Towards a rational climate change model – part 1

Written by Rosie Langridge

Angels Paintings, Angels Art, Print, Poster, Angels Wallpapers

or – ‘Rip it up and start again’ -We might scoff at the attempts of our forebears to convert base metals into gold  – but at least the Medieval alchemists established the science of chemistry, learned a great deal, discovered useful new elements, and even found ways to make glorious colours and pigments for Michelangelo to use to paint the Sistine Chapel.

We might laugh out loud at pre-Enlightenment attempts to calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin – (if they actually did) – but at least the activity was harmless and one assumes led to much hilarity among the contestants!

And earnest scholars used to calculate how many prayers were needed to release a soul from Purgatory and attain Heaven. Again, we mock.

But all of these activities – trying to turn iron into gold, counting angels, balancing off prayers against sins – all of them are sensible and rational by comparison to the current obsession with ‘radiative forcing’ in the atmosphere. There is no such thing. You cannot generate energy out of nothing. Unless carbon dioxide can somehow permanently shift into a lower energy state (by the way, it can’t) it cannot emit energy.  This is well established, well known and fully understood science that genuinely is ‘settled’.

Watch 'Global Warming Debate!' with Joseph Postma | PSI Intl

In a recent paper entitled ‘An Alternative Global Mean Energy Budget Model Which is Incompatible with Existing Ones’ (January 2020) Joseph E Postma (pictured, above asks whether or not global energy budget models should be “consistent with the Laws of Thermodynamics and Physics  and empirical reality”. It’s a bit of a surprise that anyone should need to query this point!

[PSI Editor’s note: ‘Postma’s Climate Model Paper-Discussion’ has already generated over 225 reader comments]

Postma goes on to describe the ‘global energy budget’ as found in “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget” (Kiehl & Trenberth 1997) and kindly reproduces the diagram, which has some startling numbers in it. For example, it shows 67 W/m2 of incoming solar radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere, which then transforms itself into a whopping 324 W/m2 of “back radiation” magically created out of thin air, and all of which is absorbed by the surface of the earth. Wow!

And as Postma points out, the diagram doesn’t specify where on the earth’s surface this is supposed to be happening, day or night, winter or summer. It’s all been vaguely averaged out; that’s why he calls it a ‘flat earth theory’ (as indicated by the standard one-dimensional model, illustration below)

Enjoyable as it is to read a paper that does not breach the fundamental laws of physics that I was taught as a mere nipper of twelve years old, I still don’t agree with Postma’s  new model.

I do hope that Mr Postma, as a genuine bona fide and serious scientist, will not be unhappy to be challenged by a sit-at-home nobody like me; but – scientific ideas are put out into the world in order to be questioned and in order for people to have a go at disproving them.

It was only thanks to reading Mr Postma’s paper and thinking, “No, I don’t agree” that I got to consider the question “Ok, how does this work?” If this paper is still ‘wrong’, what does ‘right’ look like? Maybe some random nobody like me can make a contribution to this debate. And in my opinion, rather than trying to correct existing models, we need to, in the words of the well known song by ‘Orange Juice’,  Rip it up and Start Again.

We need to start right back at the very beginning by asking ‘What are we trying to achieve, why, and how?’ and then re-think it from scratch.

So, that’s what I have started to do and that is why this paper is entitled Towards a rational climate change model – part 1.  And if anyone likes ‘part 1′ then I’ve got parts 2 to 4 ready to send!

So, in case anyone is asking, I do have a thorough grounding in maths and science and had excellent teachers long before the days of the politicisation of science and of education in general. I have a degree in geography which is relevant to the question of considering climate, the weather and multifactorial systems with complex feedback mechanisms.

Best of all, I have a sceptical friend who may not have the grounding in science that I have, but who questions everything, and, when it comes to ‘man-made climate change’,  can smell a rat. Make that lots of rats and throw in a few skunks as well.

No, I still don’t think that carbon dioxide levels have any effect upon the climate, but I do think that a ‘flat earth’ will do just fine for the purpose of looking at the ‘global annual energy budget’. However, as a one-time accountant, I don’t like the word ‘budget’.  Neither budgets nor sources of funding should come into it. This is supposed to be science.

Why a ‘flat earth’ is good enough, at least to begin with

That’s because we need first to distinguish between weather and climate – at least, the definition of ‘climate’ which is used in the ‘global warming’ agenda, and the idea that unless we trash our lifestyles, countryside and economy (and half the world’s birds and bats into the bargain) the earth will heat up in an extreme and catastrophic manner in the next five years.

‘Climate models’ are concerned with the global annual average surface temperature.  Therefore we only need to consider gross energy transfers into and out of the surface of the planet.  We neither need nor want any of the detail.  Instead we need to focus on getting the absolute basics correct first. We just need the totals and the shape of the earth is irrelevant (s0 far….wait and see later!

‘Detail’ takes us into the realm of ‘weather’, which looks at the short-term and includes temperature, wind and humidity. Weather processes are set in train by the differential temperatures around the surface of the planet, which, together with movements of water, redistribute energy. Weather redistributes energy around the planet – it doesn’t affect the overall balance of energy coming in and energy going out.

Pausing to note that, as a geographer, this modern definition of ‘climate’ to mean only the global annual average temperature makes me feel very sad. ‘Climate’ used to incorporate a complex of variables including rainfall and annual patterns and typical vegetation. We used to talk about a ‘maritime’ climate,  a ‘continental’ or ‘temperate’ climate and many more – a combination of factors that we humans observe and experience, things that, almost intuitively, we know are important. With our human brains we can understand such things, even if they are less susceptible to reducing to a few numbers and sticking into a computer.

Returning to my topic with a heavy heart: the subject of ‘climate’ defined as the average temperature across the whole planet for a complete year.

From the study of rocks, ice-cores, fossils and isotopes, scientists have reconstructed the history of the earth’s temperature and have proper estimates of the history of the earth’s surface temperature almost from its formation 4 ½ billion years ago.

Planet Earth animation after effects - YouTube

Noting that the oldest documented ice age (Huronian) was 2 ½ billion years ago and there have been repeated episodes of widespread glaciation and also of ice-free periods when it was much hotter than today – any ‘climate change model’ worthy of the name needs to be able to ‘predict’ these major swings in temperature, at least as far back as the formation of a nitrogen-based, oxygen-rich atmosphere with water cycles very broadly similar to today’s – since we would be taking today’s temperature and conditions and back-projecting from where we are now.

The sources of energy to the surface of Planet Earth

What is not a source of energy?

The atmosphere is a bunch of water, gas and dust and, minute traces of radioactive nuclear decay aside, it is not a source of energy.

What are the sources of energy?

There are two massive sources of energy and several relatively minor ones. We all know about the sun. It’s big and it’s hot and it’s almost on our doorstep (or at least, just down the road). But nobody doing these climate models seems to have remembered that Planet Earth is not cold and dead but, in itself, is raging hot.

The latest estimates are that, deep inside, the earth is a full 6,000C; that’s as hot as the surface of the sun!  At this point, the fact that the earth is a sphere is important. Planet Earth is an enormous lump of extremely hot rock.  Relative to the size of the planet, man’s deepest mines merely scratch the surface, and yet the rocks are a scorching 60C. Wow.

Earth's core far hotter than thought - BBC News

Enthusiasts for catastrophic climate change cannot account for the earth’s surface temperature being higher than – 18 C, (or even -40C, depending upon how one looks at the figures) and that seems to be why they invented the concept of ‘radiative forcing’, to make up the difference. Well – I would like to offer them this get-out-of-jail-free card.

They can keep all the rest of their calculations but no longer need to break the laws of thermodynamics; instead they can drop the radiative forcing and replace it with geothermal energy and bring that surface temperature right back up to normal. I don’t know the actual figures – but, if one considers a temperature gradient from 6000C deep inside to 60C at two miles down and then up to the surface, it’s obvious that there is a lot of heat coming up.

From hot springs to volcanoes, from boiling mud to tsunamis – whole continents moving around! – we all know that Planet Earth has enormous energy stored within.

Engineering Seminar Topics and Project: GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

There are other sources of energy to the surface of our planet. These are:  energy released by man’s activities (nuclear power stations/weapons plus burning of fossil fuels minus conversion of metal ores into metal); energy from background radiation (ie from outer space); the net effect of biological processes; energy from incoming meteors.

These are all very very small by comparison to the heat coming from the sun and from the earth itself. They are important for other reasons, but for calculating gross energy flows they are irrelevant.

Energy flows, the big issues: the earth itself – the sun – the atmosphere – energy out

The earth itself

Energy from the earth’s core provides a steady input of energy to the surface which could be likened to having home storage heaters permanently on.  Meanwhile, hot areas at specific locations have potentially important local significance, especially if located beneath a glacier where they could cause the glacier to melt.  Volcanic activity is extremely important for reasons other than total energy flows (see below) and the same is true of meteors.

The sun

The sun emits massive streams of highly energetic particles and radiation flowing out in all directions. For convenience, I’ll just refer to this as “radiation”. The amount of energy arriving at the earth’s surface from the sun varies because of variations in each one of these factors on a separate basis:

*          the sun’s output

*          the earth’s distance from the sun

*          the deflecting properties of the magnetosphere

*          the insulating effect of the atmosphere.

The atmosphere

The atmosphere, as already mentioned, is not a source of heat energy – but it does act as an insulating layer between earth and sun and therefore reduces the incoming energy from the sun. Having said that, it’s important to remember that most of the sun’s radiation directly penetrates the atmosphere and strikes the surface of the earth unimpeded.

The insulation acts via two mechanisms, reflection and re-radiation.  For both of these mechanisms the most important atmospheric components are H2O (in liquid or solid form) and particulate matter.

Clouds and dust block out the sun – we all know that, and the formal scientific process that explains most of this routine observation is reflection.

Also, a portion of the sun’s incoming energy is absorbed by the various components of the atmosphere. The absorbed radiation is obviously re-radiated, but, rather than being directional like the sun’s incoming radiation, is re-radiated equally in all directions, and therefore a portion goes back out to space. Even though the incoming electromagnetic  radiation might be re-radiated out at a different wavelength, the total energy is unchanged.

GMS: Earth's Energy Budget

The amount of insulation provided by the atmosphere varies primarily because of varying amounts of cloud cover and of particulate matter. Fractional changes to the quantities and components of the gaseous portion of the atmosphere are irrelevant.

Current emphasis on carbon dioxide appears to be wholly irrational because the amounts are so small by comparison to other factors (clouds and dust) and because there is no such thing as radiative forcing and because plants grow faster in response to increases and thereby convert the gaseous carbon-based molecules back into solid compounds.

Energy losses

We’ve counted up the sources of energy coming into the surface of the planet. Now consider the energy leaving the planet. Because Planet Earth is at a temperature higher than Absolute Zero it emits radiation.

We have been talking about the surface layer of the planet. It absorbs heat energy and it re-radiates heat energy. The re-radiated energy travels equally in all directions and a portion of it travels out through the atmosphere and then back out into space.

Net energy flows

As far as the surface is concerned, there are two sources of energy coming in (from the inside of the earth and from the sun) and then the earth’s surface emits energy via the ordinary and fully understood physical processes of convection, conduction, and radiation, plus the various biological processes. Now – when the surface receives more energy that it emits, the temperature rises. When the reverse happens, the temperature falls.  There we go – basic thermodynamics in a nutshell that Einstein himself would have approved of.

Towards a global climate change model

As far as the global average temperature is concerned, we need the grand total figures – the total energy received versus the total energy lost by the surface of the planet. That’s why I think that, when the system is simplified down to its absolute basics, a ‘flat earth’ is good enough. At the start of creating any such model, radical simplification is the only way to get it right.

So let’s do that. Let’s decide exactly what we are talking about, and whether we are trying to achieve the same goal, and using the same words with the same meaning. Let’s get the fundamental physics right and identify the most important physical processes going on. Let’s agree on the definitions. Let’s make sure that we are comparing like with like. Let’s get the basic model correct.

Only then would it be possible to get anything more complicated correct; and unless we get the fundamentals right, both correct and agreed upon, the opportunity is there for people to add more and more layers of complicated faux-reasoning until everyone is either completely confused, or completely taken in, or bored out of their brains.

Any of these outcomes will suffice for an agenda which seemingly operates to gain power and control over our lives rather than out of genuine concern for the state of the planet, its natural history, or its human inhabitants.

How much atmospheric insulation does life on earth need?

Too little atmospheric insulation exposes the planet’s surface to extreme temperature changes and also to damaging radiation wavelengths (though the earth’s magnetosphere is the critical protective mechanism from damaging high-energy radiation).

20 best Science-Weather images on Pinterest | Earth ...

Too much atmospheric insulation does not allow enough of the sun’s energy to reach the surface for complex life to thrive. In past eras, high levels of particulate matter from volcanic activity or meteor strikes have caused episodes of extinction. Even modest increases in particulate matter have caused crop failure, disruption to human societies, and widespread famine.

The ‘climate change’ hysteria has reached such a pitch that ‘carbon capture’ is seriously proposed, perhaps even becoming a reality. Do these people know what they are doing? What are the politicians playing at? Carbon dioxide is essential, essential, to life, to the life that has existed on Planet Earth for the past three or more billion years.  When there is more, plants grow faster. When there is too little, plants die. If the politicians actually succeed in their ideas then we really will be facing mass extinctions of plant and animal life here on earth.

What’s more, I hear there are proposals to deliberately release particulate matter into the upper atmosphere. This is what volcanoes do. This is what asteroids and mass meteorite strikes do. This is what has caused countless numbers of people to suffer hardship, cold, hunger, famine and death.  Particulate matter in the upper atmosphere killed the dinosaurs. They cannot be serious about doing this, can they? Are they ignorant or are they stupid? Are they mad or are they bad?

Either way, this climate change emergency hysteria needs to stop or we really will be dead and we’ll be taking half the world’s wildlife with us.

© Rosie Langridge  14 February 2020   (Additional material  from David McCobb)


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.

Comments (277)

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Rosie,

    Maybe I get to be the first to congratulate you on this review (essay) and I certainly want to read more of your great efforts. I have a little point to make but that will wait until I read what anyone else has to comment about this good, no great, start.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    Thank you very much, Jerry.
    I must confess to be being rather glad that you aren’t asking me any questions right now as my brain has been thinking rather hard recently! There is plenty more exciting stuff to come in parts 2-4

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Rosie,

    This comment is to draw attention to a couple of the ‘earth’ images which I suspect are the results your friend’s, David McCobb, efforts.

    Because you are somewhat new on the scene here at PSI, I do not know that I have drawn attention to the ‘blue ring’ of the atmosphere above the solid and liquid earth. And these variations seen in these quarter images of the earth really highlight these rings because a portion of the atmosphere is obviously being ‘back lite’ by the solar radiation.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Rosie Langridge

      |

      Hi Jerry
      The diagrams were added by John O’Sullivan.
      Not exactly sure of your point, sorry as my brain is tired out still, but
      I included starlight in the list here:
      There are other sources of energy to the surface of our planet. These are: energy released by man’s activities (nuclear power stations/weapons plus burning of fossil fuels minus conversion of metal ores into metal); energy from background radiation (ie from outer space); the net effect of biological processes; energy from incoming meteors.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    “Towards A Rational Climate Change Model” is the title, but so far there has been nothing but a rambling rehash of what has been out there for years. Absolutely nothing of new value.

    Wake me up when you start moving “towards”.

    • Avatar

      Tom O

      |

      Better still, crawl back under your rock and stay there. You’ll be better off and so will the rest of the world.

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      Hi Geran. It appears to me Rosie is identifying the separate factors contributing to earth’s atmospheric temperature, identifying the foundations, and doing so in a way that allows for input from readers to identify anything a reader feels is overlooked.
      This creates a process where there can be a team contribution and by good governance of other readers of this site there could be trail blazing outcomes. This good governance by readers would be positive identification of something overlooked and identifying questions that have not been satisfactorily answered.
      I agree wholeheartedly with Jerry Krause that Rosie not being distracted by unhealthy debate but being cognizant of anything overlooked or the elephant in the room, questions than have never been satisfactorily addressed.
      Geran, with my experience in the initiation, governance and co-management of national award winning democratic process I learned that some people will kick over a beautiful sand castle on the beach simply because they did not build that sandcastle. Positive contributions can create holistic outcomes. (big picture comprehension)
      Rosie! I was left pondering if the genesis of philosophy was the question “why”.
      The sub-editor headlined your letter denialism denier. (something like that) Of course you were not denying climate change denialism but questioning or challenging the term. The sub-editor was in denial.
      Kind Regards Matt

      • Avatar

        Rosie Langridge

        |

        Hi Matt
        Thanks for your comments and I agree with you.
        Long ago I had truly excellent teachers both in maths and physics. Whenever someone said to our physics teacher, “Please sir, why does this happen?” He would reply “Why is not a scientific question.” We had to phrase the question correctly before he would answer it.
        As regards philosophy and the question “Why”. Hmmm, I like your thought and will put it to my philosopher friend.
        My personal take is that in both subjects we should talk of “I” and “We” and not use the passive voice. Engage our entire human nervous system and not merely a small portion of its processing power. And take responsibility for what we say.

        • Avatar

          Matt

          |

          Cheers Rosie.
          When we talk of I and especially “we” that is inclusive and part of a winning team. The term “you” can create isolation and conflict.
          When you mention engaging the entire nervous system that can include passion. That could manifest as an instant population boom or world war three or brilliant results somewhere in the middle.
          Take a deep breath and count your blessings. Matt

        • Avatar

          Hugh Soden

          |

          Hi Rosie,
          My tiny brain enjoyed your article and I managed to take some of it in. One thing that did occur to me is how can we measure the factors effecting the total. Are any of the many satellites we keep firing into space actually there for the measurement of what is radiated back out into space, if so what are they telling us?

          • Avatar

            Rosie Langridge

            |

            Thanks Hugh, it’s a good question and one would think that they are doing so … but are they?
            Takes a lot of money to make measurement such as this and, while there are massive sums going into the CO2 agenda, is there money being used for purposes such as this. Re-radiated energy from the earth should have characteristic wavelengths and one would have thought it would be straight-forward to measure. Not to mention all the money being used to look for aliens. – how about some proper assessment of planet earth’s energy flows ?

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Hugh and Rosie,

            The USA has satellites with downward measuring instruments for decades. Do not know about other nations.

            Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Thanks so much for your opinions, Matt.

        But science is NOT about opinions, or beliefs. Science is about things that can be observed, tested, demonstrated, verified, repeated and falsified. Opinions and “experience in the initiation, governance and co-management of national award winning democratic process” are NOT science.

        Rosie is clearly full of opinions and scientifically incompetent, but knows how to use a keyboard. That’s a dangerous combination for other people interested in science….

        • Avatar

          Matt

          |

          Hi Geran.
          The ideal of freedom and democracy gives us the ability of expressing and sharing opinions without being taken away and disappearing in the middle of the night.
          In my case award winning democratic process is the application of logic in Inviting a community to identify objectives and issues, and then the evaluation of options to accommodate and realize those objectives and resolve those issues (often conflicts). Democracy! To give continuous information and invite continuous input from a community is democracy.
          To then sit around having “discussions” and negotiations about potential outcomes leads to compromise and perpetualisation of some of the “issues” the process was set up to resolve. (think May’s Brexit)
          To use analasys of each alternative is part mathematics and part logic and in summary 90% (arbitrary figure) of an informed community will support the building of the sandcastle on the beach which they were given they opportunity to help design and in which their concerns were addressed. It is their sandcastle and they treasure it.
          A politician could arbitrarily impose on a community the same outcome. That is tyranny.
          I love to be wrong Geran. I love learning. Teach me something.
          Teach me how mathematics and analysis is not science. We are still buddies I hope.
          Regards Matt

          • Avatar

            Me Again

            |

            analysis.

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Matt and Rosie,

        Matt, your stock just went up significantly on the Krause Stock Market.

        Rosie, I am not sure the question Why? is so bad. For I consider asking questions–regardless of the words used–is most important. For the a question implies one doesn’t know. And there are too many who know all the answers.

        Somewhere I remember someone changed the question to find an answer but what words were changed and what the good answer discovered I do not remember.

        As I look back at your question, “Please sir, why does this happen?”, to your teacher, I wonder if he was looking for ‘this’ to be accurately defined? For I considered for a moment that he might have been satisfied with the question: How does this happen? Then, for there are many phenomena for which there is no rational answer. It seem this why Joe Postma seem to reject the knowledge of quantum mechanical physicists because even they cannot understand their own theories. But they accept the these theories explain observed phenomena which the classical physics of large bodies cannot for the small bodies of nuclei, protons, electrons, atoms, molecules and maybe even bodies as large as cloud droplets. And maybe even a little larger than cloud droplets. I really cannot pretend to know (understand) that which these quantum mechanical physicists used to design bombs, which when constructed, worked the first three times they were tested. (Yes, this is a repeat of mine). But this is an observed fact that those who, without any similar achievement, seem to claim they are more intelligent than these men who have this achievement.

        Rosie, we cannot let, as much as want to come to a common understanding, such arrogance as this go unchallenged less somebody believe what such people state.

        The only way that we can come together is to observe, or measure, that which refutes wrong ideas.

        Which strangely enough is what might have been observed or measured since there were humans to observe and/or measure certain common natural phenomena.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Matt

          |

          Cheers Jerry.
          I owe you a private email.
          Best wishes. Matt

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Rosie and PSI Readers,

          I reviewed two atmospheric temperatures commonly measured and reported at most weather stations about 17 hours ago. I described the reason for comparing these two atmospheric temperatures. I reviewed the result of this comparison. I pointed out that consequence of the observed fact that the atmospheric temperature measured 1.5 meters above the earth surface is always equal to or greater than the atmosphere’s dewpoint temperature measured at the same location at the same time is that it totally refutes the predication of the GHE that the measured atmospheric temperature would be 33C (using recent data) lower if the atmosphere did not contain carbon dioxide and other GH gases.

          And there has not yet been one comment about this observed fact of my previous comment.

          This is our primary problem Rosie. Call it whatever.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            And the problem is not that I frequently do not proofread well.

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Matt, Rosie, and PSI Readers,

        I want to remind ‘us’ that there is nothing like SCIENCE that can absolutely refute a wrong scientific idea with a reproducible observation (and/or measurement). But at the same time there is no right idea in SCIENCE. So until there is a reproducible observation (and/or measurement) to refute any scientific idea that can be proposed, that scientific idea must be accepted as possible as any other other scientific idea which has not been refuted by observation and/or measurement..

        However, why, or how, is it I carefully refer to specially to ‘scientific’ ideas. It is that there is a condition upon what qualifies an idea to be a scientific idea. It is that an idea must explain more than what has been observed, and/or measured. A scientific idea must predict something which has not been observed and/or measured.

        Hence, Arrhenius’s idea that the measured temperature of the atmosphere is what it is measured to be is not even a scientific theory for it predicts nothing that has not been observed. So, the prediction was that the measured temperature would be about 30F lower than measured if there were no carbon dioxide and other similar gases in the atmosphere. Except this is not a testable prediction because it is impossible to remove these gases from the earth’s atmosphere.

        But there is another alternative test that is very easy to do and it has been done every hour of everyday at many, many weather stations for many years. For at these stations two atmospheric temperatures are measured: the air temperature measure about 1.5 meter above the surface and the atmospheric dewpoint temperature. Which is usually measured indirectly with an instrument, mounted about 1.5 meter above the surface,which measures the relative humidity of the atmosphere. From these two measurements, the atmosphere’s dewpoint temperature has long been calculated.

        After which these two temperatures be compared and it seen that the air temperature is always equal to, or greater than the dewpoint temperature. There is a simple experiment to directly measure the dewpoint temperature but it cannot easily be automated. This comment is for those who might question the measurement of the relative humidity or the indirect calculation of the dewpoint temperature (the temperature at which the atmospheric water molecules begin to condense on a surface.

        So it is measured fact that the atmosphere’s temperature cannot be 30C (58F) less regardless how many molecules of carbon dioxide and other simiar gases are in the atmosphere. Therefore, the wrong idea of the GHE of carbon dioxide gas is absolutely refuted and all those who debate and argue about the idea of the GHE at PSI must find some other activity to entertain themselves.

        But, Rosie your efforts to compose Parts 2, 3, and 4, are not wasted because you seem to be helping us see how the diverse weather systems might actually work if we get rid of the wrong scientific idea. For wrong scientific ideas have always hindered progress.

        Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Great article.
    But Rosie, geothermal is only 91 milliWatts/m^2 !

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    Zoe – work through every element separately and do it on the scale of the total globe per day.

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi John,

    Great, great job with the images. I had come to make a comment to Rosie and the PSI readers about the image showing the ‘hot, hot’ interior of the earth. For about the edge of the earth there is first a clearly white ring (which I consider to be the troposphere and then the stratosphere and mesosphere without any condensation nuclei. Which condensation nuclei I consider to be the cause of the white ring as I had written somewhere somewhat recently. Do not remember where or when. But I do seem to remember some questioned if there was a white ring. Now there is no question. And I really doubt if anyone has made the effort to add this these rings to the photograph.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Charles Higley

    |

    “the insulating effect of the atmosphere.”

    You cannot consider the atmosphere this way. The atmosphere does absorb some insolation during the day and also serves to carry the majority of incoming energy from the surface to altitude, by conduction, convection, and the water cycle. Without the atmosphere, Earth’s surface would be ~200ºC. So, it keeps us cool.

    However, during the night, the atmosphere serves to slow Earth’s cooling, which would be ~-100ºC without an atmosphere. So, it keeps us warm.

    It is very difficult to have a realistic model that does not take into account the rotation of the Earth, with one part being heat and the rest cooling at any given times. A flat Earth model would have to build in a Sun that fades to zero on a daily basis, but then the continuous heating of part of the sphere would be lost.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Charles,

      Air, the atmosphere, has a thermal conductivity. Which molecules (generally) when the air (atmosphere) is ‘calm’ are thought to have an average speed of the speed of sound (about 700 mile/hour. Yet, if the air has no convective motion, the air is a quiite good insulator. Hence the temperature gradient between 1.5 meters can be quite significant. This is documented if you inspect some of the data of this link (https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/). Where you will find the temperature of the ‘surface’ is less than that of the atmosphere above it at 1.5m and less than that of the soil 5cm below the surface during the nighttime. So the only conclusion is that the earth’s surface is cooling both the air in contact with the surface and the soil beneath the surface by radiating more ‘energy’ toward space than it is absorbing from the radiation incident upon the surface. This can be found to be the case time after time at more than 100 locations in the USA. This data cannot be questioned because it is not an argument. It is an observed (measured) fact. Much more reliable than your words.

      Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      CD Marshall

      |

      Charles.
      Ironic you should say ~200C considering without the Earth’s outer crust serving as installation for geothermal, the surface would be an estimated ~200C.

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    Charles, I agree that the ‘flat earth’ term is causing major problems of miscommunication. I won’t use it again. I was trying to make the point that we need to begin by identifying all the sources of energy. As far as I can perceive, Zoe has been a lone voice trying to point out that geothermal energy is a major source of energy. She has lots of stuff on her site and she is clearly onto something important.
    Once we have identified all of the sources, next question is, which are really big and which are relatively minor?
    Next – do those sources of energy vary? Is there anything I have missed in the lists above?
    Next – what impedes the transfers of energy? My final edit to this piece was to add in the role of the magnetosphere which deflects an enormous portion of the sun’s energy away from the earth. The magnetosphere varies in strength. Have you seen this factor in a climate change model because I haven’t. Is there anything else of big significance that I have missed, since I almost forgot this one?
    Once we are sure that we have picked up all of the components that should be in a climate model, then pick out all of the really big items…so that’s basically as far as I got here in Part 1 …. otherwise it would get too long.
    I don’t literally mean to imply that the earth is a 2 dimensional disk. But – what is the case is that at any one moment, half of the globe is facing the sun and half is facing away, and, in approximate terms, the amount of energy coming in from the sun and being absorbed is steady, and so is the amount of energy being radiated away. The two calculations need to be done separately, and the atmosphere acts as an insulating layer in both cases. Each computation is complex and part of the problem with standard models is that they are being muddled up together.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Rosie,

      Do not lower you standards by arguing with Zoe. That would be a mistake. Your article is a historical review. The facts of which can be read at other places than your article.

      Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Rosie,
      The magnetosphere deflects solar particles (ions emitted by the sun), not electromagnetic energy.
      Herb

      • Avatar

        Rosie Langridge

        |

        Hi Herb
        This is what I said, “the magnetosphere which deflects an enormous portion of the sun’s energy away from the earth. The magnetosphere varies in strength. Have you seen this factor in a climate change model because I haven’t.”
        That energy comes in as highly energetic particles and as radiation. So what I said holds true …..
        but the big question here is, do any climate change models include this factor? It’s a huge huge factor and it needs to be in the models. Is it?

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Rosie, you can’t even understand when Herb explains it to you!

          Your display of incompetence with the relevant phyics is hilarious.

          More please.

          • Avatar

            John Harrison

            |

            Geran. There is an ancient adage which you could gain wisdom from. If you have nothing worth saying then keep silent. Another is good manners maketh the man. Try exercising both.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Harrison, your hypocrisy is funny, but never leave out your usual pseudoscience.

            That’s when you’re really hilarious.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Rosie,
          Most ion particles (solar wind) are directed around the Earth and those coming to the Earth do so at the poles creating the auroras. I don’t know their contribution to the energy coming to Earth but the fact that they are ions means the electromagnetic energy coming from the sun has enough energy to strip electrons from atoms.
          Herb

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    Hi Jerry, as you mentioned I am fairly new to this site.
    The entire argument has got astoundingly fraught and we really need to enable people to work together. Somehow we have to have proper open debate in society. Let’s start here with a fresh start. Zoe has already done a lot of work on the geothermal contribution to the earth’s temperature and to the weather in general.
    I don’t really want to be the person who puts a new and rational model together that includes all the factors and also obeys the laws of physics. I haven’t got the resources by a long long long way. I don’t want to coordinate such an effort. But such a thing is needed with extreme urgency because the hysteria of climate change is a threat to us all. So I’m doing the bit that I can do, which is to take a step back and say – let’s start again and let’s make sure everything is included. And then hope that enough people will say, ‘Yes, let’s work together and make a fresh start..’

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Rosie, where have you been? This nonsense has been going on for well over 10 years. You obviously have no clue, yet you now want to come around trying to “work together”. You should count the references to yourself just in your last comment. In your head, the World revolves around you–just another incompetent, ego-driven clown. Hilarious.

      More please.

      • Avatar

        John Harrison

        |

        Geran. Have you nothing worthy to contribute?Shame on you.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Harrison, it’s all worthy, but that doesn’t mean you can understand it.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Rosie,

      One, you clearly have researched that about which wrote and Geran is correct it has be known for many more years than 10 years ago. Maybe a century. But you have researched and you can write. There have been many problems beginning with Svante Arrhenius’s essay of 1896.

      You wrote about geography and I doubt if many who write articles posted here and make comments have studied the simple facts of geography of which you reviewed. It seems very few are willing to accept the problem caused by averaging to which you referred. Some maybe didn’t even notice what you wrote about this fundamental problem.

      And I am waiting for John O to be criticized for even posting your efforts to begin us together. But I believe your efforts have the potential to succeed as you desire because I have not read anyone with your objective who has researched what they wrote and have had your ability to clearly write as you have.

      And while I really want to read Part 2, I know it is best to allow more PSI readers to first digest Part 1.

      Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi Rosie,
    You have completely missed most of the energy coming to the Earth. Just because energy doesn’t reach the surface of the Earth doesn’t mean that it isn’t being emitted by the sun and adding energy to the Earth. Ultraviolet light emitted by the sun is being absorbed by oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere. X-rays emitted by the sun are being absorbed by the atoms in the atmosphere. These light bands contain more energy than the visible spectrum that reaches the Earth’s surface. At an altitude of 100 km the composition of the atmosphere changes. The percentage of nitrogen and argon decreases rapidly with increasing elevation and oxygen molecules are converted to oxygen atoms resulting in the atmosphere being composed of oxygen atoms and helium. Atoms are ionized by x-rays. In order to split molecules and ionize atoms it takes a lot of energy and this energy comes from the uv and x-rays being emitted by the sun. The oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere convert the uv and x-ray bands into kinetic energy of the atoms and ions. This creates the ionosphere. Some of the uv makes it to the surface of the Earth but 97% is absorbed in the atmosphere. The ozone layer is where uv breaks oxygen molecules and some of the atoms combine to form ozone molecules. To believe that the ozone molecules at a concentration 10 ppm is absorbing this uv light is even stupider than believing that the 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere controls the infrared energy. There are few molecules/atoms in the upper atmosphere and that is the result of them having so much kinetic energy (universal gas law). To get an accurate account of the energy coming from the sun to the Earth you must include the larger amount of energy being absorbed in the atmosphere, not just the energy reaching the surface.
    Energy/heat decreases with distance from its source. When you have two sources of heat (Earth and sun) there will be an equilibrium point between them where the energy no longer decreases. With the Earth and sun this equilibrium point is in the crust of the Earth. The sun is heating the matter above the equilibrium point while geothermal energy is heating the matter below that point. It takes time (more than a night) for the matter being heated by the sun to lose its energy. This is because the atmosphere contains more energy and must radiate that energy before the lower atmosphere and surface of the Earth can cool. This is why there is permafrost at certain latitudes which do not receive as much energy from the sun. This is the boundary between energy from the sun and geothermal energy. Unless there is volcanic or other activity the geothermal energy does not get past this equilibrium point. (2nd law of thermodynamics) Even though Iceland is over a thin spot of the crust it is called Iceland for a reason..
    If Zoe agrees with you, you know you are wrong.
    Herb

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Herb,
      Sun’s spectra is tall and skinny, while Earth’s is short and fat. At ~5km up they are equal in energy.

      Why do you deny the hot plate you’re standing on? The sun can only warm it to -40C, but it’s like 15C.

      • Avatar

        Rosie Langridge

        |

        Zoe, please excuse my tired brain and not being as clear as I would like to be, and possibly misunderstanding the points that you and others are raising.
        In your comment above when you quoted the geothermal flux per meter, the point I was generally trying to make is that the flux continues 24 hours per day over the entire surface area of the planet. So that’s a much bigger area than the sun’s energy which at any one moment strikes mostly in just one circle within the zone of the tropics.
        That’s why I am saying to look at totals in for the entire planet per day and totals out for the entire planet per day. I’m sure you know this, but for the sake of general communication and – let’s hope – agreement, let’s spell it all out.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Rosie
          Energy is in Joules.
          Flux is in Joules/second/m^2

          The #1 argument against geothermal you will hear is: But the Heat Flux is only ~0.09 W/m^2, while sun gives the surface ~165 W/m^2 (24 hr avg.)

          This number is irrelevant and I explained why.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Herb,

      You wrote: “Ultraviolet light emitted by the sun is being absorbed by oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere. X-rays emitted by the sun are being absorbed by the atoms in the atmosphere. These light bands contain more energy than the visible spectrum that reaches the Earth’s surface.”

      Where is your reference of this? And do not reply that you considered this to be common knowledge!! For I am certain must people have observed the measured solar spectra and know only a small portion of the solar energy is that of X-rays and ultraviolet radiation and the major portions of the solar radiation are divided almost equally between the visible and the invisible infrared radiations.

      Rosie, we must correct misinformation as painful as it could be to those who inflect this misinformation upon us.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Jerry,
        Go to google and look up spectra charts of electromagnetic waves. Also look up composition of the atmosphere at different altitudes. 99 % of the x-ray and uv bands are absorbed in the atmosphere so your measurements from the Earth’s surface are an inaccurate indication of the energy coming to the Earth from the sun. The greater the frequency of an electromagnetic the greater the energy it contains.
        The amount of visible light striking the Earth is fairly constant because it is emitted from the sun’s surface. X-rays and uv are produced in solar flares so that energy varies with solar activity.
        By looking at the composition of the atmosphere and using the energy needed to break the chemical bonds of O2 (450kj/mole), N2 (940 kj/mole), and the energy needed to ionize these atoms, the composition of the atmosphere will indicate the energy in that part of the atmosphere. It takes 14 kj/gram to split O2 into 2 O. By comparison it takes .94 kj/gram to melt iron.
        Have a good day,
        Herb

  • Avatar

    Barry

    |

    Some good stuff Herb,not sure why people can’t understand the sun is the energy source of earth.
    Of coarse there are other small influences of all kinds but it is simply noise. No point in trying to re invent the wheel it only confuses the issue, if anyone really is interested in changing the narrative of climate change they have to show the difference between sunshine energy and the manufactured science of the IPCC

  • Avatar

    Gary Flood

    |

    Rosie,
    Keep going with your articles. Your thoughts are certainly appreciated on the need for a rational model. There will be errors, adjustments, and arguments along the way from all quarters. There will be rehashes of previous arguments as well. Nothing wrong with a quick review of the fundamentals prior to a new perspective. That’s how science proceeds. That has certainly been my experience. You are correct to start by properly identifying all sources/sinks within the radiative energy dynamic. If the natural sources in the observed climate aren’t accounted for, we wrongly conclude the balance is from manmade influence. C-A=B. Getting the relative magnitudes correct is part of the challenge. If I understand correctly, I believe this is where you are headed, i.e. to a simple enough but “more correct” model to use as a springboard for future refinement. Moving beyond such a model will involve much more complicated considerations which we can all contribute. I, for one, want to see how you proceed.

