A Tale of Two Energy Budgets
I think that it is better to use a spherical Earth with the real solar input to do an energy budget, rather than a flat Earth with 1/4 the solar input like peer-reviewed and pedagogical climate science does things
It makes a difference, because with 1/4 solar input of S(1-a)/4, this equates to a solar heating potential of only -18C, which means that the Sun cannot create or sustain the climate at all.
Whereas, with a spherical Earth, then the solar input is simply its own real value, S(1-a), which means that solar heating potential is as high as +121C where the albedo is low, and this is definitely enough primary forcing to create and sustain the climate.
Also, the only way in which a globally-uniform input of S(1-a)/4 could be physically true, is if the Earth were in fact a flat plane, because that would be the only physical way for that math to be empirically true.
This is then why a flat line is always used with S(1-a)/4, because a flat line implies that the surface area of the Earth is supposed to be flat.
Moreover, S(1-a)/4 as the solar input would place the Sun at two astronomical units away from this uniformly-illuminated flat plane, given the inverse square law and the divisor of 4 of of the solar power (1/(2^2) = 1/4), whereas using the solar input as it actually exists keeps the Sun exactly where it should be.
Finally, deriving the adiabatic gradient with water vapor latent heat release factored in accurately determines the measured value of the temperature lapse rate of the atmosphere.
However, the flat Earth approach of climate science pedagogy and peer-reviewed literature states that backradiation and the radiative greenhouse effect is what causes the bottom of the atmosphere to be warmer than higher layers, i.e., being proposed to explain the lapse rate.
Which effect actually creates the lapse rate then? Given that the adiabatic derivation arrives precisely at the measured value of the lapse rate, then there is no room for any additional temperature modulation of the distribution of temperature in the troposphere, which therefore serves as an experimental refutation of the existence of a climatological radiative greenhouse effect.
It is perhaps not surprising that the climatological radiative greenhouse effect does not actually exist, given that it is derived from flat Earth, where the Sun cannot create the climate or heat anything on Earth to higher than -18C, and where it is then derived to create the climate instead of the Sun.
This climatological radiative greenhouse effect also implies heat recycling, and even heat flow from cold to hot in some descriptions, either of which are strictly physically impossible (heat cannot be recycled or reversed, and definitely cannot act from cold to hot).
It is likely better to treat the Earth as a sphere, at the very least in introductory pedagogy and energy budgets, and definitely where such budgets appear in peer-reviewed literature.
Note to readers: Have fun with this by posting it to your favorite mainstream scientist or climate alarmist, and watch them go on, forever, trying to explain that the flat lines on the bottom right are actually a sphere, while they completely ignore that a sphere is drawn in the upper left, as well as many other inane things about heat flow and how solar energy spreads over the surface of the Earth, the impossibility of the adiabatic effect explaining anything or affecting the near-surface temperature, etc. etc. etc.
It might be removed from this FB group, but here it is if you wish to witness the idiocy.
See more here climateofsophistry
Header image: RT
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
All it needs is the basics to see the flaw in the climate crisis argument and nobody does it better than Joe Postma. This is common sense rather than difficult physics and even a our school teacher cannot understand this and so they continue with teaching nonsense, which they also do not understand otherwise they wouldn’t teach it.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The adiabatic effect doesn’t exist. The problem is that a thermometer measures the energy transferred to it by the momentum of the molecules striking it. Since the density decreases with increasing altitude there are fewer molecules transferring energy at higher altitudes and in order to get an indication of the energy of a molecule you must divide the temperature recorded on a thermometer by the density at that altitude. This will change the thermometer reading from energy per constant volume to energy per constant number of molecules. A graph of this value will show that instead of an impossible zig zag flow of energy, the energy of molecules increase with increasing altitude and the atmosphere is being heated by the sun, not the Earth.
Reply
Matthijs
| #
It’s not a flat earth in the Trenberth model, it’s a point, so it’s worse then flat earth theory.
Reply
Wisenox
| #
This is a legitimate question:
If 2 planes depart the same airport, traveling the same speed, 1 east and 1 west for the same amount of time, why do they travel the same distance?
Again, it’s an actual question.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Wisenox,
They don’t travel the same distance because the airport is traveling east too. (no tail or head winds)
Herb
Reply
Wisenox
| #
I look at it like, both planes travel 500mph:
The eastward plane travels 1000mph with the rotation due to the plasma atmosphere, along with the airport attached to the earth. Then, adds 500m in an hour propelling eastward in the plasma.
The westward plane travels in the same plasma and is also traveling 1000mph eastward at the start. It then travels west 500m in 1 hour.
The airport moves with the earth.
Both planes are 500m from the airport at 1 hour. Don’t know why, but I had a total brain fart today. It also supports the notion that the atmosphere does move with the earth to a degree. This would contradict both flat earth and the article’s model.
Appreciate the grounding, Herb.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Wisenox,
The atmosphere travels east faster than the Earth’s rotation.This was shown when atmospheric nuclear test radioactive clouds moved east and why weather systems move east.
The distance the plane travel is referenced from the airport. The eastward plane flies east at 500 mph so after I hr it is 500 miles from the airport. The westward plane flies 500 mph west so it moves 500 miles in an hour but in the same hour the airport has moved 1000 miles east making the distance between the airport and the plane 1500 miles.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
This is for satellites where there is no atmosphere movement.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Wisenox,
When satellites are launched into space in an eastward direction their velocities decrease with altitude. At altitudes above the geo stable distance the satellites moving east will cross the sky in a westward direction.
For the airplanes traveling at 500 mph in opposite directions the distance between them will increase at 1000 mph. This would be measured in elapse time not reference time. For the plane traveling westward it is possible for it to land at a reference time that is earlier than its take off time. There are different measurements in distance also. The distance travelled by a plane is referenced by ground speed which includes the motion of the Earth under it A plane traveling 500 mph eastward is moving faster than a plane flying 500 mph westward because the movement of the Earth makes an eastward mile longer that a westward mile. With the different set of references I’m now confused, especially when you add in the movement the atmosphere where the planes are flying..
Herb