UN IPCC ‘Earth Energy Budget’ Exposed as Junk Science

Written by Bevan Dockery

 

Junk Science | Talking Points Memo

The UN IPCC is the international body that most governments rely on for the science of man-made global warming.

However, this organization relies on incorrect numbers calculated from the greenhouse gas theory which cause a violation of the well-established law of conservation of energy.

Below we show readers the details of the error.

Below is the cartoon from the UN IPCC 5th Assessment Report, Working Group 1, Chapter 2, Figure 2-11, page 181, illustrating their notion as to the workings of the Greenhouse Effect.

It starts with the statement of the “incoming solar TOA” of 340 W/m^2. However the accepted figure for the incoming solar radiation is about 1370 W/m^2. Their reasoning is that, as the Earth is a sphere, they are justified in dividing the incoming solar radiation by a factor of 4, being the ratio of the area of a sphere relative to a disk of the same radius without showing that averaging in this manner can produce a meaningful result.

The incoming solar radiation is shown to diminish on passing through the atmosphere to a figure of 161 W/m^2 which is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The heat generated in that surface is then shown to emit 84 W/m^2 due to evaporation, 20 W/m^2 due to sensible heat and 398 W/m^2 radiating from the heated surface, a total of 502 W/m^2 output for an input of 161 W/m^2. Clearly this is a total violation of the law of conservation of energy as no source is given for the generation of the additional energy.

It then goes on to show 342 W/m^2 arriving at the surface from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Again a clear violation of the law of conservation of energy. The flow of energy through the system cannot be greater than 161 W/m^2 and must diminish with time and distance through the system as work is done in other ways by the system.

Under this scenario, a person standing out in the open on a sunny day would not detect any warmth from the Sun as, at 161 W/m^2, it would be very cold relative to the 398 W/m^2 emanating from the surface or the 342 W/m^2 radiating down from the sky above. This is completely contrary to the warmth we all experience on standing out in the open.

To conclude, the UN IPCC proposed Greenhouse Effect violates the well established law of conservation of energy and the experience of our own senses. We have all had our trust in world leaders, politicians, bureaucrats and, sadly, scientists extinguished by the greatest fraud known to mankind. Will we ever trust them again?


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 (150)

  • Avatar

    Richard Wakefield

    |

    THANK YOU!!!!

    I have been saying this for years!!!

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    This is exactly what Joe Postma says, the greenhouse gas theory violates the laws of thermodynamics.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      And Postma is exactly correct. That’s why the GHE is NOT a “theory”. It violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. But, the GHE nonsense is impartial. It violates many other laws in other fields of physics, such as heat transfer, and quantum physics.

      The GHE nonsense is pretty much an example of universal pseudoscience.

      • Avatar

        Andy Rowlands

        |

        Yes I totally agree.

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    I try to explain these very faulty claims about the energy budget.

    Quote: “It starts with the statement of the “incoming solar TOA” of 340 W/m^2. However, the accepted figure for the incoming solar radiation is about 1370 W/m^2.” It is a simple fact that the sun shines only in the area which is one-quarter of the total area of the globe. I show this evidence: 1360/4 = 340 W/m2, 100 W/m2 is reflected and the net energy flux is 240 W/m2 divided evenly over the globe. At the same time, the globe radiates LW radiation the same amount 240 W/m2. How do you explain this? The Earth must be in energy balance all the time. If you do not accept this, it is totally waste of time to continue the conversation. All those fluxes 1360 W/m2 in and 240 W/m2 out, are observation-based.
    Quote: “Clearly this is a total violation of the law of conservation of energy as no source is given for the generation of the additional energy.” Just look at the figure. The energy fluxes are shown: incoming 161 + 342 (both based on observations) = 503 W/m2, and outgoing 398 (observed) + 84 (calculated) + 20 (estimated) = 502 W/m2. If not approved, useless to continue the discussion. How do you explain the balance?
    The heat in the atmosphere can get out from the atmosphere only by radiation: to the surface and into space.

    Everything is in place according to the laws of physics. The IPCC defines the GH effect wrongly. The correct definition gives the portion of carbon dioxide only 7 %. The IPCC basis gives 19-26%.

    • Avatar

      tom0mason

      |

      Wrong in so many ways — see my comment below.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Antero, fluxes do not balance. Earth receives 960 W/m^2, adjusted for albedo. But, Earth emits 240 W/m^2. 960 does NOT equal 240. Fluxes don’t balance. Energy balances. Flux is NOT energy. The GHE clowns try to justify the 240, to make it appear the sun is unable to heat the planet.

      And, you fall for it.

    • Avatar

      Dan Paulson

      |

      Antero you need to study what exactly a pyrgeometer is, and exactly what is measured and what is “derived”. There is no place on Earth where the 342W/m2 is an actual measured result. Measured, upwelling LWIR is more like 60W/m2.
      Both upwelling and downwelling radiation, as purported to be “measured” by instrumentation, are in fact derived from calculations, based on the SB constant.
      In simple terms, they are a fraud result of manufacturers providing exactly what the customer requests. That is a device that shows radiation from the surface and returning to the surface, that DOES NOT EXIST, except in a calculated formula.

    • Avatar

      Guy

      |

      To Antero
      You try to prove something (namely that the atmosphere is radiating 342W/m2 to the earth) using the very something you want to prove as an argument. So, you don’t prove anything.
      The question is where do the 398W/m2 from earth to atmosphere come from ?

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    Thank-you Bevan Dockery, you have written far more elegantly what I and many other have been saying for years.

    The bottom line is the SUN is the source of energy that drives our weather and climate.

    • Avatar

      tom0mason

      |

      Antero Ollila,
      “It is a simple fact that the sun shines only in the area which is one-quarter of the total area of the globe. ”
      NOT FACT! And from that point onward all you have is BS.
      Also your assertion is “The Earth must be in energy balance all the time. “ based on what observation?
      Answer me this, the ocean take up solar energy and because of the oceanic circulation may not return it mostly via the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Where’s the fracking balance in that?

      In fact observations show that the incoming solar energy may not be ‘in balance’ at any moment!
      The oceans and the atmosphere redistribute that energy loosing some in the process — some to biological processes that convert solar energy to chemical bonds, and some energy is used in oceanic circulation and for movement of air masses in the atmosphere. Much of the atmospheric energy is transferred to clouds that move atmospheric water while flipping through latent heat cycles before radiating out to space. These processes perform work and thus the solar energy is transformed into other energy types.

      Overall there is no energy balance at any moment for this planet, as solar energy is caught-up in the many natural processes of the weather/climate system and life before it exits the planet out to space. On this planet the energy in from the sun should not equal energy out at any moment, if it ever does then someone is measuring it incorrectly!

      • Avatar

        Antero Ollila

        |

        Just a short comment. No meaning to continue with these guys but hopefully, there are others, who have the basic knowledge of mathematics and physics.

        An energy balance does not mean a momentary energy balance. It is a balance over a longer period. Minimally over the period of one year – normally over 5 years.

        • Avatar

          tom0mason

          |

          And you are dismissed as someone who does not wish to know or understand how the world works (something that REAL science is all about).
          You are only interested in your absurdly reductionist suppositions. Other ideas are beyond you — you have your belief and like a parrot you are going to recite it, no matter how so distant from reality it is.
          You’re unimaginative and just another anti-science BS advocate with NOTHING to bring to the table.

        • Avatar

          tom0mason

          |

          “An energy balance does not mean a momentary energy balance. It is a balance over a longer period. Minimally over the period of one year – normally over 5 years.”
          Over 5 years? You’re more off the mark than I at first assumed.
          Tell me these little insects take solar energy for a while, they’ve build-up quite a neighborhood. How does that balance in five years?

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181120073648.htm
          Or in this paper they calculate all the ‘carbon’ locked away but no mention of the solar energy stored there. It will be there for longer than 5 years!
          https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/10/21/northern-peatlands-double-carbon/

        • Avatar

          Richard Wakefield

          |

          Based on a non rotating flat earth model. That’s what averaging does.

          • Avatar

            tom0mason

            |

            Richard Wakefield,
            Exactly!
            It is an inaccurate portrayal of the Sun-Earth system reduced to an absurdity.
            No rotation, no frozen poles, no hot equator, the sun’s energy does not warm the oceans, or maintain the weather & climate. And life does not exist by this banal cartoon because it take no energy to exist.
            Reductio ad absurdum

        • Avatar

          tom0mason

          |

          “An energy balance does not mean a momentary energy balance. It is a balance over a longer period. Minimally over the period of one year – normally over 5 years.”

