Bombshell Science Study Validates ‘Slaying’ of Greenhouse Gas Theory

Written by John O’Sullivan & Joseph E Postma

New peer-reviewed paper on the greenhouse gas theory is causing tremors among scientists who claim carbon dioxide controls climate. The new paper gives a robust mathematical proof backing a controversial book debunking the ‘settled science’ greenhouse gas effect (GHE).

So, did climate scientists get the cause and effect of carbon dioxide wrong?  Yes, say authors Nikolov and Zeller (both PhDs) whose detailed examination shows that atmospheric pressure and the temperature gradient created by it determines near-surface-air temperature – not carbon dioxide.

The two reputed scientists vindicate what were once deemed ‘crackpot’ claims in ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ (2010). The ‘Slayers’ book was a world’s first by a team of international researchers including renowned Canadian climatologist, D Tim Ball. Dismissed widely at the time because it argued our atmosphere works nothing at all like a greenhouse, its key findings, that atmospheric pressure and the temperature gradient created by it determines near-surface-air temperature, is now proven mathematically by Drs Nikolov and Zeller (Physics and Meteorology).

Nikolov and Zeller’s paper is causing excitement because it offers compelling fresh impetus for a paradigm shift away from carbon-focused climate alarm, a common thesis linking both teams of scientists. Both sets of findings independently confirm that the key claim in the greenhouse gas theory – that carbon dioxide adds, delays or traps heat via downwelling longwave (LW) radiation – is false. Nikolov and Zeller state:

“…the down-welling LW radiation appears to be globally a product of the air temperature rather than a driver of the surface warming. In other words, on a planetary scale, the so-called back radiation is a consequence of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it.”

For more than a generation government climate ‘experts’ had the whole thing back to front. Prominent American climate scientist, Dr. Judith Curry commented:

“Dr. Nikolov has neatly and convincingly explained what others (e.g. ‘The Slayers’) have been broadly asserting for some time… I applaud the efforts to help rectify physical inconsistencies in the current GHE concept.”

Speaking to the Washington Post the two former U.S. government scientists told of the alienation and frustration of producing work that so hotly challenged consensus groupthink. “Not conforming to accepted theories or mainstream beliefs, poses a challenge in today’s world of academic political correctness,” Nikolov said. “This is not just our experience, and it is not just happening in climate science.”

Defenders of the GHE include Dr. Roy Spencer and blogger Anthony Watts (WUWT), both are long-time ‘anti – Slayers’ (see here) and decried all previous work undermining the climate consensus. Watts trashed Nikolov and Zeller’s previous GHE paper in 2012 and banned all pro-Slayer commentary from his site. Only climatologist Dr. Tim Ball (co-founder of the ‘Slayers’) gets any column inches at WUWT – on condition he doesn’t mention the GHE. Such anti-science censorship, probably couched in jealousy, served to stunt wider awareness of this new anti-GHE science.

But Astrophysicist and prominent ‘Slayers’ scientist, Joseph E Postma warmly welcomed the new work:

Among other things, this is what the Slayers have said as well, long ago: the thermal energy in the atmosphere and the atmosphere’s radiation is a consequence of its temperature, not its cause!”

The Nikolov and Zeller paper New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model is more mathematically grounded than most ‘Slayers’ work though does contain some of the ‘flat earth physics’ the ‘Slayers’ exposed as false. In the ‘Slayers’ book, co-author and Sweden’s most-cited mathematician Professor Claes Johnson explained the importance of the Euler/Navier-Stokes equations for a compressible gas subject to gravitation (see the Computational Thermodynamics and his chapter ‘Climate Thermodynamics’ in Slaying the Sky Dragon).

Such mathematical rigor is the springboard for the paradigm shift where a new robust model replaces the old one. Crucially, Nikolov and Zeller validate the ‘Slayers’’ thesis that CO2 cannot ‘trap heat’ in the atmosphere and cause temperatures to rise. As Postma continues:

“There’s no independent internal source of radiation in or from the atmosphere, therefore any such radiation from the atmosphere is a consequence, not a cause.”

The scientists drew comparisons with atmospheres of other planets in our solar system – all show a strong correlation between atmospheric pressure and their temperature gradient. As such,  it can be said one common control factor – air pressure and the temperature gradient – better explains climate. No CO2 factor needed!

Postma’s earlier papers explain the physics involved, while Nikolov and Zeller provide confirmatory mathematical proof. For non-mathematicians Postma’s papers are easier to follow. They are found at: (2011, pg 20):  “the gravitational compression of the gas of the atmosphere does qualitatively create a distribution of temperature.” (2011, pg 15): “An example of a quantitative logical test of the standard GHE postulate comes with analysis of the expected temperature distribution of a compressible gas in a gravitational field. The internal energy of a parcel of gas in a column of air is easily expressed as a sum of its thermal and gravitational potential energies..” (2012, pg 7 & 9): “Of course, the specific mechanism of the GHE is something else, which we will discuss ahead, but it should be clear that whatever the GHE mechanism is, it is not the temperature gradient Γ itself.”

For Postma and his colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI), the task was all about demonstrating that the radiative greenhouse gas effect is wrong. They say this is because there are basic alternative considerations which the consensus theory failed to include. Dozens more explanatory articles can be found at

Time to Drop ‘Greenhouse Gas’ Groupthink

Until the ‘Slayers’ emerged the climate debate was just a two-sided debate of ‘how much’ warming the trace gas CO2 added to earth’s climate. Discussion of a third option (no CO2 impact) was forbidden.

But in 2010 when ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ was published, it immediately became, in the words of a prominent skeptic, Lord Christopher Monckton, “the talk of the Cancun Climate Conference.’ Unable to get a fair hearing at that time these pioneer researchers were roundly dismissed as “crackpots.” Monckton and other prominent skeptics joined in the attacks, no one wanted to believe CO2 had no impact on climate.

Even Nikolov and Zeller are loathe to drop the discredited term ‘greenhouse gas effect’ – which the ‘Slayers’ are adamant is totally unphysical and misleading.

As PSI co-founder Hans Schreuder explains:

“This nonsensical and widespread belief that our atmosphere has something called a “greenhouse effect” has been the root of so much misunderstanding and confusion. Climate scientists got it back to front – they put the cart before the horse and committed the greatest error of modern science – they turned an effect into a cause.”

No Such Thing as ‘Greenhouse Effect’ Outside a Greenhouse

Postma, a ‘Slayer’ since 2011, has demonstrated in his papers there is no prior evidence that there need be something called a “greenhouse effect” present in an open atmosphere. He has a helpful video presentation here:

“It is all very well accounted for already by adiabatic pressure and the Ideal Gas Laws,” he explains.

Firstly, the ‘Slayers’ (now Principia Scientific International) began the discussion about the adiabatic effect causing the lower atmosphere to be higher in temperature. This is not a greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse and it is not about stopping convection – repeat, the adiabatic effect is NOT about stopping convection.

Secondly, a real greenhouse effect is what occurs in a real greenhouse, and this is not what the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm was nor is it about an adiabatic effect, and so it is illogical to use the term “greenhouse effect” 1) for things that it is not, 2) for multiple different things at the same time. The adiabatic effect is not about inhibiting convection. Therefore, to end the confusion, climate researchers need to abandon that non-applicable and deceptively applied term. That it persists serves a political, not a scientific purpose.

