The Sun is NOT an Ice Cube!

The IPCC/AGW/GHE/CO2 nonsense is supported by layer upon layer of pseudoscience.  One layer of pseudoscience is the bogus “energy balance”.  And one aspect of that layer is the “divide-by-4” calculation that reduces the effect of Sun. 

By reducing the effect of Sun, it makes it appear Earth is not getting enough energy to maintain its average temperature.  Of course this allows the agenda of “CO2 is heating the planet” to be promoted.  Skeptics even get fooled by the pseudoscience.  Some go as far as to claim geothermal is really heating the planet.  And then there is “heat creep”!

But, Earth gets more than enough energy from Sun.  In fact, Earth sheds about 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of solar energy, so as to not get too warm.  Earth and Sun are doing fine.  It’s the pseudoscience that is pathetic.

Incoming solar flux density can NOT be divided-by-4, as is done in pseudoscience.  Flux is not a scalar quantity.  It cannot be simply averaged over the surface of Earth.  The pseudoscience clowns claim that flux needs to be averaged over the surface of Earth, and since a sphere has 4 times the area of a disk, then that justifies dividing by 4.  But, solar flux can NOT be treated as energy.  By dividing-by-4, the tremendous power of solar energy is drastically reduced.  

This has all been explained numerous times, by numerous people, including Joseph Postma, who came up with the term “cold sun” to illustrate the stupidity of dividing-by-4.

Here’s a simple demonstration of why you can’t divide flux density:

Consider a flat blackbody plate, one square meter each face, at the same distance from Sun as Earth.  One face of the plate is positioned to receive direct sun (perpendicular to Sun’s flux).  The plate would be receiving 960 Watts/m^2, after adjusting for albedo.  At equilibrium it would have a temperature of 303.3 K, and be emitting 480 W/m^2 from each face.

one plate  >  303.3 K  =  30.2 ºC  =  86.3 ºF

Now, divide the plate into 4 equal new plates, and also divide the flux by 4, “averaging” the flux. That results in 240 W/m^2 arriving each new plate, and 120 Watts/m^2 being emitted by both faces of each new plate, giving an equilibrium temperature of 214.5 K for each. 

Four new plates  >  214.5 K  =  – 58.7 ºC  =  – 73.6 ºF

Notice the 88.8 K (88.8 ºC, 159.9 ºF) difference in temperatures. The pseudoscience of dividing-by-4 changes 30.2 ºC into -58.7 ºC, and 86.3 ºF into -73.6 ºF!  The same thing happens when the same trick is used with Earth’s flux.  This is what the clowns do to solar energy. 

They average solar flux over the entire surface.  The result is a surface that gets less flux than an ice cube emits!  (An ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2.)  So the pseudoscience clowns have made solar input colder than that of an ice cube!

That’s why they’re clowns.


About the author: Geran is a retired electrical engineer with years of experience in the relevant physics of Earth’s climate —thermodynamics, heat transfer, and quantum physics. He has professional experience of nuclear power plants, jet-fighter radar systems, food production facilities, aviation navigation and communication systems, antenna design, and GPS.


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 (43)

  • Avatar

    Brian James

    |

    Jan 2, 2020 THE SUN | Plasma Climate Forcing

    This is the first in a new special series investigation the mechanisms of solar climate forcing.

    https://youtu.be/p-dq3JbZdr4

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Yes Zoe, this simple example does make most of your blog rubbish.

      Sorry about that. At least you still have your zany humor.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Matt

    |

    Breaking something down to it’s basic elements leaves little room for layers of complexity which may contain manufactured and contrived data to fit the observations.

    A so called complex problem is often/usually a mass of simple phenomena stacked one upon the other.

    Thank you for this explanation which is remarkable for it’s simplicity and clarity.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Exactly Matt. Truth is simple. It takes a lot of words to cover up pseudoscience.

      “Occum’s razor” deals with that.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Geran,
    You divided by 2 for a plate because you have 2 sides.

    A plate receives all normal radiation, but a hemisphere receives only 1/2 normal radiation.

    Now you multiply 1/2 by 1/2 (two sides), and you get 1/4th. So simple.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      The simple example was clear.

      Maybe if you make a sketch?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Geran,
        The “poles” of your plate get as much radiation as the “equator”. You’re not modeling reality.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          It’s NOT a model, Zoe. It’s a simple example of why you can’t divide solar flux. Your desperate attempt to avoid reality is hilarious.

          More please.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Alan

            |

            Zoe is correct. Your example has no relationship to earth.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            You’re very perceptive, Alan. As I explained to Zoe, it’s NOT a model. It’s a simple example of why you can’t divide solar flux.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    “The plate would be receiving 960 Watts/m^2, after adjusting for albedo. At equilibrium it would have a temperature of 303.3 K, and be emitting 480 W/m^2 from each face.”

    Here you divided the flux by the whole surface area.

    “They average solar flux over the entire surface.”

    Yeah, and so did you!

    Hypocrite!

    Only problem is that you don’t further understand the difference between a flat surface and a spherical surface.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      As usual Zoe, you can’t even understand the simple example.

