I had a really excellent follow-up question come up on my “Real Climate Physics vs. Fake Political Physics” video. I will post the original question and response, and then discuss the follow up below:
Leon Hiebert: Hi Joe. Quick question. You said the TE of earth is correct but if the FS(1-A)/4 is wrong, wouldn’t that mean the TE isn’t -18?
Joe Postma: The TE of the Earth is correct…but…NOT AS THE SOLAR INPUT or forcing from said input. It’s not correct to use TE as the solar input. TE is the earth “output”…and it is way colder than the solar input. This is the fundamental mistake…THE ONE. And it originates in flat earth theory. Great question for generating clarity!
Six months later Leon posted a follow up question:
Leon Hiebert: 6-months later I return to this question. If the output is less than the input, (which I don’t dispute) how is there an energy balance? I know the Trenberth chart is garbage and 163 hitting the surface should be more, and they try to balance it out by inverting output and fudging the 340W but an alarmist will say energy in must match energy out. If there’s an olr deficit, we would overheat. Which I can’t dispute. So how come we don’t overheat when less is going out? Thanks.
Now this is an extremely important question. The total energy in and out is indeed the same in quantity. But the quality of the energy is completely different. It is not a question of quantity, which of course equal, but of quality, and that is not at all equal. It is the quality of the energy that drives the physics.
Above, we used TE for the temperature of the earth output. Temperature is a measure of the quality of energy, not the quantity. The earth output temperature TE is -18C, so quite cool in quality.
The Earth solar input temperature we can denote as TS, and although it’s the same total energy as the output of Earth, the TS is actually +121C.
So you have the same total energies in the output and the input, but one energy is at -18C while the other is at +121C.
Do these energies have the same effect upon matter and in physics? Would they generate the same physical responses in matter? For the same total energies, what effect would -18C energy have on an ice cube vs +121C energy? For the same total energies, what effect would -18C energy have on generating and sustaining our known climate vs. that of +121C energy?
Climate science and its greenhouse effect says that there is no difference. Climate science says that we can use the output -18C energy of the Earth as the solar input of the Earth because there is the same total quantity of +121C solar input; climate science says that we can ignore the difference in the quality of the energy because they have the same total quantity. Climate science then even goes on to state their position that they believe that the Sun does not heat the Earth as I exposed in the video AMS Official: SUN DOES NOT CREATE EARTH’S WEATHER.
So here’s the sequence of events:
- Climate science pretends that in physics we can ignore the quality (temperature) of energy as long as we have the same quantity of energy.
- Given 1, climate science then uses Earth’s output energy with a quality of -18C in place of the the solar input energy of +121C to the Earth, since it is the same total energy.
- Given 2, climate science then states that the solar input cannot heat the Earth above -18C and thus cannot create and sustain Earth’s climate and weather.
- Given 3, climate science then invents a scheme of heat-recycling and heat-amplification which it calls a “greenhouse effect” even though real greenhouses do not operate by heat recycling or heat-amplification.
- Given 4, climate science peer-review prevents anyone from pointing out that mistakes have been made, and that real greenhouses demonstrate that the alternative climate science “greenhouse effect” does not exist, and that this is because heat-recycling violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and that we should re-consider the quality of solar energy at +121C as being the force that directly creates and sustains the climate and weather.
- Given 5, climate science with its pal-protected review process then turns into political theory where it claims that the life-creating molecule of carbon dioxide is the molecule which causes this heat-recycling and that more of it will threaten a “runaway warming” of the planet, with politicians together with the climate scientists then labeling the life-creating molecule of carbon-dioxide as a pollutant that must be taxed and regulated so that we can save the Earth from destruction.
And the final step of this process has been that all along the way, modern academic PhD’s in physics and astronomy and meteorology (weather men!) now completely lack the intelligence and intellectual fortitude to comprehend the difference between quantity and quality and whether such distinctions make a difference to physics and science at all. They cannot even form the question in their minds, let alone begin to answer it. This step is truly the most amazing part of all.
Quantity is not equal to quality, and it is quality, not quantity, which determines what physics occurs. The quality of the energy dictates what type of physics can occur; the quantity dictates how much of that physics can occur.
And when it comes to radiant energy, i.e. the energy in light, its quality is measured by energy flux density, i.e., Watts per meter squared (W/m²).
Climate of Sophistry 
Excellent explanation Joseph!
The fascinating thing is the greater the heat-energy of a photon (emitting from a very hot heat source) the less of them that exist, proving quantity and quality are nowhere near the same thing. I am amazed how Nature dictates her own way of regulating energy balance.
The Bose-Einstein statistic and the process of boson condensation works naturally to conserve energy to keep higher energy particles from overloading the system.
Science is freaking amazing!
And for further clarification, the reason the quality of the input and output energy is different is because the input energy is concentrated onto a smaller surface area (daytime side of the earth with the 121C potential only when the sun is directly above) and the output quality is determined by a larger surface area, ie the whole earth.
Exactly.
Why people cannot understand the difference between input on a half sphere and output on a whole sphere I don’t get. It’s not that difficult. It might take a few times reading about it, but it should get through by then. Smart people are going to get it, within three reps. Not so smart people might never get it.
Everybody cannot keep a beat, remember. Everybody cannot learn to dance. They can try and try and try, but they can never do it. Some basic concepts are this way, I’m afraid.
Moved my comment over here seems more fitting. I asked where he got his “information” from. We’ll see if he bites?
This was someone’s reply to me apparently they hate you as well character assassination is part of the 3-Ds of opposition…
Deny what is being said is true.
Deflect what is shown to be wrong about it.
Discredit the source showing the errors.
“Joseph Postma published an article criticizing a very simple model that nonetheless produces useful results. He made several very simple errors along the way, none of which are very technical in nature. More sophisticated models are obviously designed to handle the uneven distribution of solar heating (which is why we have weather!); nonetheless, the educational tools are useful for their purpose, and in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect. Without a greenhouse effect, multiple studies have shown that the Earth collapses into a frozen iceball (Pierrehumbert et al., 2007; Voigt and Marotzke 2009, Lacis et al 2010) and indeed, after an ice-albedo feedback, plummets below the modern effective temperature of 255 K. This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs.”
I found the source…
https://skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm
“And for further clarification, the reason the quality of the input and output energy is different is because the input energy is concentrated onto a smaller surface area (daytime side of the earth with the 121C potential only when the sun is directly above) and the output quality is determined by a larger surface area, ie the whole earth.”
That helps with my understanding but I’m going to need more help refining these responses for someone who is skeptical. It seems counter intuitive that 240W can be both 121C and -18C.
Thanks.
Joseph,
Didn’t you do a response to this on PSI I’d like to link that back to him?
“It seems counter intuitive that 240W can be both 121C and -18C.”
OK first we need to be careful about units. You mean of course 240 W/m^2, not 240 W. It is the /m^2 (per square meter) part which determines the quality of the energy.
And so 240 W/m^2 is indeed noth both 121C and -18C. 240 W/m^2 is -18C. And this is the output.
The input is 1370 W/m^2 and this is +121C.
1370 W/m^2 and 240 W/m^2 are both measures of quality of energy, because they are energy per unit time per unit area…giving temperature for radiation.
But because you can multiply these over the surface of the Earth where they occur – 1370 W/m^2 input over the day side only, and 240 W/m^2 output from the entire surface – then the total quantity of energy is the same.
And because you can make the total quantity of energy the same in this way, climate science then claims that it is also OK to assert that the qualities of the energy must therefore also be the same, and therefore the 1370 W/m^2 or +121C input over the day-side is the same thing as 240 W/m^2 or -18C input over the entire surface.
You see the trick?
“Without a greenhouse effect, multiple studies have shown that the Earth collapses into a frozen iceball”
Yes…because they model the sun as a -18C input…lol!
Yes someone linked my PSI reply once…I forget what the title was. I carried it here too.
“You mean of course 240 W/m^2, not 240 W”
Yes of course. I was being succinct.
“And so 240 W/m^2 is indeed noth both 121C and -18C. 240 W/m^2 is -18C. And this is the output.”
Right, I had conflated the Trenberth budget in my mind seeing they have 163 + 77 absorbed by the surface and atmosphere, ergo, 240 in, which isn’t 121C. After absorption in the atmos, how much of that 1370 hits the ground? 900W/m^2?
“therefore the 1370 W/m^2 or +121C input over the day-side is the same thing as 240 W/m^2 or -18C input over the entire surface.”
Got it. Thanks.
“After absorption in the atmos, how much of that 1370 hits the ground? 900W/m^2?”
Depends where you are, but yes that would be a reasonable value, but there would be areas with more than that, and also less. Generally it looks like this:
Other figures you might like:
Upvote please and ty.
“Depends where you are, but yes that would be a reasonable value, but there would be areas with more than that, and also less.”
A car in the N, hemisphere can reach about 52C on a hot summer day. This can be converted back into W/M^2 can it not? Couldn’t this be used to determine exactly what the surface gets at that latitude?
Yep for sure Leon, that’s exactly how the physics would work. That would be 633 W/m^2 via the Stefan Boltzmann Law.
@Leon
Check this out.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/stefan-boltzmann-law
Put a “1” in area.
Then you can type in the watts or the temp to get each other.
“Check this out.”
Oh yea, there it is. Awesome and thanks.
””’Leon Hiebert says:
2020/07/05 at 7:13 PM
“And for further clarification, the reason the quality of the input and output energy is different is because the input energy is concentrated onto a smaller surface area (daytime side of the earth with the 121C potential only when the sun is directly above) and the output quality is determined by a larger surface area, ie the whole earth.”
That helps with my understanding but I’m going to need more help refining these responses for someone who is skeptical. It seems counter intuitive that 240W can be both 121C and -18C.
Thanks.”””
Thurther to Josephs reply.
My cook book says to cook a perfect loaf i need to put the dough in the oven at 200c for 2 hours then switch off and leave the dough in to go crisp on the outside.as it cools for 2 hours.
Climate science says i can cook the perfect loaf at 100c over 4 hours because i am using the same amount of energy.
But they are wrong, as its about the quality the intensity of the energy that produces the perfect loaf .
And their loaf falls as flat as their theory, even a child understands its about intensity, i.e. quality of energy, these people must be able to see their basic error but the lively hoods depend on them being blind to it,
When I put a pan of water on the hob and turn on the electric ring at the base to heat its contents, the water at the bottom of the pan gets heated by conduction. The water then circulates inside the pan by density controlled convection, and the heat escapes from the sides as well as the top of the pan. Not a perfect analogy, but the geometry point should be clear. Area of input of high density energy is the base of the pan, area of output of low density energy are the side walls and top of the pan, which are clearly larger in area than its base. At thermal balance quantity of energy in equals quantity of energy out, but the quality has clearly changed.
Joe,
This is beautiful.
“The quality of the energy dictates what type of physics can occur; the quantity dictates how much of that physics can occur.”
Climate should not be defined as the average of 30-years of weather. That is how we measure the climate (its quantity), not what climate actually is (its quality).
Here is my understanding of what climate is from our paper: Return to Earth: A New Mathematical Model of the Earth’s Climate –
We propose that climate be defined as the presence and action of a particular atmospheric circulation cell type (Hadley, Ferrel, Polar) within a given planetary latitudinal zone.
A description of the form of a process is not an explanation of its function.
“Abstract
Downward longwave radiation (DLR) is often assumed to be an independent forcing on the surface energy budget in analyses of Arctic warming and land‐atmosphere interaction. We use radiative kernels to show that the DLR response to forcing is largely determined by surface temperature perturbations. We develop a method by which vertically integrated versions of the radiative kernels are combined with surface temperature and specific humidity to estimate the surface DLR response to greenhouse forcing. Through a decomposition of the DLR response, we estimate that changes in surface temperature produce at least 63% of the clear‐sky DLR response in greenhouse forcing, while the changes associated with clouds account for only 11% of the full‐sky DLR response. Our results suggest that surface DLR is tightly coupled to surface temperature; therefore, it cannot be considered an independent component of the surface energy budget.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082220
“…the main transport of heat in the troposphere is carried out by some other mechanism than radiation. The mechanism is obviously convection,….
In low latitudes,….water vapour in the atmosphere acts as a blanket on the outward flow of radiation, and by keeping the energy at low levels, gives the general circulation of the atmosphere time to carry it away to high latitudes.”
David Brunt: “Physical and Dynamical Meteorology” 1935
Since I have some meteorology based fellows here and I can’t seem to find the information again,
has anyone ever heard of the inverted adiabatic lapse rate at the poles? If yes, exactly what is it and anywhere I can read up on it? Does it exist at both poles?
Now I’m assuming it’s just the process of warmer air moving to the poles from the Equator which would produce the “inverted” lapse rate effect. Lake Erie, in my neck of the woods has a inverted thermocline, for similar reasons:
” the unusual circulation and thermocline patterns to anticyclonic winds that tend to blow over Lake Erie. Such anticyclonic winds would cause the warm surface waters to converge in the center of the lake, driving down the depth of the thermocline…:”
“The hereto identified thermodynamic component of ATE creates a new premise for the Greenhouse theory, which currently attributes 100% of the background atmospheric warming to a long-wave radiation trapping by greenhouse gases. Finally, our analysis suggests that the exact contribution of heat-absorbing gases to Earth’s atmospheric effect will remain unknown until the non-radiative component of ATE is fully quantified. Therefore, further fundamental research is needed in atmospheric radiative transfer and 3-D tropospheric thermodynamics to better constrain the functional elements of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect.”
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Screw climate science, we need to go back to real solid physics especially thermodynamics.
The U.N. IPCC’s climate science want to solve the Earth’s temperature with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Sorry, the S-B Law only applies to condensed solids, i.e., liquids and solids. It doesn’t apply to gases. Hence you can use it with the Moon but not the Earth, because Earth’s huge heavy atmosphere gets in the way, and all the fake physics U.N. IPCC calculations of Earth’s so-called radiative energy balance don’t mean diddly squat. The IPCC clowns actually try to use it backwards by attempting to derive the temperature of Earth’s surface from the total energy radiated on the upper atmosphere from the Sun, as if there’s no atmosphere to worry about. Then they do a double swindle by treating Earth as flat and quartering the Sun’s power without accounting for how that would lower its temperature to stay a Planck radiator, i.e., you can’t just take a Planck radiation curve for 5800K and reduce the vertical axis and keep the power vs. wavelength distribution the same, you have to use a lower temperature curve with one-fourth the power.
Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a vacuum, it’s a Carnot heat engine, converting energy to work to generate wind and storms. This is what keeps the Earth’s surface from overheating, and what makes a radiative energy balance into mental doodoo. An engine uses up energy generate work, and doesn’t send the energy back to the source in the same useful form, which would be a great trick with a NASCAR racer with a recirculating hose from the tailpipe to the gas tank that doesn’t need refueling stops 🙂
The atmosphere’s gravity and heat capacity keep the surface from freezing. It’s pure thermodynamics, starting with good ole PV=nRT, with CO2 radiation being irrelevant. Richard Feynman figured it out and explained it in his famous Feynman Lectures, which only top physics students at Stanford, Cal Tech, MIT etc. can follow, even though most physics students buy a set and display them on their shelves for prestige: IPCC’s so-called climate scientists weren’t smart enough to major in physics, especially at those institutions, so no wonder they developed their own weird fake science from 19th century physicists they didn’t even understand. What a racket clowns like Trenberth had going for them, getting paid to live and work in ski town Boulder, Colo. in a fancy facility developed by I.M. Pei with deer outside your window 🙂
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/physicist-richard-feynman-proved.html
Why keep lambasting the IPCC’s garbage science mountain when we should be trying to refound climate science on a sound basis? We won’t get our work accepted by their kept academic journals, but if any of you want to leave a legacy, the ball’s in your court. We can probably get far enough to write our own textbook without a single big-buck grant like they enjoy. What a rush!
Start with a clear understanding of why Planck’s radiation law, the most general law regarding thermal radiation, proves that CO2 can’t melt an ice cube with its radiation, and tell Trenberth to go take a hike.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
From Leon:
“Based on these error estimates, we assume that the bulk of the bias in the ERBE imbalance is in the shortwave absorbed flux at the top of the atmosphere, since the retrieval of shortwave flux is more sensitive than the retrieval of longwave flux to the sampling and modeling of the diurnal cycle, surface and cloud inhomogeneities. Therefore, we use the ERBE outgoing longwave flux of 235 W m−2 to define the absorbed solar flux. ”
pg 199 http://www.climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Kiehl_Trenberth_Radiative_Balance_BAMS_1997.pdf
So there they say it right there. They DEFINE the absorbed solar flux as the outgoing longwave flux of the Earth!!!!!!
What a find Leon!!!
They DEFINE the solar flux as being unable to heat the Earth!!! hahahahahahaha
🙂
Incredibly stupid. Totally irrelevant to physics.
Pablo. Good reference!Admits that the S-B Law can’t be used for the Earth without making it FLAT 🙂
”This is because a spherical geometry violates the fundamental assumption in the SB relationship for spatial homogeneity of radiation absorption and emission. Hence, Eq. (3) yields the temperature of a flat isothermal surface rather than the average temperature of a thermally heterogeneous sphere as required for planets. In other words, Te is the equilibrium temperature of a black disk orthogonally illuminated by shortwave radiation with intensity equal to the average solar flux absorbed by a sphere having a Bond albedo α p . This makes Te a non-physical temperature with respect to a spherical surface.]]
ROTFL!
Earth is distant from the Sun and so the equilibrium temperature is much lower than the surface of the Sun.
The Earth isn’t in thermal equilibrium anyway given the daily change in temperature at any location. It is only likely in conservation of energy with the sun…mostly.
@Jim Fish
Joseph can elaborate but I have seen so much confusion between thermal equilibrium and Conservation of Energy, something mainstream climate science does often and something I also had no clue on the difference at one point.
The Earth will never be in thermal equilibrium if it does the planet becomes isothermal.
“The Earth isn’t in thermal equilibrium anyway given the daily change in temperature at any location. It is only likely in conservation of energy with the sun…mostly.” -Joseph
We should pay no attention to Ray Pierrehumbert (referenced above) after he said the following…
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22x10e17 joules of energy from the sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise the Earth’s temperature to nearly 800,000K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
Click to access PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
That statement is profoundly stupid. It’s like one of those “How many things can you find wrong with it?” puzzles.
Joe, I had a question regarding the surface being in thermal equilibrium with the sun. I understand that due to the sun supposedly not warming the surface that it makes sense, but clearly the surface is not as warm as the sun. Can you please elaborate? If the sun drives the climate, is it the magnetic field that is increasing T. Thanks Jim
Therefore, we use the ERBE outgoing longwave flux of 235 W m−2 to define the absorbed solar flux.
That quote also bothers me for another reason: is it really proper to say that flux is absorbed? Flux is not absorbed. Flux irradiates over a surface area. ENERGY is absorbed from the flux. Flux is not a quantity that is stored — it is an active flow. Flow cannot be absorbed. Flow happens.
It’s a bit loose but not as consequential as the outright admission that they exchange output for input!
You can’t sing in tune… Tone Deaf !
You can’t dance on beat… Beat Deaf !
You don’t understand difference between input vs output physics… Common Sense Deaf !!!
