Bite Sized Climate NIBLETS Part 1 – Averaging doesn’t work
This is the first in a series of Bite Sized Niblet articles which will quickly & simply deal with a wide array of errors, which the “TALL TAIL TEACHERS TELL”, to preach the lies of pretend climate crisis science.
These Niblet articles are designed to be quick and easy to understand, all the more complex technicalities can be linked, elaborated upon and even demonstrated at a later date. The purpose of these is to show to the general public, quickly so they can understand how it is they are being lied to.
The start of the great almighty lie, is that averaging is the method you should use for determining planetary temperatures and this method is one which is accurate and can be used & trusted with a high degree of certainty.
Using this method what you do is take the high intensity skin burning incoming energy and then spread it around thinly, so it’s as cold as ice. When applied to the whole of the Earth what you get is 1367 watts / m2, spread it thinly to arrive at 342 watts /m2 for the whole globe which when perform the steady state radiation equation will give us 279 K (6 Deg C) average temperature.
Then what you should do is then modify that temperature downwards, applying a factor known as albedo to get 255 K (-18°C). This is the Cold Earth Fallacy.
The “TALL TAIL TEACHERS TELL” then say that we experience 288k (15°C) because of back radiance induced by greenhouse gases, telling you the lie that this is known as the greenhouse effect & that this is the only reason that we can live on Earth and that making this effect worse is really bad and we should all bend over backwards to stop this heinous thing.
Now this cute & cuddly Disney toy, a real must have, is much like the Climate Crisis in that they like to dress up their lie to be all cute and cuddly and use terms like “Saving the planet”. However, unlike this lovely fluffy teddy, what most of the Green Movement really mean is this.
If the averaging approach actually worked, we would find that the temperature of a simple flat plate in space at Standard Earth Orbit distance would be 331K, as we average out emissions of 683.5 watts / m2. Assuming black body conditions of course.
This 331K temperature however is in fact wrong, the correct temperature of a flat plate perpendicular to the sun’s rays is 394K, as confirmed by NASA.
“The plate is in sunlight. Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space.” & “Thus, the nominal temperature of an object, in space and in sunlight, is 394 °K.” is what is said on the NASA link.
See this link for demonstrated evidence.
https://principia-scientific.org/bridging-the-gap-in-greenhouse-gas-theory-one-plate-test/
AVERAGING RADIATION INTENSITY FAILS >>>> IT CAN NOT EVEN BE USED TO ACCURATLEY PREDICT THE TEMPERATURE OF A FLAT PLATE, IT IS USELESS
Averaging does not work, you can-not take the incoming high intensity energy and then simply “thin it out by spreading it across the overall area of the plate”.
What you do is take the high intensity incoming energy, use that to determine the surface temperature and then use the thermal conductance of the material to figure out the temperature of the other side of the plate. A thin plate and a material with high thermal conductance such Steel or Aluminium, the temperature on the reverse dark side will be virtually identical to the temperature on the sunny side of the plate.
If you use the FAKE averaging approach you get a temperature of Earth of 255K, and essentially “TELL THE TALE THAT THE SUN CAN NOT HEAT THE EARTH SUFFICIENTLY”, because it is too weak and that we are only warm because of the pretend climate crisis effect. In essence, your NUTS!
Or you can TELL THE TRUTH and know it to be fact that averaging method is wrong, so wrong it can’t even predict the temperature of a flat plate, you instead utilise the correct approach and understand that the Sun is indeed providing enough heat to warm the Earth to the temperatures that we experience every-day, and that Radiation Greenhouse Effect is nothing but pure fantasy, then you live your life, write your laws and enact taxes to reflect reality.
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.
Al Shelton
| #
Thanks for that.
I will be sending it on to a few AGW people.
Reply
Barry
| #
Thanks for the plate explation that is so easy to understand. For uneducated people like myself I use the four burner range,if you are boiling water on one burner using 2000 watts it is not the same as using all four burners at 500 watts and moving the pot from burner to burner. Averages are only useful if used correctly and some averages are absolutely useless.
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
If you have an average, then you need a mode, median and standard deviation and hope that the data follows a Gaussian distribution. Energy received on the earth is time series data. Measure any two different time periods and you will get different distributions which may or may not be similar. The 1,367 watts is itself an average.
The metal plate seems to me to be a bit simplistic. It is not spherical. It doesn’t revolve. It does not wobble on its axis. It doesn’t revolve around it’s energy source and it does not have a homogeneous surface. It is not surrounded by magnetic fields or gases which are in continual motion. That is a rather complicated time series which doesn’t do well with an analysis based on averages.
The idea of a deviation from an arbitrary average temperature over an arbitrary 30 year average to measure a planets average surface temperature is pure bunkum.
The whole thing is complicated enough and the notion that it is all controlled by an atmospheric trace gas is, quite simply, laughable.
An old mine planning geologist once said to me, “Averages will bankrupt you”.
Reply
Alan
| #
Finn, in a few words you have got to the core of the scientific fraud that is human caused climate change and I suspect it is because our education system has been dumbed down so much that it is now almost useless. Most people would be able to calculate the average of a few numbers, but they have no appreciation of statistics and no understand that the average is only a small part of the information they need to understand the raw data.
