The Circular Reasoning Greenhouse Gas Theory Argument

Written by Joseph E Postma

NYC Public School Parents: Justice denied! Slipshod and ...

I just had a very long conversation with an academic colleague here at work, one who I’ve actually anonymously quoted before in my videos and on some posts. He is of the climate alarmist persuasion.

The conversation/heated argument went on for quite some time, and his position reduced to the one we are all familiar with:

The climate greenhouse effect of the flat Earth model isn’t the real climate greenhouse effect. The real climate greenhouse effect is inside the large-scale models and is naturally inside such models.

I pointed out that this is a very strange disconnect, and that when I ask climate scientists for the REAL climate greenhouse effect and references as to how it actually does work, they all reference back to the flat Earth models. He said well that’s because it is only conceptual, and so I then asked again for the real thing.

I also pointed out that, sure, the flat Earth model is conceptual, but it demonstrates a principle and a mechanics which comes OUT OF ITSELF by necessity, and that even still it should still conceptually function in a real greenhouse, which it does not.

This is the extent of their position. I pointed out that it is a closed loop: that when they say that the real climate greenhouse effect is in the GCM’s, and when asked for references as to how it work they then refer to the flat Earth models which should function in a real greenhouse but don’t, that a closed reference-loop is created here in which no reference to how the climate greenhouse actually works is provided *other than* the flat Earth derivations (which should function in real greenhouses, but don’t).

Again, a pretty obvious self-referencing loop, and an easy decision and conclusion to make. But they just seem unable to acknowledge the meaning of it, the reality of it, the impetus of it, etc.

Anyway, the entire hallway could hear our conversation/argument because my office door was open. Crickets out there when he finally left…..

I had cornered an alarmist cult member on the fact that only a tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is from anthropogenic sources. I made the point that if all man made sources were removed overnight, the reduction of CO2 levels would be almost unnoticeable. In other words, if all mankind was wiped off the planet overnight, the CO2 levels wouldn’t change significantly enough to change anything. Cornered….

Well, guess what the response was! He said that I was completely off base because climate scientists weren’t actually focused on CO2 at all. That CO2 was only a very small part of anthropogenic climate change. That actually, they were more focused on things like urban sprawl and how parking lots were changing our climate.

I then asked what all the Carbon tax business was about and he responded that it was political hype and not actually what the “real” climate scientists are focused on. It was more about urban sprawl and parking lots. That’s what real climate scientists study and he doesn’t really like getting caught up in all the political stuff.

Ridiculous and disgusting conversations with these lunatics. High level sophistry…… twisted logic pretzels that become impossible to even follow or argue against. Cognitive dissonance loops that almost pull you in, leaving you reeling and confused. Meanwhile, they feel highly intelligent as they bath in the flood of cognitive dissonance they create.

Read more at climateofsophistry.com

****

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (107)

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Don’t forget the circular reasoning sun-is-enough-theory.

    Magically, the real-time heat flow equation and latent heat boost the sun to the measured average surface temperature.

    John, if I wrote an article correcting Postma’s physics, would you publish it?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Andy Rowlands

      |

      It would probably be easier & quicker if you posted it here, then Joseph will see it straight away.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        He’s already seen it. He doesn’t want anyone else to see it.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Here it is:

        Did you know that SB law is only defined for emission? It’s in the definition. There is nothing about absorption.

        It’s invalid for Postma to claim a temperature of 49°C, 30°C, or 15.5°C for a hemisphere, depending upon his various methods.

        The incoming sunlight does not have a temperature until it’s thermalized and EMITS.

        Let’s use the 480 W/m^2 = 30°C method.

        480 W/m^2 comes in on a hemisphere for a 12 hour period.

        Now, I’ll give you 3 emission choices:

        a) 480 W/m^2 = 30°C
        b) 240 W/m^2 = -18°C
        c) 420 W/m^2 = 20°C

        If you emit (a), you get your desired 30°C. But guess what?

        480 W/m^2 In and 480 W/m^2 Out
        leaves you absolutely no energy for the 12 hours of night. You get 0 kelvin for the night. The average of day+night becomes 313.3/2= 152 Kelvin. WRONG!

        Now let’s choose (b), which is what standard climate scientists do.

        480 W/m^2 In and 240 W/m^2 Out
        Means energy will be stored in earth’s ground and ocean during the day and will allow you to emit 240 W/m^2 for the 12 hours of night. This of course produces -18°C (255°K) for both day and night. WRONG!

        Now let’s go with choice (c):

        This choice produces the observed daylight hemisphere measured by instruments. However, it only leaves 60 W/m^2 available for the 12 hours of night = 180.4°K. The day+night average becomes (303.3+180.4)/2 = 242°K.

        Out of all these 3 choices, only the standard method (b) comes closest to the observed day+night average of 288°K. However choice (c) matches 1 hemisphere, which neither (a) or (b) do.

        But that’s not important. What’s important is that the sun is not enough to reproduce observations. There must be another energy source. Postma is in denial about this, and Alarmists think it originates in the atmosphere. They have one thing in common, though: Geothermal Denial.

        The problem with the Postma method is to directly convert incoming insolation on a hemisphere to a temperature, without regard to what is actually emitted. This direct conversion of absorption is automatically equal to 100% emission by definition of SB Law. Such an emission leaves absolutely no energy for the 12 hours of night.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Andy Rowlands

          |

          Doesn’t that rather suggest Joseph is pushing a position he knows to be wrong?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            I don’t think he has a problem with that.

            Here was his final response to me:

            “Oh and this is something that is important to you, is it Zoe? Yes, it really is your responsibility to take on this mantle, to ensure that you guide myself and the rest of us. Tell me, just which psychopath which I’ve destroyed multiple times in the past are you this time? Not like you haven’t been obvious.

            You are a delusional, psychotic freak. Your mind is fucked. You understand that you’re a braindead psychopath, and that we’ve all been laughing at you in private email threads for the past month?

            Tell me…what is it like to be a deranged, uninformed, uneducated, delusional, obsessed, psychopath?

            Actually don’t tell me. See ya.”

            Summary: paranoia and narcisistic rage.

            I promoted his crap on youtube for almost 2 years. Then I saw an article about geothermal flux. Then I started asking questions, then I became an enemy, apparently.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Zoe,
          I don’t like responding to your stupid statements because it only results in you saying something stupider. (“The permafrost is not 0 K>”) but I will respond for those people who actually use their brains to think.
          The sun is not like a light switch in your house where you turn it on and it is at full power (day) then turn it off to zero power (night). This is what your averages do.
          An area on the Earth will receive increasing energy from the sun for 6 hours from sunrise to noon. After noon the energy it receives will decrease resulting in it losing energy. At first the rate of decrease in energy will be slow as the area continues to receive energy from the sun. After sunset the area will lose heat as the atmosphere above cools and this rate of loss will increase until sunrise when more energy is added to the area.
          The hottest time of day is not noon when the area is receiving the most energy but at 3:00PM, just as the hottest day of the year is not the first day of summer but in late July or early August. This delay is because most of the energy striking the Earth is being absorbed in the atmosphere, not the surface of the Earth, heating it and this heat must be lost before the surface of the Earth can cool..

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Herb,

            “The sun is not like a light switch in your house where you turn it on and it is at full power (day) then turn it off to zero power (night). This is what your averages do.”

            Doesn’t matter, Herb.

            The MEASURED global average day temperature is 20°C, and the night T is 10°C. It doesn’t matter if you view this as a sinusoidal wave or two discrete flat lines. The sun alone doesn’t come near matching reality. You can figure out total energy IN from either the averages or integrating the sinusoidal wave, and it comes nowhere near matching energy OUT.

            Here’s data from 7 SURFRAD sites for 2018:
            https://pastebin.com/J92eULqa

            What was Postma’s response?

            We can’t trust pyrgeometers!

