This video follows on from the blog post regarding Sabine Hossenfelder and her absolute confusion as to what the climate greenhouse effect actually is. Physicists are so confused by it because it does not actually exist, and so no wonder it cannot be defined, hence leading to the confusion. Here we find a science channel, 60 Symbols, attempt to explain the climate greenhouse effect, but hilariously and with complete lack of self-awareness, end up debunking the existence of the climate greenhouse effect!
Planet Wars (book mentioned in video):
Climate of Sophistry 
Joe,
Have a look at this presentation.
The Greenhouse Effect Reconsidered: From Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall, Arrhenius, to Manabe & Dyson.
Seems pretty decent.
Great video, Joe. His video was confusing when I first saw it looked like he was almost ashamed for doing it.
Pingback: 60 Symbols Debunks the Greenhouse Effect | ajmarciniak
Because scientists use models and formulas to show and explain changes on earth, do they not do the same when discussing other planets. Do they model Venus or Mars as flat (or not) and do their atmospheres act consistent with Earths atmosphere in capturing the sun’s heat (or not). Do they dispute the sun’s heat as a variable in the temperatures of other planets (or not).
Obviously to laymen such as myself, all the terms go over my head, but the diagrams are helpful to translate the concepts. My point is that if scientists are using fictional methods to promote c02 as evil on earth using fictional, they should be using similar fiction to discuss temps on other planets, dismissing sun inputs and atmosphere. I was wondering if there is consistency using “flat” surface.
Joe,
Looking at the presentation at 12:00 where he moves to a discussion of convection and starts to introduce meteorology, I think what is happening here is that he has as his primary assumption the radiative idea that sunlight is too cold to heat the Earth.
This is because he starts with the flat Earth model of insolation divided by 4 rather than with the globular Earth model of hemispheric illumination (divide by 2).
The worst thing about this situation is that only repetition equals truth to these “academics” and things repeated at 10 to them hold more weight in their minds to things repeated at age 50. They are not thinking human beings but programmed habits inside a flesh casing.
@Janey Milligan
I have not found any papers over the years from Greenhouse Effect acolytes using the same pseudophysics to calculate temperatures on Mars, Venus or Titan (a moon of Saturn’s). Instead cult members use Venus to assert that boiling away of the oceans will occur here on Earth, whilst making excuses for Mars and Venus that totally debunk their arguments for Earth or Venus. Mars they say is not experiencing a “runaway Greenhouse Effect” despite its atmosphere also being 97% CO2 because it is too thin. Titan on the other hand is experiencing a “reverse Greenhouse Effect”.
If you ever find a paper with the equations to back up these claims you will have something that is less likely than winning 1st price in the American lottery.
Edit * making excuses for Mars and Venus should read “making excuses for Mars and Titan
Finally read this “gem”: https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=932
No need for a personalized rebuttal. It seems that the summary for this more self-aware rebuttal to the self-evidence critique of the warmist energy budget relies on one single trick over and over again. Which is to simply treat the atmospheric thermal effect as if it’s a radiative greenhouse effect.
They have a “firmware update” called the “surface energy budget fallacy” which basically tells us to not actually look for the alleged greenhouse effect in real life, but instead to essentially identify the adiabatic gradient as if it is the greenhouse effect and then treat that as proof of the effect (then calibrate a baseline into a model and make up fake temperature data).
There is that classic “ontological error” of code switching between real empirical evidence that is treated as “thermal effect but we call it radiative”, and then studies and models of completely imaginary what-ifs or projections that don’t care about the real atmosphere. You can live in the imaginary and real worlds simultaneously just by treating your theory as arbitrary syntax which works in both worlds.
I know of modern philosophers who think logic isn’t real because they can construct argumentative phrases that contain contradictions. Okay.
I understand it’s hitting your head against a brick wall territory, but it might be helpful for some to have a more thoroughly defined thermal effect.
This is how they define greenhouse effect now, “The way the greenhouse effect really works is that adding CO2 reduces the infrared out the top of the atmosphere, which means the planet receives more solar energy than it is getting rid of as infrared out the top. The only way to bring the system back into balance is for the whole troposphere to warm up. It is the corresponding warming of the low level air that drags the surface temperature along with it — an effect left entirely out of Plass’ calculation.”
“Really works”…
Anyway, what they’re conceptualizing has the form of the thermal effect. When you compare the thermal and greenhouse effects the difference lies in what causes the lapse rate.
You could, I think, model a lapse rate for both effects that exactly matches. It’s a matter of defining where the lapse rate comes from. For greenhouse, it’s radiative forcing from GHG concentration. For atmospheric thermal, it’s the mass of the air column above x gravity to produce a force which must be equally by pressure at that altitude.
In this 60 symbols video, the height of the atmosphere is discussed. The topic highlights the difference.
If you consider the thermal effect, of course height of atmosphere can change. If there was for example more solar energy in, it would cause changes in density that change the “mass above” for a given altitude. I’m assuming the pressure from pole to equator averages out, and so pressure is the same at a given altitude across the sphere. This implies that the height of average emissions can vary.
So the entire “nuGreenhouse” theory is accounted for by considering mass.
It’s just a couple of integrals explaining observed data either by accounting for mass on the one hand, or greenhouse gas on the other. This could falsify their nuGreenhouse model which they use to steal the concept of an adiabatic thermal effect.
I know nothing will please them, but they play dumb about pressure and thermodynamics and maybe they are. They also don’t want to go into the premises of their theory, but its conclusions. So this mass vs. gas calculation could both educate about the pressure effect, while also attacking the conclusion rather than premise side of their theory.
[just read an old thread on Judith Curry’s blog; they’re really arguing that non-IR active gases don’t emit radiation……..]
One thing I have worked out just by the numbers is that ALL gases emit photons or quanta of wave like energy . Photons are not exclusive to radiation. It can be conduction and collision. Plancks Law is applicable to all. And it is shown that along time ago when Planck and Milliken were setting about assigning arbitrary values it turned out to be a big coincidence that the these arbitrary values multiplied by number of molecules in a mole or electrons in a mole of air miraculously equated to Earths average temperature.