I have only seen one person carry out a statistical analysis of temperature measurements and that is Darko Butina. His work is worth looking up for its simplicity.
I think good illustration is to give somebody the average height of men and tell them to go and make suits that will fit everybody and make a profit. They would not have a clue about the number of each size to make and when to stop making the large and small sizes because the chance of selling them would be so low.
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Hi Alan,
I downloaded Butina’s paper for a read.
If you are interested at all you can have a look at a code project of mine at
https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/GraemeMcMillan/Oxford-met-office/blob/master/oxfordweatherreviewed.html
It’s a similar approach.
There’s a ton of Python code in there which you can safely ignore.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Well said Finn McCool!
Averaged global temperatures are as useful as knowing the average altitude of the land on the planet. Sure it changes over time (a long time) but it tells you zip about how and why the planet is changing.
Reply
geran
| #
A plate would be emitting from both sides, so the 331 K is correct. The NASA link is incorrect.
Thanks for providing just one more example of how wrong NASA can be. NASA is not a perfect “god” to be worshipped. It is a bloated bureaucracy with many agendas that are unrelated to science.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Geran, wrong 394K is the correct temperature achieved for a plate emitting on both sides, you failed to grasp the point.
2ndly, you also failed to explain the link which takes you to a demonstation which can be seen on you tube, with a plate heated with a light bulb, which achieves temperatures far in excess of the average that would be expected if that method was right.
Idiot.
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Thank you for the article Geraint.
Unfortunately somebody has written the word idiot at the bottom of your comment.
It is essential that ideas and interpretations can be challenged without personal abuse. Keep up the good work .
Reply
geran
| #
Geraint, If the plate is absorbing 1367 W/m^2, then at equilibrium it must be emitting 683.5 W/m^2 from each side. Emitting 683.5 W/m^2 corresponds to the 331 K.
The GHE is wrong without your confusion about the relevant physics.
Reply
geraint hughes
| #
Geran,
You are the one whom is confused, you dont understand you just repeat yourself like a parrot. Repeating yourself, a tactic used by Hitler to lie to the masses, fails when I can demonstrate the truth as I have done already.
This test is repeatable, would you like me to do it again for you seeing as your so unable to grasp the truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhHb6PGBwxQ&list=PLF66zq1SOYiuDC5M51y7iMOO2-DnImyfq
The plate exceeded by far the averaging prediction, which isnt a surprise when you actually know whats happening.
https://principia-scientific.org/bridging-the-gap-in-greenhouse-gas-theory-one-plate-test/
I am going to do one with a sphere, tell me, if i apply the same 100 watt bulb i used, what temperature will i get on the reverse side of the sphere if I were to measure it and leave it until it attain steady state? Shall we see if your averaging method is right or not? I predict not.
Reply
geran
| #
At equilibrium, the plate must emit what it absorbs. Since both sides are equal, the emission is equal. It has nothing to do with “averaging”. It has to do with the fact that both sides are equal.
If one side had a different emissivity, then the emissions would not be equal. But, the sum of emitted must equal absorbed.
The 331 K is correct, the NASA link is incorrect for a two-sided plate. They must be assuming their plate is perfectly insulated on one side?
I guess you’ve never heard of “Godwin’s Law”….
geraint hughes
| #
Geran,
You repeat yourself again and show again you dont understand. The surface on the incoming side, (Kirchoffs Law- Not godwins-what does hitler have to do with this? Please stop taking the pills) will rise in temperature to match the intensity incoming radiation. This is how incoming matches outgoing.
This final temperature on the surface is ONLY affected by surface properties of its emissivity and absorptivity. If it is blackbody, it will reach 394k.
The amount of energy transferred to the reverse side of the plate is then only dependant upon thickness of material and its thermal conductivity.
I.e 394k. Or do you think that doesnt happen?
As the plate is thin, both sides are virtually the same temp, i.e 394k.
Your simplified averaging method doesnt work as demonstrated in live tests as I showed, which you ignore, because they proof your wrong and because you dont understand or have your head in the sand. Your understanding is flawed and fails live tests and your oversimplified mathematical approach fails.
You also didnt answer the question, because you dont know the answer. If i did the same test with a 100watt bulb tested a solid or hollow black painted aluminium sphere, what temperature would i get on the reverse side? What about a solid cube, what is temp on reverse side of the solid black aluminium cube, i can do that too.
geran
| #
Geraint, you are unable to understand the basics.
If both sides of the plate are at a temperature of 394K, then both sides are emitting 1367 W/m^2, or 2734 total. Yet the plate is only absorbing 1367 W/m^2. You have invented free energy!
Learn some physics.
And, you were the one that mentioned “Hitler”. Don’t add dishonesty to your incompetence.
geraint hughes
| #
Geran,
You raised Godwins law not me, you plain liar. Why did you do that? Are you nuts? Its not relevant. Pretending to be clever by stating pointless supposed laws, the sign of a fool.
Secondly, you still dont understand. Your a bit slow.