          So in your view the energy balance is averaged over a short period of WEATHER (NOT CLIMATE).
          IMO that is not particularly good climate science, using short term weather data as your metric for analyzing our climate’s long term energy balance. It amount to all you have to say is that within the chaos of weather and climate variability you can not see a long term trend further than 5 years!

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Tom,

      I almost screwed up again by not reading everything I should read. I had immediately seen the same thing you read in Antero’s comment and was ready to write a comment pointing out what you had already reported

      But then I read what you have just written: “Thank-you Bevan Dockery, you have written far more elegantly what I and many other have been saying for years.”

      I ask: What have you and the many others have accomplished? Why does Bevan Dockery write the same basically same thing more elegantly than you and the many others have written for years? Is Bevan’s elegant composition finally going to solve the problem? I doubt it.

      The reason the reason that Bevan, you, and the many others have not solved the problem is that you all study the average temperature of a day, of a week, of a month, of a year, or twenty years. So, you all (Antero included) cannot see the diurnal temperature oscillation that occurs during the 24hr period of a day.

      Then you wrote to Antero: “Also your assertion is “The Earth must be in energy balance all the time. “ based on what observation?” So, contrary to Antero’s use of averaged temperatures, he must subconsciously be aware of the diurnal temperature oscillation.

      So, go to (https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/rawMAIN.pl?orOFIN) and (https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/2019/CRNH0203-2019-OR_Corvallis_10_SSW.txt) and find the 24 hours of mean hourly data for July 5, 2019. These two remote area weather stations are situated less than 100ft from each other. Various temperatures are measured during each hour and must are averaged and reported for each previous hour. Compare these temperature of the first hour and of the last hour of July 5, 2019. For you will find that temperatures of the first hour are within a degree of the last hour and most are within tenths of a degree of the first and last hours.

      Does not this comparison of these measured temperatures force one to conclude that the ‘energy in’ must almost equal ‘energy out’ during this day?

      And there are many days, but certainly not all, at many locations like this. But there are very few which have two independent automated systems together in a remote area of the USA. And the USA is the only nation which finances meteorological projects like this. And you (Tom) seem to ignore their data which I have tired to bring the attention of PSI readers just as those who designed and administrate these projects seem to ignore their project’s data.

      And I cannot explain why this valid data is being ignored by nearly everyone.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Antero Ollila

        |

        I wrote: “The Earth must be in energy balance all the time.”. It was not a good expression. That is why I explained that the energy balance figures are average vaöues over a long period- at least over one year including the seasonal variations on both hemispheres. The figures of the IPCC’s energy balance – like any other energy balance – are for a period longer than a year.

        You should think what is the purpose of the energy balance presentations but you probably do not understand that point.

        • Avatar

          Richard Wakefield

          |

          ” That is why I explained that the energy balance figures are average vaöues over a long period- at least over one year including the seasonal variations on both hemispheres.”

          Averaging is meaningless. A 48 hour rotating earth, would get much hotter during the day, and much colder at night. A 12 hour rotating earth would be a snowball. Both have the same energy balance as us, and both of those would not have life. Averaging is meaningless.

      • Avatar

        tom0mason

        |

        Hi Jerry, I am not arguing about temperatures, that is only one manifestation of energy.
        I am arguing that Antero Ollila statement “The Earth must be in energy balance all the time.” is utterly wrong!
        This planet does not have to be in energy balance for a microsecond, a minute, a day or even a century, to believe so is to underrate all the natural processes. Our natural system seeks a balance with the available resources (including solar energy) but fails as natural processes will and naturally do overrun and under-run over many time periods. That is the way the natural environment behaves.

        As I said in the beginning the oceans take up solar energy, ocean may well retain that energy in many processes, for a long time as oceanic currents (moving that energy around) run on decadal to century time scales.

        No amount of mathematical fudging (as expressed by Antero Ollila) can possibly reflect what actually happens when you are caught in a mind-set that makes you believe that “The Earth must be in energy balance all the time.”. It is just a belief and not a fact!

        • Avatar

          Richard Wakefield

          |

          If anything, the climate is like a pendulum, accumulating energy from the sun and storing it, then at a point releases more than it absorbed, only to flip again and absorb more again in cycles that could be hundreds or thousands of years. 5 years is nonsense.

          • Avatar

            tom0mason

            |

            Richard Wakefield,
            Yes! And thank-you, I’m glad to see someone gets the point.
            And when viewed as a pendulum this may be a better example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum , however in reality it probably closer to a multi-articulated version operating in 3D.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Tom,

          You concluded: “It is just a belief and not a fact” I believe that data I brought to your attention are facts and you have not addressed these facts. You seem to believe there is a world climate and when I look at a map of the world I see there many different areas which have different types of climates. This is an observed fact which you can disregard if you wish. For only you have control of what you believe.

          Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Tom,

        You state: ” I am not arguing about temperatures, that is only one manifestation of energy.”

        You asked Antero: “based on what observation?” I referred you to observations and asked you: “Does not this comparison of these measured temperatures force one to conclude that the ‘energy in’ must almost equal ‘energy out’ during this day?” Which it seems you indirectly answered: ” I am not arguing about temperatures, that is only one manifestation of energy.”

        “The Elements of Weather and Climate. The condition of the atmosphere at any time or place, i.e., the weather, is expressed by a combination of several elements, primarily (a) temperature and (b) precipitation and humidty but to a lesser degree by (c) winds and (d) air pressure as well. These four are the elements of weather and climate because they are the ingredients of which various weather and climatic types are compounded.” (Physical Elements of Geography by Vernor C. Finch and Glenn T. Trewartha,1949)

        So what are your observations of these other manifestation of energy? But first you need to inform me and other PSI readers of what are these other manifestations of energy that you can ignore, by averaging the temperature of a 24hr period, the diurnal oscillation of atmosphere temperature and the earth’s surface (the principal emitter of energy toward space) temperature .

        Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      John Elliston

      |

      TomOmason you say “The bottom line is the SUN is the source of energy that drives our weather and climate”. You are right of course but your comment would be more informative if that sentence read “The bottom line is the SUN is the source of energy that drives our weather and climate and not increasing trace levels of CO2 in the atmosphere”.
      Please see Postma and https://principia-scientific.org/top-aussie-scientist-reveals-un-ipcc-greenhouse-gas-errors/ on this website.
      JOHN ELLISTON

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    Quote: “Under this scenario, a person standing out in the open on a sunny day would not detect any warmth from the Sun as, at 161 W/m^2, it would be very cold relative to the 398 W/m^2 emanating from the surface or the 342 W/m^2 radiating down from the sky above. This is completely contrary to the warmth we all experience of standing out in the open.”

    This statement means that the blogger really does not understand that the insolation does not radiate evenly over the globe. The values of yellow arrows are related to solar insolation and the actual radiation values that an average human person (standing at the average point of the latitude and longitude) receives by standing on the surface of the Earth are four times greater. Thus 161 W/m2 radiating on the surface is four times greater = 4 * 161 = 624 W/m2. It is much more than 342 W/m2 emitted by the atmosphere. I hope that you noticed that the atmosphere radiates on average 342 W/m2 evenly at every spot on the Earth. There is also a decisive difference in these radiations: a human being is much sensitive in detecting (feeling) shortwave radiation than longwave radiation.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Antero, your lack of understanding is hilarious.

      You can’t average flux! A flat BB surface absorbing 1000 W/m^2 has an equilibrium temperature of 364 K. The same surface absorbing 300 W/m^2 has an equilibrium temperature of 270 K. The average of 1000 and 300 is 650 W/m^2, which has an equilibrium temperature of 327K. But, the average of the first two temperatures (364 and 270) is 317 K.

      So, which is correct, 327 K or 317 K?

      • Avatar

        WhoKoo

        |

        Hi Geran. Voltaire would be proud. Now where did the emperor leave his other set of clothes? The opaque ones.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Obviously you know the answer. Go ahead, make my day!

          So, which is correct, 327 K or 317 K?

