Visual Clue as to Why Greenhouse Gas Effect is Bogus

Above is a photo taken from the Microsoft Picture library of a scene in the San Juan National Forest in Colorado, USA. What do you see?

An early Spring scene with patches of snow covering hollow parts of the mountain in shade from the Sun. We can discern the Sun is behind the mountains at a low angle to the ground surface and thus at lower intensity than say at noon, when it would reach its highest in the sky.

As a consequence of weak sunlight being partially blocked we see snow remains in the distant hollows. This is because the Sun’s rays cannot reach into the hollows to melt the snow.

However, there is clear sky above the scene so any Greenhouse Effect radiating down from the sky should have melted the snow (and do so evenly) according to the standard definition of the greenhouse gas theory which states that ‘heat trapping/back radiation/delayed cooling’ by the atmosphere should make the earth’s surface warmer than can be achieved by solar radiation alone.

Summary for Policymakers

If we look at the UN IPCC diagram of the Greenhouse Effect from their 5th Assessment Report ‘Summary for Policy Makers, Figure 2.11 (above), it show that the atmosphere is claimed to possess twice the energy as that of the incoming Sun’s rays and thus more able to melt snow than the sun alone.

But the fact that there is snow in the hollows in the mountains demonstrates that there is no Greenhouse Effect.

The above is verifiable, observable evidence from Nature that ought to be persuasive even to non-scientists that carbon dioxide is not trapping heat or delaying cooling.

Direct sunlight has the power, all by itself, to melt the snow.

This simple proof should be sufficiently convincing to bring the majority of the public onside and stop the stupid waste of time, effort and money supposed to combat anthropogenic climate change.


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

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

Trackback from your site.

Comments (117)

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    The problem is that the snow can only give the sky less than 315 W/m^2, and so the sky will only give back no more than that. That is the argument GH believers will use.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Matt

    |

    Okay spoil sports. Now prove Santa Clause isn’t real and what about rocking horse manure.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Boris Badenov

      |

      Oh, Santa Clause is real as is the Easter Bunny but I’m wondering about the Tooth Fairy.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Neither the ground, nor the sky, can melt snow. It takes the sun to get the job done.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Can the ground melt dry snow (co2 snow)?

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Chris

    |

    Is the solar constant measured from space, top of the atmosphere, or on the Earths surface?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      TOA

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Chris

        |

        Thanks Geran. Do you know if there is a surface based one for full sun? I looked a bit and haven’t found it.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          At zenith, just adjust for albedo. Typically you see 1360 W/m^2 used at TOA and 960 W/m^2 used at surface. Those are the average values. Both change with position in orbit, +/- 3.5%.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Chris

            |

            Thanks again.

  • Avatar

    T L Winslow

    |

    The depth of IPCC brainwashing is getting ridiculous.

    Repeat after me: Just Say No to the IPCC and -80C.

    CO2’s radiation emission wavelength of 15 microns is -80C cold radiation. And cold photons can never raise the temperature of a hotter object no matter their strength.

    I posted an explanation on WUWT today and was surprised that they printed it, along with more backing me up. I love how my -80C is the magic bullet that kills the monster. It’s just so simple.

    http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Alan Thorpe

      |

      Life’s too short to spend time reading WUWT.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Bevan and John,

    I do not like to debate (argue) but you have just made an argument which does not hold water. And for other observations and the prediction of the theory of the GHE I know there can be no GHE as predicted.

    You wrote: “However, there is clear sky above the scene so any Greenhouse Effect radiating down from the sky should have melted the snow (and do so evenly) according to the standard definition of the greenhouse gas theory which states that ‘heat trapping/back radiation/delayed cooling’ by the atmosphere should make the earth’s surface warmer than can be achieved by solar radiation alone.”

    Consistent reasoning would have it that the sun at midday did not melt all the snow so the solar radiation does not melt snow either.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Bevan and John,

      On a less frivolous note, you seem to ignore the significant albedo of the snow surface to the incident solar radiation as you ignore the geothermal energy being conducted through the soil to the base of the snow as espoused by Rosie Langridge and James Kamis in relative recent PSI postings. What are your reason for ignoring these probable contributions to the melting of snow in the spring? Is it that the geothermal energy is insignificant because the snow still remains?

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Bevan Dockery

        |

        Thank You Alan,
        A nice touch of reality to back up the picture of the snow in the hollows where it is hidden from the Sun’s rays because of the Sun being low on the horizon during a winter’s day in that part of the World.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Bevan,

        What you just wrote is bad, bad. First the picture of the snow is the entire basis of your and John’s posting. And we all can see, as you previously wrote, that the season is spring, not winter.

        What you have ignored in your reasoning is that when the sun is shining directly on the snow near midday is there an alternative mechanism by which the snow is being melted during the daytime. We can see that the snow had a high albedo and that the surfaces, which surround the patches of snow, do not have a high albedo. Hence, based upon experience, I believe the temperature of this other surface, with a low albedo, is well above the melting temperature of snow during midday and a few hours later. Hence, I reason that the atmosphere warmed by surfaces which surround the patches of snow, by conduction and circulation, is most directly melting the snow.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Terry Shipman

    |

    At age 69 now I have been a jogger for about 15 years now. I found out early on about the direct power of the sun. If it is 90F I can’t run during mid day. But at 6 pm, when the sun is lower in the sky, I have no problem. My current record is running my 5 mile route when it was 104F. People tell me they can’t understand how I do it. I explain that it is because of the sun. If it is high in the sky I can’t run. But at 6 pm I have no problem. Same temperature.

    Even on cooler days, when I can run at mid day during the summer, a cloud coming between me and the sun makes it feel cooler momentarily until the cloud passes. Same thing happens when I run beneath a tree. The sun is blocked.

    Folks, it’s the sun, not some kind of reflected energy caused by CO2. The power of direct sunshine is awesome.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Terry,

      If you would buy an inexpensive IR thermometer as JDHuffman recommends you can directly see the difference of a surface’s temperature in direct solar radiation relative that of a surface in the shade and you can see how rapidly this higher temperature drops when a cloud makes every surface to become in the shade.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        Hi Jerry, and other “remote sensing” fans, I recorded some interesting data yesterday. There was a huge weather system established, with heavy cloud cover. Yesterday, we had about 2” of rain, followed by low fog, under the heavy clouds. Directly overhead, reading the temperature of the low fog, I recorded 56 ºF! The ground temp was 59 ºF. The low fog was almost as warm as the surface. While the heavy cloud system acts as a blanket, helping to maintain the surface temperature, it is also reflecting solar back to space.