[just read an old thread on Judith Curry’s blog; they’re really arguing that non-IR active gases don’t emit radiation……..]
And that is mostly true and in a static atmosphere that would be the end of the discussion. Molecular collision however increases with convective currents originated at the surface from conduction AND that involves all the molecules.
Joe, Michael commented on your Twitter_X post under your video link.
Michael Merrifield
@AstroMikeMerri
·
Aug 23
Not even wrong.
Get his contact email from his uni if possible and everyone email him this YT video and force him or 60 Symbols to explain or justify their self-contradictions.
Not even wrong? That’s his fn reply?
It’s not even wrong to say that the Earth is round not flat, sunshine is hot not cold.
Not even wrong.
Do you fn see what I mean!? They have no comprehension….they’re like computers with no comprehension. They’re mental living expressions of Godelian Incompleteness! They have the syntax, but no semantics; they have form, but not function; they have exterior, but no interior.
Everyone please go fn hammer this guy with links to the YT video.
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/expertiseguide/physics-and-astronomy/professor-michael-merrifield.aspx
Email: michael.merrifield@nottingham.ac.uk
Everyone send him the link to the YT video.
This mfr:
Michael Merrifield
@AstroMikeMerri
·
1m
There is really nothing to be gained by engaging with someone whose understanding of the topic is so non-existent that he thinks he is making a point by complaining that I illustrated energy balance using a cartoon with planar geometry. Bye.
That’s called a cop-out Michael!
We also do cartoon free body diagrams to demonstrate Newton’s Laws…but we do not then go and explain that the body accelerates for other reasons and that it’s not actually the math of Newton’s Laws that make it accelerate.
Do you now see? Do you not now see how much these fn people need to be “destroyed”?
Imagine if in physics class we draw all these free body cartoon diagrams showing unbalanced forces and how applying Newton’s Laws to those forces, we can get the object’s acceleration.
But then, later, we say that the body does not actually accelerate due to Newton’s Laws, but there’s a different reason why the body accelerates nothing to do with the idea of unbalanced forces.
That’s what they do with the climate radiative greenhouse effect.
@CDMarshall
So a thermal camera is measuring what then? Is a hot brick wall made of IR active gas?
Anyway, Merrifield and the rest of them are making the error of attributing to the thermal pressure effect a greenhouse effect.
They can’t understand how the thermal pressure effect works, and refuse to accept that it’s a basic observation of elementary atmospheric science. Because they don’t understand how it works, they embed their greenhouse hypothesis into it, and in this sense they don’t care about boundary conditions because in their mind it all works out the same anyway.
Here is the element they are missing which is why they can’t explain it.
When the average temperature corresponding to average emissions is in the middle of the troposphere, it means you have hotter air below and colder less dense air above. The hotter air is radiating more, which is what perturbs the warmists. They cite S-B and claim it would radiated too much and violate the energy budget. Therefore they reject a pure thermal effect from pressure. However, they completely ignore that less dense air contains gravitational potential energy which doesn’t radiate at all. The air which is hotter than the average is balanced but upper atmospheric gravitational potential energy caused by convection.
This is what they miss or ignore. So, they can’t understand how pressure alone allows the surface to be hot. So they integrate radiative greenhouse into the pressure gradient and lapse rate, and so they don’t care about boundary conditions.
Well said.
Sent this to his email:
Dear Michael,
We also use cartoon free body diagrams to demonstrate Newton’s Laws…but we do not then go and explain that the body accelerates for other reasons and that it’s not actually the math and physics of Newton’s Laws that make it accelerate.
Imagine if, in physics class, we draw all these free body cartoon diagrams showing unbalanced forces and how applying Newton’s Laws to those forces, we can get the object’s acceleration, but then, later, we say that the body does not actually accelerate due to Newton’s Laws, but there’s a different reason why the body accelerates nothing to do with the idea of unbalanced forces.
That’s what they, and you, do with the climate radiative greenhouse effect.
You did in fact debunk the radiative greenhouse effect of climate science in your 60 Symbols video, as I explain here:
watch?v=TD49JaAvgHs
Would be happy to have a kindly recorded discussion about it, one astronomer to another.
Best regards,
Joe
Merrifield does the exact equivalent of showing a free body diagram with forces acting on it, and then explaining that with Newton’s Laws we can calculate the acceleration…and then…turns around and says that it is NOT actually the unbalanced forces which cause the acceleration, but something else, because if you take away the unbalanced force the object still accelerates!
“So a thermal camera is measuring what then? Is a hot brick wall made of IR active gas?”
An IR camera operates by the photoelectric effect, with sensors designed to detect infrared wavelengths (a differential in temperature I believe) it doesn’t detect heat. Anything on a colder background will pick up something even a brick wall if the brick wall is warmer than the surroundings. 😏
Anyway
Great explanation on thermal pressure.
But my original statement is they always claim the “doesn’t emit IR” which is basically true (within reason it doesn’t emit EM radiation out to space typically) gases like N2/O2 have a net-zero magnetic dipole unless it is perturbed it cannot emit (again within reason I’m sure exceptions to this rule exist). We already know (and they should too) that molecular collisions occur over a billion times a second a ratio that increases with atmospheric density and is strongly propagated by convective currents.
SO, they claim if no polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere exist (GHGs) that the atmospheric window would be fully open and all heat (their words not thermodynamics) escapes to space completely and the Earth would be an “ice ball”.
Thus, in a static atmosphere where only IR from the surface is emitting that IR would be ignored by homonuclear diatomic molecules and only intercepted by molecules with an active dipole moment, or your polyatomic molecules as it were and according to them have no other interaction. We know that “model atmosphere” simply doesn’t exist.
So, are they idiots or deceptive? How can anyone possibly believe (with a science degree in climate) that our atmosphere is ever static?
They are ignoring the diurnal warming of the atmosphere via convective currents not to mention the adiabatic process and air mixing KE/PE.
Of course they ignore the Sun. They always ignore the Sun.
