to potentially ~87°C due to albedo primarily of the atmosphere is water.”
This doesn’t make sense – try
“Despite the Sun being able to heat the lunar surface to ~120°C and Earth’s surfaces to potentially ~87°C due to albedo primarily of the atmosphere the reason Earth’s surfaces stay at significantly lower temperatures levels conducive to life is water.
Wish I’d finish sentences before my brain runs away.
“Despite the Sun being able to heat the lunar surface to ~120°C and Earth’s surfaces to potentially ~87°C due to albedo primarily of the atmosphere is water.”
This doesn’t make sense – try –
“Despite the Sun being able to heat the lunar surface to ~120°C and Earth’s surfaces to potentially ~87°C due to albedo primarily of the atmosphere the reason Earth’s surfaces stay at significantly lower temperatures levels conducive to life is water.
Wish I’d finish sentences before my brain runs away.
I remember in the Rancourt v Wells debate, they talked about Jupiter and Venus having high temperatures. It had to do with what pressure the temperature is measured at. Venus and Especially Deep in Jupiter are much higher pressure.
Rosco I agree that the earth has a lot of energy in it what I am thinking is that in the context of creating weather it is probably not very significant. However like you say certainly the oceans hold a significant amount of energy but I’m not sure without the sun if that would slowly radiate away?
Good movie idea, the sun is going to turn off in 2 years. Our only option is to dig to the mantle of earth harvesting the geo-thermal energy in bio-domes across earth.
Will you be in a dome when the sun turns off?
Maybe a book.
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, MIT PhD. Inventor of Email, provides a REAL SOLUTION to BIG TECH CENSORSHIP
A single submarine volcano has the propensity to increase surrounding waters 2-5C, by themselves not impressive considering the average surface water 17C and deep ocean runs 0 to -3C. It is assumed geothermal activity prevents the bottom of the oceans to get much colder than that.
Over one million volcanoes is believed to exist on the ocean bottom and of those 1-3% are active or semi active at any given time: 20-30 thousand.
Not sure on the source anymore but (pretty sure it was a geology site):
Geothermal heat flow is, on average, 30W/m^2, but it can vary from over 100W/m^2 to 15W/m^2. The high value is for areas around volcanoes.
I did a study on planet’s cores away back…This is what I came up with.
SUN=15 million degrees Celsius at its center.
The “cores” of other planets or centers:
>Mercury> 2,204C
>Venus> 2,226
>Earth>5,430 C
>Mars>1,230 C
>Jupiter>20,000C
>Saturn>11,700 C
>Uranus >4,982 C
>Neptune>5,127 C
Oh and on a side note nobody has ever reached anywhere near the core of the Earth. They have tried…Well besides seismology, but not an actual drilled depth.
“The deepest hole ever drilled is the Kola Superdeep Borehole, on the Kola peninsula in the northwest corner of Russia, located near Finland. It was drilled for scientific research by the USSR. Like many large research holes, it had a number of offshoots from the central branch, and the deepest, SG-3, was 7.6 miles (12.262 km) deep. The borehole reached this depth in 1981. The temperature at this depth was 356°F (180°C), at which point the rock became more like a plastic than a solid, stopping further drilling…”
K I’m done now, carry on 🙂
@MP
Idk about government internet man. Government sucks at everything. The only thing the government is good at is making other people do stuff.
you don’t like the Internet Bill of Rights idea?
@CD Marshal
Earth has a lot more geothermal energy than you would expect from it’s size, it seems. That heavy iron core we have might be unique. 4x that of mars. Interesting theories involving the moon, on why that it is.
@CD Marshall
I bet if we only had 2 years till the sun turned off we would make it to the mantle! Just need the right incentive.
Quick! Inside the Bio-dome!
It is believed the Moon has a hot core as well but does nothing to heat the surface, they have discovered craters at the Lunar South Pole believed to be around -238C yes that is the right temperature, a little colder than the surface of Pluto.
@ boomie789
Well, there is a deeper meaning behind this Postal Office thingy.
@CD Marshall
Last I heard the moon is made of mostly (what is the opposite of dense?) light rock. Atomically light unlike iron. plus it’s small, I’d bet it’s 100x or more less than earth’s. Maybe, the core of earth looks more like the sun, but the core of the moon looks more like inside a volcano.
@boomie789
If it even has a hot core, would be nice if it did for the purpose of a Moonbase if they could harness the geothermal energy from it (if any).
Still hoping to see that NASA Moonbase at least started in my lifetime.
lol, all this untapped geo-thermal energy!
@MP
What happened in 1999!?! jfc that’s scary.
I love listening to NWO stuff.
@ boomie789
What happened after 1999 is grammar desception. Since “they” didn;t have a legal claim the grammar was changed to Dog Latin. A Mixture of English grammar and Latin grammar, what combined doesn’t make sence.
Excellent paper on the CO2 fraud claims:
Click to access 001_180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
Oh, wait. That was the background vid. Here is the grammatical scam explained.
@MP
https://media0.giphy.com/media/a8BTZM7hHfThK/giphy.webp?cid=790b76115125a56df4b3510d6b2561bb077c536bcce0eeaf&rid=giphy.webp
So this question seems a lot a harder to find than I would have thought. What % of solar irradiance falls at the tropics? If you cut up the Earth via the Hadley,Ferrel and the Polar Cells what % of Solar irradiance covers them?
Is 480 W/m^2 actually falling at the tropics? Which would be around 30C which aligns with the average temperatures there right now, (30.1C)
Surely the ‘energy balance’ argument only stands when one looks at the totality of planet and the time it exists. That is to say from the Earth’s creation to it’s ultimate demise the energy in total will balance, however at any man-made period it does not have to.
Does energy in have to equal energy out (?)when all around us is historical evidence that it often does not happen. Looking at geological layers and there are such evidence. The remains of organic life — organic life that converts energy (heat and light) into chemical bonds. Oceans too have there role to play, they move around this planet taking with them the energy they have acquired over time, redistributing it as is their natural method. When and where is this balance here?
Since the end of the LIA this planet has been said to have warmed by about 1 degree Centigrade. Was that because the sun warmed the planet more, or that the planet retained more heat, or maybe a bit of both? Hasn’t the planet retained more heat because it got more solar energy. For whatever reason where’s the ‘energy balance’ in that? As this plot http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif shows the Earth’s energy is dynamic in nature, and if we look at a smaller more recent period http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1850%20WithSatellitePeriod.gif can you spot the time when the energy was ‘in balance’?
@tomomason
If the sun turned off how long until earth is completely frozen?(CD Marshal says less than a week, I Agree) If you turned the sun back on after the earth froze, how long till things are relatively normal again? That’s and interesting question.
Even if earth snap froze, all the plants and organic matter would be stuck and frozen in time anyway.
You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.
The sun is fluctuating in power, it has high peaks and low valleys. Is what those graphs show.
CD: That’s what my diagram shows…its 960W/m^2 at the tropics. As a percentage…that would be a great calculation to do!
boomie, I didn’t interpret Tom’s comment the way you did. I don’t believe he was “making a mountain out of a mole hill”. I believe he was pointing out that Earth can handle numerous perturbations in energy flows. That’s an important point, as it reduces Alarmists to mere scared chickens.
@Geran.
I think I might’ve read it to fast…I see.
“So this question seems a lot a harder to find than I would have thought. What % of solar irradiance falls at the tropics? If you cut up the Earth via the Hadley,Ferrel and the Polar Cells what % of Solar irradiance covers them?”
CDM 2020/02/16 at 1:32 AM
This is a simple matter of spherical geometry. I have loaded this update to Research Gate for you.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Dynamic-Atmosphere-Energy-Transport-Climate-Model/update/5e495d20cfe4a7402480bb9f
The Excel Workbook containing the calculations is here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334126761_Earth_Adiabatic_Parallel_Model_20Jun19
(I’ve been having a blast over at PSI, watching Zoe and Rosie perform.)
Coincidence or conspiracy?
1/26/2020 — Postma posts about the AMS rejecting his model
2/10/2020 — Rosie makes her first post, EVER. on PSI
2/14/2020 — Rosie’s latest post implies she is going to “correct” JP’s model
Four new “people”, that have NEVER commented at PSI (according to the blog’s search tool) make comments supporting Rosie:
Gary Flood, Duncan MacCrimmon, David McCobb, Michael Detrick.