  • Avatar

    chris

    |

    The incoming wattage from the sun is different when there is more water than land or when there is more land than water. This is because water will absorb a different amount of heat than the land will. When plotted this will result in a sine wave, with the y axis as wattage and x axis as the angle. Using the mean as passing through England as the zero degree point. Other factors will also be which latitude. As we approach the poles the wattage will diminish.

    • Avatar

      Rosie Langridge

      |

      Hi Chris
      The incoming energy from the sun does not depend upon the surface. The outgoing energy does depend upon the surface. The two factors need to be kept separate. The mix up between the two is one of the reasons for all the argument. In such a fraught and difficult conversation, the words we use are very important.
      Also, has anyone actually defined what they mean by ‘surface’ as far as you have seen?

      • Avatar

        chris

        |

        I haven’t seen a clear definition of surface. I guess that I had taken it for granted. There are two primary surfaces of the Earth, water and land. Humans have caused a small change in the surface by pouring concrete and asphalt.

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    Ok, a question for everyone.
    Suppose we have the exact same earth with the exact same atmosphere. Nothing changes except one thing only. Someone switches off the sun. Suddenly there is nothing more being emitted – no more radiation, no more particles.
    What will be the temperature of the surface of the earth?
    I do not know the answer but – the answer is important.
    About two miles below the surface the temperature currently stands at 60C.
    Try estimating the surface temperature by any means you can come up with.
    Tell us how you did your calculation and tell us what figure you get – we can compare notes – and let’s see if we can understand it together.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Rosie,

      R. C. Sutcliffe (Weather and Climate, 1966) answered your question in the first paragraph of Chapter 7 (Radiation and Energy Exchanges). He wrote: “Were the sun entirely to fail us … the oceans would freeze over in a matter of weeks and the temperature of the earth’s surface would gradually fall away to near absolute zero by radiating its heat into the emptiness of space.”

      Now a fact is in the next paragraph Sutcliffe wrote something which might cause some to question that anything that he wrote has could have any validity. But I will not go there until someone refers to what he wrote.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Jerry,
        The ocean is over 3C everywhere. The sun didn’t do that. All the solar energy comes in and goes, so in the “11th hour” it ought to get mighty cold. It doesn’t because the Earth is an infrated star capable of putting out ~0C.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Zoe,

          You wrote: “The ocean is over 3C everywhere.”

          Did you forget about the Arctic Ocean? Then there is the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans off the coast of Antarctica at the end of the winter season in the Southern Hemisphere.

          When you write statements like this, do you really expect anybody to take what you reason seriously?

          Rosie, Zoe’s problem is a problem with which SCIENCE is confronted at this time. And this problem is why I point it out so it does not become overlooked.

          I have this friend who studied calculus when nine years old and he really understands machines (especially computers).

          He introduced me to the word factoids. Which, I have learned, is something that is written or spoken about so much that it becomes an unquestioned fact.

          Ponder how many it has been claimed that 97% of the scientists believed that the theory of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is a valid theory.

          Ponder the historical fact that for nearly 2000 years all the members of the intellectual community did not question that the Earth did not move and the rest of the Universe revolved about it.

          You have started to tell us about the real natural Earth-Atmosphere-Sun system and the Earth portion of this system clearly includes volcanic activity where its hot interior clearly rises to near, and to the surface, and beyond the surface into the atmosphere as volcanoes have erupted. And while this geothermal source of energy is not near the energy of the solar radiation that is daily incident upon the earth surfaces; it should not be ignored. Details are sometimes critically important.

          So I am really, really waiting to read Parts 2, 3, and 4. And see how much good discussion Part 1 has caused.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Jerry,
            The ocean BOTTOM is above 3C everywhere. Everywhere meant depth.

            Where there’s ice, and the sun doesn’t melt it, how could it be above 3C below the ice? … GEOTHERMAL!

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Zoe,

            You asked a question and then gave an answer. In case this case does not end up directly under yours, I quote your entire comment because it is short: “The ocean BOTTOM is above 3C everywhere. Everywhere meant depth. Where there’s ice, and the sun doesn’t melt it, how could it be above 3C below the ice? … GEOTHERMAL!”

            My answer to your question is: Ocean water is salty and the melting point of the ocean water has been lowered so its temperature on which the ice rests is at least -2C or lower. And it was easy to Google the source of this information. And I believe it would be easy to Google that salt water losses its unique property that as pure water is cooled below about +4C its density begins to decrease.

            Thus salt water behaves as a normal other liquid whose density decreases as it cools which means its density decreases as it is warmed. Hence, it geothermal energy is locally warming the ocean bottom, the water will warm and its density and when its density decrease it will be lifted to the surface by the principle of buoyancy by the colder, more dense, water which surrounds it.

            But in addition another fact that ice is pure water which has a melting point of 0C. Hence, the salt water at it base could never melt it unless it has warmed to above 0C as you reason without giving a mechanism by which this might happen

            Unless, that is that melting point of the ice is lowered by pressure that is being exerted by ice mass. For another unique property of ice is that pressure melts is and demonstrated by ice skating.

            And I am told by son who served abroad a Coast Guard ice breaker that the maximum depth of ocean ice is less than 9 feet. Maybe because the influence of pressure.

            Zoe, I write this poorly worded comment so that PSI readers will be warned that one must consider all the actually observed facts instead of accepting your reasoning on which your comment is plainly based.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Rosie Langridge

            |

            Zoe, the ocean currents move the water around. The heat flows into the ocean from the bottom (geothermal) and from the top (sunlight).
            Surely someone somewhere knows how much energy goes into the oceans from each source – if so, let’s find it and gradually draw together the relevant information.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Jerry,
            I’m aware of how ocean circulation works.
            The question is what would happen if the sun was turned off.
            The basic premise of climatology is solar energy in = solar energy out. i.e. on NET the sun doesn’t heat a planet.

            This could happen on a planet where geothermal delivers 0C, or 100C, or -100C, or 0K.

            If you don’t know how much geothermal delivers, you can’t answer Rosie’s question. Yet you did, incorrectly.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Rosie,

            You wrote: “Surely someone somewhere knows how much energy goes into the oceans from each source..”

            Then you added an ‘if’ statement: “if so, let’s find it and gradually draw together the relevant information.” So maybe its not possible to find “how much energy goes into the oceans from each source.”

            If you draw a circle with a compass, Then draw a line with a straight edge through the circle to mark a beginning point on which to place the point of the compass and then draw an arc through the circle. Reset the point of the compass on the intersection of this arc with the circle and draw the next arc through the circle. Repeat this process more times until the next arc you draw should be passing through the intersection of the line and circle where you began.

            I have tried to do this at least a hundred times and I my sixth arc never ended precisely where I started. And I never needed a magnifying glass to see this.

            If one cannot end where one started in this very small and simple procedure, what do you think might be the error involved in
            finding “how much energy goes into the oceans from each source”?

            Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Rosie Langridge

        |

        Jerry, thanks, good start to have an opinion from somewhere ….however – a vast amount has been learned since 1966.
        For example, they used to think that the core of the earth was cooling, and then found that it is much hotter than than assumed, and then realised that radioactive decay is keeping it hot.
        Jerry – can you have a search for some more up-to-date information please.

    • Avatar

      Zack

      |

      To Rosie/Zoe…yes this is well known. The rate of geothermal heat making it to the surface of the crust is almost negligible. That’s a cute alter tho….Rosie eh? Naaaahhhhhhhhh…..lulz.

      • Avatar

        Rosie Langridge

        |

        Hi Zack
        You said this “The rate of geothermal heat making it to the surface of the crust is almost negligible.” but you only need to use your common sense to see that it actually cannot be negligible once it is all totalled up properly.
        Once upon a time someone said that CO2 controls the temperature on planet earth and everyone believed him.
        Once upon a time someone said that the geothermal contribution to the global surface temperature is negligible and everyone believed him.
        Neither statement can possibly be true.
        and – think about the fact that geothermal comes out in all directions over the entire surface of the planet all the time non-stop, and that is from radiation alone.
        Now consider the many many hot areas and volcanoes under the oceans, and the fact that the ocean waters circulate. The oceans are very deep with extremely deep trenches down into the earth’s crust where the ambient temperature of the rocks is much hotter.
        We are talking now about serious volumes of water being heated up down there.
        Geothermal contribution cannot be negligible.
        And so far, until I started to think about it a week ago, nobody except Zoe seems to have been both (a) trying to work it out, and (b) trying to relate the amount to the ‘global warming’ debate.
        Let’s have a debate instead of attacking one another.
        As regards Joseph Postma, he’s a scientist, scientists accept Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability, so I’m sure he will have no issues with reviewing the basic assumptions included within his model. That’s why he put it out for peer review, so that people could review and question it.
        We all want the destructive CO2 agenda to stop. Let’s cooperate.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Rosie,
          Geothermal heat does not come out of the Earth everywhere and all the time.Heat only flows to cooler objects so when it encounters a hotter object the flow stops. The sun heats the surface of the Earth so that it is hotter than the material below it. This blocks the radiation and flow of heat from the interior of the Earth The only time geothermal heat can be lost is when it comes to the Earth’s surface, past the matter being heated by the sun, and can then be transported to the upper atmosphere to be radiated into space.
          Herb

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            LOL.
            The molecules at the surface are jiggling around due to kinetic energy of geothermal. This produces EM radiation. The sun then adds even more kinetic energy to the surface matter.

            Nothing has to come out of the Earth. EM radiation is just a reflection of molecular motion.

        • Avatar

          DUNCAN MACCRIMMON

          |

          Rosie,
          Keep up your laudable efforts. Science is an eternal work -in-progress.
          If you have not yet seen it, you might find plateclimatology.com a helpful resource regarding geothermal mechanisms.

          Regards, djm

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            The site looks interesting. But…

            “The Sun, quite obviously, is the first order driver of earth’s climate, but a much neglected second order driver can
            contribute significantly to natural variations. The overall theory contends that periods of active earth tectonics and
            volcanism can be correlated to periods of active climate change and climate related events. To describe this new theory, the term Plate Climatology is designated. The theory was first formally introduced on October 7, 2014, after 10 years of research”

            After 7 months of research I already disagree. The Sun is the 2nd order driver.

            The sun delivers ~165 W/m^2 to the surface (and ~75 W/m^2 to atmosphere), while geothermal delivers ~294 W/m^2.

  • Avatar

    John Harrison

    |

    Rosie. There will always be people like Geran who think it is clever to be rude, abusive and insulting. It is not; quite the opposite. I hope you will not take his comments to heart. I look forward to reading the remaining episodes

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Harrison, have you ever wondered why you hate reality?

    • Avatar

      Rosie Langridge

      |

      Thank you John.
      It seems to me that we face two problems. (1) is a global agenda to make CO2, an essential nutrient, into an ‘object’ of fear and hatred and hysteria.
      (2) mostly comes from (1), which is the difficulties we face in conducting a rational and good-tempered debate.
      We ‘little people’ need to act unless we want our lives and landscape trashed.
      We can act against the hysteria by talking to our friends and neighbours, and we can start to pool our resources and to work together. I do have a pretty thick skin and just ignore negative comments.
      But this initiative, if it is going to turn into a counter movement, is going to need people to put personal gripes to one side and work together. I entitled this “towards a rational climate change model” because that’s all that I have the ability to do, to make a sensible start. I can’t actually build one. That would take resources I don’t have. But if I can look inside and draw out my own latent skills, so can other people, and we just have to hope that enough people with the time to do so, and whose income does not depend upon pretending to believe that CO2 is the latest edition of the devil incarnate, and who have the diplomatic skills to sooth ruffled feathers, will offer their services.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Or, Rosie, you could spend a few years actually learning the relevant physics. Or, just write long rambling comments, endlessly.

        Your choice.

  • Avatar

    Zack

    |

    Not sure why this person felt the need to reference Postma…they say nothing in contradiction or in opposition to anything Postma has said. Kind of a rambling, meaningless, contentless piece. We’ve seen Postma-stalkers come and go…hopefully not a new one.

    • Avatar

      David

      |

      Dear Zack,.
      Rosie isn’t a ‘Postma stalker’. It was me who introduced her to Joe’s theory and his new book which l have read and with which l agree. Rosie and I are working together on a project that includes, among other falsities, the AGW nonesense. I am in touch with Joe and value his help enormously.
      His theory started Rosie thinking and then she had a “hang on a minute’ moment. Much as one likes to think Copernicus did when staring at an earth centered universe. She thought ‘aren’t we all missing something’. And the something was geothermal energy. At the moment however l’m not sure l agred with here about using the ‘flat earth’ model when th

      • Avatar

        David

        |

        ….pressed the wrong button.
        ….when there is no need and it doesn’r represent reality.
        Sincerely
        David McCobb

        • Avatar

          Zack

          |

          So she’s Zoe then? Because we’ve seen this Zoe person stalk Postma with the same idea…going on about some wild geothermal idea that she can’t argue or present any good points about…much like this article presented nothing. Yah she seems to miss the point entirely when she says we can bring back the so-called flat Earth model.

          • Avatar

            Zack

            |

            Ah…I see that Zoe is all over these comments…going on again. How interesting…

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            People can guess geothermal all by themselves without me. Rosie did it without me.

            As my idea spreads there will be many arguing my points. They are not me. Only I’m me and I don’t like it when people get stupidly paranoid and accuse others of being others.

            I’ve actually argued my point quite successfully, thank you very much. I understand some may reject my idea out of prior commitments and jealousy. That’s OK, they will learn.

          • Avatar

            David

            |

            No Zack,
            Rosie and Zoe are not the same, in fact Rosie would llike to communicate with Zoe more about this.
            David McCobb

  • Avatar

    David

    |

    ….pressed the wrong button.
    ….when there is no need and it doesn’r represent reality.
    Sincerely
    David McCobb

  • Avatar

    Michael Detrick

    |

    Rosie, please continue posting your subsequent chapters!!! Don’t allow the negative comments to deter you. You are building a good case, starting with a foundation, and some who criticize you do not like the fact that you are good a communicating your ideas in this fashion. It is ludicrous to consider that your arguments can be assessed before they are posted in their entirety. I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

    I don’t agree with everything Mallen Baker says, but in this video, he does pose a very interesting concept that he claims is “observable scientific fact” about CO2 absorption being Logarithmic instead of Exponential or Linear, and that at 400 ppm, we have almost reached the maximum heat absorption point of CO2 in the atmosphere, and increasing CO2 levels more will have very little effect. In other words, the heat absorption at lower CO2 concentrations increases quickly near the bottom of the range, but the increase slows down considerably as it nears 400 ppm. You might look into this while continuing your investigations.

    Later in the video, I thought I heard him say something which seemed to contradict this earlier argument, but I will have to go back and check on it. Nevertheless, I don’t take his info as Gospel Truth, but his explanation is a very good starting point. I wish he would post his sources. I will leave him a message and ask him to do so.

    Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVc-Y-mJ_uY

    I hope YouTube does not delete it before you can watch it.

    • Avatar

      Rosie Langridge

      |

      Someone with good diplomatic and networking skills needs to gather up into one place all the genuine contributions to the debate. Do you fancy the role yourself?

  • Avatar

    Alan

    |

    I certainly agree with getting rid of the term “energy budget”. It has no place in thermodynamics. You refer to the work of Joseph Postma, but he has made the point the sun does heat the surface to more than -18C and the error is because of the flat earth assumption which you want to ignore. Look up the temperatures on the Moon and you will see how hot the earth’s surface could get without an atmosphere. The atmosphere does not act as insulation and the missing bit of science is compression of the atmosphere by gravity which many have described. This is why the temperatures in mines are very high. Part of it is geothermal energy, but gravity also is an important factor. Deep mines cannot be cooled by pumping down cool air from the surface since its temperature increases because of compression – the natural gas law.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Alan,
      Gravity does not add energy to the molecules in the atmosphere. If the atmosphere had no energy it would be a layer of solids on the surface of the Earth. By adding energy to the molecules it becomes first a layer of liquid, then converts to a gas, and as more energy is added to the gas molecules the gas expands. When kinetic energy is lost by molecules the atmosphere contracts.
      When you compress a gas the volume decreases but the kinetic energy (1/2 mV^2) of the molecules remains the same. The rise in temperature is a result of more molecules (mass) transferring energy to the thermometer not an increase in energy. The universal gas law states that as you add energy tons unconfined (contained by gravity) gas its volume will increase.
      Herb

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Herb, your first paragraph is spot on. I agree completely.

        But in your second paragraph you are still making the same mistakes. If a gas is compressed, the molecules DO increase in kinetic energy. That’s why a gas under pressure can be dangerous. And temperature is not related to mass, it is related to average energy. You still confuse temperature with enthalpy. Two molecules with energy “E” would register the same temperature. 2000 molecules with energy “E” would still register the same temperature. More mass, by itself, won’t raise the temperature. The average energy must be higher to raise the temperature.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Geran,
          Take a compressor and fill a large high pressure tank with compressed air. Leave it and a smaller empty tank in the same room for a week. When you come back the molecules of gas in both tank will have the same kinetic energy because of radiating or absorbing energy with the room. Hook the small tank to the large tank and let the pressure equalize. The air coming from the larger tank is expanding (cooling) entering the small tank but the small tank is getting hotter. Explain. No energy is being added to the gas molecules.
          Herb

          • Avatar

            Matt

            |

            The gas is decompressing then being re-compressed until equilibrium, plus friction.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Herb, assuming I understand your experiment, and all the gases are the same, then the higher pressure gas leaving its tank would result in cooling, since the kinetic energy is being reduced. Consequently, the smaller tank would increase in temperature due to its increase in kinetic energy.