            But SURFRAD data has 3 thermometers: Ground, Air, and Bottom-of-Pyrgeometer (used to derive Upwelling IR), and the sun doesn’t come near matching any of them. Not even close.

            Read my previous comment again, and do the math, Herb.

        • Avatar

          lifeisthermal

          |

          The SB-law is also for transfer, σ(T^4-Tc^4). And since the rate of transfer also is what´s aborbed by the cold body, it also works for absorption in that case.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            “The SB-law is also for transfer”
            Show me where SB is defined this way.

            “σ(T^4-Tc^4)”
            That’s the heat flow equation

            “And since the rate of transfer also is what´s aborbed by the cold body, it also works for absorption in that case.”

            Tc must be a real temperature from real EMISSION.

        • Avatar

          lifeisthermal

          |

          “Show me where SB is defined this way.
          σ(T^4-Tc^4)”

          Many places, let´s just use wikipedia:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation.

          In a way you´re correct since it only includes the emission of the two bodies, but the result is the heat transferred and absorbed by the cold body.

          “That’s the heat flow equation”

          Yes, that´s the heat transfer equation. Still the SB-law.

          “Tc must be a real temperature from real EMISSION.”

          Yes?

          Absorption and emission is not cause and effect, they´re only related through the internal state which gives the temperature of the emitter. Nevertheless, the rate of heat transfer according to
          σ(T^4-Tc^4) gives the amount of heat absorbed in the cold body.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Be careful with that bogus equation. It is NOT the S/B Law.

            The equation is used in pseudoscience to claim “cold” can warm “hot”.

            It’s best to stick with the real equation–S = σT^4

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            “absorbed in the cold body”
            How much does space absorb? lol

            It never gets hot, and so you’re always left with just σT^4.

            Geran is correct.

            As for those 2.73K stars … well, what view factor do they consume? Negligible.

            What was my point again?
            Ah, yes, the SB law is only for emission. It is derived from cavity radiation. It’s also not even true in our atmosphere.

            https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/41/10293/F1.large.jpg

            My point was that Postma had no right to convert all 480 W/m^2 into a temperature. But even if he does, he has 0 energy available for 12 hours of night.

        • Avatar

          Pierre D. Bernier

          |

          Same old, same old. You’re selectively choosing upwelling IR while conciously ommitting downwelling IR. If you use the upwelling then you have to accept the net IR. They are connected at the hips. So plenty of energy to go around. NO NEED FOR GEOTHERMAL.
          ______________________Net_Solar____Net_IR___Net_Flux
          Bondville_2018________129,92_____48,55____81,37
          Desert_Rock_2018_____192,54____122,33____70,21
          Fort_Peck_2018________119,11_____62,08____57,03
          Goodwin_Creek_2018_146,02_____49,37____96,65
          Penn_State_2018______108,32_____40,64____67,69
          Sioux_Falls_2018______122,63_____48,94____73,69
          Table_Mountain_2018_153,59_____82,88____70,71

          Average :_______________138,88_____64,97____73,91

          Source_: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/aveform.html

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Pierre,
            Same old stupid arguments I debunked 2 weeks ago:

            Zoe Phin
            October 9, 2019 at 6:19 pm | #

            Pierre,
            It’s true that a pyrgeometer only acurately measures Net IR, but it does so because we can fairly estimate Upwelling-from-surface and Upwelling-from-pyrgeometer.

            If we can’t trust the top and bottom thermometers than there is no Net IR we can measure.

            So YOU trust both thermometers.

            Your math makes absolutely NO SENSE.

            You need to prove the sun can generate both top and bottom temperatures, not their difference!

            As an analogy, the sun delivers 138.88 gallons of water, and now you think you can douse someone with 364.97 gallons in the front and 300 gallons in the back. And that’s OK with you because Net Water is only 64.97 gallons.

            This is stupid.

            You need to prove that Net_Solar = Upwelling IR.

            Your stupid math can be used to prove that the sun generates
            1,000,064.97 W/m^2 of Upwelling and
            1,000,000 W/m^2 of “Downwelling” IR because the NET is just 64.97.

            You’re being a silly sophist. Cut it out.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Pierre,
            If you keep claiming that “Downwelling” IR is an actual energy source, you are an alarmist or lukewarmist. Do you not understand this? Where does the energy for GHGs to radiate IR down come from? lol

        • Avatar

          Pierre D. Bernier

          |

          By your own admission… “It’s true that a pyrgeometer only acurately measures Net IR,”
          Therefore using net is OK. Most basic.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Pierre,
            You won’t be taken seriously if you continue to make comments like this.

    • Avatar

      Mark Pawelek

      |

      Why don’t you publish it in a peer-reviewed journal?

      If it’s not scientific enough for one, publish it in a free blog. You can make your own free blog using “blogger”.

      Finally, when all hope of publication is lost, just send it to Scientific American. They will publish any old junk supporting catastrophic climate scare-mongering.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Hi Zoe, Am always open to considering submissions. Is it your contention that the K-T energy budget is valid insofar as it needs amending to showing that it isn’t backradiation from the atmosphere which supplies 2-times the energy than the Sun does, but geothermal energy does?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        That’s it, in a nutshell.
        Though it was a bold guess, I think it’s correct.
        I’m still working out if the value is correct. I can easily prove that at least ~220 W/m^2 does indeed come from geothermal using well-accepted data. I figure the actual, non-radiative component must be greater. In fact, energy is needed to create the gravity-defeating atmosphere. We must consider the broadest measure of energy: enthalpy. I figure ~340 W/m^2 is probably right because it fits with what is measured. Obviously it doesn’t come from the atmosphere.

        I guess I will have to start a blog, and you can link to articles you like.

        Thank you.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          John O'Sullivan

          |

          Ok, Zoe. It is a bold assertion. Not even the Plate Climatology Theory advocates go that far. But am happy to show your ideas to colleagues and to assist in review and possible publication.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Unfortunately, Zoe appears to be off chasing imaginary illusions over the cliff. Several people have tried to talk sense to her, but there appears to be little interest in reality.

            There are many ways to debunk her belief, but the easiest way is surface temperature differences between night and day. Lay a thermometer on the ground (in shade) at day peak. Then do the same at the low temp of night. If geothermal is heating the surface, not the sun, explain the difference in recorded temperatrues.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            The problem you have is that you don’t read what I write. My argument is that the sun is not enough, not that it doesn’t heat the Earth beyond what geothermal alone can do.
            Please stop with the strawmen.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            You don’t believe the sun is enough because you make the same mistakes as in the GHE pseudoscience. You try to average flux. You divide it down and then wonder where the heat went.

            And, you don’t seem interested in correcting your mistakes. Again, just as with the GHE pseudoscience.

            We’ve seen it all before.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            “You don’t believe the sun is enough because you make the same mistakes as in the GHE”

            This shows you don’t read and absorb my comments.

            “And, you don’t seem interested in correcting your mistakes. Again, just as with the GHE pseudoscience.”

            Did you read my comment highlighting Postma’s mistake? What do you think?

            What gives Postma the right to claim a hemisphere receives 480 and emits 480 W/m^2 for 12 hours and still have ANYTHING left over for the night?

            The mistake is not on my side.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            As usual, you are running down different rabbit trails and entering your comments all over the thread. All in your usual effort to mask your pseudoscience.

            We’ve seen it all before.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            You’re upset that your hero is wrong. So was I.

          • Avatar

            tom0mason

            |

            “My argument is that the sun is not enough, “
            Please list ALL effects of the sun on this planet from it’s wondering around it’s barycenter, to its Gravity waves variations, solar variations in magnetic and electric fields that couple to this planet, as well as ALL electromagnetic radiation variation (not just those measured as TSI), etc.. Show any evidence that these do (or do not have impacts) on our climate.

