Dumbest Math Theory Ever? The Greenhouse Gas Effect!
Mainstream climate scientists believe in the dumbest math theory ever devised to try and explain physical reality. It is called the Greenhouse Effect. It’s so silly an unbelievable that I don’t even want to give it the honor of calling it a scientific theory, because it is nothing but ideological mathematics that has never been empirically validated. In fact it is nothing but a post hoc fallacy: the surface is hotter than what the sun alone can do, therefore greenhouse gases did it!
Today we will play with this silly math theory called the greenhouse effect. Here are two examples of its typical canonical depiction:
Let’s get started. Please create a new file called gheffect, and paste the following into it:
# bash gheffect
# Zoe Phin, 2020/03/03
[ -z $TSI ] && TSI=1361
[ -z $ALB ] && ALB=0.306
echo $1 | awk -vALB=$ALB -vTSI=$TSI 'BEGIN {
SIG = 5.67E-8 ; CURR = LAST = SUN = TSI*(1-ALB)/4
printf "Sec | Upwelling | Temp | GH Effect | Trapped | To Space\n"
} {
for (i=1 ;; i++) {
printf "%3d | %7.3f W | %7.3f C ", i, CURR, (CURR/SIG)^0.25-273.16
CURR = SUN + $1*LAST/2 ; GHE = SUN - (LAST*(1-$1))
printf "| %7.3f W | %7.3f W | %07.3f W\n", GHE, CURR-LAST, CURR-GHE
if ( sprintf("%.3f", CURR) == sprintf("%.3f", LAST) ) break
#if ( CURR==LAST ) break
LAST = CURR
}
}'Now run it with atmospheric emissivity = 0.792:
$ bash gheffect 0.792
Sec | Upwelling | Temp | GH Effect | Trapped | To Space
1 | 236.133 W | -19.125 C | 187.018 W | 93.509 W | 142.625 W
2 | 329.642 W | 2.971 C | 167.568 W | 37.030 W | 199.104 W
3 | 366.672 W | 10.419 C | 159.866 W | 14.664 W | 221.470 W
4 | 381.336 W | 13.212 C | 156.816 W | 5.807 W | 230.327 W
5 | 387.142 W | 14.296 C | 155.608 W | 2.300 W | 233.834 W
6 | 389.442 W | 14.722 C | 155.130 W | 0.911 W | 235.223 W
7 | 390.352 W | 14.890 C | 154.940 W | 0.361 W | 235.773 W
8 | 390.713 W | 14.957 C | 154.865 W | 0.143 W | 235.991 W
9 | 390.856 W | 14.983 C | 154.835 W | 0.057 W | 236.077 W
10 | 390.912 W | 14.994 C | 154.824 W | 0.022 W | 236.111 W
11 | 390.935 W | 14.998 C | 154.819 W | 0.009 W | 236.125 W
12 | 390.944 W | 14.999 C | 154.817 W | 0.004 W | 236.130 W
13 | 390.947 W | 15.000 C | 154.816 W | 0.001 W | 236.132 W
14 | 390.949 W | 15.000 C | 154.816 W | 0.001 W | 236.133 WW is shorthand for W/m². Parameters are taken from NASA Earth Fact Sheet.
As you can see, by delaying outgoing radiation for 14 [¹] seconds [²], we have boosted surface up-welling radiation by an additional ~66% (154.8/236.1 W/m²). Amazing, right? That’s what my program shows, and that’s what is claimed:
This is zero in the absence of any long‐wave absorbers, and around 155 W/m² in the present‐day atmosphere [Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997]. This reduction in outgoing LW flux drives the 33°C greenhouse effect …
The main prediction of the theory is that as the atmosphere absorbs more infrared radiation, the surface will get warmer. Let’s rerun the program with a higher atmospheric emissivity = 0.8
$ bash gheffect 0.8
Sec | Upwelling | Temp | GH Effect | Trapped | To Space
1 | 236.133 W | -19.125 C | 188.907 W | 94.453 W | 141.680 W
2 | 330.587 W | 3.168 C | 170.016 W | 37.781 W | 198.352 W
3 | 368.368 W | 10.746 C | 162.460 W | 15.113 W | 221.021 W
4 | 383.481 W | 13.614 C | 159.437 W | 6.045 W | 230.088 W
5 | 389.526 W | 14.738 C | 158.228 W | 2.418 W | 233.715 W
6 | 391.944 W | 15.184 C | 157.745 W | 0.967 W | 235.166 W
7 | 392.911 W | 15.361 C | 157.551 W | 0.387 W | 235.747 W
8 | 393.298 W | 15.432 C | 157.474 W | 0.155 W | 235.979 W
9 | 393.453 W | 15.461 C | 157.443 W | 0.062 W | 236.072 W
10 | 393.515 W | 15.472 C | 157.431 W | 0.025 W | 236.109 W
11 | 393.539 W | 15.477 C | 157.426 W | 0.010 W | 236.124 W
12 | 393.549 W | 15.478 C | 157.424 W | 0.004 W | 236.130 W
13 | 393.553 W | 15.479 C | 157.423 W | 0.002 W | 236.132 W
14 | 393.555 W | 15.479 C | 157.423 W | 0.001 W | 236.133 WA 1% rise in atmospheric emissivity (0.8/0.792) predicts a 0.479 °C rise in surface temperature.
You would think such intelligent and “correct” mathematics would be based on actual experiments, but you would be wrong; it is not based on anything other than its presuppositions, and has been so for more than a century by name, and two centuries by concept.
