Flat Earth Physics: Postma’s Summary of Greenhouse Gas Errors

Written by Joseph E Postma

I received a question about how the 168 W/m2 solar input from the IPCC energy diagram (last post) can be converted into a temperature.  Here is my reply plus some further elaboration:

_______________

Radiation Wattage can be converted directly into a temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

F = sigma*T4

where F is the radiant wattage, sigma is a physical constant (Stefan-Boltzmann constant) equal to 5.67×10-8, and T is temperature.

So, solve for T:

T = fourth_root(F/sigma).

The IPCC lists the wattage from the Sun as 168 W/m2 (this is actually a wattage flux, or energy flux density, a wattage flowing through a square meter, i.e. Joules per second per square meter).

Then you get T = fourth_root(168/5.67×10-8) = 233K = -40C, which is the temperature that the radiation would induce in matter on the surface when absorbed.  Sunshine induces a heck of a lot higher than -40C…up to 121C (250F) actually.  See the figure below for my own diagram which lists the REAL energy flux values and related temperatures from the Sun/Earth etc.

Three dimensional Earth Energy Budget

They’re so blatant about how wrong their diagram is, that they list the atmosphere providing almost twice the amount of power than the Sun does.  324 from backradiation over 168 from the Sun = 192%.  The atmosphere, without being an actual source of energy because there’s no actual chemical, nuclear, or any release of energy going on in the atmosphere, miraculously provides twice the heat of the Sun.  So, I guess when we feel warm sunshine and cool air, we have it backwards?  It is the Sun that feels cool and the air that feels warm…on one side of your body…the side that’s facing the Sun…errr…

So, looking at the IPCC energy numbers, yes indeed there is a problem.  Energy is being invented from nowhere, numbers are just being made up, and then they say that it’s from the atmosphere and greenhouse gases.

The backradiation of 324 W/m2 is equal to +2 Celsius.  So, the IPCC diagram says that an atmosphere at +2C, and sunlight at -40C, combines to make a surface temperature of +15C.  This is all just completely senseless…temperatures don’t add like that!  How did the atmosphere get to +2C if the solar input is only -40C?  Well, they’ll say “the greenhouse effect”, but that’s what they HAVE to say, because they’re trapped in this silly paradigmatic model that doesn’t have anything to do with reality…it is the science of a simulacrum, pseudoscience. It is the surface that is warmed by the hot sunshine and that surface then warms the cooler atmosphere.

Again, think in terms of physics, not numbers created out of a flat-Earth model.  See, what they do is justify the *numbers* by saying that they are “average values”.  They say “well, the AVERAGE solar power is -40C”.  So then they go from this average, and say the solar power *IS* -40C…on average…and then create a model with that number.  But is that number physics?  Does that number produce physics?  It sure can’t produce the physics that we know actually does occur, which is the water cycle and towering thunderhead cumulonimbus clouds, which we know ARE actually created by the Sunshine, and that requires sunshine much warmer than -40C or 168 W/m2 .

So again, there’s something wrong with the math, because those mathematically averaged numbers can’t reproduce the physics that actually dynamically occurs in real time.  Diagrams like the IPCC model *look* like they have science and physics in them, but they don’t.  They can’t represent reality, because they don’t show how Sunshine creates the water cycle.  My diagram above does.  The IPCC diagram is simply bad science, it is simply not real.

The diagram above shows and explains why heat is transferred from the equator to the poles; the IPCC diagram doesn’t show anything about that.  The diagram above shows and explains why the water cycle is created from the Sun; the IPCC diagram can’t explain that and actually contradicts that the Sun does it.  The diagram above explains and shows why sunshine feels so warm; the IPCC diagram contradicts that Sunshine is warm.  The diagram above shows that the Earth is spherical and implies that the Earth is rotating; the IPCC diagram doesn’t show that.

The IPCC diagram is a pretty picture, with some numbers painted on to make it look like science.  Numbers are not science, and numbers are not PHYSICS even if the numbers are averaged values from a dynamic process.  Physics is dynamic, meaning the numbers change constantly, and single-valued numbers simply cannot reproduce the true physical dynamics.  The Earth is dynamic, not static.  It can’t be averaged; if you try to average it out, you get silly ideas produced like Sunshine being -40C…not even being able to melt ice.  Physics is King…if the numbers contradict the physics, then the numbers aren’t correct, even if they might come from a “mathematically valid” operation, such as an average.

The IPCC diagram actually does show some curvature to the Earth, which is cute.  It is a cute subterfuge.  The NUMBERS in that diagram all actually correspond to a FLAT Earth…to what would happen if you flattened the Earth out and stopped it rotating and got rid of day and night and spread the solar power that only impinges on one hemisphere over both hemispheres…flattened out.  That is how, mathematically, the solar power gets numerically reduced to this silly value – via the mathematical operation of transforming a spherical rotating Earth into a flat plane; it just numerically works out via the math that in order to conserve energy in this transformation, the solar power has to be reduced to this silly low value.  What was the mistake?  Transforming the Earth into a flat plane.  The Earth is not a flat plane.  This reduces the dimensionality from 4 (3 space dimensions plus time (rotating)) to 1 (a flat plane is actually symmetric and isotropic and so the dimensionality of the 2-D plane actually reduces to 1-D since there is no spatial or temporal dependence in the plane for any of the values).

So, and this is quite factual and literal – THEY are the ones to subscribe to flat-earth physics; they’re the flat Earther’s…literally, their “science” and NUMBERS  treat the Earth as FLAT. 

That’s what their numbers are for – a flat Earth, literally.

———

This and other Postma articles may be found at climateofsophistry.com

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Jan Zeman

    |

    The Stefan-Boltzman law applies to ideal blacbody surface, not just any surface a pseudoscientist chooses.
    The Earth surface (ocean+landmass) doesn’t behave as an ideal blackbody surface. A considerable part of the heat created by solar radiation extinction in the Earth surface materials (mainly water) dissipates from the real Earth surface back up via non-radiative evapo-transpiration and conduction/convection ways (the “78”+”24″ W/m^2 figures in the IPCC diagram).
    Therefore the “390” W/m^2 “Surface Radiation” figure in the IPCC diagram (resulting from incorrectly taking average surface air temperature and puting it in the I=sigmaT^4 equation – 390=0.0000000567*288K^4) is a gross overestimation.
    The average radiation from the Earth’s surface is much less than “390” W/m^2.
    – This is what is the major gross error in the IPCC diagram.

  • Avatar

    P. Tuvnes

    |

    Forgot to add that 32 degC overheating is then compensated for by “Thermals” and “Evapo-transpiration” giving 288 degK = 15 degC. If an accountant did this (reduced income from sun) to hide profit, he would be jailed.

  • Avatar

    P. Tuvnes

    |

    Alarmist will argue that they add radiation from the sun and the “back radiation”: 168+324=492W/m2 giving 305 degK = 32 degC, and voila; the earth is overheated. The cheating lies in the flat earth model and overestimated effect of “back radiation” warming. However “back radiation” may give an insignificant reduced cooling effect, which is hardly measurable.

  • Avatar

    ewiljan

    |

    Nice political commentary on the effective propaganda of the Climate Clowns. This article clearly shows that scientific arguments are not effective against political propaganga. Do you have anything to offer that might be effective?

  • Avatar

    scsmith

    |

    As was said in the famous Monty Python ‘four Yorkshiremen’ sketch “And you try and tell the young people of today that ….. they won’t believe you”.

Comments are closed