Radiation has a temperature, the temperature incoming is 394k. This heats up that side of the plate to reach that temperature. If it is fully absorbed, it is an equivalent to 1367 watts. The atoms on the receiving side resonate at 394k, these vibrating aotoms then transfer that energy to the other side of the plate, due to thermal conductivity, which attain a temperature of ever so slightly below 394, i.e. 393.999999999k.
It is not 1367 in, double that out. Only dimwits think that.
If you dont understand that you never will, i think your just a troll actually.
Secondly, you didnt explain how the plate test exceeds the average, by far. This is impossible according to your failed maths.
Thirdly, please tell me what temperature the sphere will be on the reverse side when i test it with a 100 watt bulb? Too hard for you i think. Ok, what about a solid black aluminum cube, cube is easy, oh wait, you cant even do a flat plate? What will the reverse side temperature be? Too hard 4 you again i think because you just dont get it.
You dont answer because you dont know.
Bye.
geran
| #
Geraint, you are STILL unable to understand the basics.
If both sides of the plate are at temperature 394K, then both sides are emitting 1367 W/m^2. If each side has area “A”, then one side is emitting 1367A Watts, and the other side is also emitting 1367A Watts. So the plate is emitting 2*1367 = 2734A Watts. Yet the plate is only absorbing 1367A Watts. You have a problem when your solution has twice the energy leaving than arriving.
The correct solution is 331 K.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geraint and Geran,
I thought I’d make a comment so you have someone else to yell at.
Instead of one object absorbing energy from another I have two objects emitting different amounts of energy. As I take a thermometer and move it away from one object the temperature will fall with increasing distance. Eventually it will reach a point between the two objects where the energy is in equilibrium and the temperature no longer decreases. Which ever direction I move the thermometer towards one of the objects the temperature will increase as the distance between it and the heat source decreases. As the energy emitted by the object with less energy decreases the equilibrium point will move towards the lower energy object. When the object has lost enough energy the equilibrium point will be at it’s surface and then it will begin to absorb energy from the other object and emit that energy from its opposite side.While in equilibrium the energy emitted by one side will be the same as the energy emitted by the other side because while the object is emitting energy towards the source it is not losing energy to it
Herb.
Jonas
| #
There is also a big problem with averaging the T^4 emission law (Stefan Boltzman).
A body with nonuniform temperature distribution emits more than a body with uniform temperature and the same average temperature.
The average temperature of body does not define how much it radiates. One has to specify the temperature distribution as well.
If one change the temperature distribution you have to change the average temperature in order to reach the same emission as before the change of the distribution.
The average temperature of a body in radiation equilibrium can thus vary even if the external forcing (influx) does not vary, if the temperature distribution varies.
This effect is significant and it should be considered when people talk about radiation balance. E.g. if north Atlantic get a bit colder and the south Atlantic a bit warmer – earths average temperature has to increase in order to establish a new radiation equilibrium.
Reply
Chris
| #
Also, thermal energy transfer is a vector. The sunny side has energy entering so it’s positive. The dark side has energy exiting so it’s negative. So when they attempt to average it they use they absolute value for thermal energy which treats like it’s static.
Reply
geran
| #
Chris, you may be confusing “heat” with “radiative flux”.
Heat is a scalar, not a vector. A radiative flux is represented by the Poynting vector.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector
Also, thermal energy transfer is a vector. The sunny side has energy entering so it’s positive. The dark side has energy exiting so it’s negative. So when they attempt to average it they use they absolute value for thermal energy which treats like it’s static.
Reply
Jerry Lrause
| #
Hi Geraint,
Been away from my computer for more than a week and have not have time to read anything well except the title: “Averaging Doesn’t Work”
I agree totally with this. Buy Einstein is said to have written: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”
For the simple explanation for why ‘averaging doesn’t work’ is that is soon as one averages the temperatures of a single day the Earth stands still and the diurnal temperature oscillation is not seen. And this temperature oxicillation is a fact which established the fact of the influence of atmospheric clouds with the earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures.
And these few words and the diurnal temperature oscillation are all that is needed to establish the fact that ‘averaging does not work”.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Massimo Polo
| #
Geraint, regardless of NASA (it wouldn’t be the first time they fail), I do not think that it can work like you say. The plate heated side can also loose heat by radiation to the background if the “view factor” permits it. In other words the “heating star” must not be so close to the plate that the heated side cannot “spill” radiation around to the space. It’s a geometry thing, and is described by the “view factors” in heat transfer textbooks. Think of it : if there are two stars heating the plate on both sides, then according to your theory there would be only power in, and no power out, meaning that the plate would reach infinite temperature. Nonsense.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Massimo,
The radiation of energy is not the same as losing energy. In order to lose energy it must be transferred to an object with less energy. If there are two equal heat sources separated by a distance the energy radiated to the other source will equal the energy received from that source and there will be no energy loss. There will be a decreasing energy field in all other directions.
Think what would happen if you had a spherical heat source radiating energy. If you were to split the source and move the halves apart they would remain in equilibrium but the amount of energy being exchanged between them would decrease with increasing distance while the size of field radiated by each half would increase. The plate between two stars would not reach infinite temperature but equalize with the energy coming from the two sources.
Herb
Reply