          • Avatar

            WhoKoo

            |

            Hi Geran. I was thanking and congratulating you and suggesting the other gentleman an emperor. I like learning. (email ain’t conversation and is the biggest cause of silo culture)
            A serious question though.
            I am not a scientist but try to interpret physics and science in everyday world analogy.
            “A colder object cannot warm a warmer object.”
            I think of this as two boxers (pugilists) only able to throw punches between chest and chin.
            One boxer throws punches at a rate of two hundred punches a minute while the other boxer only throws punches at 20 punches a minute therefore all his punches are deflected but the higher frequency boxer is landing punches.
            Therefore cold cannot warm hot.
            Is that hilarious or a reasonable analogy?
            Kind regards. WhoKoo (Matt Holl)

    • Avatar

      Richard Wakefield

      |

      ” I hope that you noticed that the atmosphere radiates on average 342 W/m2 evenly at every spot on the Earth.”

      Hence a non-rotating flat disk. The Sahara is one of the hottest day time temps, but at night get’s colder, freezing, than we do here in the summer in Canada. The planet is too complex to simplify it with averages.

  • Avatar

    Alan

    |

    Why is this being churned out again? The IPCC, the politicians and school teachers cannot do the maths anymore, or think rationally about what this diagram means. Greta says look at the science, try explaining it to her. She will not be interest because she and her mother earth zombies do not want their beliefs challenged.

    The proof that back radiation does not exit can be seen on any cold or snowy day. Frost and snow is the shade is not melted by back radiation, only the sun melts it.

  • Avatar

    rod

    |

    Too often it seems that you guys are at each other’s throats. You argue over which end of the egg to crack, while all the while, the fox is in the hen house. You are proud members of a sniping roundtable where little is accomplished, nothing constructive is being done to end the Grand Fallacy. And as you argue about whether IPCC considers Earth to be flat concerning insolation, or whether or not there is an average temperature, or what does or doesn’t violate ideal gas law, Earth careens toward a cold destination.

    You don’t know who Kathy Castor is. And she doesn’t know who you are. So it’s mutual. Tie base, right? Except, not quite. While you seek to make intellectual points, she seeks to make policy. In full, she’s Representative Kathy Castor, US House of Representatives. And she’s got her very own taxpayer funded playpen in which she builds castles of sand. It’s called “The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.”

    And while you seek to destroy each other’s point of view as though it were Bolsheviks versus Mensheviks, she holds meetings among her acolytes and peers in the US and around the world to resurrect the Paris Climate Accord and snuff out that dangerous “pollutant”, carbon dioxide.

    And she can get away with doing that and keep a clear conscience because she is scientifically challenged. But she has a gavel. And that makes things extra bad. If it weren’t for cherries and apples, she probably couldn’t tell you what pi is, and neither could anyone else in her office, or practically the whole Congress for that matter.

    So instead of trying to take each other out at 1200 meters with your whiz-bang precision sniper rifles, turn your intellectual weaponry around and face Congress. They’re the real enemy, not yourselves. Contact her and her committee members. They probably won’t enjoy hearing from you.

    https://castor.house.gov/

    [Washington Office… the more important office among the two]
    2052 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515
    Phone: (202) 225-3376
    Fax: (202) 225-5652

    Office Hours: 9 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.

    [Tampa Office]
    4144 N. Armenia Ave.
    Suite 300
    Tampa, FL 33607
    Phone: (813) 871-2817
    Fax: (813) 871-2864

    Office Hours: 8:30 a.m. – 5 p.m.

    • Avatar

      Slick

      |

      100% agree Rod. These guys have the smarts to make a dent in the swamp of horse sh*t that the decision makers are struggling in.
      A common goal of bombarding govt reps with facts over and over again until they get the message is called for.
      But I notice your comment was skipped over pretty quickly in favour of more bickering.

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    It is clear from what the UN-IPCC says that none of this greening of the planet reported here https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth, (and all the insects and animals that now depend on it) takes any energy for according to the IPCC energy budget calculations — it’s always in balance with all parameters even for life have fixed values.

    Also of course, there are no natural processes that convert energy from one form to another. No heat to kinetic, or mechanical energy, solar energy to chemical energy, or mechanical energy, or ionization energy of an atom, or … well if there are the IPCC and all their overpaid scientist agree that they don’t amount to much.
    So next time you dig that very deep hole just realize that those layers of sand, clay, organic matter, etc., never took any energy from the ‘Earth’s energy balance’ to get there.

    The takeaway message from the UN-IPCC is that aggregated increases in life requires no energy to exist because only the processes they list are required and it will always balance.
    Dilute the sun’s output and downgrade nature’s use of it, and all the figures fit, eh?

    • Avatar

      Finn McCool

      |

      Very eloquently said Tom.
      Entropy from starlight.

  • Avatar

    John Harrison

    |

    Rod. Very well said. I sometimes despair on reading the bickering which goes on between comments. The worst thing of all is the overall willingness to believe that all scientists who support the GHG hypothesis are so dumb that they know nothing about the Laws of Thermodynamics and so can thus easily dismissed. The diagram is not thermodymically impossible. The energy entering the system is equal to that exiting. The energy absorbed by the atmosphere is balanced by the energy leaving it. The energy absorbed by the Earth’s surface is equal to the energy leaving it. Do some of these commentators believe the scientists at the IPCC are so dumb they would present a system which didn’t balance. Lesson No.1 in any dispute is never so seriously underestimate the basic intelligence or capabilities of the opposition as I see happening so frequently when the Earth’s energy budget is debated here. Much of the above discussion is merely presenting ammunition for the opposition to shoot us down. Trying to present the opposition as being idiots is unwise, a large number of them, however are expert in the art of deception.

    • Avatar

      Richard Wakefield

      |

      The best response to those who accept that cartoon is that it is a non-rotating flat disk. A 48 hour rotation, a 12 hour rotation would also have the exact same averages and balance. But those two earths would not be hospitable to life. Averages are meaningless, and lose detail. Balancing the energy doesnt mean CO2 is heating the planet. It cant. CO2 is not a heat source. It cant increase the temperature of anything.

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    You mess up everything: energy balances and warming effect of CO2. It is impossible to have any reasonable conversation.

    • Avatar

      tom0mason

      |

      “It is impossible to have any reasonable conversation.”

      Back to the drawing board maybe? Or are you so incurious and satisfied to just parrot the UN-IPCC non-science.
      Hint: Are there no processes on this good Earth that takes sunlight at one frequency and converts it into another frequency apart from CO2? Or are you so irrational as to think CO2 is unique at performing this?
      I only have to look at a fluorescent bulb to see UV being converted to visible light. Just some minerals converting high energy UV to lower visible frequencies. Just some simple minerals.

      • Avatar

        Antero Ollila

        |

        If You have read my earlier blog stories, you have noticed that my scientific results are not the same as the IPCC: For example GH effect definition: 7 % versus 26 %, and TCS 0.6 C versus 1.8 C. I am against the IPCC scientific results based on my own research results but I use the proven scientific methods and real physics

  • Avatar

    Jonas

    |

    Welcome this article. I agree that it is just crap, but it is the base for the alarmist “settled science”.

    A few things; why is the Suns incoming IR-radiation not re-radiated ? It is absorbed ?!
    Earths IR is absorbed and re-radiated. By analogy, there should be a big arrow with IR re-radiated into space (about 150 W/m2). If one let suns IR to be re-radiated – the whole model will become absurd, since you have to increse the atmospheres re-radiation of earth IR, but that will also increse the atmosphers re-radiation of suns IR and so on…
    Where does value 342 for re-radiation come from ?? My understanding is that it is a balance value from a faulty calculation. They calculate incoming, and outgoing – and there is a mismatch of 342 W/m2. That is the fantastic proof.
    Personally, I think there is something wrong in their calculation. Where are the measurments validating this 342W/m2.
    I remeber a beautiful experiment presented in this blog. They held up an ice cube so the pyrometer saw the ice cube and the sky. The ice cube should look cold relative to this 342 W/m2 flux. It did not ! = there is no 342 W/m2 from the atmosphere.

  • Avatar

    Rupert

    |

    You discredit yourselves talking about flat earth theory, as much as you do by not understanding the 2nd Law and repeating the same nonsense. It’s just plain embarrassing and detracts from any genuinely credit-worthy observations you make.. Thus nobody will take PSI seriously, and call it Pseudoscience International.
    “Their reasoning is that, as the Earth is a sphere, they are justified in dividing the incoming solar radiation by a factor of 4, being the ratio of the area of a sphere relative to a disk of the same radius without showing that averaging in this manner can produce a meaningful result.”
    This is NEVER inferred anywhere but here. It is simply the maximal incidence on half a sphere and the average flux incidence of 45 degree (0 to 90 degree) on that hemisphere. Hence / 4.
    Get the basics right and people might take you more seriously.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Rupert, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      The GHE nonsense both attempts to make Earth flat, and violates the 2nd Law. That’s why it’s pseudoscience.