Let’s outline a very simple experiment to test whether the greenhouse effect is true:
Solid Surface
v
1) Person => | IR Camera
2) Person <- | -> IR Camera
And repeats until "equilibrium"Radiation leaves the body and strikes a screen. After absorption some radiation will go out to the IR camera, and the rest will go back to the person, thereby warming them up further, according to greenhouse effect theory. Note that we don’t even need absorption, merely reflecting back a person’s radiation should warm them up.
Let’s assume the human body emits 522.7 W/m² (37 °C) (Emissivity: 0.9961, [Sanchez-Marin 2009]). For compatibility with my program, we multiply this figure by 4, and call it TSI. Let’s assume the screen and air in between together has a total emissivity of 0.9. Now run:
$ TSI=2090.8 bash gheffect 0.9
Sec | Upwelling | Temp | GH Effect | Trapped | To Space
1 | 362.754 W | 9.658 C | 326.478 W | 163.239 W | 199.515 W
2 | 525.993 W | 37.188 C | 310.154 W | 73.458 W | 289.296 W
3 | 599.451 W | 47.498 C | 302.809 W | 33.056 W | 329.698 W
4 | 632.507 W | 51.830 C | 299.503 W | 14.875 W | 347.879 W
5 | 647.382 W | 53.725 C | 298.016 W | 6.694 W | 356.060 W
6 | 654.076 W | 54.566 C | 297.346 W | 3.012 W | 359.742 W
7 | 657.088 W | 54.943 C | 297.045 W | 1.356 W | 361.398 W
8 | 658.443 W | 55.112 C | 296.909 W | 0.610 W | 362.144 W
9 | 659.053 W | 55.188 C | 296.848 W | 0.274 W | 362.479 W
10 | 659.328 W | 55.222 C | 296.821 W | 0.124 W | 362.630 W
11 | 659.451 W | 55.238 C | 296.809 W | 0.056 W | 362.698 W
12 | 659.507 W | 55.244 C | 296.803 W | 0.025 W | 362.729 W
13 | 659.532 W | 55.248 C | 296.801 W | 0.011 W | 362.743 W
14 | 659.543 W | 55.249 C | 296.799 W | 0.005 W | 362.749 W
15 | 659.548 W | 55.250 C | 296.799 W | 0.002 W | 362.752 W
16 | 659.550 W | 55.250 C | 296.799 W | 0.001 W | 362.753 W
17 | 659.552 W | 55.250 C | 296.799 W | 0.000 W | 362.753 WWe see that the screen is “trapping” a lot of human radiation from reaching the IR camera, and we expect an extra 296.8 W/m² greenhouse effect, bringing us up to 55°C. Merely placing a screen in front of us should make us feel as if we’re stepping inside a sauna.
These people must be really feeling the heat. But they don’t, and for good reason: preventing radiation from reaching a colder place does not cause heating back at the source. Had these people had thermometers strapped to them, they would note the virtually zero temperature rise (due to blocked convection). Look very closely at the videos. Note the seconds the screens are placed in front of their faces and notice the lack of any thermal reading changes. None!
All empirical evidence shows the opposite of the claims of the greenhouse effect.
So the question remains, why is the surface hotter than the sun can make it alone?
If we look at the energy budget, we can see a dependency loop between surface and atmosphere: Surface -> Atmo = 350 and Atmo -> Surface = 324. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? This is nonsense. You can’t have a dependency loop for heat flow. Let’s try a theory that does not cause mental anguish and lacks empirical evidence. For this, we ignore the climate “scientists”, and go to the geophysicists:
Here we see that Earth’s geothermal energy is capable of delivering 0 °C to the surface; This is equivalent to 315.7 W/m². We add the sun and subtract latent+sensible heat:
315.7 + 168 – 24 – 78 = 381.7 = Upwelling Radiadtion
Now we get a figure that that’s 390 – 381.7 = 8.3 W/m² off, but that’s OK because latent and sensible heat are not directly measured but estimated with certain physical assumptions, and/or the 0 °C geothermal is an approximation too.
Now we finally realize that the greenhouse effect is a hoax, and nothing but geothermal flipped up-side down. There is no Downwelling Radiation, there is only Upwelling-from-measurement-instrument Radiation (See here). Those who read Why is Venus so hot?, probably already saw where I was going. Now doesn’t it make more sense than backradiation temperature raising? Reality shows abolutely normal geothermal and solar combining to produce what we observe. We see all normal heating, and no ugly backwards zig-zag heating.
Let’s summarize:
Upwelling
^
| | ^ ^
v | | |
===============================
| Latent Sensible
Solar ---+ Heat Heat
| ^ ^
| | |
+------ GeothermalNow which explanation does Occam’s Razor favor?
I hope you have enjoyed the return to sanity.
Sincerely, -Zoe
Notes
[¹] We only care about matching 3 decimal places. If we want to extend it to IEEE754 64-bit precision, it takes 40 seconds. Not that this matters much; Most work is accomplished in the first 5 seconds.
[²] I debated with myself whether to use the term seconds or iterations. Real physical calculations would take mass and heat capacity into account, but since greenhouse theorists don’t use these, I won’t either. Their simple model is in seconds.
Read more at phzoe.com
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.
Carl
| #
The “dumb” mathematics of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis (affectionately known as a “howler”) is not unlike the “dumb” mathematics developed by Claudius Ptolemy to explain the Earth-centered model of the Universe. In each case the imaginary concept existed first and then the mathematics was developed to supposedly validate the concept.
