In order to understand OID, let us take a look here for example at this exchange:
We start with DREMT stating the basic facts of the geometry and the factors involved:
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
April 26, 2021 at 7:55 pm
“…[W]hen you divide by 4 you are spreading the incoming solar radiation over the entire Earth’s surface. When you divide by 2 you are spreading the incoming solar radiation over only the lit hemisphere. The lit hemisphere has only half the surface area of the entire sphere (obviously). That’s why I’m saying the surface area is being halved. The flux is higher when spread over only a hemisphere than over the entire sphere because the surface area of the hemisphere is half that of the entire sphere.”
Now let’s look at how an OID practitioner, Willard, pretends to take ownership of these facts, but then inverts them such as to deflect away from the meaning and implications of them:
Willard says:
April 26, 2021 at 8:38 pm“No, the entire Earth’s surface is equal to 1. If you divide the Earth’s surface by 2, you get a hemisphere. If you divide by 4, you get a disc. That’s the geometric point.
So to divide by 2 the way you do is in effect doubling the surface of the Earth’s surface over which is spread incoming solar radiation. If that gets you twice the flux, that means something is wrong with your calculation.”
Look at the first sentence: did it actually say anything different than what DREMT said? Willard says the exact same thing: that if the area of a sphere is 1, then a hemisphere is found by dividing by 2, and a disk is by 4. This is exactly what DREMT just said, but Willard prefaces his re-statement with “No, …”, thus implying that DREMT said something incorrect; and then by re-stating it they thus insert themselves as the owner of the identical statement. You see how that worked?
And so after pretending to refute DREMT’s statement with the preface of “No, …”, but then re-stating the very statement to pretend ownership of the same facts we continue to Willard’s second sentence:
“to divide by 2 double’s the surface area over which is spread incoming solar radiation” – this is the inversion. This takes DREMT’s statement which was then restated by Willard, but now they invert the entire meaning of it, a literal inversion mathematically, where a division by two equates to a doubling, not a halving but a doubling, of the surface area over which sunlight falls.
It then goes to a second layer of inversion where Willard states that a doubling of surface area “gets you twice the flux”, when in fact a doubling of surface area would equate to half the flux, not double the flux.
Willard then ends with “that means something is wrong with your calculation” which is of course the deflection which is merely borne out of the inversion Willard itself created.
So here’s the algorithm:
1) Take ownership of a factual statement from your opponent by a) implying that they didn’t state the fact correctly, then b) re-stating the very same factual statement yourself
2) Invert the statement you just re-stated to pretend that it says the inverse of the very statement itself
3) Use the inversion to deflect interest away from the original and re-stated statement
Guys, WITH are we dealing with here? I mean – what in the good f have we encountered here?!
Do you guys want to know what Willard’s email (sans domain) is? This is what it is apparently, as they enter it to comment: “languageisasocialart@….”
“Language is a social art”, hey lil’ Squirt Willis? Is that what you’re doing here with this insane OID algorithm, is social art?
Climate of Sophistry 
Brilliant! The formula for sophistry. Another outstanding post. Thank you Joe.
He’s a strange one, that Willard. After he wrote that comment I followed it up with:
“Willard, the “Earth’s shadow” disk with a radius the same as the Earth = 1. That has four times less surface area than the entire Earth’s surface and receives approx. 960 W/m^2 (after factoring in albedo). To take that input and spread over a hemisphere you divide by 2 (480 W/m^2) and to spread it over the entire Earth’s surface area you divide by 4 (240 W/m^2). Hope that clears it up.”
Genuinely thinking that this would resolve any possible confusion there was left. But he responded with:
“> the “Earth’s shadow” disk with a radius the same as the Earth = 1
No. Here’s the breakdown:
Earth’s shadow = Disc in my model = \pi R^2
Earth’s surface = Area in my model = 4\pi R^2 .
Disc / Area = 1/4
Hence why we divide by four.”
Now, hadn’t I literally just said to him that the “Earth’s shadow” disk has four times less surface area than the entire Earth’s surface!? But he again begins his comment with “no” as if he is contradicting me…and then proceeds to write a comment that is in agreement with what I just said! Then ends with “hence why we divide by four”, even though I’d just explained that if you spread it over the entire Earth’s surface area you divide by 4 and end up with a flux of 240 W/m^2!
Divide by 4 (and thus apply the incoming flux to the entire Earth’s surface), you end up with 240 W/m^2. Divide by 2 (and thus apply the incoming flux over only the lit hemisphere), you end up with 480 W/m^2. He still doesn’t accept that the 480 W/m^2 is a legitimate figure for the incoming flux received over only the lit hemisphere, in real time. He thinks it is some kind of trick!
This ‘languageisasocialart’ sounds like a robot to me. A robot with some human interference perhaps, but not very much more.
@DREMT – yep, you nailed it…glad to see others seeing the trick being employed here with this OID. They literally just repeat what you say but pretend it’s theirs, and then proceed to ignore with sophistry what it means. This isn’t the first time I’ve encountered this…I’ve been seeing it come up more and more over the last couple of years or so. Recently I had a debate with a physicist (it wasn’t posted anywhere) who proceeded to recite MY spherical Earth model as if it was theirs! And at the end of them explaining MY VERY OWN spherical Earth model to me, they then proceeded to say “and this is why we need a greenhouse effect”. lol! I was like…we need a greenhouse effect because the sun is understand to be creating the climate, whereas in the flat Earth model the greenhouse effect is created because the sun does not create the climate!? lol I guess their sophistry is evolving the better we get at debunking their pseudoscience. Willard is the first time I’ve encountered this trickery deployed so openly and intently and repeatedly…whoever this is they’re obviously testing deployment of the scheme…or they’re just insane or psychotic, whatever…
You might be right tom0. Perhaps it is a bot with some algorithm written to explore the perfect inversion of logic and reason and rhetoric, etc.
I posted a short interview vid with Yuri Bezmenov at ATTP
Posting vid was disabled, and whole post deleted in a few secs lol.
They know what they do, and try to hide it
We know what they do and try to expose it
Here a full masterclass about Marxist subversion
Nice MP.
Two can play at that game. Simply preface your own counter rebuttals with “yes” then restate the facts a third time (to reclaim ownership) and then un-invert the conclusions once more.,
The two idiots I dealt with before did the same inversion tactics but differently. They would deliberately repeat what I said back wrong, then claim what I said wasn’t true and then later list all the tings I said that wasn’t true even though I had never actually said them to discredit anything I was saying now.
So I went back to all of those comments and threw them out a their feet and called them out for the liars they were. To them it is only the three Ds over and over and over…
Deny-Deflect-Discredit
Deny what is being said is true.
Deflect what is shown to be wrong about it.
Discredit the source showing the errors.
Joseph,
This is a truly brilliant piece of analysis.
For now on I need to set up a “no” tripwire in my listening strategy.
“No” predicates the lie.
With all due respect to you, Joseph, and DREMT ( I’ve actually believed you are both the same person for some time now!), I am of the opinion that the Geometry argument misses the point when it comes to incoming solar radiation. I’ll try to explain…
The problem with the K&T and NASA diagrams using 240 W/m2 instead of 960 W/m2 is that one cannot divide intensity of radiation into equal (or unequal) parts and hope to achieve the same effect. But that is what they try to show.
Using an analogy, it would be like having a lighthouse with 4 x 240 W beams (facing N,S, E & W) instead of one 960 W beam which is rotating. K&T and NASA assume the effect will be the same but they are wrong. A ship out at sea will not see the fixed 240 W beam until it is much closer to the shore. Now equate intensity to heat (which is fair) and you get the point. To K&T and NASA, 960 beams of 1 W each would do the trick. Massive fail!
For the Earth, the use of 240 W/m2 is false because 240 W/m2 cannot even melt ice and so would not warm the planet sufficiently, whereas 960 W/m2 reaching the equator sector provides enough heat for the rest of the planet (as the planet is rotating).
The geometry shows that there are only two lines of latitude on the planet where 240 W/m2 reaches the surface. The intensity of radiation is the key to how the planet warms. 240 W/m2 just doesn’t do it.
Best regards,
Arfur
@arfurbryant – I have no idea who DREMT is. I’m very happy to know that someone is taking care of the emergencies at Dr Roy’s though! 🙂
ANYONE who’s spent any time here, and has a brain, can debunk the climate clowns. Just as you do with your comment:
Exactly. And then put that in the context of an earlier comment/quote of a comment: they pretend that they want to understand the climate, but without acknowledging how the planet warms!
Click to access 0707.1161.pdf
I continued to attempt to reason with Willard over at ATTP but he just keeps repeating this same OID technique over and over again:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
DREMT – at this point it is clear that Willard is not a serious participant.
I think there is an inordinate amount of confusion drummed up over something that is a fairly straightforward concept.
The earth is radiating a flux of 240 W/m^2 (confirmed by satellite observations). At equilibrium, it must be absorbing the same flux. It matters little whether you want to use units of “square meters of earth’s surface area” or “square meters of earth’s sunlit hemisphere” to describe the flux, the actual flux of energy is the same. Count the Joules over a single second.
But since the input and output don’t occur over the same surface area, hence the input flux is different from the output flux, and it is the value of flux which determines what physics will occur and whether it can create a climate, then it does matter. The joules in and out are the same but not the flux of joules, and it’s the flux of the joules which creates the climate. The input flux of joules creates the climate, the output flux of joules cannot.
Weekly_rise please see:
Clearly the distribution of sunlight is vitally important to how energy moves around within the system, but the very basic idea of radiative balance does not depend on where the energy is entering – it’s just simple accounting. Energy in = energy out at equilibrium.
So many people struggle with density flux and its crucial role in creating the climate.
Energy in energy out is the COE, heat in at very high intensity is the same energy out at -18C, that does make all the difference in creating the climate. That higher temperature is created from a grater solar density of incoming solar irradiance.
We wish to understand what drives the climate. Climate science uses the GHE to create the climate due to its flat earth equal flux approach; I use the Sun with unequal flux approach, which is what actually exists.
I just read part of your older posts where you mentioned the ocean thermal capacity could easily mimic the ghge.
“What does all this have to do with the fraud of the atmospheric greenhouse effect? Well, 121 years’ worth of trapped solar energy that prevents the system from dropping below 0C can create the illusion of a “greenhouse effect”, but it is really just a natural phenomenon keeping the system much warmer in cooler regions than they would be without it. Of course, you’ve heard time and time and time over again that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, and that it even causes the temperature to magically increase itself too. But they’ve never told you that the ocean has literally trapped 121 years’ worth of latent heat!”
The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 5: Zero Energy Balance and Latent Heat Trapping
https://odysee.com/@Content_I_Like:1/CatherineAustinFitts:e
“Catherine Austin Fitts (born December 24, 1950) is an American investment banker and former public official who served as managing director of Dillon, Read & Co. and as United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush. She has widely written and commented on the subject of public spending and has alleged several large scale instances of government fraud. In 2021 she made headlines for an interview in which she promoted conspiracies related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the anti-vaccine movement, and debunked voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. general election.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Austin_Fitts
Again, the input of energy will equal the output at equilibrium, and you are correct that it is the input that determines what the equilibrium temperature of the earth will be, since the output is proportional to temperature per S-B. I think the confusion is arising from the concept of a flux – the flux is simply a way to measure how much energy is flowing through a surface, it’s really the amount of energy that we care about. That the energy is flowing in only through the sunlit side is somewhat inconsequential in that regard – the amount of energy flowing into the sunlit side per second is the same amount of energy flowing out of all sides per second.
even just watch the last 15 mins of this. Very interesting.
@Weekly_rise – yes, your confusion is in not comprehending that the flux determines what physics that the energy can create, and instead of this being “inconsequential” as you say, it is actually fundamental to the physics of the climate: we wish to understand how the climate is created, and this requires more than merely acknowledging that input = output, it requires acknowledging the much more intense flux of the input vs. that of the output, since the intensity of flux on the day-side determines what climate can be created. I hope this helps clarify things for you!
@Weekly_rise : I agree with you, but you should clarify what you mean by “it’s really the amount of energy that we care about.” I think even JP has agreed that the average outgoing flux emitted from the earth, as viewed from space, must equal the insolation.
To me the important point is this: if there were no greenhouse gases (IR emitters in the atmosphere), the outgoing flux in space would be identical to the outgoing flux at the surface. Since the outgoing flux at the surface is equal to the average of sigma * T^4 , then this implies that the average of sigma * T^4, taken at the surface, would have to equal insolation.
Since the surface is actually warmer, we see that the presence of greenhouse gases warms the earth.