Mass Promotion of Greenhouse Gas Alarm Since 1988

Politics, unfortunately, is at the root of mass promotion of the ‘greenhouse gas theory.’ School children are taught it is long-settled science. But the truth is it was born from nothing more than the musings of Victorian scientists obsessed with the ‘calorific ether.’ What is not widely known is that for much of 20th Century mainstream science abandoned talk of CO2-driven climate. Indeed, from the 1950’s to the 1970’s, with fears of a coming ice age, scientists said it was the known cooling properties of dust particles and aerosols (from human emissions and volcanic activity) that had the biggest impact.

In 1988, during a period of warming temperatures, two important media events re-ignited the forgotten greenhouse hypothesis. They were the Royal Society speech by UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and shortly after, the highly-publicized testimony of NASA’s James Hansen before the US Congress. Later came Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ which touted nine climate lies exposed in a pivotal UK court ruling, including the biggest whopper, that rises in CO2 lead rises in temperatures – the opposite is true. [1]

Group thinkers had the forces of government funds and a sensationalizing media to keep their alarmist message alive, so the fake debate was all about ‘how much’ CO2 would alter climate, never the null hypothesis. From 2007 Alan Siddons and Hans Schreuder – the original ‘Slayers’ – debunked this concept here, here, here and here by pointing out how blaming a benign trace gas that comprised only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere violates thermodynamic law.

Astrophysicist Postma explains:

“We quite directly showed that the near-surface air temperature must be warmer than any expected average temperature, with the reason being the gravitational field and atmospheric mass. There is no logical reason to call this a greenhouse effect since this mechanism is not how a real greenhouse operates. We called it the atmosphere effect instead since that at least refers to the actual object in question.”

Bottom line: there is no greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Time to break the addiction and embrace the paradigm shift.

[1] Barnola, Barkov et al. ‘Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core,'(2003); Petit et all 1999 (CO2 lags temps by 1,000’s of years; Fischer et al 1999 (CO2 lag of 600± 400 years); Monnin et al 2001 at Dome Concordia, Antarctica (CO2 to temp lag of 800 ± 600 yrs); Mudelsee (2001) CO2 lags temps. by 1,300 years ± 1000; Caillon et al 2003  CO2 lags temps by  800 ± 200 years.

Comments (25)

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo


    The whole N&Z paper is based on the “flat earth” assumption of average insolation and average global temperatures. Joe Postma has been arguing for years that this assumption is absurd and completely invalidates any analysis that uses it. But here he heartily approves of the N&Z paper. What gives?

    • Avatar

      Ned Nikolov


      Ed Bo, this is an absolutely incorrect statement! It shows that you have totally misunderstood our methods and results… To claim that the global average temperature of a planet is a meaningless quantity is to not understand the basic fact that temperature is LINEARLY related to the kinetic energy of a gas. Because of this linear relationship, an average temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy content of an atmosphere at the level where that temperature is recorded. Temperature is a marker of the energy of a gas, and the atmospheric energy drives our climate system!

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan


    Ed, the paper is an important step in the right direction, for the reasons stated in the article. It isn’t perfect. We noted their 2012 paper at the time and made similar comments. ‘Flat earth’ physics is the root of the fictional 33 degrees of additional warming, an early 20th Century unphysical fudge factor that should be abandoned in this age of supercomputers.

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo


      John, the “flat earth” approximation is used in diagrams like K&T as a simplified conceptual illustration only. The supercomputers used for actual calculations do NOT use it — you can go into the code of some of them and see. Typically, they update every 15 minutes or so and calculate the instantaneous insolation for each gridded section of the globe using trigonometry.

      But N&Z use it in the core of their analysis, and those who decry its use in “cartoon” illustrations applaud in this case!

      Oh, and Judith Curry made NO such supporting quotation as what you put in the post. She is uniformly scathing in her criticisms of Slayers. The site you link as your reference for the quote says that it was a comment at WUWT, not even at Curry’s blog. You need to correct your post.

  • Avatar

    Ideal Gas Man


    Ed Bo obviously hasn’t read the NZ paper as it uses the the Volokin-ReLlez correction for the flat Earth (33 K result) by recalculating an integrated sphere (90 K result):
    using the spherical Earth in place of the ‘flat’ Earth was the magic key that lead to their discovery.

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo


      I have indeed read the N&Z paper, and the V&R paper they cite. Both papers I would reject if any of the undergraduates I teach had turned them in to me. They are that bad!

      As just one example, V&R state: “The Law of Energy Conservation dictates that a change in rotational speed may only affect the magnitude of the diurnal temperature amplitude at the surface but not the diurnal mean, i.e. rotation solely acts to redistribute the total available energy between daytime and nighttime hemispheres through the planet’s thermal inertia.”

      This simply shows that they understand neither the 1st Law (CoE) nor Holder’s Inequality at the most basic level. When the power emitted by the surface is proportional to a power of temperature greater than 1 (in this case, the 4th power), the more variation from the average temperature there is (for a given average temperature), the more total power emitted. For the case where the solar power input is constant over the long term (even if cycling in the short term), this means that the greater the variance in temperature over time, the lower the average temperature must be for CoE to be satisfied.

      The slower the moon rotates, the more the temperature varies, so the lower the average temperature must be. The moon rotates at 1/30 the rate of the earth (with respect to the sun).

      The lower the thermal capacitance (“inertia”) of the surface involved in the day/night thermal exchange, the more the temperature varies, so the lower the average temperature must be. The thermal capacitance of the fraction of a meter of dust on the surface of the moon that varies each diurnal cycle is tiny compared to that of the earth, which extends down several meters over most of the earth.

      Neither pair of authors understands these points at the most fundamental level. Instead they pat themselves on the back for taking into account the cosmic microwave background radiation — which amounts to a whopping 3 microwatts per square meter.

      And despite giving lip service to Holder’s inequality, N&Z do their whole analysis based on average temperatures and fluxes — what Joe keeps calling the “flat earth” fallacy!

        • Avatar

          Ed Bo


          Hi quokka, I have been following your fun. You’re doing a fine job dismantling his arguments all by yourself. I admire your patience, as many of his arguments aren’t even coherent enough to form good counterarguments against.

          You may want to press him for his calculations for the power fluxes on the back half of the bulb, the side not irradiated by the lamps. I haven’t seen him account for this yet. His experiment doesn’t have the spherical symmetry of, say, Willis’ “steel greenhouse”, which makes the math so much easier. I don’t think Rosco really understands the difference.

          • Avatar



            Quokka has been rambling on like an demented fool. He says:-

            Spectra considerations are irrelevant – seriously ??

            He seems to think it is impossible to focus light and infra-red using parabolic mirrors.

            He denies the validity of a steradian – even if the spotlight emits over a steradian with beam angle of `65° ( it is 30° according to the manufacturer) at 1 metre distant the flux is 150 W/m2 and at ~68 cm the flux value is ~325 W/m2. He simply denies this well documented science.