The best argument against the nonsensical argument that people like Spencer use is to take their position and say if it is true then how do they explain that solar panels have such a high quoted output value.
My solar panels are 15.6% efficient, they have a rated value of 200 W and a surface area of ~1.2 m2.
You don’t have to be very smart to see that 15.6% of 240 W/m2 input x 1.2 m2 (~45 W) does not produce 200 Watt as rated. Is the solar panel industry simply a bunch of liars ? How do you claim 30 solar panels is a 6 kW system if 30 x 45 = 1.35 ?
Therefore the argument that the average of 240 W/m2 input is a reasonable metric is absolute stupidity proven by the very technology these flat Earth Luddites love and claim will save the planet – solar power.
Solar panels do not respond to Infra-Red radiation no matter how intense – not at all.
So put solar panels in greenhouses, problem solved in Spencey’s mind and the greenie weenie brigade, anyway lol.
Actually that’s a great argument demonstrating a perpetual motion machine.
Joseph you said this a while ago…
“radiation cannot increase its own temperature in any case…photons just pile on top of each other and there is an equal amount of deconstructive interference as there is constructive interference. It doesn’t matter how many photons of a certain spectral temperature there is…all you get from that spectrum is the temperature it is and it can’t increase its own temperature…”
A brilliant comment apparently off the cusp of your head that I am still digesting that sounds like an entire chapter of QM explained in one phrase.
On another post CD linked to an old article by Stephen Wilde which asserted convection and conduction ought not be included in an energy budget – personally I don’t think any science has any place in an energy budget as they are childish figments of deluded fools imaginations.
This quote struck me particularly as one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard !”
The “they” he refers to are conduction and convection !
“Furthermore, they cannot reduce Earth’s surface temperature below 255K because both conduction and convection are slower methods of energy transmission than radiation. To reduce the surface temperature below 255K they would have to work faster than radiation which is obviously not so.
This is utter brain dead bullshit and is easily debunked.
Basically every heat engine requires a conduction/convection cooling mechanism – every one !
None rely on radiative cooling because they wouldn’t last ten minutes without heat destruction !
Look at what happens to a car when the heat transfer system fails – they just stop – they do not cool by radiation at a rate sufficient to allow continued operation.
This totally debunks this ridiculous radiation is the fast method for cooling – it is complete BS in an atmosphere !
Prove it for yourself but be prepared for pain.
Light a candle and hold your hand close to the flame on the side and feel the radiation.
Then place your hand over the flame where the hot combustion gases are convecting away from the burning wick and then tell me convection is a slower heat transfer mechanism than radiation.
“Climate science”pulls a swifty by only discussing radiation – it is BS – radiation from Earth’s surfaces is not responsible for atmospheric heating – it is conduction/convection and evaporation of water. The only radiation that heats the atmosphere to any great extent is the solar radiation by heating the surface directly which heat the atmosphere by conduction/convection.
Rosco. As confirmed in the brilliant (not a mention of a 33ºC greenhouse effect) 1935 book by David Brunt.
“At very small heights above the surface of the ground, turbulence is unable to develop effectively, and the transfer of heat is there mainly by radiation. Hence on sunny days, with a large amount of incoming radiation, the surface heat is transferred only slowly up to small heights above the ground,
and the result is the formation of very large lapse-rates in the immediate neighbourhood of the earth’s surface.”
Rosco and Pablo you should do a callab on IR Radiation…I’d read it. GHG advocates pretend no other form of heat-energy exists and I’ll admit it is so easy to fall back into that thinking if you are not careful.
Now as I understand it…
The main course of the climate misdirection is claiming IR is the main source of energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere and it is not. If we had no IR active molecules in the atmosphere 100% of IR emitting from the surface would go to space unhindered BUT the bulk of the heat-energy created via conduction/convection/advection would remain heated much longer and not be converted to IR active gases and emitted to space. So the only means to cool off the atmosphere would be the natural adiabatic lapse rate and auto-compression. As the heated air rises it would cool naturally and then drop, pushing warmer air higher and cooling. Homonuclear diatomic molecules can transfer some of their energy to Greenhouse Gases (that are IR absorbent) via physical transference and that energy once absorbed by a magnetic dipole molecule is almost immediately re-radiated in all directions or as a cloned photon all happening at the speed of light.
I’d love to know, if it were possible, how much energy in the Troposphere is related to IR and how much is not.
We know 80% emits through an open window, great. We know that 20% is intercepted.
How much of that is intercepted below the Thermopause and how much over it?
We know that as s golden rule a molecule cannot be Ramen active and IR active at the same time.
We do know that once heated, a molecule will emit EM radiation but that magnetic dipole (IR active) molecules are the only means of shedding of IR out to space,back to Earth or reflected.
So the only other means of IR emissions would be for energy to return tot he surface and emit as IR?
So how exactly would the Earth look with no CO2 (but still water vapor and all other forms of GHGs)
besides the obvious nearly barren wasteland we’d be forced to survive in.
CD. I just smell a rat with whole CO2 thing. Without which of course life would not exist.
More bits from David Brunt’s book, in which he defines all solar radiation both direct and indirect as short-wave and terrestrial radiation as long-wave:
“The air temperature will follow the same general course as the soil temperature,…” and presumably ocean temperature?
“The light reflected and scattered by molecules of dry air and water-vapour, water drops, etc., will remain short-wave radiation. The long-wave radiation from the atmosphere itself, and the absorption in the atmosphere of long-wave radiation from the earth’s surface, are so nearly completely due to water-vapour that we may, at least in a preliminary survey, neglect the radiation and absorption of all other gaseous constituents of the atmosphere.”
The net outward flow of long-wave radiation from the earth, which is the difference between the radiation from the earth’s surface and the long-wave radiation of the atmosphere.. is of the order of one-fourth of the black-body radiation.”
So long wave radiation from the atmosphere is three quarters of the full black-body radiation at the temperature of the surface. This is enough to reduce the likelihood of frost at night.
On evaporation from a lake when air and water temperature were the same:
“corresponding to nearly 120 gramme- calories per cm2, or approximately one-third of the incoming net radiation from the sun and sky” (short wave) used in latent heating of the atmosphere.
“..8 per cent is reflected from the water surface,…the remaining 59 per cent being absorbed by the water…”
Does this have the desired affect?
As usual the morons defend the flat earth work. But a recent discussion involving Nikolov and Zellers Work has seen the morons refute N+Z reference to the moon because it does not adequately capture the Day side – dark side temp variation??? Go figure. They want it both ways.
Ironic since N&Z both comport to the divide by 4 theory…Has the majority of scientists lost their minds?
I agree. this is exactly the irony of it.
Slightly different in that NZ are using Lunar modeled annual observed temperatures (not energy budget) versus earth annual averages and all of a sudden these twerps have a problem someone stealing their thunder and having it used against them.
“annual observed temperatures” YET no one asks why that can’t be done for the Earth and when it is done, it gets ridiculed as irrelevant.
Check this out gentlefolks…
Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
June 2020 416.39 ppm
June 2019 413.93 ppm
Under world wide lock down
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
It’s not from humans…like I long said we already knew! Narrative lost.
I honestly think they make the numbers up sometimes…It is spot on like the energy budget. Regional levels of CO2 vary marginally, this “average global” sounds like garbage.
I really triggered this troll’s tiny world. He keeps misdirecting anything I tell him.
“Ah you’re mad now. You don’t provide any sources to any of your points. The temperature data around the world show an increase in average temperatures. Your claim that the oceans could warm the globe for years is also unfounded. As you know, the oceans absorb most of the warming effect. If the oceans become saturated, then heating on earth would drastically increase. If the oceans are not saturated they absorb heat, thus, atmospheric temperatures would decrease since the oceans would absorb the heat. That is not the case.
Conclusion: you have no sources and disregard well known scientific institutes without any proof that they would be unreliable, but hold on to your pseudoscience madness that you collected from conspiracy sites.
The last ice age you claim is the reason why we now see warming (really? Warming is going at a rate 10 times faster than ever before in history), was caused by changes in ocean circulations, reducing heat transport from the tropics to Europe. This was a LOCAL effect, not global. Also, there was a Maunder minimum around 1700. Too bad.
Maybe you should educate yourself first before spouting every stereotypical conspiracy idiot’s argument online.”
Climate change is entirely within natural limits. Ten times is a lie lol. Idiots.
This is what triggered him, I got sick of him changing and claiming what I said so I looped the conversation down and jacked up his algorithm…
I SAID:
Let’s recap my points so far:
#1. “Sun provides the energy to drive the Earth’s climate”
#2. “oceans are the main driver of our climate” (refer to point one the Sun supplies that energy).
#3. “radiative forcing doesn’t exist in an open atmosphere” (the open atmosphere is not a closed greenhouse).
#4. “Temperatures rising are only in models and propaganda outlets” (and I should add alarming temperature claims for more clarity)
#5. “if the Sun finally does go quiet for several continuous cycles the oceans have a hundred years of warming in them before the Earth would begin cooling”
#6. “We are leaving a mini ice age” (which implied is we are warming from that point, NOT drastically warming as the models are claiming.)
#7. “Our constant ToA solar variance is only between 1-3 watts per square meter per second that is not enough to drastically change a system that has a giant global solar battery called the ocean.” (you do understand that changes by season, tilt, and orbit as to how much TSI reaches the planet? The average is 1300-1400 W/m^2 variance a year at ToA NOT total surface irradiance.)
#8. “Study solar cycles, modeled theories of sunspots and they will not add up to overall warming in that time. You will have a lag, we are talking about a planet after all with many variables from Brightening and Dimming both Solar and Terrestrial, slight change orbit, tilt and magnetic decay.”
#9 “NASA is a pop culture tool where the “Climate Department” is concerned” (very much true by my experience.)
Now in contrast what have you provided to this conversation?
Sorry indents were his replies brackets were my input on his replies
“Bla bla you repeat denial and project”. Was my input 🙂
How do I debunk this correctly?
“In short: the blackbody radiation curve of earth contains gaps at the places where CO2 absorbs and re-emits radiation. At the surface these radiation wavelengths are more intense. If CO2 plays
no role in warming, how do you explain this?”
Nowhere have I heard “At the surface these radiation wavelengths are more intense” as true.
It’s just a stupid world-salad comment asking you to explain word-salad. This is an old technique…one I used to encounter a lot. It makes you have to explain the entire syllabus of undergrad physics just to sort out TO THEM what the heck they’re talking about.
TLDR: That a gas scatters and/or absorbs radiation is not the or a greenhouse effect, and neither does this process increase the temperature of the source of the radiation.
Thank you Joseph, your mind is a hot knife through the mind butter of climate clown science.
“That a gas scatters and/or absorbs radiation is not the or a greenhouse effect, and neither does this process increase the temperature of the source of the radiation.”
Thank you Joseph, beautifully succinct.
from: “A mental picture of the greenhouse effect”
“…convection sets in and takes over a significant amount of the vertical energy flow. Whereas the added opacity will act to restrict the flow of radiative energy transport, convection will not allow the temperature gradient to increase. In other words, a bigger share of the 240 W/m 2 of the vertical energy transport will be transported by convective/advective means with a stronger GHE, and a smaller share by radiative means because the sum of convective vertical energy transport plus the diminished radiative flux must add up to about 240 W/m 2 in order to balance the incoming shortwave radiation.”
This sounds like an admission of failure in “greenhouse gas” theory to me.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y
Once again trying to deny the physics part of disproving global warming…
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072
“The CO2 4.3μm absorption coefficients are the strongest in the infrared region but are located where the radiative intensity is much weaker. Thus, although it plays a role in the upper atmos-phere, this band is unimportant to the greenhouse effect on Earth.”
What on Earth??? Where does a band that absorbs at 400C play any role in the Upper Atmosphere? Are they referring tot he Thermopshere? Where else could it absorb 4.3 microns.
So a few things I don’t get. How can CO2 heat up to its Symmetric Stretch Mode if nothing can heat it up to that vibrational state? So at 15 microns it can only go to a Bend Mode and emit roughly around 10 microns. So the question is, say a 9.5 micron photon struck CO2 in Bend Mode, would it absorb it or reflect it?
“So a few things I don’t get. How can CO2 heat up to its Symmetric Stretch Mode if nothing can heat it up to that vibrational state? So at 15 microns it can only go to a Bend Mode and emit roughly around 10 microns. So the question is, say a 9.5 micron photon struck CO2 in Bend Mode, would it absorb it or reflect it?”
I’ve been trying to understand this stuff and it’s extremely complicated.
https://books.google.ca/books?https://books.google.ca/books?id=mQ1DiDpX34UC&lpg=PA84&dq=the%20effect%20of%202.7%20%C2%B5m%20wavelength%20on%20co2%20dipole%20moment&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q=the%20effect%20of%202.7%20%C2%B5m%20wavelength%20on%20co2%20dipole%20moment&f=false
Page 120 figure 4.2. P,Q and R branches, hot bands, rotational subscripts….argh! All I would like to know is, can an absorbed 15 µm wavelength produce any discernible “heat” considering it is in the far IR spectrum.
https://electroverse.net/grand-solar-minimum-and-the-swing-between-extremes/
good read on grand solar minimum.
Great comments from everyone.
Right now in direct sunlight my gauge calculated 40C/545.3 W/m^2 at 9:35 AM at 41.08482° N, and they say the Sun can’t heat the Earth.
50% of solar incoming is absorbed by land and oceans.
23% of solar energy is carried to clouds and atmosphere by latent heat of water vapour.
Radiation from the solar heated surface is about 20% of total solar incoming.
Conduction from the surface and rising air 7%.
So 20% of solar heating could be lost to space from the surface directly without any heating of the atmosphere,
But on average only 6% of radiation from the solar heated surface goes straight to space through the “atmospheric window”, the remaining 14% is absorbed by water vapour.
At 100% humidity the atmospheric window is closed.
This means that a portion of solar energy that would have been lost directly to space is retained within the system for further redistribution from the warmer low latitudes to the higher resulting in a more globally equable climate than would otherwise be the case.
Not, as some would say, an additional radiative flux from the atmosphere that increases the power of the sun.
For more on globally equable climates, see the effect of an increase in shallow seas combined with a lack of high altitude and diminished land mass.
Hay_2009_CretaceousOceansandOceanModelling.pdf
Pablo,
I did not know the open window is closed in 100% humidity. That drastically changes some of my calculation and it would indicate the Consensus already knew that.
CDM
Have a look at our essay on the CERES data. This image clearly shows that the emission depth is greater in the descending dry high pressure regions of the Hadley Cell compared to the moist air ascending regions of the doldrums. However the data for India in this spring equinox image suggest that at a time of surface high humidity (pre-monsoon) the emission depth is the same as for the Sahara, so be careful it’s complicated. I would suggest that the surface atmospheric window works best as a nighttime feature in laminar (non-turbulent) air and is the cause of the cold air generation and surface temperature inversion in the dry air over Antarctica,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334480358_Calibrating_the_CERES_Image_of_the_Earth's_Radiant_Emission_to_Space
Did you two try and get this published?
CDM
This led me to that conclusion: https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-27-22-31587&id=422391
And , yes PM you are right, it is for nighttime.
Another interesting paper on radiative cooling shows a theoretical reduction of 60ºC below ambient is possible, by using a selective thermal emitter and eliminating parasitic load.
They have actually achieved an average of 37ºC below ambient with a maximum of 42ºC below at peak solar irrradiance.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13729
PM:
Thank you for the link to your essay, and insight that:
“Because mountain ranges can reach vertical elevations that lie within the radiant transmission zone to space for each atmospheric cell, it appears that these topographic features can form leak zones that emit radiant energy to space independently of the transmission properties of the overlying atmosphere.”
Which ties in wonderfully with my previous link to reasons for the globally equable climate of the Cretaceous.
I know Phillip is in the geoscienses, not sure if that is his official title. Pablo are you in active science if you don’t mind the question I know many scientists have to protect their anonymity or make the “climate denial” list.
Pablo
Thank you. I recently discovered that Mongolia is known as the “land of the blue sky”. Mountain building since the Cretaceous, coupled with the loss of the solar energy collecting mid-latitude Tethys Ocean, is the explanation for global temperature decrease that I prefer.
See The Oceanic Central Heating Effect.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/20/the-oceanic-central-heating-effect/
CDM
The CERES work is part of our peer reviewed publication:
Return to Earth: A New Mathematical Model of the Earth’s Climate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342109625_Return_to_Earth_A_New_Mathematical_Model_of_the_Earth's_Climate
Thank you Philip I keep spelling your name wrong, that one L GETS ME EVERY TIME. I’ll try and remember that I use to just call you PM but another one exists on here and in the beginning I thought they were both you.
Earth Sciences in school was always my highest grades, I had a natural fascination for the subject.
“Deep caves are the roadmaps to the Earth and weather is the temperamental beauty of Mother Nature.”
Philip this is another paper I discovered on an alternate theory of Venus, I thought it was really thought provoking.
Click to access Venus-Paper-2018.pdf
CDM
No problem. Try PM2, works for me
John Ackerman’s paper is off the scale.
I wonder if Zoe will comment on it?
Philip,
Did you ever read, “Atmospheric radiation: Theoretical basis. By R. M. Goody and Y. L. Yung” and if so what are your thoughts, it’s a pricey book.
CDM
Not read it, so I’m going to leave that one to you.
/over and out.
CDM
In answer to your question from 7 back.
No, just an ordinary bloke trying to get enough info to trash the ideas of my CO2 alarmist PhD brother!
LOL wait, do you mean an actual brother?
Sure do….in biology. You wouldn’t believe the arguments we have!
Pablo,
You can cut me in if you want.
Ask him why he believes that the Sun shines onto the ground at night?
https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2020/07/23/do-you-believe-in-the-existence-of-the-night/
Good read, Philip.
Found a typo hate those things they pop up like Gremlins on old planes.
“the surface of our world is the presence of the warm sunlit day. and its equal and opposite partner, the cold dark of the night.” Period between day and should be omitted.
PM2
Thanks for your help. I have asked him that question before with no satisfactory answer.
So I am trying again with a link to your article.
I will post the reply if I get one!
CDM
Well spotted, thanks. My Read Aloud function of Word was out of action for a while, so I was not able to use it in this case. Read Aloud is my favourite editing technique.
Pablo,
I have been trying to explore the issues behind what is a belief? The most significant thing about beliefs are the assumptions we make that we consider to be true. Assumptions are the boundaries for thought, the box if you like beyond which we have not been able to, or cannot establish the truth. This is the outside and surrounding realm of Faith.
The key thing about climate science is the assumption that the beam of solar radiation intercepted by a planet must be diluted by a factor of 4 before it has even entered the atmosphere. This is Joseph’s flat earth contention and for me is the denial of the existence of the night. How do we deal with this? The best analogy I have found comes from the History of Science and the conflict between the Aristotelian view that the Sun goes round the Earth, and the Copernican model that the Earth goes round the Sun.
Climate science by adopting the view that it is correct to divide the power of insolation by 4 before the solar energy has entered the atmosphere, implicitly assumes that the Sun shines onto the Earth at night. This is Aristotelian science and all arguments raised to support this nonsense are sophistry, as our host correctly contends.