        This morning, the fog has lifted, but cloud cover remains:

        Directly overhead ==> 28.7 ºF
        Ground ==> 60.1 ºF

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi JD,

          Thank you, thank you for your recommendation to purchase an inexpensive IR thermometer and for reporting such actual measurements. From these variations you report are convincing evidence (to me) that you are measuring the radiation being emitted from the bottom of the cloud PLUS the upwelling radiation, being emitted by the earth surfaces due to these surfaces’ temperatures which is being scattered back toward the surface by fog (which is a cloud) droplets and the cloud droplets above the fog.

          Now, I call attention to the fact that there is a meteorological observation (measurement) usually made at airports which is not routinely measured at other weather stations. This measurement is visibility. Which I am sure most understand is a measurement of the density of the fog (cloud) droplets.

          However, you just referred to the phenomenon of reflection relative to cloud droplets and solar radiation. This is not accurate definition because only reasonably (I qualify the statement because I do not know how flat a water surface needs to be) flat water surfaces reflect solar radiation (any radiation) and tiny droplets with very curved surfaces scatter (a totally different natural phenomenon) radiations. But the issue in the case of scattering is not the droplet’s curvature but is instead the size of the droplet.

          However, your error is common for it seems very few are aware of Richard Feynman’s explanation of how clouds are usually white (as he taught to his physic students at Caltech).

          So I consider the difference in the temperatures measured by your IR thermometer is due to a difference in the density of cloud droplets and not directly due to the actual temperatures of anything.

          Of course, I could be wrong. But thank you for giving me an opportunity to expound upon my understanding.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            You’ve got some good points, Jerry, but it’s important that we don’t overthink this. The IR thermometer doesn’t have a clue what I’m pointing it at. I could point it at the sky, the ground, or a pizza. All the IR thermometer can do is indicate the corresponding temperature of the absorbed photons.

            In terms of the overhead sky, the IR thermometer could care less if the arriving photons were emitted, reflected, scattered, or dropped by carrier pigeon. it just measures the infrared arriving the ground, from overhead.

            You appear to be confusing “infrared” with “visible”, in your mention of “visibility”. An IR thermometer is not concerned with visible wavelengths. “Visibility” is an entirely different subject, with entirely different means of measurement.

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

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi JD,

            First, relative to the visibility issue, the reason I referred to solar radiation is that it is the radiation which we can observe and IR is a radiation which we cannot. But IR radiation can be scattered by cloud droplets. Hence, I do not agree that “Visibility” is an entirely different subject, with entirely different means of measurement.” My point was that the scattering of IR radiations depends upon the density of cloud droplets just as solar radiation does.

            I agree that “All the IR thermometer can do is indicate the corresponding temperature of the absorbed photons.” However, I consider it important that we consider how this absorption of photons is converted to a temperature.

            My understanding is there are two radiation laws which govern the radiation of a black-body: the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law and the Plank Distribution radiation law. And I reason that our IR thermometers make use of the Plank Distribution radiation law by comparing the magnitudes of the absorption of the photons of two specific IR wavelengths (frequencies).

            Of course, I could be wrong. But I am quite certain that there are only two radiation laws, related to temperature, which could be used.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi JD,

            Thank you again. For you wrote: “In terms of the overhead sky, the IR thermometer could care less if the arriving photons were emitted, reflected, scattered, or dropped by carrier pigeon. it just measures the infrared arriving the ground, from overhead.”

            Which is fact. Conversations like this help me to finally see things which I may not have seen before.

            I had just written: “And I reason that our IR thermometers make use of the Plank Distribution radiation law by comparing the magnitudes of the absorption of the photons of two specific IR wavelengths (frequencies).”

            You had written: “I recorded 56 ºF! The ground temp was 59 ºF.'” This when there was fog and little chance the photons had been diluted by ‘colder’ photons. Then you wrote: “This morning, the fog has lifted, but cloud cover remains: Directly overhead ==> 28.7 ºF
            Ground ==> 60.1 ºF. ”

            While in the morning we do not know the altitude of the cloud base. We can assume there were photons being emitted from the cloudless atmosphere between the ground and the cloud base and these ‘colder’ photons were diluting the warmer 60.1ºF photon being scattered downward by the cloud droplets at the base of the cloud cover. Hence, the emitted photons from the matter of the cloudless atmosphere changed the distribution of photons absorbed by the IR thermometer to that of a cooler temperature.

            I had been puzzled by the fact that an overcast produced a temperature that was some fraction of the temperature of the surface emitting photon upward which should be, according to Feynman’s scattering theory, nearly totally scattered back toward the surface. Hence, it seemed the temperature you measured and the temperatures which I measured during somewhat directly observed cloud conditions, were not consistent with what I considered I understood. But now we (I) have an quite plausible explanation why we measured that which was measured. We should not expect a cloud cover whose base was at an altitude of, say, 10000 feet to scatter photon back at the IR thermometer at near the temperature of the ground.

            Hope, I have written my reasoning so you can follow it. For this dilution factor is critically important to my consistent reasoning. For we must always explain what is actually observed

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Matt

            |

            Hi Jerry and J.D.
            Just a note of appreciation that some questions I have asked in comments on this essay have been met with what appears to be academic arrogance but you two are answering my questions either by intention or happenstance..
            Thank you..
            Hey J.d. I had always thought remote sensing was smelling a rat at 10,000 meters.
            Cheers guys.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Jerry, I’m not sure which Feynman quote you are referencing, but it appears he was talking about visible wavelengths. His ”…explanation of how clouds are usually white…”, is a clear indication that he was talking about visible wavelengths, since our eyes see white. The IR thermometers do not “see” the same as our eyes.

            Typically, we should expect “cold” to absorb IR photons from “hot”. Diffusion should not be the factor it is with visible wavelengths.

            Am I even close to what your concerns are?

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi JD,

            You are correct that Feynman always referred to the visible solar radiation which we humans can see.

            I hang my understanding on the fact that for his scattering theory the atmospheric particles to which he referred were, while tiny particles, were much larger than the atmospheric molecules. We cannot see UV radiation either but I understand his theory applies to it as well IR radiation. We need to recognize as the cloud droplets get much larger than the IR radiation being emitted from the earth surface because of its ‘usual’ temperatures, they precipitate from the atmosphere.

            This is Feynman’s quote on which I hang my hat. “So as the water agglomerates the scattering increases. Does it increase as infinitum? No! When does this analysis begin to fail? How many atoms can we put together before we cannot drive this argument any further? Answer: If the water drop gets so big that from one end to the other is a wavelength or so, then the atoms are no longer all in phase because they are two far apart. So as we keep increasing the size of the droplets we get more and more scattering, until such a time that a drop gets about the size of a wavelength, and then the scattering does not increase anywhere nearly as the droplet gets bigger.” This last phrase “the scattering does not increase anywhere nearly as the droplet gets bigger” clearly puts no limit on the wavelength of the radiation which can be scattered as the scattering particle gets bigger and bigger.