[JP: This would imply that the temperature gradient in the atmosphere is due to radiation, when in fact it is due to gravity. So there’s a fundamental ambiguity here which indicates that the interpretation here must have some error. The semantics of your argument seems sensible, but there is a fundamental error somewhere in the underlying syntax given that this argument implies that the temperature gradient is due to radiation, whereas in fact it is due to the adiabatic effect.
What you could do, before believing in the radiative greenhouse effect with its attendant ambiguity, is to provide any experimental evidence for it. Please provide ANY experimental evidence for the radiative greenhouse effect. As it is, experimental evidence has been pursued and the requisite results have never been demonstrated; all experimental results testing for the radiative greenhouse effect show that it does not exist.]
Weekly_rise, you say ” Energy in = energy out at equilibrium. “,
I would like to know exactly when does this ‘equilibrium’ happen. Doesn’t the sun’s output vary over time?
Doesn’t ocean warming/cooling cycles do nothing to outgoing energy from the planet?
Does the last 10 years of the planet getting greener take no solar energy? Doesn’t this greening also affect the albedo of the planet?
Did it take no solar energy for the human population from about 1800AD (about a billion people) to increase to today’s 8 billion(approx), with all the plants and livestock that supported this increase? As all through that time (1800 to now) the sun had been slowly warming itself and the planets of the solar system.
I deny your short term energy equilibrium! It is a myth, or a lie, with NO observations/data, or science behind it! An assumption of no merit.
Explain why the solar energy locked into fossil fuel should not be released(by burning), as that would naturally provide something closer to your precious energy equilibrium for the long term!
Energy from the sun is often converted to slight warming of the ocean, and converted to chemical bonds in the organic life of this planet. Organic life that is very slow at releasing all that chemically bound energy back in a form that is not easily recognized — coal, peat, buried soils and organic matter undergoing the early stages fossilization, and the myriad of organic chemicals in the top-soils, washed into waterways, and in the oceans.
And according to some astronomers, the Earth should last for at least 5 billion (5×10^9) more years before the Sun becomes a red giant. Then sometime after that event there will be energy equalization as entropy ultimately has its way and reduces all matter on the planet to cool chemically unreactive compounds, molecules and atoms. Until then this planet will huff & puff out its excess energy, as it has always done, depending on many prevailing conditions at the time.
@tom0mason excellent points.
Energy in equals energy out ‘roughly’ in a 24 hour period. The troposphere/surface, where the climate is made and circulated, in never in thermal equilibrium and in fact our weather system function as it does because of it. If “heat” in equals “heat” out we become isothermal.
Ya why do they ignore all the work that is done,every day the sun lifts trillions of gallons of water out of the oceans not once but many times that same water is lowered and relifted in the atmosphere before it is retuned to earth as rain. This is a relatively small amount of power in the bigger scheme of the climate but it is energy required to do work. I think this energy in energy out thing is fine if that is all you were questioning,but as Joseph said above here we are trying to sort out the climate which is far more complex than energy balance.
Within the system, heat is constantly shifting around through the atmosphere, surface, and oceans, but at the top of the atmosphere, equilibrium with incoming sunlight is maintained fairly closely. When we talk about equilibrium we don’t typically mean perfect equilibrium – there will in most natural systems always be some element of dynamicism (is that a word?), but the system is always tending toward equilibrium, so if you push it one way it “rolls back” the other way, like a skateboard in a halfpipe.
It’s that tendency toward equilibrium that determines what the “radiating temperature” of the planet will be.
So, yes, it matters quite a lot for the internal dynamics of the system where the sunlight is falling (that’s how we set up, e.g., atmospheric circulation), but it matters very little in regards to the overall planetary equilibrium. What matters is the actual amount of energy exchanged per unit time. So when we see equations equating overall incoming sunlight with outgoing IR, the question of how we want to distribute the energy per unit time is much less important than making sure we have energy inputs that equal outputs.
@Weekly_rise – thanks, yes, none of that is a problem. We are interested in how the energy is distributed, its flux, as this is what creates the climate. This distribution of energy, its flux, is what determines where heat is input from the sun thus creating local & real-time imbalances thus creating the climate.
I don’t think the folks you’re debating with actually disagree with you on that point, there just seems to be a lot of talking past each other around trying to conceptualize incoming flux. That;s why there seems to be this “you’re saying the same thing as me but saying it as though we disagree” tone.
Incidence of radiation
How hard is that to figure out? Is that a sphere or a hemisphere? Is the sunlight striking the hemisphere or the surface? Is that surface flat? Is the same flux striking the Equator the same for the pole?
Graph courtesy of Lumen.
@Weekly_rise – I think that if you examine things more closely, you will find that we agree on input = output; however, this is where the other side wishes to stop, and this is where I wish to add some “subtlety” and do some physics such as to explain the existence of the climate.
The climate alarmists wish to stop at input = output, and then from this extremely coarse starting point devoid of physical or geometric insight and where solar input is characterized as -18C heating potential, concluding that the Sun cannot create the climate, invent their radiative greenhouse effect scheme to create the climate.
However, if you simply add a little bit of physical insight into the nature by which input = output, then you arrive at a different conclusion: the Sun does create the climate, and it heats the surface of the Earth to much, much higher temperature than -18C.
In their analysis the sun does not create the climate.
In my analysis with physics and empirical reality, the sun does create the climate.
We both have input = output, but this difference in treatment of the Sunshine means that we have to go to just a little bit more subtle or fine-grained analysis in the physics. Not that it is overly fine-grained – sunshine falls on a hemisphere and there is day and night…not too much more subtlety here!
Solar Radiation on Earth
“Effect of the Earth’s shape and atmosphere on incoming solar radiation. Compared to equatorial regions (b), incoming solar radiation of the polar regions (a) is less intense for two reasons: the solar radiation arrives at an oblique angle nearer the poles, so that the energy spreads over a larger surface area, lessening its intensity. The radiation travels a longer distance through the atmosphere, which absorbs, scatters and reflects the solar radiation. Different parts of the Earth receive different amounts of solar radiation. Which part of the planet receives the most insolation? The Sun’s rays strike the surface most directly at the equator. Different areas also receive different amounts of sunlight in different seasons. What causes the seasons? The seasons are caused by the direction Earth’s axis is pointing relative to the Sun.”
You should show it more like that on your graph, the Sun and IOR and the Earth tilted for the impaired who can’t visualize what you are showing. I bet some think you are showing the Sun hitting the pole lol.
I know…it’s a diagram showing what exists plainly but too abstractly…lol. On the other hand a flat Earth diagram makes total sense to people…ugh!!!!!!!!!!!
For example consider “justgivemeall”‘s comment earlier:
“every day the sun lifts trillions of gallons of water out of the oceans”
And also this happens from land too…water extracted right from dirt!
Input flux = output flux cannot explain how the sun can do that.
However, input = output energy but with unequal input and output fluxes can.
See the difference? This difference is what the climate alarmists will not recognize…they will not recognize that the sun does this and their analysis pretends that it doesn’t, whereas my analysis shows how the sun can do this.
In climate science’s analysis the sun cannot create clouds and then rain, and they use instead this radiative greenhouse effect to do it, despite there being no experimental evidence for a radiative greenhouse effect. In my analysis the sun can directly create such basic features of the climate.
From my understanding of your diagram, there isn’t much there that I disagree with, but it isn’t entirely clear to me yet how it differs substantially from the conceptual model that includes a “greenhouse effect” (as I understand it). It definitely includes more realism and nuance than the picture to the right. The “Spherical Average System Output” you show – that is balancing out the sunlight entering the sunlit hemisphere, is that correct (the “Continuous Hemispheric System Input”)?
Yes, correct to your question.
The difference in the nuance makes all the difference in the world, as stated in the diagram: sun creates the climate vs. sun does not create the climate. This is in fact a substantial difference…it is binary logic, one or the other.
In the climate science analysis the sun does not create the climate; in my analysis the sun does create the climate. This difference comes out of the way that the energy is treated via flux.
In the flat Earth model the Sun doesn’t really reach the surface, it is scattered over the atmosphere four ways and I guess the rest is “trickle down Sun effect”.
Thanks for clarifying. And in the diagram are you representing something like a “TOA flux” for the spherical average output?
“The difference in the nuance makes all the difference in the world, as stated in the diagram: sun creates the climate vs. sun does not create the climate. This is in fact a substantial difference…it is binary logic, one or the other.”
I agree with this – the diagram on the right cannot explain much about the earth’s climate dynamics.
Yep sure it’s the TOA flux output.
Also, it isn’t just that the diagram on the right cannot explain much about the climate dynamics, it is that it doesn’t explain the climate dynamics correctly at all; it does show climate dynamics, but what it shows is not real and is thus incorrect.
And the math they use is actually incorrect. They aren’t calculating the sun to the atmosphere as if it were a globe and not even to the surface. If you really look at the graph, they scatter the sunshine at the TOA then use on part of that scatter as if it reached the surface. The math does not appear to even be the correct geometry.
My point being f you shined a flashlight through your old triennium it would not scatter on the sphere it would reach the surface.
OID is classic governmentspeak. In 20 years as a US Navy wife, I learned to identify it within the first sentence. It applies to all aspects of government, regardless of topic. Fortunately, I graduated from a well known university that specializes in teaching a similar algorithm — how to lie while telling the absolute truth.
Cheers Martha. Thanks for the input!
Yah that’s deeply related isn’t it. Wow.
Hi Martha that is an interesting point,my son was working as a biologist in the north for the Canadian govt and was sent on a coarse. When I asked on what it was about,he explained that it was just this very thing to explain to people exactly what you are doing is exactly what they want in their own words. Basically just lie to them but make them think that it’s what they want.
Asked Willard if he could be wrong.
Post was posted but soon deleted lol.
Checking what his backed up by facts position is, that is not an option.
My point being If you shined a flashlight through your old terrarium it would not scatter on the sphere it would reach the surface.
triennium? My eyesight is getting bad.
So, the correct geometry for the Sun to a hemisphere would be for a direct energy ray through a hemisphere, not a cross section.
The Sun actually emits in packets of photons like a pulse, in nanoseconds but still. The math to me for a cross section is incorrect to begin with, so it is not the correct geometry for a direct energy calculation. The Sun is not water, it does not “splash” at a spherical cross section.
“Yep sure it’s the TOA flux output.”
Thanks again. I’m still trying to wrap my head around all this, but as I read your diagram it seems to reflect the gist of how things work to my understanding. What puzzles me is that I would say your diagram is consistent with my “greenhouse effect is real” view of the physics, so there must be a piece I’m missing somewhere. I appreciate the dialogue so far.
Joe the Physics Conqueror,
Can you return for a quick visit with this physicist “Chris” he needs another dose of thermodynamics.
Seems almost everyone needs a dose of thermodynamics these days. What is going on in science these days?
Anytime you have a moment, Chris the Physitwist is contorting truths again.
“Here you are stating facts as premises to your argument, which are not correct. And they are not correct because they were measured and thus experimentally tested. I‘ll list measuring facts:
a) “The little from ghgs that are re-directed back to the surface“ is roughly 140% in power of solar irradiation onto that surface
b) “how much is absorbed? Not all of it.“ Nearly everything is absorbed, for absorptivity of the surface for the ghg frequencies is >0,9.
c) “How much of that absorbed energy can change the temperature? None.“ Than every physics, chemistry and engineering department worldwide does teach it wrong to every student ever since.”
“is roughly 140% in power of solar irradiation onto that surface”
That would make the average surface temperature somewhere around 59.1C if I understood his comment correctly, if he is saying 140% on top of solar irradiation. LOL.
59.1C average, that is.
So to divide by 2 the way you do is in effect doubling the surface of the Earth’s surface over which is spread incoming solar radiation.
In effect, dividing by 2 does no such thing — rather, it clearly places the flux on the hemisphere where it ONLY falls, at the correct intensity at which it falls, ONLY on that hemisphere.
“This would imply that the temperature gradient in the atmosphere is due to radiation, when in fact it is due to gravity.”
My argument proved that, in the absence of greenhouse gases, the average of T^4 at the surface would be equal to S(1-a). This doesn’t say anything about the temperature gradient (lapse rate) at all. The air decreases in temperature with height mostly due to convection — nowhere did I claim the lapse rate was predominantly due to radiation.
As for evidence of the greenhouse effect, of course our observations of outgoing radiation and back radiation perfectly match theoretical predictions. If you don’t like observations evidence (which is often the only way to go for astrophysical/planetary science), a closely related effect is used to make more efficient incandescent light bulbs https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2015.309
[JP: Closely related, but not the same thing as the RGHE, and thus, nothing to do with the RGHE.