The Aristotelian world view survived for centuries and is self-consistent. In order to correct Aristotelian physics, it was first necessary to acknowledge that the Earth has both a daily rotation and that it annually orbits the Sun. In essence we need to change a fundamental belief to acknowledge this fact.
It is pointless to study radiation physics if the basic premise is wrong, that low frequency (low quality) thermal radiant opacity is the primary heating mechanism for the Earth’s atmosphere. We do not need to study planetary thermal radiation in detail if its role in this context is passive. At present thermal radiant opacity is used by climate science to correct the egregious divide by 4 dilution error that creates a powerlessly weak insolation.
All of climate science is built around a misapplication of geometry that is directly equivalent to the Sun goes round the Earth. To change a belief at this fundamental level is profoundly difficult. This is because the investment in time, effort and reputation that has to be discarded is immense.
Does anyone recall the whole CFC fiasco and the Ozone hole? I’m curious how much of this paper is activism and how much is actually fact.
https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/USKvcSbe4aZbk7SVd2R4/full
Pierre talked about this some in the past…
“The ozone layer:
What we have is a balanced system where Ozone is constantly being destroyed by UV rays at the top of the Ozone layer, and constantly being created by UV rays at the top of the Oxygen layer.
So what if something happens to destroy a lot of Ozone ? Well the Ozone layer would thin, and as a result less UV gets absorbed by the Ozone. This means the amount of UV that gets through the Ozone layer to the Oxygen layer goes up, and so the rate of Ozone creation increases.
The same is true in reverse. If the Ozone layer gets thicker, less UV reaches the Oxygen layer and so less Ozone is produced until it shrinks to normal once more.
So what about the Ozone holes over the poles? They’re supposed to be there ! Consider what happens to sunlight as it goes through the atmosphere in the earth’s higher latitudes.
Since it passes through the Ozone layer, but never gets to reach the oxygen layer below, the rate at which Ozone is being created falls off. As a consequence, most of the Ozone gets destroyed, leaving a “hole” in the Ozone layer.
So, in the late winter and early spring the hole starts to grow as the polar region comes out of darkness and the Sun’s rays starts destroying the Ozone. As summer progresses, the inclination to the sun becomes more direct, and the Sun’s rays start hitting the Oxygen layer, creating Ozone. In late summer and early autumn the sun starts destroying ozone again as the pole progressively goes back into darkness until winter where the hole stays somewhat stable.
So is the Ozone hole a complete hoax ? Pollutants like CFC’s could make the holes larger in theory, but the fact is that the holes are natural in the first place, and they fluctuate daily as the earth spins, seasonally as the earth’s inclination to the sun changes, annually as the earth’s orbit takes it closer and farther away from the sun, and from fluctuations in the sun’s output of UV.”
CDM
My friend Erl Happ is the go to man for ozone.
https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/37-ozone-drives-atmospheric-dynamics/
Thanks Philip that’s gold.
PM2
I can see the logic of dividing by 4 if what is being discussed is the atmospheric downward radiation in the far infrared (i.e. no solar component) as that is the product of the atmospheric temperature and its water vapour content AFTER surface and atmospheric solar heating. If that is what climate science is referring to as atmospheric downward radiation, then the sun has already done its work to one half of the system and the reading is from the whole.
Pablo,
But that is the absolute core essence if the problem. The divide by 4 dilution is made to the insolation before it has entered the atmosphere. This make the sunlight to weak to create the climate in the first place.
Divide by 4 applies to the outgoing low frequency exhaust process, for the incoming power stroke over the forever lit daytime face of the Earth the climate machine requires divide by 2.
Have a look at our critique in An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334480930_An_Analysis_of_the_Earth%27s_Energy_Budget
Three typos in the 1st paragraph…
But that is the absolute core essence
ifof the problem. The divide by 4 dilution is made to the insolation before it has entered the atmosphere. Thismakemakes the sunlighttotoo weak to create the climate in the first place.Philip I blame my typos on bad eye sight.
CDM
Thanks, I’ll adopt that excuse nect tyme 🙂
Joseph,
My reply from Science of Doom…
1) Our planet warms when it absorbs more radiation than it emits, cools when the opposite is true, and remains steady when they are equal. The planet’s radiative imbalance (I) is given by:
I = (S/4)(1-a) – oeT^4
where S is solar irradiation, the factor 4 corrects for geometric factors (the sun irradiates a hemisphere of area 2PiR^2 with an average cosine of angle of incidence of 0.5 and radiates over an area of 4PiR^2), a is albedo, o is the S-B constant, e is the “effective emissivity” of the planet given an average surface T. The planet’s surface temperature has been approximately the same during the Holocene, so there was likely little imbalance when the Industrial Revolution began adding CO2 to the air.
Radiative transfer calculations (which correctly calculate Dave Evans “re-routing feedback) predict that a doubling of CO2 with no other changes will reduce radiative cooling to space by about 3.7 W/m2 if nothing else changes, but will not interfere significantly with incoming SWR. That will make produce an imbalance +3.7 W/m2 and the planet will begin to warm. Unlike your match, the reduced radiative cooling to space from doubled CO2 continues from year to year and century to century. Warming will continue until our climate system emits (LWR) or reflects (SWR) enough more energy to restore balance.
(For the moment, we don’t need to worry about internal transfer of heat between the surface, the ocean and the atmosphere or latitudinally or vertically transfer or minor differences between day and night. The main concern is the energy imbalance or balance across the TOA. Conservation of energy demands that the heat from a radiative imbalance must raise the temperature somewhere below the TOA and it will continue to do so until enough additional heat is emitted or reflected to restore balance. To a first approximation, all of the internals modes of energy transfer will distribute heat about the same way it is distributed today, but everything will warm.)
The climate of the Moon, Venus and Mercury are pretty complicated subjects. The temperature of the Moon changes radically between the two-week long day and night. I simply wanted you to recognize that the surface of Venus is hotter than the sunlit surface of Mercury (which lacks an atmosphere). According to the imbalance equation above, the only way that can occur is by differences in emissivity (e) and albedo (a). And Venus has a much higher albedo than Mercury. So it must have a very low effective emissivity. In other words, very little of the thermal IR emitted by the 740 K surface escapes to space and the atmosphere slows radiative cooling (insulating the planet from radiative heat loss).
I presume you recognize that energy/work and temperature (internal energy) can interconvert and that heat capacity is the conversion factor. Force and energy are different. A force must move an object to do work on it (force times distance) so a force can not be directly converted into energy or temperature. For the same reason, pressure (force per unit area) must change (compress) the volume of something before it is converted to energy or temperature. The bottom of the ocean is not warmed by the weight of several kilometers of water above. The soil under the foundation of a skyscraper is not any warmer than nearby ground due to the weight of the building. And Venus is not hot because of the weight of its atmosphere. It is hot because 740 K is the surface temperature where (S/4)(1-a) = oeT^4. Fundamentally, this is just conservation of energy.
See they’ve created an entire false reality and way of thinking about the thermodynamics of the planet. The “planet” does not “warm or cool” when there is an imbalance given by I = (S/4)(1-a) – oeT^4.
The “planet” warms and cools at every moment with the real-time in-situ heat flow. Every 12 hours or so the temperature swings tens of degrees. Not with the S/4 heating potential of only -18C, but with the full S heating of +121C.
See…they just make up a bunch of BS that you then have to re-explain to them in sensible terms.
But so let’s go with the idea of long term average then. Fine. You get the -18C exhaust temperature then, from that equation with S/4. There are two ways to change that: change the absorptivity, or change the emissivity. Changing the absorptivity is going to have a huge effect given that the input heating is actually at +121C, which is incredibly warmer than -18C. So if you absorb even just tiny amounts more (or less) of the +121C input, that’s going to have a huge effect given the difference this is to the exhaust energy temperature. That is why cosmic rays and cloud formation rates, while being a teeny tiny effect, can cause ice ages and interglacials, etc.
That brings us then to emissivity. Do GHG’s increase or decrease emissivity? Well…the entire premise of GHG’s is that they radiate, hence, they have higher emissivity as compared to the rest of the gas, and higher emissivity equates to LOWER temperature for a given fixed absorptivity of a fixed input. So he’s making GHE claims opposite to how the GHE is explained by their own literature to work, in claiming that they lower the emissivity. Does her have a peer-review reference? lol See…they just have a dual system where GHG’s do whatever they want: they increase emissivity by radiating, but they also decrease emissivity by absorbing. It’s all just cognitive dissonance.
So then he argues that it is not the deep atmosphere of Venus that has anything to do with Venus’ high surface temperature, but low emissivity of Venus’ atmospheric gas? He’s just making things up now. Look at his argument:
“For the same reason, pressure (force per unit area) must change (compress) the volume of something before it is converted to energy or temperature. The bottom of the ocean is not warmed by the weight of several kilometers of water above. The soil under the foundation of a skyscraper is not any warmer than nearby ground due to the weight of the building. And Venus is not hot because of the weight of its atmosphere. ”
So he’s arguing that Venus’ atmosphere does not undergo adiabatic compression!? He compares the behaviour of solid and liquid which are not compressible, to a gas which IS compressible!!?? Pretending that the gas of Venus’ atmosphere is not compressible just like water and dirt?! You know he’s just wrecked himself, and whatever you said previously to him….good work, because you wrecked him to the point that he had to reply with this. You did it.
So Earth’s atmospheric gas can undergo adiabatic compression and heating from such, producing the higher bottom-of-atmosphere temperature as compared to the average -18C exhaust temperature found around the middle of the atmospheric column. But now, let us consider that Venus’ gas is incompressible and instead behaves like a liquid or solid, and thus let’s reduce the emmissivity of Venus’ gas (which is a solid or liquid) with GHG’s even though GHG’s have higher emissivity.
I don’t know what you said previously to him, but it must have been good, because you just made him wreck himself. Their argument to save Venus as being an example of the GHE is now to require that Venus’ atmospheric gas doesn’t behave like gas, but behaves like a liquid or solid. That’s FN gold, right there. I have seen every single argument under the Sun, and this is a new one. Good work man…you shorted out his circuits in a completely original way.
The radiative temperature of Venus is cooler than Earth’s because it has high reflectivity due to clouds, and only absorbs ~30% of Sunlight thus leading to lower exhaust energy temperature as compared to Earth even though Venus is closer to the Sun.
However Venus has 90X the atmosphere of Earth. An atmosphere is a gas. A gas does undergo the adiabatic lapse rate. And so just as Earth’s bottom-of-atmospheric-column temperature is higher than the average of the column temperature due to the adiabatic gradient, and calculating this effect produces precisely the bottom-of-atmospheric-column average temperature, so do the same equations work also on the gas of Venus’ atmosphere and produce precisely the temperatures observed. The average temperature of Venus’ gas column is slightly cooler than Earth’s due to the effect discussed above…but then there’s 90X the depth for the gradient to work thus leading to the much higher bottom-of-column temperature.
PM2
Just had the reply from my brother!
“Well I thought we had discussed this – and it’s clear we will disagree however much more we discuss it. The link you sent is to an oil industry-funded misinformation website and the article completely misrepresents what climate scientists think: ‘So, in climate science there is no day or night, just a single uniform dimly lit surface environment, a twilight zone of the simmer dim as the Shetland Islanders would call it.’ What a load of codswallop! Climate models are extremely detailed and sophisticated and incorporate diurnal, seasonal and latitudinal variations in solar irradiance as well as redistribution of heat via atmospheric and oceanic processes.
I really don’t think there is any point in us arguing over this stuff. You can go on believing in conspiracy theories and alternative facts – and I will stick with the proper science and reality. But then, no doubt, you could say something similar back to me!”
My reply to that:
“Before we leave it there. I will just point out that the minus 18ºC that is put forward to be earth’s average temperature without water vapour is the blackbody temperature for earth WITHOUT an atmosphere or oceans.The key thing for you reconsider in your rant is “redistribution of heat via ATMOSPHERIC and OCEAN processes!”
I enclosed a graphic of earth’s energy balance with no atmosphere.
Pablo,
I have a brother who has a deep religious faith.
I love my brother but I will never be able to convince him that the world is more than 6000 years old.
I gave up trying decades ago.
Thanks Joseph, this is what I said to him to get that response but I really felt like I hit a dead wall with his reply back. It was as if he didn’t understand anything I just told him. So instead he tried to pull the “I know more math than you” to silence me.
“Frank thank you for your input. Energy does come from the Sun I agree with you 100%. What strikes the atmosphere of our planet and what punches through the top of the atmosphere are two different variables. The TOA is around 1300-1400 W/m^2 what strikes the surface is based on TOA and the angle of incidence and albedo which is between 940 W/m^2 at the Equatorial Solar Zenith and around 82 W/m^2 at the Poles.
As I stated,
“It’s not the primary heat source of the Sun as much it is the primary heat source of the Sun at the angle of incidence. Maximum temperature from solar irradiation at the Poles is very different from the Equator.”
The maximum temperature obtained on Earth from the Sun is not that of the Sun’s full temperature but at the TOA which around 120 Celsius/393 Kelvin. The Moon’s temps in direct sunlight is roughly 123 Celsius/396 Kelvin.
Venus is claimed to be from GHG I disagree and I have my theories but we’ll leave that for another subject. Heat isn’t being trapped on Earth, so it can’t overrun the system with a higher out of control looping mechanism. The atmosphere is not a solid insulator like the Earth’s outer crust. Earth’s outer insulator prevents the surface from rising to a geologically estimated 120 Celsius at the Equator multiply that by 92 bar atmosphere and lava pools of 2000 Celsius and you got a good idea of the isothermal hell on Venus. Please keep in mind gas (yes under pressure which was of course my original point being gas under pressure) does play some role in temperature. Perfect examples of those are the outer planets with immense pressure creating super heated cores.
“You may argue that the colder atmosphere can’t “heat” the surface of the Earth. The surface and the atmosphere are both heated by the sun.”
The atmosphere has a temperature because it is first heated, certainly true. That source of heat is mainly the Earth’s surface via conduction/convection/advection/lapse rate. The SURFACE of the Earth can be heated to a maximum of the incidence of radiation not directly from the Sun’s main temperature. A Greenhouse will only reach the maximum temperature of the incidence of radiation so don’t put a greenhouse in Antarctica.
For example, one day In direct sunlight my gauge calculated 40C/545.3 W/m^2 at 9:35 AM at 41.08482° N.
Many factors prevents the Earth’s surface from reaching maximum thermal potential from solar irradiance. We couldn’t live on most of this planet if it were not so.
The atmosphere is heated by the surface and the surface is not directly heated by the TOA all the time. As I stated, the Troposphere expands during the day under direct sunlight and cools at night, that cooling by way of IR and the lapse rate.
Now the biggest misconception is that an energy exchange automatically equates an increase in temperature. That is far from being true, heading back to line spectrum re-routed from the atmosphere back to the surface.
These laws are obeyed on the macro and the micro, frequency/wavelength AND energy dictates temperature change. A match is certainly hotter than then say an Arctic day at -20 Celsius, but that match even though higher in frequency and wavelength does not have enough energy to overcome the energy of the system and change the temperature gradient, that same match placed at the middle of the Troposphere at -18 Celsius will also not change the system.
Distinctions not being comprehended between energy, heat and temperature are creating a lot of confusion in the current concepts of climate science.”
Good comment CD. It’s really neat when you get them to trip a circuit and they respond with things like saying Venus’ atmosphere is an incompressible gas.. lol.
So Joseph, this post is the challenge SOD has that he claims skeptics can’t answer…
https://scienceofdoom.com/2014/06/26/the-greenhouse-effect-explained-in-simple-terms/
“The greenhouse effect is built on very basic physics, proven for 100 years or so, that is not in any dispute in scientific circles. Fantasy climate blogs of course do dispute it.”
Who knew?
Lol. Yes. Sun heating earth is fantasy.
Oh…but we believe the sun heats the earth AND the climate creates itself…ugh.
“There are almost 315,000 individual absorption lines for CO2 recorded in the HITRAN database. Some absorption lines are stronger than others. At the strongest point of absorption – 14.98 μm (667.5 cm-1), 95% of radiation is absorbed in only 1m of the atmosphere (at standard temperature and pressure at the surface). That’s pretty impressive.”
I agree impressive nonsense. Considering it would reflect, break down in different wavelengths at the speed of light and re-emit with literally no lag time at 1 meter. Secondly, CO2 at 1 meter would already be heated by conduction/convection and would reflect.
Now that does bring me to another crack they use for global warming, using kinetic energy as the catalyst. They have said before that KE can heat the molecule to a higher vibrational state and that constant collision increases the KE. Now I seem vaguely to recall a conservation about this very thing on one of your posts. KE doesn’t “build” higher KE will knock a lower energy out, not add and grow which is how they are justifying CO2 for instance, able to vibrate to its 3rd state, which would require enough kinetic energy equal to a 4.25 micron photon. I know velocity increases KE but it sounds like a very important fact is left out of this somewhere.
Philip my brother in law is convinced dinosaurs lived on the Ark because nothing existed before Eden 6k years ago and all carbon dating and light in the universe is just some kind of misunderstood science or something.
I do not talk bible and science with him, or bible, or much of anything really. A simple statement can turn into one wild trip with him.
…
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert A climate physicist who does not understand physics??? Been a while since I heard the LTE (local thermal equilibrium) associated to global warming. Apparently, he is a believer in the KE thing I was referring to earlier, that is stacks up molecules to a higher vibrational state. Unless of course I misunderstood.
Click to access PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Sorry didn’t know it would do that embedded thing…Annoying.
://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Joseph can read the first paragraph of that paper, I can’ t copy and paste. Just humor me and read the first paragraph, it will be worth it and keep in mind this is a physicist who graduated from MIT and Harvard. He contributes to RealClimate. This man is teaching…
SOD said,
“that introduces the radiative transfer equations (as simply as possible). So far, commenters with a similar profile to you have never explained what is wrong with these equations, derived from first principles and proven in large numbers of applications.”
I replied,
“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…” -Chapter 1 – Energy in Thermal Physics Daniel V. Schroeder: An Introduction to Thermal Physics
Apparently it’s not just students who struggle with this.
Frank replied to myself he’s the one who replied last time,
“Many skeptics wrongly believe thermal infrared emitted by the colder atmosphere {can’t be} absorbed by the warmer surface of the Earth, because that violates the 2LoT. Others wrongly believe that thermal infrared photons absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere are “re-emited” (instead of the excited states so produced being relaxed by collisions, aka “thermalized”.
The Schroeder text you mention covers statistical mechanics, the branch of physics and chemistry explains how large number of colliding molecules and photons following the laws of quantum mechanism produce the macroscopic laws of thermodynamics that were deduced much earlier from empirical observation. Individual photons can travel from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface because they follow the laws of QM, not thermodynamics, but statistical mechanism shows why the NET flux (heat) of photons between two locations is always from hotter to colder.
The net flux in energy flux diagrams produced by climate scientists is always from hotter to colder, but they show two-way fluxes, not net fluxes. When you have a Boltzmann distribution of energy among ground an excited states (one way to define the concept of local thermodynamic equilibrium), then the rate photons are emitted depends only on temperature – which is the case in the atmosphere (but not LED lights).