            He denies the validity of the inverse square law. I measured the temperature of the light glass as over 200°C and used the inverse square relationship to show the glass is emitting ~2840 W/m2 at ~23 cm from the filament and this reduces to 2840 times (230/680)^2 at the sphere where the thermometer is located – again ~325 W/m2.

            Funny how my maths just keeps adding up !!

            He seems to object to using Planck curves and yet they are used extensively.

            What is at dispute is whether a simple algebraic sum of radiant emissions is valid.

            You do understand that the emissions observed during the cavity experiments behave as per Planck’s law – the emissions are defined by only Planck’s law – at least according to the current state of science ?

            You do understand that Planck won the Nobel prize ?

            You do understand the relationship between Planck’s law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law ?

            You do understand that adding the integral of a sum is the same as the sum of the integrals ? This is especially obvious as Planck’s law always produces positive results.

            You do understand the difference between spectral emittance and intensity ?

            The University lecture clearly states that 239.7 W/m2 solar radiation produces a 255 K infra-red radiation emission from the surface in the no atmosphere version of its diagram.

            By adding the atmosphere they explicitly state that the surface now emits 479 W/m2 and calculate that an object at 303 K emits this radiation.

            IF it is right then why don’t the curves add up to give a Planck curve equivalent to the curve for 303 K ?

            Surely you don’t argue as Quokka does that at any temperature the emission is defined by Planck’s law or that it is irrelevant ?

            You do understand when you add 239.7 W/m2 + 239.7 W/m2 as the University lecture does it is EXACTLY the same as adding every corresponding “y” axis value of a Planck curve for 255 K to itself and plotting the resulting curve ?

            Why object to adding the numeric values by a different but obviously valid method ?

            They add the 255 K atmospheric radiation to the existing 255 K surface emission and arrive at 479.4 W/m2 which calculates to 303 K.

            239.7 W/m2 is the emission from a 255 K source and there is a unique Planck curve that defines this.

            Adding the Planck curves does not produce the curve for 303 K – it produces a curve with the right area under the curve to be sure but unless it is a Planck curve it is not equal to sigma T^4.

            Explain how that assertion is wrong because if the 303 K calculated is correct it is emitting radiation defined by Planck’s law !

            I simply wonder how you can think it is possible to disregard this simple reality ?

            I’ll say it again – the radiant emission from an object at temperature T is defined solely by Planck’s law.

            The total power emitted is defined by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation AND is also defined by the integral of Planck’s law over all wavelengths, or frequencies or whatever variable is plotted.

            How can the simple arithmetic sum of 239.7 + 239.7 = 479.4 which calculates to 303 K by the Stefan-Boltzmann law be right if the exact same maths utilising Planck curves does not produce a Planck curve ?

            There is no difference.

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo



            One last attempt. I have tried to point out to you multiple times that you have no idea what the equations you are using actually mean in the real world. Like the kids I say who were failing out of thermodynamics, you just find an equation that has something to do with the subject at hand and plug numbers into it without any understanding, yielding laughably ridiculous results.

            Just one quick example from your latest comment: No matter how many times it is explained to you that the SB equation tells you how much radiative power flux OUTPUT you can get from an object as a function of its temperature, you keep using it with regard to radiative INPUT! No one who has the remotest understanding of the underlying concepts would even think of doing this!

            So, you examine the UW lecture that has a faraway “hot” shortwave source providing 239.7 W/m2 to our blackbody surface (magnitude reduced by distance through the inverse square law), and a proximate “cool” longwave source providing another 239.7 W/m2 to the surface. For simplicity both of these sources are considered blackbodies, so they have different “Planck” curves that barely overlap.

            As you say, ” it produces a curve with the right area under the curve.” This area is the total power INPUT to a unit area of the surface.

            But the spectrum of the radiated output has NOTHING to do with the spectrum (or other sources) of the power input! There is NO reason the output spectrum from the surface has to match the input spectrum. So it is absolutely irrelevant that “Adding the Planck curves does not produce the curve for 303 K.”

            If you had taken an actual thermodynamics course and remotely understood the content of the first few weeks, you would understand that to compute the steady state conditions of the object, you must perform an “energy balance” (1st Law analysis) balancing ALL the inputs and outputs. In the UW example (unlike your light bulb experiment) the balance is very simple as there are only radiative power inputs and outputs, and they are geometrically uniform.

            So you have 479.4 W/m2 input to the surface combined from two separate sources. To be in steady-state conditions, the surface must output the same magnitude of power, and in this case, it has only radiative output. So we have for this blackbody surface a radiative output:

            Q = 479.4 W/m2 = 1.0 * sigma * Tsurf^4

            We can use this equation to solve for Tsurf. (Note carefully that we are still using this equation to explain radiative OUTPUT as a function of temperature — nothing to do with radiative INPUT as you try to do.) We are asking, “What surface temperature is necessary to OUTPUT this radiative power flux given an emissivity of 1.0?” So we have:

            Tsurf = (479.4 / sigma)^ (1/4) = 303K

            So the surface will emit the blackbody Planck curve for 303K EVEN THOUGH the radiative input was of a completely different spectrum. If the power input were from electrical resistance heating under the surface with no radiative input from above, the radiative output would be the same.

            THAT is how I explain your “assertion is wrong”.

            Seriously Rosco, mediocre undergraduates understand this stuff easily. You don’t come close!

      • Avatar

        Ned Nikolov


        Dear Ed Bo,

        You need to read Volokin & ReLlez (2014) more carefully before making comments, and get the argument right as to why the spin rate has no effect on the global average temperature.

        1) V&R show that the global average temperature of an airless spherical body is highly sensitive to the parameter ηe (eta) in their Eq. 15. What is ηe? It is the “effective ground heat storage coefficient in a vacuum defined as a fraction of the absorbed shortwave flux conducted into the subsurface during daylight hour and subsequently released as heat at night”. V&R demonstrate that ηe depends on the thermal conductivity of the regolith. Thermal conductivity in turn is a function of the regolith chemical composition, particle sizes and the amount of gas (or fluid) held between the particles that transports heat via convection as opposed by conduction. In other words, the thermal conductivity of a substrate strongly depends on the gas density and atmospheric pressure found in spaces between the regolith particles. The thermal conductivity does NOT depend on a planet’s spin rate! Therefore, ηe is independent of spin rate as well. This is all discussed at length on pp. 14-17 in Volokin & ReLlez (2014);

        2) If the spin rate of a planet had indeed a measurable effect on the global average temperature as claimed by simple 1-D models, then the highly accurate regression Equation 10a in Nikolov & Zeller (2017) would have been IMPOSSIBLE provided that this equation does not consider spin rate at all. This is because the six planetary bodies participating in the regression analysis have rotation periods ranging from 1 day (for Earth) to 243 days (for Venus). In other words, the fact that planetary bodies with such diverse spin rates fall so tightly on a single pressure-temperature curve, which does not consider rotation periods (see Fig. 4 in the N&Z paper), indicates that the spin rate has NO EFFECT on global planetary temperatures in REALITY! The notion of an impact of rotation rate on global temperature is exclusively based on 1-dimensional thermo-physical models, but it is not supported by empirical evidence. This is one of those math-born myths we need to get rid of… Models are only a limited representation of reality, and whenever there is a discrepancy between a theoretical model and real observations, we need to reconsider the theory rather than dismiss the data. This is the standard scientific method!