Again: Please provide ANY experimental evidence of the radiative greenhouse effect. Not interpretation based on flat Earth theory with sunshine spread over the entire surface area of the planet as an input…since this clearly does not exist hence cannot serve as evidence, since evidence requires something that exists.]
Finally, triple and quadruple pane glass windows are a great example of radiative insulation, which is the same physics as the greenhouse effect. They allow buildings to reach a higher temperature with much less energy spent on heating. They’re increasingly common in Scandinavia.
[JP: Insulation is not the RGHE. We have known about insulation reducing heating costs for ages. What you need to demonstrate is a higher temperature being achieved than the temperature of the input.
Insulation means that the slope of the temperature gradient at the surface boundaries is zero. This is not the radiative greenhouse effect, as it requires the creation of a non-zero gradient in the temperature distribution.]
Since it seems I can no longer comment at ATTP, I will post this here instead:
“My opponent has nothing else on his side: he can’t read equations, he has no model, all he got is a bunch of textual gotchas.”
Willard, I explained this to you yesterday and the day before. The only “model” we need is:
Total power absorbed = Total power emitted = 1.22 x 10^17 Watts
The 1.22 x 10^17 Watts comes from taking the solar constant (Joe typically uses 1,370 W/m^2) and multiplying it by the surface area of the disk (pi x r^2) intercepting the Sun’s energy, then multiplying the result by 0.7 to factor in albedo.
So, it is 1,370 W/m^2 x pi x 6,371,000 meters x 6,371,000 meters x 0.7 = 1.22 x 10^17 Watts.
That is the total power that the Earth absorbs, so it must be the total power that the Earth emits. In any one second, the Earth absorbs over the lit hemisphere. The area of the hemisphere is 2.55 x 10^14 square meters.
1.22 x 10^17 Watts divided by 2.55 x 10^14 square meters equals approx. 480 W/m^2.
In any one second, the Earth emits over the entire sphere. The area of the sphere is 5.1 x 10^14 square meters.
1.22 x 10^17 Watts divided by 5.1 x 10^14 square meters equals approx. 240 W/m^2.
At any given moment, the Earth absorbs 480 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2. Flux is not conserved, but energy is, because the area the Earth absorbs the energy over is half that of the area that the energy leaves from.
Perfectly clear and precise. We’re dealing with trolls and frauds who refuse the merest semblance of decency.
@Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team That was so clear I understood it perfectly and I’m neither a scientist or have a degree in physics.
Joseph, did you get a chance to visit Chris yet? Or maybe invite him to watch some of your videos and reply there or talk to him directly? Or do you feel he’s not worth the time?
NASA puts the solar constant at 1361 W/m^ (Earth fact sheet)
1361 W/m^2
I’ll get to it CD.
I know you’re busy being a real scientist and family man and all lol I should invite him (again) to visit your site and take it up there if he wants to.
“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”
~Nikola Tesla
Well I tried reason with Chris it failed…
“Science at its best is the process of stating a hypothesis that can be tested experimentally, then test it and look if it holds. Correct?
S‘o, you did some very precise statements that could be tested and actually have been tested. Let us look if they hold:
a) “At any given moment, the Earth absorbs 480 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2.“ Simply wrong, you miscalculated. The earth receives the solar constant divided by four on time average, because half a sphere is irradiated half the time. So you get 340 W/m^2 that earth receives. From this value 30% are reflected due to albedo, you end with somewhat of 240 W/m^2 that earth really absorbs. From this value roughly 23% are absorbed by the atmosphere, so the surface does absorb 160 W/m^2.
Those numbers are backed up by various measurements, thus experimentally tested. And the math is quite simple and clear.
b) “A ‘longer’ wave radiation does not increase the temperature of a shorter wave radiation source.“ That is a clear statement and easy to test experimentally. It has been tested. It is: Wrong! So now you need to explain, how you come to such a hypothesis, because it can‘t be derived from the so far known physics. It is new physics and it is in contrast to empirical evidence. In fact I let students doing experiments that test that and did them myself too, to the unsurprising result that you can increase temperature of any radiation source by longer wavelengthes as radiated by that source, if they do absorb it. The surface of earth does absorb the thermal longwave radiation. The frequency tells if absorption exists. Once it does exist it‘s just a matter of absorbed power, not frequency anymore. And you cannot show me any textbook or else stating otherwise.
c) “So no, more energy is NOT being produced by ghgs than is being produced by the Sun at least not in the real world and not in real applied physics of this world or any other world.“ Well, of course it is originally sun energy that recycles, no one ever claimed it would be produced. That is a red herring. Still is true: Since the surface of receives 160 W/m^2 direct irradiation of the sun on time average, in the same time it receives 330 W/m^2 thermal radiation from the atmosphere. That is the total absorbed sun power * 140%. And that is measured. Not calculated, or just claimed without evidence, it is an experimentally tested value, measured by pyrgeometers on the ground and satellites in orbit millionfold for decades. According to you, those measurements can‘t be possible. You need to explain why those results are there!
d) “Over the entire planet in 24 hours thus less density flux over an extended period of time.) = Fo (1-a)/4.“ That is the only relevant value. May I assume you get the same numbers than I and we can put a) to the bin?”
The Art of a Troll
Let’s review the deceptions of this troll called, “Actual Friend of Science” even though we all know he is hardly anything “in science”.
My conversation:
“What do you think activists do? Tell me again how destroying our planet by removing CO2 isn’t a death sentence? If you use oil, gas or electricity that makes you a hypocrite.”
Here comes the misdirect from Troll #1
“Nobody is talking about removing all CO2 from the planet that is just childish. I pay a little extra so that my energy predominantly comes from renewables, it’s a journey to a better future.”
Notice he used the word ALL
Now in replying to his use of “ALL” .
“Just removing it all from the atmosphere which would incorporate removing it all period for outgassing can’t be stopped. No you guys appear to be all nuts.”
Notice nowhere in the context of this conversation was what I actually said repeated by Troll #2 “Actual friend of Science”
What AFOS did is take a phrase to twist his narrative with no grounds in the truth. The true mark of an activist and not a scientist with any integrity, then he tries and claim “he’s a scientist” as if that means his lies are beyond reproach.
The real conversation was between me and andrew30
Now notice my continued conversation:
“Net 0 emissions by 2030 haven’t you been listening to the politicians? By 2050 they want CO2 extracted from the atmosphere. It sounded like a John Kerry invention. Musk is offering a cool million to whoever comes up with a means to start extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.
UN, John Kerry and Biden. Do you ever watch the news? Kerry said it out of his own mouth. Musk is offering a reward for who can start doing it.”
Now that they “set” the word “ALL” up AFOS abuses the misdirection…
Actual Friend of Science (from activist playbook 101) Lies:
Lie#1 You said “removing all CO2 from the atmosphere”. Kerry said no such thing. Kerry wants to stop CO2 emissions by combustion and remove the CO2 from the atmosphere that was added by human activity. Nowhere does he say “All”. You’re a liar.
Notice how he just incorporated two different conversations into one to fit his narrative.
Lie#2 “Yes, and you said ALL CO2, which is not what he said, you pathological liar.”
Lie#3 “Yes? Did he specify ALL? Nope. You’re a liar, or your reading comprehension is lacking. Probably both.”
Lie#4 “Just removing it ALL from the atmosphere…”. Yes you did, liar.”
Lie#5 “ I still don’t see you admit you have lied about what Kerry said.”
Lie#5 “Yep, still no quote where he says ALL, which is what you said. Liar liar pants on fire.”
Lie#6 “Yiu claimed he wanted to remove ALL CO2 from the atmosphere. Kerry never said so, making you a liar.”
At any given moment, the Earth absorbs 480 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2. Flux is not conserved, but energy is, because the area the Earth absorbs the energy over is half that of the area that the energy leaves from.
Trying to further clarify a very clear point to an imaginary sun-brain-dead zombie:
Earth absorbs ENERGY at the INTENSITY of 480W/m^2 = (480 joules/sec)/m^2. This is flux — INTENSITY of energy-FLOW over a given quantity of SURFACE AREA.
Flux is NOT the energy — it is the energy delivered in a given time over a given surface area.
The INTENSITY of energy-delivery on a smaller surface area, therefore, is processed over the ENTIRE larger surface area and then given off OVER THAT LARGER SURFACE AREA where it is processed. Energy given off over a larger surface area reduces the INTENSITY.
Twice the lower-intensity of energy flow from the whole sphere, thus, equals all of the higher-intensity energy flow into the half sphere.
Flow is NOT quantity. Flow is quantity in time over area.
Energy-quantity is conserved. Energy-flow is NOT. In other words, joules are conserved, but intensity at which joules are delivered is NOT.
“ At any given moment, the Earth absorbs 480 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2. Flux is not conserved, but energy is, because the area the Earth absorbs the energy over is half that of the area that the energy leaves from.”
DREMT, I believe your comment is correct, except for a small quibble with this paragraph. It should be “at any given moment, the earths absorbs 480 W/m^2 on its sunlit side, and emits 240 W/m^2.” The nighttime side has no flux. I think this clarification should make it pretty hard to disagree with your position.
The input is the sunlit hemisphere, the output is from both hemispheres.
There has been some progress at ATTP, some of the article has been amended. I have been able to comment there again. I do have some belief still that their confusion has been genuine. If you read through the comments there you can see the progression of things…I’m doing my best. Here is the latest:
“[Quoting me]> The “divide by 2” (960 W/m^2 becomes 480 W/m^2) is simply a shortcut to doing what I outlined in my 4:08 PM comment from yesterday. Nothing untoward is being done. Nobody is doubling the Sun’s power.
[Willard]: That would imply that Joe is wrong in saying that ordinary energy balance models “decrease the power of sunshine to 960/4 = 240 W/m2,” as I underlined a few days ago.
I can change my expression to “increase the power of Sunshine” (or anything else reasonable) if you prefer. There’s nothing deeper to that claim. If that’s just spin from Joe’s part, then Sky Dragons are in no position to criticize spin.
I know why Joe is dividing by 2. What I don’t know is where it comes from in his model. To what model of his are you referring?
This is a problem. If one transforms Energy_In = Energy_Out to isolate T on the right side, something has moved from the right side. In ordinary EBMs, it’s 4 because that’s what we got on the right side. In other words, the shortcut has an algebraic justification.
I could not care less if Joe’ strick is untoward or not. I only care about Joe’s algebraic justification to divide by 2. His equations do not make that clear at all.”
@JP, seems the bizarreness of Willard continues. On the lighter side, his statements starting with NO reminds me of some classic British comedy in “The Vicar of Dibley”….
@Weekly_rise, JP has, with a few other comments, seemingly convinced you that the way and intensity of the Sun’s flux landing on 1-hemisphere is fundementally important to creating the climate. Without that key foundation of assuming the Sun dumps a lot of power flux under zenith (about 960W/m2) and on average about 480W/m2 on one hemisphere while nothing on the poles and other side, there is nothing to create the climate (as everywhere is assumed to receive and emit about 240W/m2 on average); now that is truly bizarre. A luke warm blob…LOL. But hopefully that is all clear by now. Obviously energy in = energy out. But how energy goes out is dependent on various local conditions (emissivity and temperature), and since the climate drives some of that, how the climate works and evolves are rather important for the local temperatures and emissivity for the energy-out emission; and hence how the flux-in lands is likewise important.
But you do also question a few key point I can maybe elucidate or clarify:
1) 2021/04/28 at 5:51 PM …..but the very basic idea of radiative balance does not depend on where the energy is entering……
2) 2021/04/30 at 10:41 AM ….What puzzles me is that I would say your diagram is consistent with my “greenhouse effect is real” view of the physics, so there must be a piece I’m missing somewhere…..
Responding to 1), while you suggect radiative balance does not depend on where the energy is entering; emission Radiative does depend very much on where and how the energy lands unless it is very quickly redistributed equally. A simple example I like to quote is the Moon. Now the moon has no atmosphere so we can be sure that no GHG or GHE exists. First order climate-alarm science would take the top of atmosphere Insolation (1370W/m2) power-flux less Lunar Albedo (about 12%) divided by 4 for average Energy-In; and equate that to average temperature emission as Energy-Out. Applying SB in reverse with that average Power-Flux to get the average surface temperature of the Moon gives 270K. But the actual surface temperature of the Moon is about 200K as measured by integrating local values from lunar probes circling the moon. The reason for the massive difference is that the moon is slow rotating (lunar-day is about 28 earth-days) and has no atmosphere to redistribute the energy rapidly to equalise the lunar average. So the illuminated side asymtopes to about 121C (the maximum equilibrium under full Insolation with full surface emission) and can then get no hotter; while the dark side just keeps cooling per SB emission without limits until it finishes the 14day night. So as you see, local conditions make a difference, and averages of temperatures driven by emission which is a 4th power function do not work correctly.