I am interested in climate critics and saw your video yesterday and posted it on a FB site here in Norway. I got an answer from a climate scientist who says you are very good at oral (lots of talk), but comes with little substance, and explains why. Would you be so kind as to give an answer to this assessment of the content in your video, because I would like to learn something from this, because the scientist write that you are wrong. I am a chemist/biologist of education and question the climate hoax of CO2 as the only cause of change in global temperature, and that humans is responsible for everything. They are very alarmistic in Norway in the media and television and we are very angry because we have a fight against windtubines that destroy the whole country, our beautiful land, coast and ocean. And we cant argue against the scientists. What are your comments to this:
” I can see nothing but Postma cherry-picking statements from this astronomer, and at the same time pretending that the greenhouse effect is presented to a flat Earth, in order to refute the greenhouse effect. He believes that the adiabatic lapse rate is the only thing that makes the surface is hotter than the top of the atmosphere, but he says nothing about the atmosphere having to first have a temperature for this principle to work. That temperature comes initially, and primarily, from greenhouse gases that absorb infrared radiation from the surface, a smaller portion of direct sunlight that is absorbed directly by the atmosphere in the UV spectrum and into the visible spectrum, and some in the infrared spectrum from around 0.7um towards 3um.
Conduction between air and the surface accounts for a tiny fraction of atmospheric temperature. In conjunction with the earth’s surface and atmosphere, the hot surface heats up the air layer immediately above it. This contribution is relatively small because air is a poor conductor of heat, and this process affects only a thin layer of air directly above the surface. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, can heat a larger part of the air above ground because all the heat radiation that greenhouse gases can absorb (and there is a very wide range overall) is more or less completely absorbed within 20-25 meters above the ground (cf. Beer-Lambert’s law). At the same time, greenhouse gases will emit radiation in the same spectrum (cf. Kirchoff’s law of radiation) so that the atmospheric layer at 20-25 meters above the surface can also emit radiation back towards the surface.
The heated air rises, expands, and cools. As presented in the illustration in the video, greenhouse gases will not emit radiation into space until the gas is diluted enough so that the radiation is not absorbed on its way out (cf. Beer-Lambert’s law). The more greenhouse gases there are, the denser the molecules that can absorb infrared radiation are also at altitude, so that radiation to space must occur higher up (cf. Beer-Lambert’s law). This increases the temperature at the surface when more energetic air from the upper troposphere (but below where the emitted radiation into space occurred with lower concentration greenhouse gases) descends towards the ground. The fact that greenhouse gases are an important cause of surface temperature is clearly shown in the illustration below.
It shows a ‘messy’ radiation curve defined by the emission spectrum of different greenhouse gases and from what temperature they emit radiation into space. CO2 emits radiation at a very low temperature at about 220 kelvin to space, while water vapor emits radiation into space at 260 – 280 kelvin. The surface emits more power, and approximates as a black body in the spectrum between 3um and 150um, with a smooth radiation curve (cf. Planck’s law), emitting radiation at 320 kelvin in this example (the measurement is taken over the Sahara). If Joseph Postma were right, the ‘messy’ radiation curve would have been as smooth as the radiation curve from the surface, steadily at 255 kelvin across the spectrum. But it actually doesn’t. So Postma has probably been wrong, although he does everything he can to promote his opinions in books and in word of mouth.
As I said,
They are ignoring the diurnal warming of the atmosphere via convective currents not to mention the adiabatic process and air mixing KE/PE.
Of course they ignore the Sun. They always ignore the Sun.
Why does it seem like Climate Scientists always get everything backwards?
The last time I checked it is the solar heated surface that conducts thermal energy up into the air.
But then if you believe that the Sun is too cold to heat the Earth, what else could you possibly think other than the air heats the surface?
Tone,
In other words the surface is too cold to begin with and requires an amplification process!
Have a look at this presentation by Yong Tuition.
In particular the part where the foundational concept of the radiative greenhouse conjecture requires Vacuum Separation between the surface and the overlying air.
Heat transfer at sea level is almost zero via radiation check this vid out https://youtu.be/NS55lXf4LZk?si=RuL0QKvjATQmqiV9
Tone,
All of Climate Science radiative physics starts with these two false assumptions:
1. The intensity of sunlight incident on the surface of the Earth is too cold to melt water ice.
2. The atmosphere is a static column of air.
Take a pan of cold water and place it on the hob in your kitchen.
Turn on the heat below the pan, the cold water will heat from the bottom by conduction and immediately begin to convect.
@Malcolm,
That presentation by Tom Shula is heavy duty stuff, his use of the Pirani Gauge is something I have never previously heard of.
Many thanks for posting.
Happy to help Tone. You should read my Planet Wars book though to understand that you are dealing with people who refuse to think rationally.
“I can see nothing but Postma cherry-picking statements from this astronomer,”
They are not cherry-picked, but core statements from ANY presentation of how the radiative greenhouse effect (RGHE) is supposed to work. This is an accusation without merit, meant only to pretend that I have devious intentions, instead of addressing or understanding the points made, and appreciating the pedagogy of the field.
“and at the same time pretending that the greenhouse effect is presented to a flat Earth, in order to refute the greenhouse effect”
It IS always derived on a flat Earth model, and I explain in my books and in the video why this leads to ontological errors of the subsequent derivations.
“He believes that the adiabatic lapse rate is the only thing that makes the surface is hotter than the top of the atmosphere, but he says nothing about the atmosphere having to first have a temperature for this principle to work.”
The adiabatic lapse rate is derived from gas physics and manifests at the infinitesimal level with local thermodynamic equilibrium, and will manifest in any atmosphere in a gravitational field. This necessitates that the bottom of the air column must be higher in temperature than any expected average, and that the average must be found, by definition, around the average of the atmosphere. For Earth this is at 5km. That being said, the solar heat IS also deposited firstly at the bottom of the atmosphere, and this is another reason why it should be warmer at the surface. The solar heating is NOT -18C, but is +121C, and this is a fundamental mistake which the flat Earth models necessitate.