            But JD, I came here this morning to correct my reference to the source of the ‘cold’ photons which change the distribution of IR photons which our IR thermometers detect. The major source of these ‘cold’ photons are being emitted from the base of the very cold cloud at 10000 feet.

            R.C. Sutcliffe (Weather & Climate, 1966, Chapter 4) wrote: “Long-wave radiation from the earth, the invisible heat rays, is by contrast totally absorbed by quite a thin layer of clouds and, by the same token, the clouds themselves emit heat continuously according to their temperatures, almost as though they were black bodies. In this way clouds by day keep much of the sun’s heat away, but at the same time and in the nighttime too they return to the earth much of the heat that would have been lost. A completely cloudy day may be close and humid but never exceptionally hot, whereas during a cloudy night the temperature may hardly fall from its day-time value.”

            We recognize that Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, has just described the understanding of 97% of the scientists yet today.

            Except the cause of what is observed as described in his last statement is the GHE of clouds and not atmospheric carbon dioxide and other atmospheric GH gases.

            But the mechanism by which clouds, even a “quite a thin layer of clouds”, keep the nighttime temperatures nearly constant is not that the base of the cloud is emitting radiation toward the earth’s surface. For we know that the temperature of base of these quite thin clouds which might be at 10000 feet will be very cold and therefore will not emit the same flux of energy downward as the much warmer earth’s surface, during the nighttime, is emitting upward toward the thin cloud’s base.

            Hence, the cold clouds base cannot be absorbing the upward IR flux or the thin cloud would not be much colder than the earth’s surface beneath it. High, cold, thin, clouds are strong observed support, if not proof, of Feynman’s cloud scattering theory.

            If one allows observations to force what one reasons, it is simple.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Matt,

            Thank you for your comment. If one has read Galileo’s book one would recognize that JD and I have been having an actual dialogue exactly like the dialogues which Galileo contrived to share his experiences and knowledge.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi JD,

            Getting close to your neg 40F sky temperature. Neg 39F this morning. Ground temperature pos. 29F and air temperature pos 29F.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Hi Jerry, interesting results today.

            Heavy cloud cover all day. No blue sky, any direction. You would have a hard time finding the sun, if you didn’t know.

            Now dark, and light rain falling:
            Directly overhead ==> 45.7F
            Ground ==> 50.3 F

            Rain clouds must be protecting us from that dangerous “greenhouse effect”, huh?

            🙂

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Please visit my website above to see my Revised Greenhouse Gas Theory.
    Ticks all the boxes.
    Eddie Banner

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Eddie, that’s just another rehash of the bogus IPCC/AGW/GHE/CO2 pseudoscience. You’ve swallowed the nonsense and are attempting to cover up the fact that it isn’t working.

      CO2 is not causing Earth to warm. The pseudoscience you’ve learned is wrong.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Eddie Banner

        |

        Geran
        Re https://hotgas.club

        Thank you for your reply, but I think you did not give my ideas sufficient justice. My revised version of the greenhouse gas theory does, indeed, include the two basic tenets of the original theory, but approaches the problem in a simpler way. This avoids the difficulties with the IPPC version, which are assessing the capability of CO2 and water vapour for absorbing radiative energy, and the faulty complicated energy balance diagrams as shown in this article involving layers in the atmosphere. Moreover, my revision takes proper account of the energy escaping to space through the Atmospheric Window. This is not done in the IPPC models, but it is vitally important.
        I do maintain that the greenhouse gases are the explanation for Earth’s surface temperatures, 256 K and 288K, as explained in my post. But I show that the effect of CO2 is now almost finished. OR has been finished already, which would explain the “temperature hiatus”.
        Please read my post again a little more carefully.
        Eddie Banner

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Eddie, you are working awfully hard to accept the GHE pseudoscience: “I do maintain that the greenhouse gases are the explanation for Earth’s surface temperatures, 256 K and 288K, as explained in my post.”

          The “256 K” is a bogus figure. It comes from the calculation for a blackbody sphere. Then, you (“they”) compare imaginary to real. That’s not science, it’s pseudoscience.

          Reply

    • Avatar

      Alan

      |

      Unfortunately, you left a warning notice out at the very beginning – suspend your belief in the laws of thermodynamics.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    The writers of this post form a false conclusion based upon an ignorant understanding of the energy budget graph they have put in the article.

    The total incorrect understanding is that he downwelling IR is putting in over twice the solar input into the surface. This error is widespread and unlikely this post will alter anyone on this blog including the Author’s of article.

    The actual NET IR at the surface would be -56 Watt/m^2. Even with the GHE the surface is still losing energy. What most cannot seem to process is that the 342 is only part of the IR budget. One has to also see that 398 is being lost upward, emitted. They could do the budget showing -56 W/m^2 for the radiant budget, maybe they figured smarter people could figure it out. Because they break up the IR component into the two-way flux (which is what it would be because the atmosphere does emit to the surface as well as the surface emitting to the atmosphere) it seems to produce endless confusion and misleading conclusions.

    So how would -56 W/m^2 melt ice?

    The solar component is just a one-way gain. The surface does not reach the temperature where the surface is emitting visible light so ti does not have a loss by that path. The solar input is all positive gain. The downwelling IR is less than the upwelling so it is a net loss.

    The GHE makes the solar input net positive (which has to be removed by other heat transfer mechanisms like convection and evaporation loss). If not for the GHE the surface IR loss would be a -398 W/m^2 (until it cooled down) which is much greater than the solar input.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Norman, what a tangled web you weave when you practice to deceive.

      Why not try learning some physics?

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Alan

      |

      The believers in the greenhouse effect say that back radiation heats the surface from a temperature of -18C as a result of the solar radiation by a massive 33C to 15C. The net back radiation, which you say is only 56W/m2 will never cause that amount of heating.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Geran

    I know your limited brain power had no chance with my post. Let some more intelligent and rational posters read it. Not sure what you find wrong with it or think my point is to deceive. How is that a logical conclusion to what I posted. More like some knee-jerk reaction without reading the content.

    What physics would you have me learn? I already know quite bit about heat transfer. Physics is a giant field of study. Do you have any special part of physics you feel I need to learn?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Norman, you don’t know squat about the relecant physics. In your pathetic rambing above, you ignore the fact that solar is thermalized at the surface. And the amount thermalized is NOT the “161 Watts’m^2” shown in the bogus “energy budget”. You can’t average flux.

      Learn some physics.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Norman

        |

        Geran

        Again I ask, knowing full well you will not provide, what supporting evidence do you provide that you can’t average a flux over a time period?

        You can definitely average speed over a time period and it works quite well. So why do you persist with no foundation, that fluxes can’t be averaged. Anyone can say endless opinions over and over. It does not make them true, valid or correct.