            Do you really think that as our sun goes into a minima and the cosmic rays increase (as well as changes to magnetic/electric field interactions) it will have little effect on our planet and it’s climate? I am very skeptical that we truly know!
            But it’s not just solar effect, there is the solar-lunar cyclic variations to take into consideration as well.
            ~~~~~~
            Still have it your way, and have fun mashing some more numbers. For as we come through this current phase of particular low solar activity and it’s solar minima, hopefully within 5 years, we should all understand a little better.

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            Wow, there must be one hell of a lot of “geothermal” activity on the moon. hahaha .. ROFLMAO !!!

            Talk about ripping your face right off obvious here .. OMG! .. “Geothermal what dun it” .. hahaha .. gotta clean the coffee off of my monitor ..

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Squidly,
            The moon’s “geothermal” energy is enough to prevent it from dipping below 90 Kelvin without that sun.

        • Avatar

          Eddie Banner

          |

          Zoe
          Wiki gives a figure for geothermal energy flux as 0.1 MW per square kilometre.
          This works out at about 0.1 Watts per square metre

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Eddie,
            The geothermal heat flux is the amount of heat “lost” per 1 meter of ascending height. What is lost per 1 meter of height is not what comes out of the ground in the end!

            Postma makes the same mistake:
            https://i.ibb.co/YhNq3Jq/postmafallacy.png

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Look at reality Zoe.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Matt

    |

    Yo! Joe!
    I look forward to reading a peer reviewed dissertation on it being ,in reality, all about parking lots. You may treat this comment as a formal request to your work colleague for such.
    The dissertation must include how weather stations in or near parking lots provide up to five degrees extra warming false data.
    The colleague was close to being factually correct. A Freudian slip.
    “logic pretzels”=Dan Steelys
    Sleep well.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Mark Pawelek

    |

    Nothing they say about radiatively active gases is real. They have no science they, themselves, do, nor believe in. They publish no fundamental papers nor evidence to verify their greenhouse gas thought experiments. They always assumed it was real and never bothered to ask the question “does that thought experiment even make sense?” They are conformists, yes people, and regulation junkies; sucking up to the powers-that-be.

    Self-styled “believers” have their act of faith, and conformity, which keeps them in their safe, comfortable, academic jobs. It’s why they rely on :
    1) censorship and
    2) bullying media, politicians and the public.

    It’s why they can’t defend their greenhouse gas religion in public.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      John Andersen

      |

      Can we get any definitive measurement of actual temperature increase due to increased CO2? not a model but a measurement? I find this critical data is missing everywhere.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Mark Pawelek

    |

    I think the point John is making is “there is no greenhouse gas climate effect”. The whole of it is smoke and mirrors.

    For a start, radiatively active gases do not “trap heat”. So-called “greenhouse gas” absorbs and emits infrared radiation. It’s a relay, not a trap. Infrared travels a near the speed of light in earth’s atmosphere. So warmth isn’t held for long. From the mean free-path, I’ll assume 1000 absorptions/emissions before it reaches space. Each one delaying it by about a second at most. Do we even have actual values for my assumptions? Have 31 years of climate scare research, and billions of dollars wasted on models given us better actual scientific facts regarding this? I think not.

    Next they’ll say thermalization traps heat – oxygen and nitrogen – are warmed by sharing energy, on collision with radiatively excited carbon dioxide.

    Pierrehumbert actually uses that phrase, saying greemhouse gases “trap heat”. Hansen talks about greehouse gases making the atmosphere more opaque to infrared radiation. Then they skip on to their thought experiment. They never bother with an experiment showing how much more opaque CO2 makes the atmosphere. Probably because this increase in opacity cannot be shown. They have no data for their core assumption. Anyhow, let’s continue with reality: thermalization goes both ways. It’s an equilibrium process. Cold CO2 shares energy from warmer N2 and O2; then emits the energy as infrared.

    The temperature at which CO2 is more likely to emit than absorb can be calculated from Planck’s Law. For the main CO2 band of 667 cm-¹, the equilibrium temperature is -77.8C (see Jinan Cao[2] ). Very cold. Above this temperature, CO2 will more likely emit than absorb. At -77.8C and below, CO2 is “trapping heat”.

    I wonder why I was never told any of this by climate scare-mongers? I think because they never knew it. They wrote their thought experiments in obscure journals. Having got them published, they declared it “settled science”. The ideas are never debated; just preached. This non-debate is enforced by climate hysteria, censorship, and kow-towing to the powers that be.

    Note: Jinan Cao: [1] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/do-greenhouse-gases-warm-the-planet-by-33c-jinan-cao-checks-the-numbers/ and
    [2] “Role of heat reservation of N2 and O2 and the role of heat dissipation of CO2 and water vapour” http://tech-know-group.com/papers/JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdf

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Mark,
      The term “trap heat” is used to confuse and avoid science. All objects above absolute zero contain energy. They radiate energy and absorb energy continuously trying to establish an equilibrium with the energy surrounding them.
      The alarmist concentrate on CO2 as a gas in the atmosphere but given the solubility of CO2 in water and the amount of water in the atmosphere there is very little CO2 gas, most of it being carbonic acid in water.
      Herb

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Here is another comment for everyone to examine…. Maybe most have seen this??

    Julian FellOctober 3, 2019 at 2:12 am | #As someone who did his dissertation in a marine subject I am well aware of the massive amount of heat that is stored in the oceans. The amount of heat contained in the lower part of the atmosphere between sea level and the thermal balance height is about the same as the amount of heat contained in the upper 1 metre of the oceans. By thermal balance or equilibrium level I mean the level where the temperature is 30 to 35 degrees cooler than the surface temperature, which is the temperature the planet would have if it were a bare rock. Typically this is about 5 Km above sea level but drops to surface pole-side of the polar circle when the respective pole is in winter. The atmosphere above the equilibrium layer is colder than the bare rock temperature and cannot participate in any warming of the planet. Thus the climate of the planet surface is pretty much contained in this lower 5 km of the atmosphere, which also contains about 40% of the entire atmosphere by mass. Current thinking seems to be that this “climate layer” in the gas atmosphere is responsible for the 30-33 degree difference between mean surface temperature and bare rock temperature. Further the CO2 cult believers are being led to believe that it is the CO2 in this layer that is mostly responsible for this temperature difference.
    Each 24 hours the atmosphere (as a whole) looses back to space the same amount of heat it has received from the sun. In dry low humidity spaces over land the fluctuation between maximum and minimum temperatures spans 20 degrees. It should be apparent from this that the atmosphere has little heat storage/retention capacity. Yet most climate discussions dwell on the atmosphere as the agent of warming over bare rock temperature.If one looks at the daily temperatures of isolated small islands away from land masses one notes that the daily range is very small, typically 2 degrees or less and the annual seasonal fluctuation is only 4-6 degrees or less. Which is to say that the bottom of atmosphere temperature over the oceans is fixed by the temperature of the surface of the ocean. In fact typically it is one to two degrees cooler than the surface temperature of the sea. Between the polar circles, which is where realistically all planet heating occurs, the oceans account for 80% of the planet surface. I think it can be safely said that the climate of the planet is determined by the temperature of the oceans surface and what takes place on land is only a side-show to where the climate is determined. The real climate determinant is how much sunlight heats the ocean. Infra-red radiation is absorbed right at surface, it does not penetrate. Visible light penetrates and blue light goes down as far as 50 m. Over land most visible light is reflected. Over the ocean it is absorbed. It is quite possible that visible light puts more energy into the ocean than the other frequencies. The Argos buoy studies have shown that seasonal summer heating effects only go down to 50 m. The oceans show no seasonal fluctuation below this. The ocean is a surface radiator only. It absorbs energy in depth but can only loose it by surface radiation. The Argos studies seem to show that annually the ocean absorbs seasonally the amount of heat it would receive from the equivalent of 40 totally clear sunny days and takes nine times longer to loose this same amount of heat. The oceans have infinite heat storage capacity and so can accumulate heat during periods (years/decades) of sunnier weather, and equally slowly loose heat over periods of greater cloud cover.
    The point I am trying to make is that it is the oceans that determine the base climate of the planet and the oceans that are responsible for the 30-33 degree warmer difference over bare rock temperature. It is the oceans that make the climate and the atmosphere only causes the weather, which is just a heat re-distribution system. Cloud cover is the mechanism that controls heat acquisition by the oceans. Svensmark has already proved this mechanism. CO2 has no role in the heating of the oceans.
    Bottom line. Stop obsessing about the atmosphere in climate considerations; -look at the role of the oceans. The oceans contain about 1500 times more heat than does the climate atmosphere. This is about 12 times more heat than is contained in the Venusian atmosphere so I think it can be legitimately argued that Earth is actually warmer than Venus.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Al,
      Nice post. I would also contend that the water in the atmosphere contains more heat than the gases in the atmosphere.
      As to Earth being warmer than Venus I would say the Earth contains more heat but is not warmer just as Jupiter contains more heat than the Earth but is colder.
      Herb