The plot thickens:
The PSI blog search also revealed that Rosie is/was a member of PSI!
“Rosie Langridge: Born in 1962 in England and now living in London, Rosie was educated at Clare College, Cambridge. Accepted to study Natural Sciences, she achieved a 2(1) degree in Geography. Rosie has long been influenced by Graham Chapman’s detailed studies of poor farmers in Bangladesh and his respect for their methods and decision-making, and also by his interest in the philosophy of geography as a scientific discipline. In 1988 Rosie gained membership of The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. She is currently writing a book ‘Beauty and the Beastly Truth: An antidote to despair’ which is intended as one of a series, in partnership with David McCobb.”
Who better to attempt to devalue Postma’s work that an “insider”.
Coincidence or conspiracy? You get to decide.
(Now back to the fun.)
Geren I have read quite a bit of Rosie’s going on over at psi. Not sure how it even got posted,seems to be much todo about nothing. Seems to be working the sun is only a small contributor of overall energy earth receives. Kind of the same old sun can’t heat the earth thing.
To Toms point above I think he has a good point with the weather and climate are both very chaotic. I always think that none of us really live long enough to see any actual climate change but may see many weather pattern changes over the years, some repeating such as droughts and wet periods etc.
About the PSI party with Rosie and Zoe, I don’t know what the crap Zoe is doing. I don’t know what her tables are supposed to be showing. I don’t know what all that data is at one of her links.
I don’t know why she thinks that geothermal flux is anything but what it is — very little.
I’ve tried to make heads or tails out of her info, but all I come up with are huge question marks.
I’m an idiot, I guess. (^_^)
CD says – “So this question seems a lot a harder to find than I would have thought. What % of solar irradiance falls at the tropics? If you cut up the Earth via the Hadley,Ferrel and the Polar Cells what % of Solar irradiance covers them?”
It is relatively straightforward to plot this in Excel by simply examining irradiance over a sphere.
Firstly, 50% of the Earth’s area lies between 30°N and 30°S. This is easy to establish by using the formula for a spherical cap. As the cosine of 30° is 0.866 the minimum insolation is 0.866 x 1368 or whatever your favourite value for the solar “constant” is – I choose 1368 because of the great Trenberth (LOL). I ignore albedo because I’m simply plotting irradiance over a sphere. Likewise the 23° inclination of Earth’s axis is irrelevant – every sphere has an “equator” in the ecliptic plane.
Secondly, you can create a spreadsheet by using the Earth’s radius of 6371 km as a starting point.
The most intuitive method is to use 1 kilometre “heights” along the vertical axis representing the radius of the sphere.
Thus you have 6371 i kilometre plot points. The variation in the solar radiation over the area using “height” of 1 kilometre is tiny – of the order of 10^-5.
Thirdly, you take advantage of the fact that if you slice your sphere into 1 kilometre vertical “heights” along the radius every slice has equal area of ~40,030.17 square kilometres.
You then plug the formula for a spherical cap into the spreadsheet using the values 1,2,3, …6371.
Slightly tedious but easily do-able.
Fourthly, you subtract each area of, eg “h” = 5 from the area for “h” = 6 – again slightly tedious but easily do-able.
It confirms each slice has an area of 40,030.17 square kilometres and you can easily calculate the “Cap Angle”, get the cosine and multiply this by the solar constant and obtain the “raw” power incident over the whole hemisphere at any point.
From this you can do any calculations you like and graph the function describing the incident power at any point.
This is my plot of the variation in the average irradiance divided by total area:-
Try it – here is the link to a site which will help you :-
http://www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Sphere/Cap/SphereCap.htm
Rosco,
Your method is valid, but as you say “Slightly tedious but easily do-able.”
The critical point however for CDM’s question of power intensity driving the atmospheric cells is this: The disk silhouette cuts a planar shadow from the solar beam. It doesn’t matter if the shadow point is at the equator or at the pole, the illumination intensity normal to the beam is exactly the same irrespective of location. But the illumination length over the ground changes from the zenith to the terminator. Now we can measure the zonal latitudinal area of the surface of an orb using the spherical cap formula. This allows us to determine the relationship between planar disk silhouette (interception) and the illuminated surface area (collection) for each of the latitudinally defined atmospheric cells (Hadley, Ferrel and Polar).
The interesting thing I discovered is :-
Using the spherical cap and spherical segments (cap 2 area – cap 1 area etc) you can easily calculate the cosine of the cap angle by the formula “h” (1, 2, 3, … 6371) over the radius of 6371 and you have 6371 cap angle cosine values. The sum of these over the total number gives 0.5.
If I simply take the cosine of a large number of angles from 0 to 90 – say in 0.01 increments the average value is 0.6366 ….- 2/pi.
Isn’t that interesting ?
Yes, but I am now at the limits of my pay grade 😉
My mathematician father told me that if you start with a premise that the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is greater than 180 degrees, then the consequence of this seemingly impossible notion is spherical geometry.
@Philip Mulholland
Thank you super very much for that!
@Rosco
You Kung Fu is greater than mine but I am going to play around with that calculator, it does help me to learn things faster.
@Robert @Geran
I think you should just call them Zosie becasue they seem to be two strange almost parallel entities.
Zoe does use multiple accounts everywhere but it does not “seem” like they are the same persona.
Zoe does have a distinct “voice” on the internet. She talks in quick jerks oftentimes like she’s incredibly impatient or always in a rush. As Is said, rumor was she works for the Heartland Institute, not that means anything by itself she did not deny it or confirm that rumor either way.
@boomie789 @Barry
Energy in/out gives me a great headache.
Remember in the past the Earth was warmer from geothermal, and in geological terms, even recently geothermal has been active on the surface plus the Sun’s variable output, Earth’s changes in its magnetic field and ocean temperature. Extreme volcanic activity often heats the planet up quickly and then cools it off as it blocks more soar irradiance with aerosol aftermath.
The mini ice age was believed to be (at least partially) do to this process.
@Joseph
How much of that energy moves North and South of the tropics? 960 directly on the Tropics would boil us to death wouldn’t it? Isn’t that equal to 86C/186F my processor runs cooler than that on full load…My GPU, borderline.
@boomie789
“Be a shame to evolve this far to lie our self’s back into feudalism.”
You made this comment a ways up on the posts but that is precisely what the Left wants, to reestablish the feudal system with them as the Noble caste, look how easy it is for the main populace to accept serfdom for a few scraps, handouts and a promise of protection, for this they would choose to live outside the walls of the Keep and die in near poverty.
Unbelievable.
@CD Marshall
This has all happened before. Each cycle we came out even stronger. No way we come this far to screw it up now.
@boomie789
Often with a huge body count.
I’d say one of my top favorite Mel Gibson movies, nothing tops “FREEDOM!” screamed from blood splattered lips.
However I did enjoy the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon movies.
@CD Marshall
I think his best work is as director
Yes that was pretty good.
Tony Heller just posted some crazy flood footage from the 1920s.
So looking over Phillip’s work he gave me and Joseph’s calculations it would seem surface temperatures are being reduced and not just by atmospheric albedo, all this solar energy is not being converted to surface temperature or I am not getting this at all.
How much is being stored as opposed to being converted to heat or is some being stored and some being reflected. Unless I am completely nuts, if all the solar energy was converted to heat to the surface from the Sun we’d be pretty much cooked.
Even with the atmosphere, if we had no water (on the surface) and no means of conversion (no plant life on the surface and so forth) of Solar energy other than surface heat, I couldn’t see us surviving on this planet.
Am I wrong? (not surprising)
Am I right? (even more surprising)
Am I half and half?
CDM
I think you are right.
Have a look at this brilliant analogy made by Rosco @ 2020/02/14 at 2:03 PM
“Light a candle and bring your hand close to the flame from the side – you can feel the heat from the radiation. But under no circumstances place you hand above the convecting hot combustion products convecting up from the flame – you will quickly burn your skin.”
The presence of a gaseous atmosphere cools the illuminated surface of a planet and creates convection. Add a condensing volatile (water) to the mix and the process of phase conversion from liquid to vapour involving latent heat stabilises this dynamic process. This is why dry tropical deserts have a greater daily temperature range than moist tropical climates. The process of evaporating surface water, as part of the mechanism of convection, requires energy to be supplied from somewhere.
Nobody seen this yet?
Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water.
Roy Spencer PhD in sophistry.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
looks like Joe will have to do another video or post debunking this moron…again.
It is 6 years old, has anything changed?
“8. THE IPCC MODELS ARE FOR A FLAT EARTH I have no explanation where this little tidbit of misinformation comes from. Climate models address a spherical, rotating, Earth with a day-night (diurnal) cycle in solar illumination and atmospheric Coriolis force (due to both Earth curvature and rotation). Yes, you can do a global average of energy flows and show them in a flat-earth cartoon, like the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget diagram which is a useful learning tool, but I hope most thinking people can distinguish between a handful of global-average average numbers in a conceptual diagram, and a full-blown 3D global climate model.”
^”I have no explanation where this little tidbit of misinformation comes from.”
Good one Boomie I like #4 co2 can warm and cool. Once again we will have it both ways. I think another key point was there only flat earth model was just a teaching aid not widely used. Joseph might want to have a go at that one. This is our model but don’t question it because it’s only for teaching, cause no one can understand how the real process works. I think someone quoted Einstein here some where ” if you can’t explain it simply you simply don’t understand it”
Wait it’s 6 years old? Joseph already debunked it then. My bad. I thought it was new, didn’t pay that much attention to it I guess. I’m fighting turds on Naomi Seibt’s YT channel. It has been a blast.
I didn’t notice it was 6 years old as well.
@Barry
The “learning Tool” argument is the one I run into the most. Next, is the “Blanket Argument”.
Then they just project, distract, ad-hominem, dis-credit ect ect.
Remember that water analogy?!?! lolol
Spencer doesn’t understand the relevant physics, and refuses to learn. He even censors those who try to teach him…ahem…cough…cough….
He’s not up on the science, and he’s not a scientist. He’s a PhD — “Persistently hunting Dollars”.
He’s gone so low that now it’s a character issue.
Even 50 years ago, such people would be heavily criticized and ostracized. But in our current upside-down world, it’s TRUTH that is critcized and ostracized.
Foe example on my Solar irradiance mayhem.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-longest-continuous-record-available-in-GEBA-surface-downward-shortwave-radiation-W_fig2_319251713
Now assuming they are stretching this out 24hrs and you can double it for near real time average (knock on wood) the temps using the SB law (If am calculating correctly) still comes out to 243K-255K (well below 0).
So this is wrong or I am wrong or both.
CD, there is no need to “double it”. That is the record for that location. It appears to average about 114 W/m^2, which is a very cold sky. (Remember, an ice cube emits 300 W/m^2.)
I had not seen that before, so interesting find. Thanks.
@Geran
An Ice cube emits 300 W/m^2. That’s is so counterintuitive.
That hurts my brain to think about.
Sunlight is 1000w/m^2 but an ice cube is 1/4 the power of felt sunlight?
Hilarious how they call it a “simple learning tool”, as if that’s an answer to the criticism. Yes morons…it’s a tool to learn how flat Earth theory would have to work in physics.
Sometimes science is counterintuitive. But, facts are facts. That gives us an advantage because when we see clown Spencer saying “Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored…” we know he is not a scientist. He actually believes 300 W/m^2 can warm a surface with an average temperature of 288 K (15C, 59F).
The facts are that ice is a really good emitter (high emissivity, 0.99), so an ice cube at 270 K would be emitting ~300 W/m^2. To Spencer, that is significant! In his corrupted head, he believes that 300 adds to solar. As if, on a scorching hot summer day, sitting next to a block of ice is going to make you even hotter!
That’s why we call them clowns.
@Postma more like a De-learning tool.
I wonder what the w/m^2 of a black hole is?
Makes me think of a gun that is -1000w/m^2 and sucks the life out of things, also useful for putting out fires.
Lol.
This applies perfectly to climate alarm and the defenders of the GHE:
Tactic #1: Ignore the main point.
The armed American populace is the only reason operation prison planet isn’t complete yet.
Subscribed
This blog wouldn’t exist and we would end up being interrogated like this for questioning the narrative.
The choice is actually easy
Go back through his videos especially the early ones.
Reminds me of a common misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment.
The first Amendment does hold you accountable for lying, liable, slander, and a unlawful call to action.
The more tyrannically minded like to make people think that the goverment imposed these restrictions in the first amendment, that is not the case.
It is a logical conclusion to the right of free speech that people be held liable for any damages they cause for lying.
For example, yelling fire in a movie theater is the most commonly mentioned.
If you yell fire in a movie theater, it’s perfectly ok, as long as there is a fire. If people get trampled in a panic fleeing you will not be held accountable. Because you told the truth.
If you maliciously yell fire knowing there isn’t one, then you will be held accountable.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to lie.
The goverment did not restrict your freedom of speech, they’re not supposed to do that. That is just how freedom of speech works.
From phone
I like the way they use the vostocks some how inferring that it proves their point when it is actually 500000 years of history proving them wrong. They spent years trying to tell us that co2 only lags by 400 years not 800 as if that proves it. Doesn’t matter if the chicken layed 4 eggs or 8 it still came first.
Exactly Barry…they just miss the point on purpose!
Exactly boomie…people must be held accountable for public speech…especially those who garner mass public attention. Testimonialism. If you can be fined for lying in court, for contempt of court, you should likewise be liable for your speech in the court of public influence, for contempt of the public commons. Imagine taking the alarmists to court out of their protection inside pal-peer review. We would destroy them and make lots of money doing it.
Anyone know about this claim that this January was “the warmest month on record” drivel?
I think Heller covered that recently. It’s all lies. Everything that say is a lie.
“C02 in the atmosphere is like a blanket…….”
Lol
CO2 in the atmosphere is like a pane of glass, … no, …. is like a blanket, …, no is like an electrical circuit, …no is the inversion of geothermal and so irrelevant, …
How about CO2 in the atmosphere is …………………. not at all what it’s cracked up to be.
^”The Plantiff is racist!” Lolol
Politicians now think it’s alright to lie because they have gotten away with it for so long. Al Gore said about his so called documentary that it was ok to lie because it was for such an important cause. Then he said it wasn’t about his particular carbon footprint but all of us working together to lower everyone’s footprint. Like they say we’re all equal some are just more equal than others.
“How about CO2 in the atmosphere is …” – 400 molecules of a stable, non flammable gas that doesn’t undergo phase change in a MILLION molecules of ordinary air. Methane is less than 2 molecules in a MILLION molecules of ordinary air supposedly terrifying to induce zealots to commit cow and lambicide.
It is impossible to ascribe the power emissions climate “science” does to such a trivial component of the atmosphere.
Moronica’s reply to Rosco:
But Rosco, only 50 ppm of cyanide is dangerous to humans.
Robert’s reply to Moronica:
CO2 is not cyanide. The physics of cyanide is NOT the same as the physics of CO2. All substances in small quantities are NOT created equally lethal. Anything can kill in the proper, proportional dose. To compare CO2 to cyanide, you need to determine a harmful dose of CO2 to human physiology, which is around 60,000 ppm (sixty thousand parts per million).
Moronica, read this: https://www.normalbreathing.org/co2/
and this: https://principia-scientific.org/at-what-concentration-does-co2-becomes-toxic-to-humans/
Maybe these will message your brain cells into a more balanced perspective.
C02 is one of the main ingredients for life.
They are such death cultist.
Just to be clear, the name, “Moronica”, in my previous post, is a made up name for a made up stereotypical alarmist character, derived from the word, “moron”.
I always hate the small-quantity come-back of alarmists to the fact that CO2 is such a piss-ant percentage of Earth’s atmosphere.
My come back to the “Moronica” comments of CO2 amount is many states want to use Nitrogen to replace lethal injection, so you’re point is invalid on its own merit.
I’ve been trying to use Joseph’s fine examples of being more confident in dealing with trolls, showing a place of authority without arrogance but limiting their working room in the process. They sense any doubt or insecurity and pounce on it like Piranha.
I tell them I am s student of physics if they ask or I study physics or climate physics (all very much true). I try and remind myself the “painted face” in front of you is not trying to debate you (99% of them) they are looking for a weakness to exploit and discredit your words.
Deny-Deflect-Discredit
They ALL have the same playbook.
Study their comments and you’ll see this pattern in everyone of them.
Now when you have them cornered they will stop talking to you (a clear sign they were trolls in the first place) or they will deflect.