“That temperature comes initially, and primarily, from greenhouse gases that absorb infrared radiation from the surface, a smaller portion of direct sunlight that is absorbed directly by the atmosphere in the UV spectrum and into the visible spectrum, and some in the infrared spectrum from around 0.7um towards 3um. Conduction between air and the surface accounts for a tiny fraction of atmospheric temperature. In conjunction with the earth’s surface and atmosphere, the hot surface heats up the air layer immediately above it. This contribution is relatively small because air is a poor conductor of heat, and this process affects only a thin layer of air directly above the surface. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, can heat a larger part of the air above ground because all the heat radiation that greenhouse gases can absorb (and there is a very wide range overall) is more or less completely absorbed within 20-25 meters above the ground (cf. Beer-Lambert’s law).”
There is nothing wrong with the cooler atmosphere being heated by both convection, conduction, and radiation, by the warmer surface, after the surface has been warmed to high temperature by more intense sunlight. This is not a problem, nor is it the RGHE.
“At the same time, greenhouse gases will emit radiation in the same spectrum (cf. Kirchoff’s law of radiation) so that the atmospheric layer at 20-25 meters above the surface can also emit radiation back towards the surface.”
Radiation emitted by the atmosphere back towards the surface cannot heat the surface further than what the Sun already did, because heat flows down-hill only, only down temperature gradients, and cannot reverse in flow from the cooler atmosphere back to the surface to heat the surface more.
“The heated air rises, expands, and cools. As presented in the illustration in the video, greenhouse gases will not emit radiation into space until the gas is diluted enough so that the radiation is not absorbed on its way out (cf. Beer-Lambert’s law). The more greenhouse gases there are, the denser the molecules that can absorb infrared radiation are also at altitude, so that radiation to space must occur higher up (cf. Beer-Lambert’s law). This increases the temperature at the surface when more energetic air from the upper troposphere (but below where the emitted radiation into space occurred with lower concentration greenhouse gases) descends towards the ground.”
This is precisely what was covered in my video, and it was proven that if it worked this way, it would violate conservation of energy with the Sun, because the height of emission at -18C would be a larger surface area. The emission can simply move to a higher level, but the temperature profile of the column need not, and in fact cannot, change, due to the Law of Conservation of Energy. The effective temperature of the Earth, i.e., the integrated flux, would remain constant, even though the effective height of emission moved to a cooler altitude. The same total energy still comes out because the surface area is larger.
“It shows a ‘messy’ radiation curve defined by the emission spectrum of different greenhouse gases and from what temperature they emit radiation into space. CO2 emits radiation at a very low temperature at about 220 kelvin to space, while water vapor emits radiation into space at 260 – 280 kelvin. The surface emits more power, and approximates as a black body in the spectrum between 3um and 150um, with a smooth radiation curve (cf. Planck’s law), emitting radiation at 320 kelvin in this example (the measurement is taken over the Sahara). If Joseph Postma were right, the ‘messy’ radiation curve would have been as smooth as the radiation curve from the surface, steadily at 255 kelvin across the spectrum. But it actually doesn’t.”
None of this proves or even suggests that the backradiation radiative greenhouse effect exists, i.e., that the cooler atmosphere warms the surface by radiation. It is only talking about spectra and absorption and emission effects. If the RGHE existed, then the lapse rate could not have the value that it does, given that the lapse rate is fully calculated by adiabatic effects, and there is no additional radiative effect required to compute it.
“So Postma has probably been wrong, although he does everything he can to promote his opinions in books and in word of mouth.”
As much as they wish to defend flat Earth theory, it is still better to model the Earth as round.
Your respondents also seem to simply not comprehend what was presented. We also use cartoon free body diagrams to demonstrate Newton’s Laws…but we do not then go and explain that the body accelerates for other reasons and that it’s not actually the math and physics of Newton’s Laws that make it accelerate.
Imagine if, in physics class, we draw all these free body cartoon diagrams showing unbalanced forces and how applying Newton’s Laws to those forces, we can get the object’s acceleration, but then, later, we say that the body does not actually accelerate due to Newton’s Laws, but there’s a different reason why the body accelerates nothing to do with the idea of unbalanced forces.
That’s what they do with the climate radiative greenhouse effect.
@Tone
I’m no expert, but I can point to some areas within that response which would be worth investigating:
“He believes that the adiabatic lapse rate is the only thing that makes the surface is hotter than the top of the atmosphere, but he says nothing about the atmosphere having to first have a temperature for this principle to work.”
This is actually Postma’s main complaint. The temperature originates from daytime insolation, then distributes energy up the pressure gradient. The warmists claim the Earth starts out cold as a boundary condition and then re-radiation “heats it up”. It’s an odd claim to make considering the obvious reality. It’s also important to remember this idea that the Earth is “too cold” to have a temperature is a keystone argument for greenhouse effect.
“Conduction between air and the surface accounts for a tiny fraction of atmospheric temperature.”
This is not true. Almost all surface heat transports to air via conduction. The hot air convects and constantly allows in colder air to experience conduction. Not to mention most of the surface is ocean, where this effect is exaggerated due to evaporation. At least, please look into this claim and see if you find it credible that there isn’t much conduction. You’ll find that climate scientists begin with a flawed premise and end up confusing many other scientific facts in the process of making it work.
“is more or less completely absorbed within 20-25 meters above the ground (cf. Beer-Lambert’s law). At the same time, greenhouse gases will emit radiation in the same spectrum (cf. Kirchoff’s law of radiation) so that the atmospheric layer at 20-25 meters above the surface can also emit radiation back towards the surface.”
This argument actually somewhat demonstrates why the greenhouse effect of IR absorbing gases is limited. You see how something as common sense as that doesn’t get in the way of a climate scientist who even knows better?
In general, we’ve observed that you cannot be a climate scientists without having a skill in cognitive dissonance. The weight given to believe in claims that support greenhouse theory is heavy, but evidence that plainly contradicts it is somehow easily ignored.