        Why do you believe strongly that fluxes can’t be averaged?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Norman, “speed” and “time” are scalars. They can be subdivided/averaged. For example if a car travels 60 miles in one hour, then it traveled 60/4 miles in 60/4 minutes.

          But a BB plate, area = 1 sq. m., receiving 1000 Watts/m^2, does not have the same equilibrium temperature as 0.25 sq m plates receiving 250 Watts/m^2. Flux is NOT a scalar.

          Learn some physics.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            I have already spent time explaining it to you. Temperature and flux are not related by a linear degree. Temperature is exponentially linked to flux. But the amount of joules (which is in linear proportion to flux) can be averaged which is all that really matters in an energy balance. The graphs are not balancing temperatures. They are balancing joules in and out in a unit of time.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            Try to follow.

            Y units are exponentially linked to X units you can’t average the units.

            Here is an example. If you have 10 X units this will give 100 Y units.

            So if you want to add them the X and Y units do not average in this case.

            10X units plus 4X units give 14 total X.

            The sum of the Y units is 116 units.

            The average X is 7. The Average Y is 58

            But if you had just 7X with no average you would only have 49Y units. So you can’t average (with simple math) Units that don’t relate in linear fashion.

            However if they are linear connected (for every X unit you have 10 Y units).

            10X = 100 Y
            4X = 40 Y

            !0X + 4X = 14X
            100Y + 40Y = 140Y

            Average X =7X
            Average Y= 70Y

            If you just had 7X it also equals 70Y. The average works when the relationship is linear but not when exponential.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Norman, your squirming is fun to watch.

            1/4 of a 1 sq. m. plate receiving 1/4 the flux does not have the same temperature. Flux can NOT be averaged. You are still a con man, failing to con anyone but yourself.

            More please.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            No I am not squirming at all. I am puzzled by your lack of logic thought and the points you bring up. They really do not seem to have a rational connection.

            YOUR POINT: “But a BB plate, area = 1 sq. m., receiving 1000 Watts/m^2, does not have the same equilibrium temperature as 0.25 sq m plates receiving 250 Watts/m^2. Flux is NOT a scalar.”

            How does that prove fluxes don’t add?

            The quantity of energy is a scalar quantity. It only has a magnitude. Flux is a vector because it is moving in a direction but the quantity of energy can be added, subtracted or averaged.

            More to point. If you have a one square meter surface and expose it to a flux of 1000 W/m^2 for one minute it will have received 60,000 joules of energy. The same amount of energy can be delivered by a 10000 W/m^2 flux if the surface is exposed for 6 seconds. Likewise a 100 W/m^2 flux will add the same amount of energy to the surface 600 seconds. You should realize the quantity of energy is what matters and this quantity can be averaged. If you have two fluxes reaching a surface. One 1000 w/m^2 and another 500 W/m^2 for 40 seconds the surface will receive 60,000 joules of energy.

            Note, with your example. If you reduce the flux from 1000 W/m^2 to 250 W/m^2 the one meter surface will be cooler as well.

            If you have a flux of 1000 W/m^2 a one meter square surface will reach about 364 K. With the same flux a 0.25 meter square surface will reach the same temperature. If you reduce the flux to 250 W/m^2 both plates will reach the same temperature.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            No Norman, you’re definitely squirming. You got caught again, trying to foist off your hilarious pseudoscience. Now you keep trying to confuse the issue.

            1/4 of a 1 sq. m. plate receiving 1/4 the flux does not have the same temperature. Flux can NOT be averaged.

            More please, I enjoy your squirming.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            You should be the one squirming! Your example is not about averaging flux. It is just about reducing a flux. There is no average. If you had a logical or rational thought process or knew what words mean (like flux, watts/m^2).

            Your point has nothing to do with averaging in concept or use. It basically does nothing to further you point.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            Your have a pointless point that neither proves nor disproves your conclusion. It just is a statement.

            here is a far better example to determine if fluxes average.

            The situation is a 4 square meter surface that is close to blackbody and is highly conductive material. You use focused beams. On one square meter you have a focused flux of 1000 W/m^2. On another on meter square section you have a 250 W/m^2 flux. Then on the remaining two sections you have a 750 W/m^2 flux and a 2000 W/m^2 flux. You would reach a similar temperature for the surface (depending upon the conductivity) as if you had one 1000 W/m^2 flux reaching all surfaces equally. This is a logical way to use the term average. Yours does not fulfill this requirement.

            In reality you are losing ground but in your own mind you believe you are making good points. Sorry you are not.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Clown, that’s completely WRONG. Why do I have to explain your own pseudoscience to you?

            Look above at the diagram labeled “Figure 2.11”. Notice the “340” at the upper left. Notice the “Incoming solar”. Where do you believe the 340 came from? Answer: They divided the solar constant (1360) by 4. They averaged the solar flux over the entire surface.

            You haven’t a clue.

            More of your hilarious ignorance and stupidity, please.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Norman is a troll that inhabits Spencer’s blog. I have learned a lot about him over the last couple of years. He has no technical background. He comments trying to prove to himself that he has some value, since his career is a disaster.

            He has a bag of tricks, but they never work for him.

            Nothing new.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            No, Geran, they got ~340 from satellites.

            Did you know that satellites revolve around the Earth? They don’t stand still and receive 1360.

            1360 is the derived value, and ~340 is the measured value.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Gosh Zoe, you sure seem to be an expert on those satellites. You can probably quickly supply all the info, such as names of satellites, orbits, and the data they have recorded.

            I won’t hold my breath….

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Gosh, Geran, if only you understood how revolution around a ball works. You see, genius, a satellite will spend ~1/2 the time in the dark recording 0 shortwave, and even on the day side the satellite will not be normal to both sun and earth, but at an angle.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe if you can’t produce anything to back up your claims, people aren’t going to believe you’re really a satellite expert. Everyone knows the basics. You are claiming you know how satellites collect and process data on solar flux density. Which satellites, what orbits, details and data, please.

            Folks are waiting breathlessly, but I’m not….