Here are some other fallacies that people have developed mathematical formulas to “prove”:
1 = 2
0 = -1
1 = -1
an elephant and a mosquito have the same mass
proof that I am the Pope
The fact is, numbers are very a persuasive tool when someone is seeking to advance an imagination based false narrative and the branch of mathematics that is most commonly used in this endeavor is “statistics”. As Mark Twain was known to say, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics,” because statistics are so easily manipulated to fit a pre-conceived narrative. The “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change” narrative is rife with cherry-picked statistics (euphemistically called “The Science”.) Just read through any of the IPCC’s several Climate Assessment Reports. “The Science says . . . (insert cherry-picked statistic here).” Anyone that then challenges the validity of the imagination based false narrative is simply dismissed as being a “science denier”, which is another technique used in propaganda called “name-calling”.
The next time you are watching the “news” notice how often they cite this or that “statistic” to bolster the narrative that they are advancing and then do your own research. For example, how many people have tested positive for COVID-19 vs. how many people have died “with” COVID-19 vs. how many people have died “because” of COVID-19? The numbers fall precipitously.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Sure, their energy flow diagrams are seriously flawed mathematically, but it is worse than that.
First off, the greenhouse effect models do not have night time, which denies the cooling effect of the radiative gases, water vapor and CO2. The air chills rapidly after sundown.
Second, In daytime, which is the situation in all models, the surface is always hotter than the CO2 in the atmosphere, supposedly located in the upper tropical troposphere, which means that the energy levels in the surface equivalent to the IR sent downward from CO2 will be reflected and sent back up.
Third, CO2 has very limited IR emission/absorption wavelengths, equivalent to radiation from -80, 400, and 800 deg C. At the -17 deg C, CO2 in the upper troposphere can only emit IR radiation equivalent to -80 deg C. In other words, essentially everything in the world is warmer and thus CO2 will have no effect. Thermodynamics—a cool object cannot warm a warmer object.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Good observations, Charles Higley. Here are a few other considerations.
The ultimate failure of the “consensus” climate view is its abandonment of a prerequisite for blackbody emissions – the environment of a vacuum at 0K temperature.
This omission necessitates their major “workaround” – the “backdrop” or “scenery-flat” sky. Contrary to their popular schematics, the atmosphere is not an inert, empty space or “radiant energy host.” At the surface it is a thick, dense, dynamic mantle of gas molecules (~9.33 tons per sq yd) that thin as gravity weakens with altitude. Starting off roiled by the heated surface, surging convective air flows in enormous “adiabats” of gas ascending and moving toward the poles to dissipate and expel surface heat, like gas bubbles escaping boiling water.
The atmosphere overall is also essentially laminar, with two major regions, each explicable by very different equations of state. Equations of state describe the properties of fluids, mixtures of fluids, solids, and the interior of stars. They must be empirically developed for the matter described. Our innermost (lower) atmospheric layer – from 1.0 to 0.1 Bar pressure is the “weather” atmosphere. The more placid “climate” atmosphere above it, 0.l Bar and less, thins to the vacuum of space in rarified regions above the stratosphere. The appropriate equation of state near the surface is the roughly 150-year-old, fully tested tropospheric gravitational temperature gradient, grounded in and driven by, the Earth’s heated surface. Not until the atmosphere thins to a vacuum will Stefan-Boltzmann radiant energy mechanisms begin to apply.
Scanting blackbody requirements and neglecting to account for the old established properties of the lower atmospheres, necessitates giving the energy budgets a wholly imaginary “sky,” seemingly uniform, inert – and a near or total vacuum in which radiant energy can predominate. Yet this dismissal, overlooks a mandatory prerequisite, what produces and maintains the atmosphere in which their show takes place? What is the genesis of their “sky? Where does it come from, and what if any role does it have in their magic show?
Gravity is the only reason the Earth or any planet has an atmosphere, and it would press its atmosphere flat to the surface but for intrinsic mechanisms opposing it. It is the Earth’s heated surface, initiating and driving the reaction against gravitational compression that satisfies the two essential requirements why an atmosphere exists at all. The first is a continuous supply of enough kinetic surface energy to inflate those gases that raise the atmosphere’s height against gravity. The second, is its concurrent production of enough outgoing thermal energy to offset the continuous incoming energy from the Earth’s only external energy source, the sun.
The “:sky” is not just for the energy budget stage set.
Reply
geran
| #
The GHE is pseudoscience, but Zoe’s ongoing attempt to “heat the planet” with geothermal is also pseudoscience.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
There’s 4 games in town to explain why the surface is 15C
1) Sun + GHGs (mainstream)
2) Sun + Atmo pressure (Nikolov,Zeller,etc.)
2b) Sun + Atmo pressure heat all the way to the core (Doug Cotton)
3) Sun Alone (Postma)
4) Sun + Geothermal (Zoe)
Postma flips between explanation #2 and #3, depending on who he’s talking to.
‘”heat the planet” with geothermal’
The planet is already hot from geothermal: primordial + nuclear. Nobody disputes that.
The mainstream argument is that this heat doesn’t do anything because a GRADIENT measure is so small. I think this measure is irrelevant.
As for #2, it’s the internal heat plus the sun that creates the atmo pressure. Not the pressure creating extra energy.
You haven’t given me good reasons why my explanation is not the best.
You’re simply in denial.