            This would seem to fall in the category of “Conservation of Energy”, n’est pas?

            But don’t lose track of the fact that it is the kinetic energy, not the mass, that we use for temperature.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Herb,

            Have you done your experiment?

            If not, you cannot know what the result would be.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            What I’ve described is the operation for filling scuba tanks. Large tank at high pressure allows for the filling of multiple scuba tanks simultaneously. By allowing time to pass the energy and the gases in the storage tank and an empty scuba tank equalizes. When the tanks are connected the pressure and temperature of the gas in the storage tank doesn’t change significantly. The scuba tank is filled to a lower pressure so the air is not being recompressed. The compressed air is expanding into a larger volume so the air being transferred cools. In order to fill the scuba tank it must be submerged in a water bath to remove heat and allow it to get a full fill rather one where the increased heat causes increased pressure.
            Geran, you maintain that an expanding gas with less kinetic energy is causing the metal tank ton heat up. How can it get hotter than its original condition when the heat of compression has already been lost?
            Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Herb, you don’t understand your own scenario. The small tank isn’t getting warmer if it’s being cooled enough!

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Geran,
            Don’t play stupid. Why do you need to cool the tank if you are putting colder air into it? It should get colder just as if you were filling it with cold water.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Herb, again, you don’t understand your own scenario. YOU are the one cooling the tank: “In order to fill the scuba tank it must be submerged in a water bath to remove heat”

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Geran,
            I see you are not playing stupid. You have no ability to reason or comprehend. You and Zoe are prime example of the saying “education doesn’t fix stupid”

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    “missing bit of science is compression of the atmosphere by gravity which many have described”
    Thank you. I’m sure that many have described it and that is my central point, that the bits need connecting up together. The stuff about ‘flat earth’ as I said before, I won’t use this term again.

    • Avatar

      Rosie Langridge

      |

      Sorry, I pressed the reply button too soon.
      I had been wondering about where gravity and pressure come into things. Gravity itself is a huge source of constant energy, right? so that is definitely missing from my list above of sources of energy.
      When I see sites telling me that other planets with thick atmospheres are hot because of ‘radiative forcing’ – would the correct answer then be – no they are hot because of compression by gravity this would be Boyle’s (whoever’s) law, right? P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2
      the pressure is high so the temperature is high -?

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Backwards.
        The pressure is high because the temperature is high.
        Gravity is a one-time energy source. It wants to compress everything to the ground. Kinetic Energy (Temperature) won’t let it.

        Gravity is a directed force. Temperature is molecules in RANDOM motion.

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    Above I said this: “Let’s decide exactly what we are talking about, and whether we are trying to achieve the same goal, and using the same words with the same meaning. Let’s get the fundamental physics right and identify the most important physical processes going on. Let’s agree on the definitions. Let’s make sure that we are comparing like with like. Let’s get the basic model correct.”
    It occurs to me that what we need are three separate models. Three models for three separate things to help to disentangle the confusion in people’s minds:
    1. As above, temperature and energy flows at the grand scale
    2. A CO2 model which combines carbon (the building block of life, after all) it’s importance, the long-term cycling and the short term cycling with effects on climate thrown in.
    3. Ice formation and loss over the short and medium term.
    Then people might begin to understand it. Instead at present the argument goes “The earth’s energy is out of balance – and therefore it is heating up because of Co2 emissions – and therefore we need to switch to electric cars and wind turbines”
    If we had three separate models which we could display and talk about then it would be easier to answer:
    Point to the first model and say ‘No, we have no idea of whether or not the earth is out of balance because the sum total of physical processes going on is huge and complicated’;
    Point to the second and show that CO2 is benign;
    Point to the third and show that ice formation also needs precipitation and some glaciers are melting because there are volcanoes underneath them.

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Rosie and/or David,

    Einstein stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

    Do you understand what he was stating?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Rosie and David,

      Unless this question or any question is answered, we cannot know what your background knowledge is. And until we know what this background knowledge is we can never share our knowledge gained by experiences to might help you gain what we consider we understand that you cannot because of a lack of background experiences. It is a waste of energy and time to try to guess that about which you do not have knowledge and we might. Hence, the reason for my questions.

      Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Excellent article. I think Rosie has pefectly encapsulated the continuing confusion and general evasiveness of the issue.

    There is a lot of stubborn stupidity on all sides of this continuing debate:

    Response to Brendon regarding greenhouse effect, convection model of storms, and Postma
    https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Response-to-Brendon-regarding-greenhouse-effect–convection-model-of-storms–and-Postma-eaj9cj
    https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Response-to-Brendon-regarding-greenhouse-effect–convection-model-of-storms–and-Postma-eaj9cj

    James McGinn / Genius

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi James,

    You can see that I totally agree with you. But as you read the many comments that her posting has generated, can you explain what happened? For it seems to be business as usual. Could it be that she is trying to agree with everyone to build a unity?

    Another thing which I finally saw is she seems to believe that different scientific ideas can be blended into a compromised scientific idea as is done outside of SCIENCE.

    Since we definitely disagree on some issues: do you agree that a scientific idea is either almost right or absolutely wrong so there can be no right scientific idea in between? Either there are water molecules in the earth’s atmosphere or there are ‘no’ water molecules in the earth’s atmosphere. Claiming that there are almost no water molecules in the atmosphere contradicts that there are no water molecules and agrees with there are some molecules.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      Hi Jerry.
      We have the old problem

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      we have the old problem of too many cooks in the kitchen presently with the ongoing arguments on how physics cooks the omelette etc.
      The writer needs some time for the mud to settle to allow some clarity.
      Have a good Sunday Jerry. Matt

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Matt,

        The problem is not too many cooks, the problem is there should be no arguments. Only observed (measured) data with its experimental uncertainty should be used in scientific reasoning.

        I have written the following wisdom several times before, but now I exchange a word with another word to make it little more nearly accurate.

        “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, might [must] be the truth.” (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) I modified this wisdom because we have observed that strictly applied this former wisdom has placed innocent people in prison.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Matt

          |

          Thank you Jerry. That certainly removes people pushing their personal beliefs based on ignorance.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Matt,

          Really, really glad you see this. Though, how many of ‘them’ saw this and may restrain themselves?

          Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Matt,

          Had momentary reconsidered “too many cooks in the kitchen.” For clearly there are too many ideas going in different directs so there is no continuity. But I finally again see this to be a result of the argumentation.

          A focus on actual data limits the directions that any different ideas can go. And the secret (and it shouldn’t be a secret) is to make sure all the available data is being considered. And there is Galileo’s quote (wisdom): Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so.”

          I will try to illustrate. The concept of the GHE was begun by horace de saussure’s experiments to measure the maximum temperature that could be produced by solar radiation in a multiple glass glazed, well insulated, box. This experiment was based upon his observation that the temperature of enclosed spaces with glass windows were known to be significantly warmer (did not need a thermometer to observe this) near midday than the ambient temperature outside.

          And by experimentation he discover that a triply glazed box allowed a maximum temperature of greater than 220F to be achieved. Hence his theory (explanation) was that the glass trapped the heat energy.

          However, I am certain he did not observe what he could have if he had continued to observe the decrease of temperature which began after the maximum temperature had been measured. I know what he could have observed because I have done the experiment in my backyard as I monitored the interior temperature and compared it with the exterior during 24 hour clear (no discernible clouds) days. For if Horace had done this he would have seen that glass did not trap ‘heat energy’ as the interior temperature of the ‘hot’ box dropped below the exterior temperature before sun rise and sometimes even before sunset.

          So, if Horace had measured what he could have measured, I suspect we would never have had all this confusion about the wrong theory of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

          How do you like these apples, Matt? Does this help you, and maybe others, see why I preach, as Galileo did so long ago, observation, observation, observation?

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Matt

            |

            Hi Jerry. I see, I see, I see.
            Why did the interior temperature of the ‘hot’ box drop below the exterior temperature before sun rise and sometimes even before sunset.
            Regards Matt

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Matt,

            You just assigned yourself a good problem.

            Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Jerry:
    You can see that I totally agree with you. But as you read the many comments that her posting has generated, can you explain what happened? For it seems to be business as usual.

    JMcG:
    Yes. Business as usual. Typically, people carry very deep biases and are unaware that they are biases so they think that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is being obtuse.

    Jerry:
    Could it be that she is trying to agree with everyone to build a unity?

    JMcG:
    I don’t know. I also don’t care. Until water is solved all of this is irrelevant.

    Jerry:
    Another thing which I finally saw is she seems to believe that different scientific ideas can be blended into a compromised scientific idea as is done outside of SCIENCE.

    JMcG:
    Stubborn stupidity, as we see amongst Postma and his accolytes, is not something that can be defeated with rational argument.

    Jerry:
    Since we definitely disagree on some issues: do you agree that a scientific idea is either almost right or absolutely wrong so there can be no right scientific idea in between? Either there are water molecules in the earth’s atmosphere or there are ‘no’ water molecules in the earth’s atmosphere. Claiming that there are almost no water molecules in the atmosphere contradicts that there are no water molecules and agrees with there are some molecules.

    JMcG:
    Jerry, if you can’t even represent other people’s thoughts accurately then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. I never stated there are no water molecules in the atmosphere.

    The Public Believes Plainly Dumb Things About the Atmosphere
    https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-Public-Believes-Plainly-Dumb-Things-About-the-Atmosphere-eacv0k

    James McGinn / Genius

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi James,

    Sorry. Maybe you could review what you have written about water molecules in the atmosphere to refresh my memory.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Robert Kernodle

    |

    I don’t know the actual figures – but, if one considers a temperature gradient from 6000C deep inside to 60C at two miles down and then up to the surface, it’s obvious that there is a lot of heat coming up.

    Yes, a lot of heat is coming up, … but THROUGH a lot of barrier.

    … so much so that the average geothermal flux at Earth’s surface is 0.087 watt/square meter.

    That’s the actual figure that I know, which when compared to the average hemispherical flux of the sun (480 W/m^2), is over 5,500 times LESS flux.

    In other words, the sun, on Earth’s lit side, provides an intensity of over 5,500 times MORE than the intensity of geothermal flux from Earth’s surface. In still other words, the difference between 480 W/m^2 and 480.087W/m^2 is negligible.

    Clearly, the sun dwarfs, and reduces to insignificance, the quantity of heat flux from Earth’s core to Earth’s SURFACE.

    … it’s important to remember that most of the sun’s radiation directly penetrates the atmosphere and strikes the surface of the earth unimpeded.

    My understanding is that barely half of the sun’s radiation penetrates, and so even at this percentage, it dwarfs geothermal by far.

    As far as the global average temperature is concerned, we need the grand total figures – the total energy received versus the total energy lost by the surface of the planet. That’s why I think that, when the system is simplified down to its absolute basics, a ‘flat earth’ is good enough. At the start of creating any such model, radical simplification is the only way to get it right.

    A flat Earth is never, never, never good enough. Is Santa good enough to explain to adults how gifts get under the tree? (^_^)

    A flat Earth is wrong, wrong, wrong, even at the most simplified-down-to-absolute-basics level. WRONG. Fiction. Fantasy. Make believe unworthy of consideration by any rational mind on this spherical blue planet. Such is “radical simplification” gone horribly wrong.

    • Avatar

      Rosie Langridge

      |

      Hi Robert – as regards ‘flat earth theory’ I had not realised what a trigger this term would turn out to be. Here you misinterpret what I am driving at. We do need to get the absolute basics correct, and the earth is indeed a 3-dimensional object.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Rosie, it’s absolutely amazing that you can miss Robert’s statement: “…so much so that the average geothermal flux at Earth’s surface is 0.087 watt/square meter.”

        If you avoid reality, you are deceiving yourself.

      • Avatar

        Robert Kernodle

        |

        “Trigger”? (^_^)

        You greatly understate the severity of your word abuse.

        There is no sense in which I could ever think that the phrase, “flat earth”, would be acceptable today in any serious discussion about the planet.

        If you acknowledge the three-dimensional truth, then why would you EVER resort to giving any credibility whatsoever to any representation that even remotely suggests flat-Earth geometry?

        We are talking about the most basic level of integrity in the use of language to describe our shared reality.

        “Flat earth is good enough”? — How else can a person interpret that, other than as an acceptance of some basic design that a flat-Earth model sets into play. By using this phrase, you are playing the flat-Earth game, … maybe with your own tweaks, but you are still playing the flat-Earth game.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Robert,

      “… so much so that the average geothermal flux at Earth’s surface is 0.087 watt/square meter.

      That’s the actual figure that I know, which when compared to the average hemispherical flux of the sun (480 W/m^2), is over 5,500 times LESS flux.”

      I debunk that here:
      https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/04/the-case-of-two-different-fluxes/

      and here:
      https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

      SCIENCE shows that geothermal emits 294 W/m^2

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Zoe, fluxes can NOT be simple added/subtracted. You violate physics, as you avoid reality.

        If my driveway gets 2″ of snow during the night, that snow will not melt until the sun rises. Geothermal will not even melt the snow on my driveway.

        You and Rosie are both clueless, but that’s what makes you so hilarious.

        More please.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          294 W/m^2 can’t melt snow, genius.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            You’re starting to get it! But, you’ve got a long way to go….

            Hilarious.

      • Avatar

        Robert Kernodle

        |

        I looked at your math at the first link you noted, and I don’t understand what you have done in the step where you add 50 C to some other number, that I have no idea where you got it from, seemingly changing the value of one of your variables to a totally different value in a subsequent step of your calculation. I posted a comment there, asking for an explanation.

        • Avatar

          Robert Kernodle

          |

          Zoe,

          Okay, I understand where that number comes from now, but your overall line of reasoning with the use of those numbers and formulas seems somehow way off.

          I need to look over your work more closely to try to figure out why it strikes me as way off the mark.

          The flux figure that I quoted seems to take proper account of your concerns, using the proper math. But again, I need to look over it some more.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Boltzmann and Planck had a CHF of nearly ZERO. What emerges is based on temperature, not CHF.

            Did you know that kinetic energy is molecules in RANDOM motion colliding with each other?

            This motion generates EM radiation.

            You see, a CHF (Conductive Heat Flux) of ZERO just means that one side of a metal bar has molecules moving at the same speed as the other side of the metal bar.

            A CHF > 0 means that the cold side of the bar has lower speed molecules than the hot side.
            These colder molecules are STILL generating EM radiation in proportion to their speed.

            CHF is essentially just the difference in molecular speed of two sides.

            EM radiation from the cold side is determined by the speed of molecules on the cold side, and not by the difference in speed of hot side vs. cold side molecules.

            Those who think geothermal is negligible because geothermal emission must equal CHF, are nothing but imbeciles. I’ll repeat that: NOTHING BUT IMBECILES. Or they are CHARLATANS making room for GHGs.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe, your “CHF = 0” is just more of your confusion. Emission is based on suface temperature, not conduction within the object.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,

            “Emission is based on suface temperature, not conduction within the object.”

            Yes! That’s exactly my point, retard!

            Geothermal gives the surface 0C, without the sun.

            What would that emit?

            And don’t give me crap about how the sun’s photons can’t thermalize the surface at 0C.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Wrong again, Zoe. Geothermal does not hold the surface at 0 ºC. In northern States, ground can freeze to over 1 meter in depth, even with a bright sun.

            Geothermal is spread too thin over Earth’s surface to be a factor. Translation: Geothermal can NOT raise Earth’s average surface temperature.

            Now, make up some more of your hilarious pseudoscience.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            “Wrong again, Zoe. Geothermal does not hold the surface at 0 ºC. ”

            0C is an average for the whole Earth, idiot.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Robert,

          ” I posted a comment there, asking for an explanation.”

          And I answered it.

          If you don’t know that degrees kelvin = degrees celcius + 273.16, perhaps you should quit science.

          • Avatar

            Robert Kernodle

            |

            Well, I did know it, but you did not make it obvious that you were doing this conversion using that number — it just showed up out of nowhere in the context of this totally new twist that you are trying to put on something.

            Might I suggest when you try to present groundbreaking ideas that go against the norm, that you be extremely meticulous in your breakdowns of the steps and detailed displays of what you are doing.

            For example, on that second link you gave, with all the data in cells, I have no idea what all that is, nor do I wish to dig through it all trying to figure out what it is. You do not explain it clearly.

            I know you can, but you didn’t there.

            So, my comeback to you is that if you don’t know how to clearly detail every single step of your procedure, when trying to debunk an established science, then maybe YOU should quit science.

            But now we are bickering, which can be fun, but I’ll leave it at that and get back to looking over that first link you gave, which is a bit more clear than the second.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            I’m sorry you have difficulty understanding, I really am.

            Here is what one commentator on my blog said: ”
            I have only just discovered your blog. It’s great. I am a retired electronics engineer. Your calculation of the temperature of the cold end is absolutely right. Every electrical engineer uses this calculation many times during their career.”

            Robert,
            Mainstream science had nearly 200 years to get it right. My article was written in a day after a few days of thought. What do you expect?

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Geothermal deniers are the real flat earthers. Only a flat earth can’t supply 0C to the surface without the sun.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Even your made-up, overly-exaggerated geothermal can’t melt ice. Ice emits 300 Watts/m^2.

        Actual geothermal is much less than 1 W/m^2.

        But feel free to continue with your comedy routine. It’s most amusing.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Boltzmann and Planck’s radiation oven had a conductive heat flux of nearly ZERO.

          Of course this fact means nothing to an imbecile.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Boltzmann and Planck knew what they were doing.

            That won’t happen with you.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            B and P had a conductive heat flux of nearly ZERO.

            According to crackpots, they should have gotten nearly ZERO emission.

            Crackpots believe that because Earth’s conductive heat flux is tiny, its emission should be tiny.

            Crackpots must therefore think B and P were dummies.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            That’s almost a real temper tantrum, little girl.

            Hilarious.

            More please.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Ah yes, it was I that made up all those geotherm diagrams I got from the scientific literature. I simply badgered geophysicists to give me what I want. You solved the mystery!

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Your “physics” was where you made it up. Simple arithmetic doesn’t work on different fluxes.

            Learn some physics.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            YOU fabricate physics. What’s the source of your LAW?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            I didn’t mention any “LAW”, Zo-Zo.