      Joseph Postma used their own method to discredit them. Instead of dividing by 4, he only divided by 2, considering the average flux to each hemisphere. That results in a much more realistic value for Earth’s temperature, and does not require any magic heating from CO2. His paper was rejected by the American Meteorological Society! They rejected their own method, because it showed CO2 was not a factor.

      Your statement is completely wrong: ”It is simply the maximal incidence on half a sphere and the average flux incidence of 45 degree (0 to 90 degree) on that hemisphere. Hence / 4.”

      The divide-by-4 comes from the fact that a sphere has 4 times the area of a disk. Angles are not involved in the calculation.

  • Avatar

    John Harrison

    |

    Rupert. You echo my sentiments exactly. PSI could be a force to be reckoned with and does an excellent job of disseminating interesting papers and articles but constant talk of victory laps, flat Earth, contravention of LoT, ill-conceived experiments that “disprove back radiation”, are a total waste of time and effort, a complete misdirection. The above article should not have passed a half-way decent review process and just look at the resulting cacophony in comments. If this is the best we can do climate skepticism is doomed.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Harrison, PSI is a “force to be reckoned with”. Articles like this, and the resulting efforts to discredit it, reveal the lack of science among the Warmists and phony Skeptics.

      • Avatar

        Everybodyknows

        |

        No Geran. The moment you throw accusations about “phoney skeptics” about you pull up the drawbridge of reason. Covering your earls and going la la will not change the physics. You’ll be claiming that a cooler body can’t increase the temperature of a warmer body next!

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          That was not an accusation. It’s reality.

          Everybody recognizes you phony Skeptics because you try to protect the GHE nonsense, but all you do is expose your lack of the relevant physics.

  • Avatar

    Everybodyknows

    |

    I’m with John Harrison and Antero Ollila on this. It’s a dumb article; misrepresenting and misunderstanding the simplest physics. The claim that you “can’t average fluxes, you can only average energy” is only true if the fluxes relate to different areas: For example if you tried to average the nighttime flux from land with that from the sea you would get the wrong answer as there is much more area of sea than land. However, the fluxes in the IPCC model are global, so they can be averaged.

    The failure to understand how dividing by 4 is valid is embarrassing, as is Postma’s silly hemispherical model which ignores night time radiation fluxes.

    The only valid point I can see from these pseudo scientists is that a “proper” model should not be steady state. And indeed the day/night temperature differences as well as variations in temperature with latitude are important for understanding climate (as temperature differences drive weather). However, that in no way undermines the energy budget which is correctly modelled by the IPCC.

    PSI would do better putting its efforts into almost almost any other aspect of climate alarmism, but should steer clear from these fundamental physics challenges (including the ridiculous ideal gas equation arguments presented in previous posts) – they always end up with egg on their face, and making enemies of many well meaning potential allies.

    • Avatar

      Barry

      |

      Averages are of no value in any science or engineering platform.. If you want your two room house to be a comfortable 20 and your hvac company gives you one room at 10 and one room at 30 I expect you would be very comfortable in either. Energy and temp are real things with real values they are not the average of some imaginary idea of how the world works. Get your head screwed on right. This from an uneducated lay person

      • Avatar

        Everybodyknows

        |

        “ Averages are of no value in any science or engineering platform”

        Thank you for making my point.

        • Avatar

          Barry

          |

          Sorry I thought you were saying that it was good science to average the incoming solar by dividing by four. When everyone knows you shouldn’t or you would only have the sun heating the earth up to minus 18.

          • Avatar

            Everybodyknows

            |

            You made my point by stating an absurdity. Averages are used in very fundamental science such as the average kinetic energy of particles in an ideal gas as per the ideal gas equation. Heat flow is the average (or net) exchange of quantised energy between two bodies. Half life of radionuclides is the average time for half the sample to decay etc etc.

      • Avatar

        Rupert

        |

        Averages have their place with statistics – especially variables that change over time or place. Not useful for precision engineering bolts, but quality assurance of bolts will reference average sizes within tolerances. Averages are also useful to measure deviations over time about the average, such as average daily temperature, which is a function of incident radiation over time. How else would you do it without integrating/reporting over every point in time, all the time?
        e.g. insulation increases a cooling objects average temperature – by specific amounts over a cooling period and depending how good the insulation is. The average temperature of a cooling insulated body will reflect how good the insulator is. This does not “break the 2nd Law” as some here persist in thinking, similar to the back-radiation effect. Averages are perfectly useful for specific tasks – especially replacing time dependent integrals as simpler but still valid metrics. One should always be careful of sample size, and the data distribution obviously.

        • Avatar

          Barry

          |

          Thanks Rupert, that is my point put better than I, certainly averages are very useful for some things such as your example of the bolt within tolerance. Once you have decided on the level of tolerance you can average the in between but you would not start the design with an average. This is however exactly what the IPCC do with their climate model to get rid of the suns influence on earth.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Rupert, where did you get the idea that insulation violated 2nd law?

          And averaging has its place, but not in attempting to average flux. Averaging different fluxes is like trying to average the temperature of a glass of water and a glass of air. It’s meaningless, except in pseudoscience.

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      Everybodyknows:
      . . . day/night temperature differences as well as variations in temperature with latitude are important for understanding climate (as temperature differences drive weather).

      James McGinn:
      I agree. Moreover, this is a topic that harbors a lot of mystery. And it would be a lot more interesting than this continual obsession with thermodynamics. Meteorology has been lying to us a lot longer than climatology.
      Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmosphere
      https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17125

      James McGinn / Genius

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Everyone,

    How is it that Aristotle got several, most fundamental ideas about the physical earth-atmosphere-solar system totally wrong? How is it that these most fundamental wrong physical ideas persisted as the ‘correct’ ideas for about 2000 years?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      Jerry:
      How is it that these most fundamental wrong physical ideas persisted as the ‘correct’ ideas for about 2000 years?

      James:
      it seems like you are asking why humans are so gullible and prone to group delusion.

      I could ask you why you believe moist air contains gaseous (not liquid droplets) of H2O even though it is plainly obvious that the temperature is below the boiling temperature of H2O and there is no evidence that positively confirms that moisture in ambient air is gaseous. You don’t know why you believe this. You just believe it. Or, I should say, you believe it because others believe it. Isn’t this the case?

      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

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi James,

        Have you seen dew form? I assume your answer is: Yes. Does it form from your minute droplets of 10 to 25 molecules of liquid water? I cannot assume what your answer might be. So, I will wait for your answer.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Jerry:
          Does it form from your minute droplets of 10 to 25 molecules of liquid water?

          James:
          Yes, obviously. (How could you possibly assume I would answer negatively?)

          You have nothing to say, Jerry.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi James,

          Can you explain how, or why, these minute droplets of 10 to 25 water molecules, which certainly cannot be seen until far larger, would ever form on a dry surface just because the surface had just cooled to the dew point of water vapor when the droplets were already liquid water?

          Maybe the my reason for asking the questions is not good. Maybe I should have first asked: Do you believe there is a latent energy involved in the transition of a liquid (state) to a gas (state) regardless of what the gas state might be?

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Can you explain how, or why, these minute droplets of 10 to 25 water molecules, which certainly cannot be seen until far larger, would ever form on a dry surface just because the surface had just cooled to the dew point of water vapor when the droplets were already liquid water?

            Well, actually they are not liquid. Because of the surface tension of water in conjunction with the fact thay smaller droplets are mostly surface, they are more like oueces of ice. They are hard, not liquidy but still categorically in the phase of being liquid.

            Small h2o droplets stay small because the are under constant bombardment from air molecules going hundreds of miles an hour.

            Lower the pressure and temperature and droplets begin to maintain larger and larger sizes

            Jerry, you suffer from a static view of molecular reality. You also have no understanding whatsoever of the electromagnetic elasticity of h2o..

            James McGinn / Genius

          • Avatar

            James MxGinn

            |

            Do you believe there is a latent energy involved in the transition of a liquid (state) to a gas (state) regardless of what the gas state might be?

            JMcG:
            Hell no. Its meaningless psycho-babble.

            Also storms are not caused by convection. They are caused by vortice activity. And there is no such thing as dry layer capping.

            Meteorology is bogus.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi PSI Folks.

            Jerry: “Do you believe there is a latent energy involved in the transition of a liquid (state) to a gas (state) regardless of what the gas state might be?”

            JMcG: “Hell no. Its meaningless psycho-babble.”