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Pierre D. Bernier

      |

      Hi Al,

      Can you point me to the original Julian Fell post. I can’t find it. I find this post most interesting.
      thanks.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    richard

    |

    It’s simple. Droughts a thousand years ago in the MWP, when CO2 levels were around 250ppm, lasted up to 240 years.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Geran,
    For example in one prototype model, I have the sun supplying
    165 W/m^2 (as observed)
    and geothermal supplying
    235 W/m^2
    this makes for a total of
    390 W/m^2 (as observed)

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Here you are down here now!

      If you believe geothermal is causing surface to emit 225 W/m^2, then you must believe geothermal causes ice ages.

      225 W/m^2 corresponds to a S/B temperature of 251 K (-22 C, -8 F).

      That’s just ONE of your many errors in physics.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Geran,
        Geothermal alone might leave us in a permanent ice age. Luckily, the Sun supplies an extra 165 W/m^2.

        There is also a non-radiative geothetmal 105 W/m^2 component I haven’t completely figured out.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Hilarious!

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Thank you, Geran.

            Could you please ask Postma:

            What gives Postma the right to claim a hemisphere receives 480 and emits 480 W/m^2 for 12 hours and still have anything left over for the 12 hours of night?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            You’re hilarious Zoe because you don’t understand that fluxes don’t add. So your “extra” 165 W/m^2 would not be able to warm above the 251 K (-22 C, -8 F).

            And another thing I’ve noticed before is the more your types move into pseudoscience, the more they become obsessed with personalities. It’s rather predictable.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            Who said that fluxes from two different raw energy sources can’t be added?

            “the more your types move into pseudoscience, the more they become obsessed with personalities.”

            lol. Please answer above question without revealing your own obsession.

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            Zoe, really? … OMG … [shaking head]

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Yes, Squidly, you can add up fluxes from different raw sources with different spectral bands.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe joins several others that believe they can bake a turkey with ice.

            If the turkey is not getting hot enough, just add more ice, because, as Zoe explains, fluxes add.

            Hilarious.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            Ice is not a raw energy source,
            Postma tries to cook that turkey from one hemishere (not an oven), while cycling the power on for half the time, then off for half the time.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Ice is not a raw power source, and multiple ice cubes emit same frequencies. Not even close to being the same thing for the Earth-Sun dynamo.

            Please, more sophistry!

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            Your giggle rests on this:

            ‘Two “raw” sources that don’t add.’

            Where’s your evidence?

        • Avatar

          Pierre D. Bernier

          |

          / There is also a non-radiative geothetmal 105 W/m^2 component I haven’t completely figured out. /

          And you want to publish ? Publish what ? “Dont ask me, I don’t know ?”

          Reply

    • Avatar

      lifeisthermal

      |

      You shouldn´t use average energy per m^2 as heat source power. That´s not the right way to make an energy balance for a steady state. You´re practically saying that sunlight is emitted by a
      -50C body at TOA. Sunlight is measured to 1000W/m^2 almost everywhere on the lit hemisphere. That gives you 2pir^2*1000W/m^2. Even if cloudy, it´s 1000W/m^2 above cloudtops, and that´s deep inside the system because the boundary is TOA. That heat is already added to the system energy balance and can´t be taken out.

      If 390 goes out, you have to have at least 4*390 going in. The 90mW/m^2 heat flow in the crust is a sign of thermal equilibrium in the surface layer, because it´t practically no deltaT. That means that theres no directional heat flow in that layer and incoming must be equal to outgoing. But of course, outgoing from the surface to atmosphere is 390W/m^2.

      Radiative thermodynamics is an interesting subject, and it brings the factor 4/3 to the center.
      https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/5/461/htm

      Make it easy and use TSI on the hemisphere instead of 165W/m^2. Because at least 1000W/m^2 is present(measured) on the hemisphere 2pir^2, deep inside the system, at any given point in time.
      2pir^2(TSI/(4/3)^2)=4pir^2σ287^4

      Thermodynamic energy balance should not be done with average energy per m^2. The source must be the sum of the parts.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        “But of course, outgoing from the surface to atmosphere is 390W/m^2.:

        That’s the only relevant part.

        “You shouldn´t use average energy per m^2 as heat source power … Make it easy and use TSI on the hemisphere instead of 165W/m^2.”

        Doesn’t matter. The average input into the hemisphere is 480 W/m^2 for 12 hours.

        There are 86400 seconds in a day

        Total daily input = 480*86400/2 = 20,736,000 Joules

        Total daily output = 390*86400 =
        33,696,000 Joules

        Anyone with a brain can see that the sun is not enough. This whole “averages” argument is just a ploy to distract people.

        Total daily output =

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Pierre D. Bernier

          |

          Hum… Satelites measure 240 for 20,736,000. Anyone with a brain can see it’s the same !

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            We’re talking about the surface, Pierre. Pay attention.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        “2pir^2(TSI/(4/3)^2)=4pir^2σ287^4”

        This looks like some type of nonsense.
        Your link doesn’t show what you claim.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    You can’t criticize Postma’s science; to do so would be “stalking”.

    This tells you everything you need to know. What an asshole. Just betrays his followers the second they wise up to his sophistry.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      tom0mason

      |

      Why do you keep taking pot-shots at Joe Postma? He’s not here to defend himself.
      Or is it that, as a science professional, he’s is not afraid to say ‘we just don’t know’ that unsettles you, Zoe Phin?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Squidly

        |

        That’s why Zoe is taking pot-shots at Postma, because Postma isn’t here to defend. This is typical operating procedure.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          If Postma didn’t censor me from his site while he took “pot-shots” at me, I wouldn’t be making comments here.

          He’s aware of this thread (as comments on his site reveal) and can post at any time …

          I frankly don’t care. He can’t respond to criticism because he’s wrong and he knows it. He will never admit it, but that’s fine.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Michael Clarke

    |

    Hi Folks, all commentators,
    I have a theory that Heat caused the Pleistocene Ice Age(s).
    It/They were not caused by our variable star, because if it got hotter then it would get wetterso less snow and ice. If it got cooler then it would get dryer, snow and ice initially but that would stop after the surface froze over. Hotter would melt the ice every spring. Colder would prevent all that water from being evaporated.

    There is an ‘Elephant’ in the room!
    My theory which is still being developed can stand up to all the observed effects that I have been able to read about.
    If anyone would like to list a few things that the theory has to be able to explain then that could help me develop a more robust theory.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Michael,

      Do you believe that many ‘commentators’ will see the contradiction that I believe you saw when you wrote: “Heat caused the Pleistocene Ice Age(s).”?

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    The flaw in Postma’s thinking is so obvious.
    The sun alone can not create what we observe.