        • Avatar

          Ed Bo



          Yikes! You have even less grasp of the underlying physical principles and mathematics than I thought!

          As to point 1, my argument does not rest AT ALL on any claim that thermal conductivity varies with spin rate. You are attacking a strawman here. But for a GIVEN set of thermal properties of the surface such as conductivity, as the spin rate increases, the amplitude of the day/night temperature difference lessens, as V&R acknowledge.

          What I do argue is that V&R are completely wrong to claim (and you are completely wrong to accept) that the magnitude of this day/night variation has no effect on the average (mean) temperature.

          A simplified example makes my point without too much math. For simplicity, we will use a single “daytime” and single “nighttime” temperature, but the principle is in no way dependent on that simplification.

          A planet with emissivity 1.0 and a uniform temperature of 255K will radiate a total power of:

          Q = 5.67E-8 * (255^4) * A = 240 * A watts

          where A is the area of the planet in m^2.

          If the planet instead is half at 205K (nighttime) and half at 305K (daytime), so with the same average temperature, it will radiate a total power of:

          Q = [5.67E-8 * (205^4) * A/2] + [5.67E-8 * (305^4) * A/2] = 100 * A/2 + 491 * A/2 = 295 * A watts

          If the planet is half at 155K (nighttime) and half at 355K (daytime), so again with the same average temperature, it will radiate a total power of:

          Q = [5.67E-8 * (155^4) * A/2] + [5.67E-8 * (355^4) * A/2] = 33 * A/2 + 901 * A/2 = 467 * A watts

          It should be a trivial exercise to see that with a constant power input — let’s say 240 * A watts, the larger the variance in temperature, the lower the average temperature must be for the planet to maintain steady state conditions.

          With a little math, we can compute that for the +/-50K case, the average temperature must be reduced to 240K, and for the +/-100K case, the average temperature must be reduced to 202K (similar to the moon’s average!)

          I would expect undergraduates in an introductory course to make such a mistake only once, and then understand it readily. For people calling themselves professional scientists to make and promulgate this error over many years is inexcusable!

          You ask how your regression equation could work if this effect were real. I turn the question around on you. How could an equation that ignores this HUGE (YUUUUGE?) physical effect have any validity?

          You still have not come close to understanding the most basic criticism of your work, namely that a regression equation with almost as many coefficients as data points can NEVER be demonstrated to be valid. Where are the “withheld” data points not used in the regression that can then be plugged in as a test? Oh right, there aren’t any! I could go on and on.

          The financial markets are littered with regression equations such as yours, which fit “perfectly” to existing data, yet have absolutely no ability to predict a “future” data point. You have done nothing to demonstrate that your equation is not in this class.

          • Avatar



            @Ed Bo,
            “A planet with emissivity 1.0 and a uniform temperature of 255K will radiate a total power of:
            Q = 5.67E-8 * (255^4) * A = 240 * A watts”

            Emission at a distance from the source will have that power, right?

            The source of emission from the atmosphere is found internally. Observed effective emission to space is about 240W/m^2, and there is no way around that the source power has to be at minimum 960W/m^2. Under ideal conditions with maximized flow, the earth ball needs a supply of minimum 960W/m^2 to emit 240W/m^2 from the atmosphere.

            You can not use a heat source with the power 240W/m^2. That is equal to being heated by a -20C rock in total darkness.

            Just use the source power TSI absorbed by the disk, distributed over the hemisphere into a spherical volume with a ball inside. That is the optimized incoming flow. The surface area of the lit 1/2 of the ball is the upper limit of solar heating. The upper limit of emission from the ball`s surface is half that.

            I see lots of complaining about adding fluxes and why such abuse deserves suffering in hell. But what if it´s fun to add fluxes?

            Isn´t time unnecessary? If we ignore time everything can happen at once and we can add fluxes like crazy. The gradient represented like layers from mean temperatures becomes stackable like LEGO which fits with the pieces of optimized solar heat flow. But this is not balance equations like for heat transfer, they are sums of total emission and total absorption. And work. All three always flows at the same time, inflow, work and emission. Which means that they have to be balanced in any point in time. Right?
            Then, what is the point of time? Lets add fluxes instead, in equal total flow.

            The heating of the system has to be a point source with power to change the internal energy by deltaU, so that deltaU/4=Q=240W/m^2.
            Then we know that the mean temperature 288K is not surface T, it is actually the mean temperature of air at the surface. Heating of air at the surface cause displacement of mass by convection which depends on temperature. Work is being done by the system by displacing mass with the average force of ~385W/m^2. The air must have the temperature of heated convection. Emission to space is 4Q, delta U is TSI. If we use optimized surface temperature as the force driving convection, everything is in place with inflow, the inner boundary and emitted power. All of these points are constrained by radiative transfer. Heating and emission must obviously be radiative, the rest(heated air) can be nothing else than work and it is fixed by heating and emission, which are constant. Whatever fluctuations there may be, they are caused by emissive power measured as temperature, not THE cause.

            With knowledge of the optimized flows in solar heat transfer and emissive power in convection of near surface air, we have work and the change in internal energy. The equation has the exact same function as the stefan-boltzmann equation for radiative heat transfer.

            4Q=1361-(1/2*1361/1.778) and Q=~244W/m^2

            “The financial markets are littered with regression equations such as yours, which fit “perfectly” to existing data”

            You got it wrong. The data from equations of the perfect/ideal system, which is entirely fictional but show the limits and potentials, is a “perfect” match to reality. We don´t need to accept it as truth, but there is no way around that we need to explain why earth behaves exactly as a heat engine with optimized flow.

            At least you have to agree that using a source power for heating
            with emissive power of 240W/m^2 is not a very good description of reality. If we have the choice, why would we not use a basic version of the first law as a foundation? Especially when it works like a boss?

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo



            Nothing in your rambling even relates to my claims, let alone contradicts them. What the heck were you trying to say?

          • Avatar



            @Ed Bo
            July 4, 2017 at 3:44 am

            “Nothing in your rambling even relates to my claims, let alone contradicts them. What the heck were you trying to say?”

            Maybe I got you wrong, but this stuff:

            “Q = [5.67E-8 * (155^4) * A/2] + [5.67E-8 * (355^4) * A/2] = 33 * A/2 + 901 * A/2 = 467 * A watts

            It should be a trivial exercise to see that with a constant power input — let’s say 240 * A watts.”

            If you were right, the point source of emission for the average temperature 255K would vary from 960W/m^2 to 1180W/m^2 and finally 1916W/m^2, because of different night and day temps. How could the same average effective emission have such large difference in the heat source power? Especially since you wrote that the constant power input is 240W/m^2.

            If the heating power is 240W/m^2 from all directions to the sphere, then the emission to all directions must be equal. Heating directed towards the center from 4pir^2*240W/m^2 result in a point source of maximum 960W/m^2. The emissive power can not exceed 960W/4.