      “Here you divided the flux by the whole surface area.”

      Wrong. The 960 was NOT divided by 4. So at equilbrium it was emitting 480 from both sides. The incoming was NOT divided by 4! When the plate was divided into 4 equal parts, then so was the solar flux, to illustrate the absurdity of doing so. You still can’t understand.

      Your increasing desperation has now brought you to the point of insulting and name-calling. Such behavior is so predictable, yet hilarious.

      More please.

      Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          I didn’t divide by 2, or by 4. The 480 was the emitted, not the incoming divided-by-2.

          Your effort is to distract, confuse, and advertise your zany blog. Predictable and hilarious.

          More please.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Schizo,

            “The 480 was the emitted, not the incoming divided-by-2.”

            But you said:

            “The plate would be receiving 960 Watts/m^2, after adjusting for albedo. At equilibrium it would have a temperature of 303.3 K, and be emitting 480 W/m^2 from each face.”

            Schizo, you have serious mental health issues. Please seek help. Sorry I couldn’t help.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Hilarious.

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            Hey Zoe, please stop already. You’re decreasing the IQ of the plants in my office. They are already pretty stupid, I don’t think I can handle them getting any worse.

  • Avatar

    Doug Harrison

    |

    Geran, you need to recognise a troll when you see one and the best treatment of trolls is to ignore them.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Of course you’re right, Doug. Sometimes I just forget.

      It’s hard to accept that some people hate reality. That’s one thing I’m learning from the Internet. It’s not always so obvious in person.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    James

    |

    A detailled analysis of this difficult topic can be seen in the report below; the fact that all planets and moons are spherical had not been considered before. It seems that surface temperatures depend only on albedo, distance to the sun and atmospheric pressure. NASA has measured the surface temperature of the moon, so knows what the difference is to that of the earth, about 90Celsius, but doesn’t say so anywhere easy to find,. Maybe it contradicts the greenhouse hypothesis.

    https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Mention trolls and Doug Cotton shows up.
    Geran is correct but what he and all others accept is that the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere are heated by the surface of the Earth because they don’t absorb visible light and longer wavelengths. EVERY OBJECT ABSORBS RADIATED ENERGY. O2 and N2 absorb uv light which contains more energy than the longer wavelengths. 95% of the uv coming to the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere giving the molecules in it more kinetic energy than the Earth’s surface. Even the grossly inaccurate thermometer says the thermosphere is hotter than the surface of the Earth. How does an object lose energy by radiating energy through an object with more energy? It can’t. The atmosphere of the Earth, like Venus, has more kinetic energy/gram than the surface of the Earth but everyone ignores this energy. Instead of dividing the atmosphere by inaccurate temperature look at it using the molecules it is composed of. The upper atmosphere is composed of oxygen atoms because the energy is so great O2 molecules can’t form.
    Herb

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Squidly

    |

    Fantastic article Geran !!! .. thank you for that!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Alan

    |

    It is statements like “Earth sheds about 30% of solar energy, so as to not get too warm” that make think that reading any further is pointless. The earth does not have any ability to control its temperature to a certain range. Reading further I find the nonsense of treating the earth as one flat plate then dividing into four. This example has absolutely nothing to do with the earth.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Alan, you should look up the word “albedo”.

      And the way Earth regulates its temperature is called “thermodynamics”.

      There’s a lot to learn, huh?

      Reply

  • Avatar

    JDHuffman

    |

    This reminded me of Spencer’s response to Postma’s response, last year:

    UPDATE: (June 6, 2019): Joe Postma has posted a YouTube video rebutting my article. If you listen to him from 2:30 to 2:45, Joe refuses to accept that the S=1,370 W/m2 “solar constant” energy that is intercepted by the cross-sectional area of the Earth must then get spread out, over time, over the whole (top-of-atmosphere) surface area of Earth. [This why S gets divided by 4 in global average energy budget diagrams, it’s the difference between the area of a circle and the area of a sphere with the same radius.] I am at a loss for words how he can refuse to accept something that is so obviously true — it’s simple geometry. I stand by everything I have written here.

    Spencer understands the 7th grade geometry, but he doesn’t understand college physics!

    That’s likely some of the reason he believes CO2 can cause global warming. Of course, there may also be some funding involved….

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Max

      |

      While Dr Roy’s statement seems indeed wrong (i.e. spreading out S=1,370 W/m2 over the entire sphere surface) – isn’t that what actually comes out from the balance equation, when equating the input radiating power from the sun to the earth [Fo(1-a)pir^2] to the output radiating power from the earth to the space [esigmaT^44pir^2] ?
      I seem to understand that Postma himself in his diagrams is showing this.
      And isn’t that what even the thermodynamics expert Dr Pierre Latour is doing, in his reply to Dr Roy, item No.10 ? (https://principia-scientific.com/skeptical-arguments-that-don-t-hold-water-pierre-latour-s-rebuttal/). Pierre uses the same equation, but corrected for a different emissivity e=0.612, so he gets a warmer “no atmosphere” earth at 14.93C instead of the standard “mainstream” value at -18C.
      Symbols :
      Fo = 1370 W/m2, top of atmosphere solar flux
      a = earth albedo = 0.3
      e = earth emissivity
      sigma = SB constant 5.67E-08 W/m2