Schroeder’s book can help you learn these challenging subjects. However, the fundamental physics about why GHGs slow radiative cooling to space is described by radiative transfer calculations, which is covered in by the post ScienceofDoom linked above or the Wikipedia article on Schwarzschild’s Equation for Radiative Transfer or Grant Petty’s cheap textbook, “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation”. Schroeder may not even cover this subjects.
So, show us you aren’t just another transient commenter who likes to stir things up and constantly change the subject, but is unwilling to risk learning anything that could conflict with what you already believe. It is more entertaining to listen to “popes” speaking to today’s equivalent of Flat Earth Societies in highly partisan echo chambers – as if Galileo and the scientific method never existed.
From the previously posted link: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13729
1,”The performance of night time cooling provides the upper bound for the performance during daytime, an upper bound that can be reached by completely suppressing solar radiation on the emitter.”
2″… the temperature of the selective emitter rapidly decreases to be 40 °C below ambient air within half hour after the vacuum chamber is pumped down to 10−5 Torr. Second, it tracks closely the trend of the temperature of the ambient air in the following 24 h, with an average temperature reduction from the ambient of 37.4 °C.”
3″The demonstrated steady-state temperature is far below the freezing point even though the apparatus enclosing the cooler is exposed to peak sunlight.”
4″The steady-state temperature of a radiative emitter is determined by the energy balance among three key components (Fig. 1a; see Supplementary Note 4 for detailed analysis): the emitted thermal radiation from the sample (Qsample), the absorbed thermal radiation from the atmosphere (Qatm) and the parasitic heat losses (Qparasitic) characterized by a heat transfer coefficient h.”
Ponderings:
This presumably is the “greenhouse house” effect undone.
i.e. The speed of radiative cooling of surface is hastened in the absence of water vapour.
Question:
Do I have to apologise to my brother?
“humor me and read the first paragraph”
Yes we’ve discussed that gem here before. It is incredibly braindead. If an object “had no way of getting rid” of absorbed energy, then sure of course the temperature would increase without limit in this entirely fictional non-reality scenario. Why stop at a billion years? Pure academic eggheadery. It is an incredibly stupid comment.
Thermal emission of radiation is spontaneous…there is NO SCENARIO IN THE REAL WORLD where an object would simply not be able to emit. I mean why not just make up any random idea in the preface of our books and papers on physics, then!? “If the Earth rests on the back of a turtle then it is turtles all the way down. Now let’s discuss gravity.”
As we’ve discussed, emission is less efficient for surfaces with low emissivity. GHG’s in the air do not reduce the emissivity of the ground, and GHG’s are supposed to be more emissive than the rest of the gas, and this means that they will be cooler than the rest of the gas.
“The net flux in energy flux diagrams produced by climate scientists is always from hotter to colder, but they show two-way fluxes, not net fluxes.”
There are “two-way” fluxes with physical conduction too, but of course, heat is only one way. Of course you know the equations.
Conduction:
Q = k(Th – Tc)
Radiation:
Q = s(Th^4 – Tc^4)
They love this “two way flow means cold can heat hot with radiation” sophistry. They pretend that they can ignore that this means the same thing for conduction, which for some reason they don’t claim the same thing. And then of course they love to obfuscate with the term “net”.
Of course, heat is only the net difference, it is not both flows. We do radiative transfer for stellar (star) atmospheres and for these massive objects we can almost perfectly re-create their emission spectra. We do it all the time. Undergraduates in astrophysics can actually do this! We have entire courses on it. There is all sort of absorption and re-emission going on in stars’ photospheres. Guess what…there is no greenhouse effect in them, and nothing about the equations equate to a greenhouse effect, and the heat flow is only always from hot to cold.
“However, the fundamental physics about why GHGs slow radiative cooling to space is described by radiative transfer calculations”
They just make this idea up. Remember that they come up with all this idea in the first place because they have to, because they think that they have to explain how the surface can be warmer than -18C. Because they use flat Earth with diluted sunshine. They have simply created a simulacrum of science, a simulacrum of reality. So from their starting point they then believe or assume that they have to interpret radiative transfer equations as meaning that a cold gas can heat a warmer object. That simple.
You see the cognitive dissonance and the contradiction here, right? It would be one thing if the cold gas was physically separated from the warm source. In that case we would still wonder how a cold gas would warm the distant warmer source.
But in this case, the cold gas is touching, in physical contact with, the warmer object. While the colder atmosphere is touching and thus cooling the warmer surface, it is also heating it with its colder radiation.
No…the atmosphere can only heat the surface IF the atmosphere was warmer than the surface. That statement makes all kinds of sense. What a wonderful thought in its simplicity. The atmosphere can only heat the surface IF the atmosphere was warmer than the surface.
But no. They want us to believe that the cold gas touching the surface and cooling the surface both by conduction and convection is actually heating the surface.
“The speed of radiative cooling of surface is hastened in the absence of water vapour.”
That is simply because of higher thermal capacity of the air with more water vapour is around, and also because of latent heat release from water vapour where it can release energy without cooling down.
And further CD we must remember that they are expecting the average temperature to be found at the surface, when the adiabatic gradient makes this impossible. The average temperature must be found around the average, and the average is not the bottom-most slice of atmosphere at the surface, but is the position somewhere in the middle. And then of course also consider that the Sun is heating not at -18C, but at +90C or so, creating the Hadley Cell etc etc etc. Given that the Sun heats the surface at high temperature, then again, we cannot expect the average temperature to be at the position where the heating is strongest!
They just have an entire fiction that they do work in. A complete fantasy. Fantasy science. That is: how physics would have to work if the Earth were flat and sunshine was cold, and yet we have the same empirical observables for surface temperature.
Joseph,
Most excellent points and thank you. I actually emailed that professor and asked him the very simple misconception of how the Earth is warmed. I do not expect a reply and if I do it will be by a grad student more than likely. We shall see?
This was the sum of my email…
“I am curious about a very real problem that I’ve noticed in climate research and in climate models. Mostly the need to average real solar input as an effective 255 Kelvin when that average is found at the middle of the Troposphere and not at the bottom which is well known to be a product of the lapse rate.
Anyone who has studied climate physics, such as yourself, clearly knows that the average of 940 W/m^2 is consistent at the Equatorial Solar Zenith and around 82 W/m^2 at the Poles. You need that real thermal radiation to power our climate, not 255 Kelvin. Dividing by 4 for an input where it should be divided by 2 and is so obvious that even I can see it, troubles me. The Sun shines on only half the globe at a time, the average exhaust is the whole globe and should be averaged by 4 resulting in the 255 Kelvin but not the input.
For example, one day In direct sunlight my gauge calculated 40C/545.3 W/m^2 at 9:35 AM at 41.08482° N. I don’t have to tell you that creates some thermal heat, not 255 Kelvin.”
Oh in case the other post doesn’t show up I emailed Professor Raymond T. Pierrehumbert with the above.
Excellent.
JP
“The speed of radiative cooling of surface is hastened in the absence of water vapour.”
We are talking a theoretical potential radiative cooling of 60ºC below ambient air temperature without water vapour.
from physicsstackexchange
“So the specific heat capacity of humid air is greater than dry air and humid air will take more energy to heat by a given amount. But the difference is quite small. … Taking the 2% water content only increases the specific heat by about 3.6%.”
“Since the current greenhouse theory strives to explain GE solely through a retention (trapping) of outgoing long-wavelength (LW) radiation by atmospheric gases [2,5,7- 10], a thermal enhancement of 90 K creates a logical conundrum, since satellite observations constrain the global atmospheric LW absorption to 155–158 W m-2 [11-13]. Such a flux might only explain a surface warming up to 35 K. Hence, more than 60% of Earth’s 90 K atmospheric effect appears to remain inexplicable in the context of the current theory.”
Click to access New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
i think that I might have to apologise to my brother but with certain caveats.
Perhaps something like:
1. The minus 18ºC is where it should be … mid-troposphere thanks to gravitational realignment of non radiative gases into a gradient to enhance surface temperature via the lapse rate.
2. The downward radiative flux from water vapour outside of the atmospheric window slows cooling of the surface by 35K night and day meaning that radiative loss from the surface is retained in the lower atmosphere for convection and advection to enhance transfer of heat to the high latitudes in the daytime and slow down the cooling of the surface at low altitudes at night.
3.Conclusion:Water in all its forms is a moderator of extreme temperatures both locally and globally.
What do you think?
Don’t know what happened there …it was meant to be a link to Nikolov and Zeller.
Pablo: #1 – correct
#2: No, it IS from latent heat release. They can call that “downward radiative flux” but what it actually is is simply latent heat release and yes it does release energy back into the air. A BIG point to note is that this cannot, and does not, raise the surface temperature beyond what it was already heated to by the Sun in the day time. Slower cooling overnight from latent heat release is NOT the GHE. But yes, this latent heat absorption and release is indeed an important part of the climate, and it is DRIVEN by sunshine. You cannot have latent heat and water vapour without the high-temperature heating from sunlight in the first place!
#3: correct, it is a moderator, and the latent heat storage is actually huge and has a huge effect, even if water vapour is only a few percent of the atmosphere, etc.
Thanks for that JP.
Latent heat release on cooling at night certainly prevents further cooling.
But these guys have created a situation where “the temperature of the selective emitter rapidly decreases to be 40 °C below ambient air within half hour after the vacuum chamber is pumped down to 10−5 Torr. Second, it tracks closely the trend of the temperature of the ambient air in the following 24 h, with an average temperature reduction from the ambient of 37.4 °C.” by pumping most of the surface radiation straight out to space through the atmospheric window which is equivalent of zero water vapour in the atmosphere.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13729
Well sure, there’s no problem with increasing cooling efficiency. But again: doing the opposite of what they’re doing, and slowing down cooling, does not equate to heating and generating higher temperature. All of this stuff about “enhancing temperature with backradiation” is part of the entire false simulacrum of physics generated out of flat Earth theory with cold sunshine where you have to postulate some scheme to generate higher temperatures than the -18C Sun can only do.
Water vapour does not exist with -18C solar input. You need high-power-temperature solar input first. Then in fact we have to explain why it is cooler than the solar input in the day time…and one of the main reasons is latent heat storage in water vapour.
For sure.
Joseph,
He replied, textbook reply too I might add:
All of the factors you describe are fully taken into account in climate models, but your factor of 2 is incorrect. In the limit of a horizontally uniform radiating temperature, the answer is clearly 4, which is just the ratio of surface area of a sphere to its cross section, and comes from the most elementary energy balance principles, as in Chapter 3 of my planetary climate book. General circulation models, of course, allow for geographical variations in temperature, and take into account the diurnal cycle.
—Ray
Yes he’s just avoiding the important core subject matter. Solar input with any such factor of four or even two is entirely non-sensical, and such as value has nothing to do with driving or explaining the climate. The solar input is real-time and drives the climate in real time.
“In the limit of a horizontally uniform radiating temperature, the answer is clearly 4,”
Sure…and reality is nowhere fucking near this limit, and this limit reflects reality in no way whatsoever and is actually entirely divorced from reality in fact…lol.
The 4 gets you the cool exhaust energy. To say that this is equivalent to the input is the exact same thing as saying that your cool vehicle exhaust is what occurred inside the piston. And then of course, since that cool exhaust can’t explain what actually happened to the piston inside the cylinder (it being driven with tremendous force!), they say that backradiation inside the cylinder is what made the piston cycle harder than what your cool exhaust as input could have done.
Its like that old episode of the B&W Twilight Zone where through the whole show they claim they are making the person better. Then in the end you find out they were perfectly normal and everyone else was a freak.
I’m sure the fact that this professor rides a bike and is an environmentalist has nothing to do with his support for GW.
CDM,
You mentioned RM Goody a way back. It rang a bell at the time so I checked my very disorganised “library” but failed at the time to find that I do indeed have “Atmospheres” (1972) coauthored with JCG Walker.
I had put it aside having decided that it was making the usual mistake of attributing extra heating of the surface to radiation from water vapour.
On rereading a section on the “greenhouse effect” one sentence reveals the error.
“The flux of infrared radiation emitted by the ground amounts to 113 of our arbitrary units, two and a half times as much as the flux of solar radiation absorbed by the ground. This extra energy comes from the atmosphere. The ground absorbs a long-wave flux from the atmosphere that is equal to 98 units. As a result, the net loss of radiation from the surface in the long-wave region of the spectrum is only 15 units.Since 45 units of solar radiation are absorbed by the ground, we appear to have too much energy going into the ground. The additional ways of removing heat from the ground are by evaporation of water and heat convection.”
There it is.. the last sentence. This is another way of saying that the extra heat within the atmosphere radiated downwards via water vapour has been put there in the first place by sensible and latent heat powered by the sun.
The greenhouse effect is in reality a nocturnal atmospheric phenomenon.
Thanks Pablo.
It also goes on to say:
“Experience suggests that a reasonable model consists of two layers, with the top layer centered at a height of about 3km and the bottom layer centered at a height of about 0.5km. We can derive these heights by the method outlined earlier, if we remember that water vapour is the principal absorbing gas in the earth’s atmosphere. Observations show that the scale height of water vapour is about 2km.
The temperature of the top layer is equal to the effective temperature for Earth at -20ºC.
For the bottom layer, the fourth power of the temperature is equal to twice the fourth power of the effective temperature because the bottom layer is the second layer from the top. We find that the temperature of the bottom layer is 24ºC.”
They then assume a skin temperature of -60ºC (i.e. the stratosphere at radiative equilibrium)
“Our theoretical model will be complete once we have calculated the ground temperature. The fourth power of the ground temperature is equal to the fourth power of the effective temperature added to the fourth power of the temperature of the bottom layer of the atmosphere.
We find a value for the ground temperature of 60ºC.
We can now compare the theoretical temperatures with average temperatures measured in the real atmosphere. We see that the theoretical model its quite successful at altitudes above 10km but that there are substantial deviations throughout the troposphere. Our theory is inadequate because radiation is not the only process that carries heat upward from the ground and from the lower levels of the troposphere.”
“Turbulence is a far more effective agent in effecting the transfer of heat upward through the atmosphere.”
David Brunt
Note that Goody and Walker take it as a given that the effective temperature of Earth is at 3km altitude, not as some would have you believe at the surface in the absence of water vapour’s greenhouse effect.
This was the reply I received from Science of Doom when I questioned his understanding of radiation…
“I’ve probably suggested this before, but you can read “Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis” by Goody & Yung, Oxford University Press 1989. It’s a textbook. Or “Radiation and Climate” by Vardavas & Taylor, Oxford Science Publications 2007. It’s a textbook.
Or if you want a simpler textbook, try “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation”, Grant Petty, Sundog Publishing 2006.
Perhaps you aren’t the textbook type of commenter. But not reading the relevant textbooks and claiming that no one has tested the GHE hypothesis is entertaining. Ignorance is bliss.
Finally, I recommend reading the article –
Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part Six – The Equations
– that introduces the radiative transfer equations (as simply as possible). So far, commenters with a similar profile to you have never explained what is wrong with these equations, derived from first principles and proven in large numbers of applications.
There’s a reason why, and sharp-eyed readers can probably figure it out.”
I am still questioning hi understanding of radiation.
I’m busy for a couple of weeks here but I’ll come back to this CD and take it on.
Radiative transfer equations are not the GHE. We have the radiative transfer equation for heat flow too…exact same principles and physics. The radiative transfer equations for heat flow of course are all about unidirectionality and unrecyclability of heat. They however have simply superimposed this interpretation of heat recycling/radiative GHE on top of the physics of radiative transfer because they think that they need to explain how temperatures higher than -18C are possible at the surface. Of course the higher temperatures are possible because the Sun actually heats at far higher than -18C, and then of course there is the adiabatic gradient too.
Thanks Joseph.
I really liked this comment…
“Anyhow Earth has no average temperature, rather humans are averaging the temperature.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/policy-driven-deception
“Authors veteran meteorologists Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception? The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global warming” at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of “global warming”.”
Source. From Watts.
So this was the last transaction between myself and Dr./Professor Raymond T. Pierrehumbert he has chosen not to respond.
ME:
“The surface is part of the Troposphere and therefore the average temperature is the same as the exhaust, 255 Kelvin all well and good, but that average is the middle of the Troposphere not found at the surface. I’m not seeing how GHGs accounts for the extra heat but the lapse rate can. Richard Feynman was not a fan of GHG Theory and GHGs do have fundamental uses in the atmosphere, they are not however, heaters. Quite frankly a division by 2 or 4 or 8 doesn’t change the obvious point that real climate is created at the Equator with a powerful 940 (variable) W/m^2 all the energy needed to power the most influential climate engine on the planet, the Hadley Cell (well that and the obvious fact that line spectrum isn’t heating its source more than the original temperature). Without GHGs the surface would not be 255 Kelvin for the surface would never be 255 Kelvin when that average is sitting in the middle of the Troposphere. My point is even if the math is correct (and I know it is) using an average for real time creation of our climate is not.
Not sure if this showed up or not? But this was the last communicate I had with Ray Pierrehumbert
Me:
“The surface is part of the Troposphere and therefore the average temperature is the same as the exhaust, 255 Kelvin all well and good, but that average is the middle of the Troposphere not found at the surface. I’m not seeing how GHGs accounts for the extra heat but the lapse rate can. Richard Feynman was not a fan of GHG Theory and GHGs do have fundamental uses in the atmosphere, they are not however, heaters. Quite frankly a division by 2 or 4 or 8 doesn’t change the obvious point that real climate is created at the Equator with a powerful 940 (variable) W/m^2 all the energy needed to power the most influential climate engine on the planet, the Hadley Cell (well that and the obvious fact that line spectrum isn’t heating its source more than the original temperature). Without GHGs the surface would not be 255 Kelvin for the surface would never be 255 Kelvin when that average is sitting in the middle of the Troposphere. My point is even if the math is correct (and I know it is) using an average for real time creation of our climate is not.”
He has chosen not to respond. Although I doubt he ever did, was probably an intern or a grad student, being beneath his “status” to respond directly to anyone without a Dr. in front of his name.
Joseph remember when we tagged a Potholer video? That FullMontyUK is still prattling on incoherently pretending he’s smart and bested us. Potholer’s minions use to be a lot smarter. Honestly I’ve been replying to him for fun for about 50 posts or so, half the time I’m not even paying any attention to him. No matter what you write he contradicts it like a petty child.
JP
re. from yourself
“#2: No, it IS from latent heat release. They can call that “downward radiative flux” but what it actually is is simply latent heat release and yes it does release energy back into the air. A BIG point to note is that this cannot, and does not, raise the surface temperature beyond what it was already heated to by the Sun in the day time. Slower cooling overnight from latent heat release is NOT the GHE. But yes, this latent heat absorption and release is indeed an important part of the climate, and it is DRIVEN by sunshine. You cannot have latent heat and water vapour without the high-temperature heating from sunlight in the first place!”
Is that because of the increase in potential temperature with height of around 3.5ºC/km with a moist lapse rate. i.e. an increase in temperature of 35ºC within a 10 km high column of air?
It dumbfounds me how many thousands of peer reviewed papers have been accumulated over the decades that are based on absolute subjective nonsense.
This trash was from 1998 and published in a Geophysical Research Journal
They can literally make up anything and have it rubber stamped as long as it promotes climate change and says “radiative forcing”.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/98JD00923
Right after claiming it is anthropocentric they say:
PM2
Thought this might be of interest in light of your high altitude cooling hypothesis.