      • Avatar

        chris

        |

        Flux doesn’t sum. When considering energy the source is important. Heat will only exist if the source is hotter than the destination. So flux from two different sources at different temps must be considered separately. Also, flux doesn’t show actual power. A source at a temp that has 1000 W/m^2 emitted from an object that has a surface area facing the destination is .001 m^2 will result in 1 watt. That wouldn’t result in a lot of heat.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Alan

    |

    The believers in the greenhouse effect say that back radiation heats the surface from a temperature of -18C as a result of the solar radiation by a massive 33C to 15C. The net back radiation, which you say is only 56W/m2 will never cause that amount of heating.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    The uv and x-ray bandwidths emitted by the sun are absorbed by he N2 and O2 in the atmosphere and converted to kinetic energy. This is why little of this radiation strikes the surface of the Earth and it is this energy that creates both the thermosphere and the ionosphere. The gas molecules and atoms in the upper atmosphere radiate this kinetic energy in all directions.
    The visible wavelength penetrates the atmosphere and strikes the surface of the Earth and is converted to kinetic energy. This kinetic energy is transferred by conduction (collisions) to the upper atmosphere. The two heat heat sources (uv and visible light) meet at the troposphere-stratosphere boundary.The ozone layers where oxygen atoms created by uv light (oxygen atoms are common in the upper atmosphere) strike O2 molecules to create ozone. Above this layer energy is being transferred by radiation while below energy transfer is done primarily by conduction. The 10 ppm O3 molecules in the ozone layer are not blocking uv anymore than the 400 ppm CO2 molecules in the troposphere are blocking IR radiation.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Matt

    |

    Hi there Anonymous-Academic. Clarification please.

    You wrote “They raise electrons through one or more electron energy states and then an identical photon is emitted.”

    The first word “They” means “The photons”. Yes? No?

    “raise electrons” needs amplification, simplification and clarification please. Some people raise chickens but raising electrons sounds like big bang theory. Something from nothing.

    “one or more electron energy states”. Does that refer to temperature or energy frequency band or some other easily simplified observational mechanism please.

    The rest of your comment I can assimilate except the end bit QED.

    I imagine QED means something between Queen Elizabeth the Second and God so I therefore kneel in supplication and await your reply or for me to be struck down by the exquisitely directed thunderbolt.

    Kind Regards Matt

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      QED “quod erat demonstrandum” (“that which was to be demonstrated”)

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Matt and PSI Readers,

      This is just as good a place as any to make this comment. Much as been written here about pseudo science. In 1974 Richard Feynman delivered a commencement address to the graduates of Caltech (“Surely Your’re Joking, Mr Feynman!”, 1985) about this same problem. The address was titled: Cargo Cult Science. But have I read here (or anywhere else) about what Feynman stated? No!!! So I will try to briefly begin to correct this problem. But a really serious learner will need to read all of his address.

      “But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigations. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results, and things you thought of that you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiments, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

      “Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory, makes something else come out right, in addition.

      “In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another”

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi JD, Matt, and PSI Readers,

      First, I must acknowledge my perpetual lack of proofing of that which I just wrote to JD.

      The principal reason for this comment is that nobody has commented about what Richard Feynman (March 16, 2020 at 2:56 pm | #) stated in his commencement address at Caltech.

      So, in case you missed it, I call it again to your attention.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Matt

        |

        Hi Jerry. I appreciated your posting on Feynman’s description of the scientific method.
        It reminded me of scientific research on aspects of climate failing to acknowledge other possible contributions to a perceived phenomenon other than that which is being studied.
        Feynman included multiple hypothesis without specifically stating multiple hypothesis.
        Thank you again Jerry.
        Kind Regards Matt

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Matt Holl

    |

    Hi Anonymous-Academic. I was not and am not dabbling in advanced physics but asking a sincere question. I feel no shame in knowing little or nothing of science other than my observations and limited understandings of the natural world. I do know a little of human dignity though. Oh, and the concept of cumulative effect is the most important consideration when envisioning the laws of unintended consequences.

    Right Back to my questions. First question. If you were not mangling the English language you were clearly referring to photons. I asked because presumption can be building an understanding on a false premise.

    Second Question. “raise electrons”. Remember Einstein said something to the effect that if you cannot state it clearly and simply you do not know it well enough. I was taught that on this site by Jerry Krause. A good man.
    Two to five or ten words will clarify this for me and other readers of this site who have little or no science. Thank you.
    I have looked at the video by Doug Cotton that you referenced and Mr Cotton enunciated everything clearly and I only had to replay one short section three times.
    And the third question. Take it as read.

    So we have the biggest hoax in the history of mankind and to overcome that hoax we need a winning team. Winning teams support each other. I look forward to your clear concise clarification.

    Thank you Matt

    Reply

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Hi Matt, The user ‘Anonymous Academic’ is none other than banned wack job, and perennial PSI spammer, Douglas Cotton. Please don’t feed the troll.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Matt

        |

        Thank you John.
        I thought it was Doug. I will throw him one final peanut please.

        “Every day is a new beginning”

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Matt,

      “Winning teams support each other.” Good wisdom. Thank you.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi Anonymous,
    I watched you video. Very good. There are some things that I believe are incorrect, however.
    While it is true that temperature decreases with altitude in the troposphere this is due to the inaccuracy of the thermometer as an indicator of kinetic energy. (It misses 86% of the energy needed to convert 0 C ice to 100 C steam and this is how it is calibrated.) In order to get an accurate indication of the change in kinetic energy (heat of molecules) at different altitudes you must use the universal gas law. (P is gravity not atmospheric pressure and can be considered constant.) This shows the kinetic energy of molecules increases slowly in the troposphere (density decreases).
    The reason there is an atmosphere is because energy converts oxygen and nitrogen into gases causing them to expand against gravity. As more energy is added to the molecules they increase in kinetic energy and the atmosphere expands. When these molecules lose energy the atmosphere contracts or they fall. If the losing of kinetic energy resulted in gravity increasing their kinetic energy it would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
    Herb

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Geran @ March 14

    Re Revised Greenhouse Gas Theory https://hotgas.club
    Thank you again for your contribution and trying to help me from falling into the trap of the pseudo science, as you call it. I do, indeed, think that there is some over-zealousness in the original theory, with regard to the emission of radiative energy and applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law to the atmosphere as if it were a “black body”.
    Moreover, the original theory seems to be based on the Earth’s energy balance diagrams, originally attributed to Trenbert et al. These ideas should be taken with more than a pinch of salt. The numbers add up, but some of the variables simply should not be included. They show over 300 Wm^-2 downwelling radiation but do not show the corresponding upward amount going upwards, as required by photon emission from greenhouse gases.
    Again, no understanding has been shown in the vital importance of the Atmospheric Window. Trenberth has tried 40 Wm^-2 and, again, 22 Wm^-2, whereas my calculations in my post show it to be 90.2 Wm^-2.
    And the models are still not right after 4 decades.

    Therefore, accepting the behaviour of greenhouse gases, it seemed that some simpler revision of the old theory was due. Hence my post at https://hotgas.club
    Helpful and constructive comments would be welcome here.
    Eddie Banner

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Eddie, the GHE nonsense started from the infamous Arrhenius CO2 equation. The equation has no basis in science, and violates the laws of physics. IOW, it’s pseudoscience. The GHE nonsense is based on pseudoscience.

