The Utter Stupidity of Climate Scientists
You know what explanatory diagrams do. They omit several details in order to convey the main idea (see example above).
Climate scientists also use diagrams to explain how the Earth gets warm. Hereโs one from professor Richard Lindzen.
Whoever first composed this kind of diagram, I donโt know, but it must have made a hit because you find it everywhere in academia today, always replete with math symbols. Hereโs another from the University of Northern British Columbia.
And another from Harvard University.
The arrows always signify radiant intensities, and thereโs always a โlayerโ thatโs not in contact with the surface, whereas a real atmosphere is. But beyond that thereโs little to discern.
Hereโs a diagram from the University of Washington Department of Atmospheric Sciences, however. Itโs a bit clearer because it labels the arrows with quantities that are easier to grasp.
The term W/mยฒ here refers to watts per square meter. As a rough average, under peak conditions a 1 by 1 meter solar panel facing the Sun is exposed to about 1000 watts of radiance, thus 1000 W/mยฒ. If you prefer, though, you can just think of W/mยฒ as radiant โunits.โ
Like the others, this diagram shows that sunlight passes through an atmosphere thatโs transparent to visible light, which heats the Earthโs surface by the same intensity, i.e., 239.7 units, sufficient to induce a surface temperature of minus 18ยฐ Celsius. The heat rays that result, however, are at infrared not visible wavelengths and, being opaque to these rays, the atmosphere completely absorbs those 239.7 units and radiates them in two directions, both up and down. But this is precisely where the diagramโs veracity collapses โ a direct result of making clear what the arrows represent rather than masking them with symbols.
Look again.
In response to the surface emitting the 239.7 it receives from the Sun, both sides of the โatmosphereโ radiate 239.7 as well. This isnโt an error on this particular diagram; it is in fact the central tenet of how climate scientists believe the Earth gets warm. Itโs a deliberate stroke, the main idea these diagrams are getting at.
The layerโs down arrow in these diagrams equals the Sunโs radiant power, climate scientists claim, so the surface is subjected to the power of two suns, which doubles the radiance upon it. This is known as the greenhouse effect.
But their premise is flat wrong. A two-sided layer that absorbs 239.7 units has two avenues for expelling this energy. As a result, only about 120 units could be emitted from either side. Otherwise, such a layer would be capable of releasing 2 watts for every watt it absorbs, which is impossible.
Nevertheless, professor Lindzen endorses this impossibleness. Since 240 W/mยฒ are coming down from the atmosphere in his diagram, thenโฆ
โ the surface receives energy from both the sun and the atmosphere,
and the thermal equilibrium of the surface requires that
ฯTs4 = 240 Wmโ2 + ฯTa4 = 480 Wmโ2.
Solving for Ts gives a surface temperature now of 303 kelvins, or 30ยฐC. โ
The University of Washington diagram records the same result.
Here is David Archer, professor of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, describing the special property of that suspended layer.
And here is Gavin Schmidt of NASA explaining this doubled-emission in Learning from a simple model.
โ The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down. From those equations you can derive the surface temperature as a function of the incoming solar and the atmospheric emissivity as:
โฆIf you want to put some vaguely realistic numbers to it, then with S=240 W/mยฒ and ฮป=0.769, you get a ground temperature of 288 K โ roughly corresponding to Earth. โ
Donโt be thrown off by that Greek letter lambda (ฮป). It just refers to how well the atmosphere absorbs and emits. Lambda would equal 1 if it were a perfect emitter. So his equation simply means that the Groundโs emission equals the Sunโs emission divided by 1 minus 0.5 times the emission efficiency ( ฮป ) of the atmosphere. Schmidt offers numbers for Sun emission and Atmosphere efficiency as 240 and 0.769 respectively. Soโฆ
0.5 ร 0.769 is 0.3845.
1 โ 0.3845 is 0.6155.
and 240 รท 0.6155 is 389.927 (W/mยฒ) โ which indeed translates to 287.97 Kelvin, or 15ยฐC.
Why is this important? Well, because it confirms what the diagrams show, that a 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} emissive layer sends 240 units back to the surface.
0.5 ร 1 is 0.5.
1 โ 0.5 is 0.5.
and 240 รท 0.5 is 480 W/mยฒ.
The layer therefore emits 240 downward and another 240 to space (dividing by 0.5 is just a sneaky way of multiplying by 2). So, at any efficiency above 0{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, this remarkable layer does emit two watts for every watt it absorbs. Maybe itโs made of fairy dust.
Oddly, however, civil engineers havenโt exploited the obvious advantages of such a heat-transfer mechanism, not even in wintry climates where people have plenty of ice to use as a heat source.
But notice that whereas the atmosphere in these diagrams responds to the surfaceโs initial radiation by matching it, the atmosphere ceases to respond once it has made the surface hot. Given the frigid temperatures involved, we can demonstrate this with two ice cream cones, Letโs represent the surface as vanilla and the atmosphere as strawberry. Soโฆ
An absurd result? Of course. But this self-contradicting interaction points to the second supernatural occurrence in climate science diagrams.
It shouldnโt need saying, but two objects at the same temperature canโt heat each other, let alone one heat the other to a temperature higher than its own. Solar energy sets off a chain of events. No matter how many links compose that chain, their total cannot exceed the Sunโs contribution.
True scientists understand this in their bones; climate scientists do not.
Conclusion:
We started off by examining simple diagrams of how the Earth gets warm. But no diagram can explain the inherently unexplainable: how a spooky emitter doubles the energy that it absorbs and how opposing intensities combine, such that 240 units up and 240 down constitute 480 units of light instead of a thermal standoff.
