## Quality, not Quantity: A Sequence of Strange Events in Climate Science

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:

1. Climate science pretends that in physics we can ignore the quality (temperature) of energy as long as we have the same quantity of energy.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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).

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

### 133 Responses to Quality, not Quantity: A Sequence of Strange Events in Climate Science

1. CD Marshall says:

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!

2. 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.

3. Exactly.

4. 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.

5. CD Marshall says:

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.”

6. Leon Hiebert says:

“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.

7. CD Marshall says:

Joseph,
Didn’t you do a response to this on PSI I’d like to link that back to him?

8. “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?

9. “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.

10. Leon says:

“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.

11. “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:

12. boomie789 says:
13. boomie789 says:

14. Leon says:

“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?

15. Yep for sure Leon, that’s exactly how the physics would work. That would be 633 W/m^2 via the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

16. boomie789 says:

@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.

17. Leon says:

“Check this out.”
Oh yea, there it is. Awesome and thanks.

18. Gary Ashe says:

””’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.”””

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,

19. Philip Mulholland says:

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.

20. Philip Mulholland says:

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.

21. Philip Mulholland says:

A description of the form of a process is not an explanation of its function.

22. Pablo says:

“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

23. Pablo says:

“…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

24. CD Marshall says:

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…:”

Inverted thermocline, circulation patterns found in Lake Erie
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012EO210014

25. Pablo says:

“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

26. 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.

27. 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. ”

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

28. Leon says:

🙂

29. Incredibly stupid. Totally irrelevant to physics.

30. 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!

31. 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.

32. CD Marshall says:

@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

33. Ken Coffman says:

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.”

That statement is profoundly stupid. It’s like one of those “How many things can you find wrong with it?” puzzles.

34. Jim Fish says:

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

35. 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.

36. It’s a bit loose but not as consequential as the outright admission that they exchange output for input!

37. Pierre D. Bernier says:

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 !!!

38. Rosco says:

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.

39. CD Marshall says:

So put solar panels in greenhouses, problem solved in Spencey’s mind and the greenie weenie brigade, anyway lol.

40. Actually that’s a great argument demonstrating a perpetual motion machine.

41. CD Marshall says:

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.

42. Rosco says:

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.

43. Pablo says:

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.”

44. CD Marshall says:

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.

45. Pablo says:

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…”

46. Jopo says:

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.

47. CD Marshall says:

Ironic since N&Z both comport to the divide by 4 theory…Has the majority of scientists lost their minds?

48. Jopo says:

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.

49. CD Marshall says:

“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.

50. CD Marshall says:

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/

51. It’s not from humans…like I long said we already knew! Narrative lost.

52. CD Marshall says:

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.

53. CD Marshall says:

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.”

54. Climate change is entirely within natural limits. Ten times is a lie lol. Idiots.

55. CD Marshall says:

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?

sun’s intensity has been decreasing for a while, while the global temperatures are only rising. {refer to #4,#5,#7 and #8}
You cannot explain? {which I did [refer to #4,#5,#7 and #8] thank you very much.}
You call NASA popular science? {Refer to #9}
They also show the variation in total solar irradiance. {indeed they do, refer to #7}
Indeed, the sun has decreased activity since a few years, yet warming is getting worse. Your claim that the variations are small are false, since this is a variation per square meter. That means the total energy the earth receives on the complete earth surface is quite drastic. {refer to #7 and my points in #7 specifically, “NOT total surface irradiance” and refer to #8}
Also, your claim that there is no warming is unfounded. {drastic warming for more clarity, refer to #4}
Global average temperatures have been rising for years (see the same url I provided). How do you explain that? {Again I did see #2, #4, #5, #6,}
You also cannot explain warming even though you just stated the sun is not responsible {incoherent remark not based on what I have said at all. Refer to#4,#5,#7 and #8}
Last chance: what causes warming, if not the sun? {Again, refer to #2, #4, #5, #6,}
Bla bla you repeat denial and project..

