• Home
  • Current News
  • The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere

The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere

Written by PSI Staff

In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from space) shows no greenhouse effect whatsoever. So says Dr. Ferenc Mark Miskolczi of the Geodetic and Geophysical Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences in a breathtaking new study.earth atmosphere

Warning that climate scientists may have taken a wrong turn in attributing climate change to variability of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the author asserts, “research must continue to find and establish the real causes and the true trends in global temperature change that may be present behind the natural fluctuations.”

As with an increasing number of esteemed independent climate researchers, Miskolczi finds that “The greenhouse science is not settled, the presented results warrant further efforts to investigate many details of the surface radiative equilibrium processes.”

Reacting to the new paper respected Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball, said, “One of the reasons I admire Ferenc is the attacks on him by those who have created the greenhouse deception. It is almost always a sign the person is onto the truth.”

Astrophysicist and fellow independent climate analyst, Joseph E Postma commented, “Ferenc is an astrophysicist too.  No wonder he began to see through the bad physics.  If there was such a thing as a radiative greenhouse gas effect, astrophysicists would know about it in stars.”

Here is what Eduardo Ferreyra said. “James Hansen [former chief NASA climate scientist] admired Miskolczi mathematical ability and brought him into NASA/GISS… but when Miskolczi began undermining Hansen agenda he fired him.”

Ferenc Mark Miskolczi
Geodetic and Geophysical Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Csatkai Endre u. 6-8, 9400 Sopron, Hungary
 
Abstract
 
This paper presents observed atmospheric thermal and humidity structures and global scale simulations of the infrared absorption properties of the Earth’s atmosphere. These data show that the global average clear sky greenhouse effect has remained unchanged with time. A theoretically predicted infrared optical thickness is fully consistent with, and supports the observed value. It also facilitates the theoretical determination of the planetary radiative equilibrium cloud cover, cloud altitude and Bond albedo. In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from space) shows no greenhouse effect: the all-sky surface upward radiation is equal to the available solar radiation. 
 
The all-sky climatological greenhouse effect (the difference of the all-sky surface upward flux and absorbed solar flux) at this surface is equal to the reflected solar radiation. The planetary radiative balance is maintained by the equilibrium cloud cover which is equal to the theoretical equilibrium clear sky transfer function. The Wien temperature of the all sky emission spectrum is locked closely to the thermodynamic triple point of the water assuring the maximum radiation entropy. The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.
 
Conclusions  (end part)
 
The quantitative proof of the radiative equilibrium state of the Earth-atmosphere system is alone a remarkable achievement of planetary science. The proposition here is to consider the global average cloud cover as the only component of the climate system, which is able to respond to and regulate the planetary radiation budget in a relatively short time. The greenhouse effect of the Earth’s atmosphere is a global scale equilibrium process which rests on the chaotic nature of the humidity field and the stability of the total atmospheric mass. Consequently, none of any local or regional weather phenomenon is related directly to its magnitude and tendency. 
 
Unfortunately the Nobel Laureate IPCC is not a scientific authority, and their claim of the consensus and the settled greenhouse science is meaningless. The quantitative results of this paper massively contradict the CO2 greenhouse effect based AGW hypothesis of IPCC.
 
In our view the greenhouse phenomenon, as it was postulated by J. Fourier (1824), estimated by S. Arrhenius (1906), first quantified by S. Manabe and R. Wetherald (1967), explained by R. Lindzen (2007), and endorsed by the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (2014), simple does not exist. 
 
However, research must continue to find and establish the real causes and the true trends in global temperature change that may be present behind the natural fluctuations. The greenhouse science is not settled, the presented results warrant further efforts to investigate many details of the surface radiative equilibrium processes.
 
Read the entire paper: Download: Full Text

Comments (73)

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    “You really do state the obvious.”

    Yes, but sometimes it takes people a whole comment thread to understand that….

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      ..”the flux is insufficient anyway”
      Staying here on Earth Doug. please tell me what your numbers are for the flux at the TOA, and the flux received at the surface of the Earth.
      Don’t explain to me how you arrive at these 2 numbers. Just give me your 2 numbers.

      • Avatar

        Mack

        |

        Thanks Doug,
        Yes you’ve correctly assumed “flux at the TOA” as asked by me, was what you think it is… ie.was 1360w/sq.m,”solar constant” divided by 4 = 340w/sq.m. at the TOA. So you say like Trenberth,the IPCC, NASA,…people like Andrew Lacis, Gavin Schmitt, Micheal Mann are all correct and hunky dory with this 340w/sq m incoming at the TOA.
        Yes, there is a substantial error and you and all these people are wrong and have made a substantial mistake.
        Now all these people are of the opinion that the balance of watts/sq.m required to keep the surface at a reasonable livable temp. is provided by a “greenhouse” effect with something like 324w/sq.m of “backradiation” it seems. These are not dumb people. They realise that 163w/sq.m average at the Earth’s surface is not even enough to keep the oceans from FREEZING.
        But then we have you, Doug, who agrees with all of them and their watts/sq.m except for the “backradiation” bit.
        So what do have say to these AGW people when of course you say to them that their “backradiation” and “Greenhouse” stuff is bollocks?
        They are going to laugh at you and say you’ve got some gravitational, heat creep theory which makes up the watts/sq.m required to keep the Earth livable. Both sides are laughing at you Doug.

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          “You should have learnt in high school that the surface of a sphere…blah blah blah. What the teacher should have learned before he even commenced his lesson.is the basic fact that this solar “constant” (TSI of 1360w/sq.m) is not actually a real constant but a figure that slightly varies and therefore has an average. Notice quote marks around “constant”