      Years later, more layers of pseudoscience were added, including the bogus “energy balance” diagrams you mentioned. There is no “energy” being “balanced”. They are attempting to balance flux density, which does NOT balance. “960 in” does NOT equal “240 out”. Flux density is NOT energy. Energy balances, but flux does not balance. They can’t even get the basics right. They are charlatans, clowns, and con artists.

      What’s wrong with the AGW nonsense is that the science is WRONG. You can’t accept any part of it as being valid.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Eddie Banner

        |

        Geran
        Thanks again for your interest in my post https://hotgas.club
        There are two principles in the “old” Greenhouse Gas Theory which I accept. Namely, that the RATE of Earth’s energy flow out to space must be equal to the input rate of energy from the Sun. This “RATE of energy flow” is more easily expressed as POWER, as in my post https://hotgas.club
        Also, I accept the well-known ability of the so-called “greenhouse gases”, particularly water vapour and carbon dioxide, to absorb electromagnetic energy of certain wavelengths in quantised amounts called “photons”, and then to re-emit the same amount of energy as another similar photon. The emission is equal in all directions, so that the power emitted upwards is equal to the power going downwards. This is fundamental physics.
        The problem with the “old” GH theory arises with the attempt by climate scientists to calculate the overall absorption power of the GH gases in the atmosphere; a problem I have tried to explain in my post https://hotgas.club
        They have resorted to consideration of numerous layers of atmosphere and have treated radiative emission from these layers by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law which applies to “BLACK BODIES”. Not gases.
        So I believe that after 40 years of failure to achieve reasonable results, it is time for a revision as in my post, which “ticks all the boxes”.

        Nevertheless, you seem to have reservations on this topic. So let me ask you how do you explain the two simple facts we know about; the surface temperatures with and without an atmosphere?
        Also, do you think that surface temperature has increased by almost 1 deg C in the last 50 years or so?
        Sincerely
        Eddie Banner

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Eddie, linking to your blog 3 times in the same comment is a little desperate, don’t you think?

          The first “principle” that you accept is tainted by the pseudoscience. They attempt to “balance” flux, confusing it with energy. A flux is NOT energy. Power is NOT energy. Flux and power are NOT conserved.

          Do you have any background in physics, or are you just wanting to bait people to your blog?

          I’m glad you accept that gases can absorb and emit photons. That is correct. The fact that you accept the GHE indicates you do not understand the relevant physics. The entire point of your blog is that you accept the GHE nonsense, but it will not get any worse. You fail to understand that it will not get any worse because it is nonsense.

          You asked two questions:

          ”So let me ask you how do you explain the two simple facts we know about; the surface temperatures with and without an atmosphere?”

          What’s to explain? Earth’s average temperature is believed to be about 288 K. There is a lot of data to support that, but the error could easily be +/-0.5K. Without an atmosphere, we can consider our moon, which varies between about 390 K and 95 K, during a lunar day. Obviously, even if you don’t understand thermodynamics, you must realize Earth can control its temperature, even though it gets the same average solar energy.

          ”Also, do you think that surface temperature has increased by almost 1 deg C in the last 50 years or so?”

          Some of the “adjusted” data indicates such an increase. But not all data has been adjusted, fortunately. Any actual increase, as small as it is, is due to natural variation.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Eddie Banner

            |

            Geran re https://hotgas.club
            To answer your easiest question first. Yes, I have a degree in Physics and I am a Member of the Institute of Physics, and have many years experience as a physicist in industry.

            The energy balance considerations are concerned with the time RATE of change of energy. That is, how much energy is emitted to space (or absorbed by Earth from the Sun) PER SECOND. Energy is expressed in Joules, and so the rate of change of energy is expressed in Joules per second; one Joule per second is 1 Watt, and so POWER is Watts. In the present context, the flux of energy is given as the power per square metre of the Earth’s surface.
            I hope that clears up one of your problems.

            We clearly agree about the properties of the greenhouse gases, and this is inline with the basic facts in the “old” theory. But my post makes it clear that I do NOT agree with the way their calculations have been done. And that is why I have offered my Revised theory, which as I have previously stated “ticks all the boxes”.

            My post shows that the point at which all the energy in the atmoshpere is being absorbed/emitted is (almost) achieved, so no further temperature increase due to more carbon dioxide will occur.

            As to your comment on the Moon, I should be grateful for a fuller explanation.
            And again, if you reject my work, how do you calculate the “comfortable” 288 K ?
            Looking forward to your response.

            Eddie Banner

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Eddie, I’m not surprised to see you claim to be a physicist, yet still get the physics wrong. I have had to correct two that claim to have a PhD in physics. When someone claims to be a physicist, yet gets confused about flux versus energy, it’s quite telling.

            Flux can NOT be treated as energy. I hope that clears up your problems.

            And quit trying to misrepresent me, clown. We do NOT agree ”about the properties of the greenhouse gases”. You believe in the GHE, I know it to be pseudoscience. You believe CO2 can heat the planet. I know better. We do NOT agree.

            You end with:

            ”As to your comment on the Moon, I should be grateful for a fuller explanation.”

            I would be grateful for a relevant question, assuming you’re willing to LEARN.

            ”And again, if you reject my work, how do you calculate the “comfortable” 288 K?”

            You finally got something right, clown. I reject your work.

            The 288 K is NOT based on a specific calculation. It is the average of observed values.

            Learn some physics.

        • Avatar

          Aaron Christiansen

          |

          ” to absorb electromagnetic energy of certain wavelengths in quantised amounts called “photons”, and then to re-emit the same amount of energy as another similar photon.”

          This sounds interesting to me. Are you saying there is no entropy in this process? I would have thought there would be some energy loss and the molecule would re-emit less energy, not the same amount.

          Admittedly I have a very basic understanding of physics, however I am pretty confident there are no 100% efficient processes thanks to entropy.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Aaron, your point is valid, the process can dissipate energy, meaning that a molecule may sometimes emit a photon that has a longer wavelength. We see the same thing if a photon is reflected. That’s why a dark room goes dark when the light is turned out. The reflected “visible” photons dissipate enough energy that they are no longer “visible”.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Aaron,
            One of the foundations of physics is the first law of thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This requires the concept that when atoms or molecules collide there is elasticity where no energy is lost and kinetic energy is conserved.
            The same applies to radiated energy where if the energy of an object is in equilibrium with the surrounding electromagnetic field it will emit energy equal to the energy absorbed.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Herb,

            In your comment to Aaron concerning the Ideal Gas Law, it seemed you missed the point that the law dependents that system of gas molecules being considered is composed of a huge number of molecules each with different velocities. Hence, temperature is considered to be the ‘average’ kinetic energy of this ‘ideal gas system’ being described (defined).

            So when you wrote: “The same applies to radiated energy where if the energy of an object is in equilibrium with the surrounding electromagnetic field it will emit energy equal to the energy absorbed.” your ‘object’ has nothing to do with a system of many, many gas molecules. One must accurately define.

            Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Geran
    Re https://hotgas.club

    Thank you for your response, and I’m pleased that you now seem to understand about “energy” and “power”, but you still have a problem with “flux”. I am not sure what you mean by this term, and so please explain and I shall help if I can.

    I thought we agreed on the property of greenhouse gases to absorb and emit quantised amounts of energy called “photons”. This, after all, is a fundamental fact of Physics. Do you agree with that?
    You say you do not believe in the GHE, which I take to be the “old” greenhouse gas theory, but you do not say why. You say it is “pseudoscience”, but this is not an explanation.
    However, I think there are problems with the calculations on which the climate scientists have based their models, and so it is not surprising that the models still do not work satisfactorily. I have mentioned these difficulties before.

    Accordingly, I have offered my REVISED theory in my post, which maintains the basic greenhouse gas property of absorption/emission, and the fundamental requirement for energy balance, but provides a very simple method of calculating increases in surface temperature. If you read my post again, you will see that greenhouse gases are, indeed, responsible for the existing surface temperatures. But there is a LIMIT of about 1 degC rise to the warming effect of CO2.

    About the 288 K; a theory should be able to calculate the value and it should agree with the measured values. My revised version does just that.

    Initially, I thought you had something useful to offer to this discussion, sadly it seems I hoped for too much.
    Eddie Banner

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Eddie, I recognize your techniques:

      You blatantly advertise your blog.
      You cling to the GHE, while claiming you don’t
      You claim to have a background in physics when clearly you don’t
      You misrepresent me
      You deny reality

      These are the techniques used by clowns and trolls, frauds and phonies.

      Your admission, that you don’t know what “flux” is, was especially hilarious. It appears you have nothing to offer except humor.

      More please.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Geran
    I said I do not understand what YOU think “flux” means, but you have not explained yet, so I cannot help you on this until you do.
    If you have read and UNDERSTOOD my blog https://hotgas.club and my posts here, and if you UNDERSTAND the basic ideas of the “old” GHG theory, then it should be easy for you to UNDERSTAND the differences, and the reasons for my suggested revisions.

    You claim that I deny reality, so do you deny that there has been any anthropogenic warming?
    You state that I misrepresent you. So will you please show here what you mean by this.
    Please state your position on these matters, and back this up with a statement of your qualifications and experience, as I did previously in response to your request.
    Eddie Banner

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Eddie, once you’ve identified yourself as a clown, then the only benefit you provide is humor.

      If you want to be taken seriously, then you must back up and address your mistakes. Starting with your false claim: We clearly agree about the properties of the greenhouse gases, and this is inline with the basic facts in the “old” theory.

      We do NOT agree! You believe the GHGs are heating the planet. I know different. So, if you want to stop being a clown, retract that statement, and start behaving responsibly.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Geran
    Thank you for your non-reply.
    I asked you to state your qualifications and experience, as I did for you.
    You have not done so.
    Do you have any qualifications or relevant experience?
    Or have you even finished school yet?
    It would be interesting to know.

    Also, you have not yet answered my question about what you think “flux” means.
    I cannot help you with that until I your thoughts on that.

    And you say you KNOW that greenhouse gases do not warm the Earth! How do you get all this knowledge. How do you account for the Earth’s surface temperature of a comfortable 288 K , even if there were no anthropogenic effect? Read my post again with a serious attempt to try try understand it
    Looking forward to receiving some sensible answers from you, giving full disclosure about your qualifications and relevant experience. Without a change of attitude on your part, I really cannot help you any further and this exchange of views becomes a waste of time.
    Eddie Banner

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Moffin

      |

      Dancing with shadows!

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Eddie Banner

        |

        Geran
        You have still refused to state your qualifications and experience.
        If you persist in this refusal, I shall assume you have none, and so your statements are without value.
        Eddie Banner

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          A desperate clown with a meaningless threat.

          Hilarious.

          More please.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Eddie Banner

            |

            Geran
            State your qualifications and experience.
            Eddie Banner

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            State why you want to be a desperate clown, trying to pervert physics.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Eddie Banner

            I have attempted to get him to state his qualifications on Roy Spencer before he was banned. He was not willing to then and he won’t for you. He is the clown he calls you. He knows a couple physics terms, can do a little math but mostly he just diverts and insults. You will not get a rational scientific point from him or JDHuffman. Neither of these posters have studied any actual physics and neither have enough attention span to read a text book. I have linked many times to valid science with these two clowns. The response? They tell me I don’t understand the material I linked to. That is about all they are able to do. They can’t defend any of their points with actual physics but they will forever pretend to be experts at a branch of science they can’t comprehend. It is amusing to observe Geran use the same tactics he did on Roy Spencer blog. Clowns don’t change their makeup they continue to entertain.

            Note, you will never convince Geran he is wrong. He will continue to avoid saying anything that can prove him wrong. He only posts enough to fool some dumb people on a couple blogs he posts on.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Eddie, Norman just gave you an example of what you will turn into if you continue to evade reality. Read his comment (above) and notice he has no appreciation for truth.

            I used to call him a “rabid chihuahua”. And, he hasn’t changed.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            Sorry the dog comparison goes to you. You are a yapping dog that makes lots of noise but you have no bite. You have zero credible information You don’t understand science and you never will since you have a reading disability.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Norman is back with his usual slandering and false accusations.

            Nothing new.

            Norman Grinvalds (yes, that’s his real name!) tries to make up for his deficits in science by insulting others. He’s not very smart.

            As evidence of his stupidity, he used to insult and slander people while he was at work. He works for MidAmerica Energy in the Omaha, Nebraska area as a low-level lab tech. He only has about 2 hours of work each day, so he used to spend the rest of the time blogging. I warned him that his company might get sued for all his slander of professional people. A smart attorney would claim that MidAmerica was complicit by providing Norman with the computer and time to carry out his slanderous attacks. He must have got in trouble, because he stopped blogging during work hours.

            The clown is in his 60s, but has the maturity of a 10-year-old. Has to be told not to slander people maliciously.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            YOU: “tries to make up for his deficits in science by insulting others. He’s not very smart.”

            What deficits in science are you referring to?

            To date you have not proven anything I have stated as flawed. You have not been able to post any valid science proving I am in any way wrong.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Wrong again, clown.

            3 words — “Ferris wheel chair”

            You tried to claim the chair was not rotating on an axle. You were clearly wrong, but won’t admit it. A simple toy proved you wrong. You just go into denial and try to spin your way out of your own web. That’s why you can’t learn.

            Nothing new.

            Now, your 500-word denial….

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHUffman

            Sorry I was correct on that one. The chair does NOT rotate on its axis. I pointed it out to you that you can put a candy bar on the seat and it does not fall out. If it rotated (by the definition of that word) the candy bar would have to fall out i a gravity field.