            I cannot understand when I put a kettle of water on a stove burner and set the burner at High that the temperature of the water will not rise above 100C (212F) or so until the water is nearly all vaporized.

            James, where is the energy of the burner going?

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Jerry:
            James, where is the energy of the burner going?

            James
            It is mostly lost into the atmosphere. It is neither conserved or gaseous.

            You know all of this Jerry. You just need to apply what you know.

            James McGinn / Genius

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi PSI Folks,

        My answer to my question, “How is it that Aristotle got several, most fundamental ideas about the physical earth-atmosphere-solar system totally wrong?”, is: They reasoned and argued and did not observe what they could have observed. Does this seem to be familiar practice today here at PSI?

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Jerry:
          They reasoned and argued

          James:
          Likewise, you reason and argue your way into believing that boiled water magically remains gaseous in the much cooler atmosphere at temperatures well below its known boiling temperature/pressure and it magically conserves energy, despite it being common knowledge that gaseous H2O has a low heat capacity.

          James McGinn / Genius

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Jerry:
          My answer to my question, “How is it that Aristotle got several, most fundamental ideas about the physical earth-atmosphere-solar system totally wrong?”, is: They reasoned and argued and did not observe what they could have observed.

          James:
          My answer is that they made the same error that you are making They used observation instead of experimentation. This leaves them with no immunity to confirmation bias.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi James,

          Please refresh my memory for I cannot remember you ever describing an experiment and its result that you or anyone has done.”

          I have referred to many measurements, and there results, that have been done with some of the better instruments available

          Galileo, with his telescope, observed that Venus had phases just as the Earth’s moon did. He saw that as Venus was nearing its full Venus phase it was going to past behind the Sun and then after this passage he saw it again as it waned toward its new Venus phase as it pasted between the Sun and the Earth.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            I assume from your comments that you have completely forgotten the experiments by Dr. Pollack showing that water in the atmosphere is a liquid crystal with two melting points not, a vapor.
            Have a good day, Herb

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Herb,

            Have you, or anyone else, reproduced Dr. Pollack’s experimental results. When James proposes ‘custers’ water particles of 10 to 25 water molecules these particles are so small that I would be interested how Dr. Pollack observes them in the earth’s atmosphere. And I certainly do not have any idea how they could be observed outside of one’s imagination. The same goes for Jame’s claim of the properties of these particles of variable composition.

            When the water droplets get much, much larger we do see clouds but we still can not directly see with our eyes the tiny droplets of clouds as we can see the even much, much larger rain droplets or even the tiny ice needles of snow flakes composed of many, many water molecules.

            Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    As a final comment. The energy budget presentation of the IPCC is from Wild et al. (2013). The other similar presentations are very close to each other and the error margins of fluxes are inside the measurement accuracies. Energy budgets are probably the most correct science in the whole IPCC report. The blogger selected the wrong target if he wanted to challenge the IPCC science. The blogger just shows that he has no basic knowledge of climate change science and physics, I am sorry.

    Anyway, there is a point, that has not been shown in Figure and it is connected to the grand error of the IPCC science. It is the missing LW absorption value of 155 W/m2. The IPCC’s GH effect definition is that that this absorption energy is capable to radiate LW radiation of 342 W/m2 to the surface. Now the blogger could ask how this is possible. It is against the real physical laws that energy can be created from the void but that what the IPCC’s definition means. Probably, therefore, the IPCC does not want to show this figure, because some real physicist could notice the problem.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Antero,
      One of the problems with all these diagrams is they show the Earth radiating energy at the same rate as absorbing energy. The energy from the sun penetrates adding energy to a volume (Including the atmosphere where uv is absorbed by N2 and O2). Energy is radiated from a surface where energy must be lost from one level before lower levels can begin to lose energy. The thermosphere must radiate its heat into space (and to the lower atmosphere at the same time) before any energy from “cooler” molecules can lose energy. Because the sun is heating a volume but the Earths radiating an area the rate and amount of energy being absorbed and radiated are different with lower levels retaining energy.
      Herb

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Antero, flux doesn’t balance, unless you find some way to cheat, like dividing-by-4. That’s why the IPCC is such an easy target. Some people just cannot learn the very basics.

      • Avatar

        Norman

        |

        Geran

        Fluxes either balance (incoming W/m^2} or you will have a temperature change of warming or cooling. To maintain a steady state temperture the flux in has to balance the flux out. There is no other logic that would work.

      • Avatar

        Norman

        |

        Geran

        Fluxes either balance (incoming W/m^2} or you will have a temperature change of warming or cooling. To maintain a steady state temperture the flux in has to balance the flux out. There is no other logic that would work.

        • Avatar

          Chris

          |

          Most of the heat lost from earth to space is through conduction not radiation.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Chris,
            All the heat lost by the Earth into space is by radiation. The molecules in space are too few and the collusions to rare for there ever to be effective transfer of energy by conduction. The thermosphere, where the molecules have greater kinetic energy than anywhere else on Earth, is the area absorbing the most intense radiation from the sun during the day and radiating energy into space at night. Before lower layers of the atmosphere can radiate energy they must stop having energy being radiated to the by the more energetic molecules above them.
            You are wrong about a thermometer not recording a higher temperature when placed between two heaters. The thermometer was designed and calibrated for use in liquids where the entire area designed to absorb energy would be exposed to molecules transferring energy (through collisions/conduction). when you have only one side exposed to a heater only half the thermometer is receiving heat, just as only half the Earth is receiving heat from the sun. When you put it between two heat sources both sides are receiving heat.
            It is the same reason that a thermometer does not give an accurate reading of the kinetic energy of a gas. Instead of 1000 molecules in a liquid transferring energy to 1000 molecules on the thermometer and then those molecules transferring heat away from the thermometer you have one molecule transferring heat to 1000 molecules on the thermometer and the same 1000 molecules transferring heat away from the thermometer.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Chris

            |

            Hi Herb, you’re right that the therm will show higher than just one. My primary point is only that the radiant heat will not sum.

  • Avatar

    Brian James

    |

    Feb 12, 2020 Universe Science | The Truth Ties Everything Together

    PLASMA COSMOLOGY: We do a new video every day updating the science, and the activity of the earth and sun.

    https://youtu.be/zsfDQJyMNfU

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    From http://21sci-tech.com/articles/ocean.html
    Note of NASA research —

    (1) The world ocean has exhibited coherent changes of heat content during the past 50 years, resulting in a net warming.

    [In fact as H.H. Lamb noted warming and cooling had been going on for very much longer. Effectively causing radiative disequilibrium at the points of transition. ]

    (2) There is no determination whether the observed warming is caused by natural variability or anthropogenic (man-induced) forcing.


    (3) The warming supports the contentions of global-climate modellers that the planetary radiative disequilibrium, for the period of 1979 to 1996, may be the result of “excess heat accumulating in the ocean.”

    [Because the energy balance did not balance! Arguments from ignorance say the heat is in the oceans without evidence. Oops, If it ain’t in the oceans Tremberth’s silly cartoon MUST be wrong! ]

    (4) Sea-surface temperatures have had two distinct warming periods over the past century; from 1920 to 1940, then a cooling period until the second warming began in the 1970s.

    [ Oh no, the 1920-1940 period has now been diminished/excised from modern records ]

    (5) In each period of warming, an increase in the ocean’s heat content preceded the observed warming of the sea-surface temperatures. The NOAA scientists concluded that it could be the result of natural variability, or anthropogenic effects, or more likely both.

    [more likely both? There is no evidence of that! Also note NASA say periods of warming will warm the oceans. When will that warmth get to ‘balance’ the radiative equilibrium of the planet?]

    (6) It was speculated that the extreme warmth of the world ocean during the mid-1990s was caused by (a) the multi-decadal warming of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and (b) a positive polarity in a possible bidecadal oscillation of the Pacific Ocean heat content.

    [when the ‘Energy Balance’ was again in radiative disequilibrium?]

    (7) And a final point, regarding the large change in Atlantic heat storage at depths exceeding 300 meters: The convection in the Labrador Sea, by mixing the ocean through a 2,000-meter-deep water column, may keep sea-surface temperature changes relatively small, despite a large heat flux from ocean to atmosphere. Such convection must be addressed, especially when anthropogenic forcing is being considered.