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          “Hence global flux= 340w/sq.m.” Yes, the global flux on the “GLOBE” . Now this solar radiation of 1360w/sq.m has travelled all the way from the sun to strike the surface of the globe . Why is it deemed necessary to geometrically break this down to 340w/sq.m before it even gets here. So what you are artificially doing is CALCULATING by geometry,the solar flux impinging on the “GLOBE”, then just chucking in an “ATMOSPHERE” and saying the stuff that is arriving at the GLOBE is actually arriving at the top of this atmosphere. You can see (note my quote marks)that there is a clever integration of reality and artificiallity going on. A “globe” could be a basketball as far as you are concerned Doug.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            Ok, I’ll understand that you’ll be a little confused now Doug, so I’ll repeat my little sermon given to you in this thread. See if you can see it this way…. The Earth revolves around the sun and in one year gets a coating of radiation from a stationary sun. The sun spits out this radiation much like a spray gun driven by a faulty compressor ie not regular but near enough to 1360 w/sq.m. on average for the year. So we want to know how much radiation gets coated onto this circling,spinning ,unaxially (is that a word?) aligned Earth. The only practical way of doing this is to select one cycle, and therefore get a total true reading of the amount (coated on the surface). ie yearly average. It is a total amount and therefore the bottom line, result, total answer. at the bottom of the page. It’s this yearly global average which cannot be divided down but must remain as is, at the TOA. Regard it as covering the whole globe at the TOA.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            Hell, on rereading that, I think I might have even confused radiation arriving at the TOA with that arriving at the Earth’s surface. Whatever, both are averages and are real , measured, and cannot be divided down. It’s 1360w/sq.m at the TOA and 340 (thereabouts)w/sq.m at the Earth’s surface Doug.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            Btw Doug,
            “That’s first year university physics my friend”.
            Yes Doug, 1st year university physics, That first year lecture pertaining to this should have been cancelled. The lecturer would have done his students a better service by just sticking his head around the classroom door and saying..”The TSI is what arrives at the TOA” …find something to do you lot” and then heading back to the staffroom for a cuppa.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “Planetary surface temps are not determined by direct solar radiation to the surface”
            Tell that to the kid who can’t walk on the sand at the beach because it’s burning his feet. The person who can’t touch the steering wheel of the car because it’s too hot.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            You may consider yourself the worlds greatest expert in atmospheric physics and you think you know all there is to know about this . but you are WRONG.You are wrong because your calculations are wrong.
            A giant deceptive mistake of monumental proportions in the incoming solar radiation that you and nearly every scientific institute has made.
            I’ve tried nearly every which way to explain this, but you persist in constant self aggrandisement.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            No , I’m no expert Doug. As I’ve told you, I’m just a dumb ass layman., but there are thousands of experts along side of me who are aware of the revelations of Nasif Nahle in 2011, primarily Nahle himself., and I would say probably most of the scientists here at PSI. Do you ever wonder why they are not all here, on this blog, clamouring in support of you Doug.?

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            The flux /sq.m at the poles may be the same as at the Tropic of Capricorn, but you have to think of the total region or surface area being struck by the solar radiation ie the shadows are much longer at the poles, which determines temp. and climate. The sun only does this in midsummer near the arctic circle..


            Please don’t tell me the sun is not the main and only real determinate of the climate Doug.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, the solar flux has units of power/area. So, if you consider the flux absorbed by a “disk” the same size as the Earth, in a time interval, you can convert to energy. You can then “average” that energy over the entire surface of the Earth. If you do the math correctly, you have not violated anything.

    But, if you then take that average energy and try to use it for flux in the S-B equation, you violate the restrictions of the S-B law. The value used in the equation must be the actual flux, not an average.

    You need to understand this basic concept, as it is the reason you keep calculating planetary temperatures to be much below what is observed.

    And, yes, Wikipedia makes the same mistake you are making. That’s why I refer you to the early experiments when the S-B law was being discovered. Wikipedia is a quick and convenient reference, if you have a solid understanding of the subject. But if you only have a surface introduction, Wikipedia can make you very confused.

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    I see a lot of places in Australia today reached in the vicinity of just above 40 deg C . Must have been all that gravitational, heat creep, thing of yours working so well, Doug.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, Rosco was talking about “energy”. It’s okay to average energy over the globe–no violation of S-B equation. But, you can NOT then calculate a meaningful S-B temperature after dividing by 4.

    You still seem very confused. I will try to come back to help, but it seems I will be busy tonight….

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    “So if geran still doesn’t believe that we need to multiply the solar flux by the sines of the latitude and the angle of incidence over the Sun’s path…”

    Doug, that is “red herring” stuff. A scientist does not have to resort to such tricks. I never said, or indicated, any such thing. Your techniques are irresponsible, and completely un-scientific, and you resort to them constantly.

    Folks who get confused and frustrated with their lack of knowledge in the hard sciences often must resort to such tricks. If the tricks don’t work, they resort to insults. Blog owners, who do not know science, resort to censorship. In essence, Doug, you are attempting to censor me because you are unwilling to admit your mistake.

    The fact remains, even with all your debate tricks, 653 W/m^2 absorbed by a black body does not result in a S-B temperature of -41 ºC. You are WRONG. (Correct answer is 54.4 ºC.)

    PS Rosco is right. You are WRONG!

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Okay Doug, I accept that you are backing down from the “-41 ºC” temperature that you claimed is the value given by the S-B equation for Earth’s average temperature. So, if you now understand that, you have learned something.

    Also, I noted the name-calling is gone, but the false accusations remain. Some improvement is still needed there, unfortunately.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, you say one thing, then you contradict yourself, then you try to lash out at me. I am not the cause of your problems, you are! I am just trying to help you with your confusion.

    Hey, what’s the worse that can happen to you if you admit your mistakes? Just put an “errata” on-line to correct the mistakes in your book. It’s not a problem. People admit their mistakes all the time.

    You continue to make up things that you believe I wrote, but that just proves you are either lying or extremely confused. Please don’t make up things. That’s just one more piece of evidence that you are not scientifically inclined.

    Again, I recommend you study the origin of the S-B law and how it was developed empirically. Then, how it was confirmed mathematically. Then, the vast amount of experiments that document its validity. If you understand how the law came about, and the inherent restrictions, you are less likely to misuse it.

    I’m still willing to help, but, once again, please try to control the name-calling, ad hominems, and false accusations.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, the 653 W/m^2 is your own figure. I only used your figure so that you would not be confused any further. You are the one that presented that figure, right here on this thread, and you further stated that the resulting S-B temperature would be -41 ºC, which is WRONG.

    You have trapped yourself in your own confused rambling. But, please keep it up, your “science” is even funnier than that at WUWT!

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    typo alert–W/m*2 should be W/m^2

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, part of the reason you are so confused is that you spend too much time on other planets. What time is left over, you devote to ad hominems. I would suggest you try to learn the basic physics instead. Stay on this planet, and avoid attacking people just because you are confused.