            You can’t add non-scalars as if they were scalars.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Stupid animal Geran,
            Wavelengths/frequencies ARE scalars.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            But NOT flux. Flux is NOT a normal scalar.

            Learn the difference between a “photon” and a “flux”. Try to learn something!

            Or stick with your ranting little-girl schtick. Your choice….

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Stupid Geran,
            If the sun could not thermalize the surface at 0C, then albedo would be 1.

            If the surface emitted 0.087 W/m^2 (which you already thank god don’t believe) then albedo would be nearly 0.

            Surface albedo is like 0.1.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            I never said the sun couldn’t thermalize the surface.

            You are really getting desperate. And that makes it even funnier.

            More please.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,

            “I never said the sun couldn’t thermalize the surface.”

            So you agree that 165 W/m^2 can be added to a surface at 0C. This will bump the surface to 15C and give energy for evaporation which does not increase T.

            Problems?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            That’s NOT what I said, little girl.

            You are really getting desperate. And that makes it even funnier.

            More please.

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Rosie,

    I try to draw your attention to Robert Kernodle and his comment. For what he writes is an example of good writing and I cannot understand what happened when you began to correspond with people who do apply themselves as you did in writing your essay (posting). I agree that volcanic activity is important but I certainly do not agree with its magnitude of energy. But I know of no data to refute your proposal ideas so I cannot claim they are wrong. Robert does provide some magnitudes which I can accept. I consider you need to look at a variety of comments and to develop a sense of standards as to the quality of the comments.

    I am very anxious to read Part2 for it was written before you mind seemed to get confuse by the some of the comments. For I cannot imagine what you might write for Part 2 that but I can imagine that Part 2 will be as good as Part 1.

    Matt’s advice was to let you settle down and relax and that seems to be good advice. Breathe deeply as they (have no idea) sometimes say.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    Hi Jerry
    Thank you for your good advice. On the one hand I do need to adjust parts 2 and 3 in the light of the comments here – on the other hand it’s perfectly true that one’s clarity of thought can be disrupted by too much debate. And then I start to worry that part 2 will disappoint you.
    It’s no wonder that everyone stops communicating in such a fraught situation – but that is what we need to achieve, not only here but on all sides.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Rosie,

      You wrote: ” On the one hand I do need to adjust parts 2 and 3 in the light of the comments here – on the other hand it’s perfectly true that one’s clarity of thought can be disrupted by too much debate. And then I start to worry that part 2 will disappoint you.”

      I absolutely do not want to read any revised essays you have already composed. I want to read what you wrote before there was any influence of my and.or any other comments.

      You can make any adjustments you decide are necessary as your comments to the original essay. PSI is an excellent format for people, who are interested in things scientific, to see how science actually works in getting to the published article.

      Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    Hi to anyone still reading this page. Another question for you and this time about gravity.
    What would happen to surface temperatures if gravity itself were a variable?

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      Hi Rosie.
      It gave me a start to post my below question to Jerry and to see your question. Freaky.
      Less gravity means less warming of near surface atmosphere.
      I am not a scientist so I could be merely another fool with an opinion. Matt

      • Avatar

        Matt

        |

        Hi Rosie. Ignore, please my above comments.
        I have been made to stand in the corner and made to write one hundred times, “I must not express a scientific opinion until I have done my research”.
        Whenever in a position of governance and trying to avoid expenditure on science my first question was always, “where is there bibliography compiling the different research done on this issue?”
        Regards Matt

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Rosie,

      “What would happen to surface temperatures if gravity itself were a variable?”

      Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

      Gravity controls the T gradient in the atmosphere, but it has zero effect on surface T.

  • Avatar

    Matt

    |

    Hi Jerry Krause,

    Galileo’s quote (wisdom): Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so. Perfect Jerry.

    Rosie could do well to drop the word discussion and debate in the comments section and use instead the word analysis. Of course discussion is the essential component of the written articles themselves otherwise they would be dry and barely readable

    Alan made the following comments.
    ” The atmosphere does not act as insulation and the missing bit of science is compression of the atmosphere by gravity which many have described. This is why the temperatures in mines are very high. Part of it is geothermal energy, but gravity also is an important factor. Deep mines cannot be cooled by pumping down cool air from the surface since its temperature increases because of compression – the natural gas law.”

    Jerry! When we consider the conservation of energy law, the ideal gas law, and the adiabatic warming of gas as pressure increases, the adiabatic warming of atmospheric air returning to the near surface from “up high” is caused by work and that work is gravity which is “free introduced energy” from outside of the conservation of energy law. Is that part of the missing energy budget. Your thoughts please.

    Kind Regards. Matt

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Matt,
      There is no adiabatic heating from gravity on the atmosphere. The atmosphere exists because of the kinetic energy of the molecules. If they had no energy there would be no atmosphere, just molecules on the surface of the Earth.
      The confusion comes from the ideal gas law being written as an equation, which it is not. What it states is the macro properties of a gas (pressure and volume) are a function of the components (number of molecules, kinetic energy of the molecules, and a constant for the gas) so instead of an equation sign it should contain an arrow. If you change the value of a component it will effect the properties of the gas as a whole. If you change one of the characteristics of the gas as a whole (pressure or volume) it will not cause a change in the components of the gas but it the other macro characteristics.
      Herb

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Matt,

      I do not like the concept of compression about which you and many others write. Why?

      A fundamental assumption of the idea gas law is that there is no interaction between the molecules of a gas. It is true that work must be down to artificially compress a gas that must be contained in a container. But if we are considering the ‘free’ molecules of the atmosphere there is no container except that of what we refer to as gravity.

      So I image the tiny, tiny molecules of gases behave, relative to this thing we refer to as gravity, just as a large body (stone, ball, bullet) moving upwards away from the earth’s surface. We know that the motion of these large bodies will slow, theoretically stop, and then begin to fall back toward the earth surface as their motion is accelerated by the ‘force’ of gravity. And then we go back to the large body that was moving upwards and we see that the motion of this body was being decelerated by the force of gravity.

      So, I imagine that gravity acts upon the tiny, tiny molecules of the earth’s atmosphere just as it acts upon the large bodies we can see (observe). Except there is one great difference between the large bodies that we can directly observe and the tiny, tiny molecules of a gas which we cannot directly see, but instead need to imagine. What is this great difference?

      This great difference is the tiny, tiny molecules have a perpetual motion. What?, you ask, we have learned that perpetual motions cannot exist. Now, it seems a fact we have learned, but do not generally recognize, that this perpetual motion of tiny, tiny bodies is what we term TEMPERATURE.

      So, given this information, imagine why (how) the atmosphere has a directly observed pressure (density) gradient without using the word–compression.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Matt

        |

        Hi Jerry. Thank you for your time and explanation.
        The atmosphere is not a sealed system so if I poke (try to compress) the atmosphere here it will merely release that pressure somewhere else.
        That is two times in a week I have impersonated an enthusiastic mad dog chasing illusionary cars.
        Kind Regards.Matt

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      Hi Herb
      I am interested in Jerry’s reply because I will learn something. I am completely aware my question to Jerry is from me, somebody who knows little or next to nothing, hence the question.
      Your dive bottle issue suggests if you apply pressure to a gas that gas will increase in temperature. I have filled plenty of dive bottles.
      TomOmason appears to be saying the CO2 hoax is merely sending people on further wild goose chases. I have only ever seen insight and wisdom from TomOmason.

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Matt,

        Your comment: “I have only ever seen insight and wisdom from TomOmason.” Me too. And it is very important we ‘advertise’ such people. For in science there are no truths so there are times scientists are going to disagree with each other until someone finds the observation (measurement) that refutes an wrong idea for the scientist must except that this or that idea are possibilities until such an refutation is made.

        Hence, when such a debate between 2 or mores ideas which have little to no common ground, scientists, instead of debating should devote their full attention to finding the observation (measurement) which would refute the other idea as well as questioning is there an observation (measurement) which would refute my idea.

        But before this can be done a scientist must identify what is a prediction of each and every idea being debated. For without a such a prediction an idea is not a scientific idea and it is a waste of a scientists time and talents to debate it. Without such a prediction an idea cannot be refuted and around and around the debaters go but please do not credit them are being scientists.

        Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Matt,
        What I am saying is that the kinetic energy of the gas molecules will NOT increase because of an increase in pressure (compression) instead the number of molecules/volume increases. The observation of the scuba tanks is that they increase in temperature and need to be cooled when being filled. The only explanation for the tanks increasing in temperature even though the gas molecules do not have more kinetic energy is that the increasing concentrating of the gas molecules causes more energy to be transferred from the molecules to the tank and this occurs because there are more molecules (greater mass) transferring energy to the tank.
        The same action applies to the increase in temperature of the atmosphere with declining altitude. It is the increase in the number of molecules transferring energy not a greater energy of the molecules that causes the increase in temperature. If you add energy to gas molecules in the atmosphere (unconfined) the volume of the gas increases or the density decreases.
        Herb

        • Avatar

          Matt

          |

          Hi Herb.
          I appreciate you taking the time to assist.
          I find Jerry a font of knowledge and then TomOmason comes along and gives many of us a kick in the head in the form of a reality check. Time for me to ignore all this for a few days.
          Thank you. Matt

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Herb, pressurizing a gas will increase the kinetic energy.

          I’m going to save your comment as just one proof of your incompetence.

          More please.

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    As usual not much rationality shown here.
    Same old cr@p, — energy in must equal energy out — BULLCR@P!!
    On THIS planet energy in does NOT have to equal energy out at any moment, or over human scaled period of time!! ONLY numbnut brains who fixate on ideal situations of the laboratory experiment believe this. YOU ARE WRONG!!

    On this Earth nature, not man, rules!
    And nature for at least the last 100years has ensured that the planet has warmed-up (where’s the balance?) out of the the LIA. This means either the sun is heating us more, or the planet has retained more heat, or both! And were there is warmth there is life!

    This planet’s ‘energy balance’ is what happens eventually, it is not what happens at any moment, or historical period. It is only ‘in balance’ when total aggregation of energy from the planet’s creation to it’s final demise are considered. At any point in between the energy balance does NOT have to happen. Life converts heat and light energy from any source into chemical bonds (bonds that may not be broken for eons (witnessed in geological layers, in peatlands, in coalfields, in ocean sludges, etc), oceans warm and cool on hundred and thousand year time scales.

    Balance? We don’t need balance!

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Did you know that kinetic energy is molecules in RANDOM motion colliding with each other?

    This motion generates EM radiation.

    You see, a CHF (Conductive Heat Flux) of ZERO just means that one side of a metal bar has molecules moving at the same speed as the other side of the metal bar.

    A CHF > 0 means that the cold side of the bar has lower speed molecules than the hot side.
    These colder molecules are STILL generating EM radiation in proportion to their speed.

    CHF is essentially just the difference in molecular speed of two sides.

    EM radiation from the cold side is determined by the speed of molecules on the cold side, and not by the difference in speed of hot side vs. cold side molecules.

    Those who think geothermal is negligible because geothermal emission must equal CHF, are nothing but imbeciles. I’ll repeat that: NOTHING BUT IMBECILES. Or they are CHARLATANS making room for GHGs.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Zoe, your desperate, rambling rant is funny, but you should get your comedy partner, Rosie to join in. You two make a great clown team.

      Geothermal is negligible, compared to solar. Earth’s core is believed to be very hot. We are reassured about that when we witness volcanoes, lava vents, geysers, etc. But, Earths surface is enormous. So when you average all of the core heat energy reaching the surface, it only amounts to a smidgen.

      Do you a Rosie plan to do comedy tours also?

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        The conductive heat flux in the atmosphere due to the sun is even tinier.

        What you call a rambling rant is just plain ol’ physics. Sorry it confuses your tiny brain.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Zoe, “conductive heat flux” is not a factor in considering Earth’s energy balance. The only energy considered is electromagnetic waves.

          Physics is hard, for some people.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Earth’s geotherm delivers 0 celcius.
            0 celcius does not emit 0.087 W/m^2

            Why you so stupid, Geran?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe, your belief that geothermal keeps the surface at 0 ºC is just that, your belief.

            Obviously you never lived in States like Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, etc. Your inexperience adds to the hilarity.

            More please.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            The top of Mt. Everest also doesn’t get 0C. What’s your point? 0C is a whole earth average.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            My point is, your belief that geothermal keeps the surface at 0 ºC is pseudoscience. Without solar, surfaces would plunge well below 0 ºC, all over the planet.

            You could actually do the research to find out how the estimated value of 0.087 Watts/m^2 is arrived at, but you don’t seek reality.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            “My point is, your belief that geothermal keeps the surface at 0 ºC is pseudoscience. Without solar, surfaces would plunge well below 0 ºC, all over the planet.”

            Sun supplies ~165 W/m^2 (-41C).

            This has been measured by at least 8 satellite programs. Get over it.

            “You could actually do the research to find out how the estimated value of 0.087 Watts/m^2 is arrived at.”

            By using the conduction formula.

            Take the difference of temperatures between two depths and multiply by material conductivity (k). Then area-weight average it for all locations.

            Then just to trick dummies call it a “surface” flux, even though it’s averaged CHF at various depths normalized.

            I downloaded the largest subsurface database available, the one at University of North Dakota. Then I read the instructions. It’s really easy to do.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            “Sun supplies ~165 W/m^2 (-41C). This has been measured by at least 8 satellite programs. Get over it.”

            You don’t know how to deal with flux. And you can’t learn. Hilarious.

            More please.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            Show me different results from satellites, so that I can “learn”.

            I’ll be waiting …

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe, you don’t understand the data.

            But, don’t “get over it”. Keep it coming.

            More please.

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Rosie:
    I do hope that Mr Postma, as a genuine bona fide and serious scientist, will not be unhappy to be challenged

    James:
    Fat chance that.

    Rosie:
    scientific ideas are put out into the world in order to be questioned and in order for people to have a go at disproving them.

    James:
    Okay. But the reality is we are dealing with humans. Humans are belief oriented. Our minds were designed with a subconscious that hides our motives from us.

    Rosie:
    If this paper is still ‘wrong’, what does ‘right’ look like?

    So, in case anyone is asking, I do have a thorough grounding in maths and science and had excellent teachers long before the days of the politicisation of science and of education in general.

    James:
    This will be your downfall. Your approach suffers from the same naivete that hinders all traditional theorists. At no time did humans ever start considering scientific truths from a blank slate condition. If you are unable to realize that your traditional approach to science is chalk-full of political BS, half-truths, false assumptions, and just-so-story nonsense then you will flounder on comprehending the atmosphere just as many others grounded in traditional science have floundered. It’s inevitable.

    Rosie:
    Weather processes are set in train by the differential temperatures around the surface of the planet, which, together with movements of water, redistribute energy. Weather redistributes energy around the planet – it doesn’t affect the overall balance of energy coming in and energy going out.

    James:
    Our current understanding of weather and atmospheric flow–the convection model of storm theory–is based on a handful of superstitious notion. We know that water is involved, but our theory on how it is involved is cartoonish nonsense.

    Rosie:
    Pausing to note that, as a geographer, this modern definition of ‘climate’ to mean only the global annual average temperature makes me feel very sad. ‘Climate’ used to incorporate a complex of variables including rainfall and annual patterns and typical vegetation. We used to talk about a ‘maritime’ climate, a ‘continental’ or ‘temperate’ climate and many more – a combination of factors that we humans observe and experience, things that, almost intuitively, we know are important. With our human brains we can understand such things, even if they are less susceptible to reducing to a few numbers and sticking into a computer.

    James:
    Geography likes definitions and simple models. It tends to shun, dismiss, and even ignore details. This approach sets the stage for the just-so-story nonsense we see in traditional meteorology and novel climatology.

    Rosie:
    Returning to my topic with a heavy heart: the subject of ‘climate’ defined as the average temperature across the whole planet for a complete year.

    James:
    Your heart shouldn’t be heavy. The BS of traditional geography/meteorology is more subliminal. It is much harder to recognize and, therefore, more of the problem.

    Real scientist (which are extremely rare) realize that the biggest obstacles to understanding and breakthroughs are the things that are believed the deepest. You don’t grasp this yet. And it will take a long time to figure it out because everybody you interact with will tell you to ignore what is deeply believed.

    James McGinn / Genius
    Why Meteorologists Will Not Discuss or Debate Their Convection Model of Storm Theory
    https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Fifth-Episode-Why-Meteorologists-Will-Not-Discuss-or-Debate-Their-Convection-Model-of-Storm-Theory-e9a20l

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Rosie,
    Do you see the level of denial you’re up against?

  • Avatar

    Michael Clarke

    |

    Hi Rosie and all PSI readers and commenters,
    The ‘Scientific’ community cannot agree what out atmosphere consist of when expressed as percentages. Some mention H2O as a trace gas, others mention Water Vapor at 1%, some mention particulates as traces, others try give a value to that very variable constituent.
    The dinosaurs died off because of particulates over a long time frame.
    So, the values that are used when trying to arrive at a global atmospheric temperature is very dependent upon a GUESS!
    Even worse is the fact that if there is a particular result needed to support a statement then the best definition that delivers the ‘right’ answer can be used with the full backing of some published GUESS!
    Be careful about what data is used and the source of that data.
    NASA would have us believe that H2O is a trace gas and does not even mention particulates!
    I wonder what values the ‘Flat Earth’ energy budget used???
    Michael Logician

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    The ‘Scientific’ community cannot agree what out atmosphere consist of when expressed as percentages. Some mention H2O as a trace gas, others mention Water Vapor at 1%, some mention particulates as traces, others try give a value to that very variable constituent.

    Yes. Variable, and therefore misunderstood.

    The dinosaurs died off because of particulates over a long time frame.
    So, the values that are used when trying to arrive at a global atmospheric temperature is very dependent upon a GUESS!
    Even worse is the fact that if there is a particular result needed to support a statement then the best definition that delivers the ‘right’ answer can be used with the full backing of some published GUESS!
    Be careful about what data is used and the source of that data.

    Good point.

    NASA would have us believe that H2O is a trace gas and does not even mention particulates!

    Its part of a long continuing tradition to play down our confusion with water.

    I wonder what values the ‘Flat Earth’ energy budget used???

  • Avatar

    JDHuffman

    |

    This post started off from the title, and a hint, that there was going to be a new model. But somehow, in the comments, the author changed to “can’t we all just get along”.