    [Nice theory, call yourselves scientists? MEASURE IT! ]

    Note –[ My comments ]

  • Avatar

    John Elliston

    |

    TomOmason you say “The bottom line is the SUN is the source of energy that drives our weather and climate”. You are right of course but your comment would be more informative if that sentence read “The bottom line is the SUN is the source of energy that drives our weather and climate and not increasing trace levels of CO2 in the atmosphere”.
    Please see Postma and https://principia-scientific.org/top-aussie-scientist-reveals-un-ipcc-greenhouse-gas-errors/ on this website.
    JOHN ELLISTON

    • Avatar

      tom0mason

      |

      I agree, you are completely correct on this.

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Geran

    You posted your ignorance above and think it is clever.

    YOU: “Antero, your lack of understanding is hilarious.

    You can’t average flux! A flat BB surface absorbing 1000 W/m^2 has an equilibrium temperature of 364 K. The same surface absorbing 300 W/m^2 has an equilibrium temperature of 270 K. The average of 1000 and 300 is 650 W/m^2, which has an equilibrium temperature of 327K. But, the average of the first two temperatures (364 and 270) is 317 K.

    So, which is correct, 327 K or 317 K?”

    You certainly can average fluxes! The flux unit that is used: ” irradiance is the radiant flux (power) received by a surface per unit area. The SI unit of irradiance is the watt per square metre (W·m-2″

    You are attempting to average things that are not connected in a linear fashion. Flux and temperature are related in an exponential way so you can’t average these values and the scientists are NOT doing this so your point is a phony Strawman argument.

    If you have a surface area of a hypothetical blackbody with super conducting properties that is 100 meters squared. You have a flux of 1000 watts/m^2 heating half the surface. The surface will receive a total of 50,000 watts (joules/second). With good conducting this energy will spread over the entire surface and you will end with the surface emitting 500 watts/m^2. It would be the same if you had 500 m/^2 heating the entire surface.

    You make the claim over an over that fluxes do not add or average and yet you cannot give one source of valid physics that agrees with your claims. You have done this as long as I have seen your posts. You make endless claims and support none of them.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      So, which is correct Norman, 327 K or 317 K?

      Your desperate attempts to pretend you know physics are always hilarious.

      More please.

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Geran

    Basically you totally ignored what I posted. Pointless.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Agreed Norman, your comments are always ignorable and pointless.

      I see you’ve started your thread bombing. You’ll likely be here all day, spewing your hilarious pseudoscience.

      More please.

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Geran

    Flux as used in Climate Science (watts/m^2) can be averaged, added and subtracted.

    You have energy joules. You have a time component seconds and you have an area (which is constant). If you have two fluxes reaching a surface you can directly add how many joules that surface will receive. If it is a blackbody it will absorb all this energy.

    If you have a 1000 W/m^2 flux reaching a one meter blackbody surface it will absorb 1000 joules of energy per second, how much it emits will depend on its temperature.

    If you have 1000 W/m^2 flux reaching it as well as a second source of energy at 500 W/m^2 you will have 1500 joules per second being absorbed. It really is that simple.

    When you posted on Roy Spencer numerous posters tried to explain this to you but you could not “get it”. If you have one light on in room, the room gets illuminated to some degree. If you keep turning on lights the room gets brighter, your eyes capture more photons because there are more of them moving about,

    Please show the source of your repeated nonsense that fluxes do not add. The PSI crowd waits in anticipation for you to provide some evidence (science) to go with your declarations. Saying what you think is true does not make it so, repeating it hundreds of times on blogs does not magically make a false notion true.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Norman, flux as used in Climate Science (watts/m^2) can NOT be averaged, added and subtracted.

      That’s why they end up with the wrong values, and have the sky heating the planet. Pure pseudoscience!

      Your example of turning on a second light in a room indicates you don’t even understand the simple situation. Equal light bubs emit equal flux. So adding a second light helps to make up for the inverse-square reduction. You have zero understanding of the relevant physics. Hilarious.

      More please.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      I see poor Norman has violated the terms of his suspension. He was supposed to not comment here for 90 days. It’s only been about 60 days. Maybe poor Norman can’t count that high?

      https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/#comment-30283

      Now he’s back still trying to add flux, just like he used to try at Spencer’s.

      Nothing new.

      Low, thick cloud cover this morning, rain predicted.

      Directly overhead ==> 28.4 ºF
      Ground (shade) ==> 50.5 ºF

      The sky is NOT warming the ground. But, clowns like Norman believe “cold” warms “hot”.

      • Avatar

        Norman

        |

        JDHuffman

        You do not grasp entropy and it is pointless to explain it to you. I gave you valid links to help you understand the concept but you were not able to understand the ideas. You do not understand flux and neither does Geran.

        Geran ignores the request. You will as well. Provide a link to valid science that makes the claim that fluxes (watts/m^2) do not add. Neither of you can provide the evidence and when asked to ignore the request and babble on with pointless comments that contain no useful information.

        JDHuffman the sky and the Sun will warm the ground to a higher temperature than the Sun alone can do. It is actual science. Your nonsense is made up pseudoscience that you refuse to support with any valid physics.

        • Avatar

          chris

          |

          Radiant heat doesn’t add. No one can show you what doesn’t exist. You will have to show us how this happens. If I put two radiant heaters facing each other with a thermometer between them will the thermometer show the two added together or will it show the hotter of the two?

        • Avatar

          chris

          |

          Radiant heat doesn’t add. No one can show you what doesn’t exist. If I were to put two radiant heaters facing each other with a thermometer between them will the temp be the sum of the two or the greater of the two?

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Chris

            Try it I think you will find the temperature does go up and the radiant energy adds. Someone on this blog did just such an experiment a few years back with two thermal lamps. With one on the thermometer temperature reached a steady state. When he turned on the other lamp the thermometer went up higher. I think his experiment rejects your notion.

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Norman, you haven’t changed. You still believe that if you can pound it out on your keyboard, then it must be true. But, that’s not reality. You live in your dreamworld, unsupported by science. You can’t learn.

          I explained how the false solution to the plates decreased entropy, without adding new energy, violating the 2LoT. Everyone else understood it. But, you still can’t. You can’t even understand the links you find. You have no understanding of electromagnetic flux, and had never heard of the Poynting vector until I mentioned it. Your only response was to claim that I didn’t understand it! Once again, if you pound something on your keyboard, you believe it must be true. You live in a fantasy of your own making.

          Nothing new.

          And, as I stated, you still believe “cold” warms “hot”.

          Now, pound on your keyboard all you want. But I probably won’t respond to your uneducated, pseudoscience fantasies.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            You have a very strong case of Projection Your own failings are what you put on others.

            What you accuse me of: “Norman, you haven’t changed. You still believe that if you can pound it out on your keyboard, then it must be true. But, that’s not reality. You live in your dreamworld, unsupported by science. You can’t learn.”

            That is exactly you. First the entropy DOES not decrease with the plates. I linked you to more than one valid science link that showed your error. Your brilliant response was not to acknowledge the links, your response was a poor attempt to discredit me and not deal with the reality that you are wrong. Also you are always adding NEW energy to the plates. If everyone understood your ideas it is sad for them indicating not only you but many posters on this blog are not scientifically literate but post as if they were.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            To be clear neither you nor Geran has provided any supporting evidence for you claims that fluxes do not add. I am waiting but the evidence will NEVER come. You are never able to support your ideas. Also you still have no clue about Poynting Vectors. I did read up on them and found you are full of it. You researched a word and used it on Roy’s blog to attempt to impress people that don’t know physics. It has nothing at all to do with fluxes adding or not, it tells the direction EM waves will propagate through space.

            From this link explain how Poynting Vectors determine fluxes do not add.

            https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~mevans/em/lec14.pdf

          • Avatar

            Chris

            |

            Hi Norm, that’s a hasty conclusion. The reason why the temp is a little higher is one side isn’t losing much energy now. So if they summed then the temp would rise beyond the sum of the two. The therm has a problem, it doesn’t get to the actual temp of just one when heated by only one heater. The rate of cooling will allow it to only reach a certain amount. Add a second heater changes the dynamic.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Wrong again, Norman. In fact, since the link you found proves you wrong, and me right, you are uproariously WRONG!

            As I’ve explained numerous times, flux is not a scalar. Fluxes can not be simply added, subtracted, averaged.

            You can’t understand your link, but look at equation 4. That is the Poynting vector, S. It is the cross product of the electric and magnetic field vectors. Electromagnetic flux is a vector. Fluxes can not be simply added, subtracted, averaged. I remember once giving you the eigenvalues for two fluxes and asking you to add them. You wisely ignored the issue.