    He created a “flat earth” hammer to strike alarmists, but alarmists will just say “We’re not spreading sunshine over the whole earth at once. We’re just spreading sunshine over 24 hours.” Postma only cares about 12 hours of one hemisphere – a half-earther!

    How useful is his tool? I feel not very much.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    lifeisthermal

    |

    Geothermal doesn´t add heat, it´s just balanced to the heat input from the sun. That´s why there´s only 90mW/m^2 of net heat transfer inside the top layer of the crust. The definition of thermal equilibrium is no transfer of heat, 90mW/m^2 is pretty close to 0. So the top layer is in thermal equilibrium with solar heating, but just above the surface 390W/m^2 goes out. Since only half the Surface of the planet is heated, at least double that amount of solar heat is needed going in, ~780W/m^2. Remember that 1000W/m^2 is measured practically all over the lit hemisphere, 2pir^2, on a clear day. Even if cloudy, that energy is inside the system. It doesn´t have to strike the ground to add heat. The sun is enough.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      “Remember that 1000W/m^2 is measured practically all over the lit hemisphere”

      Only at zenith. You need to take into account the angle and length of day for an entire hemisphere, and then consider 12 hours of night.

      “Geothermal doesn´t add heat, it´s just balanced to the heat input from the sun.”
      LOL.The sun doesn’t produce an average of 390 W/m^2 out for 24 hours, as observations show.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        lifeisthermal

        |

        “Only at zenith”

        Where I live at ~60° North, if we include both direct and diffuse radiation you can get 900-1100W/m² on a clear day from ~07:00 to ~17:00, in April. The sun is not in zenith for 10 hours. In July we get even more during those hours, and the sun rises at ~02:00 and sets at ~22:00 so even more is added. But that’s for clear days and we have lots of cloudy days.

        In my country the average annual energy from insolation is 1060kWh/year, 2.9kWh/24h. Since 12 hours are dark, that’s 5.8kWh for the 12 hours of sunshine, 5800Wh/12=480W/m². Constantly, at 60° on the north hemisphere (2πr²), but only on the sunlit side=πr². If we ignore the rotation, tilt and seasons, and instead look at the sunlit side as a hemisphere facing the sun, you get 480W/m² at both 60°North and -60° South, simultaneously. That’s 960W going in very far north and south. This is why it’s wrong to use the disc, πr², for TSI heating the whole sunlit hemisphere. It gives only half the heat input.

        Looking at a specific country and it’s seasonal variations is not useful for doing a steady state energy balance from averages.

        Lets look at global average annual energy.

        We can look at this map:
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#/media/File%3AGlobal_Map_of_Global_Horizontal_Radiation.png

        That’s diffuse+direct insolation. It varies between 2702 and 803kWh from poles to equator. This will be a very rough underestimation.
        Average from the values on the scale under that map is 1753kWh/year.
        1753kWh/365days=4.8kWh/24h
        Again, sun shines only 12 hours, so 9.6kWh goes in on the 12 hours of sunshine, that’s an average power of irradiation at 9600/12=800W/m²

        Note that the linked map is for the whole globe, half that surface (2πr²) area is constantly irradiated. Which means that the constant average heat input on the sunlit side is: 2πr²800W/m²=4πr²400W/m²
        That’s 40W more than needed for 390W/m².

        It’s very close to what my toymodel produces: 2πr²(TSI/(4/3)²)=4πr²σ287⁴

        Looking at Wikipedia:

        “Ignoring clouds, the daily average insolation for the Earth is approximately 6 kWh/m2 = 21.6 MJ/m2”

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance

        “Daily average”=24hours
        So 6kWh for 24 hours is supplied in 12 hours=1kW/m². This is the average for the whole Earth, which means that 1000W/m² IS the average for the whole sunlit hemisphere, constantly, on 2πr², not πr². When ignoring clouds, which I do, because clouds are an effect of sunlight, not a cause. Self-regulating evaporative cooling keeps the system steady.

        I repeat myself, but it is a major error to use irradiation on a disc as the input on the heated hemisphere facing the sun. Earth is not a flat disc, it receives much more heat because it absorbs on double the surface area of a disc. Using 2πr² solves the problem, there’s no missing heat. And looking at yearly averages in kWh/m² confirms that. Also, look at Earths shadow, it’s a cone. Sunlight doesn’t go only straight in, it comes in at angles from above and below because the sun is much larger than Earth. That makes a difference, and I think this is why we see much higher values of W/m² at high latitudes under clear sky than what TSI*cosv° gets.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          life,
          “Where I live at ~60° North, if we include both direct and diffuse radiation you can get 900-1100W/m² on a clear day from ~07:00 to ~17:00”

          But the sun is not always normal to the ground. You don’t get the full 1000 W/m^2 direct @ 90 degrees for the whole day. Only at ~noon do you get the full 1000.

          “Average from the values on the scale under that map is 1753kWh/year.
          1753kWh/365days=4.8kWh/24h
          Again, sun shines only 12 hours, so 9.6kWh goes in on the 12 hours of sunshine, that’s an average power of irradiation at 9600/12=800W/m²”

          That’s fraud. The figure 4.8kWh is for a 24 hour period, not a 12 hour period. That means for a 12 hour day you still get 4.8kWh and for a 12 hour night you get 0 kWh.

          4.8kWh / 24 = 200 W/m^2
          4.8kWh / 12 = 400 W/m^2

          How dishonest of you.

          “It varies between 2702 and 803kWh from poles to equator.”

          There are 24*365.25=8766 hours in a year.

          So the flux varies between 92 W/m^2 and 308 W/m^2.

          “Ignoring clouds, the daily average insolation for the Earth is approximately 6 kWh/m2”

          The daily (24 hour period) insolation is 6000/24=250 W/m^2.

          500 W/m^2 for the day-side 12 hours, and 0 W/m^2 for the night-side 12 hours.

          Your toymodel is some sort of pseudophysics.

          Stop making excuses for Postma’s junkscience.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            lifeisthermal

            |

            “But the sun is not always normal to the ground. You don’t get the full 1000 W/m^2 direct @ 90 degrees for the whole day. Only at ~noon do you get the full 1000”

            The surface is not a polished sphere, is it?

            Nevertheless, the heat is so deep inside the system, it’s already added. The boundary is TOA.

            “That’s fraud. The figure 4.8kWh is for a 24 hour period, not a 12 hour period. That means for a 12 hour day you still get 4.8kWh and for a 12 hour night you get 0 kWh.”

            Nope. It’s 1753kWh/m² per year. 1753/365=4.8kWh/m²/24h.

            But 1m² only gets sunlight for 12 hours, so twice the amount for 24h must be supplied in 12 hours, that’s 9600/12=800W/m² constantly on the lit side.

            “4.8kWh / 24 = 200 W/m^2
            4.8kWh / 12 = 400 W/m^2

            How dishonest of you.”

            4.8kWh is per m² spread out over day AND night. To have 4.84kWh over 24 hours when 12 is without heat, you need 9.6kWh on the lit side. Forget rotation. Imagine a non-rotating stationary ball in space heated on one side, area=4m². It emits 400W/m² from 4πr², it absorbs on 2πr². It’s simple:
            (2πr²*800)/4πr²=400W/m².

            Many people gets confused by rotation. Ignore it. It’s a steady state energy balance, no time, no rotation, no orbital motion. A snapshot of a balanced state using only averages. The result is a tightly constrained system which won’t change easily.

            “The daily (24 hour period) insolation is 6000/24=250 W/m^2.”

            There’s no 24 hour insolation on a single square meter, only 12 hours. Which means 6kWh/24hours is 12kWh/12hours. It’s the same mistake as TSI/4, you can’t use heat source power on a surface where the heat source isn’t present. Average energy can never replace power. That’s like constructing an engine for a 4×4 car and setting the effect of the engine according to what’s needed to drive one single wheel out of four.

            “500 W/m^2 for the day-side 12 hours, and 0 W/m^2 for the night-side 12 hours.”