It is a process.
What they really want is to get rid of the middle class and a return to the elites and the worker bees. This was never about the climate, as with most cults though you need to have a way of controlling the masses and fear tends to be the weapon of choice. I understand the uneducated like myself falling for these things but what I find unforgivable is supposedly educated people taking up their cause and trying to defend bogus scientific claims.
Never throw the first insult, stay classy.
Then when they do the first ad-hominuim or personal incredulity just point it out.
Good work CD.
“jeffbezos: Today, I’m thrilled to announce I am launching the Bezos Earth Fund.
Climate change is the biggest threat to our planet. I want to work alongside others both to amplify known ways and to explore new ways of fighting the devastating impact of climate change on this planet we all share. This global initiative will fund scientists, activists, NGOs — any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve and protect the natural world. We can save Earth. It’s going to take collective action from big companies, small companies, nation states, global organizations, and individuals.
I’m committing $10 billion to start and will begin issuing grants this summer. Earth is the one thing we all have in common — let’s protect it, together.
– Jeff”
They have 10’s of billions of dollars to spend on media and buying people off. I have a $25/year blog. THEY are the ones destroying the planet and the human race with their sophistry and hatred of the life molecule CO2.
We have so little resources to fight with. And we are fighting some sort of insane global system which has unlimited funding, unlimited control over politicians, unlimited control over academia, etc.
Does anyone have a link to the original work done by Bech in regards to the CO2 levels ignored by Callendar.
“And we are fighting some sort of insane global system which has unlimited funding, unlimited control over politicians, unlimited control over academia, etc.”
..and millions of brainwashed fools who devour this cause like a religion. Social opinion is not created by facts but influence.
Joseph that’s more bad news about Bezo, one more rich elite that will do anything for popularity
I bet Jeff Bezo’s carbon footprint is gigantic.
Good Jeff Bezos memes are hard to find.
Joseph, your efforts have more impact than you might believe. I’ve been interested in following the hoax for over 12 years now. Skeptics are faced with a wall of pseudoscience/sophistry supported by both Warmists and Lukewarmers. On the blogs, we don’t see much progress. But, in society at large, I see skepticism rising. Clowns can censor Skeptics on their blogs, but more and more show up.
My non-technical friends aren’t interested. They dismiss it as just more media hype. The tricks, such as Gore’s old “documentary”, and recently trotting out an emotional, uneducated teen girl, are seen as just more of the hype. A recent poll showed all the hype has resulted in AGW concerns being at the bottom of the list.
They aren’t winning. All of their massive effort, and they aren’t winning. That might explain this latest desperation from Bezos.
@Philip Mulholland
Just did it again. Dropped nearly 10 degrees in the tropics and pushed that heat North and South. Absolutely amazing the amount of energy required to do that. I see its birthing Cyclones as well. How long will this process continue?
That’s true Geran. What else will they produce with 10 billion dollars but much more idiocy!? Especially given the divide of things today – the only people left on their side are insane people. Whatever they produce with that 10 billion will be a joke.
They need 10 billion to combat a $25 blog, and to fight Heller with his free YouTube channel.
We actually have incredible power in comparison!!
The power of reason and truth, as opposed to emotional hysteria. Only one of those is sustainable!
Joseph have you and Tony ever communicated? You do have one thing in common (I think) the understanding of models.
Have no communicated with him no.
CD,
You might find this useful for your needs:
Click to access 180_yrs_Atmos_CO2_Analysis_by_chemical_methods_Beck_2007.pdf
Thanks Robert the original is now in prison behind a pretty hefty pay wall.
I think we need a Joe-Zoe video, if for no other reason, the poetic rhyming of all those words. (^_^)
Breaking Zoe news from PSI: “Joe does not understand the difference between conductive heat transfer and radiation.” I offered my defense over there against that highly misrepresenting claim.
Boomie we just don’t understand that it’s just a learning thermometer it’s not how thermometers really work. If we could only understand the actual science we would see that 16 is actually 21
CDM @ 2020/02/18 at 10:12 AM
I expect this to be the pattern for the next 30 years.
Reality check re. Tim Ball.
People here may be interested in this …
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409
where they explain that —
Oxygen & nitrogen (O2/N2, air) are “radiatively important” “natural greenhouse gases” and comparable to methane – an 84Xs stronger GHG than CO2.
N2 reduces OLR by 4.6 W/m² compared to CO2’s 5.1 W/m².
Doubling N2 = 12 W/m² LW forcing.
2X CO2 = 3.7 W/m².
h/t to Kenneth Richard at https://twitter.com/Kenneth72712993
u/Joel-Snape
This is luke warmer talk right? There is no feedback…
Feedback is based on the GHE. There is no GHE.
This is amazing…watch it!
The guy made it himself on reddit. I made a comment.
I wonder if he is being honest….
Great work there boomie! That’s a great comment you put together! Thanks so much for helping getting this out!
Linked by Q:
That is the what I’ve been using for a desktop background for a while now.
There is no reason not to have hope for the future. Always remember how far we’ve already come.
So doing a quick survey with your data (Joseph) and Phillip’s work on breakdown from the Solar Zenith the temperature unhindered by albedo and whatever else is reducing it would be 86.1C. if I am following this right.
So no nothing else is needed to warm the Earth but the Sun and thankfully everything on Earth is reducing that temperature. So the hottest recorded temperature on Earth was only 65% of the Sun’s fullest potential.
“The official highest recorded temperature is now 56.7°Celsius (134°F), which was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA.”
if I am following this right???
That’s right. The atmosphere and water massively reduce the heating potential of the Sun. The moon gets to 121C!
…Flux is what was throwing me off, it seems difficult for a linear/secular mind to comprehend a constant.
Still kind of freaks me out, the Sun has the potential to kill all life on Earth. These climate frauds are idiots of the highest order.
Alarmist facts: The sun does not cause the climate, and 99% of the atmosphere does not cause the climate. So, where does climate exist? ANSWER: In some netherworld of disturbed minds.
CD,
On Death Valley:
“Why so Hot?
The depth and shape of Death Valley influence its summer temperatures. The valley is a long, narrow basin 282 feet (86 m) below sea level, yet is walled by high, steep mountain ranges. The clear, dry air and sparse plant cover allow sunlight to heat the desert surface. Heat radiates back from the rocks and soil, then becomes trapped in the valley’s depths. Summer nights provide little relief as overnight lows may only dip into the 85°F to 95°F (30°C to 35°C) range. Heated air rises, yet is trapped by the high valley walls, is cooled and recycled back down to the valley floor. These pockets of descending air are only slightly cooler than the surrounding hot air. As they descend, they are compressed and heated even more by the low elevation air pressure. These moving masses of super heated air blow through the valley creating extreme high temperatures.”
From: https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/nature/weather-and-climate.htm
@Pablo
Interesting.
Isn’t Australia’s highest is 50.7?
I also heard that Death Valley has a lot of virga, Mother Nature can be cruel.
Deserts are are like planets with no atmosphere. Very hot during the day and cold at night.
I guess because of no water? Clouds? Deserts get unimpeded sunlight, but it also escapes quickly.
No H2O.
@Philip Mulholland
Now this meridinal cycle does it switch from Southern Hemisphere Summer to Northern Hemisphere Summer? Does it push warmer air more North in SHS and push it South during the NHS or is it equally pushing air North and South?
Australia oceans heats up obviously more in the Southern H, Summer, so where is the hotpot during the opposite Summer? Is it more North of the Philippines?
Or will this make Northern Hemisphere Summers cooler?
@Philip Mulholland
The paper got a little confusing for me at the end. Were they saying one 60 year cycle split into 30-32 years and another offset cycle of 55-75 years or were they saying the entire 60 year cycle ranged around 55-75 years and the lesser cycles flipped 30-35 years.
You said we flipped to Meridianal around 2005, that would already be half way through the cycle, or is there a transitional period before it completely turns from Zonal to Meridianal?
Now when they say warming/cooling where exactly? Is this indicating the whole planet is cooling or a cell flips?
Sorry I must understand these things. I am neurotic on the details.
Thank you for your patience.
Hi CDM
Climate is a very complicated subject. I view my role as being more that of a librarian rather than a mentor.
Here is a Wayback link to a resource I created that you may find useful for your research:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150630195523/http://climateaudit101.wikispot.org/The_Library
Good luck.