Reply
geran
| #
The reason for the 15C is a little more complicated than you represent. It involves Sun, oceans, and atmosphere. The core is incapable of affecting a surface temperature of 15C. Your geo source does NOT state “geothermal energy is capable of delivering 0 °C to the surface”. That is just your wishful interpretation of the graph.
Estimates of actual core flux arriving the surface vary between 0.020 — 0.150 W/m^2, with a happy average of about 0.09 W/m^2. That’s nowhere near 0ºC.
Beyond that, your knowledge of radiative physics is a fail. You make the same mistakes as in the GHE pseudoscience. You’re claiming solar flux is less than an ice cube emits!
Try to get the basics right before you claim you’ve discovered something new.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“Estimates of actual core flux arriving the surface vary”
False. The geothermal heat flux is not a flux arriving at a surface area. GHF is measured at DEPTHS. You can see the data for yourself, and it doesn’t comply to your statement.
Look at some references to data here:
http://phzoe.com/2019/12/06/measuring-geothermal-1/
Why would geophysicists make a diagram that goes to 0C, instead of the 36K you believe it would be based on misinterpreting what conductive heat flux implies?
Here are a bunch of profiles with the same heat flux:
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/
“It involves Sun, oceans, and atmosphere.”
You think oceans and atmosphere are a heat source?
Reply
geran
| #
No, it’s not false. Earth’s core is extremely hot, and that thermal energy is dissipated though Earth to the surface. But, since the distance to the surface, and the surface area, are both very large, the energy arriving at the surface is quite low, estimated to be about 0.09 W/m^2. That’s not enough energy to melt ice.
You don’t want to admit that fact because it messes up your false idea that geothermal can warm the surface.
And quit acting like a little girl by misrepresenting me, as you did here: “You think oceans and atmosphere are a heat source?”
I never said any such thing.
Zoe Phin
| #
“the energy arriving at the surface is quite low, estimated to be about 0.09 W/m^2”
Where’d you get that silly idea?
The geothermal flux is the temperature GRADIENT multiplied by conductivity coefficient.
What do you still not understand about the difference in a gradient and what arrives at the top?
The energy arriving is HIGH, but the steepness of temperature profile is LOW.
The energy is high enough to cause surface matter to be at least 0C.
geran
| #
The total amount energy is large, but averaged over Earth’s surface is insignificant, relative to 15 ºC.
Even wikipedia gets this one right: Earth’s internal heat budget is fundamental to the thermal history of the Earth. The flow of heat from Earth’s interior to the surface is estimated at 47±2 terawatts (TW) and comes from two main sources in roughly equal amounts: the radiogenic heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust, and the primordial heat left over from the formation of Earth.
47 TW divided by Earth’s surface, 510 (10)^12 m^2 = 0.092 W/m^2.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
You can’t use wikipedia to refute the very points I acknowledge and addressed on my blog. You’re not saying anything new.
I’ll tell you what: I’ll ask you a simple problem. You solve it correctly and I will drop geothermal.
You place a 1 cm thick piece of steel on top of an electric stove. It’s big enough to cover the whole top coil.
The conductivity coefficient is always constant 50 W/m/K. The conductive heat flux was measured to be 250 W/m^2.
What’s the final temperature at the top of steel slab?
Ignore conduction by air and convection.
Thank you
geran
| #
Zoe, that is equivalent to saying a car is traveling at 60 mph. Then asking how long has it been traveling.
IOW, you don’t know how to set up a simple problem. You didn’t provide enough info. You need some meaningful combination of energy in/out, temperature in/out.
Now, you can “drop geothermal”, since I “solved it correctly”.
Also, Wikipedia is fine for the basics. You could learn some things there.
Zoe Phin
| #
“You didn’t provide enough info. You need some meaningful combination of energy in/out, temperature in/out.”
There you have it folks !!!
Geran recognizes more info is needed. But when it comes to geothermal, he just looks at the small heat flux converts it to a temperature using Stefan Boltzmann Law and assumes therefore he can ignore geothermal for delivering 0C to the surface.
Geran,
How come you don’t want to convert 250 W/m^2 to ~15C?
Don’t you believe 250 W/m^2 is what is supposed to be emitted at the top? (emis = 1)
Why are you treating the geothermal problem DIFFERENTLY from this new problem?
Why? Why? Why?
Zoe Phin
| #
Correction: ~-15C
(forgot the negative)
geran
| #
There you have it folks !!!
Zoe said she would stop if I solved her problem. I solved the problem, correctly, recognizing that she had not set it up right. But, she’s not going to stop. She’s not going to do what she said she would do.
And Zoe, I warned you about misrepresenting me. I explained how the 0.09 W/m^2 comes about. Although it’s an estimate, it’s legitimate. It means the core has insignificant effect on surface temps. The 0.09 W/m^2 is legitimate, your knowledge of physics is illegitimate.
Learn some physics.
Zoe Phin
| #
“she had not set it up right”
That was the point, Geran. I didn’t tell you all the info so you would be forced to seek it out.
Do you really believe 0.09 W/m^2 is what geothermal emits OUT of a surface area (emergent flux)?
You really think that?
Then what is the internal conductive geothermal heat flux?
Surely both type of fluxes can’t be the same, could they?
If they were the same, then you’d have no problem solving my problem, now would you?
“She’s not going to do what she said she would do.”
Why would I stop when the whole point of my problem was to expose you as either an idiot or a hypocrite?
Congratulations, I don’t think you’re an idiot.
You just have questionable integrity. Please show me I’m wrong, by completing the above problem with additional info:
I have set the electric stove to 204 C. The bottom of the steel slab will be 204 C.