            It should be a clue that 250W/m² isn’t enough to make the energy balance. You’re practically saying that the laws of physics doesn’t work, and your reasoning is based on that you failed to complete the energy balance. 250 isn’t enough.

            Same thing as with the basis for the GHE. They do: 0.7*TSI/4 and get 255K, which is the output, not the input. And then they say “the surface is too hot”. To hot for what? The laws of physics? That’s exactly what they say, that the laws of physics doesn’t work.

            Maybe it’s more likely that the calculation is wrong than that the laws of physics doesn’t hold? Isn’t the first thing one should do, look at where the calculation went wrong? Not say: the surface is too hot?

            Sunlight is measured to 1000W/m². To say that it’s 500W/m² won’t help anyone. Why care about observations, huh?

            “Your toymodel is some sort of pseudophysics.”

            No, it’s not. It’s an extremely simplified model of steady state energy balance. In such a model you always try to reduce everything as far as it goes, preferably to only temperature, which I did, to only T⁴. Surprisingly enough, it is extremely simple to balance a system in vacuum with known heat fluxes at the outer boundary, and a potential point at the inner surface. The very sharp boundaries between atmosphere and vacuum, and surface and air, is what makes it simple.

            Take a look at steady state energy balance in heat transfer physiscs and see for yourself, it’s what you aim for. But mostly you have surroundings complicating when all small systems are submerged in a thermal field of fluid. A planet is easier.

            “Stop making excuses for Postma’s junkscience.”

            Don’t even know his model. I only care about my own, because it works.

            Now I regret the encouraging words to you in my other answer.

            Good night!

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            life,

            “4.8kWh is per m² spread out over day AND night. To have 4.84kWh over 24 hours when 12 is without heat, you need 9.6kWh on the lit side”

            “There’s no 24 hour insolation on a single square meter, only 12 hours. Which means 6kWh/24hours is 12kWh/12hours. ”

            No! No! No!

            Those kWh are TOTAL energy for the whole 24 hour day. The sun does not provide twice as much TOTAL energy for half the day as it does for the whole day.

            You are insane.

            “It should be a clue that 250W/m² isn’t enough to make the energy balance. You’re practically saying that the laws of physics doesn’t work, and your reasoning is based on that you failed to complete the energy balance. 250 isn’t enough.”

            Of course it’s not enough. Geothermal provides the rest.

            You haven’t learned a single thing.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      The sun is enough … when you added it to geothermal. My goal is to figure out what the earth provides to begin with. From the point of view of 0 kelvin, the Earth does provide heat. Since we’re immersed in it, it doesn’t feel like an addition. That’s why it’s difficult to understand for some people. It’s like explaining water to a fish. Those “fish” people believe that the rain from the atmosphere created the ocean. When I explain that the ocean created the atmosphere, I get attacked.

      If you look at the standard energy budget you will see that 390 W/m^2 can not be all geothermal, but ~340 W/m^2 can be.

      Can you figure out the thermal flux inside the sun? It will also be in milliwatts…

      Reply

  • Avatar

    lifeisthermal

    |

    “The sun is enough … when you added it to geothermal. My goal is to figure out what the earth provides to begin with. From the point of view of 0 kelvin, the Earth does provide heat.”

    Earth is slowly cooling, it doesn’t add.

    But you’re exactly right about the geothermal heat flow, that 390W/m² comes from within. I was really excited to finally see someone else who understands this, that emission originates from within a body. And it’s exactly what the geniuses from early days of physics said, the guys and maybe a few girls who spent a lot of time looking at heated blackbodies and taking notes, in laboratories. Imagine Joseph Stefan’s revelation when he found that emission is equal to T⁴. That means that heat flow and temperature are two sides of a coin, independently related. Which is also displayed in the draper point, (practically) all solids starts to glow, they emit the same intensity, at a single temperature: 798K.

    Prevost:

    “Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state.”

    This in itself confirms what you say about geothermal heat. Emission depends ONLY on the internal state. And from what I see, you figured that out yourself, without knowing about Prevost’s statement, right? This means you understand this better than 99.9% of all people involved in discussions about Earth’s surface emission.

    Combine that with Planck’s confirmation of Prevosts principle:

    “the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).”

    https://archive.org/details/theoryofheatradi00planrich/page/6

    Then you can be very confident that you’re exactly correct. Surface emission is purely geothermal. And honestly, why the hell wouldn’t it be? A red hot rock with a crust less than 1% of the volume=eggshell on magma. Of course there’s massive heat flow from within. This also leads to other interesting unavoidable conclusions. With an iron core at the same temperature as the suns surface, surface emission and effective emission should be directly connected to core temperature. Because that’s what Prevost and Planck says. Do we have any reason to not trust Planck & Prevost? Nobody has questioned their conclusions cited above before. I won’t question them, I trust them.

    Now I want to get back to this:

    “The sun is enough … when you added it to geothermal.”

    From Prevosts statement this is the logical conclusion:

    “The causal effect of thermodynamic absorption on thermodynamic (spontaneous) emission is not direct, but is only indirect as it affects the internal state of the body.”

    Now you should be able to figure this out. Absorption depends on the internal state. Emission depends on the internal state. They’re not cause and effect, they’re relative through the internal state. I see it as “thermal relativity”. This is where the SB-equation for heat transfer is fantastic. Like you’ve said yourself, it only contains emission. σ(Th⁴-Tc⁴).
    The emission from the cold body(Tc) depends only on the internal state, and the transfer from hot body(Th) is relative to the emission from Tc. The absorption rate of heat in Tc is the rate of transfer from Th=σ(Th⁴-Tc⁴). So, absorption and emission both depends on the internal state of the bodies.

    So, you’re somewhat correct, geothermal emission from the surface is in a way “added”, it’s the surface own property, it has its origin inside Earth. Solar heat is then balanced to that in a steady state, where the sun must add as much as the surface loses, otherwise it wouldn’t be in a steady state, which it is. But if you enter surface emission and TSI into the SB-equation for transfer, it’s subtracted instead. TSI-σ287⁴=σ(393.6⁴-287⁴)=4σ255⁴

    The interesting thing is that effective emission shows up as the transferred amount, the transfer goes through.

    “When I explain that the ocean created the atmosphere, I get attacked.”

    Almost correct, heat created the atmosphere. At low enough temperature gases doesn’t exist. Only heat and work can raise temperature, heat comes before work.

    “If you look at the standard energy budget you will see that 390 W/m^2 can not be all geothermal, but ~340 W/m^2 can be.”

    The standard energy budget is one of the most pathetic things in science today. It’s impossible to even find an energy balance equation that explains it. It’s only a crayon painting with colorful arrows, like it’s made by a child. For a steady state double layer system with an external heat source heating the system that dumps the heat into an infinite sink, there should be T1⁴+T2⁴-Source=0.
    288⁴+4σ255⁴-TSI=0

    In steady state no time is included, everything should be instantaneously balanced: sum of parts in the system=source power. It’s Kirchoff’s law for junctions:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=kirchhoffs+law+junction&oq=kirc&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59l3.2279j0j7&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=hwkhvMVtvF_ehM:

    If you look at the standard energy budget, it gives ~160W/m² for solar heat and ~390W/m² for surface emission. How’s that supposed to work?

    160W=390W?

    That’s energy creation. Ridiculous. Even with 340W/m² it doesn’t work.

    340W=390W

    Like I said, you’re smarter than 99.9% of the people in climate discussions. It’s sad to see so many attacking you. You’re ideas about geothermal is spot on, but you must balance it to solar heat flow. I have heaps of balance-equations for Mars, Venus and Earth, some of them are very unorthodox, and involves gravity. It would be fun to work on them with someone like you.

    A tip: look at models for electric circuits, charged spheres, they’re analogous to heat flow through bodies in vacuum. They can very often be applied as is on Earth.