    Now, you stated that you agree with the “653/perfect flat surface” acquiring a temp of 54.4 ºC. I consider that to be progress. You understand how to apply the S-B equation in a simple example.

    But, it we replace the “perfect flat surface” with a “perfect sphere”, you seem to get confused. So, let’s do another simple thought experiment.

    Consider a “perfect sphere” that is receiving solar flux from ALL directions. The sphere is a perfect black body, receiving a flux of 653 W/m*2, perpendicular from ALL directions.

    Do you now concur that the equilibrium temperature of the perfect sphere would be 54.4 ºC?

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, just when I thought you were making progress, you go and dive back in to confusion again!

    You believe a sphere of black asphalt receiving 653 W/m^2 would be at a temperature of -41 ºC. That’s WRONG.

    I really am beginning to doubt I can help you. But, I’ll try once again.

    A perfect surface receiving the 653 W/m^2 would have an equilibrium temperature of 54.4 ºC. (And, there are surfaces on Earth that actually get that hot.)

    You do not use the S-B equation correctly. That is why you get a bogus answer (-41 ºC).

    Do some research on the early development of the S-B equation. There is plenty of info available. Lab experiments have verified the law over and over. There is no “divide-by-4” in the S-B equation!

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Well good, you got something right. Throw away all the ad hominems and the book advertising, and I think you have learned something!

    So, next step, are you willing to admit that your “-41 ºC” calculated temperature of Earth’s average temperature is pure nonsense?

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, you, and the IPCC, and folks at WUWT misuse the S-B equation. You do not get it.

    The S-B equation does NOT yield an “average” temperature for a surface. If correctly applied, it yields the maximum temperature, at equilibrium, for a surface where all of the flux is absorbed. You can NOT divide the flux by four and expect to get anything that is valid. That is why your “-41 ºC” is INVALID.

    Maybe you can agree with this simple statement: “The S-B equation can NOT be used to calculate the average temperature of the Earth.”

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, I had no idea you had devoted “thousands of hours of research” to this. “Thousands of hours” is an impressive figure. I do not question your statement, but does that time include your time on blogs advertising your book? Only you know the answer to that.

    But, assuming your estimate of your time spent is correct, I can understand why you are frustrated. You have spent so much time, and yet your results are flawed. Anyone would be frustrated.

    You only have to blame your sources. You have mentioned WUWT. Anthony believes he can heat a light bulb with a mirror. Is that where you have spent your time? Did you get confused?

    Learn the basic physics. Then, write a book….

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    Doug, first, you are wrong about the Russian probes. Can you tell me how long those probes lasted on the surface? … Exactly … they could not possibly have “monitored” the thermal characteristics of the surface.

    Secondly, I never claimed “…how the Venus surface could not possibly cool at night…” What I have repeatedly asked you is, give me some “proof” that this occurs. Give me at least something with a high level of confidence that this could be so. You cannot cite any reference of any sort of prolonged monitoring of the thermal characteristics of the surface of that planet, therefore, you cannot, with any level of confidence, make any inference of said thermal characteristics. You can only look at TOA and guess what is going on with the surface.

    Finally, one (of many) possible ways the “surface” could be kept from cooling would be via volcanism, after all, Venus is one of the most volcanically active bodies in our solar system. Just because TOA can fluctuate a meer 5 degrees (C or F ??), does NOT necessarily mean that the surface [b]MUST[/b] also fluctuate. This is [b]all[/b] that I have suggested to you Doug.

    Now you are just frustrating me Doug. I am losing confidence in what you are telling me. ie: You are not convincing me of anything, but instead, increasing my skepticism of the things that you say.

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    Doug, I’m not going to try to argue with you and for all I know your “gravitational or Heat creep” explanations for the physics at which the Earth’s temp. is arrived at may well be the correct science. I’m not going to try and argue with you about that, and other planets, because all the physics stuff you talk about goes way above my head. I’m only a layman, not a scientist; but what should bother you, is how a layman like me, should come to Principia Scientific and be so assured about what I write here.,
    I would like to remind you of your confrontations with Dr Roy Spencer last year, but it seems you were so self engrossed that you neglected to read my comments on the same threads.!
    Both of these first 2 you even acknowledged.!!..
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhouse-effect/#comment-75584
    then this…
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/a-simple-model-of-global-average-surface-temperature/#comment-77341
    Then you and I could have resulted in Roy ,in exasperation, calling for this…
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78670
    You need to read all this Doug, if you have’nt already?
    Please realise you’re looking at one of the hugest deceptive mistakes in the history of science with this error in the incoming solar radiation. If you, as a teacher, have been drawing on the blackboard, a model of the Earth with incident solar resulting in something like 340w/sq.m arriving at the TOA., then you owe all of your pupils an apology, big time.
    Meanwhile there is a lot of holiday reading for you to do Doug.
    It looks as if simplicity and reality almost appears to be the “anti-science” we’re accused of by the AGW people, when it comes to this “greenhouse” theory.
    Kind regards, and a happy New Year,
    Mack.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      From tallbloke
      Clivebest says: December 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm

      “Kristian, (” However, you cannot escape the fact that there is no connection between temperature and emission flux from any specific layer in the Earth system.”)”

      “Well that is a basic assumption of atmospheric physics. So if it is wrong then everything is wrong. The assumption is that CO2/H2O molecules are in thermal equilibrium with N2, O2 molecules at a given height Z and temperarure T. It is also assumed that Kirchoff’s law applies which says that absorption and emission of IR photons are equal and opposite for a gas in thermal equilibrium.”

      The average contribution or addition to exit flux for each specific atmospheric layer can indeed be calculated from the free database updated and maintained by Harvard University. Your atmospheric physicists at NASA, NOAA, and universities around the world have that data and computational facilities to do just that! No conspiracy, only the evidence that your atmospheric physicists have not the competence to use that data in any meaningful way!
      Your claim, “It is also assumed that Kirchoff’s law applies which says that absorption and emission of IR photons are equal and opposite for a gas in thermal equilibrium.” Is the exact evidence of, and the why of widespread incompetence. The two main laws from Dr. Kirchhoff are:

      1. “The surface properties for electromagnetic radiation, emissivity (out), and absorptivity (in). are exactly equal at every frequency, and in each direction.” There is no indication of any actual radiation, or radiative flux in this law.