56. CD Marshall says:

Sorry indents were his replies brackets were my input on his replies

57. CD Marshall says:

“Bla bla you repeat denial and project”. Was my input 🙂

58. CD Marshall says:

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.

59. Joseph E Postma says:

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.

60. CD Marshall says:

Thank you Joseph, your mind is a hot knife through the mind butter of climate clown science.

61. Philip Mulholland says:

“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.

62. Pablo says:

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.

63. CD Marshall says:

Once again trying to deny the physics part of disproving global warming…

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072

64. CD Marshall says:

“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.

65. CD Marshall says:

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?

66. Leon says:

“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.

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.

67. boomie789 says:

https://electroverse.net/grand-solar-minimum-and-the-swing-between-extremes/

good read on grand solar minimum.

68. CD Marshall says:

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.

69. Pablo says:

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

70. CD Marshall says:

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.

71. Philip Mulholland says:

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,

72. CD Marshall says:

Did you two try and get this published?

73. Pablo says:

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.

74. Pablo says:

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

75. Pablo says:

PM:
“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.

76. CD Marshall says:

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.

77. Philip Mulholland says:

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:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342109625_Return_to_Earth_A_New_Mathematical_Model_of_the_Earth's_Climate

78. CD Marshall says:

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.”

79. CD Marshall says:

Philip this is another paper I discovered on an alternate theory of Venus, I thought it was really thought provoking.

80. Philip Mulholland says:

CDM

No problem. Try PM2, works for me
John Ackerman’s paper is off the scale.
I wonder if Zoe will comment on it?

81. CD Marshall says:

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.

82. Philip Mulholland says:

CDM
Not read it, so I’m going to leave that one to you.
/over and out.

83. Pablo says:

CDM

No, just an ordinary bloke trying to get enough info to trash the ideas of my CO2 alarmist PhD brother!

84. CD Marshall says:

LOL wait, do you mean an actual brother?

85. Pablo says:

Sure do….in biology. You wouldn’t believe the arguments we have!

86. Philip Mulholland says:

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/

87. CD Marshall says:

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.

88. Pablo says:

PM2
I will post the reply if I get one!

89. Philip Mulholland says:

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.

90. Philip Mulholland says:

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.

91. CD Marshall says:

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

“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.”

92. Philip Mulholland says:
93. CD Marshall says:

Thanks Philip that’s gold.

94. Pablo says:

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.

95. Philip Mulholland says:

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

96. Philip Mulholland says:

Three typos in the 1st paragraph…
But that is the absolute core essence if of the problem. The divide by 4 dilution is made to the insolation before it has entered the atmosphere. This make makes the sunlight to too weak to create the climate in the first place.

97. CD Marshall says:

Philip I blame my typos on bad eye sight.

98. Philip Mulholland says:

CDM
Thanks, I’ll adopt that excuse nect tyme 🙂

99. CD Marshall says:

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.

100. 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.

101. 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.

102. Pablo says:

PM2

“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!”

“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.

103. Philip Mulholland says:

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.

104. CD Marshall says:

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.”

105. 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.

106. CD Marshall says:

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/

107. CD Marshall says:

“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?

108. Lol. Yes. Sun heating earth is fantasy.
Oh…but we believe the sun heats the earth AND the climate creates itself…ugh.

109. CD Marshall says:

“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.

110. CD Marshall says:

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.

111. CD Marshall says:

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.

112. CD Marshall says:

Sorry didn’t know it would do that embedded thing…Annoying.
://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

113. CD Marshall says:

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…

114. CD Marshall says:

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.

115. Pablo says:

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?

116. “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.

117. “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)
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.

118. “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.

119. “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.

120. 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!

121. 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.

122. CD Marshall says:

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.”

123. Excellent.

124. Pablo says:

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.”

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?

125. Pablo says:

Don’t know what happened there …it was meant to be a link to Nikolov and Zeller.

126. 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.

127. Pablo says:

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

128. Joseph E Postma says:

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.

129. Pablo says:

For sure.

130. CD Marshall says:

Joseph,

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

131. Joseph E Postma says:

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.