What will the top temperature be?
What will the top emit? (emissivity = 1)
geran
| #
The more you get tangled up Zoe, the more you pound on your keyboard. Doug C. did the same.
I guess it helps with the frustration.
Zoe Phin
| #
Answer the question please, if you can …
geran
| #
I “solved” your problem, Zoe. You didn’t like the answer because it showed you don’t understand the relevant physics.
That’s why you went all “little girl” on me and started with the insults.
Grow up, and learn some physics.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
Solve the problem with the given additional information.
C’mon, I believe you can do it!
geran
| #
That particular belief is correct, Zoe.
Some of your other ones, not so much….
Zoe Phin
| #
“That particular belief is correct, Zoe.”
Now I’m starting to have doubts that you can do it.
Are you too shy to admit you can’t do it?
Would you like me to do it for you?
geran
| #
Zoe, I get such offers from females all the time. Sorry, I just have to say “no”.
I’m a “One-Woman-Man”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWlmPBmqBk0
Zoe Phin
| #
Ha ha
Can you solve the physics problem I posed, or not?
geran
| #
I already solved it, dear girl.
And I didn’t have to use a spreadsheet like you have to use.`
Zoe Phin
| #
No, Geran, you never answered my 2 questions after more additional info was provided.
I take it you’re afraid of being shown to be wrong. Coward!
geran
| #
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Zoe Phin
| #
Why would you think I’m furious or scorned?
I could care less if you solve the problem.
You know it’s just another trap. You know the solution shows I’m right.
And the smart audience knows you won’t solve it precisely because it supports my side.
You’ve already been played.
How far you choose to debase yourself is all up to you.
geran
| #
Yes, I knew something was wrong. I didn’t know if your were trying to trap me, or were just incompetent. It appears you were both.
If you get this flustered when you get caught, you might want to stop promoting pseudoscience.
carl
| #
The temperature of the surface of the ground (15C) and heat flux from the ground to the atmosphere are two different thermodynamic realities. While temperature is a measure the thermal content of matter, heat flux is a measure of the flow of thermal energy either into or out of a thermodynamic system.
Temperature is like the volume of water in a lake while heat flux is like a river that flow into or out of the lake. The temperature of the ground is therefore a measure of how much thermal energy has accumulated in the ground over time. Even 0.09 W/m^2 is a lot of thermal energy over the course of 4.5 billion years!
One thing left out of the “dumb math” that presumably defines the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the residual geothermal energy that never leaves the ground. (The temperature of the ground does not drop to absolute zero every night and is then reheated by the Sun every day.)
I did a scientific study in my back yard that gathered ~1800 temperature readings (one every 30 minutes) of the surface of the ground over 38 days and even at night when the sun wasn’t shinning the temperature didn’t drop below ~275K. Daytime high temperatures averaged ~305K (~30K diurnal flux in the temperature of the ground.)
Thus I observed that the effect of sunlight on the temperature of the ground is to create “waves” upon a “sea” of residual geothermal thermal energy.
Thus, of the average ~380W/m^2 of IR radiation that the ground was continually emitting upward (not to be confused with “heat flux” which is the difference between upwelling and downwelling IR radiation,) ~300W/m^2 was the product of the residual geothermal energy contained within the ground (energy that has been building up within the surface for 4.5 billion years) while only ~80 W/m^2 was the result of the daily variation in ground temperatures that sunlight was creating.
One other thing that I observed in the data from this experiment is the fact that the ground stays perpetually warmer than the air that is in contact with it 24/7 and that the rate of nighttime ground cooling is, as one would expect, relative to the temperature differential between the two, i.e., how much cooler the air is than the ground. This is fully consistent with Newton’s Law of Cooling which states “the rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its surroundings.”
Therefore, fully consistent with the 2nd law of TD, the rate at which the ground cools at night is determined primarily by the “temperature” differential between the air and the ground because the atmosphere is in direct contact with the ground. Yes, the IR radiation differential between the ground and the atmosphere plays a part but is not the “sole” thermodynamic force in play as the “dumb math” that presumably defines the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis would have you believe.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Carl,
The atmosphere at sea level contains 1.2 kg/m^3 of molecules while the water at sea level contains 1000 kg/m^3 of molecules. This means the water has 9 molecules transferring energy to each air molecules while the air molecule transfer energy to 9 water molecules. If the kinetic energy of the water molecules increased there would still be 9 molecules transferring energy to air molecules. If the kinetic energy of the air molecules increased the gas would expand and there would be less than 1 molecule of air transferring energy to the 9 water molecules. How can the mean kinetic energy (temperature) remain the same in the water and the air as the density of the air changes?
Herb
Zoe Phin
| #
Great observations, Carl! I think you get it.
But you lost me at accumulation of 0.09. I don’t understand how that would work.
Look at all these profiles where conductive heat flux = 91.6 mW^2
https://phzoe.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/geohf.gif?w=740
Surely, the 0.09 tells you nothing about which profile we actually have!
Zoe Phin
| #
Hi Herb
“atmosphere at sea level contains 1.2 kg/m^3 of molecules while the water at sea level contains 1000 kg/m^3 of molecules. This means the water has 9 molecules”
I’m curious how you got the value 9. Help me understand.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoe,
It should be 900 water molecules for every air molecule.
Herb
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
The volume is a cube. The boundary of direct conduction is a square 🙂
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoe,
The volume doesn’t have to be a cube its area and depth can vary as long as their products equals 1 m^3. You could make the depth 1 molecule if you wished.