      2. “In the case of “only” radiative power transfer”, a body at radiative equilibrium, has no energy exchanged with that body.” This is but 1LTD, for radiation only. There is no indication that incoming and outgoing power (flux) need be at the same frequency, or in the same or opposite directions in this law. For most any mass, independent of transmittance, the radiant flux in/out is in the same vector direction. This is driven by the “difference in radiative potential” between the mass and the source and the sink, indicating the exact same power transfer in one direction only.

      Please indicate any reference that quotes where Dr. Kirchhoff ever , writes or speaks, of what you claim.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug,

    You seem to be getting worse with each comment. It’s like you “doug” yourself a hole, and you just keep digging deeper.

    1) You used brackets “[sic]” thinking that I had used “your” for “you’re”. But you did not realize that the subject of the sentence was “trying to use it as an “average” temperature”. So, my usage was correct, you mis-reading was incorrect.

    2) “I’m not using it with any temperature”. No Doug, you do correlate the 163 to a temperature. In fact, you have done it several times when you mention “-41 ºC”. You don’t understand what I write, but you don’t even understand what you write. Why would anyone want to read a book you wrote?

    3) “Radiation does not instantly raise the surface to the temperature given by SB calculations, because the surface is not a black body and it loses energy by evaporation and sensible heat transfer. Also about 70% of it is a thin transparent layer of water.”
    Doug, this is “straw man” stuff. I NEVER said anything about “instantly”, when talking about the S-B equation. You try to confuse the issue so much that you get lost in your own confusion.

    4) “So what is “meaningless” is your calculation of a possible temperature which might occur for an hour or two at some particular location in the tropics.” No, Doug, if the calculation matches the observation, it is NOT “meaningless”. The fact that the temperature might only “occur for an hour or two” is due to the CHANGING flux. And, that is EXACTLY why you cannot use an average. The S-B temperature must match the exact flux.

    5) “As for my “work” being “meaningless” you haven’t read the book so you don’t have a clue about my hypothesis.” Doug, I will NOT be reading your book. I have read what you are trying to say in your comments here, and I can see how bad your science is. Your “advertising” works against you.

    6) “Enjoy your Christmas…” And you also!

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    Doug, I must confess I’m rather surprised at you. It seems you subscribe to the Earth’s surface receiving an average of 163w/sq.m. solar radiation. Stop to think about that Doug. I mean, you live in Oz and you know how hot the ground gets when the sun beats down. If you were to put a 1 sq.m metal plate on the ground (paint it black if you like)it would get hot enough to fry eggs on, wouldn’t it Doug?
    Now think of the electrical wattage to heat an element to that extent on one of those old stoves..something in the 1000watt range? and this is for a piddly little circular piece of metal. So what sort of wattage fom the sun would get to fry eggs on a fairly thickish 1 sq.m metal plate.? It’s certainly got to be more than that average of 163w/sq.m.
    I’m afraid that Geran was on the right track, but still a little too high. The mean at the Earth’s surface is 342w/sq.m. Over the year it averages over like this…
    http://www.roebuckclasses.com/maps/physicmap/earthsun/insolationchart.GIF
    The average of these graphs is 342w/sq.m. (even just eyeballing that graph you can see this)
    So contrary to the teachings of every scientific institute, in reality , the incoming solar at the TOA is in fact about 1360w/sq.m. (I think, by means of calculus, this number is arrived at) All I know is that it is a yearly global average, and as such, it cannot be messed around with and divided down. Apparently the sun shines over your head at night-time also when dealing with this average. You cannot just pick one instant in time and say the Earth casts a shadow, therefore this and that are calculated. It must remain simply as that, ie regarded as non-directional, covering the whole globe at the TOA.
    So we have about 1360w/sq.m incoming at the TOA and 342w/sq.m at the surface. OK, so where does the difference between these go. It would mainly go into that place of physical paradox…the THERMOSPHERE methinks.
    The promoters of the “greenhouse” effect use double dutch when defining “radiative forcing” parameters, ie they artificially terminate the atmosphere at the tropopause, probably they would say that below this is where all the climate is, but more likely they don’t want to consider the thermosphere because that would bugger up their watts/sq.m and their nice little “greenhouse” theory completely.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    And “when the Sun is directly overhead around midday” is when the S-B equation can be used for a rough approximation. Your trying to use it with an “average” temperature (divide-by-4) yields a meaningless result.

    I won’t stoop to your level to call you names, but your work is meaningless–not a personal attack, just FACT.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug’s miscalculation can actually be undone (corrected). His “mean” flux of 163 W/m^2 can be multiplied by 4 to get back to the ACTUAL flux. That gives a result of 652 W/m^2. And using the S-B equation, that yields a surface temperature of 54.3 ºC, or 129.8 ºF.

    And surface temps at those levels have been observed!

    QED

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, you continue to amaze.

    And entertain.

    Your only credentials are that you are sometimes allowed to comment at WUWT?

    How many different screen names does that take?

    (Hint: Anyone can comment at WUWT as long as they do not challenge the “CO2 is warming the planet, only not catastrophically” meme.)

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Dougie, your science is so bad you should be over with the WUWT cult.

    No wait, they won’t have you.

    Maybe it’s your soiled diapers….

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, you just keep repeating your mis-understanding of physics over and over again. The S-B equation uses the FLUX of E/M propagation, NOT the average energy. You continue to be WRONG.

    Not only is your understanding of quantum physics WRONG, but you basic algebra is also WRONG. If you knew algebra, you would recognize that the S-B equation is NON-linear. That means, you CANNOT divide on side of the equation by four and except the answer to have any meaning.

    The S-B equation relates the EXACT temperature at equilibrium to the corresponding flux. If you change the flux, you change the temperature.

    (I can understand why HS, and numerous other sites, have banned you. You don’t appear to be learning, and you seem to thrive on misdirection and obfuscation.)

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Climate Researcher”]Maybe Pat would like to explain how he divides a square into four “equilateral triangles” – an interesting puzzle. Maybe we need to think outside the square. I can only divide it into four congruent isosceles triangles.[/quote]

    Doug smelly cotton socks.
    geran said:”If you have a flat, perfect black body, area of one square meter, receiving a flux of 1000 W/m2″ [b]An area of[/b], nothing about a square. The tetrahedron still has an area of one square meter.