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Max

        |

        I rewrite the equations that for some reason came out unreadable :
        Input (sun-to-earth) = Fo(1-a)pir^2
        Output (earth-to-space) =esigmaT^44pi*r^2

        Reply

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        ”While Dr. Roy’s statement seems indeed wrong…”

        You could have stopped right there, Max. Spencer is using pseudoscience to claim that “flux” can be treated as “energy”. It can not be. Flux density is not conserved, energy is conserved. Spencer doesn’t have a clue.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Max

          |

          Well, I actually didn’t equate fluxes, but energy (or, better, power in watts). Power in (watts) equals power out (watts). The factor 4 comes from equating power, not fluxes. Dr Latour used that equation as well. All junk science ? It does not seem so.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            ”Well, I actually didn’t equate fluxes, but energy (or, better, power in watts).”

            Actually you did equate fluxes, Max. Your last two equations yield fluxes, not energy. You are confusing the two. As I said, flux is not conserved. And that is because flux is “power/area”, and power is not conserved.

            ”The factor 4 comes from equating power, not fluxes.”

            No Max, the factor 4 comes from the fact that a sphere has 4 times the area of its disk. (This was mentioned in the article above.)

            ”All junk science? It does not seem so.”

            Yes, dividing flux by 4 is junk science.

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi JD,

            But you can measure the temperature of an ice cube with your IR thermometer.

            Ponder that everyone!!!

            Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Max, it is confusing because of all of the layers of pseudoscience. Pierre Latour was addressing other layers of pseudoscience. The point in the article above is “The Sun is NOT an Ice Cube”. By dividing solar by 4, they reduce the average temperature, as demonstrated in the example.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Max

          |

          I thought that : Flux in * Area in = Flux out * Area out means equating power, and not fluxes. If this is not the case, then what is the correct predicted temperature with no atmosphere instead of the -18°C (per the alarmist’s claim) ?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            That’s correct, Max. If you multiply Watts/m^2 by m^2, you get Watts.

            Postma came up with a more realistic estimate of the “energy budget”, here:

            https://principia-scientific.com/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/

            But, if you neglect the atmosphere and oceans, you can get some real “global warming”, as in 58.4 ºC!

  • Avatar

    Daniel_G

    |

    Climate scientists make these invalid assumptions on many levels. Even the main thing they use as their barometer “average global temperature” is a complete hoax. If I have half of the USA at 50C and the other half at 0C the average is 25C. If the entire country was 25C, there would be no change in the average spatial temperature but it sure as hell isn’t the same! They do this temporally as well with day and night as well as with seasons. Models have to account for all these things and can’t just be simplified out as this article pointed out or you are just doing science fiction not actual science.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John

    |

    You divided the one square meter plate by four and then claimed that the incoming solar radiation was 240W/m^2. It wasn’t. It was 240 W across 0.25 square metres.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      That’s correct John. The actual flux would be the same to all the 4 sub-divided plates. That’s why you can’t divide-by-4. You get the wrong results. As explained in the article, they use layer upon layer of pseudoscience to deceive people. They divide solar flux by 4 to make it appear Earth does not get enough solar energy. The 240 Watts/m^2 they end up with is less than what is emitted by an ice cube.

      The Sun is NOT an ice cube.

      Thanks for pointing that out.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    The surface is not a plate, it’s a hemisphere. A hemisphere that is warmed for 12 hours, but needs energy for 24 hours.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      HebbRose

      |

      During the day the atmosphere and surface of the Earth absorb energy from the sun trying to equalize with the energy radiated by the sun. At night the atmosphere and surface of the Earth radiated energy trying to equalize with the energy emitted from the Earth. Energy is not like a light switch where it completely disappears when the source is turned off.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Herb,
        But you don’t believe the Earth emits energy on it’s own, or it’s feeble.

        If that is the case, then what the Earth emits during day AND night must match what the sun provides during the day.

        That energy is not enough to explain surface temperatures, and that’s why even Postma uses N&Z pressure theory to explain the gap. Except that N&Z have it backwards.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Everything emits/radiates energy. The energy the Earth emits at night is energy it absorbs from the sun during the day not geothermal energy. The equilibrium point (where the energy coming from the sun equals the energy coming from the core) is below the surface of the Earth and all of it is not list be sunrise. Permafrost is because at the surface of the Earth the energy coming from the core never equals the energy coming from the sun.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            “The energy the Earth emits at night is energy it absorbs from the sun during the day not geothermal energy.”

            And such energy is not enough to explain observations.

            “Permafrost is because at the surface of the Earth the energy coming from the core never equals the energy coming from the sun.”

            Geothermal varies by latitude.

            The hot molten core is more oblate than the crust. That’s what happens when hot liquid rotates in a solid. It’s the rotation that creates latitude difference.

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via