            I gave you several examples showing you the Moon does rotate on its axis and you rejected them all.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            That’s not 500 words, Norman.

            But, you changed the scenario from “rotating on an axle”. to “rotate on its axis”. That’s twisting it to a completely different scenario. That’s what you have to do when you’re proven wrong. Consequently, you never learn. You’re uneducable.

            The chair hangs from an axle, and rotates to keep from spilling the passengers as the Ferris wheel “orbits”. You will never understand basics.

            Nothing new.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            So Norman is in his 60s, has a dead-end job, and is so immature he has to be told not to slander people?

            Who knew? 🙂

            But, I enjoy his continuing hilarious pseudoscience. It’s almost as if he can’t wait to make a fool of himself.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi JD.

          You wrote: “The chair hangs from an axle, and rotates to keep from spilling the passengers as the Ferris wheel “orbits”.”

          Until you wrote this I did not know ‘what’ you and Norman had been discussing. What you wrote is an ‘observed fact’ (as accurately and simply defined) which cannot be questioned.

          This is an example of “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition”. (Louis Elsevir, in preface to ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’)

          So a wonderful example of what Louis’s quote.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

    • Avatar

      chris

      |

      It’s simple, the incoming radiation is 960 W/m^2. No need to make up back radiation when the sun is supplying plenty.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Eddie your article starts of brilliantly:

      “The Greenhouse Gas Theory is intended to explain the increase in the temperature of the surface of the Earth in the last few decades, due to the effects of the actions of human-kind. ”

      Yes, the GH effect was invented to explain a non-scientific premise that humans are responsible for climate change.

      It’s nonsense, but it serves its purpose.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Eddie Banner

        |

        Zoe Phin
        Thank you Zoe for your comment. Yes, I do have problems with the “old” Greenhouse Gas Theory.
        Hopefully, my revision featuring in these pages may help to bring it up to date.
        Eddie Banner

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Eddie,
          I went to your web site but could not post a comment so I will do it here.
          As long as people who believe the GHGT think that the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere is being heated by energy coming from the surface of the Earth they will never understand the energy of the Earth. While it is true that N2 and O2 do not absorb visible light and ;longer wavelengths they do absorb shorter wavelengths (uv and x-ray) emitted by the sun. Every object absorbs radiated energy and the O2 and N2 convert uv into kinetic energy. In order to split O2 into oxygen atoms it takes 450 kjoules/mole. This absorption of uv by O2 and N2 occur throughout the entire atmosphere not just in the ozone layer. (the concentration of ozone molecules in the ozone layer is 10 ppm, not enough to absorb anything.) This is why the upper atmosphere consists of oxygen atoms and helium. Since the shorter wavelengths contain more energy than longer wavelengths the atmosphere (which absorbs 97% of the uv coming from the sun contains more energy than the amount of energy transferred to the surface of the Earth by visible light.
          Herb

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Eddie Banner

            |

            Hi Herb
            Thank you for your message.
            Much food for thought there.
            Eddie

  • Avatar

    Barry

    |

    Cold last night on the west coast of Canada , woke up to two frozen garden hoses one in the shade one in the sun guess which one thawed first and the other one took hours longer. A person would think that if back radiation had any strength at all that on such a bright sunny day the shade or the sun would make no difference. Oh just about forgot to state my qualifications. 62 years of common sense. A little bit of observational skill and no education so I probably should just shut up and pay my carbon tax

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Chris

      |

      Not having a formal ed means that your head is clear. Makes it easier to think. Great observation. According to ghe the one in the sun should have thawed in only half the time.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Eddie Banner

    |

    Norman

    Re Geran
    Thank you for explaining the problems trying to have a sensible discussion with Geran.
    I shall avoid him in future, and others of the same ilk.
    Eddie Banner

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Matt and PSI Readers,

    Matt wrote: “It reminded me of scientific research on aspects of climate failing to acknowledge other possible contributions to a perceived phenomenon other than that which is being studied.” That was exactly my purpose in reviewing Feynman’s specific description of the SCIENCE that he knew was missing in ‘Cargo Cult Science’.

    In 1896 Svante Arrhenius ignored the possible influence of cloud upon the earth’s average climatic temperature and R.C. Sutcliffe wrote in 1966 that “Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threatened to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate.”

    Neither scientist acknowledged the possible existence of another alternative having any influence upon the earth’s average climatic atmospheric temperature. Sutcliffe is most at fault because no one in 1896 had evidently considered the obvious influence of cloud upon this average climatic temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. But Sutcliffe in Chapter 7 titled ‘radiation and Energy Exchanges’ wrote: “It would be fair to ask at this stage why anyone should be interested to carry out long and tedious calculations to discover what the temperature of the atmosphere should be according to the theoretical laws of radiation, when it is much more accurate to take a thermometer and make measurements, but the point of course is that the truth of the calculated results is the verification of the theory. If we are to understand the problems of long-range forecasting or climate change, or to judge would happen to the climate if the conditions were altered naturally or artificially there is no substitute for a WELL-PROVEN theory.”

    It obviously never crossed Sutcliffe’s mind that the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide might not be a WELL-PROVEN theory but instead be an absolutely WRONG theory. For on the third page he had written: “Meteorology is not a fundamental physical science.”

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Matt and PSI Readers,

    My previous comment of ‘March 17, 2020 at 7:55 pm’ was intended to be nearer to Matt’s comment of ‘March 17, 2020 at 6:07 pm’

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    HI PSI Readers,

    The RAWS (Remote Area Weather Station) at Finley NWR Oregon has a very unique instrument termed a Fuel Stick. This instrument is a wood (ponderosa pine) dowel which has central hole bored in its center in which are sealed a temperature measuring device and a relative humidity measuring device. The fuel stick mounted horizontally about a foot above the ground.

    The two measurements are measured constantly and the mean of these measurements are reported for the previous hour. Air temperatures are measured conventionally and the mean temperature of the previous hour is also reported. Commonly at midday and a few hours after the fuel stick temperatures can be several degrees Fahrenheit above that of the air temperatures. And during the nighttime hours the fuel stick temperatures can be several degrees lower than the air temperatures. And the magnitudes of these differences are greatest when the atmosphere appears to be cloudless.

    Yesterday the positive differences were 10, 11, and 12oF between the hours of 12pm and 3pm (3/16/2020). During the nighttime the negative differences were 9, 7, 7, 5, 6, 7, and 5oF between the hours of 11pm (3/16) and 6am (3/17). (https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/rawMAIN.pl?orOFIN)

    I make this comment to challenge any PSI readers of this data, to explain these differences of temperatures. For I consider an explanation, or explanations, might lead to a better understanding of the earth’s natural solar radiation-air temperature system.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

Leave a comment

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