            That is what my rambling was about, that heating must be realistic, distributed over the hemisphere and transformed through dissipation in the volume, which then can be used for emission from the surface in steady state. Because what is absorbed on one side is the limit of what the ball receives. When using average energy distributed over the whole surface area as heating power, you get this weird result that the ball will increase in temperature because diurnal variation is larger. The reason is of course that the power of the heat source distributed over the whole surface is unphysical and if it is done that way there is no diurnal variation, because heating is even.

            Your calculations only include the emission, or am I missing something? What is the heat source power of irradiation on the dayside in each one of your examples?

            If the heat source power is constant, how can the point source of emission in the planet vary? And why do you use power input averaged over the whole sphere when there is no planet in the universe that is heated from all directions. Unless there is more than one star heating it, but then there would not be any day and night variations.

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo



            Please read a little more carefully. You quote me as saying there is “a constant power input — let’s say 240 * A watts.”

            But then you claim that I ” wrote that the constant power input is 240W/m^2.”

            No!!! These are very different things. I very carefully did NOT claim a constant power flux density over area. I did claim a constant total power input over time. The difference is important.

            What I set up is consistent with a parallel flow of density 960 W/m^2 (absorbed) striking one hemisphere of a sphere. With the total surface area of the sphere 4 times that of one side of the disk of the same radius, the total power absorbed by the sphere is 240 * A watts.

            Given this type of uneven distribution (over area), there are many factors that govern the temperature distribution over area: the speed of rotation, the thermal capacitance of the area affected, and any horizontal conduction and convection modes of heat transfer.

            For a constant total power input (over time), the bigger the temperature variation, the lower the average temperature, as I demonstrated mathematically. On earth, all of the factors I mentioned lead to a more uniform temperature distribution than the moon (even before any “greenhouse effect”). This is what N&Z failed to realize, and what I called them on.

  • Avatar



    Quokka asserted that “spectral considerations are irrelevant” and “no-one is adding Planck curves”.

    The purpose of these stupid, uneducated claims was to support his assertions.

    Quokka’s claims are nonsense – otherwise it is not possible to calculate in-band radiance. Utilizing Planck’s law is the only method for calculating this. It is widely used for thousands of problems for which the Stefan-Boltzmann equation cannot provide any information AND it establishes what I said about the equivalence of the area under any Planck curve and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

    Not that this should need establishing to anyone who has read what ALL the texts say on this. Here is one example – Young & Freedman University Physics Chapter 39.5 Continuous Spectra equation 39.27 in the version I have.

    There shouldn’t be any objection to these simple facts.

    However you continually make up straw men to attack me. Why do you find it so difficult to engage in a discussion without rancor ?

    You have done it again in your latest comment – “There is NO reason the output spectrum from the surface has to match the input spectrum.”

    I have never said that ! Quite the opposite in fact !

    I explained to Quokka, who clearly has no appreciation of the concepts involved, that the University lecture asserts that in their “no atmosphere” diagram that the 239.7 W/m2 input from the Sun causes the surface to radiate 239.7 at 255 K.

    I provided Planck curves demonstrating this BUT I never said the spectra had to be the same.

    I clearly said this was a transformation and AT NO TIME DID I ASSERT the output spectrum had to match the input. What I said was right – the incoming visible radiation is absorbed and in response the surface emits radiation with a numerical value of 239.7 W/m2 at 255 K.

    Thus the surface emitted radiation must be equivalent to a 255 K Planck curve and the area under that curve is indeed 239.7 W/m2.

    The lecture states this as the case and I simply showed how this is represented by Planck curves.

    At this point I am definitely correct – I show the surface emitting 239.7 W/m2 at 255 K as the University lecture explicitly states in their first diagram.

    This transformation from visible solar to infra-red exists whether or not there is an atmosphere. The lecture clearly states this.

    Then they proceed to the diagram with an atmosphere.

    Here they state that the atmosphere is now radiating 239 W/m2 to space and back to the ground because it is a layer.

    Thus, as you continually assert, we can use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to calculate this atmospheric layer temperature as 255 K !

    And of course this can be represented by a Planck curve for 255 K !

    After all the only evidence for all of this is the cavity experiments where the 3 laws were determined and it is absolutely mathematically correct that if you use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to calculate emissions or temperatures then the appropriate Planck curve gives the same result.

    Again I state I have never added up input fluxes whether or not they have any spectral overlap.

    Every calculation I perform is the difference using what the textbooks teach Q(net) = sigma(T1^4 – T0^4).

    But many years ago I decided to examine this using Planck curves.

    Now I explicitly said that the solar 239.7 causes the surface to EMIT 239.7 at 255 K !

    I said this would occur when an atmosphere was “added” !

    I said the atmosphere EMITS 239 .7 at 255 K !

    I then plotted a 255 K curve and a 303 K curve !

    The University lecture asserts that 239.7 + 239.7 – BOTH AT 255 K – equals 479.4 at 303 K ! This is indisputable.

    Thus I doubled every value for the 255 K curve and even a dimwit would have to know it will not ever produce the 303 K curve – no sum of discrete fluxes plotted as Planck curves will produce the correct Planck curve.

    Now if you want to assert that doesn’t matter then I state unequivocally that you are mistaken for without the equivalence between Planck’s law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law no calculation is valid.

    I AM NOT adding input to output or whatever convoluted “trick” you make up as justification for refusing to acknowledge the simple truth of what I actually say – you can disagree with my conclusions but you cannot just lie about what I actually say.

    The fact is, unequivocally, to raise the temperature of the surface which emits 255 K in response to the solar input you need to provide the “energy” between the 303 K curve and the 255 K curve.

    Plot the curves yourself – or refer to mine – it is obvious.

    Now this area between the 2 curves is indeed 239.7 W/m2 but it is clearly a difference not a “gross”.

    Doubling the 255 K curve does not give the 303 K curve yet you assert it does !

    What I show is 239.7 OUTPUT from the surface at 255 K AND 479.4 OUTPUT from the surface at 303 K and the difference as the area between the 2 curves as the “energy” necessary to raise the temperature from 255 K to 303 K BUT is is not achieved by adding 239.7 plus 239.7 at 255 K !

    We think we know the laws of radiative emissions and temperature – Stefan-Boltzmann, Wein’s and Planck’s.

    I firmly believe what I demonstrate is correct mathematically !

    I have not committed any of the fallacies you assert I have !

    I am not adding up input fluxes !

    I am clearly showing that the difference – clearly shown by the area between the 2 Planck curves – IS NOT the same as the sum of the individual OUTPUT fluxes – it obviously is NOT !

    Stop attacking straw men you invent !

    I cannot believe you continue to believe I cannot “get” your claims and you need to keep explaining it to me !

    I once asked you for a reference to verify the claims you made and you referred me to “ScienceofDoom”. Recently you cite the “steel greenhouse”.

    Is that it ?

    I should surrender right now – oh wait ! – the “steel greenhouse” doesn’t actually exist does it ?

    It has never been verified. Given NASA’s support for the “settled science” one would think it is easy to perform an experiment to prove this assertion.

    ScienceofDoom performs lots of mathematical calculations but does not have any actual verifiable experimental evidence does he ?