“1.The ground surface net radiation and sensible heat flux in summer clear sky in the hinterland of the Taklamakan Desert are strong and the peak values for net radiation can reach 520 W m−2 and sensible heat flux can reach 300 W m−2. The strong surface thermal process provides an abundant energy source for the development of the atmospheric boundary layer of the desert.
2.The summer clear‐sky convective boundary layers in the hinterland and southern margin of the desert can develop deeply and thickly. The mixing layer can reach a thickness of 3700 m at most, above which a significant entrainment layer exists with average thickness about 500 m. The maximum thickness of the convective boundary layer can exceed 4000 m.
3.A remarkable temperature inversion phenomenon is found to exist over the summer clear‐sky nights in the hinterland and southern margin of the desert. The thickness of the night time stable boundary layer is about 400–600 m, but the residual layer above it reaches a thickness of more than 3000 m generally. The deep and thick convective boundary layer is the prerequisite for the maintenance of the deep and thick residual layer at night, and, in return, the thick night time residual layer offer very good thermal environmental conditions for the development of the convective boundary layer in the daytime.
4.The thickness of the summer clear‐sky convective boundary layer in Taklamakan Desert found herein conforms to the result of the research on Dunhuang, but differs greatly from the thickness of the atmospheric boundary layer in the summer for the Tibetan Plateau. The structure of the atmospheric boundary layer over this desert is restricted and influenced mainly by the underlying surface thermal action in arid regions. The phenomenon of an atmospheric boundary layer with supernormal thickness under the clear sky in summer over the arid regions in Northwest China is further confirmed by this research.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/met.1568
This is perfect Pablo, PM2, this was the last from Potholler Troll:
“Right, let’s try something simpler. Let’s start with a graph – https://files.mtstatic.com/site_4038/2814/0/webview?Expires=1596916979&Signature=Ywp3RpA5Lxk9C54kkpIhF0t7loTuZXjHvLZJj1nveDIYRADLalFTiJjl7G3a~WP0wkF3Kc8a5gJdrRsfRANqkw-pp0uzdG26FmpRFzWMSGCn2rdbFyFGQGHaBrMNn~u-Reicx4vi5ha6x6PzylRdwNbPvkQiNY6n5o2llGGdpds_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJ5Y6AV4GI7A555NA
And then an explanation “The average vertical energy balance of the actual atmosphere. All energies are represented as a percentage of the incoming solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere (340.2 W m–2 = 100 units). Solar irradiance is on the left (yellow arrows), infrared radiation is in the middle (red arrows), and convection (5 units) and evaporation (24 units) are on the right (blue arrows).”
………………………..
“The average solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere is 340.2 W m–2, which we will represent as being 100 units and then compare all other energy amounts to it.”
………………………
“At each level, the amount of energy going down must equal the amount of energy going up. Thus, at the top of the stratosphere, 100 units cross into the stratosphere from space, and to balance this downward energy are 30 units of reflected solar irradiance upward to space and 70 units upward emitted infrared radiation that makes it to space. At the top of the troposphere, the downwelling of 97 units of solar irradiance and 5 units of infrared irradiance is balanced by the upwelling of 30 units of reflected solar irradiance and 72 units of infrared irradiance. At Earth’s surface, the downward fluxes of solar irradiance (50 units) and infrared irradiance (89 units) balance the upward fluxes of 110 units infrared irradiance, the 24 units of latent heat, and the 5 units of sensible heat.”
So the atmosphere transfers more heat than the sun…lol.
Now so far this is what I’m going to reply with. Any suggestions/corrections will be appreciated.
“Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics
If two systems are at thermal equilibrium with a third system then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
“If A and C are in thermal equilibrium with B, then A is in thermal equilibrium with C. Practically this means that all three are at the same temperature, and it forms the basis for comparison of temperatures. It is so named because it logically precedes the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
There are underlying ideas about heat associated with the zeroth law of thermodynamics, and one of those ideas was expressed by Maxwell as “All heat is of the same kind.” If A is in thermal equilibrium with B, then every unit of internal energy that passes from A to B is balanced by the same amount of energy passing from B to A. This is true even if the atomic masses in A are different from those in B, and even if the amount of energy per unit mass in A is different because the material has a different specific heat. This implies that there is a measurable property that can be considered to be the same for A and B, a property upon which heat transfer depends. That property is called temperature.”
–Hyperphysics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University.
Q {Heat}
“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…” -Thermodynamics, G. J. V. Wylen, John Wiley & Sons, 1960
“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects… The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat .” -Chapter 1 – Energy in Thermal Physics Daniel V. Schroeder: An Introduction to Thermal Physics
“…Thus ‘heat’ may be termed as the energy interaction at the system boundary which occurs due to temperature difference only. Heat is observable in transit at the interface i.e. boundary, it cannot be contained in a system” –Applied Thermodynamics by Onkar Singh
The GHGE is based on IR radiation, which I will repeat again, moves at the speed of light.
This is absolute confusion over the adiabatic lapse rate and thermodynamics. Heck they can’t even get the input right from the Sun. 1300-1400 W/m^2 TOA after albedo around 910-980 W/m^2 both in and out, Conservation of Energy intact more or less in a 24 hour period.
Since EM radiation moves at the speed of light that only leaves potential energy and kinetic energy.
The Troposphere is mainly heated by conduction/convection/advection/lapse rate. The surface is part of the Troposphere for it touches the lower troposphere making it part of the same system.
“The net flux in energy flux diagrams produced by climate scientists always shows two-way fluxes, not net fluxes. Net fluxes are from hot to cold two way fluxes are not: Delta T (Th – Tc)
You can look at any thermodynamics but the base is the same.” JP
Thermodynamic “heat” has two components: 1) energy transfer, and 2) from “hot” to “cold” (Delta T).
Radiation:
Q = s(Th^4 – Tc^4)
There are “two-way” fluxes with physical conduction too, but of course, heat is only one way.
Conduction:
Q = k(Th – Tc)
The Troposphere works like a Carnot Heat Engine with two opposing isothermal forces and the adiabatic lapse rate both dry and wet. These constant forces are why the atmosphere will never be in thermal equilibrium.
Conservation of Energy:
We are looking at work done by the system IR is not new energy being introduced to a system.
“For energy to be available there must be a region with high energy level and a region with low energy level. Useful work must be derived from the energy that flows from the high level to the low level.” -Second Law of Thermodynamics
For energy to increase the temperature it must flow from hot to cold (Delta T).
Back to particle physics and EM energy, line spectrum can’t increase its radiative source greater. Energy moves both ways, heat moves from hot to cold: (Th – Tc).
Great stuff.
Is seems to me that radiative transfer theory is saying is that, given the conditions of the atmosphere as they actually are i.e. -18ºC effective temperature mid troposphere, surface temperature average 15ºC, lapse rate as they are etc. (That is to say after heat has been added to the atmosphere.) even without that direct absorption of 20% solar by the atmosphere the surface should be at least 45ºC warmer than it actually is. This has been demonstrated to be true with selective emitters as in the previous link. “Here we theoretically show that ultra-large temperature reduction for as much as 60 °C from ambient is achievable by using a selective thermal emitter” “https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13729
So the misconception that the “greenhouse effect” warms the surface of Earth from minus 18ºC to plus 15ºC is either a deliberate falsehood for whatever reason or a complete misunderstanding of what is going on.
So the question to ask is … “Do you believe that the greenhouse effect raises the average surface temperature of earth from minus 18ºC to plus 15ºC?
If they say “yes” then you have them.
@Pablo Can you imagine if thermal heat wasn’t redistributed? I did an off hand calculation and in direct sunlight surface temps would be unbearable anywhere on the planet radiating above 480 W/m^2 which would be anywhere below the Horse Latitudes (30-35 degrees of the Equator).
CDM
As I understand it so far.
Although radiation between absorbing molecules is at the speed of light, the flow of radiation through the lower levels of the atmosphere within the spectrum absorbed by water vapour (transfer of heat upwards by radiation) is slowed right down because it has to share its energy with nitrogen and oxygen molecules, to rates far below that of convection.
cool graph. Wide spread in 2016. That is pretty much since the end of the industrial revolution.
I guess the bottom graph means we are trending towards more lower than avg temps.
CD Marshall,
Is radiation an intensive property or extensive?
I’ve had all sorts of arguments that energy isn’t additive. It seems counterintuitive but we know two flashlights of the same intensity won’t produce a brighter light. We also know two 9 volt batteries won’t make 18V. We also know the planet must radiate IR to cool down which kind of contradicts the former two. Lately, my argument is if the amplitude and oscillation of lightwaves are the same in DWIR as Upwelling IR, then DWIR won’t do anything. However, am I confused about internal energy and specific energy? I think I am. Clearly, if the planet didn’t radiate, it would heat up. So, IR must be extensive, right? What am I missing here?
Thanks,
Leon,
Joseph can confirm or deny but as I see it…
The confusion always exists because they term anything that is thermal energy must therefore equal heat to increase the system’s temperature. As Joseph ha said, thermal energy moves both ways in a system, not thermal heat. The requirement for thermal heat is a change in energy from hot to cold. Delta T (Th-Tc).
That does not mean energy can’t feedback on a system. On a micro level a change in temperature requires energy, wavelength and frequency to be greater. A match may have greater WL/F than the middle of the atmosphere but not enough energy (neither would an ice cube) to change temperature.
Solar photons will always be of greater energy and WL/F than terrestrial photons. Once those photons are broken down the process isn’t reversible. Literally what goes up will never heat up more what came down. Conservation of Energy prevents it.
Pablo,
“Although radiation between absorbing molecules is at the speed of light” That’s a QM conundrum right there, isn’t? The speed of light would not change. The relaxation time of a magnetic dipole molecule is much faster than a homonuclear diatomic molecule. We do know that no such thing exists in the atmosphere as a none reactive gas to IR (technically).
“is slowed right down because it has to share its energy with nitrogen and oxygen molecules…”
Wouldn’t that be a direct link to heat capacity of each gas and the limit of water vapor’s altitude? Then again you still have collision and bumping and the transfer of Kinetic Energy.
What I’d like to know is the KE interaction between molecules how does that work exactly? Does bumping transfer partial energy and does that stack? Does it build up and if it stacks does that increase the vibrational state of the molecule? In collision energy is transferred, how is that decided? Can that build and if so to what extent?
My observations is the energy could stack but not increase the vibrational state unless it was a higher F/WL collision.
However, “For vibration and/or rotational modes, there must exist a magnetic dipole for photon absorption to occur. The molecule is unaffected by nonresonant frequencies, and if the molecule is already excited, even radiation at the correct frequency will be rejected (scattered) by the molecule (thus a heated CO2 molecule will not absorb another photon) and the energy transfer from a photon to increase a temperature requires that the wavelength to be shorter than the wavelength frequency absorbing it.”
CDM
As I understand it, surface outward radiative flux intercepted by the various degrees of freedom within water vapour molecules does indeed stack or rather is retained within the atmosphere as heat via collision into translational energy of non-radiative gases within the lower atmosphere. i.e. warms the air.
Without convection “The ratio of diurnal range of temperature at the top and bottom of the Eiffel tower would be 1/30 instead of the 1/3 and 2/3, according to the time of year. We therefore conclude that radiation is only of slight importance in the spread of heat upward to any considerable distance above the ground,..”..David Brunt
@Pablo Well advection does need to move warm air over to the night side somehow? Convection/conduction doesn’t usually leave the Troposphere.
Of course, but the issue is the THEORETICAL effect of a slowing down of surface radiative cooling by water vapour in still air, but in reality during daytime how turbulence, convection, advection, latent heat, etc. redirect that extra energy both upwards and polewards from the lower latitudes.
So as I see it the greenhouse effect spreads more warmth to the poles from the tropics than would otherwise be the case, as does latent heat. Some would say that this is a catastrophic climate emergency. I would say that any enhancement of that effect from extra CO2 is welcome during our brief blip of an ice age interstadial.
The stratospheric temperature at minus 61ºC is the skin temperature from which due to its translucence according to Kirchoff’s radiation laws tells us that emissivity and opacity are equal.. i.e. is at radiative equilibrium, that is to say energy absorbed equals energy emitted (one half upward and one half down)
The green house effect is all about the theoretical slowing down of radiative cooling of the surface from that point downwards. Within the troposphere.
Picking up again on this busy thread.
Pablo
“The greenhouse effect is in reality a nocturnal atmospheric phenomenon”
I agree. This point is the essence of the Noonworld tidally locked toy model I created to force the issue that divide by 4 for sunlight cannot be universally applied. With Noonworld the energy transfer to the night side can only be by advection of solar heated air from the day lit hemisphere.
I often see some confusions in water vapor and how it operates in the natural cycle of condensation and the “IR reactive” which are two different processes. Plus the fact they claim CO2 enhances water vapor, simply not true. Water vapor doesn’t mix with CO2. It’s weird they claim heat releases more CO2 from oceans and then claim it increases heat in the atmosphere?
the real question is how much radiation does water vapor absorb from IR Radiation and how much does it simply reflect?
PM2
I think the confusion arises because in radiative transfer calculations, minus18ºC is at mid troposphere and the sun has already done does its work on the system and so can justifiably be represented as dividing incoming by 4.
Pablo, PM2 and distinguished fellows,
The US NAVY did an atmospheric test 1971 with a CO2 Laser at 10.6 Microns shot through the atmosphere.
Click to access 725111.pdf
In case the link did not work have to do it manually…
://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/725111.pdf
Does anyone have legit information from Geoscience about the next ice age or glacials. I can’t find anything anymore but propaganda climate consensus science that act like even saying the word ice age is a sin to Gaia the Earth Goddess of global warming.
At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago.”
https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/
http://www.iceagenow.info
This graph comes up a lot.
The average surface temperature of Earth is 45ºC cooler than that predicted by radiative transfer Greenhouse gas theory. So which is right? The theory or reality?
The thing that confuses me the most is that the alarmists claims also dispute their own argument…..
They say that the earth emits at 240w/m2 however the basis of their own argument is that CO2 reduces this figure….How much exactly is the earth emitting 210w/m2 now???
This then would have to readjust their own input to say 210w/m2….
Its utterly bizarre
“However, the presence of greenhouse substances (the most important of which are water vapor and clouds) inhibits this cooling by thermal radiation, and serves as a blanket which causes the earth to be warmer than it otherwise would be. It is commonly claimed that the natural component of this blanket keeps the earth about 33° C warmer than it would be in the absence of this blanket. The claim is a little inappropriate insofar as it requires getting rid of the greenhouse impact of clouds while retaining them to reflect sunlight. Getting rid of clouds as reflectors would reduce this difference substantially. This, however, is a relatively minor point.”
Click to access 230_TakingGr.pdf
I would say its a relatively major point!
@Pablo
I’m going to give a go at correcting this for fun and personal education.
“However, the presence of {water vapor and clouds which serves as insulation} causes the Earth to {slow the cooling process in the form of latent heat coupled with conduction/convection/advection/lapse rate that keeps the Earth’s surface around a comfortable average of 15C}. It is commonly claimed that the natural component of this {conduction/convection/advection/Lapse Rate/water vapor and cloud insulation with some geothermal} [{maintains}] the earth about 33° C warmer {on a global average} than it would be in the absence of this {slowed cooling process}. The claim is {appropriate} insofar as it requires the insulation of clouds {and water vapor to establish the delayed cooling process}. Clouds {work as insulation and reflection according to the opaqueness of the cloud formation thus} this difference substantially {affects the cloud process as a reflective heat mechanism according to emissivity that can block incoming sunlight or as insulation slowing the cooling process from the Earth’s surface} . This, however, is a relatively significant point {in how the Earth remains at a comfortable temperature during the night and without this crucial process nights cool faster creating a much colder nocturnal average}.”
How’s my grade?
Joseph,
You go on hiatus and conveniently PH responds (coincidence?). Since Pierre is blocked on his site perhaps he’d like to share some insights I can convey as well.
PH to me:
“”Learn how the climate works and get back to me.””
I think you should take your own advice. @grindupbaker is correct, and if you would like to learn how the climate works, please start with the scientific studies I cite in the video description.
You wrote “Colder oceans equals a colder climate,” which shows that you are confusing climate and temperature, and cause and effect. Oceans cannot warm or cool the planet, they can only move heat from one part of the planet to another. So oceans respond to changes in atmospheric temperature, not the other way around. That’s why ocean temperatures are rising. The only way you can get “colder oceans” in the near future is through global cooling caused by a dramatic drop in CO2 concentration.
You wrote: “The present heater is called the Sun”
Obviously the sun cannot be the “present heater” because it is not heating anything up. Even you agree that the sun is currently a negative forcing — i.e. cooling.
In geophysics it is not absolute solar irradiance that causes changes in global temperature, but the change in irradiance. The change is called a “forcing.”
You wrote: “if consecutive solar cycles become consistent enough to start cooling oceans off”
So “if” solar irradiance dropped by around 5% and kept dropping, yes, that would compensate for present and future CO2 emissions and cool the oceans. Likewise, “if” solar irradiance increased by 5% then we would all fry.
And “if” Mars decided to change its orbit and crash into the Earth we would all die.
And “if” CO2 concentration halved overnight we would be in for a big chill.
If, if, if….
All of which is fascinating but totally irrelevant, since none of these fantasies is going to happen. It’s more worthwhile doing science in the world we inhabit rather than the world dreamed up in comic books.”
I love the added things they claim I say that I didn’t. I migth ass when I speak to PhDs they don’t do that, so they have “some” integrity over the average activist greeny-weeny snowflake.
This is the whole conversation…
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjgCaF9BGUo&lc=UgwTqqRwwi9mfzZu2694AaABAg.9CKBVBK-00c9CLFyR8uCT8
Under CD Marshall
CDM
Must be worthy of a pre-covid grade at least!
This crazy idea that warmer nights due to less surface radiative cooling in the presence of clouds can be regarded as forcing or warming is beyond me.
I migth ass when I speak to”
I might add…pun with Climate PhDs not intended.
This video was hard to find, well covered up by Google and Bing.
“Using Nonequivalent Dependent Variables to Reduce Internal Validity Threats: Rationale, History, and Examples from Practice”
So I have no idea why this video was so hard to find? Really nothing on it that’s groundbreaking?
So I think I asked about this a while ago…
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
I’m pretty sure it was the El Nino they were recording and claiming it was “radiative forcing” doesn’t anyone remember this? Finding things in this comment section is impossible. Anyone here a programmer?
So this was an argument that was brought to me today. Another analogy about how there’s no violation of the 1st.
“Now let’s say I stand next to the net and I hit half of the tennis balls you hit back to you.
Now you receive 100 tennis balls per minute from the machine and 50 from me. So in total, you receive 150 tennis balls per minute. But you were only hitting 100 tennis balls per minute, so now you’re in disequilibrium.
In order to remain in equilibrium, you must start hitting more tennis balls.
Let’s say you hit 150 tennis balls/minute. Does that solve the issue? No because now you receive 100/min from the machine and 75/min from me which makes 175/min in total received vs the 150/min you are hitting.
Ultimately, you will be in a new equilibrium when you hit 200 tennis balls per minute. Because at that rate you receive half of them back for me (i.e. 100 per minute) plus the same old 100/min from the machine.
