The Utter Stupidity of Climate Scientists

Written by Alan Siddons on June 6, 2018. Posted in Current News

You know what explanatory diagrams do. They omit several details in order to convey the main idea (see example above).

Climate scientists also use diagrams to explain how the Earth gets warm. Here’s one from professor Richard Lindzen.

Whoever first composed this kind of diagram, I don’t know, but it must have made a hit because you find it everywhere in academia today, always replete with math symbols. Here’s another from the University of Northern British Columbia.

And another from Harvard University.

The arrows always signify radiant intensities, and there’s always a “layer” that’s not in contact with the surface, whereas a real atmosphere is. But beyond that there’s little to discern.

Here’s a diagram from the University of Washington Department of Atmospheric Sciences, however. It’s a bit clearer because it labels the arrows with quantities that are easier to grasp.

The term W/m² here refers to watts per square meter. As a rough average, under peak conditions a 1 by 1 meter solar panel facing the Sun is exposed to about 1000 watts of radiance, thus 1000 W/m². If you prefer, though, you can just think of W/m² as radiant “units.”

Like the others, this diagram shows that sunlight passes through an atmosphere that’s transparent to visible light, which heats the Earth’s surface by the same intensity, i.e., 239.7 units, sufficient to induce a surface temperature of minus 18° Celsius. The heat rays that result, however, are at infrared not visible wavelengths and, being opaque to these rays, the atmosphere completely absorbs those 239.7 units and radiates them in two directions, both up and down. But this is precisely where the diagram’s veracity collapses ‒ a direct result of making clear what the arrows represent rather than masking them with symbols.

Look again.

In response to the surface emitting the 239.7 it receives from the Sun, both sides of the “atmosphere” radiate 239.7 as well. This isn’t an error on this particular diagram; it is in fact the central tenet of how climate scientists believe the Earth gets warm. It’s a deliberate stroke, the main idea these diagrams are getting at.

The layer’s down arrow in these diagrams equals the Sun’s radiant power, climate scientists claim, so the surface is subjected to the power of two suns, which doubles the radiance upon it. This is known as the greenhouse effect.

But their premise is flat wrong. A two-sided layer that absorbs 239.7 units has two avenues for expelling this energy. As a result, only about 120 units could be emitted from either side. Otherwise, such a layer would be capable of releasing 2 watts for every watt it absorbs, which is impossible.

Nevertheless, professor Lindzen endorses this impossibleness. Since 240 W/m² are coming down from the atmosphere in his diagram, then…

“ the surface receives energy from both the sun and the atmosphere,

and the thermal equilibrium of the surface requires that

σTs4 = 240 Wm–2 + σTa4 = 480 Wm–2.

Solving for Ts gives a surface temperature now of 303 kelvins, or 30°C. ”

The University of Washington diagram records the same result.

Here is David Archer, professor of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, describing the special property of that suspended layer.

And here is Gavin Schmidt of NASA explaining this doubled-emission in Learning from a simple model.

” The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down. From those equations you can derive the surface temperature as a function of the incoming solar and the atmospheric emissivity as:

…If you want to put some vaguely realistic numbers to it, then with S=240 W/m² and λ=0.769, you get a ground temperature of 288 K – roughly corresponding to Earth. ”

Don’t be thrown off by that Greek letter lambda (λ). It just refers to how well the atmosphere absorbs and emits. Lambda would equal 1 if it were a perfect emitter. So his equation simply means that the Ground’s emission equals the Sun’s emission divided by 1 minus 0.5 times the emission efficiency ( λ ) of the atmosphere. Schmidt offers numbers for Sun emission and Atmosphere efficiency as 240 and 0.769 respectively. So…

0.5 × 0.769 is 0.3845.

1 − 0.3845 is 0.6155.

and 240 ÷ 0.6155 is 389.927 (W/m²) – which indeed translates to 287.97 Kelvin, or 15°C.

Why is this important? Well, because it confirms what the diagrams show, that a 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} emissive layer sends 240 units back to the surface.

0.5 × 1 is 0.5.

1 − 0.5 is 0.5.

and 240 ÷ 0.5 is 480 W/m².

The layer therefore emits 240 downward and another 240 to space (dividing by 0.5 is just a sneaky way of multiplying by 2). So, at any efficiency above 0{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, this remarkable layer does emit two watts for every watt it absorbs. Maybe it’s made of fairy dust.

Oddly, however, civil engineers haven’t exploited the obvious advantages of such a heat-transfer mechanism, not even in wintry climates where people have plenty of ice to use as a heat source.

But notice that whereas the atmosphere in these diagrams responds to the surface’s initial radiation by matching it, the atmosphere ceases to respond once it has made the surface hot. Given the frigid temperatures involved, we can demonstrate this with two ice cream cones, Let’s represent the surface as vanilla and the atmosphere as strawberry. So…

An absurd result? Of course. But this self-contradicting interaction points to the second supernatural occurrence in climate science diagrams.

It shouldn’t need saying, but two objects at the same temperature can’t heat each other, let alone one heat the other to a temperature higher than its own. Solar energy sets off a chain of events. No matter how many links compose that chain, their total cannot exceed the Sun’s contribution.

True scientists understand this in their bones; climate scientists do not.

Conclusion:

We started off by examining simple diagrams of how the Earth gets warm. But no diagram can explain the inherently unexplainable: how a spooky emitter doubles the energy that it absorbs and how opposing intensities combine, such that 240 units up and 240 down constitute 480 units of light instead of a thermal standoff.

• The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created out of nothing. Climate scientists ignore that law when they claim that the atmosphere can conjure 2 watts for every watt it absorbs.
• The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the transfer of heat ‒ by convection, conduction, or radiation ‒ only occurs when a difference of temperature exists. Climate scientists ignore that law when they claim that one of two bodies at the same temperature can heat the other.

These “settled scientists” have thus given the world an Earth Energy Budget impervious to rational scrutiny, one that amplifies radiant energy by mechanisms unknown to any other field.

Despite the incoherent mess they’ve made, climate scientists hold a position of high regard. Indeed, these throwback astrologers have been allowed to set the terms of debate in the 21st century. Even most so-called skeptics only dispute the severity or magnitude of their prophecies, never doubting the foundation on which those prophecies rest.

Here’s a synopsis of a familiar story.

“The Emperor’s New Clothes” is a short tale written by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent – while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the emperor parades before his subjects in his new “clothes”, no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally, a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!”

Each one of us, in conscience, must decide which role to play when confronted by a similar dilemma.

Trackback from your site.