    All I have done is :-

    Perform a simple experiment. I calculate the output according to the temperature.
    Analyse the data using the “net” form of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
    I later modeled the data using Planck’s law and rewrote my analysis recently.
    I showed that the plotted curves add up to give the same results as the SB calculations.
    All are calculated as emitted NOT input and all are calculated as difference values.

    All that you or Quokka can object to is the interpretation of the additional 71 W/m2 emitted at 30°C over the 407 emitted at ambient 18°C and the additional 110 W/m2 emitted at 36°C over the 407 emitted at ambient 18°C.

    There is no doubt the calculations I use give results which agree with the data I recorded.

    I attempted to perform an experiment to see how fluxes may add up.

    There is no dispute over the difference calculations – at 30°C the emission is 71 W/m2 more than at 18°C.

    You and Quokka and several others assert that this 71 W/m2 is a gross value.

    I disagree.

    The light has a filament at the focus of a parabolic mirror designed to “concentrate” the light to a beam angle of 30°.

    Using rough calculations one finds the area of a sphere at 1 metre from an object emitting over 1 steradian is 1 square metre and the flux at this area is 150 W/m2.

    At 68 cm form the filament the surface area of a sphere is 0.68^2 m2 – or 0.4624 m2 and 150 W “spread” over this area is ~324 W/m2.

    I’ve seen your comment about calculating what is coming out the backside – I now know where you speak from !

    I do not find this calculation to be frivolous or unreasonable – it is using straightforward maths and accepted science and is reasonable given the design of the parabolic mirror of the light !

    A steradianhas a plane beam angle of ~65° while the manufacturer tells me the design beam angle is 30°.

    To further examine whether or not this is reasonable I decided to measure the temperature of the glass surface where the light exits the light.

    I measured 224°C in a circular area of about half of the glass surface in various places many times before I couldn’t stand to hold the probe on the glass any longer each time because it is so hot.

    I took an average of 200°C and calculated it is emitting ~2841 W/m2.

    It is situated ~45 cm from the thermometer. Using the Inverse square law I calculate that a surface emitting 2841 W/m2 at 23 cm from the filament will result in ~325 W/m2.

    And let’s not forget the 2841 W/m2 emitted by the glass back into the light itself which will be reflected by the parabolic mirror resulting in a runaway greenhouse effect.

    Quokka’s response was “at least I’m not stupid enough to believe blackbody radiation travels in a straight line” ????

    Perhaps he should explain to NASA or anyone else who uses this exact same calculation to arrive at the solar “constant” of ~1368 W/m2 that they are stupid !

    Anyway I’ve wasted enough time on this.

    I have used perfectly straight forward science in the correct manner and cited reputable references.

    You guys don’t like the results but you have added nothing new to this discussion.

    Seriously everyone can see what you claim and can perform your simple maths !

    As a final point it is absolutely certain that spectral considerations are totally relevant as proven by Einstein.

    In the photoelectric effect he established to the satisfaction of all that the gross energy does NOT determine the result !

    Any incident photon striking material capable of producing the photo electric effect must have a “threshold” energy. Einstein said the energy of the photon is absorbed totally or not at all depending on the threshold property of the absorbing material.

    He established beyond doubt that one could bombard a photoelectric surface with as many photons below threshold energy level as one liked the photons will not split the electron from the atom.

    This is one example of your assertion failing to match reality.

    There would appear to be examples indicating is no universal rule that you assert as this one example shows.

    I just don’t believe you – get over it !

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo



      Nothing you claim here in any way convinces me that you have the foggiest notion what you are talking about. Your claims are so confused it is hard to tell what you are arguing at all.

      Matt Young is absolutely correct when he says that your paper “is one of the worst presentations I have ever seen in a supposedly technical journal… I simply could not figure out much of what Mr. MacLeod/Rosco has done nor what he is trying to do. The experiment itself is amateurish at best, and the report certainly would not pass muster as an undergraduate laboratory report in my department.”

      As to your latest, we agree that if the sun is radiating 239.7 W/m2 to a blackbody surface and there are no other power sources, the surface must radiate 239.7 W/m2 to space, which means that it will have a steady state temperature of 255K.

      But the second half of the UW presentation says that if there is an atmosphere acting as a blackbody “shell” preventing the surface from radiating directly to space, several things happen:

      For the surface-plus-shell combined system to be in steady-state conditions, the outer surface must radiate 239.7 W/m2 to space, which as a blackbody means that it must be at 255K.

      But the inner surface of the shell must be at 255K (or more) so it must radiate 239.7 W/m2 back toward the planet surface. So the surface is receiving 479.4 W/m2, half shortwave from a faraway source at 5700K, and half longwave from a close source at 255K.

      Now, for the surface to be in steady state conditions when it is receiving 479.4 W/m2, it must radiate away an equivalent 479.4 W/m2, which as a blackbody means it must reach a temperature of 303K, and its spectrum will be in between that of the sun and that of the atmospheric shell.

      You say: “The University lecture asserts that 239.7 + 239.7 – BOTH AT 255 K – equals 479.4 at 303 K ! This is indisputable.”

      NO!!!!! It is absolutely disputable! They simply say that 239.7 + 239.7 = 479.4. I hope we can agree on that much. But where the heck do you get the “BOTH AT 255K” part? They are not asserting that the sun is 255K! Then they simply derive the 303K from the energy balance (1st Law) for the surface, as I did above, and use the SB equation to determine what the temperature must be to radiate away 479.4K.

      You say: “I doubled every value for the 255 K curve and even a dimwit would have to know it will not ever produce the 303 K curve – no sum of discrete fluxes plotted as Planck curves will produce the correct Planck curve.”

      NOBODY – not the UW team, not Quokka, not Matt Young, not I — is claiming that it should. You are simply setting up your own strawman to shoot down.

      You say: “Doubling the 255 K curve does not give the 303 K curve yet you assert it does!”

      Again, NO!!!! I am not asserting that, nor is Quokka, Matt Young, or UW. We do assert — correctly — that the area under the 303K blackbody emission curve is twice the area under the 255K blackbody emission curve, but that is NOT the same as saying that each point on the 303K curve is twice as high as the point for the same wavelength on the 255K. This is basic, basic stuff that you are missing!

      The 303K curve is shifted towards shorter wavelengths than the 255K. Elsewhere you cite Wien’s law that shows this, but you obviously have no idea what it really means.

      I will repeat that it does not matter what the source of the input energy is: one radiative source, two radiative sources, electrical resistance under the surface, radioactive decay under the surface, etc. If the power input density is 479.4 W/m2, a blackbody surface must be at 303K to radiate away equivalent power and be in steady state conditions.

      All your nonsense about adding Planck curves together is absolutely meaningless scientifically. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you will stop making a fool of yourself.

      (And I’m just scratching the surface. I don’t have the time to refute every nonsensical point that you make.)

  • Avatar



    Often people who think they are clever often can’t see the forest for the trees.

    You have only one argument based on “energy balance” –

    “To be in steady-state conditions, the surface must output the same magnitude of power, and in this case, it has only radiative output. So we have for this blackbody surface a radiative output:”

    You must have simply drifted through education smugly assuming you know it all.