    [quote]But my problem is to stop them radiating or losing any thermal energy by sensible heat transfer so that Pat can achieve his infinite temperatures.[/quote]

    Doug smelly cotton socks.
    Have someone read to you what I wrote to geran! Identify any mention of infinite temperature.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, why do you continually soil yourself?

    You stated that I had used “Watts per second”. That is a lie. I used “Watts-sec”, which means Watts multiplied by seconds, and results in units of energy (Joules), not flux.

    You stated that “1000 W/m^2 is inaccurate”. That is a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote. The “1000” figure was for the thought experiment I presented. I never mentioned Earth or the Sun. So, it is NOT inaccurate. Your accusation is FALSE.

    Your diapers need changing….

    (No wonder you are often banned at blogs.)

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    Quote:

    So Squid2112, this well known quote also applies to your conjectures …

    Doug, do you know the difference between “conjecture” and “skepticism” ?

    I didn’t conjure anything. I am skeptical of your Venusian surface temperature fluctuation of 5 degrees. You have not presented any information to me to lessen that skepticism, in fact, you have reinforced it. The fluctuation you are talking about is not observed by physical measurements, but instead, calculated from TOA measurements. I remain skeptical. No change…

    I suggest you scrap the 5 degree variable in your conversation and focus upon other, more valuable elements. Again, I am not suggesting that you are necessarily wrong, I am however, suggesting that you cannot know what you are conjuring, therefore, omit it from your discussion as it has no relevant value.

    And to Geran’s point, and I believe to be of even more power when talking about the Venusian atmosphere, in order to declare a 5 degree temperature fluctuation of the Venusian “surface”, you must make many assumptions. I don’t like “assumptions”. When you “assume”, you make an ass out of you and me!

    Merry Christmas to All!

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    One final thought on this subject then I’m outta here.

    ANY calculation of Earth’s “effective temperature” must include numerous assumptions. Unfortunately the people making the assumptions too often have an agenda. The adjustments affect the final calculated value, so not everyone is going to agree with the result. The IPCC’s 255 K us obviously bogus for this reason.

    The best scientific value we can use for “effective temperature” is 288 K. At least most folks agree that is a reasonable average for Earth’s surface.

    It’s good enough for me!

    Merry Christmas ALL!

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug (re #’s 39 and 47)

    You seem to understand that you cannot divide-by-4 for the flat surface. Even though you divide the surface by 4, the flux remains the same, 1000 W/m^2. The energy to each of the 4 squares is 250 Watts, but the flux is still 1000 W/m^2. So, you MUST use the 1000 figure in the S-B equation. The S-B equation REQUIRES flux (Watts per square meter), not energy (Watts-sec).

    Well, guess what. The same holds true for a sphere. You do not get to arbitrarily use energy in the S-B equation. For a sphere, it is a little harder than that. If the sphere is NOT rotating, you can get a rough temperature of the exposed surface (assuming equilibrium) by figuring the flux for small equal areas of the exposed sphere, then calculating the temp for each equal area and finally averaging all temps.

    For example, an area 10 degrees from zenith would have a flux of 1000sin(80º) = 1000(.985) = 985 Watts/m^2. The corresponding equilibrium temp would then be 363 K. Do this for a significant number of points and take the average.

    It’s not that hard, and then you won’t be making up your own physics and math!

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Pat, (reference comment #50) you have done it again. You seem determine to be confused. You comment is daffy.

    Just one example should suffice: Which comment did I claim 2400 Wh/m^2?

    In #50, you stated that I claimed that, but since i did NOT do what you stated, you have confused yourself. It’s hard to take you seriously if you continue to be more interested in confusion than facts.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”geran”]Pat, (reference comment #50) you have done it again. You seem determine to be confused. You comment is daffy.

      Just one example should suffice: Which comment did I claim 2400 Wh/m^2?.[/quote]
      Sorry, 24000 Wh/m^2 1000W/m^2 x 24 hours. If it is a black “body” it must be a solid not just a surface area! Go learn some Geometry!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”geran”]Doug, so glad you have returned to Earth. Perhaps, now I can help.

    Given incoming flux of 1000 W/m2 to a perfect black body surface that has a surface area of one square meter (m2).

    What is the equilibrium temperature of the black body?

    (I already told you the answer, above, before you even got back to this planet.)

    Now, what is the equilibrium temperature of the surface if you divide it equally into 4 pieces?

    (Please don’t be like the WUWT folks and slime off into the darkness. If your science is wrong, just learn. No one is perfect.)[/quote]

    geran,
    Take your one square meter, with mass and specific heat as 4 each equilateral triangles. put them together as an tetrigonal polygon, with the Sun normal to each face for 6 hours, before switching to normal of the lowest temperature surface,repeat for a complete cycle. each surface receives 250 x 6 watt hours
    of energy per day for a total of 6000 watt hours/ meter squared, not the 2400 Wh/m^2 you claim. [b]Only if the mass x specific heat of your tetrigon is “infinite” can there ever be an equilibrium temperature.[/b]
    Your illusion like this Earth has many many temperatures all radiating to space different values of flux. Average temperature of the 10,000 sq cm of your solid means absolutely nothing,just like on this earth. Averaging the actual flux to 250 W/m^2 would give you an “effective”, but not “equilibrium” temperature.
    With less than infinite thermal mass there can be no equilibrium anything. In such a case any average you generate just indicates “you have no clue”

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, so glad you have returned to Earth. Perhaps, now I can help.

    Given incoming flux of 1000 W/m2 to a perfect black body surface that has a surface area of one square meter (m2).

    What is the equilibrium temperature of the black body?

    (I already told you the answer, above, before you even got back to this planet.)

    Now, what is the equilibrium temperature of the surface if you divide it equally into 4 pieces?

    (Please don’t be like the WUWT folks and slime off into the darkness. If your science is wrong, just learn. No one is perfect.)

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, my friend, you keep going to another planet. You have to ask yourself why do you go to such extremes to avoid the simple questions.

    What are you trying to hide? Are you trying to cover up errors in your “science”? Why not just deal with the simple case I presented above? One square meter versus a square meter divided-by-4. Same flux, same perpendicular impact, what is the equilibrium in each scenario?

    (Don’t just dodge the question, that is what the WUWT crowd does with the censorship you so oppose. Show us you’re not like them.)

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Very good Doug, apology graciously accepted.