CDM
The Library links will not work from the Wayback Machine, so paste the required reference into Google Scholar instead.
For example:
Mörner, N.-A. (2014) Deriving the Eustatic Sea Level Component in the Kattaegatt Sea
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=M%C3%B6rner%2C+N.-A.+%282014%29+%09Deriving+the+Eustatic+Sea+Level+Component+in+the+Kattaegatt+Sea&btnG=
Well…
I was able to find a more concise explanation.
http://www.fao.org/3/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm#TopOfPage
So that helped. Thanks, that is an enormous database! Works good on Firefox.
Some backtracking on the “climate emergency” from:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0001-x#Abs1
“Greener vegetation not only results from climatic and atmospheric changes but also feeds back to the climate through biogeochemical and biogeophysical processes. These feedbacks are often studied with Earth system models (ESMs), in which vegetation is coupled with the atmosphere and the hydrologic cycle17. ESM-based studies have demonstrated that greening can accelerate the hydrologic cycle by increasing the amount of water transpired by plants, alter the energy exchange between land and the atmosphere, and affect atmospheric circulation patterns18,19.”
And from conclusions:
“Greening has …………. intensified the hydrologic cycle and COOLED the land surface at the global scale.”
Just as an aside… I’ve been sitting on CFACT for a while and trying to kick some sense into this bloke Grant Foster (SP) who operates blog “Open Mind”. It’s open slather on CFACT ..no holds barred. ….so there’s the worst traits brought out…myself included..
Just a little aside confrontation…enjoy…keep up the fight : )
https://www.cfact.org/2020/02/13/will-the-west-cede-nuclear-energy-dominance-to-russia/#comment-4795555309
That SP freak is on every skeptic site out there. And it is one incredible nasty sophist.
Studying the Meridianal cycle more, it was supposed to be in full cycle by 2010 starting a 30 year cooling trend.The question is have we been in a cooling trend since 2010?
They absolutely predicted colder temps by 2030-35 perfectly aligned with the possible birthing of a mini ice age. Although some are predicting 2050?
“”On this basis it is reasonable that the current warm or zonal climatic epoch, started in 1970s, will probably finish in the first decade of 2000s, and the subsequent cold epoch will last since 2010s till 2030 from to 2030-35…”
“It was found that “zonal” epochs correspond to the periods of global warming and the meridional ones correspond to the periods of global cooling. (Lamb 1972; Lambeck 1980). The generalised time series on the atmospheric circulation forms for 1891-1999 were kindly placed at our disposal by the Federal Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St. Petersburg (Russia). This is also consistent with the theories and observations described by Leroux (1998).”
It has been a long time since I heard “global warming” mentioned in some sort of context not related to politcal CO2 or the Greenhouse Effect.
This paper was gold! Between this from Phillip and the works of Beck graciously supplied by Robert I have had 3 hours of sleep.
http://www.fao.org/3/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm#TopOfPage
I have missed something if you choose to peruse the work let me know.
Joseph,
SP sounds like an algorithm (or he used one). They have been making them for sites everywhere. Open debate is not what these people want. Dead giveaways are the “info dumps” or repetitive patterns in the replies.
I’ve tested a few. Use a pattern argument and then slip in something completely off the wall weaved into the normal conservation. A bot will not pick up on it, These pretzels are making me thirsty. Then its all about breaking their learning pattern to see how they respond.
PR#6 the temperatures to freezer if Obama was a great president. You can’t possible think the greenhouse effect is a valid argument based on orange juice? Show me the data?
To further what Mack said above, this clown S_P wrote this:
“Really? Why are nights getting warmer? Why is the LTL getting warmer? Many people on these blogs have difficulty navigating the interface between macroscopic and microscopic behavior. Large groups of molecules follow the laws of thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics, even though individual molecules, photons and other particles are not constrained by these laws. They follow the laws of quantum mechanics. The field of statistical mechanics explains how the behavior of large groups of molecules following the laws of quantum mechanics produces the laws of thermodynamics. Microscopic disorder become macroscopic entropy.
It is not something that needed refuting because you are obviously oblivious to the network of BSRN stations (baseline surface radiation network) established in the early 1990s and the hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of researchers over the decades who have taken measurements of downward longwave radiation (DLR – along with other values) for various projects and written up the results in papers. The Global Energy Balance Archive (GEBA) contains quality-checked monthly means of surface energy fluxes. The data were extracted from many sources including periodicals, data reports and unpublished manuscripts. GEBA archive are vastly outnumbered by incoming solar radiation measurements.”
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT BS??? Incredible the lengths AGW kooks will go to to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The dude is a certified idiot.
I hope Calgary is ok if the ice age does creep back. Nova Scotia too, that is were my family is from.
I geuss the Scandinavians and Scots survived the last one.
To take it a step further on what Mack said above, that kook S_P said this:
“Really? Why are nights getting warmer? Why is the LTL getting warmer? Many people on these blogs have difficulty navigating the interface between macroscopic and microscopic behavior. Large groups of molecules follow the laws of thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics, even though individual molecules, photons and other particles are not constrained by these laws. They follow the laws of quantum mechanics. The field of statistical mechanics explains how the behavior of large groups of molecules following the laws of quantum mechanics produces the laws of thermodynamics. Microscopic disorder become macroscopic entropy.
It is not something that needed refuting because you are obviously oblivious to the network of BSRN stations (baseline surface radiation network) established in the early 1990s and the hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of researchers over the decades who have taken measurements of downward longwave radiation (DLR – along with other values) for various projects and written up the results in papers. The Global Energy Balance Archive (GEBA) contains quality-checked monthly means of surface energy fluxes. The data were extracted from many sources including periodicals, data reports and unpublished manuscripts. GEBA archive are vastly outnumbered by incoming solar radiation measurements.”
Incredible! The lengths they will go through to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics in support of the bogus GHE.
They misinterpret energy emission from a cold source as being heat that can raise temperature. That simple, and that stupid.
If they were to put an ice cube in front of the IR camera they would interpret the thermal emission from the ice-cube as heat that can raise your body temperature.
This entire “energy balance” scheme has no thermodynamic language in it at all! It’s all scientific sophistry. This is why I created the “thermodynamic energy balance”.
The only “forcing” is from sunlight. The rest is after-effects that absolutely do not have more or even the same power as the original forcing.
How hard would have been to put a heated blade on that? Morons. That would have been far more cost effective than the price of flying that bird and de-icing.
Do you realize how insane these people are? They are hanging off a cliff with one hand, we are trying to pull them back and they willingly fall of the cliff to their death, convinced on the entire way down they are doing the right thing.
“I’m saving the planet!”
SPLAT.
Is that as bad as inefficiently converting coal energy to store into batteries for electric cars?
Which the raw materials to make the batteries are mined in the 3rd world by child labor.
That is exploitation, not providing jobs.
@CD Marshall
lol
I’m in a fight right now with some nutter claiming ocean pH has become more “acidic” because even though actual science chemsitry disproves that, “thousands of peer reviewed papers claims it is!”
So chemistry must be wrong right? Not political science. Where is Pierre when I need him? Is he doing okay? I haven’t heard from him in a while? last I heard he was taking on some colleges or something?
I have repeated this to this nutjob several times and it doesn’t sink in. In fact I pasted it to keep repeating to him. This was from Pierre a while back with some tiny things I added:
“CO2 reacts with water (H2O) to form carbonic acid (H2CO3). People think that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere will acidify the oceans nothing can be further from the truth. It is the underwater volcanoes that spew calcium silicate (CaSiO3) on the ocean floor that control the acidity of the oceans. The ocean floor is littered with this product. Carbonic acid reacts with calcium silicate to give insoluble calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Carbonic acid then reacts with this calcium carbonate to give aqueous calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCO3)2).
CaSiO3 + H2CO3 = CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2 (sand)
CaCO3 + H2CO3 = Ca(HCO3)2
Aqueous calcium bicarbonate has a natural pH of about 8.2 but runs from 8.1-8.3, slightly alkaline. The more carbonic acid you have, the more calcium silicate will react to neutralize it.
The natural buffer zone sets to 8.1-8.3. No CO2 from the atmosphere is going to change that. The only thing that can drastically change pH is CO2 injected so quickly the oceans need time to reset. That is only from volcanic activity or CO2/CH4 bubbling up from the ocean floor.