    Just another useless clown, spewing more nonsense.

    Nothing new.

    For remote sensing aficionados:

    Sun has set, Venus visible, very high, light haze,
    directly overhead >>> -47.3F (-44C)

    Still no sign of any CO2 warming, but search will continue as long as the funding lasts..

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi JD,

      I wonder if you have ever encountered meteorologists using the words ‘radiative forcing’? I wonder if you have read that this essay was Part 1 of four that Rosie has already written.

      After I retired from being a chemistry instructor I did not have easy access to the literature so I lost contain the with the words being used relative to the topics of greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide etc. (GHE), globe warming (GW), and climate change (CC).

      So, some time between 1996 and 2004, I had arranged a meeting with an atmospheric science professor at the University where I had been physical chemistry graduate student At this meeting the professor began talking about forcing this and forcing that and I had never read, or heard, even the word ‘forcing’ used in the context in which he was using it.

      I had gone to talk to this professor about Arrhenius’s use of the air temperature being measured at about 1.5 meter above the surface as a proxy for the surface temperature referred to in the title of Arrhenius’s essay. However, the professor assured me that this was no problem because the greatest portion of the upwelling IR radiation was not being emitted from the surface. But instead it was being emitted from the shallow atmospheric layer just above the surface. Which rendered me speechless.

      But when I began to review some of the current literature I now found ‘radiation forcing’ even if I didn’t read that the upwelling IR radiation was being emitted by the atmosphere and and not by the surface.

      I agree with Rosie that your critical comments about her efforts contribute nothing positive toward solving the problems which she, I, and even you consider to exist relative to the topics of GHE, GW, and CC.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        Yes Jerry, whenever someone uses the term “radiative forcing”, it generally means they’ve been taken in. You were wise to play it cool. Religious zealots can be quite violent. It’s best to leave them to the professionals.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi James,

          A few days ago I asked youfor a clarification and you replied you did not have time. Evidently you must have time now. So I expect to see your reply soon.

          Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi JD,

        I came to my computer this morning considering questions I was going to ask you. And some information I was going to share with you and anyone else who might read this. And I had decided I was in the future going to share this information again and again for any new readers that might be reading it for the first time.

        Lauren B. Resnick wrote a short report that was published in journal Science (29 April 1863) titled ‘Mathematic and Science Learning: A New Conception’.

        She wrote: “I will sketch here a few examples of recent findings in cognitive science. … In physics and other sciences, even students who do well on textbook problems often cannot apply the laws and formulas they have been drilled on to interpreting actual physical events. … Another well-supported finding is that all students, the weak as the strong learners, come to their first science classes with surprising extensive theories about how the natural world works. They use these naive theories to explain real world events before they have had any science instruction. Then, even after instruction in new concepts and scientifically supported theories they still resort to their prior theories to solve any problems that vary from their textbook examples. … Several studies show that successful problem solving requires a substantial amount of qualitative reasoning. [which I conclude is what Rosie did] Good problem- solvers do not rush in to apply a formula or an equation. Instead, they try to understand the problem situation; they consider alternative representations and relations among the variables. Only when they are satisfied that they understand the situation and the variables in it in a qualitative way do they start to apply the quantification that we often mistakenly identify as the essence of “real’ science or mathematics. … First, learners construct understanding. They do not simply mirror what they are told or what they read. Learners look for meaning and will try to find regularity and order in the events of the world, even in the absence of complete information. This means that naive theories will always be constructed as part of the learning process. Second, to understand something is to know relationships. Human knowledge is stored in clusters and organized into schemata that people use both to interpret familiar situations and to reason about new ones. Bits of information isolated from these structures are forgotten or become inaccessible to memory. Third, all learning depends on prior knowledge. Learners try to link new information to what they already know in order to interpret the new material in terms of schemata. This is why students interpret science demonstrations in terms of their naive theories and why they hold onto their naive theories for so long. The scientific theories that children are being taught in school often cannot compete as reference points for new learning because they are presented quickly and abstractly and so remain unorganized and unconnected to past experience.”

        The key word in all of this is found in this last sentence. It is “quickly”. If you come to PSI to learn, hopefully you accept this cannot be done quickly. I expect Rosie invested a lot of time in composing Parts 1 thru 4.

        You report: “Sun has set, Venus visible, very high, light haze,
        directly overhead >>> -47.3F (-44C)” I ask: have you during a day and night scanned various parts of a sky which has scatter clouds? I ask: have you pointed you IR thermometer at the earth’s surface and bushes? Have you compared these temperatures with the air temperatures you should be also measuring so you can compare all these temperatures of the natural world.?

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          The year of the Science article should be 1983.

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Good morning Jerry. I expected Rosie to do more than just ramble, especially as she strongly hinted she would. I remain open-minded, but so far she has presented zero science toward any new model.

          As I’ve mentioned before, I also read ground temperatures (shade) to compare to overhead. The only time overhead ever gets warmer than about -40 ºF is when there are clouds. The lower/thicker the clouds, the higher the temperature.

          Just now, very hazy, high haze, shadows exist but edges are fuzzy.
          Directly overhead >> -14.4 ºF
          Ground >> 57.3 ºF

          A couple of things I have learned:

          1) You can build a “poor-man’s ceilometer” by measuring overhead cloud temperature, and then using the lapse rate to calculate the cloud height.

          2) A good way to estimate the amount of haze is by the sharpness of shadow edges. Very sharp edges mean very clear sky. When the shadows are not detectable, clouds are very thick, of course.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi JD,

          Here’s my report of IR temperatures. We finally got apparently cloudless sky with relative humidity (rh) near 100%. So I can generalize that the temperature of the upward emitting surface has little to no influence on the minimum temperature of the downward emitting matter above. But clearly the rh does. With near max. rh, the minimum directly upward temperature of the sky was about -20F both day and night. Now with rh about 55%, the minimum sky temperature is about -30F while a grass surface (in direct sunshine) is 68F and the air temperature in the shade is 56F.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Yes Jerry, you will notice the ground it always much hotter than a clear sky. That’s why we know the GHE is nonsense.

            But, can we keep it a secret?

  • Avatar

    Michael Clarke

    |

    Hi Rosie and PSI readers and commenters,
    Please try see what I see when I look at satellite data images, may I refer you to:-
    https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/JPSS-1
    The images contained in this officially released document tell all sorts of falsehoods, and attempt to illustrate the ‘Fact’ that satellite data cannot lie.
    Look at the data patterns revealed as if they were strips of data 40,000 km long and with instruments with specific widths, (Swathes).
    There are overlaps, so some places are measured more than once, there are gaps so some places are never measured. The images seem to indicate a continuous measurement process when the strips are in actual fact depictions of ALTERNATE paths half in daylight, half in darkness so they are stitched together, the image is from those fourteen of those 40,000km rolls of toilet paper!
    Useful, but would you propound that Satellites don’t lie and influence governments to change their policies?
    I know what I do with toilet paper.
    Michael Logician

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Michael,

      Very good!

      Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Michael Clarke

    |

    Hi Rosie and PSI,
    Did you all Look at that official publication?
    https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/JPSS-1
    Did you understand what you were looking at?
    What did you see in that image purported to be First Light of the VIIRS instrument?
    Now Look again and see what I see!
    Just what are those straight lines top right and bottom left?
    To my eyes that SHOUTS, photo shop!
    The narrative does state that the image is a construct.
    It does claim that the data was captured on the December the 13th 2017.
    Which parts of that construct are live data and which parts from some other time suitably edited to high-light the smoke from the Thomas fire?
    Deliberate deception, or edited to suit a narrative?
    Michael Logician

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    Hello everyone.
    I’m sorry that part 2 is taking so long. Here is an extract that explains why:

    “Writing this essay has turned into a bizarre and exceedingly unpleasant experience for me. All day yesterday a row was going on in my head. It seemed to beat down on me. I felt as if I was going crazy! It went like this:

    The earth is a closed system
    Don’t be silly
    Yes it is. The internet says so. Look around. Everyone is saying so.
    No. It hasn’t got a lid on. It’s wide open to the heavens
    It’s closed. Everyone says so.
    Could it be closed….? NO NO I can see the stars, it gets cold at night, there is no lid
    Heat can’t escape, that’s why it gets hot
    Now this is getting ridiculous. It gets cold at night. It’s cooler in the shade.
    The light comes in but it can’t escape again
    That would be a black hole, this is getting worse and worse.
    It’s a closed system, we all agree
    Oh yes of course, it’s got to be me that’s wrong …..then almost screaming NO!

    After a fevered night of sleep, when every time I stirred the same thoughts were screeching round and round in my head, the sound bites suddenly changed. Now it was as if Big Brother was soothing my aching brow and murmuring, “There there, of course it’s an open system. We all know that. Everyone says so, you’ve just mis-read the posts. Pat pat. Don’t you worry your pretty little head about it.”

    To which the answer is, fine, ok, it is an open system, but they don’t all say so. They say that it’s closed and they say that heat can’t escape. That’s the reason there is going to be a ‘climate emergency’ in 5 years time, because, apparently, the laws of physics have suddenly changed and now light can come in but heat can’t get out.

    I feel oppressed. It’s been going on and on. It’s no wonder people give in to this nonsense and accept it as true. I’ve only been writing for a few days, and the mental pressure feels appalling. I don’t know how people working in this area stay sane with the alignment within one’s own mind between what one knows to be true (work = force x distance, the principle of the conservation of energy, 1 + 2 = 3) and wholly false ideas such as radiative forcing, the idea that heat energy is generated by the atmosphere, and the idea that Planet Earth is a greenhouse and a closed system. Supposedly, on a sunny day, we feel hot, not because the sun is shining, but because of the ‘greenhouse effect’. On top of that is all the back-to-front logic (non-logic, that is to say) which starts by assuming that the earth ‘out of balance’ and heating up and then finds a way to blame it on carbon dioxide.

    The thing it feel most like to me, is that somebody decided that the following statements are both true:
    2 + 3 = 5 and
    3 + 2 = 6
    and from that basis attempted to recalculate the whole of Newtonian physics. Nothing works, nothing adds up, the calculations get longer and longer and the reasoning more and more tortuous.

    It’s no wonder that most of the public are taken in when I, with all my piles of education and rational training, find the nonsense so difficult to resist even for just a few days of concentrated immersion in it. It’s no wonder that tempers are frayed. Deary me. Ok, onwards.”

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Rosie,

      Okay. If you go to (https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/scan/index.html) you will find data which I consider is truth and if not truth, the closest thing to truth a scientist can ever observe or measure. Reference to this site because the data graphically displayed for each hour of a day for either a single day or for each hour of a month of days. Measured are the standard air temperatures, dewpoint temperatures, and the unstandard soil temperatures at 2, 4, 8, 20, 40 inch depths as well as the soil moisture content at these depths. Plus relative humidity, wind speed and direction, solar, precipitation, and soil types. This hourly data shows the truth that this system is seldom, if ever at equilibrium as the factors are usually changing from hour. Except the value of the solar goes to zero at sundown and is constant until sunrise the next morning. Which make the study of the nighttime variable least confusing there is not the constantly changing and most important variable of solar during the daytime which opposes the constant mechanism of the cooling surfaces by emission.

      Now, if one studies these various daily and monthly it is not to hard to see the obvious influence of cloud on several of these variables even though clouds are never directly observed at these weather stations. For it really is not hard see the influence clouds have on changes from hour to hour. Once you can find a day (24hrs) when there is no influence of cloud. Now, this review is not a one day or even week or even month because there are 12 months of a year. And I admit I haven’t done this because it seems few are really interested in studying the data as it should ultimately be done.

      There 4 other USA government funded meteorology projects which are natural laboratories with differing instruments. The highest quality data is that which you can find at (https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/). For it measures and reports not only the hourly means of the air temperature and the surface temperature and the solar radiation plus also the maximum-minimum values of this quite variable data during the previous hour. It also measures and reports the hourly the soil temperatures and moisture contents at five similar depths to that of the SCAN project. But it does not graphically display the data. Of course, this is only a problem for people like myself who no longer have the necessary software and never had really good skills to use it when I had the software.

      Because I have read that no other nation has really good meteorological and, hence, climatological projects like these, I wonder if you are aware of them. For even though I am aware of them, if seems one of a very few who seems to have studied them in an organized fashion. For, as I do believe know, that any essay, paper, article I would write, would not be accepted for any respected scientific general. Plus, another fact is I do not have the skills to write an acceptable scientific paper.

      However. I must quickly add, I consider PSI to be the best place to post a scientific article because more people will read one’s efforts here than read most articles published in Nature or Science.

      So, I repeat the only thing in science approaching the truth in science is good actual data that has not been averaged for more than a hour. For the earth-atmosphere-sun system is very dynamic. As can be lava flows and volcanic eruptions. Geothermal contributions must be considered very carefully.

      Finally, something you might consider, which I do not know has been considered, is the influence of two surface temperatures, side by side (ice and open water), in the Arctic Ocean during its winter and early spring, and the same around the Antarctic Continent during its winter and early spring. Ice is a good insulator and can cool by radiation to quite low temperatures when there is little cloud cover. Again, the atmosphere is very dynamic and variable.

      Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      Rosie:
      I’m sorry that part 2 is taking so long.

      James:
      No worries.

      Rosie:
      Here is an extract that explains why:
      I feel oppressed. It’s been going on and on. It’s no wonder people give in to this nonsense and accept it as true. I’ve only been writing for a few days, and the mental pressure feels appalling. I don’t know how people working in this area stay sane with the alignment within one’s own mind between what one knows to be true (work = force x distance, the principle of the conservation of energy, 1 + 2 = 3) and wholly false ideas such as radiative forcing,

      James:
      Well, unfortunately the feelings of oppression never stop. Humans are certainty monkeys. Our minds are like Pavlov’s dog when it comes to certainty. This results in us dividing into factions that continually push the button that feeds us the “truth” we so deeply desire.

      I do encourage you to press on, however. You will more and more come to realize the degree to which all of science has factionalized around various simple models that feed their constituents the simple certainty that we choose to believe.

      Rosie:
      It’s no wonder that most of the public are taken in when I,

      James:
      They aren’t “taken in.” The public is eager to believe.

      The public is in the driver’s seat when it comes to what is accepted as true or false in science. Not academia. Academia does its best to feed the public simple models that feed certainty monkey.

      Rosie:
      with all my piles of education and rational training,

      James:
      The battlefield of scientific belief is a gun fight. Rationality is a knife.

      How We Know Meteorology is Pretending To Understand Storms
      https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/How-We-Know-Meteorology-is-Pretending-To-Understand-Storms-e93euk

      James McGinn / Genius

  • Avatar

    Rosie Langridge

    |

    It’s really driving me crackers. Would appreciate some statements of which is true and which is false just to help me continue. Thanks.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Well Rosie, if you’re now truly seeking reality, here’s a start:

      Neither geothermal nor CO2 can warm Earth anywhere near as much as solar. Even together, they can’t compete.
      You appear to be about a million years away from providing a “rational climate change model” that is scientifically better than Postma’s.
      Long rambling rants, like above a 8:26pm, are NOT science. You may indeed be “crackers”. Consider getting help.

      • Avatar

        Rosie Langridge

        |

        Haha, Geran. Love your comments. You are so funny! LOL
        Oh, I don’t suppose you have stopped to wonder why there is anything to argue about? It wouldn’t be because there are psychological factors involved would it?
        By the way, what is your purpose it commenting here? What are you trying to achieve?

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          I just have fun exposing phonies and frauds.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            No Geran you are just a jerk who uses stupid comments because you have no ability to reason. You think everything that people says is hilarious while everyone else sees your comments as mean spirited and stupid..Grow up.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Rosie,

      The previous comment was in reference this short comment. Now this comment is in reference to your conclusion to your longer comment. ” I, with all my piles of education and rational training, find the nonsense so difficult to resist even for just a few days of concentrated immersion in it.”

      You seem to recognize the nonsense and therefore the source of it. So ignore the sources.

      Please, please do not let critics make you question what you have already written. I really want to read that you had originally written. The only nonsense I consider you have written is your stated need to revise.

      I like older science book before science got so missed up. Here is one a bought but maybe haven’t looked at it. But I have just looked at its table of contents. And the first section is:

      “THE ELEMENTS OF WEATHER AND CLIMATE
      3. Air Temperature (Including Insolation) ………………….. 26
      4. Atmospheric Pressure and Winds ………………………… 46
      5. Atmospheric Moisture and Precipitation ……………… 71
      6. Air Masses, Fronts, and Storms …………………………….. 90

      The book ‘Physical Elements of Geography 3rd Ed (1949)’ by Vernon C. F inch and Glenn R. Trewartha U. of Wisconsin, Madison.

      In the back of it are maps. The first–Average Annual Precipitation; the second– Climates of the Earth; the third–Lithic Regions; the fourth–Landform Regions; the fifth–Original Natural Vegetation; the sixth–Soil Regions; the seventh–Agricultural Regions. All of which show us how diverse the Natural Earth is. Which clearly makes averaging the World nonsense. Which is a very important thing your wrote, as I understood it, in Part 1. That’s a TRUTH, one cannot average the World. It’s nonsense. But maybe one can ‘qualitatively generalize’ its important parts.

      Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Michael,

    You mentioned: “To my eyes that SHOUTS, photo shop!”

    I consider the image of the spherical earth with the sun and moon clearly has been ‘photo shopped’. I have waited until you used the words ‘photo shop’ to make sure I these words were the correct term for the sun and moon. But I consider the spherical earth with it clouds, continents, and partial darkness is an ordinary photo which has not been photo shopped. Do you agree?

    And before writing anything more about this image of Rosie’s article, I need to know your answer.

    Now I turn to image to which you referred. I have difficulty confidently seeing the ” those straight lines top right and bottom left.” But when I zoomed the image sharp white iines top right became very apartment but try as I might I can see any straight lines bottom left. But I do clearly see more than a straight line at the bottom just a little left of the right edge just above which I consider to be airplane contrails.
    right is the biggest smoke cloud of the imagine (will not refer to it as a photo)

    But what really catches my eye is the ‘big’ smoke cloud with what seems a more white small cloud over it with a very sharp right edge which appears artificial. What I do not see is the origin of the ‘big’ smoke cloud.