Responding to 2), I’m not sure what you mean by your GHE view, but I presume you mean that so-called GHGs have an affect of raising temperatures. If that is the case I would agree with you, but I would not call that a GHE, but would rather say that Radiative Insulation is at play due to GHGs. But GHGs are not the only thing that impact the temperatures. The atmosphere itself influences the temperatures while the oceans do a huge amount of buffering. A nuanced and subtle difference (JP might disagree, as I cannot fully claim to know his position). But my view is that H2O, in all its forms, is the gorilla GHG controlling/influencing climate, while CO2 is a bit player above about 50-100ppm after which most of its work is done and its further effect is largely saturated. And further, I believe the climate system has a overall negative feedback, not positive like climate-alarm always claims. Systems with strong positive feedback are typically not at all stable like the climate system is want to be.
Hope this helps.
And I have a physicist who claims mostly all radiation is absorbed by the surface from “backradiation” and all absorbed radiation increases the surface temperature and he did experiments to prove it.
This point the world of physics is nuts(for the most part).
Last remark from Chris…
“I have watched some of his videos(referring to you, Joe). Problem is, that he and you are representing physics there that is incompatible with evidence. Or, to make it simple: Just wrong. Because a theory incompatible with evidence is defined as wrong according to the scientific method. You evade that problem by just ignoring that evidence.
And NO, your statement about reabsorbance remains wrong. By evidence. The thermodynamics you propose is just crackpottery.
Sabine might cover some of those topics in the future – you‘ll have to correct her unsuccessfully as well.”
The amendments seem to have been made in such a way that the article still effectively says much the same thing as it did before. There were additional points that I raised that have still not been corrected and it looks like they are not going to be. As time goes on it becomes harder to maintain that belief I mentioned earlier…
JP, if you have the time…
Willard says:
“Joe can come here to discuss his model with AT anytime. This is AT’s blog, and he’s the astrophysicist while I’m just a ninja.”
You have been cordially invited to discuss the post at ATTP.
Anyone want to explain the real physics on this claim?
“Actually, it is because if you eliminate the secondary greenhouse gases CO2, O3, and CH4, absolute humidity goes to virtually zero. That means infrared escapes into outer space because there will be no cloud formations nor any greenhouse gases left in the atmosphere. It would be exactly as if the rest of the atmosphere wasn’t there because N2 and O2 don’t absorb in the infrared spectrum and if there is no CH4, CO2, H2O, N2O, and O3, Earth’s surface becomes ice crystals, reflecting virtually all incoming sunlight. This is exactly why my house does what it does.”
This part is even more out there…
“Without a temperature differential, there won’t be a dry lapse rate. How do I know this? Again, my roof is white. It can be 100F midday, lay on my white metal roof and it feels cool. No light absorption, no heat gain, no convection or conduction, just reflection. Go to the street, look down the surface and you can see the heat waves coming off the surface. Don’t lay down unless you wish to get burned. “
@Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Link? I want to read this stuff as a bystander, learn a thing or two or three.
CD, I posted a link on 2021/04/28 at 12:49 PM, if you scroll up on this thread you should find it.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
@Kev you’re exactly right about the moon and uneven illumination influencing climate. Actually Jensen’s inequality says the average temperature has to be less than the effective temperature (fourth root of average T to the fourth). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality#Example:_even_moments_of_a_random_variable . Uneven illumination always lowers the average temperature! Did climate scientists miss this?
Kev,
To your point 1, are you able to provide a source? Or describe your derivation? I don’t see a lot about the topic in google searches, but it would surprise me if the mean lunar surface temperature were substantially less than would be required to maintain radiative equilibrium. There could be something missing in my understanding (often a safe bet) or there could be something missing in the estimate of lunar surface temperature you’re referencing.
To your point 2, my only comment is that what you call “Radiative Insulation” I call “the Greenhouse Effect,” and I suspect many climate scientists would, too. I’m not sure what Joe’s position on that point would be, but the general notion of this “Radiative Insulation” does not seem to my eyes to be at odds with his diagram.
Weekly, please see my above link on Jensen’s inequality. Energy balance fixes the mean value of T^4, but the mean T is lower (unless T is uniform). Thus uneven illumination can fully account for the mean temperature being lower than expected from energy balance — no greenhouse effect needed! The more uneven the illumination, the lower the temperature!
I’m wondering if anyone has done an experiment like the following
You take two identical boxes say about 2 meters cubed you heat two clay spheres to a high temp and suspend them in the centre of the box in one would be normal air in the other would be co2 at say 20/30,000 ppm and do a temp time comparison. In my humble opinion and I am just a lay person the sphere in the co2 box should cool at a much slower rate than the normal one if the ghe is real. But from what I have learnt here I think it may cool faster as co2 is more radiative. Any thoughts Joe
Willard says:
“Look, DREMT.
You have returned to your ways at Roy’s. Repeating the same irrelevant point over and over again won’t do here. Your next comment needs to answer one of these two questions:
– where is Joe’s model, chapter and verse;
– what is the temperature of the other side of the Earth in one of Joe’s diagrams.
Here’s where we stand. We have two equations:
[E] xy = 4z
[J] xy/2 = ?
We have agreed that they’re equivalent. I have no idea what’s on the right side of J, and I don’t know how the 2 cancels out to give E.
If both equations are equivalent and Joe indeed divides by 4, he needs to account for the 2 he has decided to put on the left side, “because flat earth.””
…and I can no longer comment there unless I answer. Even though I have already explained 1 about a hundred times in a hundred different ways, and he won’t accept that you agree the Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K as an answer to 2. So I guess that’s that.
“You have been cordially invited to discuss the post at ATTP.”
The last thing I will be doing is commenting over there, with the record of Willard’s moderation habits, but also their blatant insanity/psychosis and inability to perform the most basic geometry and mathematics. What possibly can be said there that wasn’t already said here?
It seems clear they’re trying to bait me into commenting over there for whatever psychotic reason they have schemed. Not playing that game. Everything possible to say was already said, and Willard is either a psychotic, an incompetent, or both.
WHO really needs this much effort in comprehending a hemisphere, a day-side, etc.? Who needs so much effort in this?
No one, that’s who. NO ONE requires this much effort in comprehending a hemisphere. No one. No one needs that. No human requires this.
“To your point 2, my only comment is that what you call “Radiative Insulation” I call “the Greenhouse Effect,””
This merely goes to the point that the climate greenhouse effect has no fixed definition…which thus demonstrates its fakeness. It cannot be insulation and backradiation at the same time. Besides…just show an experimental example!
Don’t people find it strange to believe in something which has no experimental proof, in the case where experimental proof is possible?
“the sphere in the co2 box should cool at a much slower rate than the normal one if the ghe is real”
No not just that…the CO2 box should get way, way hotter than the other box due to all of its backradiation.
“it may cool faster as co2 is more radiative”
That might actually be true, yes. Gee if only climate science was experimental as opposed to flat Earth pseudoscience.
@CD re: “Last remark from Chris…”
Just ask for actual experimental evidence. NOT interpretation from climate science based on sunlight being 240 W/m^2 input…but an actual experimental demonstration of the RGHE mechanism.
“I know why Joe is dividing by 2. What I don’t know is where it comes from in his model.”
“I could not care less if Joe’ strick is untoward or not. I only care about Joe’s algebraic justification to divide by 2. His equations do not make that clear at all.”
Do you see how these sentences expose an absolute state of insanity? They know why…but they don’t know why. OK then! lol
Willard is not a serious participant.
@Weekly_rise,
1) I have come across several references to the approximate actual Lunar grid-averaged surface temperature as around 200K +/-5K. At the time I went looking, it was a bit of digging to find references. Zoe Phin, sadly, is the only one I have bookmarked…
https://phzoe.com/2020/02/12/average-moon-temperature/comment-page-1/
A quick bit of re-searching found these papers which give insight into the pattern of lunar temperature and confirm a similar mean around 200K..
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306139945_The_Global_Surface_Temperatures_of_the_Moon_as_Measured_by_the_Diviner_Lunar_Radiometer_Experiment
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
As @AMathematician points out, the energy balance is perfect for the mean value of T^4; but just not the mean value of T which is systemically lower. The deviation is large for the moon because of the very slow rotation and low buffering causing the temperature range to be large, and hence increasing the deviation between mean of T^4 and mean of T.
2) The GHE is a vexed term, but typically refers to increasing the surface temperate due to the presence of GHGs in the ATM (see NASA-GISS definition below). LOL…they don’t even mention the gorilla GHG…H2O. What you call the GHE, is to me, made up of multiple influences. One of those influences is the supposed “reflection/slowing/back-radiation” of LWIR emission from the surface such as to “warm” the surface. That part only is due to and influenced by the special IR-active GHGs in the atmosphere. That part I call Radiative Insulation. Hence, to reframe and put some space between the term GHE and a good term for all the other factors that influence the temperature, I prefer to refer to the Atmospheric Effect (or something like that).
By way of further elucidation of the difference between an Atmospheric Effect and a GHE, if you enveloped the moon with a 100% LWIR non-active gas, by definition there would be no GHE, and no LWIR impact on surface emission direct to space; but you would still increase the average moon temperature simply through better distribution of energy and hence pulling the average temperature closer to the simple SB average emission Temperature. But no GHE.
Hope this clarifies.
Definition from: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
<>
@CD 2021/05/02 at 1:13 pm
It is NOT measured…the measurement is divided by 4. The experimentally-tested number are divided by four. The solar constant is 1370 W/m^2, and THIS is what is measured, and this falls on a hemisphere with an intensity distribution doing from max at solar zenith to zero around the terminator. THIS is what factually exists, and it is that real-time intensity with its distribution which creates the climate. 240 is what you get when you MEASURE 1370 W/m^2, and THEN divide it over the surface area of Earth. CD these people just lie and make stuff up. They’re just insane liars.
b) – bla bla bla…show the evidence, explain what was done, etc.
c) “Still is true: Since the surface of receives 160 W/m^2 direct irradiation of the sun on time average”
It’s not the time average value that explains the climate.
“in the same time it receives 330 W/m^2 thermal radiation from the atmosphere”
So the atmosphere creates evaporation, clouds, the hadley cells, etc…not the Sun, got it…lol!
“And that is measured. Not calculated, or just claimed without evidence, it is an experimentally tested value, measured by pyrgeometers on the ground and satellites in orbit millionfold for decades. According to you, those measurements can‘t be possible. You need to explain why those results are there!”
No one ever denied these measurements. What’s important to understand is that 330 is less than what the sun provides at an average of 480.
d) “Over the entire planet in 24 hours thus less density flux over an extended period of time.) = Fo (1-a)/4.“ That is the only relevant value. May I assume you get the same numbers than I and we can put a) to the bin?”
You see, they REALLY, REALLY hate having to acknowledge a day-side hemisphere. Look at all this insanity with Willard, for example. You would think that it would be the most trivial thing possible to find agreement on the existence of a day-side, and the hot sunshine therein which drives and create the climate. You would think that this is TRIVIAL. But look at them…look at all the effort they go to to ignore this and steer widely clear of it…they want to go NOWHERE NEAR this…they do everything that they can to redirect things away from this simple fact of reality.
Why would you need to do that? Why would anyone need to do that? Why in the world would you ever find someone unable to acknowledge the climate-creating power of real-time Sunlight? Who would do this?
No one would do this…that’s who. NO ONE would run away from and obfuscate around the reality of hot sunshine and a day side and sunshine which creates the climate. NO ONE would do that. No one would.
I mean…this is the sequence, just look at it:
“Real-time sunshine on the day-side is very hot, creates the climate, and creates the high temperatures we experience.”
Then:
“Over the entire planet in 24 hours the density flux = Fo (1-a)/4. That is the only relevant value.”
Really…it’s the ONLY relevant value? Really? Sunshine power of -18C is the ONLY RELEVANT VALUE!? Really, is it? Is it really the only relevant value? Really, is it?
It’s the only relevant value. It’s the ONLY way to characterize the Sun. The only way. The ONLY WAY to think about the Sun is that solar power is -18C. That’s the ONLY WAY…the sun and solar power is fully 100% characterized with this single value of -18C. That’s it. That is the only meaningful way to think of the Sun. That’s it.
Do you see how adamant and insane they are in trying to deny the Sun?! Why this begging? Why this insistence? Why this demand that the only way that you are permitted to think about the Sun is that it is -18C? That’s all we’re all allowed, OK? This is the only permission they’ve giving us.