The science isn’t lying.”
These are anti-life disgusting anti-human freaks that lie about everything.
Just like the lie about increased CO2 causing a decrease in plant nutrient density hence being BAD for the environment…they just LIE..when we increase CO2 inside greenhouses to 5-times to make the plants more nutritious and productive and live on them! They just lie.
Like the idiotic “small quantities of things can kill you like cyanide” – comparing CO2, the life molecule, to cyanide!
These freaks are aliens that hate Earth life. As if you would call CO2 a toxin or say it is bad for plant growth! Psychotic!
That plant life crap I caught a long time ago. Thousands of tests have proven that most plants react very positivity to increased CO2.
This is a fact, been tested thousands of times even before the CO2 craze.
These liars therefore know exactly what plants don’t do well, take only those plants, conduct thousands of experiments on those plants only and say see? Thousands of experiments prove plants don’t do well in higher CO2.
The intelligence or self awareness of the populace seems to be fading, It reminds of this movie called Pulse (2006) where all the humans are taken over by spirits that drain the life from them until they fade to ash.
I’m starting to see the populace fade to ash.
OMG that seems to be what is entirely occurring. We must do what we must to survive!
I’m going to go watch that move…that’s exactly what is happening but it is occurring by destroying and draining people’s ability to think.
Conditioning from movies and the entire corrupt system including academia is brainwashing people to subconsciously accept that things happen for no reason and with no explanation. That’s the entire basis of quantum theory…things just happen randomly, the universe appeared randomly by no mechanism out of nothing for no reason or purpose. Nothing requires an explanation, and if it does, then ANY explanation is as good as any other.
Reason is being removed from humanity. What little reason we had. It is being systematically targeted and hidden. We have philosophers and scientists who presented much more rational approaches to everything…but they have systematically been removed from awareness and from history even though they were major contributors, such as Leibniz, etc.
“People’s Rebellion Against Climate Hysteria”
107,000 members in two weeks.
Wow great,
I love that movie one of many many favs.
Have you ever heard of Katherine Hayhoe (I am not making up her name) She’s an started out like you and became a corrupt climate scientist in no time.
Her front page makes you want to throw up:
“I didn’t realize climate science was based on the exact same basic physics – thermodynamics, non-linear fluid dynamics, and radiative transfer – I’d been learning in astrophysics…
“It takes the most serious humanitarian issues confronting climate change today – hunger, poverty, lack of access to clean water, injustice, refugee crises and more – and it makes them worse. How could I not do everything I could to help fix this huge global challenge?”
http://katharinehayhoe.com/wp2016/biography/
Did you know that Hungary was one of the few countries that had no “climate refugees”. They sent their military to the borders and told them to keep moving you aren’t welcome here.
youtube is reading my mind!
4.10—8.07
Oh that’s a perfect analysis!
“Please clap for us being such wonderful people.”
-not clapping
“BIGOT! DENIER!”
https://www.facebook.com/pg/DrAndrewFarley/about/?ref=page_internal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Farley_(author)
Her husband is interesting. She didn’t take his last name? I’ve seen no sign of children, just as I expected.
https://andrewfarley.org/
I”m getting cult/scammy vibes.
That Katherine Hayhoe piece is so gross CDM.
People have been literally driven mad insane with this pseudoscience.
Holy crap…that is so cringe. Very low IQ people.
That’s who runs this and keeps it afloat…is very stupid people.
@Pablo Where are these fantastic people coming from? Perhaps Trump has given them hope?
That’s a great video.
If I pour a glass of water 32 fluid ounces, and place five tablespoons of sugar in it, then I have some very sweet water. Now I add a dash of salt, and make it ever so slightly less sweet. THE WATER IS GETTING CATASTROPHICALLY SALTY ! Not.
Consider this:
I think the ocean-acidification hysteria is also based on the idea that when something is, say (for example), a 9 in alkalinity and it becomes an 8 in alkalinity, then it is acidifying, which is BS, because it’s STILL ALKALINE. Less alkaline that is still alkaline is NOT acid!
I think that pH figure for distilled water is wrong, wrong, wrong. Not sure where that came from.
Robert I have heard rumors of them being caught taking pH samples next to volcanoes in the water. Nothing they do surprises me.
Joseph you should contact her! That would be interesting if she’d even respond.
http://katharinehayhoe.com/wp2016/contact/
It just amazes me that this cult is willing to go along with the elites who are just looking out for themselves. The really smart lemmings are at the back watching as the heard drive themselves over the cliff then when the number gets more manageable they simply turn around and feed on the abundant food without the competition. It’s really hard to believe that a lot of academics can’t figure this out. Kind of reminds me of Jamestown cult.
“hard to believe that a lot of academics can’t figure this out”
I was just laughing about this to myself. About the point of the embedded paradox existing in what exactly the distance between the Earth and Sun is given their flat-Earth accounting of the flux. This point is so far beyond their understanding. The logic is far too subtle for them. Well…also fat too obvious for them. Actually, look….the current state of academia is simply that logic isn’t allowed inside at all.
Ya it seems learning is now restricted to memory work,no actual thinking involved
“Raise you right hand and say I confirm that I believe in climate change and will support its findings no matter how outrageous even unto my death. Do you you confirm your unwavering devotion to Gaia?”
“I do.”
“Welcome to the fold, receive your PH.D on the way out. Next!”
In her husband’s wiki it says he writes for huff post. Interesting.
Of course he does…good lord.
This pic tells you all you need to know about Hayhoe=$$$
Oh wow, and she’s CEO of a climate consulting firm…so, no back hand buy-offs occurring there at all! They’re all parasites.
So I have just hooked another PH.D. They come to me like fish on a bait.
Just dropped this most simple question to him.
How does CO2 trap heat?
I love starting out with this one. Good bait.
Use the visuals graphics from this OP and the video of my peer-review experience once you need it!
Good luck!
So this was his reply:
“I asked where you got your Ph.D.
I got mine at Rutgers University.
“how does thermodynamics physics support global warming?”
The temperature of any system is a function of the energy coming into that system and the energy leaving the system. If more comes in than goes out the temperature increases.
“How does CO2 “trap” heat? ”
It doesn’t. A molecule of CO2 will momentarily absorb the energy of an IR photon that was headed towards outer space. It does this through either bond bending or bond stretching energy absorption. It will then emit a photon of IR in order to return to its original conformational state. Half of the time that emitted IR photon will be directed towards outer space (which is where it was headed in the first place) and half the time the IR photon will be directed back towards Earth.
It is this redirection of IR back towards the Earth that creates the greenhouse effect and the more CO2 molecules we have in the atmosphere the more of these IR photons will be redirected back towards the Earth’s surface.
Make sense?
Wow they’re so well-coordinated in this scheme where they get to just argue about energy and ignore the rest of thermodynamics.
“The temperature of any system is a function of the energy coming into that system and the energy leaving the system. If more comes in than goes out the temperature increases.”
A lot of that is true. But it is also false in the way that they apply it. The “system” is the whole Earth, and the whole system emits exactly what it is supposed to. For it to emit less, such as to then raise to a warmer temperature so as to emit more, one would have to reduce the emissivity of the system, of the whole Earth. GHG’s do not reduce emissivity, and are supposed to be emitters. Better emitters actually lead to cooling because the system can emit more efficiently.
What they’re trying to refer to, or mixing up here without being clear about it, is only the surface of Earth but of course the surface of the Earth does not represent the entire emitting or thermodynamic system. And likewise, GHG’s do not reduce the emissivity of the ground surface. And thus we have this statement:
“It is this redirection of IR back towards the Earth that creates the greenhouse effect”
which is said without any reference to heat flow and the first law of thermodynamics which says that heat is required to increase temperature. They say that statement hoping that you then go along with the implication without realizing that they have said nothing at all.
But don’t forget that he said:
“Half of the time that emitted IR photon will be directed towards outer space”
Thus, if GHG’s emit half of their energy to space, whereas non GHG’s which make up 99% of the atmosphere *do not emit*, then this means that relative to the non-GHG’s, the GHG’s increase emission. In terms of emissivity then it becomes that non-GHG’s due to their lack of emittance hold on to heat energy very well and can get warmer and warmer without emitting, whereas GHG’s readily emit as soon as they are warmed. And as CO2 is collisionally dominated, then that means that it gets its energy mainly from bouncing around with the other gases in the atmosphere, which energy it then emits to space.