I didn’t have to magically create tennis balls out of thin air for this, they’re just bouncing around in the system.”
Someone tell me after running this thought experiment for 3 minutes (300 balls) you don’t end up with more balls than you started with.
https://www.imageupload.net/image/pastedgraphic-1.KiMJv
From Lindzen’s “Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously”
@Leon The deception starts here:”Now you receive 100 tennis balls per minute from the machine and 50 from me.”
IR reflection from the surface to the atmosphere and back to the surface is not new energy introduced to the system, it is reflected energy existing in the system. He just introduced new balls to the system.
In this case, out of 100 balls 80 would be ejected out of the system and 20 as 80% of IR is emitted from the Earth in the open window on average and 20% is reflected, of those 20 reflected balls maybe 10 are able to be served again by you.
Don’t fall for the premise and don’t allow them to control the narrative.
The machine would serve all the balls, you would hit all the balls, he would return 10 and you would knock them out as well. That doesn’t equal a 110 balls, it equals 90 balls ejected and 10 reserved.
“..the physics of the “greenhouse effect.” Although this process is usually summarized by the assertion that infrared-absorbing gases inhibit the ability of the earth’s surface to emit thermal radiation, and thus force the surface to get warmer, the reality is substantially more complex.
The simplistic picture corresponds essentially to radiative equilibrium, for which Möller and Manabe calculated the equilibrium temperature of the surface to be about 350 K, which is 95 K warmer than the black-body temperature of 255 K. When convection is included by introducing a simple convective adjustment, the surface temperature comes down to the observed value of 288 K. Convective adjustment reduced the greenhouse effect by about 75%, by allowing for the fact that radiation is not the only form of heat transfer in the atmosphere. When infrared opacity is high, evaporation and mechanical transport are more efficient ways for the surface to cool.
Lindzen (2) offered a more complete schematic of the realistic operation of the natural greenhouse effect. One begins by recognizing that water vapor, the atmosphere’s main greenhouse gas, decreases in density rapidly with both height and latitude. Surface radiative cooling in the tropics, which has the highest concentration of water vapor, is negligible. Heat from the tropical surface is carried upward by cumulus convection and poleward by the Hadley circulation and planetary-scale eddies to points where radiation can more efficiently transport the heat to space. Where radiation can more efficiently carry the heat depends on the radiative opacity and the motions themselves. In point of fact, without knowing the dynamical heat fluxes, it is clear that one cannot even calculate the mean temperature of the earth.
A particularly acute example of the problem with dynamic fluxes is revealed when one couples models for the atmosphere with ocean models. Here, the climate tends to drift unless one applies so-called flux corrections.
The issue is not that the forcing due to CO2 is buried within these larger uncertainties, but rather whether we can reckon the response reliable.”
https://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8335
CD,
Yes, I can see that clearly now lol. But I took it a little further last night with a break down like this:
Minute 1.
100 balls have been received and 100 sent. 50 have come back. 50 in 50 out.
Minute 2
100 balls have been received and 150 sent.
75 have come back, 75 in 75 out.
Minute 3
100 balls have been received and 175 sent.
87.5 have come back, 87.5 in 87.5 out.
End
Total amount of balls returned:
50+75+87.5 = 212.5
Total amount of balls remained:
50+75+87.5 = 212.5
Returned + remained = 425
Total sent = 300.
But really you can stop after the 2nd minute because there are no additional 50 balls. 150 sent + the first 50 = 200 balls. Everything has been sent back.
@Leon
You’re analogy not mine, but remember the “Machine” is the Sun, “You” are the surface, and “troll bait” is CO2. Just keep in mind…”A single photon can be absorbed by CO2 and emit in around 70 microseconds, it takes an average IR photon 7 milliseconds to escape from surface to outer space.” -Calculations by Joseph Postma.
That math is more than I want to play around with but in 1 second an IR photon can transfer, absorb and re-radiate around 14,285.71 times, more or less according to my crack calculations.
So have fun with that 🙂
That “machine” will only run for 6-12 hours then its just emissions from you and the Trollbait until all balls are knocked out of the park, so to speak.
Phillip, I’m sure you read this already but if not…
Click to access ns_2020031013452917.pdf
and if you come across anymore send them my way if you happen to have them.
What are you currently working on? I hope you are staying busy.
Added to it.
Check out the comments. I had some arguments this time. Didn’t even have to ask for help.
@boomie789 I noticed you are getting the same claims Joseph did about the models and I did when I asked PhDs, yet when asked to see the “real model or the data put in it” they don’t respond back.
So say, “Great show me the real model and the data.”
it’s always “it’s a learning tool for 1st year whatevers” and talking about space blanket and explaining how they don’t ADD heat to stuff. lol
Besides the Ad-hominems and arguments from authority/consensus.
I like “A learning tool that defies the laws of physics? More like a de-learning tool.” as a response.
Or if they insulted you, “No, your mother is a learning tool, that model is for sophistry”
🤣
Having fun with clowns is the best reward, changing their minds never going to happen. Just nice to see a few “on the fence” who might be swayed by an intelligent argument. Fewer that seems to be now-a-days.
Some blokes are happy living under totalitarianism.
Idiot-“Ok, let’s not be obtuse and step through this carefully, and have you answer these questions:
Do agree that someone who is cold, with a body temperature of ~36°C and wraps themselves in a space blanket, could increase their body temperature to 37°C?
Do you agree with the Stefan–Boltzmann law which says the power radiated from a body – or its emittance – is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature?
If you agree with points 1 and 2, then you agree that the use of the space blanket increases the emittance of the heat source (the body), which answers your question.”
Boomie789-“If you put him in a regularly insulated room he would warm up as well.
“if you are outside and cold, will going inside some insulation allow you to warm up”
I gave you to much credit.
I know if you remove all those unnecessary variables(Human body) and replace it with your original example of a consistently heated iron bar. A space blanket will not increase the emmitance of the iron bar.
You are dragging the discussion through the mud.”
😂👌
If you wrap a space blanket around a dummy it doesn’t warm it up…BUT in his case it might.
Key sentences:
“When infrared opacity is high, evaporation and mechanical transport are more efficient ways for the surface to cool.”
“Surface radiative cooling in the tropics, which has the highest concentration of water vapor, is negligible.”
“Heat from the tropical surface is carried upward by cumulus convection and poleward by the Hadley circulation and planetary-scale eddies to points where radiation can more efficiently transport the heat to space.”
Boomie789-“The passive atmosphere doubling the sun’s input…
The COLD passive atmosphere(back-radiation) adding to the HOT sunshine.”
mtntim-“That does not show that net heat is flowing from a cold body to a hot body.
Just to be very clear, please identify:
The cold body, A
The warm body, B
The rate of energy flowing from A to B (either a number or mathematical expression)
The rate of energy flowing from B to A
If 3 is greater than 4, net heat is flowing from cold to hot.”
Anyone got something for this?
Otherwise, there is no problem.”
“anyone got something for this” was supposed to be last. Thats me asking.
In my view downward low energy IR should not be included in the surface heat budget. Downward IR only slows the speed of radiative loss from the surface. It should only be included in models of equator to pole temperature gradients.
Radiative transfer calculations are based upon the temperature of the atmosphere as it is but the theory tells us that in a motionless atmosphere it should be 45ºC warmer at the surface i.e. 60ºC. instead of the 15ºC observed. (R.M. Goody)
That is to say water vapour slows down the escape of surface radiation to such a degree that at the equatorial regions with high humidity there is virtually no direct surface loss by radiation to space. Surface IR radiation in the presence of water vapour is retained as extra warmth at levels closer to the surface which increase the lapse rate to that above the environmental and hence creates instability and circumstance for vigorous convective uplift.
This does not make the surface any warmer but it does trap energy within the convective and turbulent atmosphere for redistribution to higher latitudes where radiative loss to space increases as humidity and the emission altitude decrease.
correction:
…should not be included in Earth’s energy budget.
No, I was right first time .. it is surface heating we are talking about.
So the correction should be the addition of …ing… as in surface heating budget.
Jeez…sorry folks:
“Surface IR radiation in the presence of water vapour is retained as extra warmth at levels closer to the surface …which increase the lapse rate to that above the environmental and hence creates instability and circumstance for vigorous convective uplift.”
Should read:
..which increases the environmental lapse rate to that of conditional instability.
“Conditional instability is a state of instability that depends upon whether or not the rising air is saturated. Conditional stability occurs when the environmental lapse rate is between the moist and dry adiabatic rates. The atmosphere is normally in a conditionally unstable state.”
https://digitalatlas.cose.isu.edu/clima/imaging/clddev.htm
Or should it be: ..which increases the environmental lapse rate to one greater than the dry adiabatic to become absolutely unstable providing circumstances for vigorous convective uplift.
.
Yes, that is what I am trying to say.
Just delete the last 4 posts JP, I will start again!
In my view downward low energy IR should not be included in the surface heating budget. Downward IR only slows the speed of radiative loss from the surface. It should only be included in models of equator to pole temperature gradients.
Radiative transfer calculations are based upon the temperature of the atmosphere as it is but the theory tells us that in a motionless atmosphere it should be 45ºC warmer at the surface i.e. 60ºC. instead of the 15ºC observed. (R.M. Goody)
That is to say water vapour slows down the escape of surface radiation to such a degree that at the equatorial regions with high humidity and still air there is virtually no direct surface loss by radiation to space. Surface IR radiation in the presence of water vapour is retained as extra warmth at levels closer to the surface which increases the environmental lapse rate to one greater than the dry adiabatic to become absolutely unstable providing circumstances for vigorous convective uplift.
This does not make the surface any warmer but it does trap energy within the convective and turbulent atmosphere for redistribution to higher latitudes where radiative loss to space increases as humidity and the emission altitude decrease.
Does that make sense to the meteorologists out there? PM2?
Was watching this again. The solar flux average over one hemisphere is 480w/m^2 (30C).
Cut the flux in half (for avg over entire surface) you get 240w/m^2(-18C)
But if you cut the 30C in half you get 15C which is the real surface average.
Which Celsius is derived from the freezing point of water and the boiling point.
Which ultimately we are claiming is the real substance driven by the sun, not c02.
I don’t know what i’m trying to say here but it’s neat.
Weekly_Rise-
“Thanks for these links. Are you the author of the video? I disagree with it but thought it was well put together and easy to follow. It helped me to understand the argument you’re making.
This is where I disagree with the video: At about 1:40 into the video, the narrator says, ‘what they’re doing is taking the input and spreading it over the entire surface area of the earth.’ This categorically wrong. It is not why the factor of 4 is being used. As I explained in my first comment earlier, the factor of four arises because:
Sunlight is striking only a single hemisphere, so we must divide by 2. You have this part right.
The earth’s surface is curved, so sunlight is not striking it at the same angle everywhere on the daytime hemisphere, and only the vector component of sunlight perpendicular to the surface is absorbed. Imagine shining a flashlight directly at a dinner plate versus shining it directly at a beach ball. Your model assumes the earth behaves like the dinner plate. You have this part wrong.
Because your model has point 2 wrong above, it has forced you into proposing incorrect things about the rest of the process to reconcile the mistake. For instance, at 3:40, the video narrator says (paraphrasing), ‘the light comes out of the entire surface area of the earth, which is larger than the area that intercepted it, and so is diluted.’ This is also incorrect, because radiant flux is not affected by surface area, but only by the temperature of the radiating object per the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Again, the unit of Watts per square meter is a flux, not a quantity.
I did not comment on the rest of the video because I think this issue is the key reason why your model is wrong and needs to be revised.”
Boomie789-
“The earth’s surface is curved, so sunlight is not striking it at the same angle everywhere on the daytime hemisphere, and only the vector component of sunlight perpendicular to the surface is absorbed. Imagine shining a flashlight directly at a dinner plate versus shining it directly at a beach ball. Your model assumes the earth behaves like the dinner plate. You have this part wrong.”
How does this help you get to 240w/m2? Once you go below 480w/m2 you are adding in the night side of the earth…not just a curved surface in the light.
Also the model has 960w/m2 at the equator then 480w/m2. No matter what that is way more accurate than a blanket 240w/m2 over the ENTIRE surface.
You critique Postma for still not getting ontological enough, even though he is showing exactly what you are claiming he is not. Showing how the equator receives more flux than higher longitudes. Yet you are perfectly fine with a 240w/m2 “solar constant”.
I can not help but feel you are not being intellectually honest by this point.”
What fn inversionary projectionary BS.
My model assumes the Earth behaves like a dinner plate!? FFS. Their model IS A DINNER PLATE with 1/4 the power of the Sun! My models are always spherical and with a distribution of input from max to min.
“Because your model has point 2 wrong above, it has forced you into proposing incorrect things about the rest of the process to reconcile the mistake. ”
What a FN joker. That is exactly my argument about their model. Do you see how pathetic these people are? How disgusting?
‘the light comes out of the entire surface area of the earth, which is larger than the area that intercepted it, and so is diluted.’
And that is exactly correct in the way I explained it, but of course they quote it and then go off on some unrelated tangent to simply PRETEND I said something wrong, which I didn’t.
You’re dealing with a psychotic…in fact you may have found a core psycho who is testing arguments with you to see what sophistry they can develop and get away with. If you met this entity IRL it would likely eat you like a cannibal animal.
A lot of time it feels like they are just sowing confusion and doubt.
That guys really is making no damn sense and just conjuring stuff up.
This is what he said next.
Weekly_Rise-
“Let us walk through the numbers again:
The total solar irradiance arriving at the top of the earth’s atmosphere is ~1360 Watts per square meter. We both agree on this.
Only half of the earths surface area is exposed to sunlight, so the total solar irradiance is reduced by 1/2, so 680 Watts per square meter. We both agree on this.
The earth’s surface is curved, and total solar irradiance is the power that can be delivered to a surface perpendicular to the path of the incoming sunlight. The irradiance increases from 100% near the equator (680 Watts per square meter) to 0% at the poles (0 Watts per square meter). Integrating across the sunlit hemisphere, we see that the net irradiance across the entire sunlit surface is thus 50% of what it would be on a flat plane. We have another factor of 1/2, so 340 Watts per square meter is the total solar flux at the top of the atmosphere. We both do not agree about this yet, but I hope to convince you soon.
We both agree that some (30% according to your model) of this flux is either scattered by the atmosphere or reflected off of the surface, so only 70% of the flux at the top of the atmosphere is absorbed by the ground. This leaves us with a net flux into the earth’s surface of 240 Watts per square meter. That is how I arrived at the 240 number.
At equilibrium, the earth must be radiating with the same intensity that it is receiving energy from the sun, so the surface flux from the earth must be 240 Watts per square meter. This flux corresponds to an object that is at a temperature of -18C.”
Boomie789-
“🤦♂️
You are not making sense.
First its 1360w/m2 at the top of the atmosphere, then 360w/m2 ?
You are supposed to take the 30% from the 1360, that gives you 960w/m2 .
Half of 960 is 480w/m2
And you are saying I agree with 680w/m2 …never said that.
You are just sowing confusion by this point.
Think about where on earth that weak (-18C) actually shines, then think about a hot tarmac in Arizona. How did 240w2 make that road so hot? It only has the potential to warm it to -18C.
O yea it’s because of CO2 somehow multiplying the suns energy and adding it back to itself…/s”
He’s not even making alarmist arguments…just getting everything wrong and fundamentally misunderstanding/misrepresenting the whole…purpose. lol.
He’s unique for sure.
link to conversation from beginning.
feels good to be the up-voted guy.
This under Boomie’s Potholer post.
SHEISTER CAM
2 hours ago
@CD Marshall You said – “I completely endorse the science. What I reject are papers that DO NOT support the science.”
This is just total and utter tripe! Let’s take you pet hero Joe Postma as an example to show you do nothing of what you claim.
a) Joe Postma is a scientist, who either is or has been involved vocationally in the field of astronomy/astrophysics.
b) Joe Postma has submitted papers, restricted to his area of vocational expertise, to journals for peer review and it is easy for anyone to look these up. Excellent, we are all fine at this point, since Joe has conducted himself as all scientist should and worked within the system to subject his work to critique by his peers resulting in things like corrections, edits, clarifications, rejection, validation, acceptance, citations and so on as may be appropriate. Terrific!
So a pause at this point. As shown above, it can be conceded that Joe is being a real scientist, working, performing and conducting himself within the scientific method and system to arrive at good science outcomes. So now moving on………….
c) Joe Postma ends up writing what amounts to an article, some will refer to it as a “paper”, claiming that GHG theory is incorrect and postulates his own hypothesis in contradiction to the long held, evolved & well understood GHG theory. He never submits this “paper” content for peer review. Why?
d) Joe Postma has stepped outside of his area of vocational line of work, to comment on aspects climate behaviour. He is allowed to of course.
e) Joe Postma sets himself up on line to promote his GHG thinking and opposing hypothesis.
f) Joseph Postma aligns himself and loiters with the “merchants of doubt”, the crème de la crème of the global warming denial pr/lobby machinery. Attempts to promote Joe’s ideas by the MoD don’t help Joe gather any traction in scientific circles, but climate change denier land embraces Joe with enthusiasm.
g) The GHG theory as it is understood provides theoretical calculations & results that are matched by direct observation and measurement. Yet Joe Postma is claiming it is all wrong.
h) Joe Postma cannot be found in any of the scientific literature found in quality (or any) journals that is focused on matters of climate change, AGW or GHG theory. There is nothing to be found, period. Again why? When Joe is confronted about this he is coy and evasive with responses like, “maybe I will in the future”. Why wait, he could turn the whole thing on it’s head?
i) If one does a search around the science and physics forums and other sources of scientific commentary, Joe doesn’t impress anyone with his climate change musings.
So in summary, Joe steps outside the genuine and valid scientific machinery into the world of hearsay and conjecture to comment on matters involved with AGW. You find his stance on climate change compelling. The scientific community does not for valid reasons.
You referred to people lying earlier. But you deliver the biggest lies of all! Like this………..
“”I completely endorse the science. What I reject are papers that DO NOT support the science.”
You continually reveal yourself as nothing but an mischievous agenda driven ideologue that continues to fail to impress!
You might be right Postma. A true lying sophist psycho.
Weekly_Rise-
“It does make sense, and it is correct,but it contradicts what appears to be a theory you’ve spent a long time developing, so it’s normal that it is challenging for you to accept.
Think about it this way: shine a flashlight directly down at your floor, and notice the intensity of the light reflected back at you. Now turn the flashlight at a 45 degree angle to the floor. The light being emitted from the flashlight has not changed, but what do you notice? The light spilling across the floor does not seem as intense. This is because that same light is now covering a larger surface area, so each square inch of floor is receiving a smaller flux.
This is exactly analogous to the curved earth – only at the equator is sunlight hitting the surface directly. As you move further from the equator, the angle of the sunlight is changing, just like rotating the flashlight, and the same sunlight is being spread over a larger and larger surface area – the flux is decreasing as we move away from the equator. You can see that in this diagram.
If we want to know the total solar flux into the earth’s surface we have to account for this change in intensity with latitude. We also have to account for the fact that only half of the earth receives sunlight at once. This introduces two factors of 1/2 into the equation you gave for your model, where you mistakenly only have a single factor of 1/2. The equation for solar flux at earth’s surface is then:
Flux = (1-a)S/4 = (1-0.3) * 1360 W/m2 / 4 = 240 W/m2.