Do you see how insane it is? Do you see how retarded they are? How psychotic?
You’re not allowed to think of a day side and night side, and how the equator is much hotter than the poles, and how cumulonimbus clouds form even at very high latitudes, etc. You simply need to forget about why you go to the beach in the summer time and not in winter.
The ONLY WAY you are allowed to think about the Sun is that it is -18C.
These people simply need to be fn shot. There’s no debate to be had here. They are here to destroy reason, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and kill off life on this planet. They’re not valid participants in pursuit of knowledge…they know what they’re doing and they’re here to destroy – that’s their goal. Because NO ONE, NO ONE EVER ANYWHERE, would insist on the things which they insist upon. NO ONE would ever do what they do. NO ONE. Unless they had a purpose…and the purpose becomes self-evident if you simply consider the absolute ludicrosity of what they want to 1) deny (the sun), and 2) hate (the life molecule CO2).
@AMathematician, thanks for that head-spinning link to the Jensen’s Inequality. It just rubs my nose in how inadequate my pure mathematics is….lol. I had a harsh reality check a few years ago relearning basic calculus when helping my daughters through 1st and 2nd year university maths.
I presume the reference to a Convex function is anything with an exponent >1, so SB emission with 4th power certainly qualifies.
I think it falls into 3 categories.
1. They are just indoctrinated and simply don’t know any better.
2. They are the ones indoctrinating and thus DO know better.
3. They do know better and aren’t willing to go against the climate cabal.
This “physicist” Chris is basically claiming that all bosons (in this case IR photons) magically convert to fermions at the Earth’s surface and thus can no longer occupy the same quantum state and thus have to increase temperature. So I called him out on it.
ME:
“SO basically you are stating that when bosonic energy is transferred to something like the Earth’s surface it no longer can occupy the same energy state but somehow is converted to fermions where it can’t occupy the same state and thus MUST increase the temperature?
QED does not confirm that anywhere that I know of. Show me where that is a fact in any manual or physics book?”
Am I wrong or is the photoelectric effect not based on this?
Can’t wait for his insipid reply.
Do you guys see how much we’re winning this argument? Do you understand just how much we’ve beat these fools?
After all these years, their final position is
1) that we must not consider anything about the Sun other than it being -18C
2) tremendous confusion about what a hemisphere is
Can you believe just how much, and the extent to which, we’ve bitch-slapped these retards into total absurdity? The only thing that keeps them around is shamelessness…no self-reflection or self-awareness on just how ridiculous they look to normal people and everyone else…lol 🙂
So why am I not surprised by his reply?
“That‘s not what I‘m stating. I clearly stated that thermal longwave radiation can be absorbed by the surface of earth. If there would be no energy states that could be excited by the photons of this radiation, the absorptivity of the surface at the frequency of the thermal longwave radiation would be 0. But it is near 1. Measured fact. Threrefore most of the radiation IS absorbed. You seem to live under the illusion that every atom of a surface that radiates at a specific temperature has all his energy states photons of such radiation could excite already excited. Well, that‘s simply wrong.
YOU failed to state if you believe that
a) it is NOT absorbed (thus reflected) or
b) it is absorbed but has no effect on inner energy despite the absorption or
c) it is absorbed, DOES affect the inner energy but with some magic still has no temperature effect
Furthermore I stated that the effect of additional CO2 is to be calculated by RTE, but this is some different topic I guess.”
Which he just avoided the facts again.
@Joe, I cannot image your frustration doing this for 10yr+, and still having to deal daily with this bizarre intransigence to acknowledge what is just obvious first order reality.
Perhaps you should try a different angle, namely that given the Flat-Earth model, how can ice possibly exist anywhere on earth. But I suspect they would come up with some BS sophistry to claim that as possible.
Strength to you and many others in this noble cause.
They’re playing us all for fools, me included, for taking them seriously. It is all a statement about the world and the state of human reason…that we engage in this seriously rather than just snuffing it out.
We sit here and seriously engage with people who developed flat Earth theory into a science. The joke is on us.
@Kev-In-ZA
They have a counter for everything which is easy to do when you can make anything up to fit your narrative and pay educated scientists to make it sound believable.
At a first approach, when without the Rotational Warming phenomenon implementation, I use instead of Te, the Planet Corrected Effective Temperatures Te.correct
The formula is:
[ Φ(1-a) /4σ ]^1/4
Φ = 0,47 (the 0,47 is for smooth surface planets without atmosphere, the factor Φ accounts for the smooth planet surface specular reflection)
Table of results for Te and Te.corrected
Planet…….. Te……….Te.correct
Mercury…..440 K…….364 K
Moon………270 K……224 K
Earth………255 K…….210 K
Mars,,,,,,,,,,210 K……174 K
Someone covered this topic? Go figure.
Right or Wrong: Thermal radiation’s spectrum is continuous for earthly normal objects like a light bulb or a conductor, it is because once you plug every electron in the solid into a giant quantum mechanics equation, I personally call it a “giant fermi pool” while obeying the Pauli exclusion principle, I will end up with many energy levels for trillions of electrons, those levels are going to be quite continuous.
Wrong. Thermal radiation is all about photons. It is obtained, when the modes of electro-magnetic cavity (e.g. vacuum inside a box) are occupied according to Bosonic statistics. The box can be imagined infinite, and one get’s continuum of photon states, and the number of photons in each state is given by the Bose-Einstein distribution. In other words, the electrons and nuclei of the ‘metal’ of the black box plays only a very minor role here. There is some particular light-matter interaction between the matter and the photons in the box. The exact form of this interaction does not matter to the end result. It is just sufficient that there is some interaction. Now, if the electrons and nuclei of the metal have a different temperature, mediated through light-matter interaction, heat will flow to the photon modes of the cavity until the light and the matter are in thermal equilibrium. This is related to the equipartition theorem, which needs to be applied to quantum energy levels of photons in order to avoid the ultraviolet catastrophe.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is SΦπr²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 daysgroC/rotationcal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/groC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,6710⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (βNcp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 daysgroC/rotationcal *1rotations/day1 cal/groC)¹∕ ⁴ /45,6710⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(15011)¹∕ ⁴ /45,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (βNcp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet………..Te…………Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
Kev, glad you enjoyed the reading. A convex function is one where the slope is always increasing: so T to an even power, but not an odd one.
I like your distinction between radiative insulation (RI) and other atmospheric effect (AE). As you point out, adding a GHG-free atmosphere to the moon would increase average T! It would not increase average T^4 or increase average T above the effective temperature, which is an interesting difference from RI.
@AMathematician, aaah, got it. I was just thinking in the positive domain. But given Temperature is an exclusive positive variable, I assume the convex function rule would then still apply as it would to anything with a >1 exponent as long as only in the +ve domain.
That’s right, good point.
I was able to keep commenting for some time throughout today. I’ve truly hit a brick wall this time, though.
Willard just keeps demanding to see your “model”, JP. I have explained ad nauseam to him why it’s 480 W/m^2 in and 240 W/m^2 out, that it is simply the total power in or out divided by the relevant surface area (the hemisphere yields 480 W/m^2 and the sphere 240 W/m^2), but he seems to think it should be in the form of an energy balance model. I have pointed out that the energy balances, that the total power in is equal to the total power out. But he just keeps asking to see your “model”. Seems like he just wants to keep making excuses rather than correct the article.
Well here it is:
I know you’ve posted that before…but Willard seems unable to comprehend really basic things.
Keep spreading seeds of DS scemes exposing truth.
The amount of people waking up is growing exponential
The pendulum of collective consciousness and awareness swings
Once the pedulum hits the precipe something magical happens
Some call it divine intervention, others call it game changing peer pressure.
I tried writing him this:
“Flux in (W/m^2) = xy(1-a)/z
Where x = the solar constant, y = disk surface area, a = albedo and z = the area of the hemisphere.
z = 2y
So:
Flux in (W/m^2) = xy(1-a)/2y = x(1-a)/2”
and this:
“Flux out (W/m^2) = xy(1-a)/w
Where x = the solar constant, y = disk surface area, a = albedo and w = the area of the sphere.
w = 4y
So:
Flux out (W/m^2) = xy(1-a)/4y = x(1-a)/4”
Literally showing him how the divide by 2 and divide by 4 shortcuts work. He wasn’t happy, he said:
“To be an energy balance model, you need something that looks like energy in = energy out, not just
energy in = abc
energy out = def
At some point you need to state that abc = def.
I need to get going. Will check back later if what you wrote does that.”
So I tried:
“Total power in = Total power out = xy(1-a)
Where x = the solar constant, y = disk surface area, a = albedo
That’s the “model”. The other calculations which result in “flux in” or “flux out” just convert the total power (either in or out) involved to flux by dividing by the surface area involved.”
But he responded:
“Thanks. The only geometrical entity in your model is a disc. That is a flat earth model!
More seriously, you only stated that xyz = xyz, where z is (1-a ); your model has no means to convert power into temperature; and you have no division by 4.
You can add all the letters you want, but I want my division by 4!”
Just ridiculous…
Willard is not a serious contender. He’s some sort of a joke.
He now seems to be going through your “Fraud of the AGHE” series theatrically “looking” for your model. Oh, and another criticism that they are flinging is that the “dark side” hemisphere should be marked as 3K on your diagram. I know, I know, I tried to explain…
They are purposefully obtuse to infinity.
Bill Gates Didn’t Have a Prenup & Wants Privacy During Divorce
@ JP
Salty Cracker doesn’t do interviews. He does read messages from people who send salt tho, including reasonating webpages to hundreds of thousands people.
Joseph check out the filth that attacked Dr. Holmes just for this statement of fact.
Why do so many people believe that more CO2 causes tropospheric warming?
Given that there is no empirical evidence whatever that more CO2 causes ‘global warming’, i.e. there is no published paper which quantifies a tropospheric warming and then attributes some or all of that warming to increasing atmospheric CO2, why then do so many people believe it?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_so_many_people_believe_that_more_CO2_causes_tropospheric_warming
That Johnie Park commented on your site, he is not a scientist but somehow got onto ResearchGate?
How’ that possible? I couldn’t join RG ‘casue I was not a scientist.
Joseph says,
“Can you believe just how much, and the extent to which, we’ve bitch-slapped these retards into total absurdity? The only thing that keeps them around is shamelessness…no self-reflection or self-awareness on just how ridiculous they look to normal people and everyone else…lol 🙂
As one of the ‘everyone else’, I agree they are shameless absurdists who disregard the proper effect of the sun, and ignore the natural history of this planet ➙ under the periphery of so many glaciers are frozen tree stumps indicating extended warmer times during the past, see here, here, and here
Also of note is that during a 40 year period from 1961 to 2002, observations at Greenland shows that the ice sheet cooled, thickened, and gained mass. This was during the period when it is said anthropogenic CO2 emissions were sharply rising (from about 2500 to 6500 metric tonnes). .
I would say these shameless absurdists are educated well beyond they’re ability to understand lol :-).
https://www.enr.com/articles/51691-osha-imposes-new-rule-for-employer-required-covid-19-vaccines
“The question asks whether an employer should record adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination if the employer requires the vaccine. OSHA states that if a vaccine is required, then any adverse reaction is considered work-related and therefore it must be recorded.
In response, several large contractors said they have changed or will change their vaccination policy to only recommend—not require—a vaccine.”
Way to go OSHA
of all the parasitic corrupt bureaucracies, you may actually be worth something
They’ll inject you with anything as long as they are free from liability
Exactly.
Just got an interesting comment thought I’d share…
HIm:
“I studied horticulture at University and greenhouses containing c4 plants were pumped as high as 10,000. A lot of these were experiments to test the heat-co2 relationship, but the plants certainly didn’t die.”
ME:
“I’m curious, at 10k were they able to meet the other requirements for the plants to allow accelerated growth? At some point the soil would need to be on constant steroids.”
Him:
“hey buddy, I just noticed your question, and yes at 10,000 most of the plants were fine. Having said that the soil was constantly aerobically stimulated with all sorts of bugs and a lot!! of earth worms. And surprisingly they did fine with the heat too. The temperature got up to 40 d C and the sweet corn was the size of a small corn kernel.
The plants themselves didn’t even need water but the soil did and so did the critters in it.