Applying real logic and physical science to their word-salad energy-balance scheme debunks their position entirely and exposes the GHE as non-existent.
“The temperature of any system is a function of the energy coming into that system and the energy leaving the system. If more comes in than goes out the temperature increases.”
We see this same nonsense over and over. Spencer uses that same statement ad nauseam.
That’s why we know they’re clowns. They give themselves away. They have no knowledge of the physics involved.
CD, ask him if he brings a bowl of ice cream into his 22 ºC room, does the room temperature rise? That “adds energy” to the room. Why doesn’t the temperature increase?
If he’s still around, ask him how much a 15μ photon can warm a surface at 289 K?
Also, what he describes is entirely originated in their flat Earth diagrams.
The supposed climatological greenhouse effect is an ad-hoc mathematical addition to flat Earth theory in order to make flat Earth theory more reasonably approximate measured temperatures. Whereas, of course one can arrive at measured temperatures directly by using a spherical Earth (with no “greenhouse effect”), and in fact in this case the atmosphere/climate becomes a massive cooling system rather than an additional heat source.
The atmosphere cannot both be a heating source and a cooling source. It either does one or the other, except for the exceptions in weather which prove the rule.
They say that the atmosphere is a heating source ONLY as an ad-hoc scheme to MAKE flat Earth theory work.
In real physics with a spherical Earth, there is no ad-hoc claim to make that the atmosphere cools…this is measured directly.
Yah exactly geran…there is WAY MORE ENERGY contained in a block of ice at -5C as compared to the air its volume replaced at 22C.
You bring in a block of ice to a room and it replaces a volume of air. The air was at 22C, but the block of ice is at -5C. The ice, being H2O as opposed to air and having a much higher heat capacity, contains likely 100 or 1000 times or more thermal energy than the air it replaces. The ice ADDED WAY WAY WAY more energy to the room. The ice increased the energy contained in the room by orders of magnitude!!!!!!
And yet…what did the ice do to the temperature.
Hence:
“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”
An increase of energy in a system DOES NOT EQUATE to an increase in temperature of a system!! Thermo 101.
And that is why they came up with this sophistical argument…so argue only in terms of energy, while leaving thermodynamics out of it.
JUST AS THE REVIEWER WANTED ME TO DO WITH THAT PAPER!
I think this is a good one.
Answer this, in a actual green house being hit by 960 W/m2 (88°c) will the inside of the green house exceed 88°c?
Then try and nail down the recycling of heat in the alarmist model.
Would you like a game?
@ CDM
A volume of emitting IR photons will only equaly emit in all directions when the surrounding air parcel is the same temperature.
This is confirmed by the NASA Saber instrument. NO and CO2 protect against solar storms in the thermosphere, and 95% of the absorbed radiation gets near instantly radiated back to the colder space.
Exactly boomie good one.
In a situation where the scenario/machanism should manifest…it doesn’t!
Basic empiricism. These asshats.
As a dumb ass lay person even I know that a tiny sphere emitting in all directions will not return half to earth unless earth is flat and stretches into infinity.
@Barry
I’m pretty sure there is no “unless”.
Even a flat earth hit by -18C sunlight will stay -18C.
Barry you’re smarter than PhD physics academics today. We’ll need you to teach graduate-level physics and thermodynamics when all this is fixed 🙂 haha
The atmosphere cannot both be a heating source and a cooling source.
Not a direct source of heating energy, right (like a second sun)? — But it IS a means of regulating heat, thus keeping us warmer on the night side than we would otherwise be. And it IS a cooling source on the day side.
That day/night thing confuses people. Maybe we should drop the absolutes of “heating” and “cooling” and replace them with the word “regulating”, where “heating” and “cooling” are sub-processes of it.
The night warmth is a heat retention thing, though, right? Heating by retention is NOT heating by a source, in the sense you mean, right?
… just trying to get a grip on using these words with the greatest integrity.
Right!
Pingback: Email Thread with Colleagues | Climate of Sophistry
In Flat Earth World there is no day or night. In creating the fake climate model they have eliminated the most basic feature of all, the presence of the dark night. So ask this simple question “Can you see the Sun at night? If you get the “Oh but …” reply as in “Oh but you don’t understand”, then you know that you are dealing with a sophist.
Thank you all of you guys, I’m been soaking in all this content first before I replied. I have been taught enough (by all of you) that I picked up on all of his “mistakes” already but I like the deeper detail you go into for my benefit. Naturally I won’t give him all of it unless needed.
I have been musing over the fact that I’d say only around 25-33% of IR photons from CO2 is reflected back to Earth and of that (maybe I’m wrong in the %) absorption is based on temperature, very little would be absorbed over reflected back to space.
A reflected photon carries no temperature change and an absorbed photon carries only a potential temperature change. A year/2 months/21 days ago I knew absolutely none of that.
I would like to say why I find this so disturbing is I took an equivalency test in my teens and I had a standard Sophomore college education. Yet I knew nothing of this, which means I’d guess mostly all college grads are leaving not knowing any of this.
@MP I have been racking my head (which phrase meant something literal in Midieval torture) over why this process happens in the Thermosphere for nearly a year now! You just casually answered it, never would have thought of temperature being the medium!
Thank you for making my brain a step closer to sanity.
I’m curious how many here besides the marvelous Joseph Postma have any degrees in science?
Obviously I don’t.
My second question, Joseph does anyone support you openly or discreetly in Academia? Like a closet GHGe denier as it were? I’d imagine not all have lost all integrity but some do need to keep their jobs.
Bill Nye the science guy has a bachelor’s degree in engineering
Who hires climatologist/meteorologist besides the media and the government/military anyway?
Colleges, and that is about it. I think.
That is probably why it’s easy for them to stay so insulated.
@boomie789
You are hilarious! As someone who spent some time in television writing 15-30 second promos and video clips this stuff is great!!!
So many rules they had for clip promos back then. Going through hours and hours of video (on tape (1/2″ I think back in those days) just to find enough clips to do a 30 second promo was insane.
You had three different departments involved in creating one promo that lasted 30 seconds.
I am but the first wave of millennials.
“does anyone support you openly or discreetly in Academia? Like a closet GHGe denier as it were? I’d imagine not all have lost all integrity but some do need to keep their jobs.”
No…they don’t. Even one I know who is skeptical of climate alarm still believes there is a GHE…but I know that this is because they don’t actually know what the GHE is or where it comes from. Academia really is an echo chamber and they truly never remotely encounter what critical thinking or rationality is.
That’s the role these frauds like Spencer/Monckton/etc. were put in place to play – they pretend to be skeptics while covering up the basis of why we should be skeptical in the first place. They pretend to be the cool-headed climate scientists we should listen to while they cover for the fraud of the basis of the alarmists anyway.
It’s like a good-cop/bad-cop play. They’re both working you over on something else, getting you to let your guard down while the nice cop F’s you over entirely.
“When more energy arrives at Planet Earth than leaves then the temperature goes up. When more energy leaves than arrives then the temperature goes down.” Rosie,
“The temperature of any system is a function of the energy coming into that system and the energy leaving the system. If more comes in than goes out the temperature increases.” PhD troll
Uncanny they both left out heat.
Exactly. It sounds good…but it’s not quite relevant. What’s leaving the planet Earth is NOT being reduced. The emissivity of neither the earth nor the ground surface is reduced. And if GHG’s emit but the others don’t…then they cool.
“The temperature of any system is a function of the energy coming into that system and the energy leaving the system. If more comes in than goes out the temperature increases.”
Not so. If more energy comes in than goes out then of course the total energy content of the system increases, but this does not automatically produce a temperature rise.
Have these people never heard of endothermic reactions?
Do they not know what latent heat is and how it operates?
Do they not appreciate that snowfall and ice accumulation at 4,000 metres elevation is a store of new potential energy and that this potential energy has no temperature expression?
Joseph you could easily start an online school in climate science (imagine the outrage!) well, easy if you had a ton of cash to dump, anyway. On Tony’s site I heard Trump may be considering investigating climate change again with a new set of scientists (who weren’t bought off or sold on the GHGe like Spencer/Chrsitie/Curry/Monckton I’m hoping.)
Rush Limbaugh has no idea he let the enemy in the camp by trusting Spencer.