    There are countless real situations where your assertions are so wrong I cannot believe you can make the claims you do.

    A few examples where “energy balance” may induce thermal effects in your fantasy land but fail to co-operate in reality are :-

    The photoelectric effect which generates electricity or images on a digital camera.

    Under “standard” conditions you can’t heat water to more than 100°C, or pure ethanol to more than 78°C.

    Water has the largest heat capacity of liquids but despite being subjected to solar radiation capable of inducing over 70°C in land surfaces the oceans simply evaporate !

    The well known fact that when solids melt they absorb copious quantities of energy with no thermal effect – i.e. no rise in temperature.

    Planck’s, Wein’s and the Stefan-Boltzmann laws are based on continuous spectra as evidenced by the cavity radiation experiments.

    Gases do not emit continuous spectra and the application of formula based on continuous spectra is absurd.

    “Nobodies” like Hottel experimentally demonstrated that as temperature of gases such as CO2 or water vapour increases thermal emissivity DECREASES !

    Both liquids and gases have additional degrees of freedom that solids lack.

    These quotes are from a paper from a real scientist who is an expert in radiation.

    “Very little is known regarding thermal emission from liquids. However, it appears that when confronted with increased in-flow of heat, the liquid responds in a very different way. In-deed, this is seen in its thermal emission. Thus, while thermal emission in the solid increased with the fourth power of the temperature, thermal emissivity in a liquid increases little, if at all, with temperature [8, 15]. Indeed, total thermal emission may actually decrease. Stefan’s law does not hold in a liquid. That is because new degrees of freedom, namely the translational and rotational degrees of freedom (and its associated convection), have now been introduced into the problem. Since the vibrational degrees of freedom are no longer exclusively in control of the situation, Stefan’s law fails.”

    “At the same time, it is clear that thermal radiation does not increase with temperature in the liquid. One can only surmise that convection rapidly becomes a dominant means of dealing with heat transfer in the liquid phase. This can be seen by examining the viscosity of the liquid. Thus, the viscosity of liquids decreases with temperature and the liquid flows better at higher temperature [14]. This is a direct reflection an increasing percentage of bonds within the liquid are broken in order to accommodate the increased flow of or energy, into the translational degrees of freedom.”

    Your assertions that every joule input must result in a calculated temperature is just wrong – there is no doubt about it.

    None of your, or other similarly misinformed trolls, ranting about your “science” can overcome the reality that you are wrong – there are endless examples where radiative energy is absorbed without any increase in temperature occurring !

    And to apply equations based on the observations of continuous spectra has NO experimental verification – indeed there are, AGAIN, countless examples of widely acknowledged experiments clearly demonstrating this.

    • Avatar



      The final sentence was meant to read – “And to apply equations based on the observations of continuous spectra has NO experimental verification when gases or liquids are concerned – indeed there are, AGAIN, countless examples of widely acknowledged experiments clearly demonstrating the opposite !”

    • Avatar




      “The well known fact that when solids melt they absorb copious quantities of energy with no thermal effect – i.e. no rise in temperature.”

      That is a fine piece of work right there. Heat flow at constant temperature displacing mass when melting. A directly observable transformation of heat into work at a fundamental level. The flow rearrange the internal structure of a solid when shaping mass towards optimized flow.

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo


    Rosco: You say: ‘You have only one argument based on “energy balance”.’

    LOLOL! “Energy balance” is simply the commonly used term for applying the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. It is at the heart of any thermodynamic analysis.

    When you say things like “I am not adding up input fluxes !” as you did in an earlier comment, you are showing that you don’t actually understand (or maybe believe in) the 1st Law.

    None of the examples you cite in ANY WAY contradict my assertion about energy balance. I clearly stated in my argument that there was only thermal radiative transfer. So when you bring up other effects, it is absolutely irrelevant to this argument. Why can’t you understand that.

    Are you seriously arguing that that the 1st Law is suspended for photoelectric sensors, phase changes, etc.?

    The whole point of simple thought experiment problems (like UW’s) and even laboratory experiments is to isolate particular effects so they can be understood by themselves.

    Look at any thermo or heat transfer text. The early problems and examples are all of very simple systems so students can understand each basic principle. Later on, more and more complications are added.

    As quokka, Matt Young, and I keep telling you, and you keep failing to understand, the argument that you make in your paper that for the UW and similar expressions to be correct, the input and output spectra must somehow match, is completely fallacious. They are simply saying that the MAGNITUDE of the input and output fluxes to and from the surface must match for the surface to be in steady state conditions. If you think this is wrong, then you believe the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is wrong. Is that seriously what youare claiming???

    Of course, the real world is more complicated than the simple examples. If it weren’t, there would be no need for laboratories to understand the individual effects.

    Which gets me to your experiment. You in no way isolated and simplified your setup to be able to say anything quantitative whatsoever. If you had actual education in thermodynamics, you would have realized that you need to do a full accounting of all of the power inputs and outputs to reach any quantitative conclusions whatsoever.

    You have completely failed to account for the radiative transfer from half of the bulb — the back side that is not illuminated by the lights. Your experiment does not come close to exhibiting the spherical symmetry of some the simple problems and experiments, yet you treat it as if it does.

    Your treatment of convective losses is completely inadequate. You don’t even attempt a real quantitative analysis (claiming that someone estimates 64% radiative losses is not remotely adequate).

    So you don’t begin to understand the arguments you critique, and you don’t begin to understand what is going on in the experiments you conduct.

    • Avatar



      “None of the examples you cite in ANY WAY contradict my assertion about energy balance. I clearly stated in my argument that there was only thermal radiative transfer. So when you bring up other effects, it is absolutely irrelevant to this argument. Why can’t you understand that.”

      You have NEVER before stated the claim that you are talking about only thermal radiative transfer !

      SO YOU ARE NOT DISCUSSING REALITY AT ALL AND NEVER HAVE BEEN – Thanks for that admission – it has been perfectly clear all the time !!

      “Are you seriously arguing that that the 1st Law is suspended for photoelectric sensors, phase changes, etc.?”

      Are you seriously stating the 1st law can account for all of the various degrees of freedom ?


      The examples I quote show conclusively that it is impossible to perform a First Law analysis because there are so many degrees of freedom in any system that cannot be constrained or often not even identified, in reality.

      You, and all the other idiots, have been claiming that a “system” reacts to energy input by one mechanism alone – emitting the same radiation out as in and thus it must increase in temperature.


      This is stupid beyond belief and has no grounding in reality.

      So everything you have ever said on this subject is meaningless nonsense !

      I have asked you for references in the past and thus far you have given me ScienceofDoom and the steel greenhouse !

      ScienceofDoom does lots of nice calculations on highly contrived examples but some of his examples could easily be demonstrated by experiment – to my knowledge he has not done this.

      The steel greenhouse is a fantasy thought bubble and has no relevance to reality !

      The University of Washington lecture has no constraints on their “1st law” analysis in the lecture and even include an atmosphere which removes any chance of being restricted to radiative transfer alone.

      And they add up flux and calculate the temperature.