“The heated air rises, expands, and cools. As presented in the illustration in the video, greenhouse gases will not emit radiation into space until the gas is diluted enough so that the radiation is not absorbed on its way out (cf. Beer-Lambert’s law).”
Consider how cold the upper troposphere is. The blackbody radiation value for Earth is 240 W/m2. So, really all of the atmospheric layers above -18C temperature represent an area where the loss of radiation to space isn’t a problem. Of course climate science knows that and integrates it into greenhouse theory by falsely representing a basic atmospheric pressure effect as greenhouse lapse rate. So they talk about this “effective height of emission” rising. What they are really invoking as it exists in the real Earth system is the idea that if you changed the system parameters, which are really large things like insolation or the mass of atmosphere or size of the planet, then yes, the height of effective emissions would change. However, minor forcings like an alleged greenhouse gas concentration cannot change the heigh easily as Postma explained in his video. These are no system proportional effects. To raise the height of emissions is to increase the size of the effective emissions shell substantially. This is not really factored into greenhouse energy budgets since they use flat Earth geometry. Yes, some climate models use 3D spheres. However the basic theoretical parameters are flat-Earth.
“If Joseph Postma were right, the ‘messy’ radiation curve would have been as smooth as the radiation curve from the surface, steadily at 255 kelvin across the spectrum.”
This is comparable to a straw man argument, though I think it’s an innocent error of science coming from overreliance on climate theory as that which explains everything. The total radiation out will be the same regardless of where heat concentrates in the atmosphere. They are engaging in presumption. That because CO2, H2O are emitting, it means they are active and so greenhouse effect is active.
But what if they are simply active, without the greenhouse effect.
Consider that radiation has energy density, and that colder objects emit at lower frequencies. Consider that kinetic heat is a vibration in a molecule. The attenuation of waves is a basic principle related to entropy. Cold objects will emit EM waves that scatter and contact molecules. But if the wave frequency is too low, the molecule cannot absorb its energy. It will simply re-scatter.
So consider that maybe all this emitting greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not really changing the temperature of the surface. If you fundamentally assumed that it was, then of course these spectral diagrams might lead you to think there is greenhouse warming. But let’s say this warming is not physically possible, which is quite reasonable.
The conclusion is that we can explain the temperature of Earth’s surface and the lapse rate purely through the pressure gradient. The basics of this were determined by Loschmidt.
Some climate scientists have trouble understanding it for some reason.
The average temperature of a column of air on Earth is -18C which corresponds to a balanced energy budget. However, this temperature occurs high up in the atmosphere. The air below is hotter, the air above is cooler and less dense.
Climate scientists say, “It can’t be like that, the hot air will radiate more and violate the energy budget.” No, this is not the case. The less dense air became that way because of convection, because heat energy did Work against gravity. So there is a store of potential energy which does not radiate, balancing the hotter surface.
Also if you take one air column at the equator at noon, one at midnight, and the two poles, and compare a single altitude, you end up with an air shell where pressures must somewhat equilibrize. This helps the pressure gradient build a stable equilibrium representing the average energy in the system rather effectively.
So you see, pressure explains the Earth’s temperatures very well making the bizarre greenhouse effect rather redundant.
Climate scientists then say, “But where does the extra temperature come from? The Earth is too cold.”
First, as Postma explained, the solar energy enters the system quite hot, so it’s a matter of it distributing and cooling. It is not, as the imaginary climate science energy budget model claims, a matter of starting distributed, and then warming.
But more than that when climate scientists say the Earth is “too hot” what do they mean? The average temperature of the Earth is -18C, corresponding to a balanced energy budget.
Climate science argues there is a kind of magical fairy heat which lives trapped in holographic re-radiation heating, which contributes to the average temperature, but not the energy budget.
Does that make sense to you?
Also, sorry to hear about the political scientific environment in Norway. Unfortunately it is like this in much of the West now. We are being tricked.
The good news is that, as bad and unwilling to debate as these people are, their work and their alarmist efforts truly does reduce entirely to flat Earth theory.
They simply need to be mocked. I have looked at this for many years, trying to figure out what the core fundamental underlying error is, and it truly all originates in the flat Earth derivations of this radiative greenhouse effect, which does not exist, because it is derived from flat Earth theory, and the Earth is not flat.
We should stop debating them, and especially stop treating them with any degree of respect. The last thing which they have ever done is offer us respect for asking perfectly reasonable scientific questions.
These people should mocked mercilessly, and with all righteous indignation and disrespect, given the mockery which they have made both of themselves and of science.
Some troll said,
“Fine. Write your rebuttal to von Schuckmann et al (et al, et al…) and don’t forget to explain why some of the world’s best climatologists and physicists are wrong.
And don’t forget also to explain why flux does not have any bearing on energy balance…So you should be able to show where von Schuckmann et al (2023) went wrong.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1675/2023/
Please indicate their error(s) here.”
I said,
‘The whole paper based on everything I already explained. Did he get anything right?
Haven’t found anything right so far. Again, since I know he can’t, define thermodynamic heat and why internal energy is not it.”
The abstract alone,
The Earth climate system is out of energy balance, and heat has accumulated continuously over the past decades, warming the ocean, the land, the cryosphere, and the atmosphere. According to the Sixth Assessment Report by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this planetary warming over multiple decades is human-driven and results in unprecedented and committed changes to the Earth system, with adverse impacts for ecosystems and human systems. The Earth heat inventory provides a measure of the Earth energy imbalance (EEI) and allows for quantifying how much heat has accumulated in the Earth system, as well as where the heat is stored. Here we show that the Earth system has continued to accumulate heat, with 381±61 ZJ accumulated from 1971 to 2020. This is equivalent to a heating rate (i.e., the EEI) of 0.48±0.1 W m−2. The majority, about 89 %, of this heat is stored in the ocean, followed by about 6 % on land, 1 % in the atmosphere, and about 4 % available for melting the cryosphere. Over the most recent period (2006–2020), the EEI amounts to 0.76±0.2 W m−2. The Earth energy imbalance is the most fundamental global climate indicator that the scientific community and the public can use as the measure of how well the world is doing in the task of bringing anthropogenic climate change under control…
Think it is constructive to point out that current mainstream “climate science” does not just use a flat earth to model
They model a flat earth where the sun shines day and night at half the strength and at equal strength between the equator and the poles
This averaging is not a problem when just wanting to point out that there is a balance between solar energy input and earth energy to space output. Reality is not exactly modelled but at least the balanced equation outcome is right
However when wanting to figure out if the sun on its own is capable in creating the atmosphere and resulting climate, then the solar input averaging on a flat plane where the sun shines day and night at half the strength has lost any meaning
Must look at real-time solar input on at any time half of the earth and with the bulk of the heat around the equator to solve the “can the sun on its own create the atmosphere and climate” question
Well said!