    Remember that nobody has a clue about how this planet actually works, your ideas are as good as any, and definitely better than the GHE. At least your thinking aligns with Planck and Prevost, that’s a very good sign, so keep thinking and try to find solutions. Ignore the attacks.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    life,
    “Solar heat is then balanced to that in a steady state, where the sun must add as much as the surface loses, otherwise it wouldn’t be in a steady state, which it is.”

    There is no need for the sun to “balance”. There is no balance between Venus’ surface and its incoming sunlight (which is almost negligible).

    You can ADD high frequency photons to low frequency photons, and there is no problem with this. The sun is a raw energy source which adds to earth’s geothermal “emission”.

    Planck’s law is just an integral of spectral radiances over wavelength. The spectral radiance times a discrete wavelength range is a flux. If you can add those, then why can’t you add sun flux to earth flux?

    You can!

    “If you look at the standard energy budget, it gives ~160W/m² for solar heat and ~390W/m² for surface emission. How’s that supposed to work?”

    Very simple. You CAN add solar flux to earth flux.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

    In the standard energy budget you see the earth “emits” equivalents of 398.2 + 18.4 + 86.4. We receive 163.3 from the sun.

    This means the earth actually “emits” 340.3, and the sun’s 163.3 goes into 18.4 + 86.4 + 57.9 (not shown).

    Of the 398.2 claimed to be emitted by earth, only 340.3 actually comes from earth, and 57.9 (not shown) comes from the sun.

    Like I said: They flipped geothermal into GHG backradiation. There is no backradiation from GHGs. Scratch that whole arrow from the budget.

    There is no need to “balance” anything.

    The Earth is not in any equilibrium with the Sun. This is a trick they use.

    Imagine a house with people. Thermal equilibrium would mean that as you step inside the house, someone has to leave. And as you leave, someone has to go inside. That’s not what’s happening when climatists discuss equilibrium. What they say is: all the sun’s energy enters and then leaves. You step inside the house and then you leave sometime later. Do you see the subtle difference between these two types of equilibrium?

    The Earth is hotter than THERMAL equibrium with the sun. This is different than The-sun’s-nergy-enters-and-leaves equibrium.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    lifeisthermal

    |

    “There is no balance between Venus’ surface and its incoming sunlight (which is almost negligible).”

    The same equation i use for Earth gives correct temperature at 1 bar pressure, 50km alt, on Venus. From there surface temperature can be found in another way, the same way I can connect Earth’s core temperature to effective emission. The balance point with solar heat doesn’t have to be at the surface. There seems to be a point of density where incoming heatflow and mass balance, with a dense atmosphere like on Venus, this point is at higher altitude. The equation works on Mars too. This dilution of the heat flow in mass, like a gas, and the entropy production from heat being converted to work when it accelerates mass of the gas, follows the factor 4/3. Several studies on thermodynamics confirm this, and its what I use for a heat current into the depth of a gas volume.

    “The Earth is hotter than THERMAL equibrium with the sun. This is different than The-sun’s-nergy-enters-and-leaves equibrium.”

    Thermal equilibrium is when ∆T=0. It’s only the top layer of the crust on Earth that’s in TE.

    “There is no need to “balance” anything”
    “only 340.3 actually comes from earth”

    The first law says otherwise:

    ∆U=Q+W

    Strangely enough, if you set W as the rate of work, G, the change in energy ∆U=TSI, and emission Q=σ256⁴:
    ∆U=TSI/4=Q+W=σ255⁴+g²

    Put heat through a heat engine, what’s missing in the heat flow into the cold reservoir is the work done by the system.

    Come on now, thermodynamics is all about balance. It’s what it’s for, it’s how it works. And Earth is most definitely a heat engine.

    We won’t agree. You can go on with your stalking of Postma. It seems like your more interested in attacking him than finding solutions to anything.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      “The same equation i use for Earth”
      Your equations are contrived.

      “follows the factor 4/3”
      Contrived nonsense.

      “The first law says otherwise:

      ∆U=Q+W

      Strangely enough, if you set W as the rate of work, G, the change in energy ∆U=TSI, and emission Q=σ256⁴:
      ∆U=TSI/4=Q+W=σ255⁴+g²”

      This is weird nonsense. ∆U is CHANGE in internal energy. Q is a COMBINATION of Solar TSI AND geothermal. There is no W at the surface.

      We’re trying to figure out Q. 1st law is irrelevant here, and the Earth-Sun is not in equilibrium.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Meant to say Earth’s surface is not in equilibrium with the sun. And it doesn’t have to be. You can ADD fluxes from two different sources, especially when their spectral ranges don’t overlap.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Earth’s energy balance diagrams are flawed

    As a physicist, I have long had doubts about the Greenhouse Gas Theory for global warming, and I recently came across a paper on this matter which enhanced my difficulties. This paper seems to base the theory on consideration of the global annual mean energy budget of Earth’s climate system, and shows a diagram by Trenberth and Fasullo.(1)

    Several other figures can be found on this topic on the internet, with similar values. (2) (3)

    There are a number of items that I’m concerned about, but the main one is the claim for the downwelling back radiation of 333 Watts per square metre of Earth’s surface, ( Trenberth).
    All three papers show this feature, at the extreme right side.

    The downwelling back radiation is shown coming from the Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, it is well known and fundamental in GHG theory that photons of energy emitted by GH gases are radiated equally in all directions; therefore there is equal energy radiated upwards and downwards. This upwards energy flux is SIMPLY NOT SHOWN in any of the three figures, but it cannot be ignored. It must be 333 Wm^-2 in Trenberth’s case.

    Moreover, the upwards energy would add to the 239 already shown emitted, making a total of 572 emitted to space, which clearly is nonsense. So the GHG theory has a lot of explaining to do.

    (1) http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/BAMSmarTrenberth.pdf

    (2) http://iacweb.ethz.ch/doc/publications/StephensLiWild_etal_NatureGeoscience.pdf

    (3) https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Yes Eddie, the AGW/GHE nonsense is pure pseudoscience.

      If a theory violates the laws of physics, the theory is wrong. The problem we face today is that very few people understand the physics. So the nonsense survives based on fear, ignorance, and the craving for funding.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Eddie Banner

        |

        Thank you, Geran, for your welcome support. But what can we do about it. Even some departments in respected universities such as Imperial College and Manchester are still promoting the GHG theory.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          It’s called “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”. You probably can’t find any college or university that does not promote it, due to the links to funding. Cut off the funding for nonsense, and the nonsense stops..

          Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Indeed Eddie.
      I arrive at this in a different way. My contention is that the surface can not be ~390 W/m^2 in their diagram without leaving the earth. SB law is for emission only.

      https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/11/01/why-the-greenhouse-effect-is-a-fraud-p1/

      I was thinking of adding step 6 showing the 390 leaving, and therefore causing 240+390 to be emitted in the same second as 240 arrives from the sun.

      The problem with the GHE is that it’s purely mathematical. In order to solve their equations, they presume extra energt coming from nowhere. Math is not physics. You can work work math forwards and backwards, presuming the existence of something that isn’t there.

      Of course there actually is a source for extra warmth in our atmosphere (geothermal), but that’s not quite what they are saying.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    The Greenhouse Gas Theory is totally flawed

    Zoe, I applaud your efforts in this respect, and I’m pleased we come to the same conclusion, namely that the GHG theory for global warming is not valid, although I disagree with you about the contribution of geothermal energy. ( See Wiki; about 0.1 Wm^-2)
    Your work shows that the theory assumes some extra energy in the atmosphere which simply is not there.

    My own approach is to start with the explanations for the GHG effect given in numerous posts; two examples below.

    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/singlelayermodel.html

    http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

    The diagrams clearly show that the theory is based upon the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the emission of radiant energy photons from a “Black Body”. This is acceptable for emission from the surface of the Earth, because it does approximate to such a body. Atoms and molecules are vibrating and moving about and changing direction very quickly, and so can emit photons within the relevant range of wavelength.