- The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created out of nothing. Climate scientists ignore that law when they claim that the atmosphere can conjure 2 watts for every watt it absorbs.
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the transfer of heat โ by convection, conduction, or radiation โ only occurs when a difference of temperature exists. Climate scientists ignore that law when they claim that one of two bodies at the same temperature can heat the other.
These โsettled scientistsโ have thus given the world an Earth Energy Budget impervious to rational scrutiny, one that amplifies radiant energy by mechanisms unknown to any other field.
Despite the incoherent mess theyโve made, climate scientists hold a position of high regard. Indeed, these throwback astrologers have been allowed to set the terms of debate in the 21st century. Even most so-called skeptics only dispute the severity or magnitude of their prophecies, never doubting the foundation on which those prophecies rest.
Hereโs a synopsis of a familiar story.
โThe Emperorโs New Clothesโ is a short tale written by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent โ while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the emperor parades before his subjects in his new โclothesโ, no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally, a child cries out, โBut he isnโt wearing anything at all!โ
Each one of us, in conscience, must decide which role to play when confronted by a similar dilemma.
Alan Siddons is a co-founder of Principia Scientific International, a registered UK non-profit. PLEASE DONATE TODAY to support our mission for unbiased analysis of government science.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL is legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
geran
| #
Alan Siddons does an excellent job of debunking the GHE pseudoscience.
[Aside: For anyone trying to follow all the equations, the University of Washington example has a mistake. In the last line, the term โ(239.7 + 239.7)/(5.67 X 10^(-8))โ should be under a โfourth rootโ radical.]
Besides all the great points made by Alan, it gets even worse for the charlatans.
1) In general, different fluxes do NOT โaddโ. You can not treat fluxes, originating from different temperatures, arithmetically. Fluxes are composed of photons. In the language of physics, โphotons are NOT conservedโ. That means one photon could be absorbed by a surface, but three photons could be emitted. Thatโs because photons can be very different, in the energy they carry. The spectrum of solar impacting Earthโs surface is entirely different from the spectrum of infrared emitted by the surface. If the proper data sets existed, they would show that the atmosphere is NOT heating the surface.
2) Another common mistake made by the pseudoscience types is believing that ALL photons are ALWAYS absorbed. All photons are NOT always absorbed. Typically, absorption is linked to wavelength. Very short wavelengths, such as X-rays, can even blast right through matter. Very long wavelengths, are easily โbouncedโ.
Thatโs why a sophist can NOT bake a turkey with ice cubes!
ะฏฮโฮฉLUTโโผN
| #
โAll photons are NOT always absorbed. Typically, absorption is linked to wavelength.โ
Precisely. If all photons were absorbed, Earth from space would appear perfectly black. The energy budget diagrams above by climastrologists seem to infer that Earth is blacker than black, something a black hole is certainly incapable of. Which, as we know, emits radiation so is not perfectly black either.
tom0mason
| #
Well said Alan Siddons,
The contention of what the UN-IPCCโs cartoon says is that by CO2 action on IR (changing the IR from on frequency to another at a particular energy level) more energy come out of the CO2 molecule than went in. This is just scientific nonsense.
Also the assumptions not shown is that all the incoming IR undergoes this change, and that all CO2 molecules are able to perform this trick of frequency translation. Neither assumptions are true.
Indeed as reported here, Dr. Boris M. Smirnov, a prominent atomic physicist, has authored 20 physics textbooks during the last two decades. His latest scientific paper suggests that the traditional โabsorption bandโ model for calculating the effect of atmospheric CO2 during the radiative transfer process is flawed. New calculations reveal that the climateโs sensitivity to a doubling of the CO2 concentration is just 0.4 K, and the human contribution to that value is a negligible 0.02 K.
Squidly
| #
I just canโt get past the morons that believe a minus 18ยฐ Celsius surface can somehow warm itself warm to 30ยฐ Celsius, simply by somehow reflecting its own infrared off of so-called โgreenhouse gasesโ back to itself.
This entire concept (greenhouse effect) is so mind numbingly stupid .. I just have no words.
Squidly
| #
FYI, I donโt even bother to debate this stupid crap anymore .. I just laugh at it.
Squidly
| #
JMcG:
โฆ did not originate โฆ[blah blah blah]
Squidly:
I donโt give a ratโs ass where any of it โoriginatedโ .. itโs all bullshit
Squidly
| #
As I said James โฆ I donโt give a ratโs ass about your stupid bullshit.
Talk about โenoughโ โฆ STFU already!
Squidly
| #
No, I will not engage with you. I have engaged with you in the past and you are an asshole! .. As you will recall, we had many email exchanges whereby you revealed yourself to be a total asshole. I had to block your emails. You are a stalker, an idiot and an asshole.
You are desperately trying to drag me into a conversation that I am not the slightest bit interested in having with you. I canโt say this strongly enough .. GO AWAY!
Squidly
| #
Yes, you are correct James .. I have nothing because I donโt give the slightest hoot about what you have to say. I am not engaging with you at all you stupid moron!
You are the Jackass!! .. youโre too stupid to even know when someone isnโt even engaging with you and doesnโt want to talk to you. Youโre an idiot of epic proportions!
Phil Inman
| #
Well something that I canโt believe is the standard explanation for the formation of hail. cycled in an open horizontal tornado alternating soaking then freezing layers of water. Impossible. The balls would no way stay in this open air whirling container while it cycles how many times adding how much thickness per cycle? You donโt get much of a layer dipping an ice ball in water and putting it up to freeze. I suppose itโd be much less with 140 mph wind whipping it around. There are other forces at work.