    Even with all the typos, you were able to divide-by-4 to get a value for average energy. But, now you are in a fix. You CANNOT use the average energy in the S-B equation to find an ‘effective temperature”. The S-B equation requires a FLUX. That flux is the magnitude of the Poynting vector, which represents electromagnetic wave propagation. You CANNOT use energy for the calculation.

    If you get all the science correct, then maybe you could write a book….

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, look at your comment #35.

    For you to feel you have to so totally misrepresent my words indicates you realize your calculation is wrong. I accept your disguised concession. Glad I was able to help.

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    Doug,

    [quote]Why can’t we measure the surface temperature of Venus?[/quote]

    Unless you can place and monitor an actual thermometer on the actual surface of Venus, you cannot convince me that you know the characteristics of the thermal properties of said surface to any degree of confidence, especially when talking about only a few degrees fluctuation.

    Sorry, not buying it.

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    Doug,

    While the Mariner 2 and Venera 9 space crafts were able to measure Venus surface temperature during their short stays on the surface, this does not equate to continuous metering of the surface temperature however. In light of this, the only known temperature of Venus is indeed at TOA, period.

    While the equatorial TOA temperature on Venus may fluctuate by 5C (day vs night), this does not say anything about the actual surface however. With an atmospheric height of ~250km, extreme volcanism, and atmospheric mixing, I am very skeptical that one could infer the fluctuation in thermal temperature of the surface. In other words, just because you believe you can calculate what the surface temperature ought to be, doesn’t mean that it is. Further, I am very skeptical that the surface temperature actually fluctuates to any measurable degree. Just because TOA can fluctuate 5C degrees, does [b]not[/b] mean that the surface [b]must[/b] as well.

    Don’t get me wrong. I am not necessarily claiming that you are in error, I am simply positing that, one cannot [b]know[/b] that the surface temperature actually changes simply by inspecting the TOA, especially on a planet such as Venus.

    I was advise not using your equatorial thermal fluctuation at TOA of Venus to reference any specific physical properties of the surface, as those properties cannot be known to any certainty.

    In my humble opinion…

  • Avatar

    Kate

    |

    “Such cannot exist!” says the mind of man.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Pat, you have confused yourself. No where in my comment did I mention “Earth”. I was referring to an “ideal” situation so that it would be easy for Doug ,and folks like you, to understand.

    You are welcome to reread and ask questions, as necessary.

    Doug, when I wrote the units as “W/m2”, that is shorthand for “Watts per meter squared”. Now, you learned something, so your time was not wasted.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Kate”]Pat Ober says, “The rest of us struggle to comprehend the extent of this FRAUD! I refuse to talk their talk.”

    Pat, if you strip this down to essentials, it is about religion.

    Climatists have a belief and a strict dogma. It is a belief that rejects God and sets its faith in man.

    Often environmentalists refer to a Utopia that will exist after mankind has been removed from the picture. Population control, atheist eugenics and genetic engineering are involved.

    It is about a longing to return to a garden where the animals and plants live in perfect peace, unmolested by man’s evil greed.

    It fits perfectly for socialists, anarchists, futurists, indeed for anyone who is not Christian. (A Christian believes that this planet we call home has a Creator who is preserving us until His own blessed return.

    We Christians are told we are too dogmatic (intolerant) but the illogical and unprovable dogma of climate science is without an instruction manual such as the Bible. So we have variations and disagreements but always the common theme of global disaster.

    A hopeless bitter religion of self-hate and flagellation, compounded by well-meaning contributors of vast sums of money donated “for the common good.”[/quote]

    Kate:
    Again I agree, kinda, I are earthling, like you. Earthlings are upon this planet, as are all other, pets, critters, varmints,or pests! Earthlings, are the most vicious predator upon earth. They could be Human, but only with lotsa grace, whatever the hell that may be. There seems to be a dirth of grace. Perhaps we have only an apprentice God, with no big load of Grace.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Kate”]If someone had told me, a literacy teacher, years ago that I would be spending spare time defending our perfect, chaotic, Self-Regulating climate system I would have shouted, “Insanity!”

    All of the above arguments only demonstrate that the mind of man cannot comprehend the mind of God. Those who claim they can program a computer to include all the infinite variables in our wondrous atmosphere are fools.

    And “only a fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”[/quote]

    Kate,
    I agree, If you will agree on the “never monotheistic” God! Such cannot exist! About this PLANET, we have the result of a rational God, that must reject “Earthling BS” of any all knowledgeable, all powerful, God! Such a fantasy GOD, must destroy itself from boredom.
    We have about this earth, a GOD, that may be all powerful, but rejects the all knowledgeable (to damn many letters)! Instead this all powerful God instructs the recently constructed (via the all powerful) engineers, to construct this Earth that not you engineers, I (this God), or “any” critters upon this Earth, can ever understand. NOTE: If you damn engineers cannot do that, I must construct better engineers!

    I believe in God, I reject your God as false!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Quoting Climate Researcher:

    If you understood thermodynamic equilibrium you would realise that if the temperature of the upper troposphere rises by 5 degrees then so too must the surface in order to maintain the same temperature gradient.

    I really don’t care what number of degrees are involved. The surface must cool at night. There are measurements made of surface temperatures on Venus (see links above) and there is no evidence (over a few decades) now of any long-term cooling at the kind of rate we would expect the surface to cool at night. Hence it must warm back up again the next Venus day.

    What Doug Cotton Bull Shit!
    The lapse rate on Venus on Venus is not constant, as the specific heat of CO2 is dependent on temperature and pressure. It cannot even be determined in a gravitational field at or near the critical point of CO2.

    The surface temperature of Venus need not change even by a milli-degree.

    What more Doug Cotton Bull Shit

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Quoting Climate Researcher:

    If you understood thermodynamic equilibrium you would realise that if the temperature of the upper troposphere rises by 5 degrees then so too must the surface in order to maintain the same temperature gradient.

    I really don’t care what number of degrees are involved. The surface must cool at night. There are measurements made of surface temperatures on Venus (see links above) and there is no evidence (over a few decades) now of any long-term cooling at the kind of rate we would expect the surface to cool at night. Hence it must warm back up again the next Venus day.

    What Doug Cotton Bull Shit!
    The lapse rate on Venus on Venus is not constant, as the specific heat of CO2 is dependent on temperature and pressure. It cannot even be determined in a gravitational field at or near the critical point of CO2.