Having arrived at this conclusion, we must now confront the fact that a secondary process must be occurring to raise the planet’s equilibrium temperature. Let’s discuss what that process might be after we all agree on the information I’ve provided above.”
Boomie789
“That is spreading the sunshine out over an entire 24hr period…
The same as a flat earth with all surface area receiving equal flux…like a dinner plate.
Yet you are trying to pass it off as a real time model. As if averaging out day/night and the curve is accounting for the curve…
You are going in circles inverting everything and projecting the flaws in the alarmist model onto Postma’s model.
You are not interesting in having an honest conversation. You are interested in sowing confusion.”
I spat this out. I don’t plan on responding anymore. I’m confident I displayed his intellectual dishonesty for those capable of seeing it.
Boomie,
Notice they also use the exact same equation for the exhaust, S/4. Yes the EXACT same equation for the whole planet.
BS alert (bad science) .
Weekly_Rise-
“It is not spread out over time, it is a flux. A watt is the SI unit of power (energy transferred per unit time) and we are determining the power per unit of earth surface area in squared meters of incoming sunlight. We can envision a non-rotating earth – the flux is the same.
I’ve drawn you some diagrams. Here is the curved earth at a single instant in time. Half illuminated in sunlight, but the sunlight is less intense near the poles:
Here is a dinner plate earth. Half illuminated in sunlight just like curved earth, but the sunlight is the same intensity all across its surface:
In both cases, the objects are still in space – neither is rotating. Instead of me going round in circles trying to explain this to you, let me pose these questions:
Which of the above two cases has a higher solar flux? Which is warmer?”
Boomie789-
“For the last time, the entire surface area is only exposed to the sun after 24 hours. You just admitted you are averaging out the curve and day/night of the solar flux on earth.
Why would you create a model for earth’s climate on a non rotating earth? Pretty sure the day/night cycle is important.
Once again complaining Postma is not ontological enough while you do math for fantasyland.
We are going in circles, yes.”
That seems like a good place to stop.
If you don’t think that instances like this are coordinated and purposeful research for sophistry….well, you should.
NO ONE SAYS OR THINKS THINGS LIKE THIS. NO ONE DUMB ENOUGH COULD COME UP WITH IT…NO ONE SMART ENOUGH WOULD COME UP WITH IT.
Hence it is purposeful.
This part I love the most from SHEISTER CAM
“The GHG theory as it is understood provides theoretical calculations & results that are matched by direct observation and measurement. Yet Joe Postma is claiming it is all wrong”
Coming from flat earth theory where the sun doesn’t heat the earth or create the climate???? Lol. Yah really matches direct observation and measurement!!!! Lol
Thats a good point.
hey tried giving that paper from Berkley 2015 where they measured the cooling La Nina effects and later the warming La Nino and claimed it was proof of global warming. Thes people do not live in reality.
Potholer replied to me by the way, this was the last thing he said,
Highlighted reply
potholer54
3 days ago
@CD Marshall wrote: ‘Well my detailed explanation….”
I don’t need a detailed explanation, I was just looking for an answer to my question and you don’t even address it. So I’ll just accept that since you haven’t answered “No” to my question then you do now understand that the recent fall in solar irradiance is a negative forcing. Since you’ve finally grasped that simple fact — at last! — then my work here is done.
CD Marshall
3 days ago
@potholer54 The “planet” does not “warm or cool” when there is an imbalance given by I = (S/4)(1-a) – oeT^4.
That means no
“He never submits this “paper” content for peer review.”
“You find his stance on climate change compelling. The scientific community does not for valid reasons.”
I DID submit a paper for peer review. The “scientific climate alarmist community” rejected it because they disagreed with the statement that the Sun heats the Earth and creates the Earth’s climate. Point: Postma.
Weekly_Rise-
“I think I will keep trying to restate the argument in new ways until we reach a common understanding.
There is no lowering of the density of the flux because the flux is not a quantity that can be spread around, it is a rate of flow. Every second, every square meter of the earth’s surface receives 240 Joules of energy. At equilibrium, every square meter of the earth’s surface must emit 240 Joules of energy to remain in equilibrium.
According to Postma’s model, every second, every square meter of the earth’s surface receives 480 Joules of energy, yet by some process, every second, each square meter of the earth’s surface emits 240 Joules of energy yet somehow remains in equilibrium. Such a state violates the first law of thermodynamics.
I think we both see where the error is in Postma’s model, because I’ve explained it very clearly and you have not responded to it (recall the two questions I posed about my diagrams that you ignored twice). We need to reach agreement that this is an error in Postma’s model, and then we can start revising the model to something that is consistent with the laws of physics.”
Boomie789-
“‘Every second, every square meter of the earth’s surface receives 240 Joules of energy.’
wrong.
‘At equilibrium, every square meter of the earth’s surface must emit 240 Joules of energy to remain in equilibrium.’
correct
‘According to Postma’s model, every second, every square meter of the earth’s surface receives 480 Joules of energy.’
Wrong. Already explained this probably 3 times by now.”
Weekly_Rise-
eekly_Rise-“‘Wrong. Already explained this probably 3 times by now.’
You have made the argument several times, but it has yet to be correct.
Can you describe to me why we should not be accounting for the curvature of the earth in the energy flux calculation? Postma’s model does not.
Refer back to the diagrams I drew and try to answer in terms of the dinner plate/curved earth examples. Postma is presenting us with a dinner plate model.”
Boomie789-
“You are the one averaging out the curve. Not me.
Averaging out the whole earth into a flat earth dinner plate.
You are literally projecting the flaws we are trying to point out, back at us.”
Weekly_Rise-
“Right, and I’m arguing that doing so is necessary. Postma’s model for incoming solar flux and mine are completely identical except that mine accounts for the earth’s curvature. To successfully argue that Postma’s model is the correct one, you need to explain why we should ignore the earth’s geometry when calculating solar flux.”
Boomie789-
“No yours gets rid of the curvature, by averaging out the sunshine over the entire surface at once.
You are ignoring earths geometry.
Postma’s model takes into account the curvature and day/night.
Reflectanary projection.
You are a deliberate agent of falsehood and darkness.”
I’m 99% sure Postma is right.
The things this entity is re-projecting at me are blatantly ridiculous…blaming me of doing the very things I’m pointing out and correcting. As if I do dinner plate etc etc.
You have a real agent here! Examine it. Read closely. Comprehend how it works. An agent of pure sophistry, inversion, projection, lies, etc. It’s quite pure with this one! You may be conversing with the agent of darkness itself.
Whatever they were it is clear they are now sycophants of the New World Order.
@Boomie789 You seem to be picking up on this stuff really fast. Kudos.
Joseph, I talked to a scientist who worked around scientific magazines to find one to print an article about his ideas. Which he had some valid insights, but I thought it needed some real research.
The point being, he does want to write a paper if he gets enough on board and is able to do the actual research which in his case he would need funding or a team interested in his research.
I think you need to start small maybe not the whole picture, just a piece of it. It Would be nice if you could collab with someone else like Phillip on a focused point.
This EM guy I’m talking to is convinced GHG is why we have water vapor. Writing a paper on the process of water vapor would be invaluable. Not the whole puzzle, just offering them a piece.
Of course, if you have time.
If not you can direct it towards your field, terrestrial water vapor on planets, how the water cycle functions and how it may be used in future terraforming…
Or something like that. I don’t know.
@CDM
AND HERE I THOUGHT YOU LACKED A SENSE OF HUMOR.
“He’s simply not smart enough to figure it out” You seem to have selective memory loss.
Conservation of Energy is roughly maintained in a 24 hour period.
What happens naturally in the Troposphere between two opposing isothermal processes and two opposing lapse rates has nothing to so with the COE.
“Temperature equilibrium” doesn’t exist in the Troposphere, it will never be in thermal equilibrium and if it did, then the lower atmosphere would become isothermic.
Humidity has nothing to do with CO2 more politcal science propaganda. Humidity has to do with more irragation in desert land turned to farming and more heat at the tropics usually from decreased albedo.
Which is from increased total surface irradiance which is from less cloud cover and Brightening of the tropics which increases thermal energy in the tropical oceans which feeds the Hadley which creates more storms…See the pattern?
Please use paragraphs.
Since you are so brilliant as you claim, answer my questions and prove it.
Thanks!
Humidity has nothing to do with CO2 more politcal science propaganda.
EM:
There is where you are dead wrong. It takes the secondary greenhouse gases to put the primary greenhouse gas H2O into the atmosphere. Without the secondary greenhouse gases, this planet would be an ice ball. There would basically be no water vapor in the atmosphere.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/
There is only 3 laws of thermodynamics and they are rather simple to understand. Comprehension is your issue. CO2 and CH4 are the reactive substances that create the climate. Without them, there basically is no climate. Earth is simply to far away from the sun to cause water vapor to enter the atmosphere without the reactive ingredients
What difference does that make? Both are greenhouse gases. Water vapor basically doesn’t exist on this planet without the secondary greenhouse gases, CO, CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFCs, and HCFCs. Without them, this planet goes back to being an ice ball. I have no understanding of why you wish to argue about this. All the information is readily available.
CDM:
“The Sun supplies the energy that drives our climate and that climate is mainly created from the Oceans supplying massive thermal energy to the Hadley cell. The Sun creates the water cycle that drives the entire climate mainly from the Equator.”
EM:
You are correct. Again the issue is the Earth itself is at the same distance from the sun as the moon. The mean temperature of the moon is -18C which is the same as the Earth if Earth had no secondary greenhouse gases. This planet has frozen over twice when Co2 levels got to low.
@CD Marshall “If the effective temperature of the surface would be -18C w/o water vapor how did water vapor get in the atmosphere in the first place?. Not by a -18C temperature (it was the Sun).
The Earth has a dense center of mass allowing it to create a thermal gravitation field. The Moon’s gravity doesn’t.
EM:
Now you are asking the right questions. Plate tectonics, vulcanism, the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Without plate tectonics, this planet would become Mars. Cold and dead.
The Sun in itself doesn’t radiate sufficient energy to create liquid water and therefore water vapor. Only a secondary greenhouse gas in sufficient quantities will bring Earth out beyond its freezing point. There are 2 gases, CH4 and CO2.
The Earth has a real dense atmosphere that the Moon doesn’t.
The Earth’s atmosphere is Nitrogen-based (not CO2 based, not CH4 based not O3 based…) The Moon has a solar wind based ‘atmosphere’.” O2 and N2 are transparent to infrared photons. They do nothing to heat the planet’s surface.
The magnetic field prevents the solar winds from stripping hydrogen from the planet’s atmosphere which is what happened to Venus.
“The Earth’s superheated core creates a magnetosphere with gravity helps to keep most of our atmosphere intact.” Venus is about the same size and it still lost its hydrogen.
“The effective black body temperature of the two as seen from space differs only around 16.4 Kelvin.” Earth has greenhouse gases.
“The moon has lower albedo than the Earth…it absorbs more input energy from the sun and reflects less energy than compared to the Earth. That is, the lunar regolith has greater absorptivity of incoming solar energy than the Earth does. The Earth is more reflective due to the presence of clouds.” There is still the amount of radiation leaving the two bodies matching light transmittance from solar radiance. The energy bands’ radiance are at different frequencies.
”
“Without greenhouse gases, the planet could be theoretically marginally hotter from a QM perspective. I’d be happy to explain but first, let’s see if you can figure it out. IR emissions are not the only form of thermodynamic emissions on the planet. BUT it is the only means of emissions leaving the planet. Think about that for a moment.”
You really seem to forget you are talking to a retired civil engineer. You do seem to be getting a little closer by asking the right questions. The entire climate system works on carbon, not hydrogen. Too little carbon in the atmosphere and the planet freezes over. Too much carbon in the atmosphere and the planet overheats stripping hydrogen from the atmosphere from solar winds.
Here you are still deep in denial. Nothing and I mean nothing occurs without the secondary greenhouse gases.
“Our atmosphere, lapse rate, and auto compression maintain our temperature gradient.”
The second law of thermodynamics prevents the maintenance of temperature. Without some form of thermal barrier, the heat dissipates into outer space. Water vapor is lighter than air, simply carries the heat into the upper troposphere where it is radiated into outer space as infrared photons. Only CO2 is sufficiently heavy enough to keep the heat dissipation lower in the troposphere to maintain a more constant temperature. This is exactly why Venus has such a high temperature. There is no water vapor on Venus, but yet Venus is considerably hotter than Earth. If this is true, how could CO2 not be a greenhouse gas? The heat would simple dissipate into outer space and Venus would cool down. Due to atmospheric pressure the CO2 would condense into dry ice forming a reflective shield from the sun’s radiance and albedo would go to 1. Venus would also become a crystalline ice ball.
….and so on but you get the just of the endless minutia.
I forgot to add this nugget…
@EF M Direct solar heating at the equator and that heat are circulated around globally.” Equatorial heat is limited to the Hadley cell.
“Claiming the Sun isn’t enough to warm our planet is simply desperate to believe in something that is not needed.” Earth’s albedo is mainly at the poles. If you would eliminate all secondary greenhouse gases, the ice caps would spread and a glacial ice period would begin. Once the glaciers hit the 30th parallel, the planet would completely freeze over. due to the albedo effect.
”
Naturally, you are also choosing to skip geothermal which is why our ocean floors aren’t as cold as they should be.” 1C to 4C at ocean’s bottom and they aren’t as cold as they should be?
The earth would not be a frozen ball without the atmoshpere, It would be like the moon.
” When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius). When the sun goes down, temperatures can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C). ”
That comes up a lot too.
“Water vapor is lighter than air” Is it though?
“his is exactly why Venus has such a high temperature. There is no water vapor on Venus, but yet Venus is considerably hotter than Earth.”
Because it’s surface is covered in active volcanoes, lava, and the atmosphere is 93x the pressure of earth’s. Not because it has C02…
“Venus would also become a crystalline ice ball.”
again…it’s surface is covered in active volcanoes and lava.
They all have the same false bricks in their foundation of knowledge.
Yeah I explained all of your points you mentioned Boomie, it fell on brain washes ears.
Is water vapor lighter than air?
Yes it actually is around 38% lighter?
This should come in handy for you…
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-weight-gas-vapor-d_1156.html
brain washed ears lol
The heaviest gas isn’t on there.
tungsten hexafluoride (WF6)
Radon isn’t on there either. Thanks for the link sent me down a “what are the heavest gases” rabbit hole.
Apparently you could poison a water supply with that tungsten hexafluoride and it’s not regulated. 😲 450g for $2,420.00. I wonder what damage someone could do with that?
Used to make computer chips
Probably should regulate that. lol.
Their are more sources, I lost the links to them though.
Weekly_Rise-
“The additional factor of 1/2 is not present to “average out the sunshine over the entire surface at once.” It is present to account for the diminishing intensity of sunlight toward the poles. It has nothing whatsoever to do with averaging sunlight over the entire earth. As I said in my very very first post on this topic, this is the fundamental error in Postma’s model – omitting this factor of 1/2 is not justified and does not account for the earth’s curvature.
You keep waving your hands around and insisting that the factor really must have something to do with averaging out sunlight in some nonsensical way, but you’re simply wrong about that. I’ve carefully explained why the factor is necessary and you have not once explained how I might be mistaken on that point. This is the only difference between Postma’s model and my own, so it really is absolutely necessary that you address it by speaking to things I’ve actually said, and not things you imagine I might have said or meant.
I really would love to move onto your other misunderstandings about the greenhouse effect, but it seems we are going to be stuck on this single point for eternity.”
Boomie789-
“First of all your not even representing Postma’s model correctly, even though I’ve told you over and over 480w/m2 is on one hemisphere, not the entire surface.
Second, 240w/m2 is not the sun’s heating potential, this is obvious.
YOU ARE AVERAGING THE SUNSHINE OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE AREA OF THE EARTH AT ONCE.
You’ve carefully unexplained me and projected the falsehoods in your model onto us.
Stop averaging out the sunlight over the surface and instead accurately represent the energy coming into the earth from the sun.
The sun is not providing just 240w/m2. This is undeniable. Go outside during the day and you can verify that for yourself.
How many differnt ways can I tell you this? Averaging the sunlight out over the entire surface area is not “accounting for it”.
Then you flatly deny that this is what they are doing when it’s in the model itself!! You are a deliberate liar and obfuscater.”
Weekly_Rise-
“‘First of all your not even representing Postma’s model correctly, even though I’ve told you over and over 480w/m2 is on one hemisphere, not the entire surface.’
I agree with that. Postma is dividing the solar constant by two because the sun is shining only on one hemisphere. I did the exact same thing.
What postma did not do was the account for the fact that that single sunlit hemisphere is not a flat plane but is a curved surface.
I am not doing any averaging, not once is an average taken. I am determining the total flux of sunlight into the illuminated hemisphere. Do you understand the difference between and integral and an average?”
Boomie789-
“You are determining the amount of sunshine, if it were spread over the entire surface area at once.
Once again, Postma clearly shows the equator recieving 960w/m2.
Showing the equator receiving more than higher longitudes. You are just a intellectually dishonest person.
You said entire surface before.
I have been consistent in my argument, yours seems to keep changing. Like you are learning this as you go.
You didn’t even know 240w/m2 was earth’s emittance. You thought the surface temperature was -18C.
Stop lying.”
Weekly_Rise-
“We aren’t spreading the sunlight over the whole earth, we are considering the fact that only half of the earth is exposed to sunlight. A point on earth’s surface might receive a higher or lower flux depending on latitude, but we aren’t trying o determine flux at the equator, we are trying to determine to total flux into the planet, since that is what determines equilibrium temperature.
The planet must emit the same flux that it receives at equilibrium, you cannot have a valid model claiming that the earth receives 480 W/m2, and so should have an equilibrium temperature of ~30C, while simultaneously claiming that it emits a flux of 240 W/m2. This violates the laws of physics.
I think the mean surface temperature is much higher than -18c because of the greenhouse effect.”
Boomie789-
“literally projecting my argument back at me.
“The planet must emit the same flux that it receives at equilibrium, you cannot have a valid model claiming that the earth receives 480 W/m2, and so should have an equilibrium temperature of ~30C, while simultaneously claiming that it emits a flux of 240 W/m2. This violates the laws of physics.”
Thats not what I said and I’m not explaining it again. You have been constantly misrepresenting my argument, you are doing it on purpose.
“I think the mean surface temperature is much higher than -18c because of the greenhouse effect.”
No, its because of mainly water vapor propagating the high density flux from the equator.
Quoting myself
‘The earth’s atmosphere limits the temperature spectrum on earth.
If the earth had no atmosphere, it would be like the moon, extremely hot on one side, extremely cold on the other. The temperature spectrum is very wide.
On Earth the atmosphere blocks a portion of the suns energy, dispersing it.
Preventing us from feeling the full force of the sun.
Imagine if the earth had a at least 100ft deep ocean across it’s whole surface, and no atmosphere.
Take the temperature of the sea floor of the side of the earth facing the sun, and the temperature on the sea floor on the opposite night side. Same distance underwater of course. These two temperatures will be quite close together.