So basically we were going to extremes and at the time climate change wasn’t even an issue. It’s only today, that those experiments really paid off because so many climate activists know nothing about plants and how important they are, just how dependent they are on CO2 and how much of a player they are in the carbon cycle. I’ve talked too so many people who think the plants and trees are going to die if we go over 600.🤦🏻♂️
People say that carbon sinks are becoming saturated and we need machines to pull the carbon out of the air; If a person lays a certain grass and creates a healthy lawn, they are pulling way more carbon out of the sky than a person who plants a tree and waits for it to grow, in order to replace their “carbon footprint”. Grass farms are way more effective than planting trees(carbon footprint), especially with the increase in temperature.
I hope this kind of answers your question ✌️”
Joe what did you think of Chris ‘Physicist’ claiming proved thermodynamics and physics was fantasy and never shown in any textbook? I thought that said all I needed to know about him, BS.
Clearly you can’t have an honest conversation about science with someone who is blatantly dishonest about the science. You have to have a ‘middle ground’ somewhere.
The Declaration of independence and constitution are the accumulation of 700 years of lessons learned dealing with kings and tyrants. Nothing new under the sun.
Feeling patriotic after watching that
Joe, your basic misunderstanding is centered around the idea that an energy flux has a temperature or has a “heating potential” etc. You can’t use flux ~ T^4 to set T for an arbitrary object with an input flux. This equation is only valid for flux radiated by a blackbody.
This is like using the equation A = pi*r^2 to calculate the radius of a square given area. You have to understand the physics behind the equation. There is meaning embedded in the equation beyond simple algebra.
Boomie I don’t know if it is just me or if others have noticed more and more articles claiming that the ghe is adding insulation and there by slowing cooling. In the last six months I would say I have read a lot of articles going this direction and fewer and fewer back radiation comments. Maybe they are seeing a crack in their argument for the back radiation fallacy. Now with the current cooling maybe they will give up and go away,they still have the pandemic to get behind so all is not lost.
Cheers Barry
They will say anything and everything and they won’t stop till we make them stop.
Yes…this whole let’s have a debate thing is ridiculous. I think the point is being made that only power and violence is truth…who cares what 1 + 1 equals…the question is who’s killing who. As it is…they’re planning on killing all life on earth. The scale of that isn’t solved in a debate but in violence.
Sadly I have to agree with you Joseph,all society’s go full circle it seems that they have to totally break down before they get bad enough for a revolution. But that may very well happen on our watch,I’ve thought for a long time now that we had more time than this but the whole phoney pandemic has sped it up a lot. Maybe I will spend my retirement years in the trenches instead of on the beach. I’m still a pretty good shot.
Biden is trying hard to seize our guns (again) always the first step…
Global warming is a means for people to willingly give up freedom and they fell for it in droves.
It’s like living in a science fiction horror movie.
Move the Elite to Mars and kill of the population of Earth, return as gods of a New Earth forged in their image.
It would be funny if I wasn’t sure some idiot hasn’t already considered it as the “Real Reboot of Humanity.”
CD that is going on in Canada too,I was just reading an article today that the RCMP never did get rid of our long gun registry as they had promised they had years ago and having banned some guns during this pandemic its only a question of time before they come knocking for the rest. Hitler knew it was good to disarm your society as it makes it much more compliant and easy to implement totalitarian rule.
Biden wants to have magazines registered and treated like a gun and thus stored like a gun. Biden is just Obama’s Phase 3 op.
Hitler disarmed jews, commies and people considered hostile to German’s. He actually relaxed gun control laws for ordinary German citizens, his people, who voted him into power and he was actually very popular with. He had nothing to worry about Germans, in Germany, trying to remove him from power by force.
Commies on the other hand disarm everyone, because they do have to worry about the people trying to remove them from power by force.
So Hitler disarmed a minority of people, but relaxed the restriction put on Germans during the Weimar era.
And he confiscated guns from the French of course and occupied areas
Yes that is true Boomie and I think it’s because most communist leaders know that they won’t have many friends as Hitler did at the start of his campaign. In our case in NA most thinking people have pretty much had enough of our govts and those in power know it so best to just disarm all and depend on your military rather than civilian militias.
My brother said the violence on cops is planned, it’s meant to replace local cops with federal and it won’t stop until federal cops take over and we all know the point in that.
case and point my brother just sent me this
Joseph,
I replied back to Chris and was kind about it for some reason.
“Heat capacity would not exist if all E increased temperature and when dealing with a mass like the Earth’s surface it takes a lot of E to increase the temperature.
So yes I am right, not all E increases temperature.
So no, the IR levels returning is not enough to make any significant warming at the ambient temperatures of the Earth.”.
You did make some good cases, but your original premise was flawed AND if you seriously think the IR photons from ice can increase temperature warmer than itself, I can’t help you and I doubt a physicist could either.”
That got jumbled.
Heat capacity would not exist if all E increased temperature and when dealing with a mass like the Earth’s surface it takes a lot of E to increase the temperature.
So yes I am right, not all E increases temperature.
So no, the IR levels returning is not enough to make any significant warming at the ambient temperatures of the Earth.
You did make some good cases, but your original premise was flawed AND if you seriously think the IR photons from ice can increase temperature warmer than itself, I can’t help you and I doubt any physicist could.
NO matter how many different ways I try and explain they just don’t see it?
ME:
“You do not divide incoming solar radiation by 4 and claim that is the incoming flux, that is averaging solar energy and that diffuses its power.“
Physicist:
We are looking at an open system at steady state, which is something different than equilibrium. Equilibrium applies to closed systems depicting the situation of maximum entropy, thus evenly distributed temperature. Steady state applies to an open system exchanging energy with its environment, depicting the state Pin = Pout.
The average steady state temperature of a system being in radiative steady state is depending on how much energy it must accumulate to reach that steady state. That‘s a variable depending on the properties of the system. To find the steady state power output you must necessarily know the input in terms of time average per units of area, because the energy is distributed within the system. Thus, you must know the time average of solar irradiation onto earth per surface area. Earth is a sphere, thus you divide the solar constant by 4. That is completely undisputed among physicists because the energy diffused into the system is exactly the value giving rise to the energy output of the system later on, a sphere has a surface four times its cross section, and you must average over at least one day to have the complete system being irradiated at least once (better and more usual is one year).
They do WHATEVER THEY CAN to never have to acknowledge that the sun acts in real time. It’s impossible for them!
@CD, the way I see that answer, is that it is largely correct, but just not complete. The answer talks to first order-energy balance of the earth system, and in that case using the Insolation divide by 4 is fine.
However, the local earth states of Temperature and Emission that could satisfy that first-order condition of energy balance are numerous, and hence why JP is right in insisting on a more realisty first-order toy model to answer the question of what is the typical earth steady state condition, and what controls what.
So they just keep insisting energy balance, when what is required is to move to the next level of complexity which is local Temperature and Emission conditions.
Perhaps try ask the guy that if the first-order toy model applied to get the average surface temperature, how does any ice exist on the surface. That might force them to understand that some areas have to be Hotter than average (local Solar Insolation), and some have to be Colder than average (lack of Solar Insulation – diurnal cycles and high latitudes). Just a thought to expand the guys thinking.
More insanity,you have to average over a given time period to get the actual physics. No with actual physics you have to deal with the actual physics in real time. That is the way everything in the real world works except in climate physics,they have now so confused themselves with energy balance that they actually think the output has to match the input over a 24 hour period and then apply this average to a minute by minute basis. If all you were interested in was energy balance this approach would be fine but if you want to know what drives climate you have to imagine that there is day and night,a concept lost to these geniuses
Exactly!!!!
Don’t forget that when cornered on those facts, they say, “All of the factors you describe are fully taken into account in climate models…” which is what Professor Pierrehumbert said to me, ” 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…”
Which I responded with, “…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…”
…and then then nothing. End of conversation.
Joseph WP ate my homework again. LOL.
Anyone who cares, treating the atmosphere as a blackbody at lower temperatures is called “The Effective Sky Temperature” and as many problems worked out in atmospheric physics is just a proxy for mathematical equations, not as a real blackbody. That of course totally clears that up for me.
So the Effective Sky Temperature is 230 K for a cold clear sky and 285 K for a warm cloudy sky.
So using the proxy, the peak spectral emissions of CO2 at 230K would be around 12.6 microns and 10.17 microns at 285K which just enforces the fact that CO2 emits in the open window.
Joe,
Is this correct?
“Thermal Radiation (the diabatic process which is a gradient flux cascade of half out and half back).
And for good measure there is also the issue of thermal inertia; the heat capacity of the body being warmed. The thermal capacity (specific heat) of water is much larger than that of air. Water takes longer to warm and stores more energy.”
Hi Joe. It reminds me of a video you made in 2019/06/18
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/06/18/culinary-arts-debunks-climate-change/
Based on a discussion I had on WUWT with an article by Roy Spencer.
Pig on a spit, 4 weak suns argument by dividing earths surface by 4, average person has one testicle etc.
Well this time it is Willis Eschenbach. Remember him?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/05/surface-response-to-increased-forcing/
“Surface Response to Increased Forcing”
He’s ranting on about downwelling longwave radiation or back radiation and warns us lesser mortals that contradicting him may get our posts deleted.
Willis:
(Please don’t bother me with claims that downwelling longwave radiation from the atmosphere doesn’t exist. It has been measured, not estimated or modeled but measured, thousands of times by scientists all around the planet for over a century. If you don’t think it’s real, you need to do your homework … and in any case, this is not the place to debate it. I never delete comments on other peoples’ threads, and I almost never delete comments on my own threads, but in this case, I’ll make the exception. Please just take up the debate elsewhere, thanks.)
I contradicted him several times and he, not so much deleted my post, but replaced my post with the word DELETED and then went into a frenzied reply.
I mentioned a couple of times that his back radiation hypothesis had been debunked by Joseph Postma and he went ballistic and denied your existence.
“DELETED. Are you really this stupid, or is it just arrogance? Stop with the attacks on back radiation
Next, you say:
Willis is still smarting from the mauling he took from Joseph Postma several years ago on back radiation.
And as to me “smarting” from some defeat by some guy called Joseph Postma, I have no memory of that at all. I also have no memory of who Joe is.
Sorry, I’m sure it looms large in your mind, but on my side of the screen it doesn’t exist.”
I replied, “You know full well who Joseph Postma is, Climate of Sophistry. If you don’t you have been living on the moon. He kicked your ass out of the stadium on back radiation. I’ve seen your blogs before when Joseph Postma was cited and you didn’t pretend to not know him then.”
Notice how he went from Joseph to Joe but he has no memory of Joseph Postma? Haha!
I’m waiting for Willis to delete me again but for now I’m enjoying the Whack-A-Mole.
@leitmotif the physicist I’m speaking to has the idea that all absorbed IR into the earth’s surface increases temperature.
The concept is beyond rational thinking. IR photons from ice cubes absorbed into the Earth’s surface will increase it’s temperature?
But how do you counter a physicist with that much knowledge to twist? Joe gave up on him in only a few posts. Anything will end up a dead end. 200 post later or a thousand, he’ll still say the same thing that backradiation is increasing the surface temperatures and he’s claimed he did experiments that proves it?
Actually it is worth repeating here:
Joe:
Refer to the First Law of Thermodynamics, with no work: dU = Q = m Cp dT
To get an increase in temperature, a body requires heat, Q. It doesn’t merely require energy, because not all energy is heat. Heat is a specific form of energy, and this specific form of energy we call heat is what can increase temperature. Where work is not involved, heat is the only form of energy which can increase temperature. It’s the First Law of Thermodynamics: dU = Q = m Cp dT.
So there’s solar energy, which certainly acts as heat because solar radiation at Earth is +121C or 1370 W/m^2.
And then there’s radiation from the atmosphere: can it act as heat? If radiation from anything is raising a temperature somewhere else, then that radiant energy has to be heat. Of course whether or not energy can act as heat is given by the heat equation. The heat equation for the atmosphere & surface, where the surface is generally warmer, thus indicates that the cooler atmosphere cannot send heat and thus cannot raise the temperature of the warmer surface.
The standard diagrams of climate science do indeed depict radiation from the atmosphere as heating and increasing the temperature of the surface – this is precisely what they depict. It is even given a label, called “Backradiation”, and the function of backradiation, i.e., radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, is depicted as increasing the temperature of the surface and thus as heating the surface.
I am referring to precisely what is there, in the diagrams, of course.
To understand the reality of the First Law of Thermodynamics, and that heat is required to increase temperature, simply imagine this scenario:
A temperature gauge in Earth orbit receiving 1370 W/m^2 from the Sun, reading +121C. Now, place a transparent sheet of ice at -18C in front of the thermometer’s view toward the Sun: do you really think that a VIS-transparent sheet of ice at -18C (and thermally emitting IR at that temperature) in front of the thermometer’s view toward the Sun is going to increase the thermometer’s temperature reading above +121C? Seems intuitive to me that it couldn’t.