    The surface temperature of Venus need not change even by a milli-degree.

    What more Doug Cotton Bull Shit

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Quoting Climate Researcher:

    Squid

    Why can’t we measure the surface temperature of Venus?

    https://www.google.com.au/search?q=russian+probes+venus&rlz=1C1OPRA_enAU586AU586&espv=2&biw=1745&bih=890&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=h_eQVM67AYfx8gXW94CYDg&ved=0CC4QsAQ

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariner_2

    If you understood thermodynamic equilibrium you would realise that if the temperature of the upper troposphere rises by 5 degrees then so too must the surface in order to maintain the same temperature gradient.

    I really don’t care what number of degrees are involved. The surface must cool at night. There are measurements made of surface temperatures on Venus (see links above) and there is no evidence (over a few decades) now of any long-term cooling at the kind of rate we would expect the surface to cool at night. Hence it must warm back up again the next Venus day.

    This is complete Doug Cotton Bull Shit. The atmosphere of Venus with its sensible heat, that cannot be determined, as the specific heat of CO2 is undefined at or near its critical point. Is capable of storing all variation of Solar flux. The surface temperature of Venus need not vary by even a micro-degree. More Doug Cotton Bull Shit1

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”geran”]”So, Doug, consider this: If you have a flat, perfect black body, area of one square meter, receiving a flux of 1000 W/m2, I think you will agree that the equilibrium temperature of the surface would be 364.4 K.”[/quote]

    Only if that surface were flat, black, Lambertian, and allowed to radiate through a non-dispersive media, to a near zero field strength. This Earth and its atmosphere violates all of those constraints. There is no way that the surface temperature could be determined via Planck’s integral or the S-B equation.

    [quote]”Now, consider 4 new surfaces replacing the surface described above. Each new surface is 0.25 square meter. The flux remains 1000 W/m2. The surface has been divided by 4, so then the equilibrium temp becomes 257.7 K, by your “algebra”. (The correct answer is temp remains as before (364.4 K) since the flux was not changed.)Do you see your mistake, or do you need more examples?[/quote]

    It might help if you would learn “some” algebra and geometry. The Sun radiates approximately 960 W/m^2 to this earth’s cross sectional area from a solid angle of 80 micro-steradians. This Earth cross sectional area (isotropic area) must radiate to space the same irradiance to space into four PI steradians. This Earth and its atmosphere must do this or the whole temperature structure of the atmosphere “must” change. No thermal EMR flux from lower that 500 meters above sea level need be considered as it is trivial. The “atmosphere” at every altitude dispatches some EMR flux to space. The integral of all that flux, because of variable atmospheric WV in the atmosphere. Is exactly that flux from each geophysical location that produce precisely the desired temperature at every location in this atmosphere. CO2 in no way affects the required WV production and condensation at every location.
    It is the “average temperature” of this planet that is trivial, has no science only statistics, but is viciously promoted be ClimAsstrologists! I hope you can “get that” from the F. Miskolczi paper

    No one needs to read your foolish book.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Hi Squid!

    Yeah, I don’t mean to pick on Doug. It’s just that he gives me a chance to pick on all the pseudoscientists/sophists out there. (Not to mention any names, but the WUWT crowd comes to mind.)

    So, Doug, consider this: If you have a flat, perfect black body, area of one square meter, receiving a flux of 1000 W/m2, I think you will agree that the equilibrium temperature of the surface would be 364.4 K.

    Now, consider 4 new surfaces replacing the surface described above. Each new surface is 0.25 square meter. The flux remains 1000 W/m2.

    The surface has been divided by 4, so then the equilibrium temp becomes 257.7 K, by your “algebra”.

    (The correct answer is temp remains as before (364.4 K) since the flux was not changed.)

    Do you see your mistake, or do you need more examples?

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    @#15 Climate Researcher 2014-12-16 16:00 (Doug)

    Doug, I am sorry to be nitpicky here, but you state that the “surface” of Venus cools by 5C degrees during its 4 month night. Is it really the surface that is cooling by 5 degrees? Or is this a measurement by looking at the TOA? I was not aware that we are able to measure the surface temperature of Venus, thus my question for you.

    If it is indeed the TOA that is being measured, and said to have cooled by 5 degrees, how then does this affect what you have suggested in your comment? Seems that it could have an effect upon your conclusions.

    Perhaps Geran or someone could also weigh in on this and the implications of surface vs TOA of Venus temperature differential within Doug’s context.

    Thanks in advance!

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    So, here are some questions for you Doug.

    1) Why do you have 43 different screen names?
    2) How may books have you sold?
    3) How is it a “physicist” does not understand high school algebra?

    (Hint: Get a good college physics book, preferably written before 1975, and spend about two years learning it completely. Get back to us when you understand that the S-B equation does not apply to “average” temperatures.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    And Doug

    If you want to bring the Moon into the discussion, you need to realize that it rotates relative to the Sun. Therefore, yes, after 14 days, the “dark” side cools a little.

    You really need to read my book.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug, you only need to understand the S-B equation. You do not get to just arbitrarily “divide-by-4”.

    Maybe you should read my book….

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Doug C.,Climate Researcher”, says

    You have not established why the mean surface temperature is hotter than the mean radiating temperature. That mean radiating temperature is based on one fourth of the solar flux (1365/4)W/m^2 and emissivity 1.000 and is thus (by Stefan Boltzmann calculations) 278.4K which is about 9 degrees below the actual mean surface temperature estimates.

    Doug, the IPCC makes the mistake of dividing TSI by 4, but you go even further and leave out albedo. IPCC makes one major mistake, and you make TWO!

    The 278.4 K value has no significance.

  • Avatar

    Kate

    |

    Pat Ober says, “The rest of us struggle to comprehend the extent of this FRAUD! I refuse to talk their talk.”

    Pat, if you strip this down to essentials, it is about religion.

    Climatists have a belief and a strict dogma. It is a belief that rejects God and sets its faith in man.

    Often environmentalists refer to a Utopia that will exist after mankind has been removed from the picture. Population control, atheist eugenics and genetic engineering are involved.

    It is about a longing to return to a garden where the animals and plants live in perfect peace, unmolested by man’s evil greed.