Herb
Zoe Phin
| #
I thought you were interested in direct interactions at the air-sea boundary, which is a plane, that lacks volume.
If that was the case, it would be ~90 to 1.
lifeisthermal
| #
This I agree on, the use of solar flux at a level of 168W/m^2 is ridiciolous. It´s measured at 1000W/m^2 practically all over the surface in clear weather. At the cloud tops it´s always at this level at least, and that´s deep inside the system . Heat source power should not be averaged over the surface area of an absorber if it´s not submerged in a heat bath.
Reply
geran
| #
The bogus 168 W/m^2 comes from the AGW/GHE/CO2 cabal. They reduce the solar arriving the surface by albedo, which is the only legitimate reduction. Then they subtract off some more, claiming it is absorbed in the atmosphere, but somehow doesn’t count. Then, they divide the remainder by 4, based on a sphere has 4 times the surface area of its disk.
The purpose is to take solar out of the equation. (168 W/m^2 would not even be able to melt ice cream.) Once they reduce solar to nothing, then they claim CO2 is what is making up the difference. It’s pure pseudoscience.
Then, you have people like the infamous Doug C. who comes along to accept the bogus 168 W/m^2, but claims it is not CO2 that is making up the difference, but rather his “heat creep”.
He was able to sell a few books.
Then, here comes Zoe, who also accepts the bogus 168 W/m^2. She rejects CO2, but claims geothermal is making up the difference.
I’m not sure if her book is finished yet….
Whenever you see someone accepting the bogus 168 W/m^2, you know they’re into pseudoscience, and possibly for profit.
Zoe Phin
| #
The 168 is legitimate. So is the ~17 for Venus’ surface.
“Then, they divide the remainder by 4”
Yup. 24hr day and angle of sunshine is completely accounted.
“Then, here comes Zoe, who also accepts the bogus 168 W/m^2. She rejects CO2, but claims geothermal is making up the difference.”
LOL. Geothermal provides the base of kinetic energy at the surface. The sun’s shorterwave radiation adds to that kinetic energy.
I’m currently sunbathing in the hot afternoon Atlanta sun right now, but I’m not stupid enough to think that it’s like this everywhere else in the world. Half is in darkness, and another sees the sun at a lower angle.
“Then they subtract off some more, claiming it is absorbed in the atmosphere, but somehow doesn’t count.”
That radiation that was directly absorbed by molecules, can’t make it down to the surface BECAUSE cold doesn’t warm HOT. That radiation makes those molecules vibrate directly without then having to send anything out (thus cooling themselves).
geran
| #
Zoe believes, incorrectly: “Geothermal provides the base of kinetic energy at the surface. The sun’s shorterwave radiation adds to that kinetic energy.”
No, solar does NOT “add” to the existing surface temperature. It overrides it.
And, fluxes don’t simply add. Different fluxes have differing photons, which means many differing wavelenghs. Different wavelengths do not add.
But why learn physics when you can just fake it?
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
That which vibrates in a way that produces longwave radiation is capable of being warmed by shortwave radiation.
“And, fluxes don’t simply add.”
That’s true, they OR.
“Different wavelengths do not add.”
Geran debunked Planck!
geran
| #
Whenever you go “little girl” on me, that means you know you were wrong.
So, fluxes do not add. Solar does not add to surface temp, it overrides it.
And again, the 168 W/m^2 is bogus.
Zoe Phin
| #
A 0.5 micron photon can’t be added with a 0.6 micron photon?
A 0.5 micron photon can’t be added with a 10 micron photon?
Geran, complete shamelessness is not a virtue.
geran
| #
Or to make it simple enough for you, use temperature as a good analogy. If you pour a glass of 40 ºF water together with another glass of 40 ºF water, you do not get 80 ºF water.
Temperatures don’t add. Fluxes don’t add.
Learn some physics.
Zoe Phin
| #
Non-sequitur, Geran.
geran
| #
That’s because you don’t understand even the simple examples.
Learn some physics.
Tom O
| #
This post reminds me of the reasons I stopped reading WUWT. The posts got too far away from allowing anyone but science nerds from following them, and the comment give and take were even further into the realm of mathematics.
I do accept that much of the universe can be represented – aka simulated – by mathematical interpretation. The problem is, those that play in this sandbox have decided that their mathematical interpretations are representations of reality, not simulations. I hear with analog ears, and I see with analog eyes. I feel with analog responses from the cells in my skin. The same is true of taste and smell. Even my thoughts are represented by analog response. It would appear, therefore, that this is an analog world, not a digital world, thus what is, is not necessarily what mathematics says it MUST be.
And that has been the biggest problem in science since it was decided that you could carry out all sorts of “experiments” simply by manipulating the “equations” determined to represent every physical function in our analog reality, whether they truly faithfully mirrored reality or not.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Sorry, I’m a financial speculator by trade.
I agree that math has replaced a lot of observational physics.
If you’re interested in the simple truth of what I’m saying, just google-images “geotherm”. The countless diagrams will speak for themselves 🙂
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Any mathematical ‘proof’ of how a (mostly chaotic) system works without knowing ALL the parameters, their interrelationships, and correct initialization is a waste of time, money, and talent!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TomO,
Missed reading your wisdom for a little while. Clearly the problem is one cannot begin to model chaotic, hence non-equilibrium (non-steady state) systems. Just as a photon cannot stop moving; the atoms, ions, molecules of matter cannot stop moving, and the elections of these atoms, ions, molecules cannot stop moving either at temperatures above zero Kelvin.. The only source of knowledge is what we can see (measure).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Oddly, the AGW brigade don’t even try to understand a non-linear system. It often amazes me that all climatic change is reduced to the number of molecules of a trace gas in a planet’s atmosphere.