            Now get back to your never-ending pounding on your keyboard. There’s no reason for you to try to learn anything when you live in your own fantasy world.

            Nothing new.

    • Avatar

      chris

      |

      The amount of joules present will only indicate how fast the object can reach temp equilibrium with the hotter object. The second object cannot become hotter than the first. If you bring in a second object that is hotter than 1 object so that there are two objects that are hotter than one object then the joules will add to bring the temp of the colder object up faster. It will not get hotter than the hottest object. Otherwise, the system here will continue to increase in temp. No combination of objects can combine to increase the temp of a third even hotter than either of the other two objects.

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Jerry:
    Please refresh my memory for I cannot remember you ever describing an experiment and its result that you or anyone has done.”

    James:
    The H2O phase diagram was, I believe, determined by experimental evidence. It fails to confirm the existence of your magical cold steam.

    Apparently you really believe the physical properties of H2O change when water is suspended in the atmosphere? Why?

    Jerry:
    I have referred to many measurements

    James:
    Relevance?

    Jerry:
    , and there results, that have been done with some of the better instruments available

    James:
    More evidence that you are deluding yourself with confirmation bias. Remember what Feinman said about being aware that the person that is easiest to fool is oneself. You are fooling yourself into believing that it is okay to ignore that H2O phase diagram and the experimental evidence that underlies it.

    James McGinn / Genius

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    Basic radiation course for those who want to learn basic principles of radiation. I already know that “physics deniers” are not able to learn because they are fixed to their own laws of physics and they deny the real laws which have been well-known and also tested by the real-world observations.

    Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot”), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

    P = e σ A (T^4 – Tc^4), where (1)

    P is net radiated power, A is net radiated area, emissivity (1 for ideal black surface, the Earth is very close to 1), σ Stefan’s constant, T is the temperature of the hot radiator, Tc is the temperature of a cold radiator of the temperature of surroundings.

    While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

    This expression explicitly assumes that the same coefficient e applies to both the emission into the environment and the absorption from the environment. That is, a good emitter is a good absorber and vice versa; the same coefficient can be used to characterize both processes. Why is that true?

    The hot object will initially emit more energy into the room than it absorbs from the room.

    Why there is the term of Tc4 in equation (1). A hot body emits radiation according to its temperature based on the Plancks’ law. This hot body has no information about its surroundings, it just emits radiation according to its temperature. The only explanation is also the cold body emits radiation according to its temperature. It looks like everybody approves that the cold body absorbs photons emitted by the hot body and that is why it is getting warmer.

    The decisive point is, what happens to the photons emitted by the cold body when they hit the hot body. In this example, it is a perfect radiator/absorber like the Earth. The simple fact is that this perfect radiator absorbs those photons hitting its surface. If you find scientific evidence that a hot body does not absorb the photons emitted by a colder body, then you are right. But there is no such law. A perfect absorber absorbs all photons hitting it. This is the physical simple reason, why Equation (1) has a term Tc4. It does not appear from the void; it has its physical explanation.

    Many people explain that “Heat cannot flow from cold body to hot body”.
    Hotter bodies radiate more energy than the colder body. Thus, even though heat is transferred from a cold body to a hot body, it receives energy from a hot body simultaneously. The net result is that heat is transferred from hot to cold. Even in conduction and convection, this applies.

    Applying these true principles to the Greenhouse effect of the Earth, it is a scientific fact that the atmosphere emits longwave radiation to the surface of the Earth and this energy has its exact impact on the surface temperature. Without this impact, we would have the Earth without the GH effect.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Antero, you should have said this was a “Basic pseudoscience course”, then you wouldn’t be misleading people. I don’t care how confused and incompetent you are, in fact, I find it hilarious. But, I do have trouble with your spreading your pseudoscience as if it were a contagious virus.

      That equation you copied/pasted is NOT the equation from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law! You are attempting to PERVERT physics. The S/B equation is ONLY about one surface and one temperature. The S/B equation is:

      P/A = 𝜖σT^4

      You are trying to pervert truth to support your false religion. You fervently believe in the IPCC/AGW/GHE/CO2 nonsense, and want to spread your false religion.

      Seek truth.

      Learn some physics.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      “If you find scientific evidence that a hot body does not absorb the photons emitted by a colder body, then you are right. But there is no such law.”

      Radiation exerts a pressure. If photons of colder object can get through a hot object’s photons, then radiation doesn’t exert a pressure. Contradiction.

      Neither Boltzmann and Planck recognized two-way photon travel in their cavity. They both had one standing wave per wavelength between two opposing walls. If what you said was true, Planck’s formula would have an extra 2x factor for photon density in his cavity. Where is it in his formula?

      • Avatar

        Norman

        |

        Zoe Phin

        You still pretend you got A’s in college physics. No you could not have. Photons are bosons they move through each other with almost no resistance. Not sure where you got your cornball physics from. Can you let me know what University taught you about physics. I am sure you cannot. You do not have even C quality physics knowledge. Making up false physics might be creative and give you points for this aspect of thought but it is not good science!

        Photons exert pressure on solid objects they hit. Matter stops them and absorbs them. Photons have little interaction with each other. This is a basic fact of physics that you do not understand.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Zoe Phin

            Are you being intentionally dense?

            Read your own link. “Normally, beams of light pass through each other unperturbed.” Do you know what that means?

            Interactions by photons are the exceptions not the norm and this one deals with high energy gamma rays.

            What con game are you playing here? Your posts strongly demonstrate a lack of any actual physics classes, What you seem to demonstrate is a clear person reading some material on the internet. I will agree you are smart and can learn but you are just grabbing this and that and compiling it in any way you think fits for you with a motive to try to prove established physics wrong and you right.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            It doesn’t say anything about NORMAL light beams passing through each other. The diagrams shows angles.

            Really, how can light create a pressure if light can pass through it?

            Remember, photons have no rest mass and molecules can not absorb and emit at the same time.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Zoe Phin

            If you want to have zero reading comprehension that is your choice. It appears you are in an unreachable zone of your own created fantasy. You have your blog and you have a couple of dullards that think you are brilliant. You know there are people out there that actually believe the world is a flat disk and they have this “proof” of it and you can’t reason with them using logic or reason of any type. You have a mind molded in that fashion. No one here can alter your course. You can collect a few dullards to support your ideas like Joe Postma does. It won’t change anything except get a couple of fanatics trying to convince people they have it wrong and only they know the correct view.

            Sorry you are a losing cause. You do not have adult reading capacity and you are deluded in your thoughts. Good luck on you quest to create a few lunatic dullards. Maybe you will make more than Postma, he has a few dozen, I think the Flat Earthers are more successful.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            That’s nice Norman. I’m still waiting for your proof that a lightbulb will make an equal lightbulb brighter (across entire spectral range) because photons pass through each other. When you provide the EMPIRICAL evidence then you can safely insult someone. Until then, you will appear as an insecure idiot judging people for having a different (correct) view.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Antero,
      What you’ve explained is almost correct. When an object is in equilibrium with the surrounding electric/magnetic field the amplitude of the electromagnet waves that are transferring energy is equal to the vibration across the bonds of the object receiving the wave so there is no absorption at equilibrium or from “colder” objects where the amplitude is less than the internal vibration of the molecule.
      All the diagrams of energy of the Earth show the surface of the Earth both absorbing and radiating equal energy. This is incorrect. The energy coming from the sun adds energy from the top of the Earth’s atmosphere to below the surface of the oceans. The radiation of energy by the Earth into space is done at the top of the thermosphere, not from the surface of the Earth. It is true that the radiated energy equals the absorbed energy but that only occurs because the thermosphere has greater energy than the molecules below it.
      Herb

      • Avatar

        Antero Ollila

        |

        That is nonsense. The radiation levels in the atmosphere have been measured both upward and downward. At the same level, they have exactly the same magnitude. The surface emits 395 W/m2 (Corresponding to 16 C degrees), 155 W/m2 has been absorbed and that is why the atmosphere radiates 212 W/m2 into space. Ther is transmitting radiation of 28 W/m2, which travels through the atmosphere without absorption. TotallY not space 212 + 28 = 240. Energy balance and real science are beautiful.

        • Avatar

          getan

          |

          Antero, where is all this measured data you claim? To be of any value, you would need to have actual spectra from 1000’s of satellites, over many years, with matching ground temperatures for comparison. Computer models and beliefs don’t count in science.

          Heck, just give us even one actual spectrum, as measured from space.

          Just one.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Getan

            Here is some of the measured values.