    But I ignore this large smoke cloud to ask: are you proposing that this is not an actual photo but a composite created from the swaths of multiple ‘flyovers’ at different times or maybe even during different days?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Hi Jerry, You are partly right, It was cruel of me to distract and confuse, the straight lines are top and bottom right and are the boarders of California!!!!!! Visible from space!!! So yes the image is a man made construct!!!
      Those diffuse cloud formations do indeed look like old contrails, if one allows for their height and air stream and diffuseness they all look to be pointing to or from LAX when they were originally created.

      The narrative for such deception being to keep spreading untruth often enough and the general population will believe and accept that Satellite data does not lie.

      The Motive is quite simple they want to continue to get government funding, (Your Tax $$$).

      Regarding the swathe question: – The satellite is not moving over the ground in a true north path the track is at an angle which is specified very precisely. The image looks to me as a true north/south orientation so either the satellite portion has been twisted to fit or the instrument is permanently skewed, THIS ONLY WORKS FOR NORTH/SOUTH TRANSITS! the south/north transits would be at 18 or so degrees skewed!!!
      Therefore the image has grubby human hand prints all over it.
      Save that image to disk, open with ‘Photo’, zoom in and laugh at the jagged white lines around the coast!
      Also rather damning is the claim that it is true color, is California always that brown with NO green vegetation, ok its winter but surely there should be some parts that are green.
      Michael Logician

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Rosie and Zoe are definitely NOT the same. There’s a noticeable difference in talent. Neither has a complete grasp of the relevant physics, but one is original, understands some math and programming. The other is rather trite , clinging to worn out cliches.

      Definitely two different people.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Geran,
        Ah, but don’t I have multiple personality disorder?
        How do you know? There’s no limit to paranoia.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          No multiple personality disorder for you, Zoe. You’re just a normal egotist, mostly harmless.

          The best paranoia comes when person “A” does have multiple personalities and “A” believes the “others” are out to get “A”. That’s when it really gets exiting.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            My children say I have MPD. Sometimes I’m nice, and sometimes I’m mean.

            There, you have eyewitness accounts.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Nah, that’s just mood swings.

            We see the same thing here too.

    • Avatar

      CD Marshall

      |

      The thing about personality disorders is if you had one that’s exactly how you would respond. I mean you don’t know you have a disorder how would know you aren’t talking to yourself? I might be talking to myself right now.

      A fine line exists between brilliant and insanity.

      My initial prognosis was,
      “Either Rosie and Zoe aren’t the same person or she ‘s good at acting (or just mocking us) or has a personality disorder. The odd coincidence of her publishing right after you “out of nowhere” is a little strange but not evidence inducing.”

      How you turned on Joseph out of nowhere also is a little strange from my perspective.

      “Rosie comes out of nowhere and “conveniently” challenges Joseph immediately on publication at PSI, whoever they are it’s a set up. The coincidence probability is looking like a far weaker explanation.”

      I admit the timing is strange and it does look like a set up. However, as I said coincidence perhaps, just seems a little shaky.

      I am confident you don’t believe you are the same person. May I speak to Rosie and hear her side of the story?

      Just kidding.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        “How you turned on Joseph out of nowhere also is a little strange from my perspective.”

        Uhm, Joe can’t explain why the surface meanders between 10 and 20C, from night to day.

        Joe ignored all the work I did on SURFRAD to show why there is not enough energy with just sun alone.

        Joe still can’t understand difference between between conductive heat flux and radiation.

        You can reread the conversations and see that Joe turned away from science.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Now Zoe, how much of that is really true? You just further discredit yourself with such obvious falsehoods.

          But, your desperate, incompetent attempts to pervert reality are hilarious.

          More please.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Yes Zoe, Postma tried to help you, but your ego couldn’t stand correction. So, you’ve been childishly lashing out since then.

            Ego-driven, incompetent climate clowns are hilarious.

            More please.

        • Avatar

          Robert Kernodle

          |

          Wow, I do not believe that I have ever seen a bigger misrepresentation of a person than you just did there with Joe.

          Yours truly,

          One of the “creeps” at Joe’s site

        • Avatar

          Robert Kernodle

          |

          Zoe wrote, Joe still can’t understand difference between between conductive heat flux and radiation.

          Oh, I think he does, and that’s an understatement.

          As I understand it, thanks to Joe, conductive heat flux IS radiation, but it is radiation in TRANSITION, … TRANSFERRING from a source of higher-energy flux (higher temperature) to a source of lower-energy flux (lower temperature).

          I think that you might not be getting the transition concept.

          Hot radiates at a certain energy flux. Cold radiates at a certain lower energy flux, in relation to hot. When hot comes near cold, some of the energy of the hot transitions from hot to cold, to make cold hotter. That transition energy from hot to cold, is what gives more energy to the cold to be hotter than it was.

          Now the cold is radiating hotter, because the hotter gave it energy to do so , while continuing to feed enough energy at a rate to sustain that now hotter state.

          The hot end of the conduction medium TRANSFERS energy at a rate much smaller than its own radiating power. The cold end RECEIVES this TRANSFER of energy at a rate much smaller than ITS own radiating power. The TRANSFER is the amount that heats. The sustained level of radiation resulting from the transfer is NOT the heat.

          The sustained radiating level of the cold end is NOT, in and of itself, the level of radiation that does any heating. Heating is caused by the difference between one sustained level of radiation and another sustained level of radiation.

          This is why a candle will melt an ice cube — the candle transfers energy (heat) which, first, brings up the temperature of the ice cube, and, second, SUSTAINS that temperature via this constant TRANSFER to melt the cube eventually.

          Now what the radiation of the ice cube might or might not heat depends on what is near it. If dry ice is near it, then, yeah, that level of radiation of the cube will heat the dry ice, because some portion of the ice-cube energy will TRANSFER to the colder (less energetic) dry ice.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Robert,
            Blah blah blah – you’re belaboring the OBVIOUS.

            The highest cold side radiation will result from the smallest conductive heat flux … CHS = 0.

            Robert, look! CHS is as infintely tiny as it can be! Therefore we can ignore the temperature and radiation of the cold side!

            It doesn’t matter to you that Earth goes fron >5000C at the core to 0C at the surface. For some psychological reason it’s just not “sustainable”.

            Let’s be fair. The sun goes from 15,000,000K to 5772K, and also has a tiny conductive heat flux in the photosphere, therefore … it’s not “sustainable” and the sun doesn’t heat much. LOL

            What utter hypocrisy and sophistic way to deny Earth’s geothermal power and infrared star status.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe, you are confused by the high temperature of Earth’s core. That confusion then formulates your false belief. Once engrossed in your false belief, you lock yourself off from facts and reality.

            The reality you reject is that Earth’s core temperature, as high as it is, is reduced by the distance to the surface, and the size of the surface. The resulting energy can’t even melt ice.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            Geothermal still delivers 0C. The kinetic energy of the surface molecules is proportional to 0C. The molecules are in motion @ 0C compatible speed, and then solar energy bumps that T to 15C + energy for evaporation.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            That’s your “belief”, Zoe. But, it’s not fact.

            You get to believe whatever you want, but it’s interesting that you attack Skeptics instead of attacking CO2 believers.

            Very interesting….

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            My belief is backed up by evidence, common sense, and the scientific method.

            I figured skeptics were the smartest and most likely to understand me.

            Alarmists don’t even know the difference between heat and energy.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Zoe,

            Previously you referred to 2C or 3C bottom ocean water. Do you have a reference for this?

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Robert Kernodle

            |

            Zoe, no.

            I did not say, “Blah, blah, blah”. This is your less-than-accurate translation.

            Here’s what you wrote, after that, with my responses:

            The highest cold side radiation will result from the smallest conductive heat flux … CHS = 0.

            I think you are looking at this sort of backwards. The highest cold side radiation results because of the smallest temperature difference between the two ends of the conducting medium, to begin with. If the cold side is already pretty hot, then a small amount of transfer from the hot side is all that is needed to maintain its temperature at the almost-hot-side level.
            I think that you are the one stating the obvious.

            Robert, look! CHS is as infinitely tiny as it can be! Therefore we can ignore the temperature and radiation of the cold side!

            Is that supposed to be me talking? (^_^) If so, then you just did a really bad acting job of portraying me, because that’s not what the Robert character would say. Instead, Robert would say something like this: “Look, conductive heat flux is infinitely tiny, because there is infinitely little difference between the temperatures of the hot end and the cold end, since there’s so much medium between the two ends that the hot can TRANSFER … ONLY an infinitely small amount of heat to the cold.”

            It doesn’t matter to you that Earth goes from >5000C at the core to 0C at the surface. For some psychological reason it’s just not “sustainable”.

            Oh, but it DOES matter. I am not saying that it is not sustainable. I am saying that what might be sustained does not have an effect on a surface that gets over 5000 times more intense energy from the sun.

            Let’s be fair. The sun goes from 15,000,000K to 5772K, and also has a tiny conductive heat flux in the photosphere, therefore … it’s not “sustainable” and the sun doesn’t heat much. LOL

            Let’s be REALLY fair. The sun is a STAR, … made of FLUID … PLASMA, … with FLUID …. CONVECTION currents that physically transport hot material from the center to its surface. … CONVECTION.

            The Earth is NOT a hot STAR throughout, … NOT made of FLUID … PLASMA, but rather is largely SOLID interior-wise, with little or no convection through its solid mass to physically transport hot mass from center to outer surface.

            What utter hypocrisy and sophistic way to deny Earth’s geothermal power and infrared star status.

            No hypocrisy here, … just clear thinking that you seem to block out. And, yeah, I’m the sophist, …. riggggght. Furthermore, I am not denying anything, because to deny, one first must accept the possibility, and I do not even accept that. The earth’s core has virtually no capability to influence the surface temperature, in the global sense that you seem to insist that it does. I DO believe that geothermal can have local, even regional effects on the landscape, such as under ice masses, in the form of volcanic activity that can contribute to melting them. But globally, in terms of adding a flux to the entire surface? — No, no way, … physically impossible.

            0C cannot warm something that is already sustained at a higher temperature by a source that delivers ridiculously more energy than Earth’s global geothermal flux.

            Try this exercise: Put an iron pan in the oven at 425 F. Next, use a hot pad to pick it up. That pan just fried your cornbread (Yum), but the hot pad prevented it from frying your hand.
            Insulation is cool this way, in more senses than one.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Robert,

            “that gets over 5000 times more intense energy from the sun.”

            My gosh, Robert, you haven’t learned a single thing.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Zoe,

            Thank you for your reply.

            The figure to which your link took me had no description if it was for saline water. So I searched the UCAR site a little further. And found the statement: “90 % of the total volume of ocean is found below the thermocline in the deep ocean. The deep ocean is not well mixed. The deep ocean is made up of horizontal layers of equal density. Much of this deep ocean water is between 0-3 degrees Celsius (32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit)! It’s really, really cold down there!”

            This has to be considered a secondary source which has no reference an actual article which reports such measurements. So while I can understand how one not really familiar with the ‘standards’ of science might consider this statement to be a reference of an actual measurement, the fact it is not.

            And because I had no idea what UCAR was, I search further and found: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR).

            You might imagine that I might question: what does an atmospheric corporation know about the temperatures at the bottom of an ocean?

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Fine, Jerry, it’s still geothermal.
            All satellite programs say Earth receives ~165 W/m^2 from the sun. The rest doesn’t come from low density gas. LOL

            Geothermal is occam’s razor, peoples’ denial notwithstanding.

            I feel like the only sane person in a lunatic asylum.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe, you can’t understand this stuff, so you just keep making stuff up.

            The “~165 W/m^2” false value is NOT from satellites. It comes from the pseudoscience of dividing the solar constant by 4. It is a bogus value. But you don’t know any better, so you keep believing it.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            No, Geran, 165 W/m^2 comes from satellites.

            340 W/m^2 comes from dividing by 4.

            If all satellites were wrong, how would we even know albedo?

            Satellites simply collect data for every square meter of Earth in the atmospheric window, then a a whole spectrum flux is determined from that using Planck’s Law.

            Show me that the data collected through atmo-window yields a result other than ~165 W/m^2.

            If you can’t, then zip it.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe, you can’t understand this stuff. Let me repeat:

            The “~165 W/m^2” false value is NOT from satellites. It comes from the pseudoscience of dividing the solar constant by 4. It is a bogus value. But you don’t know any better, so you keep believing it.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Tell me, Geran, what did satellites “really” find?

            Please let us in on the secret. Enlighten us all.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Again Zoe, your “165” comes from the pseudoscience “energy balance”. They divide the solar constant by 4 to get the “340”. Then, they take out albedo and absorption by atmosphere, leaving “~165”.

            They do that to fool people into believing solar energy is not enough to heat the planet. (165 W/m^2 would be the emission from a surface at -41 ºC!)

            It’s amazing how easy it is to fool some people….

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            I’ve seen 8 satellite programs show ~161 to ~172.

            You tell me that’s wrong. So what do they really say? You must know better than the person who’s done the research.

            So please let me know!

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            I’ve already explained it 3 times, Zoe.

            A 4th won’t help.

            I can only help those who want to be helped. It’s like that famous saying: “You can’t help stupid.”

            PS Satellites don’t measure downwelling solar at the surface! Again, that old saying: “You can’t help stupid.”

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            LOL, sure they do measure downwelling solar.

            They also have a sensor pointed away from Earth and measure solar TOA, at every point possible. It’s about ~340 W/m^2.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            In fact, Geran, since satellites don’t stand still, it’s the 1361 W/m^2 that’s derived from the MEASURED ~340 W/m^2.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            See? You can’t help stupid.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            Don’t leave stupid people hanging, tell them what the globally averaged incoming radiation into the surface is.

            Come on, be a good boy, and make them smart like you.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe, it’s a wasted effort trying to make you smart.

            But in case others are interested:

            Irradiance cannot be averaged. It is non-linear. But at Earth temperatures, the error is probably bearable. So a realistic value would be 480 W/m^2, over a hemisphere. This would provide surface average close to 30 ºC (86.5 ºF). That value could easily be fine tuned to account for leaks and losses, which would lower the calculated average temp. closer to the believed average value.

            Geothermal, while extremely hot at the core, is rendered impotent by Earth’s radius and surface area, resulting in a pathetic 0.087 W/m^2 at the surface. An ice cube emits 300 W/m^2.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            I said GLOBAL average.
            I said INTO the surface, i.e. what does the skin get?

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            LOL,
            The conductive heat flux of the sun is tiny just before actual EM emission.

    • Avatar

      Robert Kernodle

      |

      Hey, I’m one of the “creeps” over at Joseph Postma’s site, and I admit that I thought Zoe and Rosie were the same person, but I changed my mind — I think you both are two different people. Does that make me less of a creep now?

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Why would even think I would pretend to be someone else?
        Why would someone in agreement with me mean we’re all secretly one person?

        My theory is correct and so there will be many that will come to agree with me.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Robert,
        Why is it when I said: ”
        Joe still can’t understand difference between between conductive heat flux and radiation ”

        You posted to climateofsophistry: “Joe does not understand the difference between conductive heat TRANSFER and radiation.”

        You’re changing my words. How CREEPY.

        What you know I mean is: JP doesn’t understand difference between CHS and CSR.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          CHF and CSR

        • Avatar

          Robert Kernodle

          |

          Well, it was not meant as an exact, exact quote, but I do believe that I got the truth of it correct, because “conductive heat flux” and “conductive heat TRANSFER” are the same things.

          You still do not grasp that conductive flux is a TRANSFER of energy that feeds the cooler source, that sustains that cooler source’s temperature at whatever it might be, even 0C. But that cooler source’s HEATING potential is itself limited by the nature of the medium touching IT.

          So, I changed your words to emphasize what I think it is that you do not grasp, and so I feel that I represented you fairly, which is more than I can say of your representation of Joe and us other “creeps” over at his site.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Robert,

            “You still do not grasp that conductive flux is a TRANSFER of energy that feeds the cooler source”

            No, Robert, CHF is heat loss per meter length times K.

            You really think 2.5 W/m^2 is what is transfered from 75C to 50C? LMAO

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Robert,
            What you need to learn is that you can teach Zoe nothing because she believes she knows everything. Have her explain why gravity preferential attracts denser objects.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Robert Kernodle

            |

            Zoe,

            Let’s look at what you last wrote:

            Robert,

            “You still do not grasp that conductive flux is a TRANSFER of energy that feeds the cooler source”

            No, Robert, CHF is heat loss per meter length times K.

            You really think 2.5 W/m^2 is what is transferred from 75C to 50C? LMAO

            Conductive Heat Flow (CHF) is certainly a heat loss, but it is a heat loss from the hot end. It is the rate of cooling of the hot end, in the direction of the cooler end, … a rate of cooling (for the hot) that is a rate of warming for the cooler end. It is NOT a loss per meter length of the whole bar, as I understand it in this example.

            The direction of heat flow is through the medium, and the assumption, in a simple set up such as yours, is that there is NOT any loss along that length, but rather that the CONDUCTION is a TRANSFER … THROUGH that length of the medium. A loss along the length, I believe, would be another quantity, and a deeper level of complexity than your set up.

            Conduction is the warm end providing energy to the cold end to make the cold end warmer. That hot to cold is, thus, a transfer of heat TO the cold end, and, at the same time, a loss of heat for the hot end.

            Hot looses heat so that cold might gain the heat that hot lost.

            And , yes, I really do think that 2.5 W/m^2 is transferred from 75C to 50C, in order to maintain that 50C. Remember what a watt is? — it is a joule of energy per second. That’s a rate of energy flow through time.

            Given, the temperature differential between 75C and 50C in the concrete bar, and given the emissivity of concrete, the rate at which energy flows from the 75C end to the 50C end is 2.5 joules per second per meter squared [that’s what 2.5 W/m^2 means].

            Every second, 2.5 joules flows through the bar towards the other side, and given those physical restraints again, after a number of seconds [I don’t know the figure for concrete], the concrete bar comes into equilibrium to where the once totally cold end is now 50C.

            It took some time (some seconds), you see, for that 2.5 joules per second to warm up that cold end to 50C — joules per second multiplied by seconds is joules — lots of seconds pass, lots of joules transferred. And once the cold end gets to this temperature via all those accumulated joules, again limited by those physical constraints of concrete, all it takes to maintain this temperature is the same 2.5 joules per second per meter squared that got it there from the 75C end.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Robert,

            Let’s forget emissivity for a moment.

            75C => 833 W/m^2
            50C => 618 W/m^2

            You think 2.5 W/m^2 is what is transfered. LOL.