      Your whole argument has been that something MUST increase in temperature according to the nonsensical idea that an increase in temperature is the ONLY response available – as all the other idiots have been claiming !

      You have NEVER before stated the claim that you are talking about a thermal radiative transfer exclusively !!!

      I remember your example equations about a 37°C object radiating ~478 W/m2 to deep space at 0 Kelvin and how it increased in temperature when brought into a minus 18°C environment – ie an atmosphere at ~255 K radiating 239.7 W/m2 – to the temperature where it emitted 478 + 239 = 717 W/m2 at 62°C.

      So you have never been talking about reality !

      All the examples I cite are totally relevant – they are actually real unlike all of the BS you have been spruiking ever since you opened you stupid mouth !

      The first law of thermodynamics can NEVER be used to perform a thermodynamic analysis because it cannot account for all of the possible degrees of freedom available for the absorption of energy.

      ALL of the examples I cite are REAL you clueless moron and NONE of them defy the first law of thermodynamics – NONE OF THEM !!!

      They simply PROVE BEYOND DOUBT that energy CAN be absorbed by real substances without the stupid clueless “energy in = energy out” nonsense because the “heat” absorbed can be transformed into other degrees of freedom that are not expressed solely as an increase in temperature and the associated emission of radiation !

      Melting requires energy that isn’t contributing to a rise in temperature, “boiling” requires energy that isn’t contributing to a rise in temperature, convection requires energy that isn’t contributing to a rise in temperature as does changes in viscosity.

      I notice you simply attack the same stupid straw man and ignore the reality that IR active gases emit LESS radiation as they heat up – WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE YOUR SIMPLISTIC BULLSHIT ASSERTION ?

      You are so stupid with the criticism “You have completely failed to account for the radiative transfer from half of the bulb” !

      How ridiculous is this straw man argument ??

      Are you saying that when the thermometer is reading 30°C it ISN”T emitting ~478 W/m2 – remember I showed emissivity was irrelevant because it is the same object every time – a piece of black tape covering a thermometer bulb and all my calculations involve the additional energy emitted at each higher temperature.

      I make absolutely no calculation other than that at the temperature the thermometer reads the Stefan-Boltzmann equation AND Planck’s law STATE the emission is ~478 W/m2.

      So NOW we finally see your position:

      You object because a first law consideration – proven by reality to be impossible anyway – says you are right but only on the exclusive “reality” that only thermal radiation is considered ?

      What a fucking joke – a first law analysis can NEVER be real because it can NEVER account for all of the variables associated with radiative energy transfer !


      It has been more than 4 decades since I undertook science courses in applied Chemistry and Physics so my terminology may be a little rusty and my expressions may not be always exactly right.

      But your position, and that of the other idiot Quokka and now, apparently another fool Matt Young is absurd beyond belief !

      You haven’t one shred of evidence at all – if you have anything at all where is the reference.

      You are just plainly wrong and too STUPID to even concede the possibility.

      What is wrong with a simple experiment and a simple discussion about the results ?

      At least they add up correctly – the ONLY argument you have is you don’t like the results.

      I say when the thermometer is heated to 30°C it emits 71 W/m2 than it did at 18°C.

      The 71 is right as is the extra ~110 at 36°C and the extra ~181 at 46°C.

      The ONLY argument is whether this represents the total power the lights could supply.

      Based on what you ADMIT is not a real analysis you claim it is.

      I don’t believe you – you have been discussing fantasy not reality all this time.

      And it is presented simply in order that anyone may follow – apparently it is above the comprehension of you fools !

      “I clearly stated in my argument that there was only thermal radiative transfer.”

      A search back through your comments shows you are a liar – and you and Quokka are cowardly narcissistic trolls lacking the intelligence to understand a first law analysis alone is nothing more than fallacy !

      I simply do not believe anything you say – I think you and Quokka are cowardly childish trolls hiding behind pseudonyms – let’s have some fun and pick on someone – VERY ADULT !

      You are stupid beyond belief and your final resort is you have always been talking about fantasy – Hilarious !

      • Avatar



        Energy can be absorbed and NOT result in a temperature increase and hence increased radiative emission !

        This is fact!

        I also forgot to mention again how you simply attack some imagined straw man and ignore real science !

        How is it possible to apply the laws of radiation science quantified by observing the continuous spectrum emitted from the cavity to things like gases which reality proves emit line spectra ?

        I just can’t believe the absolute stupidity you guys display !

        Ya got nothing !

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo



    You say: “The first law of thermodynamics can NEVER be used to perform a thermodynamic analysis because it cannot account for all of the possible degrees of freedom available for the absorption of energy.”

    Of all of the absurd things you have said, this takes the cake! You have absolutely no understanding of thermodynamics whatsoever. The 1st Law is ALWAYS used in thermodynamic analysis. For you to assert otherwise just shows your incredible ignorance.

    Of course there are other forms of energy other than thermal capacitance, but these do not go outside of 1st Law analysis. Any competent scientist or engineer knows this, but you do not!

    Do you think that engineers who design boilers for steam power plants do not use 1st Law energy balance analysis? Of course they do! They do take into account the latent heat of vaporization for water (2260 kJ/kg), but that is PART of their 1st Law energy balance analysis.

    Again, you do not remotely understand the purpose of simplified analyses and experiments, which is to isolate individual effects so they can be understood and quantified. So many experiments have been done in vacuums to isolate radiative transfer effects. These effects were confirmed so long ago that they are not even considered interesting any more, except as student exercises.

    If you actually understood the 1st Law, you would realize that not only CAN you add power flows in your analyses, you MUST do so for a valid analysis. This is a necessary ramification of energy being a conserved quantity. Of course, there can be multiple sources of power flows: radiative shortwave, radiative longwave, conductive, convective — and there can be multiple types of energy storage: thermal capacitance, phase change, kinetic energy, electrical energy, etc. And for valid analysis, you MUST add the changes in each of these forms (if any).

    But to understand a complex system, you must first understand the individual flows and storage mechanisms. And you (I mean you personally as well as people in general) will only generate nonsense if you skip the understanding of individual effects when trying to understand a complex system.

    And remember that the only mode of heat transfer possible between the earth/atmosphere system and the rest of the universe is radiative, so in analyzing these transfers, it is completely reasonable to focus on these. Also, in the thermal design of spacecraft, engineers know that radiation is the only external transfer mode. They have done very successful designs with 1st Law analyses.

    I keep coming back to the issue of the geometry of your thermometer bulb. Thought experiments like the steel greenhouse use spherical symmetry to simplify the math and illustrate the principles involved. This means that the power flux densities are uniform over the surfaces of the sphere and shell, so no complex integration needs to be done.

    In your experiment, on the other hand, the radiative power flux densities are not remotely uniform across the surface of the thermometer bulb. In particular, the backside of the bulb does not receive any radiative power flux from the light bulbs. I see absolutely no evidence that you have even considered this.

    In your case, you must do a surface integral over the surface of the bulb to find the total input. Have you ever done a surface integral? Do you even know what one is???

    It is pointless to discuss thermodynamics problems with someone who doesn’t think that the 1st Law applies in the real world. Just keep in mind that you are making a complete laughingstock of yourself every time you write something! And you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Comments are closed