“Power In” is NOT Equal to “Power Out”
I keep on seeing the phrase from alarmists, warmists, and luke-warmists, of this initiating assumption that, in order to conserve energy, you set the power input equal to the power output. In other words:
Power In = Power Out
Haven’t these people heard of entropy? The fact that for essentially NOTHING in the universe, power in = power out, is learned in high-school or even well before that. 
So who are the people that claim that power in = power out, in direct and the most basic violation of thermodynamics? Can you actually really be a physicist while claiming that power in = power out, in 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} efficiency? Nothing is 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} efficient, because of our friend entropy – no matter how efficiently you try to get work out of a system, you can never get as much power out as you put in – there are always losses.
So there’s that, and of course, why else is power in NOT EQUAL TO power out? Power in is not equal to power out because the energy which constitutes those powers does not come from the same surface area. For Earth, ‘power out’ does not equal ‘power in’ because the power gets put in on only half the planet, while the ‘power out’ comes from the whole planet.
There’s twice as much surface area from which power can come out than to which power comes in, and so, if the power out equalled the power in, there would be twice as much energy coming out as comes in. Equating flux will in general always lead to a basic violation of conservation of energy. Equating flux, in general, is not the correct way to conserve energy.
I mean this is all very basic stuff, which I’ve written on extensively already. The Earth is not flat, Sunshine is not cold, conserving flux is not the same thing as conserving energy, etc.
And that latter seems to be the source of all the climate confusion, among all participants of the debate. Only me and other people at PSI (Principia Scientific International, i.e. “the Slayers”) seem to be stating the factual, traditional-science case that power is not the same thing as energy, that flux can’t be averaged, that real-time differential heat-flow equations are the only true solution for heat flow and temperature, etc.
Some people try to tell me that the Slayers saying those things is only making skeptics look like fools. Is it true? Is power the same thing as energy? Can flux be averaged in a non-linear system? Are heat-flow differential equations just some curiosity that don’t really apply to temperature? Does the cold-end of a heated bar make the heated-end warmer? These are all, contradictions in terms.
Anyone who says that the Slayers are trying to make skeptics look foolish, is actually themselves an imposter pretending to be a skeptic or scientist otherwise, who’s role it is to defend the premise of the greenhouse effect, either from outside climate alarm or within. If you appear to be a skeptic, but spend a lot of your energy defending the greenhouse effect, and since the greenhouse effect is the sole existential basis for climate alarm, then in fact you are a defender of climate alarm politics. Factual outcomes overrule the pretences.
The only true skeptics are the Slayers and others who independently question the greenhouse effect and understand its basic scientific flaws. The Slayers and similar people are not just being “ultra-skeptics” for the fun of it, to fill that role out of some ultimately irrational desire to question everything like some “semantic philosophers” – no – we’re simply stating the facts of traditional science and traditional theory. Traditional theory, like, the Earth being heated on one-side only, etc.
Look at this response I got from someone named “Joel Shore” (my italics):
Joel Shore:
By the way, this concept of dividing both sides of the equation by the SAME value is a point that seems to have tripped you up before, Joe. It explains why you have sometimes been confused and said that you should only divide the (energy in) by half of the surface area of the Earth because the sun is only shining on half the Earth in order to get the average. The problem with doing that is that you are starting from an energy balance argument (energy in) = (energy out) but are then dividing both sides by a different number. This is not a legal mathematical step as it does not preserve the equality of the equation. A lot of words about how the sun is only shining over half the Earth does not allow you to perform illegal mathematical steps. I guess dividing both sides of an equation by the same amount is something that goes beyond your mathematical abilities. (I actually doubt that is the case, but to think otherwise is to believe that you are intentionally deceiving others.)
So you see what he’s trying to do there? Kind of clever in the way he’s trying to invert my own own argument. I argue, as traditional science would, that we need to conserve energy, which means that the numerical value for the power flux can be a free parameter, whatever it needs to be to satisfy energy conservation, and that trying to conserve flux is the wrong way to go about it. Shore says, instead, that flux power is what has to be numerically conserved, and that this can stand-in for energy. Conserving flux is not the same thing as conserving energy…they’re different words, and they’re not synonyms. Is that understandable? Conserving energy forms the basis of physics; conserving power doesn’t.
We also see open admission that such a concept of the Sun shining over half the Earth is anathema to the greenhouse effect and that style of “thinking”. Isn’t that amazing? His last sentence there is all about mocking the idea that the Sun shines only over half of the Earth – that I use “a lot of words” about it, and that the concept is “mathematically illegal”. The total energy on either side of the equation is entirely conserved when dividing by the respective surface-areas they associate with.
Energy in = Energy out, only. This does not equate to power in = power out. Power in = power out is not a fundamental equation or law in physics, and there is no need to worry about preserving it – it isn’t valid in the first place, and it doesn’t form the basis of energy conservation, or physics. If you want to conserve energy, then conserve energy. For that is fundamental physics. The power is then determined by wherever the energy goes or comes from.
Power in does not equal power out, and this is different from energy in equalling energy out. As long as people don’t understand that, or ignore it, they will remain ignorant of physics, even if they pretend to be educated in it. This confusion is the basis of the greenhouse effect, and the climate alarm which rests upon it. Can confusion be cured? How do you educate someone that black isn’t equal to grey, if they’re blind?
———–
Read more from Joe Postma at his blog, climateofsophistry.com
Trackback from your site.