They seem to forget that we don’t live in a clockwork universe. The Earth is just a rock wobbling about in orbit around a star moving around the arse end of a small galaxy. Whatever happens in that system has a more profound effect than a few planes, trains and automobiles.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Finn,
Excellent observation, the Sun our star is moving at considerable velocity with respect to the Spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy. Up and down over millions of years, around over hundreds of millions of years. The solar system is being dragged along with it, Gravity being the force that does this.
SPACE is not empty, there are a few bits of stuff there, collectively that stuff is Not being moved by gravity in the same way that the planets and moons are.
This then gives question as to what is the effect upon our planet of collisions with stuff moving at significant velocity and in significantly varying amounts of Stuff.
Chaos rules!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TomO,
Three readers have jumped on your chaos bandwagon. But there is an important 4th. Who was there before you.
We know that the professor’s of A. Einstein didn’t consider his ‘intelligence sufficient to be an academic professor. So he had to find employment as a patent clerk after earning his doctorate.. I have read that as a student he spent a lot of time standing on a bridge watching the chaotic, turbulent flow of a stream. But I cannot point what part of his scholarship directly involved the existence of chaotic motions.
Galileo is said to have stated, as translated by someone: “I have never met a man so ignorant that I could’t learn something from him.”
Now I consider that James McGinn and Herb Rose to be pretty ignorant as they claim the our atmosphere does not contain individual water molecules. And I tried to change their minds by pointing out the measurements made by the instrument invented by Francis Anton shorty after 1918. The result of which was Herb asked me how a gaseous water molecule could be ionized as necessary for the mass spectrograph to measure the mass of a water molecule. Which by chemical experimental results had been indirectly concluded to 18 amu’s or 19 emu’s if one of the hydrogen atoms of the molecule was the deuterium isotope of the hydrogen element.
Now, Aston was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and not in Physics. Why Chemistry instead of Physics? My answer: The measurements of the mass spectrograph directly confirmed the mass of the water molecule which had been only indirectly proposed by indirect quantitative measurements.and the proposed atomic theory. So the mass spectra of the water molecule was a big deal to chemists. For chemists know the water molecules have very unique properties.
Now I come back to Herb question as how a gaseous molecules can be ionized by having an electron removed from the electrically neutral molecule. To answer this question we need to go back the initial discovery that matter has an electrical property. A frog’s muscle was observed to ‘twitch’ by a biologist. That led to the invention of the electroscope. And the observation that the mere rubbing of an amber rod with a fur or of a glass rod with a silk cloth (I believe I got this right but an too lazy to check it out) led to different results. For the observed fact is that it is very easy to remove some electrons from some matter.
But the real observation which Herb, in his question seems to overlook, is the phenomenon of atmospheric lightning. Friction (rubbing) can transfer (move) electrons from one body to another body.. And the friction (rubbing) is the result of the chaotic movement of atmospheric molecules.
I could describe simple demonstrations of the existence of this chaotic motion in matter. But instead I will ask you and PSI reader to give an example of such simple observation.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran,
You have not responded to TomO idea that the natural systems of the Earth ate chaotic and therefore pretending the behavior of these systems can be mathematically analyzed is nonsense.
The mathematical physical theories that reflect this chaotic nature is Schrodinger’s mathematical consideration that an electron (clearly a particle with a rest mass and an electro charge) can be treated as it has a wave-like behavior and the result of his analysis of the hydrogen atom was that we cannot know where the electron is; we can only know the probability of where it might be. And Einstein’s conclusion that light (energy) with no rest mass and no electro charge has a particle-like behavior. Einstein’s understanding was forced by observed (measured) phenomena which classical physics could not explain and Schrodinger’s mathematical analysis explained what the structures of simple molecules which Chemists had already concluded from their experimental results.
At this early time these quantum mechanical ideas seemed,, to many, to be pseudoscience which made no sense.
I have asked: What are some simple demonstrations, or even one, that illustrate the chaotic nature of natural systems to which TomO refers? Surely, because you are so critical of Zoe’s consideration that there are known geothermal sources of energy that daily add to that of solar radiation in the earth’s energy balance system. While her and your mathematical analysis must be wrong, the existence of this natural geothermal energy is an observed fact.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
???
Jerry, could you reduce all that to an easy to understand question?
I’m not good at deciphering rambling.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geren,
Your problem; not mine.
Have a good day, Jerry
geran
| #
Yes Jerry, a problem easily ignorable.
Have a great day.
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Now I consider that James McGinn and Herb Rose to be pretty ignorant as they claim the our atmosphere does not contain individual water molecules.
James:
Right. There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere. Morons believe otherwise. And there are a lot of morons on this planet.
Jerry:
And I tried to change their minds by pointing out the measurements made by the instrument invented by Francis Anton shorty after 1918.
JMcG:
Just like the typical global warming moron, take note of how Jerry provides a lot of irrelevant details to draw attention away from the fact that his “evidence” does not address his claim.
Our planet is filled with billions and billions of Jerrys, a very dominant and domineering consensus of dunces.