“The greenhouse effect depends on the height from which outbound IR is not absorbed by the greenhouse gasses above. The more GHGs in the atmosphere, the higher the layer becomes, the colder it is (due to the lapse rate), the less IR escapes. This creates an energy imbalance, and so the planet warms (starting at the surface) until the radiating layer warms sufficiently to restore balance. The upper atmosphere is cold and so very dry, so there isn’t as much absorption by water vapour above the radiating layer”
So here’s how they’re explaining the nuGreenhouse effect.
Notice how the lapse rate is both explained BY greenhouse gas, but also the greenhouse effect REQUIRES the lapse rate to explain how it works.
Also love this top of atmosphere concept. “The radiating layer”. Which is just the upper limit of the integral, but somehow has become conceptually real.
Also love how this doesn’t explain the heat multiplication necessary to fill out their energy budget. If you used the Postma argument about how heat enters the system, you could then try to treat layers of atmosphere as closed boxes with GHG trapping heat, but they don’t do that, why not?
Here’s the reason: they are having their cake and eating it too. They want an atmospheric pressure effect that can work with their greenhouse theory, but they also want to claim the lapse rate for themselves as a radiative phenomenon. RGHE is pure cognitive dissonance.
It only works when the lapse rate is explained BOTH by radiative heat multiplication AND pressure at the same time, but not where the two phenomena work together in an integrated way, instead both mutually exclusive phenomena exist as if in two different universes, but either can be invoked as needed to make RGHE work. I suppose this “works” cognitively, but only if you don’t care that you’re explaining nature in two different ways that exclude each other.
These fucking clown’s MO are always to disengage and jump. There should be laws about that lol. Pisses me off to no end.
If you’re going to “balance” energy with fluxes for whatever reason the energy will balance never the flux (unless it is in thermal equilibrium).
Input: FΘ (1-a)/2= 455-490 W/m^2
Output: FΘ (1-a)/4 =227.5 W/m^2 – 245 W/m^2
Energy balances never fluxes.
They are actually arguing on Twitter that 240 W/m^2 in and out does not equal thermal equilibrium.
Wait till you hit them with 960 W/m^2 and 240 W/m^2 DOES equal thermal equilibrium.
Well, it doesn’t actually because the temperature is always changing, so thermal equilibrium for the Earth doesn’t actually occur.
The only thing that applies is conservation of energy, in which case 960 W/m^2 in and 240 W/m^2 out does satisfy it.
@spro
Climate Science is based on a false static model in which all energy transfer takes place by radiative means. In constructing this radiative model, the proponents of this nonsense have removed meteorology from the equation and replaced the process of energy delivery by air mass motion to the surface by the fake unphysical process of back radiation. We know from first principles that a cold body cannot heat up a warm body by radiative means, however we also know from first principles that a mass of air descending towards the surface under the action of gravity will heat by adiabatic compression and so in the real physical world the descending air absolutely does deliver energy to the surface.
Look again at the standard model diagram, the model shows air ascending but no equivalent balancing return of mass to the surface that delivers energy to the ground. This real-world metrological process is instead disguised as the fake process of back radiation.
Excellent point.
I’m not sure there needs to be descending air to deliver energy to the lower atmosphere as these molecules are under compression via the force of gravity causing a greater number of collisions and therefore an increase of heat very near to the source.
@Malcolm
It’s a dynamic system. In its simplest form “What goes up must come down”. Consider any mass that is descending in a gravity field, its potential energy is decreasing but at the same time its kinetic energy is increasing.
Have a look that these charts of temperature profiles from the Dome Argus weather station in Antarctica that I collected in 2008 during the period of the austral winter.
Dome Argus Weather Station Temperature Profiles from 09 May to 17 Dec 2008
In May Dome Argus experiences 24-hour darkness. A typical temperature profile example is that from 10 May 2008 – the 1 m air temperature sensor records values of minus 70 Celsius while the sensors further from the ground record values of minus 65 C (2m sensor) and minus 60 C (4m sensor). The result of this process of energy flux is the development of a surface boundary layer thermal inversion.
What these data show is that the air is delivering energy to the ground which is cooling by direct thermal radiant loss of energy to space via the atmospheric window. Note that the subsurface sensor at 0.1 m depth into the ice shows cooling with time, but is at a minus 60 Celsius, a higher temperature than the air at the surface.
Now check the situation on 27 May 2008. The air is now mixed and has a value of minus 50 Celsius and only now does the subsurface temperature at 0.1m (which has fallen to minus 65 Celsius) begin to rise. Where has this heat now going into the ice at 0.1m come from? Certainly not from sunlight. The only possible source for this heat is the descending air in the Antarctic polar vortex delivering energy to the ground.
Ugh.
“You can’t claim it’s warming because of emissions height but then back peddle by saying the height increase is negligible.”
We do you misquote me?!?!?!? It’s not the height change which is negligible (it’s about 100 m, that is 1% of the heught), but the change of area! Obviously you miss the fact that the area is calculated using the radius (measured to the center of the Earth). And the change in radius is obviously much, much smaller than the change of height (which is measured to the surface, not to the center).
Even if the area increased, say .01% with every 100 m, it’s relative to the height increase. I meant to say area increase above, not height, but my point still stands.
So, he thinks 100 m is larger than a small percentage increase in area, even though that percent equates to several KM.