So apply the heat flow equation: certainly the 1370 W/m^2 from the sun is maintaining the thermometer at +121C. If the thermometer is at +121C, then will the introduced sheet of ice send heat to the thermometer, or will the thermometer itself at +121C actually send heat to the sheet of ice? Heat flow is one-way only, so either the sheet of ice at -18C sends heat to the thermometer, or the thermometer at +121C sends heat to the sheet of ice. Heat doesn’t flow both ways, but only one way from stronger to weaker as a difference between them.
Thus it is entirely clear: the cold object cannot increase the temperature of the warmer object via its radiation.
But the atmosphere, and the sheet of ice in my example – these are not sources but are only passive downstream receivers of energy. They don’t produce or provide any new energy to the system at all. Sure they emit, but this is just downstream, lower power energy at lower temperatures…it’s dissipating energy, not new or source energy.
Chris Physicist response to Joe:
“Seems intuitive to me that it couldn’t.“ And that is the problem, in all honesty: You and CD Marshall are doing physics intuitively. To the price of getting things horribly wrong while stating to have found some truth most other physicists cannot see.
To answer your thought experimente in the utmost clarity: YES, the ice sheet would increase the thermometers reading, believe it or not. That‘s a consequence of standard textbooks thermodynamics, no specific climate stuff at all. If not so, the first law of thermodynamics would be broken.
The way you stated it it has to remain a thought experiment, for no ice sheet in space will have 255K.
But a very similar thought experiment was calculated through with some tiny help of mine by Josh Halpern, and visualized on YT, here:
youtube.com/watch?v=DFC3DOEyoz0
But you can even have it as a real world kitchen table experiment: If your logic holds, the surface of a hot plate that has reached a constant temperature won‘t get any warmer if you put some reflectors in a way the plate‘s thermal radiation is reflected back. Do this with one or two fans going to have the same kind of convection in both setups, so it‘s not altering the convection that could do any job here. Measure. Then come back and explain your findings.
Joe’s reply back:
Don’t be cute…intuition was not the extent of my previous comments as I also demonstrated to you the First Law of Thermodynamics, the definition and equation for heat flow, and how they work, giving you an example to help it make sense to you.
The sheet of ice at -18C cannot heat the thermometer at +121C to higher temperature, but in fact the thermometer at +121C will heat the sheet of ice. Heat flow is one way, and heat is what is required to increase temperature.
Your youtube link is simply a thought experiment postulating that heat can flow from cold to hot. Irrelevant.
A reflector reduces the emissivity of the system, and a reduction in emissivity requires an increase in temperature. This is not the greenhouse effect, so your scenario is irrelevant. GHG’s increase the emissivity of the atmosphere, they’re not about reflection. It makes a difference.
Here are the facts and the actual math of thermodynamics, which I will leave you with, not that you can understand it:
First Law: dU = Q = m Cp dT
Thus, to get an increase in temperature, i.e. a positive dT, we require Q, which is heat.
What is heat?
Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4)
Heat is the form of energy which flows one way from a hot object to a cool object; not all energy is heat, and the energy from the cool object is not heat hence cannot increase temperature, since heat is what is required to increase temperature. Only the difference in energy between a hot object and cool object is heat, and this energy flows one way only from hot to cold. Really basic stuff, but climate alarmists are unable to understand such simple facts given over as they are to flat Earth theory – flat Earth theorists, such as yourself, cannot really be expected to understand logic, math, physics, etc.
Thus in the scenario with the thermometer heated to +121C, and then you place a sheet of ice at -18C transparent to shortwave in the view of the sun from the thermometer, can the sheet of ice send heat to the thermometer? Of course it can’t, it’s colder than the thermometer. However, the sheet of ice can be heated by the longwave IR emission from the thermometer. The ice can receive heat from the hotter thermometer. So the thermometer heats the ice. If the thermometer is heating the ice, and given that heat flow is one way, then the ice cannot be heating the thermometer.
But look Chris, I know that you cannot accept these things and will merely continue to come up with side-arguments and deflections to pretend to ignore them. The reason you can’t understand such basic facts as heat flow being one way, as ice not being able to boil water (do you think that ice can boil water? lol…you do, to be consistent…you think that adding ice to a system can tip water over 99C and make it start boiling…lol!), is because your mind has been wrecked with flat Earth theory. You are a flat Earther and you’ve been brain-damaged with flat Earth theory. Climate science is the science of flat Earth theory, where solar input is diluted by a factor of four over a surface area four-times as large as is intercepted by the Earth, where the surface is a flat plane. You believe this model implicitly and this flat-Earth accounting of the sun-Earth interaction in embedded in all of climate science; thus to have been exposed to climate science and believe in its prognostications is to make one a flat Earther whether they are aware of it or not. Climate science is pregnant, is imbued with flat Earth theory throughout all of its parts, and thus the insanity of flat Earth theory becomes inculcated into the mind of anyone who takes climate science and alarmism seriously and believes in it. There will have to come a time when we will spend year re-educating people as to the falsehood of flat Earth theory.
Everything from Chris has just been more spin from that point on.
@C D Marshall
As I keep saying on WUWT, lukewarmists give warmists the credibility they don’t deserve.
Is one right and one wrong or are they both wrong?
The statements:
Unicorns are causing enormous damage is US forests.
Unicorns are only causing minor damage in US forests. The vast majority of damage is natural.
Is one statement right and one wrong or are they both wrong?
“A reflector reduces the emissivity of the system, and a reduction in emissivity requires an increase in temperature. This is not the greenhouse effect, so your scenario is irrelevant. GHG’s increase the emissivity of the atmosphere, they’re not about reflection. It makes a difference.”
This is a really good point for they try and claim a reflector is something “cool” making something hot. Yes he actually did say that later and regarded insulation of your house as the same example.
Yes he was told that it decreases temperature loss which is all it does.
100% of thermal energy leaving system and 20% returning does not make 120% heat. Climate science is confident that it does.
Probability for Higher Energy
Why does the Planck radiation curve fall below the classical Rayleigh-Jeans Law? The origin of the drop involves the probability of higher frequency (higher energy) modes being occupied. It may be helpful to compare to the probability for higher energies in an ideal gas as given by the Maxwell distribution. Given an energy on the order of the thermal energy, what is the probability that the system could be found at multiples of that energy?
The classical view treats all electromagnetic modes of the cavity as equally likely because you can add an infinitesmal amount of energy to any mode. The quantum view expressed in the Planck hypothesis is that you either add the energy of a whole photon, or you don’t add any at all. Since the excitation of a high frequency photon takes an energy high above the average thermal energy, it is therefore less likely. Thus the radiation curve falls progressively further below the classical expectation.
Hi Joseph,
I am new to the Climate of Sophistry and am not a scientist, but I have watched most of your videos and think I mostly understand them. I find your real world spherical earth model and explanations very compelling and the “flat earth model” actually quite laughable. Except it is no joke where “their” very bad science is taking public policy and will put all our futures at peril. Thank you for all your effort these past years to stand up for real science and for the truth.
I am still a bit unclear on how an object’s temperature can be affected by radiative exchange and heat flow. Please help me understand by commenting on the following. If we assume solid objects A and B, where A is hot and B is cold, A and B are the same mass, a fixed distance apart, and float in a vacuum, surrounded by a white body. My understanding is as follows:
– Heat will flow from A to B (i.e. hot to cold)
– As A approaches the temperature of B the rate of heat flow will slow.
– Heat will stop flowing between A and B when the two objects reach the same temperature.
– As A cools it’s emissivity will decrease (i.e. emissivity is temperature dependent).
In this first example, when surrounded by a white body, if B was not present, then A would not become cooler. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that when surrounded by a white body, the cold object is affecting the temperature of a nearby hot object by decreasing its temperature. Would you agree with this?
If we now take a second example, with the same conditions, except that the objects are now surrounded by a blackbody. Both objects will now cool by radiating to the blackbody, but heat will also still flow from A to B. Object A will radiate energy to the blackbody at a greater rate than it will flow heat to object B (because A will see the blackbody as being colder than B). Therefore, where A sees B and not the blackbody (i.e. B is blocking A’s view of the blackbody), A’s rate of heat flow to B will be less than the energy it would have radiated to the blackbody. Therefore the rate at which A will cool will be less than what it would have been without the presence of B.
In the second example where the objects are surrounded by a blackbody, would you agree that the colder object B is affecting the temperature of the hotter object A by making it warmer than what it would have been without B?
In my second example above we have two solid objects at two different temperatures and one object can block the view of the other to the blackbody. These conditions seem very different from the earth and its atmosphere.
The earth’s radiation of energy to the night sky must be affected by the opacity of the atmosphere (i.e. by clouds and dust). But setting clouds and dust aside, do transparent atmospheric gases, such as CO2, somehow block or obscure the earth’s view of the night sky and reduce its rate of radiant transfer of energy (similar to how B impacted A in my examples above)? If the earth can radiate energy to the night sky through transparent atmospheric gases, will higher temperatures of those gases somehow reduce the earth’s rate of radiant energy transfer? If so, is this effect material to the determination of the earth’s temperature?
I appreciate your help with the above.
LOL does anyone want to explain this to me better?
The new method of attack is clearly vibrational energy transfer equates heat.
Listen to this troll which is actually similar to Chris Physicist’s …Joseh you should take this one, you can vent on him for he is asking for it.
“Clearly you’ve never performed any experiments in a combustion lab or used combustion simulation. ‘other than hot to cold’ wow words of a moron there, It is called radiation you muppet which is vibration of molecules you moron transfers energy, ta da. fuckwit”
I’ll invite you to the post as Joe P have fun. No need to be cordial with this one.
Speaking of WUUT check this old one out from 2018. Once in a while it is good to read the CLASSICS.
“… So what?
I mean that quite seriously. So what? In fact, it would be a huge shock if planetary atmospheres did NOT generally obey the Ideal Gas Law. After all, they’re gases, and it’s not just a good idea. It’s a Law …
…Whether the planet is warmed by the sun or by internal radioactivity or whether the warming is increased by GHGs is NOT determinable from the fact that the atmospheres obey the Ideal Gas Law. They will ALWAYS generally obey the Ideal Gas Law, no matter how they are heated.
And more to the point, this does NOT show that greenhouse gases don’t do anything, as he incorrectly claims in the above quote.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/06/ideal-gases/
Question:
What causes the parcel of air in the dry adiabatic lapse rate to descend once it has risen enough to be stably buoyant under its potential energy?
The moist adiabatic lapse rate is easier to understand, phase change releases its internal energy.
get prepared
I’ve listened to “Ice Age Farmer” before. I’m only a few minutes in, so don’t know if the “pipeline” scenario is brought up here, but I wish to point to the planning for these supply-chain events. You can start with our “buddies” at the World Economic Forum, and their offshoot website “https://cyberpolygon.com/scenarios/”, where these scenarios are acted out in the first place by corporate members, just like “event 201” in October 2019, immediately before the plandemic.
Also, here is an interesting take on the pipeline. http://mileswmathis.com/pipe.pdf
Is Joseph writing another book?
CD Marshall
QUOTE; “A reflector reduces the emissivity of the system, and a reduction in emissivity requires an increase in temperature. This is not the greenhouse effect, so your scenario is irrelevant. GHG’s increase the emissivity of the atmosphere, they’re not about reflection. It makes a difference.”
Emissivity is the product of absorption !! Therefore a reduction of emissivity requires a DECREASE of temperature………
These people are the real morons here
I’m reading Edward Snowden’s Permanent Record in which he casually drops, “In case you were wondering: Yes, man really did land on the moon. Climate change is real. Chemtrails are not a thing.”
Two out of three ain’t bad. I can imagine, given the ubiquitousness of the theory, that the CIA’s internal google, provided by Google (I am not making this up), regurgitates the pap. Scientifically more-competent agencies have done.
But it does seem to make dissident proofs such as those of the Slayers that much more dangerous to hold to. They’ll be committed inquisitors.
@J Cuttance
Which two out of three?
you choose, Omatt 🙂
Since you like amusement, I’m still talking to a physicist (Chris) and although he did correct me on some proper terminologies as expected from a physicist, or competent scientist (and I expect no less from either). He is adamant that ghgs do not emit above their frequencies. Even though the entire subject is on t-v/v-t ( translational/vibrational) and kinetic energy transfer, which would increase the CO2’s internal energy before ejection, which at all ambient temps according to a spectral calculator CO2 emits in the open atmospheric window and would above 288 Kelvin break the LTE (local thermodynamic equilibrium) of the parcel of air in question.