    It fits perfectly for socialists, anarchists, futurists, indeed for anyone who is not Christian. (A Christian believes that this planet we call home has a Creator who is preserving us until His own blessed return.

    We Christians are told we are too dogmatic (intolerant) but the illogical and unprovable dogma of climate science is without an instruction manual such as the Bible. So we have variations and disagreements but always the common theme of global disaster.

    A hopeless bitter religion of self-hate and flagellation, compounded by well-meaning contributors of vast sums of money donated “for the common good.”

  • Avatar

    Kate

    |

    If someone had told me, a literacy teacher, years ago that I would be spending spare time defending our perfect, chaotic, Self-Regulating climate system I would have shouted, “Insanity!”

    All of the above arguments only demonstrate that the mind of man cannot comprehend the mind of God. Those who claim they can program a computer to include all the infinite variables in our wondrous atmosphere are fools.

    And “only a fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Thermal radiative flux is only generated proportional to the difference between opposing “radiance”, and only in the direction of lower radiance.[/quote]Right. Another way of stating this is to indicate that the laws of thermodynamics were stated in terms of net flow. I made this point about 14 months ago. It actually had an effect. But when believers lose an argument they never concede defeat. They just slink away and appear in some other forum and reestablish their belief.

    As with the notion of “cold steam,” in meteorology, people only lose their belief for a short time then they fall back into it.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    wayne says: December 14, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    ” Will, respectably, here is where you and I probably don’t see eye to eye. I personally have no problem with either myself or some other investigating scientist to use that ‘two stream’ viewpoint as long as it is known to only be a mathematical separation tool, as in taking the two ‘T’s in an abbreviated Stefan Boltzmann relation and letting F = ε·σ·(T1^4 – T2^4) = ε·σ·T1^4 – ε·σ·T2^4 all the while knowing that the smaller downward component has no power, zero, to do any physical work……, to literally show these to you like good old proper science but it is always the radiation differences that are real.”

    Wayne, Splitting the S-B equation of a two value difference enclosed in parenthesis, is a deliberate violation of all mathematics and algebra. This can lead only to gross error, and much FRAUD! There are no radiation differences in the exit flux of this planet. There is measurable “radiance” or “field strength” in each direction. Such an EMR field requires no power or energy to exist, just like a gravitational field. Thermal radiative flux is only generated proportional to the difference between opposing “radiance”, and only in the direction of lower radiance.
    This “only” flux is easily measurable. It is the fake T^4 nonsense that has never been detected, observed, nor measured in any way. This atmosphere does not absorb any EMR exit flux, it cannot. This atmosphere creates an opposing “radiance” that at all altitudes opposes the generation of excessive exit flux thus keeping the surface more comfortable than the moon. Ferenc attempts to explain that in a manner that does not piss off the IPCC goons!

    “Over the next few months try revisit his papers regularly, and if you are like me, they become clearer each pass through and you might see his insight of how to prove this using the normal AGW nomenclature so those scientists and climatologists may see where they are so wrong but to do that you must talk their talk.”

    Wayne, I really do read all the Miskolczi papers, and explanations of them, I skim the idiot critiques, I understand (M07) the best. You claim that Fernec must use the non-speak of those scientists and climatologists. If you speak the non-speak, climatologists, are gleeful, never wrong. The rest of us struggle to comprehend the extent of this FRAUD! I refuse to talk their talk.”

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    tallbloke says: December 14, 2014 at 3:09 pm
    Will Janoschka says: December 14, 2014 at 12:38 pm
    (Roger,
    “What does fig. 15 indicate to you? The part that CO2 does nothing is fine. Just what can “atmospheric absorption trends possibly mean when there is no “atmospheric flux absorption” for the Earth exit flux? Dr Miskolczi really needs to revisit Kirchhoff’s laws or radiation, radiative equilibrium, Maxwell’s equations, and the virial principles of Clausius. Ferenc makes trash of all, while dearly clinging to the fake Schuster-Schwarzschild two stream approximation.”)

    “Read the papers! Ferenc does indeed revisit all of the above”

    Roger, I am on my fourth reading! Dr. Miskolczi “only” revisits the post modern interpretation, never the from the “horses mouth”, careful thought and reasoning that these fine folk used to describe, in words and symbols, that careful reasoning. To the post modern, the formula, (symbolic expression) replaces the thought and reasoning with a correct mathematical expression, that has no thought and no reason for existing. The modern college texts are full of this nonsense.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    If one accepts Planck, Wien, Stefan, Boltzmann and Einstein were on the right track then there is plenty of basic accepted science that says a back radiative greenhouse is unlikely to have any merit.

    The IPCC quote Earth’s energy budget which unequivocally claims the atmosphere heats the Earth’s surfaces more than the Sun can. That is absurd in an atmosphere like Earth’s.

    NASA’s planetary fact sheets lead me to believe their data on atmospheric temperatures of all planets are not real measured data but calculated using the ideal gas laws. Try it yourself – the agreement is extraordinary.

    That aside, they present data confirming increasing pressure results in increased temperatures of all planets and these are all above “blackbody” temperature calculations as highlighted previously by Alan Siddons et al.

    The ridiculous arguments about photons being emitted regardless of the “receiver” is simply gobbledegook.

    Photons have discrete energy values and low energy photons are known to have no effect as has been proven by experiment.

    Bohr’s model of the hydrogen atom and electron orbits shows this as does Einstein’s theory and experiments on the photoelectric effect.

    I firmly believe these demonstrate that there is a one way flow of energy from hot to cold or more energetic to less energetic.

    Any low energy photons going from cold to hot cannot possibly do more than replace ones emitted from the hotter object and certainly do not have the capability to induce heating of the hot object.

    Surely Planck curves demonstrate this ?

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

  • Avatar

    John A Marshall

    |

    The Fourier postulation is in the french/english translation but not in Fourier’s orriginal p;aper. He actually stated that the GHE was not possible. So a poor translation to work from.
    The basic physics of CO2 and water vapour shows that the GHE cannot work. It is great to have evidence that this is true.

    • Avatar

      Anne Ominous

      |

      [quote name=”John A Marshall”]The Fourier postulation is in the french/english translation but not in Fourier’s orriginal p;aper. He actually stated that the GHE was not possible. So a poor translation to work from.
      [/quote]

      John: if you have evidence or citations which demonstrate this I would be very interested in seeing them.

Comments are closed