            You know what I think?
            I think 618 W/m^2 was transfered (assuming cold side started at 0K), and 215 W/m^2 was “lost”.

            The 50C is a real 50C and it will emit as if it’s a real 50C.

            You think the 50C is fake and only 2.5 W/m^2 is what will be emitted, right?

            Or you are belaboring the obvious and do not want to admit that geothermal delivers 0C to the surface. A real 0C, not a fake one.

            Reread my article:

            https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/04/the-case-of-two-different-fluxes/

            “Assuming k = 1 and A=1, we examine all the possible temperatures that produce Davies’ CHF (q/A) of 91.6 mW/m².”

            You got that? An infinite variety can produce the same CHF.

            “Let’s think about this: Does it matter whether it’s 0.84°C or 9990.84°C 10 meters below your feet? Of course it does! But you can’t tell the difference using CHF. Only using CSR can we tell the true radiation emerging out of the earth!”

            You got that?

            So is the 50C real or not?

            You MUST answer this.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Oh and Robert,
            What happens when 165 W/m^2 of UV/Light shines on the 50C? or how about 0C?

            Shall we ignore the 50C and claim that what emerges is 2.5+165 W/m^2?

            Or will you finally realize that 618 + 165 is what will be emitted?

            Yes, the CHF will shrink, less CHF will be necessary. So what?

            CHF is irrelevant when the question is about energy budget out of the right hand 50C side.

            We are dealing with 618 + 165.

            Now there are two types of stupid ants:

            1) Sun is enough to explain why “upwelling” radiation is 783 W/m^2. We’ll call this Postma ant.

            2) The gases beyond the bar cause backradiation heating, thereby boosting 165 to 783. We’ll call this mainstream retarded ant.

            And then there is one smart ant, who said:

            Boys, the bar is 75C on the hot end, for whatever reason, and we get to enjoy a cozy surface of 50C from the start. It’s bar-o-thermal energy!

            And then the 2 retarded ants mocked her for stating the plain obvious truth.

            So sad. Don’t be jealous, Boys. You’re welcome in my queendom.

        • Avatar

          Robert Kernodle

          |

          Zoe,

          I tried answering an earlier comment of yours, but the website was acting funky and would not allow the post. I’ll try again now:

          You said earlier:

          Why is it when I said: ”
          Joe still can’t understand difference between conductive heat flux and radiation ”

          You posted to climateofsophistry: “Joe does not understand the difference between conductive heat TRANSFER and radiation.”

          You’re changing my words. How CREEPY.

          What you know I mean is: JP doesn’t understand difference between CHS and CSR.

          I admit that my quote was not precise, but I think that my representation of you was fair, which is more than I can say for your representation of Joe.

          So, okay, your EXACT quote is, “Joe still can’t understand the difference between conductive heat flux and radiation ”. And what I attributed to you differed in tense and by one word. I said, “Joe does not understand the difference between conductive heat TRANSFER and radiation.”

          I think I did this subconsciously to point out that you do not understand “conductive heat flux” as “conductive heat TRANSFER”. You seem to refuse to see it as a transfer of energy through time from one end (the hot end) to the other end (the cold end).

          This seems less … “CREEPY” and more insightful in my rational world. Why would you think that an attempt at clarification is “creepy”, just because I change a tense and one word that easily implies the other word? Flux is transfer, in the given context. Flux is rate of flow through time, which requires passage of time for the stuff moving through time (energy) to agglomerate into an equilibrium quantity.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            R,
            “but I think that my representation of you was fair”

            False. JP very well understands the difference between conductive heat transfer and radiation.

            What he doesn’t want to understand is the difference between CHF being negligible and CSR being what is most relevant.

            Not to mention that CST (cold side T) can be further thermalized by the sun.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    No, Geran, it’s not mood swings.
    It’s called being effective. If nice doesn’t work …

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Rosie,

    You plainly wrote: “There are two massive sources of energy and several relatively minor ones. We all know about the sun. It’s big and it’s hot and it’s almost on our doorstep (or at least, just down the road). But nobody doing these climate models seems to have remembered that Planet Earth is not cold and dead but, in itself, is raging hot.”

    I totally missed this the first time I read it (your essay). Then I did not mention that I considered what you wrote was big mistake because very much liked what you wrote and I did not want to be critical as others were being.

    I do not know if your will be awarded a Nobel Prize but I consider maybe you should. But you took what is generally accepted–nuclear fission reaction occurring in the earth’s interior–and used it to understand (explain) why (or how) the earth’s atmospheric temperature is what it is. Except I have not yet found that you focused our attentions to the right place yet. But you did indirectly did as I again reread your essay a third or fourth time.

    For you wrote: “From hot springs to volcanoes, from boiling mud to tsunamis – whole continents moving around! – we all know that Planet Earth has enormous energy stored within.” Which does contain what I consider an gross error. What you meant to write was: we all know that Planet Earth has enormous energy ‘being produced’ within. But the critical observation you made, which alerted me to the fact that “there are two massive sources of energy”, was “whole continents moving around!”. Clearly, the Sun’s massive source of energy is not moving whole continents moving around!

    In my series ‘How Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed” I had identified volcanic activity as the necessary source of energy needed to evaporate the water molecules from the surface of the Arctic Ocean. But my eyes were focused on the volcanoes we see above the surface of the ocean even I proposed a mechanism where the the water was being heated at the bottom of the ocean. But I did not consider this volcanic action was occurring at the bottom of the deep ocean, I considered it was occurring at the bottom of the shallow ocean so the ocean at the surface was being warmed locally. But it is the volcanic action occurring at the bottom of the deep ocean which forces continents to move and to uniformly heat the water of the oceans so their surface temperatures are what we observe. And without this almost constant volcanic heating (by the nuclear fission occurring much deeper in the earth’s interior) at the bottom of the deep oceans the ocean surface temperatures would maybe be 33C colder and ice covered.

    Now, I consider I have helped you as I should, I ask you to help me by noting that which you and no one else seem to have yet recognized. For I have drawn attention to observations (measurements) that the atmosphere’s temperature has never been observed (if you consider the possibility of unavoidable experiment error) lower than the atmosphere’s measured dewpoint temperature. Which measurements absolute refute the possibility that the atmosphere’s temperature could be less because of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ like water molecules. Of course, you have just explained that the major reason that the atmosphere’s temperature is what is measured is nuclear fission occurring in the earth’s interior. But we should not forget about the influence of the massive energy of solar radiation. Which is being produced by nuclear fusion in the Sun’s interior. And we (humans) have only learned of the existence of these natural nuclear reactions (which confirm E=mc^2) a little more than a century ago.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      CD Marshall

      |

      Jerry,
      On a friendly note wouldn’t it stand to reason that most of the energy of geothermal is used up “moving continents around” and therefore have less potential for global warming (pardon the pun).

      Over a million volcanoes are believed to be at the bottom of the ocean, and of those 1-3% are believed to be active or semi active. I say “believed” becasue we still have no way of properly monitoring the deep ocean something I look forward to seeing developments on in the future.

      Also, although the Earth’s core is a massive fission engine in comparison to the Sun it’s like a generator to a reactor. The only benefit being it is closer.

      Not empirical facts just food for thought.

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi Jerry,
    You are a great believer in evidence. The Earth is a sphere and heat generated in the core radiates through the mantle to the surface in all directions. If the geothermal is adding heat to the surface why is there permafrost in the arctic circle where a buried layer of ice remains while the soil above it thaws?
    The flow of energy or heat only goes until it meets equal energy/heat whether it is by radiation or convection.
    If you heat both ends of rod the energy will flow to a point between them where the heat is equal. Basic thermodynamics Energy flows from high too low.
    Have a good day,
    Herb

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Rosie,

      What Herb wrote here doesn’t deserve a reply. So, do not reply to obvious nonsense and maybe it will go away. Kids used to call me, Krause the Mouse, and this made me mad. My Mother taught me to ignore it and maybe they would stop because it was only fun if the name calling made me mad. But a truth is I was and am a slow learner.

      Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    Herb, there are places where “hot springs” flow from geothermal heating….the earth’s crust is not the same everywhere….if there were “hot springs” in the arctic, there would be no permafrost at that location. If you take a small LED light and shine it into a 5000 watt floodlight source, will the photons from the LED light not reach the source of the floodlight’s photons?….or just aim the LED at the sun…..do the LED’s photons not move towards the sun? Mars is a smaller earth in many ways that is further from the sun and has apparently had its iron core cool and solidify….no spinning molten core means no magnetic field to deflect solar radiation…..I hope the earth’s core does not cool to that point anytime soon.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi T.C.,
      I realize that there are areas where geothermal heat reaches the surface and creates areas where the geothermal heat is greater than solar heat, but this is not the norm. If geothermal heat is being radiated from the core then it should radiate evenly in all directions. If was adding heat to the surface there should be no permafrost where there is a layer of soil above it being heated by the sun, especially in the polar areas where the radiation from the sun is weakest.
      The LED light will reach the spotlight but it will add no energy to it because the energy of the spotlight is greater than the LED.
      Venus is hotter than the Earth has no magnetic field to protect it from solar winds but has an atmosphere 100 times the Earth’s. The moon has its core solidify even thought gets the same solar energy as the Earth. The moon has radiated most of its geothermal energy while the Earth has only lost a small portion. That is the result of the atmosphere storing solar energy and inhibiting the loss of that energy at night.
      You understand that Iceland is over a thin area of the crust but it is called Iceland for a reason.
      Herb

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    Herb, heat is a form of energy and I agree with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics but photons of light are not the same as heat. In fact, this whole subject …Climate is the accumulation of weather over a time period ….and climate and weather are about thermodynamics….weather is mostly large masses of hot and cold air colliding…and the goal of thermodynamics or entropy….is the same temperature everywhere for everything….one day all the stars will have cooled….all the black holes will have evaporated….it will be one cold dark place near absolute zero….but hey…that’s gotta be at least a trillion years away.

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi T.C.,
    I don’t believe in photons or the particle nature of light. Light is a disturbance ninth electric sand magnetic fields that permeate the universe. In January I posted article in PSIn”Radiate or Absorb” to offer an explanation on how energy is radiated and why an object sometimes absorbs energy and other times radiates it.
    Climate is determined by the energy the Earth gets from the sun. Weather is how that energy is redistributed around the globe.
    Herb

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Herb, that’s another classic — “Light is a disturbance ninth electric sand magnetic fields that permeate the universe.”

      You don’t have a clue, but you are great at making up things.

      How can you tell the ninth electric sand from the eighth?

      Hilarious.

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    Well, photons could be little “wave packets…..in order to explain the double slit experiments. Put a little bit of uranium in a cloud chamber and it looks like particles – not waves being emitted. I agree that “climate is determined by the energy the Earth receives from the sun”….but there are many factors that interfere in the amount of energy received….hence climate cycles… If nothing interfered with the sun’s radiation reaching earth…it would all be a clock like system and we would have one unchanging climate. For the last 10000 years there have been numerous up and down cycles ….roughly 400 year cycles….that is what some research should be done on rather than these stupid climate models….the impossible dream.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi T.C.,
      You don’t need a particle of light to explain the photoelectric effect (Which led to its creation). In crystal’s ionic bonds and metal bonds electrons are already separated from atoms. They are held in place b.y electric forces. You only need enough energy of the right wavelength to distort a bond and cause a current. The photoelectric effect is another version of the piezo electric effect where a mechanical distortion causes a current.
      One of the major factors in the amount of energy receives from the sun is the sun spot cycle. Visible light is emitted by the sun’s surface and penetrates the atmosphere. Ultraviolet light and x-rays (which contain more energy) are emitted by the solar flares. These emissions are absorbed by the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere where they create the ionosphere and ozone layer and are converted to heat. During a sun spot minimum the atmosphere is not being heated and the Earth cools. There are four magnetic fields on the sun producing solar flares and they can interfere with each other reducing the number of flares. We have entered a grand solar minimum where all the fields cancel out each other. The last time this happened was in the Middle Ages and was called the little ice age.
      Herb

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    Well, there is an experiment that uses an individual photon at a time which is split into two photons of half size which are then entangled photons….a photon of light has been slowed down and photographed….it has no mass so maybe photon does not = particle but it doesn’t stop it from acting like a particle under certain conditions. The sunspot cycle is 11 years? There are lots of factors….the earth’s orbit is not constant…it varies from near circular to elliptical…and the axis rotates slightly….lots of factors is likely why the cycles are variable in length – no clock work.

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Zoe, Rosie, and PSI Commenters and Readers,

    Zoe, when I doubted the temperatures (2 or 3C) which you had reported, I was wrong. Rosie, when I doubted your proposal that the magnitude of geothermal energy could be comparable to that of solar radiation, I was wrong.

    In both cases I was wrong because I ignored that I (we) did not doubt that the earth had a molten core of which there is no longer any controversy. And there seems to be little or no controversy any more that continents have drifted and continue to drift. And there is little to no controversy that this molten core exists because nuclear fission reactions are continuously occurring in the interior of the Earth. Just as there is little to no controversy that in the interior of the Sun nuclear fusion reactions are continuously occurring.

    I have written that the earth-atmosphere system is very dynamic with observed changes occurring continuously. What we have not commonly considered is that unstable, nonequalibrium states commonly exist in this dynamic system. One of these nonequalibrium states, which meteorologists have commonly considered, is that liquid water cloud droplets can (do) supercool well below the freezing point of water (0C or 32F). And we can see, if we watch carefully, what happens in a very short period of time once this nonequalibrium state is ‘triggered’ and it rapidly and violently adjusts to a stable equalibrium state.

    Zoe, I questioned your temperatures because I assumed warmer ocean water would be less dense than colder ocean water, which might be true. And I assumed, based upon the principle of buoyancy discovered by Archimedes before 212 B.C., that the less dense warmer ocean water would rise to the ocean surface through the colder ocean water. I assumed this even though I had studied data that a warmer, less dense, atmosphere did not rise up through the less dense cooler atmosphere just above it. (https://raws.dri.edu/) and (https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/)

    For I see that these unstable systems can exist when there is no more dense fluid to flow under the less dense fluid at its edges. Which situation seems to exist if the solid surface is flat and the less dense fluid is spread over the solid surface in a thin layer. Or especially, when the solid surface is a depression where its center (central portion) is at a lower elevation than its edges.

    What the ‘triggering’ mechanisms might be we might not know. But meteorologists observe the unstable supercooled system readjusts before the atmospheric temperature cools to – 40C (- 40F). And in case of the ocean system at high latitudes, the temperatures of 2C or 3C at the bottom of a ocean seems to be a possible similar limit. So the triggering event, whatever it is, must occur before these temperature limits. Hence, these limits might be considered to be observed facts.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Rosie and other commenters of Part 1,

    I have read that Einstein stated: “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with the problem longer.”

    Rosie’s Part 2 is part of a series and what she has written in Part 2 must be completely understood by continuing to study Part 1 and maybe even add comments here at Part 1.

    Yes, Rosie, i would be disappointed if you, having revised Part 2, do not comment about the comments I made yesterday. This because I very much respect your knowledge and your ability to see.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    GrumpyOldMan

    |

    Thank you for this article Rosie
    This is probably the most intelligent approach I have seen to date – finding a way to balance the Climate Crisis science debate. This makes more sense, to actually develop a definitive model that encompasses the minds and knowledge of real climate science. The fact that you are attempting this, to me implies that there has not already been one in existence before now (and I wonder why not?)
    It is useless to have scientists banging their head against the wall in an effort to disprove the nonsense of the climate crisis cult. When the model is complete, throw it into the world with a major effort and the majority of scientists behind it.
    Enjoying your work in process and look forward to reading more…

  • Avatar

    T L Winslow

    |

    [[Enthusiasts for catastrophic climate change cannot account for the earth’s surface temperature being higher than – 18 C, (or even -40C, depending upon how one looks at the figures) and that seems to be why they invented the concept of ‘radiative forcing’, to make up the difference. Well – I would like to offer them this get-out-of-jail-free card.
    They can keep all the rest of their calculations but no longer need to break the laws of thermodynamics; instead they can drop the radiative forcing and replace it with geothermal energy and bring that surface temperature right back up to normal. I don’t know the actual figures – but, if one considers a temperature gradient from 6000C deep inside to 60C at two miles down and then up to the surface, it’s obvious that there is a lot of heat coming up.]]
    I already covered that in my free New Real Climate Science Course.

    Geothermal energy keeps Earth’s surface from freezing and not the Sun? Duh, back in the day the Earth started out molten, and slowly cooled, causing the molten portion to shrink and an insulating layer of solid rock to cap it. Earth once went through a Snowball Earth period, and geothermal energy couldn’t stop it. It would probably be all cold now if not for fission going on, but even that is declining as radioactive materials age.

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

    “The Earth’s internal thermal energy flows to the surface by conduction at a rate of 44.2 terawatts (TW), and is replenished by radioactive decay of minerals at a rate of 30 TW. These power rates are more than double humanity’s current energy consumption from all primary sources, but most of this energy flow is not recoverable. In addition to the internal heat flows, the top layer of the surface to a depth of 10 meters (33 ft) is heated by solar energy during the summer, and releases that energy and cools during the winter. Outside of the seasonal variations, the geothermal gradient of temperatures through the crust is 25–30 °C (77–86 °F) per kilometer of depth in most of the world.”-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

    “Heat flows constantly from its sources within the Earth to the surface. Total heat loss from the Earth is estimated at 44.2 TW (4.42 × 1013 Watts).. Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust] This is 0.087 watt/square meter on average (0.03 percent of solar power absorbed by the Earth), but is much more concentrated in areas where the lithosphere is thin, such as along mid-ocean ridges (where new oceanic lithosphere is created) and near mantle plumes. The Earth’s crust effectively acts as a thick insulating blanket which must be pierced by fluid conduits (of magma, water or other) in order to release the heat underneath. More of the heat in the Earth is lost through plate tectonics, by mantle upwelling associated with mid-ocean ridges. The final major mode of heat loss is by conduction through the lithosphere, the majority of which occurs in the oceans due to the crust there being much thinner and younger than under the continents.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient

    So to develop a real climate model you can fuggedabout geothermal energy as insignificant and make it all about the Sun.

    https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-the-Sun-contribute-to-global-warming/answer/TL-Winslow

    http://www.historyscoper.com/newrealclimatesciencecourse.html

Comments are closed