HIM:
Be careful: You have either LTE or a net energy flow to CO2. Since we assume LTE to hold for temperatures around 288K and break down at much lower temperature and pressure (or you reason to assume something different). Please note that at lower altitudes parcels of air receive as much radiation as they emit from their environment.
Nothing of this, whatsoever, changes that ghgs in bulk do posses the exactly same absorption and emission frequencies. Which makes them not radiating in the atmospheric window (that they do not radiate there is exactly the reason why the window is there in the first place).
ME:
Radiation is quantized into photons whose energy is proportional to frequency: E=hv.
Thus if through t-v/v-t its internal energy is increased it would emit a higher frequency than the original photon absorption. This is simply the COE and if some of the E was transferred off of the CO2 molecules it would emit less energy than the originally absorbed photon.
This is just the physics and I’m not moving on this one without strong evidence.
CO2’s peak absorption and emissions can certainly be different and despite the peak absorption the atmosphere layer or rather parcel has a temperature and all the molecules in that parcel will be interacting and doing work to achieve thermal equilibrium.
Thus CO2 will be absorbing or emitting at different wavelengths than the originally absorbed photon.
If water vapor is present that becomes the initial regulator of the parcel of air and if not, it falls to other ghgs which at the appropriate temperatures for that parcel can break LTE.
Unless CO2 is duplicating a photon it is always emitting at a different wavelength than absorption. That’s why that “gap” in spectroscopy is there in the first place and is misinterpreted as CO2 “trapping” IR.
She has two new videos up…really, really good:
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/doctor_yummy/
Actually 3 new ones.
The Sheep are taking over everywhere. I was watching Twitch and they said anyone claiming you don’t need the shot will be banned (at least on that channel).
However, I was at a hospital and made friends with some of the girls there and they had floors with Covid-Flu and they had people in it. They all knew something was up about it but were too afraid to say anything. The one girl however has a survivalist daddy and she told me she was ready if it all went south she was trained to survive it. This was a tech, actually and young lol. Not all are conned by this they know something is wrong and they see it.
I mean global warming wasn’t working and as soon as Trump started gaining global influence they had to stop him.
…and they did by any means necessary and the Republicans just stood by and watched.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/39/19330
Joseph, after a week of explaining your stance on the energy budget so simplified I think a grade school kid could have understood it. Chris the ‘Physicist’ is still as clueless as he was a week a go.
“We can make it quite simple. According to S-B-law the absorbed irradiation of the sun can be calculated into a temperature of 255K for the whole area of the earth. If the surface has in average more than this 255K, it will radiate more energy away. How is the Delta produced?”
Unbelievable the level of resistance to simplicity.
How is averaging the room temperature you cooked in telling you how hot the oven was?
@CD
That Chris dude made a statement way back which no one called him out on….”{paraphrase} divide by 4 because the sun shines on half the surface for half the time.”
…um NO.
The sun shines on half the surface 100% of the time…..because the earth is rotating! So over 24 hrs the whole surface gets 480W !
OR. In a snapshot of time 480W because the dark side is getting….zilch! Either way dividing by 4 is Flat Earth.
@rickis After a 183 posts even I lost track of what he said anymore. He just can’t give up flat Earth theory.
boomie789 your link above contains a classic ownership-inversion.
mtntim posts something LackmustestTester had posted earlier, and like a little bitch prefaces it with a zing-gotcha
“Maybe this information will be useful for you:
Infrared thermometers measure temperature by measuring the infrared radiation emitted by all materials and objects with a temperature above absolute zero (0° Kelvin). In the simplest design, a lens focuses the IR energy onto the detector, which converts the energy into an electrical signal. After compensation for ambient temperature, this signal can then be displayed.”
I think Lackmusty realised what he was dealing with and gave up after that.
Slowing the rate of cooling to effect surface temperature would require the emissivity of the surface to be changed. Otherwise it does nothing. Water vapor traps thermal energy in te phase changes, what does the rest of the ghgs do?
Maybe set a minimum temperature for parts of the Earth? Fair enough but where would that actually help? The tropics? No it remains much warmer than the minimum. The poles? Deserts at nightime?
I asked them that and the reply is always deserts would even be colder at night w/o ghgs. Or is that just geothermal?
If slowing cooling is a thing again, tell them they better get onto the dumbasses at University and tell them they are teaching the wrong theory!
More from Chris Physicist,
“Problem is, you do not explain how the power emitted by the surface within a 24 hour period that is far above the solar power in the same 24 hour period is turned to a lower value leaving to space maintaining the balance.”
Which I did, and if he has looked at Joe’s videos would know. He’s simply enthralled with flat Earth theory and perhaps simply dishonest.
He knows its the Sun only an idiot would not.
@CD
If I have a basket ball that has a whole in each quarter and I pump 96psi into the valve. In an ideal situation each hole would expel 24psi for the ball not to fill. Climate Science would say because we measured 24psi coming out around the surface you could only have put 24psi in to maintain equilibrium!
This is the dumbest down I can articulate this from “backradiation”. The rate of cooling from the surface is greater than any rate of heating from “backradiation” thus no net flow of warming will exist above the radiant temperature of the backscattering, which is far below the radiant temperature of the surface, and thus cannot exist as a net flow of heat from the surface.
How’s that?
In order to claim all E in equals heat it would have to be an isolated and thermally locked system (isothermal) where no net cooling exists.
Impact of COVID Vaccinations on Mortality
MP I used your excellent analogy but this physicist is stuck on stupid…
“You could not say it better because it is just wrong. Hard to say incorrect things in a better way.
What physics say is
a) that the amount of energy per time radiated to space by earth must match the amount of energy per the same time irradiated on earth by the sun.
b) that the surface of earth has a temperature of +15°C on average
c) that the energy per time radiated by such a surface at such a temperature exceeds the the solar energy per same time absorbed by earth by far
d) that c) is calculated by the inequation average of (sum T^4) > average of (sum T)^4 which gives that the temperature at which according to S-B-law the surface of earth radiates the same energy per time than the sun radiates into the system per same time is exceeded by at least 33K.
e) that the balance claimed by
a) is maintained by the fact that not all of the surface radiation evades to space but partly the atmosphere radiates to space from altitudes being much colder than the surface
If you point to the error in that logic chain that would help. You psi analogy don‘t. If you calculate yourself as I recommended, you could check
d) yourself. It is quite straightforward and simple math.
Here are some other facts:
1) The Earth’s surface is not heated by the Sun to -18C, but to +30C on average on the hemisphere which is heated. Thus an “average surface temperature” of +15C is not unreasonable given cooling overnight where the average heating was +30C.
2) In any case, +15C is not the “average surface temperature”, but is actually the average temperature of the near-surface air, measured at 4 feet or so above the surface. Given that air has low emissivity, and low emissivity substances have higher temperature for a given energy balance, then again it is not unreasonable to find +15C for this temperature when the heating is +30C.
3) Item 2) is a consequence of averaging of measurements of stations situated all over the globe at varying altitudes, and the adiabatic gradient determines what local average temperature each station will experience. For example, if the stations where in Death Valley, California, then the adiabatic gradient establishes a higher near-surface air temperature for those stations.
4) Continuing from 3), the natural existence of the adiabatic gradient and the distribution of temperature it creates in the air column, together with the fact of what an average is, ensures that the near-surface air temperature must be higher in value than any expected average temperature; the bottom of the air column, the near-surface air, must have a higher temperature than any expected average.
And finally
5) the climate science greenhouse effect is specifically predicated upon the colder atmosphere heating the warmer surface, which is the plainest violation of thermodynamic theory. With consideration of points 1 – 4, this reverse heat flow scheme of climate science is rendered unnecessary to explaining the surface temperature. The sun heats the surface of the Earth, on average, to temperatures much higher than +15C…but to understand this, one must not average solar input over the entire surface of the Earth as an input.
Why do they think you can just average sunlight?? I don’t think that makes sense at all
Glad your back Joe, I’m going to quote you if you don’t mind? This guy is really stuck on stupid.
“I worked an 8 hour day I should get paid for 8 hours.”
“No you sat on your ass for 4 hours and worked four so I’m paying you for 4 hours which is 10$ an hour making it 40 bucks. You can average that for 8 and say it’s 5 bucks an hour but I’m still giving you only 40 bucks.”
@RT – not only average sunlight, but average it as if it inputs over the entire surface at once as an input, as if the Earth is a flat plane, to the point where sunlight cannot heat the planet or create the climate at all…and then from there, from that starting point, they do “climate science”.
We aren’t dealing with real people here…we’re dealing with an enemy who’s trying to destroy the human race or something.
Yes use that CD.
I really don’t get it. The same sunlight falling at 940 W/m^2 is the same hitting the poles at 85 W/m^2.
The only way I can see confusion is the solar constant is 1361 W/m^2 and they somehow think that means that’s all allowed on the Earth? It’s a flux not total energy absorbed.
The temperature is not just based on what is “spilling” over each day it is also based on what has been absorbed for millions of years. The daily budget is simply the surplus of energy, not the total energy absorbed on the planet.
I think this guy has brain damage?
“You should not explain anything. You should show by calculation that your claim is possible. You are not doing so. I told you that, if calculated, your claim is falsified. You are the one not accepting it or alternatively showing by some simple math that the world of physics is wrong and you are right.
Then again, you evade by deliberately not even understanding the questions.
The questions are clear:
a) What is the amount of energy the surface of earth emits at least per time as radiation?
b) What is the amount of energy the earth absorbs per time as radiation? (doesn‘t matter if over a sphere or a hemisphere)
Please note that the knowledge I refer to is physics shared by academia and industry all over the world, taught to students since 100 years, and never been falsified by experiment. You instead are telling something different, which puts you in the need to bring evidence. You failed in bringing evidence or presenting in equations how the world of physics miscalculated. So I‘m not here for career (I‘m not even related to climate science, just doing physics professionally in different areas). I‘m here because the small group of science deniers trades doubt on topics settled for more than a century and backed up by evidence billionfold. So I‘m here for the truthfulness of science that is jeopardized by people like you, who dabble on the basics of physics while believing to have deeply understood something they have no clue of, for they are conceptually wrong.”
@CD: they can only deflect and deny and demand that the approach to the problem remain fixed within their limited parameter space with its erroneous characterizations of the system. They COULD acknowledge the points I made, but they simply choose not to. Does the Sun heat the Earth on one side at high temperature? Yes, of course. But they simply ignore it. Does the adiabatic gradient establish that the near-surface air must be higher in temperature than any expected average? Yes, of course. But they can simply choose to ignore that.
Do we have bills of rights and freedoms, privacy laws, etc? Yes, of course. But they can just ignore those and get “health authorities” to rescind them.
There’s no such thing as law or reason. These people only care about power, and having power requires DEMONSTRATION of power, which they do by ignoring reason and law…because it requires power to do that.
Just ask them to provide a SINGLE reference to a laboratory demonstration of the RGHE.
@gator 2021/05/06 at 3:25 pm
“misunderstanding is centered around the idea that an energy flux has a temperature or has a “heating potential””
F = sigma * T^4
It’s called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Please familiarize yourself with it. You should encounter it in first year physics.
“You can’t use flux ~ T^4 to set T for an arbitrary object with an input flux.”
Via the heat flow equation with plane-parallel geometry:
Q = source – sigma Tobj^4, Q = 0 @ equilibrium, thus
Tobj = (source / sigma(^1/4)
The algebra isn’t that difficult, really.
“This equation is only valid for flux radiated by a blackbody.”
That’s what we’re discussing, yes. That’s how we’re treating the problem. That’s how everyone treats the problem. That’s the only way to treat the problem, including for grey bodies which use factors for emissivity and absorptivity, etc. Please take a first-year physics course.
“This is like using the equation A = pi*r^2 to calculate the radius of a square given area.”
Actually, it’s using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for thermal radiation, in a scenario where we’re dealing with thermal radiation from a blackbody.
“You have to understand the physics behind the equation.”
It’s using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for thermal radiation, in a scenario where we’re dealing with thermal radiation from a blackbody.
“There is meaning embedded in the equation beyond simple algebra.”
It’s using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for thermal radiation, in a scenario where we’re dealing with thermal radiation from a blackbody.
Again: Please take a first-year course in physics. I am sure that UCBerkeley offers something.
@G Louis 2021/05/08 at 10:58 pm
It is a good analysis. One important point: slowed cooling is not higher absolute temperature. If you start at -18C, and cool more slowly and only get down to -20C, as opposed to -25C if you cooled faster, the slowed cooling does not make your average temperature +15C.
The RGHE of flat Earth climate alarmism political pseudoscience requires -18C to “cool more slowly” to +15C.