    BUT S-B IS NOT OK for the diffuse spread of molecules of the atmosphere. The S-B equation does not apply in these conditions, however many atmospheric layers are considered.

    At the surface, Stefan-Boltzmann does indeed apply.
    Let P = output power radiated per square metre of surface.
    e = emissivity of surface
    s = S-B constant = 5.67*10^-8
    T = surface temperature
    Then P = esT^4

    Take T = 288K and e = 0.98 (not quite a black body, for which e would be 1.0 )
    This gives P = 382.2778 Wm^-2

    Some of this energy escapes to space directly through the atmospheric window. From my own program, I believe this amount to be about 96 Wm^-2.
    So this leaves 286 from the surface going into the atmosphere.

    NO MORE S-B from this point onwards.

    Now these photons are absorbed by the molecules of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Very quickly, the same amount of absorbed energy is re-emitted as infrared photons into the atmosphere. But is a fundamental fact, well agreed by all the GH proponents, that this energy is re-emitted equally in all directions. That means that just as many photons travel upwards to space as downwards to the surface.

    So, the upward flux is 0.5*286, that is 143 Wm^-2 to space
    and 143 Wm^-2 to surface.

    But, the window gives another 96 to space, making a total of 239 Wm^-2 emitted to space, as required for energy balance.

    The energy flux returning to the surface from the atmosphere is 143 Wm^-2, and the surface receives a total of (161+78), that is 239 from the Sun. So energy balance is maintained.
    Moreover, the energy flux available for emission from the surface is this 239 plus the 143 from the atmosphere, making a total of 382 Wm^-2, which is where we started.

    Emissivity
    At 288 K the output from the surface, before taking its emissivity into account, is P = sT^4, which gives a value 390.079 Wm^-2. Therefore, the overall effective emissivity of the Earth’s system is the output 239 to space divided by this figure from the surface, that is 239/390.079 = 0.6127

    Similarly, at 289 K the overall emissivity is found to be 0.6043

    So the emissivity governs the surface temperature of the Earth.
    It explains why the normal temperature is 288 K, ie. 33 K above what it would be without greenhouse gases; so to this extent these gases do indeed play a part, but only as shown here.
    BUT NOT IN ANY WAY AS CLAIMED BY THE GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY, so beloved by the 98%.

    OK, so what anthropogenetic effect can have caused a change in Earth’s emissivity? And is it still occurring? If so, how do we stop it?

    Comments please.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Eddie,
    “Similarly, at 289 K the overall emissivity is found to be 0.6043”

    That’s circular reasoning and a fudge factor to make the math work. This number doesn’t come from observations.

    I already pointed out the geothermal heat flux number above:

    “The geothermal heat flux is the amount of heat “ost per 1 meter of ascending height. What is lost per 1 meter of height is not what comes out of the ground in the end!

    Postma makes the same mistake:
    https://i.ibb.co/YhNq3Jq/postmafallacy.png

    The problem is you’re starting with the concluding surface temperature, rather than deriving it from the solar input.

    Please read parts I & II on my blog:
    https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/why-the-greenhouse-effect-is-a-fraud-part-2/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Zoe, thank you for the link.

    Earth’s Emissivity and Temperature

    The Earth’s emissivity and surface temperature are inter-related.
    At a higher temperature, Stefan-Boltzmann shows that a greater energy flux is emitted by the surface of the Earth, so the surface requires greater input energy.

    The overall output to space must be maintained at 239 Wm^-2 in order to achieve balance.
    The overall emissivity is 239 / (input energy flux), and so the emissivity is smaller at higher temperatures.
    The emissivity is clearly affected by the amount of energy which can escape to space through the atmospheric window. Trenberth and others have tried different, fixed values; I have seen 22 or 40 Wm^-2 in their energy balance diagrams. My earlier work suggests more like 100 Wm^-2, but more recent calculations leading to my current posts indicate that at 288 K the window is 95.7, and at 289 K it is 90.4 Wm^-2. If the temperature ever reached 292 K, the associated window would be 74.0 K. It is a linear relationship.

    So the window is of critical importance, and we need to know what, if anything, can change its value. Anthropogenic effects particularly.

    The obvious first suspect is, of course, carbon dioxide; indeed, I have read somewhere that increased concentrations do reduce the window aperture. But no values were given. Any help on this would be appreciated.

    This is NOT to say the GHG theory is right after all, simply because CO2 has been mentioned. If it is involved, it operates in a completely different way.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Emissivity is defined by comparing a surface’s emission to a black body (perfect emitter). Emissivity is not affected by incoming energy, or the “atmospheric window”. If a surface emits 90% of what a black body emits, at the same temperature, then the emissivity is 0.9.

    And trying to “balance” fluxes is a waste of time since fluxes don’t balance.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Geran
    You are absolutely correct about the emissivity of a body.
    With the Earth’s system, however, the total energy flux from the surface into the atmosphere is determined by the S-B equation, provided that a sufficient supply is provided by the surface. This atmospheric flux is partly returned to the surface, and the remainder is emitted to space by radiant emissions from GHGs AND through the atmospheric window, as already explained in detail my post.

    The total energy supply in the Earth’s surface is then equal to this returned energy PLUS that provided by the SUN. This sum must be equal to the energy emitted to space in order for energy balance to be maintained.

    The energy emitted to space is partly governed by the “width” of the atmospheric window. That is, the amount of energy which escapes to space largely free of GHG absorption.
    This window is linearly dependent on the temperature.

    The Earth’s overall emissivity is then given by the (total energy to space) divided by the (total energy supply required in the S_B equation).

    Hope this helps.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Eddie,
      It seems you didn’t read my article carefully.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Sorry Eddie, but you can NOT change physics with a “however”. Emissivity is defined by comparing a surface’s emission to a black body (perfect emitter). Emissivity is not affected by incoming energy, or the “atmospheric window”.

      “Emissivity” is such a simple concept that even wikipedia gets it right: “Quantitatively, emissivity is the ratio of the thermal radiation from a surface to the radiation from an ideal black surface at the same temperature as given by the Stefan–Boltzmann law. “

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity

      Learn this one simple fact and then we can work on your other misconceptions.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Geran
    I completely agree with your statement about emissivity of a black body. I just said that in last post.
    HOWEVER, when dealing with the overall emissivity of the Earth system, which is NOT a black body, it is necessary to consider the output (239 Wm^-2) and divide it by the input into the surface. This is gives a figure of 0.6127 at surface temperature of 288 K, and explains why it is not 33 K cooler. It is because the overall emissivity is temperature dependent that we get our present small increase in temperature.
    The width of the window affects the distribution of energy fluxes in the atmosphere, and so it determines the overall emissivity of the Earth’s system. I have already explained this in my post.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Eddie, obviously you are unable to understand the simple, clear definition of emissivity from wiki.

      “Quantitatively, emissivity is the ratio of the thermal radiation from a surface to the radiation from an ideal black surface at the same temperature as given by the Stefan–Boltzmann law. “

      Not being able to understand the basics probably makes it impossible to understand more advanced concepts, huh?

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Zoe
    I have read your post, but it seems that they were dealing with a broad range of wavelengths, whereas I think the action is in the range of the window, 8 – 13 microns.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Geran
    Please let me know your more advanced topics.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Please let me know when you can understand simple definitions, such as:

      “Quantitatively, emissivity is the ratio of the thermal radiation from a surface to the radiation from an ideal black surface at the same temperature as given by the Stefan–Boltzmann law.“

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Geran
    No problem. I thought we had already agreed on that several posts ago..
    Please let me know your more advanced topics you want help with.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Your delusions fit well with your inability to learn.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Geran
    Please explain; learn what?
    Please let me know your more advanced topics you want help with.

    Reply

Leave a comment