Fantastic I loved it! This article is very helpful for me. Thanks for sharing with us.
In relation to the video Mr Smith gets Blackpilled, here is a comment from the great Thomas Sowell saying the same: “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
We put too much faith in democracy because other systems seem obviously worse. But democracy with political parties provides a power base for politicians who work for the party and not the people who elect them. We need to get rid of the political parties. Eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex which I think is now generally the link that governments have with big businesses, academia, and NGOs. We do not know who is making the decisions, but it certainly does not appear to be the people we elect working for our interests. When I reached the view that democracy was part of the problem, I discovered it was not a new idea and Plato was concerned about it. He used an example of voting for a ship’s navigator, saying the most incompetent person was likely to be elected.
Joe – back to your citation of Schroeder’s textbook Thermal Physics (heat, energy, temperature…) : I had a cursory look at the thermal radiation part, Chapter 7, and….a myth collapsed !
At page 306 I found the canonical depiction of the greenhouse effect. I’m linking here that page for convenience :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15th5Jx70PtKYVEzJ92bfUihd_2buZZLp/view?usp=sharing
Comments ?
Yeah Schroeder should know better. I had a troll claim he was going to tell him I said so. I welcomed the opportunity for discussion…still waiting.
@Max Polo – Yes, I have that very textbook, it was used in my undergrad thermodynamics course in 3rd year of my 4-year undergrad in astrophysics.
The student has become the master and the teacher, thus, I note the hilarity of a textbook discussing heat flow ad-nauseum which suddenly for a single paragraph NEGLECTS discussion of heat flow, and treats all energy as heat.
Also in this textbook, at the start, is where you find the quote of him saying that the most difficult concept for students of thermodynamics is to distinguish between heat, energy, and temperature…! And he spends the entire textbook elucidating those differences. But then, for this single paragraph, forgets it ALL, and just says that the energy from the colder atmosphere causes the surface to receive TWICE the energy than it does from the sun, thus making it hotter. You can note one thing here though:
The whole entire textbook is filled with the equations of thermodynamics for every single point being made. Every single little point is given an equation to demonstrate. Oh but wow…look at this paragraph…there is no equation he writes out to demonstrate the radiative greenhouse effect given the principles developed in the book. The book covers all sorts of math…but for this one part, he leaves out the math for what he’s discussing. Amazing. lol
Well, note also that it is a flat Earth diagram, where sunlight is reduced to only a -18C heating potential, and this with such premises founded, he believes that there must be some other mechanism which heats the surface of the Earth, since in flat Earth theory (his diagram is flat Earth theory!) the Sun cannot heat the Earth or create the climate or create any physics process above -18C…the sun doesn’t melt ice, something else does…the sun doesn’t create cumulonimbus clouds, something else does…the tilt of the Earth with respect to solar input doesn’t create summer time, something else does…
I’m happy you have that textbook. It’s a good textbook. Except for that single paragraph…lol.
Thanks ! Indeed it’s quite incredible that an otherwise excellent textbook makes such blunders…at least in my humble opinion. Groupthink at work at the highest academic levels 🙂
Pingback: Artificial Stupidity – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
Pingback: How Climate Miscalculations Have Misdirected Policy, Sir Christopher Monckton – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
Pingback: ‘Climate Emergency’ is Fabricated Alarmism Holding Poor Back | Conversation with Judith Curry PhD – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
Pingback: Climate Fakery Part 20 – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
@Joseph Postma
To start with I am not a physicist nor a great mathematician. You would refer to me as a layman. I am retired at this point. I know your intent was simplicity with accuracy. As I was looking at your diagram, which by the way makes sense compared to the popular diagram used which has always puzzled me, made me think I was really stupid, it occurred to me that as you go around the sphere from the Zenith to the terminator(90 deg), the insolation would not stay constant. So, I divided the incoming radiation into 6 sections of equal width from the Zenith to one end of the terminator line and spread the incoming radiation over the surface in each section. As the angle and length of the surface increases relative to the radiation, the radiation is spread over a greater amount of surface in each of the 6 sections. I started with 960 W/m^2 and ended with 277 W/m^2 in the last section. The Zenith is 100% incoming, the first division is 99.65% average and the last section is 28% of the zenith average per m^2 in the last or 6th division. I’m just wondering if that was right. 277 W/m^2 for the last section is awfully cold at 264 K worth of temperature by my calc.
Love your books and logic expressed the 3 that I’ve read. I tried to send you a donation, but was going to have to sign up for Canadian Paypal. Do you have a U.S. Paypal account?
Cheers,
Alex
Link to drawing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QaovhdKAxf0b-1Tk5ob8EjgItfR7ykmY/view?usp=sharing
I went to a website called skeptical science dot com and asked the following simple question: Can object be warmed by having its own radiation reflected back on it. You’d have thought I insulted their mother. I caught hell and was told to read a bunch of publications on their sight. Not being a math wizz or a physicist I asked again if they could just answer my simple question. Caught more hell and was told again to read their publications. No answer though.
Oh yah you’re striking a sore spot with them for sure. Triggering cognitive dissonance plus exposing their whole scheme of destroying Earth lol. You get a real sense of honesty from them.
New video momentarily, stay tuned…related to your question/experience.
@Joseph Postma
In case anybody was interested, I improved the cartoon linked to in my post 120616 of 2023/08/19 3:31pm and added another showing the solar radiation spread from the zenith view, both with est avg W/m2 for each area. Made them more accurate. Maybe someone can make use of them.
Cartoons:
Polar view: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qtc52lYlu20bUOPAX2vBu4eOQ8GkxI8I/view?usp=sharing
Zenith view: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SqZnEqYfswqOUufNVXFBvXtY2JXOFZ23/view?usp=sharing
Question; I had read in a previous post of yours about an equatorial “hot spot” that isn’t there according to satellite measurments. Would that have been estimated to have been there because of the maximum radiation received at the equatorial Solar Zenith?
@Joseph Postma
In case anybody was interested, I added another illustration showing the solar radiation spread from the zenith view with est avg W/m2.
Zenith view: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SqZnEqYfswqOUufNVXFBvXtY2JXOFZ23/view?usp=sharing
Joe Postma,
Did you block me for some reason? I have tried several times to post an update to my spread of sunshine drawing with more accurate numbers and a drawing depicting the spread from the zenith/equator view. None have been accepted and have no message saying why. Did I do something wrong? I have been reading your blogs and 4 of your books. I have seen some discussion about the diminishing radiation as you get further from the zenith, so I did some math and a couple of illustrations to help people understand the effect. I have no way to get in touch with you except your blog. I do really appreciate your work. It all makes sense. Just thought I could add to it. You have inspired me to study some physics even though I’m retired. I am using your work to try to convince the U.S. congress that AGW is a lie.
Best,
Alex Janssen
Nah it blocks stuff based on too many links sometimes…kind of unpredictable. I’ll check for them.
No that was the tropospheric hot spot which should show up if there’s a radiative greenhouse effect – not there.
Joseph Postma
If my Solar Input Spread chart values are correct, how hot does it make the earth?
See prev post https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/02/10/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/#comment-121558
I know it’s 288k but I’d like to calculate it in order to show the calc to others. I know it’s a lot of calculating but a spreadsheet is not beyond me and I know a watt is a joule per second. What do I do with the heat over time to guess the temperature of the surface and the atmosphere. maybe you’ve already posted such. I’ve measured the temperature of the surface for various weather conditions using my IR temp gage for a number of days this summer. (the ground is always about 40-70 deg F warmer than the sky during the day). The sky can’t possibly heat the surface. Let me know if I’m nuts about making the calculations.
Thanks.
It’s all good Alex, but I’ll go through the complete process when I give the Livestream lecture, soon in the next week or two.
Nasif S Nahle in 2011 disproved the AWG theory. How does research and analysis like this get swept under the rug?
Click to access New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf
A good read. Seems as though papers like this get forgotten. Is human memory that short lived? Is it because the alarmists have better promotion? We need to work on that.
The entire scientific establishment is now a Forum of npcs run by a well coordinated controller. Everything that science does now is a facade to cover up the clandestine operation of the Forum’s true purpose of ending life on Earth.
Got to reach that population reduction quota by any means necessary. The funny thing is once the Elites are through the NPCs will have no more purpose. They are literally advocating for their own deletion.
Well, think of how great the world will be without them…