Now remove all the ocean and do the same temperature measurements again, the temperatures will be on completely opposite sides of the spectrum.
The atmosphere has substance, mainly water vapor. It retains and transfers heat from the sunny side, to the night side.
The same thing happens in places with very little water. I’m sure you’ve heard how deserts can be below freezing at night, and blisteringly hot during the day. Because there is little substance(water) to propagate heat flow.'”
Boomie789-
“‘Thats not what I said and I’m not explaining it again. You have been constantly misrepresenting my argument, you are doing it on purpose.’
That’s not what you’ve said but it is implicitly coded into Postma’s model, which requires an equilibrium temperature higher than -18 from sunlight alone to explain how the planet can be above freezing without a greenhouse effect.
‘No, its because of mainly water vapor propagating the high density flux from the equator.’
Energy movement within the system cannot change the energy movement into and out of the system. The earth has to radiate the same flux that it receives from the sun. Without an atmosphere creating a secondary flux into the surface the planet’s surface would be below freezing. Happily for us the surface is kept nice and warm by the atmosphere and the freezing temps needed to balance solar flux are instead found high in the atmosphere. I call this process the greenhouse effect.
‘The same thing happens in places with very little water. I’m sure you’ve heard how deserts can be below freezing at night, and blisteringly hot during the day. Because there is little substance(water) to propagate heat flow.’
This is quite literally the greenhouse effect. The presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere inhibits heat loss to space directly from the surface and keeps the surface warmer as a consequence.”
The last one isn’t me shit.
Boomie789-
“‘That’s not what you’ve said but it is implicitly coded into Postma’s model, which requires an equilibrium temperature higher than -18 from sunlight alone to explain how the planet can be above freezing with a greenhouse effect.’
Because when you stand outside in the sunlight, according to this guy, that warm sunlight hitting you, was actually much weaker. He is claiming that the atmosphere doubled that sunlight. He is saying the energy in the atmosphere, which came from the sun, is added back on top of the sun’s input.
Violating the second law of thermodynamics.
he reinforces his claim there. Back to my moon example.
https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html#:~:text=Daytime%20on%20one%20side%20of,F%20(minus%20173%20C).
“Daytime on one side of the moon lasts about 13 and a half days, followed by 13 and a half nights of darkness. When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius). When the sun goes down, temperatures can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C).”
Freezing temperatures at higher altitudes are do to the adiabatic gradient. Gravity is weaker the higher you go, the air is less dense, less substance to propogate heat flow.
Keep in mind there is no validated experiment proving the green house effect. Which should be easily demonstrable in regular old greenhouses.
I’m sure you’ll link one thinking it does. I’ll be ready for it.”
Weekly_Rise-
“‘Because when you stand outside in the sunlight, according to this guy, that warm sunlight hitting you, was actually much weaker. He is claiming that the atmosphere doubled that sunlight. He is saying the energy in the atmosphere, which came from the sun, is added back on top of the sun’s input.’
The strength of sunlight at a single point on earth’s surface depends on latitude, altitude, time of day, time of year, etc. But we aren’t talking about a single point, we are talking about earth as a body suspended in space, losing heat to space and being heated by the sun. The equilibrium temperature is not determined by the strength of insolation at a single point but by the net flux of outgoing radiation needed to balance the net flux of incoming radiation.
Energy from the atmosphere is indeed added back to the sun’s input. The total radiative flux into the surface is greater than the radiative flux from direct sunlight alone. This doesn’t violate any framing of the 2nd law that I have ever heard.
The moon has a higher equilibrium temperature than the earth because it has a much lower albedo. The large day/night differences are indeed due to the absence of an atmosphere.”
Boomie789-
“‘The strength of sunlight at a single point on earth’s surface depends on latitude, altitude, time of day, time of year, etc.’
Correct, which you averaged out over the whole surface of the earth. Postma relised that the high intensity flux at the equator and sunny side of earth are critical in understanding were the energy in our system is propagating from.
‘Energy from the atmosphere is indeed added back to the sun’s input.’
You cannot prove this because it is impossible. Here is a thermodynamics textbook quote from the post above. Can you quote thermodynamics textbooks? No you can’t because your model doesn’t obey the laws of thermodynamics.
‘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 [2](pg. 18)“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 [2](pg. 82)
@anyone
“The moon has a higher equilibrium temperature than the earth because it has a much lower albedo. The large day/night differences are indeed due to the absence of an atmosphere.”
I would like some help answering that part. The moon comes up a lot.
Knowing the truth is the easy part. Learning how to best combat the sophistry is were it gets really hard…
All this stuff about the factor of 4 division coming from the curvature of the Earth is BS, of course. The divide by 4 is clearly stated in every single derivation as the factor required to spread the disk-intercept over the entire sphere, given that a disk is pir^2 and a sphere is 4pi*r^2.
In addition, do not forget this article where I demonstrated how to get the average diluted input over the hemisphere:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/07/08/how-to-calculate-the-average-projection-factor-onto-a-hemisphere/
It does not work out to a factor of 4, but a factor of 2…as we all already know, for a hemisphere.
Do you see how these entities explore variations and perturbations of sophistry? They take every little facet of reason but then shunt it down into some new creative destruction of reason and meaning in sophistry. For example: so now the factor of 4 isn’t for the ratio of a disk area to a sphere area, what it has always been, but now the factor of 4 is about the curvature of Earth on a single hemisphere.
This entity is arguing like this on purpose…because there is no identifiable chain of reason which would lead it to saying these things or its assessment/criticisms of my work…there is simply no chain of reason to get there. Hence that means that it is simply inventing them…like a sophist. I hope you’re all learning from witnessing this! This is how it works!
‘Energy from the atmosphere is indeed added back to the sun’s input.’
Simply a claim with no evidence, and it is a claim which originates as I have explained – it is a claim which originates in flat Earth theory where the Sun can’t create the climate, hence they are forced to interpret the existence of atmospheric radiation as creating all of the climate that the Sun cannot. But of course, the Sun does, because the Snn is not -18C input.
But atmospheric temperature and its energy and heat content, etc., is all DOWNSTREAM of the initiating heat input which drives and sets the system in motion in the first place: the Sun. Being downstream, it hence cannot drive anything beyond what the Sun does. Water and water vapour though does bring more thermal energy to the poles.
Weekly_Rise—-
It is critical in understanding how heat moves around within the earth system, but it is not critical in calculating the equilibrium temperature of the earth, which is what we are trying to do.
The second law does not imply that energy cannot radiate from a colder body in the direction of a warmer body, which would be necessary for your argument to hold water. Rather, it concerns the net flow of energy between bodies, which is always from warmer to colder in the case of the earth/atmosphere.
Boomie789—-
I just quoted you a thermodynamics textbook that says otherwise.
Can you quote a thermodynamics textbook?
also
“Conductive heat transfer Q = k* (Thot – Tcool)
Huh look at that heat flow from hot to cool. Now we should find something remarkably different for radiation, as per their claims. Let’s see:
Radiative heat transfer: Q = s*(Thot4 – Tcool4).”
“It is critical in understanding how heat moves around within the earth system, but it is not critical in calculating the equilibrium temperature of the earth, which is what we are trying to do.”
This statement makes no sense in context.
@CD – this stuff about ‘CO2 being required in order for water vapour to exist, thus creating a warmer habitable planet, and without CO2 the planet would be ice-ball’.
They just make all that up. They cannot possible demonstrate that. And we know why they make all that up – because they think that the Sun cannot do it, because they treat the Sun as -18C, etc etc etc.
The Sun couldn’t create water vapour without CO2? It’s just BS.
The foundation of their whole interpretation of everything is that the sun can’t create the climate, because of their -18C input thing.
Even if the earth had no co2 and was an ice ball, sublimation of h20 ice would kick start an atmosphere.
^neat
Weekly_Rise——
Lol. You’ll have to settle for a screenshot since I’m on mobile and can’t select text in PDFs. Here you go
Now, please do answer my hot potato question, it was not rhetorical.
Boomie789—–
…where does that say radiation allows cold to add to hot. Are you trying to confuse people with the part that says how the first law would be violated, but the second would…like I’ve been saying?
Yes that is a proper reference to the second law of thermodynamics. Now show me were it says there is a caveat to radiative heat flow adding cold to hot without adding work.
I’m trying really hard not to just call you blatant names insulting your intelligence….
Forgot that sentence. lol.
Nice image quote.
lol. This guy is practicing with me. He has to be. I’m practicing as well I suppose.
Hone your skills for sure.
for got a “not” in my response up there of course.
first law would *not be violated
Weekly_Rise—–
Here is another example..
There is no caveat needed because the scenario does not violate the second law. The second law refers to net transfer between the two bodies. There is no physical mechanism by which radiation from a colder body must veer away from the warmer one and not allow itself to be absorbed.
Again, answer my hot potato questions. They’re not rhetorical. You really need to stop dodging them.
Boomie789——
That still doesn’t say it’s possible for a lower flux to add to a higher flux. You have to give a reference that supports the claim of back-radiation. Which is impossible so you are linking random references that don’t even support your claim.
“Conductive heat transfer Q = k* (Thot – Tcool)
Huh look at that heat flow from hot to cool. Now we should find something remarkably different for radiation, as per their claims. Let’s see:
Radiative heat transfer: Q = s*(Thot4 – Tcool4).
Also from hot to cold.”
So find me the textbook quote that says “Radiation does not have to obey the second law of thermodynamics, The radiation from an ice cube can be used to cook”. Good luck.
He is just linking random shit….this is weird and pathetic.
It’s the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics. NOTHING gets around it…it applies to ALL energy.
Weird and pathetic….lol…yah for sure 👍
Just where we want them…Weird and pathetic….haha
Weekly_Rise—-
Here is an example explicitly stating that the cold and warm bodies both radiate heat to one another, and that it is the net flow that moves from warm to cool.
Again, there is no physical property of matter that causes radiation emitted from a cooler body to veer away from warmer bodies. It is only the net difference from warm to cool that is always positive.
Again, answer my hot potato question. It was not rhetorical and you keep trying to dodge it. The dodging is not doing your case any favors.
Boomie789—-
HOLY COW YOU ACTUALLY FOUND ONE!
That reference is not saying the lower frequency radiation will ADD to the higher frequency. Raising it’s frequency. In other words, cold adding to hot, but nice try.
It does say the higher frequency will add to the low…of course because that is correct.
It is impossible to find your reference supporting back-radiation in a thermodynamics textbook, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics…
How about you do me a favor and stop trying to trick people?
This guy is flipping through a thermodynamics textbook, looking for a reference that defies the laws of thermodynamics!!!
🤣 what a clown!
🤡👆
“Absorbed does not mean the lower frequency made the higher frequency even higher, which would be the only way to raise the temperature. But a lower frequency hit by a higher frequency will increase in frequency.”
Added that part in and took the insult out.
I know he is deliberately lieing but he hasn’t really insulted me. Annoying I almost wish he would.
Here’s a common tactic. A Distracting analogy and switching to “slowed cooling”. Usually their analogy will involve currents or waterfalls and rain or something. This guys analogy is worse than that.
Answer: Not the GHE, Give proper analogy.
Weekly_Rise——-
Absorbed does not mean the lower frequency made the higher frequency even higher, which would be the only way to raise the temperature. But a lower frequency hit by a higher frequency will increase in frequency.
We are not talking about raising the temperature, we are talking about slowing the rate of heat loss, keeping the surface at a higher temperature than it otherwise would be if the atmosphere weren’t there. These are conceptually different things.
If I have a bucket of pebbles, and every second I throw two pebbles out of the bucket, what is the rate of pebble loss from the bucket? If you stand next to me and toss a pebble back into the bucket every second, what is the rate of pebble loss from the bucket?
If the number of pebbles in the bucket started increasing, that would violate our pebble second law. Is that the case?
Boomie789——-
That is not the greenhouse effect. Retarding heat loss is not the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is back radiation increasing emittance, not retarding it.
Lol, alarmist are violating the second law of thermodynamics, not pepples.
Your analogy is irrelevant and a distraction.
You just started sophistry school or something? The other sophist I’ve met analogize to water flow and currents, but you use pepples.
We can throw pepples back and forth, but I cant shine a flashlight at you holding a mirror to double the intensity of the flashlight.
forgot to put the quotation marks, sorry. He is quoting me the first paragraph.
lol, pebbles. not pepples. 🤣
All right this guy claims (for god’s sake) that CO2 redirects IR that reflects off of the oceans and creates evaporation…which is why he claims GHGS make the atmosphere warmer???
“Scientists have used computer models of the atmosphere to study the effect of transpiration from vegetation on maximum surface air temperatures. In these models, the variable controlling transpiration by vegetation was “turned off,” and the character of the resulting modeled climate was studied. By subtracting the effect of transpiration, temperatures in central North America and on the other continents were predicted to equilibrate at a very hot 45 °C (113 °F). Such warming is nearly realized in desert areas where moisture is unavailable for transpiration.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-meteorology/Biosphere-controls-on-maximum-temperatures-by-evaporation-and-transpiration
https://music.apple.com/gb/album/johnny-panic-and-the-bible-of-dreams/1447096341?i=1447096401
Got another question for you guys.
Following through on the argument that LW radiation doesn’t have the same heating potential as SW; the tennis ball analogy, where the energy in the system can’t be double counted therefore the retention of LW radiation won’t cause additional warming.
Playing devil’s advocate, why does the planet need to radiate off LW at all if this were the case?
The most common argument from alarmists, and the most simplest goes like this:
“In the case of the Earth, the sun provides the energy and the ghgs slow down its loss. This means that the Earth gets hotter. It’s as simple as that.”
My response was simply, only the photons are impeded slightly but the energy is still the same. But then the paradox of my devil’s advocate question arises. Why radiate at all then?
Thanks.
@Leon
I’ll try.
Don’t flip back and forth with the the green house effect is. The greenhouse effect is the passive atmosphere amplifying the sun’s energy.
“the sun provides the energy and the ghgs slow down its loss” this is essentially correct, but it is not the greenhouse effect. Flux traveling down the heat gradient through water vapor.
LW radiation cannot make SW radiation shorter. In other words cold cannot add to hot. Everything must re-emit, but the re-emition doesn’t add back to the input.
TLDR: LW radiation doesn’t make SW radiation shorter(cold adding to hot), and conservation of energy.
*Don’t flip back and forth with what the green house effect is.
I don’t follow. Sorry.
Ah well. We are dealing with con-men and liars, not honest men.
They are more worried about obfuscating then proving you wrong, or even themselves right.
Clearly define the greenhouse effect and do not let them redefine it. When they do, point it out.
Leon,
I will have a go.
The atmosphere is mostly warmed by the surface which has been heated by high energy solar radiation.This warming of the atmosphere is by three mechanisms, sensible and latent heating via convection and by interception of low energy surface radiation by water vapour. Gravity gives us a lapse rate which is reduced by water vapour leading to conditional instability without which convection would not occur.
During the day evaporation and convective turbulence overwhelm the theoretically slower long wave flow of radiative energy from the surface (in the presence of water vapour) through the atmosphere to space.
So the very gas that has only become available by a cooling of the surface by evaporation is now available to slow the escape of radiation to space.
At night ( in a vertically stable atmosphere) the reduction of radiative flow (surface cooling) to space is reduced by water vapour and stopped entirely by low level clouds which act as a blackbody at their particular temperature.
The “greenhouse effect” is not about any extra heating from the atmosphere, it is all about an internal radiative transfer of energy within the solar heated system from high humidity areas to low ones, effectively postponing cooling to space of long wave surface radiative energy until less humid latitudes or altitudes are reached by movement of air.
This nonsense that the life-giving gas CO2 is now a danger to the planet is beyond insane when the levels are actually well below optimum for plant life.
Without plants we would not have oxygen to breath.
It is ocean depth and area relative to the position and altitude of continents and the extent and position of their shelves that determine whether we are in an an ice age or not.
Comet debris is what Nasa should be focused on.
younger_dryas_academia_v35.pdf
You’re not really answering my question though. If the argument that LW energy released from the surface is not new, therefore not capable of increasing temp, then what’s the point of needing radiation to leave in the first place? It cools at night because more radiation is leaving than coming. Something fundamental is missing in my argument.
Pablo,
Thanks. I’ll have to digest that and think about it.
@Pablo
“The “greenhouse effect” is not about any extra heating from the atmosphere, it is all about an internal radiative transfer of energy within the solar heated system from high humidity areas to low ones, effectively postponing cooling to space of long wave surface radiative energy until less humid latitudes or altitudes are reached by movement of air.”
No you have it backwards! The “greenhouse effect” is exactly extra heat being provided by the atmosphere. Where you went, is what the alarmist like to pretend the greenhouse effect is.
This part of the argument is crucial imo. What I keep referencing when I’m saying flipping back and forth on what the greenhouse effect is.
Slowed cooling, atmosphere generating heat, slowed cooling, back to atmosphere generating heat again.
Either heat is flowing down a gradient, or the atmosphere is generating more heat than the sun provides.
As for why LW radiation exist, because it just does? Conservation of energy.
LW radiation doesn’t make SW radiation shorter(cold adding to hot). But the energy can’t just disappear. Conservation of energy.
TOA TSI to surface TSI:
(x0.7/5.67e-8)^(1/4)(integrate sin(x)*(cos(x))^(1/4) from 0 to pi/2)
https://www4b.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP56591d9h35d2gg395dgc00002fi77098c58482g5?MSPStoreType=image/gif&s=41
x=1360 W/m^2=288 Kelvin (287.974/14.824C)
x=1361 W/m^2=288 Kelvin (288.027K/14.877C)
x=1362 W/m^2=288 Kelvin (280.08/14.93C)
x=1363 W/m^2=288 Kelvin (288.133K/14.983)
x=1364 W/m^2=288 Kelvin (288.186K/15.036C)
Without a change in albedo it is an average of 15C.
This may have worked too?
https://www4b.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP56591d9h35d2gg395dgc00002fi77098c58482g5?MSPStoreType=image/gif&s=41
Never mind ended up being the same thing.
I see it this way, the earth got warmed by the sun billions of years ago.
The sun now just maintains the earths energy balance, constantly topping up the resident energy 24/7.
The planet is constantly trying to cool 24/7, the planets orbit i.e. distance and tilt means that sometimes over varying periods of time the balance of resident energy changes and the planets stored energy reserves fluctuate, i hate to use average temperature for a whole planet because a planet does not have an ”average” temperature or climate for that matter.
Theres no such thing as a ”greenhouse effect” thats progressive speak.
Theres just energy flow through the internal system and its about speed of flow, about how much energy is sloshing about internally, and the planets constant struggle to equilibrium like and other mass under the influence of radiation.
If you allow for distance and tilt over time the energy balance would not fluctuate one iota….
@ashemann
Yes, I agree.
Is it possible we are overlooking a simple answer? The bulk of the outgoing radiation is in the 10µm band. As long as nothing changes and the 10µm window stays open, we have nothing to worry about. Just because co2 intercepts the 15µm, it shouldn’t have any consequence on what goes on with that pass-through provided by water vapor. Except for maybe a little in the wings but that’s minor. Say for example, co2 was transparent to the 15µm wavelength as well, we would lose even more radiation to space.
Someone stop me if I’m going in the wrong direction.