@Philip Mulholland
Off topic some but was looking at one of your papers again the average annual surface T under the Hadley is 27.9 C did you guys measure SST as well? The base formula for a cyclone is an SST of 27 C.
Curious how the ZEB/tropics balances thermal transport, cyclones and ENSO.
AMOC is a ~1,000 year cycle, most curious indeed. Also curious how sea ice melting causses sea level rise. 😂
NASA:
As our climate continues to change, is there a possibility that the AMOC will slow down, or come to a complete stop? While research shows it is weakening over the past century, whether or not it will continue to slow or stop circulating completely remains uncertain. If the AMOC does continue to slow down, however, it could have far-reaching climate impacts. For example, if the planet continues to warm, freshwater from melting ice at the poles would shift the rain belt in South Africa, causing droughts for millions of people. It would also cause sea level rise across the U.S. East Coast.
NASA/NOAA funded projects. Joe maybe you can get in on this. Funding for the Sun’s role in Earth’s climate.
https://cpo.noaa.gov/Meet-the-Divisions/Earth-System-Science-and-Modeling/CVP/Funded-Projects
Leon, yes, seems similar to the Willis Eschenbach fiasco where he said the law of conservation of energy can be violated by, what was it, 400 trillion Joules or something, because that’s “negligible” compared to the total…lol.
Ha, I can’t get over their reasoning. This guy is a scientist too I presume and to say “100 is larger than .01, so there…” is the most retarded thing. I should go back and say ” a small thing can have a big effect” like they all do. But I don’t want to encourage them…
“Wait till you hit them with 960 W/m^2 and 240 W/m^2 DOES equal thermal equilibrium.”
I showed them textbook thermodynamics they refused to respond. It was the fake plate diagram again “showed in another way”.
CD, can you show me? I probably won’t understand it but nonetheless, I’m interested.
Some clown tried to reply these people are idiots. 🤣🤣🤣
Noel John Turner
@NoelTurner194
·
8h
In radiative equilibrium heat is still exchanged… it is the equi you are denying!
CD Marshall
In conservation of energy equilibrium heat can be exchanged. Thermal equilibrium no heat is exchanged. Regardless of how the system achieved thermal equilibrium once in a steady state of temperature equilibrium no heat is exchanged. This is basic level thermodynamics.
.
@CD Marshall
You make an interesting observation that I was not previously aware of – so thanks for that. The method of calculating the global average surface temperature for the Earth that we used is based on the proportional areas of the 3 atmospheric cells (Hadley, Ferrel and Polar), the height and temperature of the Tropopause and each cell’s environmental lapse rate. In effect the calculation performed is a mass-based top-down analysis of the global temperature. It is the surface solar illumination that generates the physical structure of each cell and so, to use a phrase of Robert Holmes, the surface temperature result is “baked into” the calculation.
To answer your question directly we did not use surface temperature measurements and the fact that the top-down calculation method for the Hadley cell is so close to the tropical ocean SST heating limit is Very Interesting.
@Philip Mulholland
I’ve come to think of the metaphor of a boxer punching a sandbag. The boxer is the Sun. Atmosphere is like a memory foam matress.
Radiation in and out conform to a certain “shape” if you will, where the surface must always be hotter than averages.
Lower density in the upper atmosphere is itself potential energy, although circulation should certainly help retain heat for longer in transport to the poles.
@spro,
You are correct. Look up the meteorological concept of CAPE (convectively available potential energy).
@Philip Mulholland said:
It’s a dynamic system. In its simplest form “What goes up must come down”. Consider any mass that is descending in a gravity field, its potential energy is decreasing but at the same time its kinetic energy is increasing.
Yes, I agree but the opposite is also true is it not? So, the overall heat generated by this process would be zero.
@Philip Mulholland said:
What these data show is that the air is delivering energy to the ground which is cooling by direct thermal radiant loss of energy to space via the atmospheric window.
So now that we know, thanks to Tom Shula and the Pirani gauge that heat loss via radiation is virtually non-existent in the atmosphere, one must conclude from this that a radiative greenhouse effect is non-existent, and that energy is transported via conduction and convection.
So how did you come to the above conclusion of radiant loss of energy to space via the atmospheric window?
Heat transport via radiation;
sea level 760 Torr is .04%
at 10 Torr 110,000 ft 33528m is .07%
and at 250,000ft 76,000m is 50%
@P Mulholland
Yes, but that’s weather.
Warmists have this concept of “background X” which is questionably true, maybe useful, maybe harmful.
The 1)Size of Earth’s surface 2)Earth’s mass AKA acceleration of gravity
3)Insolation 4)Mass of Atmosphere 5)Rotational speed
Fully define a “background” gradient of temperature, pressure and density. This has its own balance of radiation and potential energy.
(Slightly modified by water content crossed with shallowness of oceans geologically, slightly modified by solar cycles affecting albedo not related to total insolation levels)
CAPE is therefore “weather” which is local expression of these same effects, but outside of the “background” average.
It seems warmists assume an imaginary temperature gradient created by magical holographic re-radiation which assumes gravitational potential energy doesn’t exist. This gradient is then compared syntactically to a measured, real life pressure gradient, which, by combining two mutually exclusive axioms of climate, creates a “heat trap” where the re-radiation thermal effect is balancing the energy budget by raising the height of emissions, but then these parameters are applied to a pressure thermal effect where taller height of emissions without re-radiation effects, fail to radiate enough to effect a balance. Hence, “Nature’s wisdom understands the need to magically warm up someday, somehow, perhaps in the ocean or under your bed at night. Perhaps boiling your family.”
All nonsense.
The atmosphere is memory foam, thanks to gravity, which does not itself create heat, but significantly shapes the way energy input is distributed before it outputs.
@Malcolm Hornsby
The process is not generating energy it is delivering energy.
By looking at the data.
I present the results from Dome Argus of the perfect night time experiment that proves the dominant effect of surface to space thermal radiation cooling.
Have you never observed the presence of nighttime frost on the surface of your car while the ground around the car is frost free?