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

            You don’t need spectra, you need only the flux (w/m^2) and the absorbitivity of a surface in the band of EMR the flux is in. This will give you a good approximation of the energy that will be absorbed.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            That’s just one more fail for you, Norman.

            That’s not spectrum from a satellite. Don’t try your usual cons here.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Nope. We see that same graph all the time. It has no value. There are too many things wrong. At least one they admit:

            “the machinery on board the satellite was not capable of recording radiance below 400 cm-1”

            You can’t do a correct energy analysis with incomplete data.

          • Avatar

            Kelvin Vaughan

            |

            Can some kind person tell me why on this page: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page18.htm
            it states “The graph shows a plot of radiance against wavenumber for a black body at 288 K [15°C]”, but the peak is at about wavenumber 600 (-99C). I would expect it to be around 994 for 288 K?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Kevin, one mistake is: “…v is the wavenumber of the radiation.” In that equation, they appear to be confusing frequency with wavenumber.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Norman, that’s not even close. You need a full spectrum, with the relevant altitude, and the corresponding temperature at ground.

            Keep searching. If you manage to even find one, you will need thousands to make a meaningful study.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            You did prove one thing. You really are not interested in learning anything. It could go on and on. You have more than enough information. More is not needed to form a valid consclusion.

            The link I already provided gives you all you need but you are not willing to accept what is given as you have zero desire to learn the truth or learn physics.

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

            You act like you need a complete spectrum (breaking the energy down to each wavelength, frequency or wavenumber and the corresponding energy of each). You don’t. The instruments in the link provide the TOTAL energy that is available to produce energy changes as well as providing temperatures. Why do you think a spectrum gives you more data than the entire energy of the IR band?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Norman, my first attempt didn’t get posted. I’ll try again.

            To understand the problem, go to Fort Peck, MT, at your link. Determine the incoming and outgoing energy for the 24 hours indicated for January 1, 2020.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            To get a good 24 hour energy plot you would have to download the data that made the graph. I try but it tries to load it up on a program that does not handle the data. The data making the plots is there so they have a time and watts/m^2 value. You could write a simple program to add the data points together to get a total energy amount. If would not be too difficult if you could get the data base behind the graph.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Norman, that sounds like a de facto admission that your pseudoscience has failed you again. That’s rather amusing after all the big claims you made.

            Many people can learn from their failures, some can’t….

          • Avatar

            Kelvin Vaughan

            |

            Thanks Geran

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            I don’t think you need to learn from your failures (many as they are). You just need to open a textbook on heat transfer physics and read the real material and not blog physics. It would do you good.

            YOU: “Norman, that sounds like a de facto admission that your pseudoscience has failed you again.”

            Not sure your point. What failed? The data is there I just can’t download it. Why does that mean a failure of good sound science that proves you in error?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Norman, you’re not fooling anyone but yourself.

            Here was the task: “Heck, just give us even one actual spectrum, as measured from space.”

            You failed, miserably.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            You are not correct.

            Your claim: “Here was the task: “Heck, just give us even one actual spectrum, as measured from space.”

            You failed, miserably.”

            I gave you two and you rejected both of them. What is your point? You ask for information. You get it, you reject it and then make a false claim that the data was not provided.

            What is up with that?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Norman, maybe ask some high school kid to explain it to you

            “Heck, just give us even one actual spectrum, as measured from space.”

            (I know you will keep this up all night. Don’t expect a response unless you have something relevant, factual, and responsible.)

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Antero,
          Unfortunately your science is not based in reality.
          The greater the intensity of energy a molecule is exposed to the greater the energy it absorbs. N2 and O2 absorb uv energy and that wavelength contains more energy than the visible light that they don’t absorb and which reaches the surface of the Earth. The N2 and O2 in the upper atmosphere is absorbing most of the energy coming from the sun. The reason the upper atmosphere is composed of elemental oxygen is because O2 molecule have absorbed over 450 kjoules/mole giving them so much energy that the molecules split.The atoms/molecules in the thermosphere have far more kinetic energy than molecules lower in the atmosphere despite what your radiation flux says. The problem is you believe the only energy being absorbed by the Earth is from the energy reaching the surface of the Earth. Look at the composition of the atmosphere above 100 km where the percentage of N2 is diminishing. Why does this occur if not because the oxygen is expanding?
          Herb

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    “it is a scientific fact that the atmosphere emits longwave radiation to the surface of the Earth and this energy has its exact impact on the surface temperature”

    Are you sure about that?
    Satellites can’t measure IR moving away from them. Surface based instruments measure IR emitted from the instrument itself upward and they call it “downwelling”. Why did you forget about the temperature and radiation of the instrument itself?

    • Avatar

      Norman

      |

      Zoe Phin

      You are smarter than that, will you ever really try and understand what an IR surface based instrument is doing. No one has forgotten about the temperature of the instrument. They use that in the calculation to determine the downwelling flux of radiant energy. Do you have an understanding of how a balance works? The operation of a IR instrument is similar in how they determine an unknown. With a balance a known weight on one side can determine the unknown weight. If the two weights balance you understand that the unknown weight equals the known weight. If you add or subtract weight on the unknown side the balance will move up or down.

      Maybe read this it will update your incorrect understanding and give you a more complete understanding of the topic.

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0426%281994%29011%3C1057%3ADOLHFA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Norman,
        That paper supports my view.
        Isn’t it strange to talk about the instrument’s EMISSIVITY for “downwelling” IR rather than its absorptivity?

        That’s because it’s really upwelling.

        • Avatar

          Norman

          |

          Zoe Phin

          No it does not support your view and with the same material the emissivity and absorptivity are the same in the same band. What it can emit it will also absorb.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Then why not use the word absorptivity? And where is the upwelling-from-instrument IR you promised?

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Norman,
            Zoe believes that gravity preferentially attracts denser objects. You will never teach her physics. Perhaps she is from an alternate universe where the things she believes are true.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Herb,
            Really? So metal sinks and wood floats for a different reason than gravity density sorting? Do go on …

  • Avatar

    Antero Ollila

    |

    It looks like people still mix heat and energy. Heat itself cannot go from colder to hotter but in the form of radiation, energy can be transferred from colder to hotter. Ther is nothing that could stop any surface to emit radiation. Can you find a textbook of physics saying that a body can absorb only radiation emitted from the hotter body?

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      “nothing that could stop any surface to emit radiation.”

      Look up radiation pressure.

    • Avatar

      chris

      |

      If you’re referring to radiation in the form of radiant heat then yes, it will only move from a hotter object to a colder. Otherwise thermodynamics would say that radiant heat can result in a cooler object warming another. If a hot bar is next to a cold bar in a vacuum only the cold bar would get warmer. The warmer bar would become cooler.

      • Avatar

        T. C. Clark

        |

        Chris, what happens if two hot bars (twin bars at the same temp) are next to each other in a vacuum?

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Yes Antero, you are still mixing heat and energy. Photons can travel from cold to hot, but they won’t be absorbed. You’re still believing you can bake a turkey with ice cubes. That’s because you are clueless about the relevant physics.

    So, learn some physics, or continue to entertain us with your hilarious pseudoscience.

    I’m content either way….

  • Avatar

    Michael Clarke

    |

    G’Day PSI readers,
    Here is a Logicians view for what its worth.

    All those Watts of energy from our Star are NOT equal!

    The energy is distributed over a large spectrum,. one watt at the UV band does different things to the Earth from the effect of one Watt of IR energy.

    The effect of all those un-equal Watts of energy upon the Earths surface is NOT uniform!

    The time of day, the time of year all play a role in modifying the reactions of the Atmosphere and the surface. THAT reaction is Variable by significant levels. You get more UV reaction at the surface at midday at the equator than at other latitudes, AND that reaction is dependent upon the LOCAL atmospheric conditions.
    Many variables with huge variation are then averaged to a NUMBER with an accuracy of tenths of a degree Kelvin.
    Those Satellites that cannot lie are measuring their values of the reaction of the earths atmosphere and surface at SPECIFIC times of day at 24 hour intervals at SPECIFIC places!
    It will always be at 07:59 am at a specific place on the earths surface when a specific satellite is overhead of that specific Place XXX. So all satellite measurements are also not equal.

    The angle/distance at which the Suns energy hits place XXX varies every single day!
    It will NEVER ever repeat that precise angle/distance again.
    The effect of the ‘Freemantle Doctor’ upon Perth’s weather springs to mind.
    But then they can always average out that effect!
    Whom is fooling who?

Comments are closed