@Malcolm Hornsby
Climate Science is based on a failed conceptual model of the Earth. Meteorology is based on actual data and physics. Here is my analysis of the existence of the atmospheric window using meteorological data.
Using the Dome Argus temperature data for the austral winter night of 10th May 2008 as an arbitrary example. The Automatic Weather Station (AWS) records the presence of a surface air thermal inversion on 10th May with the following values: Air 4m -62C; Air 2m -65.5C; Air 1m -68C. Using a simple linear fit to these three points gives an equation of 1.9643height – 69.77 means that at elevation height = zero metres the air temperature is -69.8C
The AWS also records the sub-surface ice temperatures and for a depth of -0.1m the ice temperature is -60.1C and at -3m the ice temperature is -57.0C. Using a simple linear fit to these two points gives an equation of -3.444depth – 60.444 which means that at elevation depth = zero metres the ice temperature is -60.4C. The ice surface is apparently 9.4C warmer that the air it is in contact with, however I have failed to account for thermal inertia and the heat capacity of the solid ice when constructing my ice temperature trend.
So, is the ice surface heating the air? Obviously not as the air at 1m is colder than the air at 2m. It is my contention that the physical ice surface in direct contact with the air is in fact also at minus 69.8C and that the ice surface is a thermal radiator that is cooling the air above it by emitting thermal radiation directly to space.
We know that fluids such as air cannot transmit shear waves whereas solid ice can and does permit the propagation of surface flexure. We also know that it is flexure of a solid substance that couples mass motion thermal energy to electromagnetic energy. In short, the solid surface of the ice is an efficient emitter of thermal radiation and it is the ice surface that controls the boundary temperature between the solid ice and the overlying air. The temperature data support my contention that the solid ice surface is losing energy directly to space through the atmospheric window.
Looking now at the temperature data for 27th May 2008. Here we see that the surface air thermal inversion has gone, the three air sensors all record the same mixed temperature that peaks at -51C. This value is plus 13 C above the subsurface temperature value of -64C at -0.1m. Where has this nighttime heat pulse come from? The only possible source for this energy is a downwelling polar vortex delivering adiabatically compressed and warmed air to the ice surface. Note also how after 27th May the sub-surface sensor at -0.1 m rises in temperature on 28th – 29th May as the ice absorbs this pulse of atmospheric heating.
Why is it that I never hear of how much incoming energy from the Sun is converted into the kinetic energy of WIND? How does THAT figure into the Earth’s energy budget?
Cos wind is not an energy. It is a cause. Just like a piston is not energy but a cause.
They both act on a physical component to produce energy, but are not energy in and of themselves.
No I think it was a good question actually…convection is wind basically and the sun definitely drives instability at the surface due to heating which then gets converted into kinetic energy of convection and wind etc. Wind is also due to Earth’s rotation.
@ Immortal600
Good point
Falling wind releases potential energy by compression and friction
Sideward wind could be classified as work in the system? Anyhow, need wind turbines to effectively harvest that energy
Kinetic energy from friction in clouds results in lightning strikes. Each lightning strike releases on average 1 billion joules and there are around 1.6 billion lightning strikes each year going down. Also many lightning strikes going up
Could calculate the total potential kinetic energy from wind worldwide
Just need the total mass of air that is on the move and the average velocity
Kinetic energy of wind is: 1/2 * mass * velocity2
http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/es202/wind.html
Correction.
Separating the mass of wind in different windspeed categories and adding those numbers up would give a more correct answer
Eli claimed the greenhouse gas effect maintains the effective temperature of Earth:
“It can only maintain that output with higher ghg concentrations when the surface warms, the observed spectrum from above the atmosphere shows that.” _Eli
CD Marshall
@MarshallCd
The Moon’s effective temperature is warmer than Earth, in case you didn’t know.
That’s meaningless. Conservation of Energy entirely determines the output, regardless of constituents. Only depends on albedo and emissivity, and on the point of emissivity, if you add a radiating gas, you help it cool.
This physicist is correct, the SB Law has been abused so much it makes no sense to people anymore: “I have never really got to the bottom of Stephan Bolzman laws 1) the integrations are too hard even for seasoned mathematicians. 2) More obvious- the only black body is a lump of graphite.”
I replied,
The problem is a black body is idealized, very much like ideal gas law or the standard atmospheric model. Many things in physics are idealized, meant to be used as a template to build upon or to treat a mathematical equation for something specific.
You could prob do a whole video on the SB Law
@CD Marshall,
The key to this is to understand the concept of a grey body and how it relates to a black body.
When viewed from space an illuminated planet behaves as a black body, this is because all incoming and absorbed solar radiant energy (insolation post-albedo) must be exhausted back to space as planetary thermal radiation otherwise the planet would heat up indefinitely.
So now we must consider what happens at the planetary surface and in particular ε the effective surface emissivity. Any surface that has an effective surface emissivity that is less than 1 is not a black body surface. What this means that in the standard radiative model an illuminated surface rejects insolation by the process of Reflectance ρ and so there is solar energy coming back off the surface (N.B. ε + ρ = 1). However (and this is critical) the reflectance component of the insolation has to be absorbed by the atmosphere on its way back up to space. How so? Because the S-B calculation of planetary temperature has already incorporated the loss of unaltered solar energy component back to space into the planetary Bond albedo!
Why is this important? Because when you look at the standard model diagram the surface insolation Absorptance α is equal to the effective surface Emissivity ε and so what happened to the Reflectance energy ρ? This surface solar Reflectance insolation energy has to be absorbed by the atmosphere otherwise the energy balance calculation fails and the external black body status of the planet could not be achieved in the calculations. Basically, in the standard model of the calculation the surface emissivity value used is too high because it is assumed that all insolation is absorbed on the way down and by the surface. This model is not realty. We discuss this point in our new paper on the atmosphere of Mars.
The Dust Planet Clarified: Modelling Martian MY29 Atmospheric Data using the Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy-Transport (DAET) Climate Model.
Pingback: 60 Symbols Follow Up: No Need to be Polite to People Scheming the End of Life on Earth! | ajmarciniak