The religion that science has become and the realization of vortice plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-religion-that-science-has-become-and-the-realization-of-vortice-plasma-ehrkj3
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
John
| #
To assume that the atmosphere has an average temperature and, it seems, homogenous, is a huge simplification. The temperature v. altitude profile is well known. Temperature falls around 6.5 C/1000 metres up to about 11,000m where the tropopause is, often doesn’t change much for a while but then increases in the stratosphere, up to the stratopause, then falls again through the mesosphere.
Further,
– the density of the air decreases with altitude, which also means the number of greenhouse gas molecules also decreases. (Most of the greenhouse action takes place below 200 metres.)
– The real issue is net radiant flux, not simply downwelling flux, and regards the Earth cooling, the real forcing is the net radiant outgoing flux subtracted from the blackbody radiation (with unit emissivity) that according to Schwarzschild and Planck we’d find at the top of the atmosphere.
– You ignore the role that convection and evaporation play in cooling the Earth. There’s more heat lost over the tropical oceans by evaporation than there is by radiation.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
You are correct about the atmosphere not be homogenous. The composition changes with altitude with the top layer composed of hydrogen and helium next helium and oxygen atoms. There is no Argon, CO2, Methane, H2O in the upper atmosphere. At 100 km the percentage of nitrogen begins to decrease and oxygen increases.
The ultraviolet light and x-rays from the sun is being absorbed by the N2 and O2 and converted into kinetic energy breaking molecular bonds. This is what creates the N2O layer in the atmosphere and the ionosphere. (It takes 450,000 joules/mole to split O2 and 920,000 joules/mole to split N2.)
The universal gas law says that the greater the kinetic energy of the gas molecules the lower the density of the gas. The pressure confining the atmosphere and resisting its expansion is gravity and since gravity is measured from the center of the Earth the pressure does not change significantly throughout the atmosphere. The sun (uv) is heating the atmosphere, not the Earth, and the kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases with altitude. It increases slowly at a linear rate in the troposphere where water absorbs most of the heat, then rises exponentially above the troposphere.
The thermometer was not designed to measure heat flow in a gas where the number of molecules (mass) transferring kinetic energy to it varies as the energy of those gas molecules varies. The recorded temperatures of the different altitudes are inaccurate and in order to compare the kinetic energy at different altitudes you must use the universal gas law (temperature divided by density).
Herb
Reply
Squidly
| #
I think I can greatly compact your article into the following sentence:
“An object cannot heat itself”
That’s really all you had to say. This is demonstrable and undeniable. The surface cannot heat itself, not matter how much CO2 or any other gas you place in the atmosphere. period .. case closed .. end of story .. now be good lemmings and put your masks on .. 😉
Reply
Chris
| #
One theory is that the temp will get so hot that it will get cold. I think that they have seen too many pop tart commercials.
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
WHY IS EVERYONE SHY ABOUT THE MISSING MASSIVE THERMAL ENERGY LEVELS FOR NITROGEN AND OXYGEN? HMM…
Greater than 94% of the energy contained within nitrogen and oxygen are unaccounted for by the ‘climate change’ narrative, informing us of the massive scientific fraud taking place, the purpose of the fraud to further weaken the West’s economies…
[On March 16 when Trump directed the nation to stay home for 15 days(!), his Marxist economic sabotage directive still in play. Immediately following Trump’s directive, governors/mayors declared illegal Executive Orders to lockdown the nation, thereby proving Marxist coordination between Federal/State/Local governments.
No new investments will be taking place because investments require recouping the investments, and with the spectre of the fake COVID-19 returning, or equally fake new pandemics, future lockdowns are in the future, therefore no investments are on the horizon. In short, the United States has been turned into a Banana Republic overnight.]
Nitrogen and oxygen constitute, by volume, 99.03% of the atmosphere’s gasses, while the trace gases account for 0.97%, or just under 1% of the atmosphere’s gasses. If we include water vapor (H2O) in the atmosphere, which accounts for, on average, 2% of the atmosphere’s gases by volume, we therefore subtract this 2% from the atmosphere’s gasses, where nitrogen and oxygen will constitute 97.0494%, and the trace gasses will constitute 0.9506%.
Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb much infrared radiation (IR) emitted from the ground, and assuming they absorb 100% of thermal energy from the surface, constituting approximately 5% of Earth’s energy budget, we’re left with a massive energy deficit for nitrogen and oxygen, confirming that those two molecules derive their energy from thermal ground/ocean emissions instead, but since the ‘climate change’ narrative identifies such emissions as not thermal but IR, we have proof that the energy being emitted isn’t IR but thermal because nitrogen and oxygen absorb a miniscule amount of IR.
Nitrogen and oxygen obtain 5.1% of their heat energy from thermal energy emanating from the surface…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1200px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
…and another .078% of their heat energy from outgoing infrared radiation, leaving an energy deficit of approximately 94.8%.
Since nitrogen and oxygen constitute by volume 97.0494% of the atmosphere’s gasses (when water vapor is included in the calculations making for a more precise calculation), they must therefore retain that volume amount of heat energy, but 18.4 Wm2 only constitutes 5.1% of the Earth’s energy budget of 358.2 Wm2. Nitrogen and oxygen’s absorption of infrared radiation only infinitesimally affects this missing heat energy.
The missing energy levels for nitrogen and oxygen direct our attention to another aspect of the scientific fraud taking place: Misidentified outgoing energy types. IR is assigned an energy magnitude of 358.2 Wm2, and thermals 18.4 Wm2. The opposite is closer to the truth, where IR is assigned 18.4 Wm2, and thermals 358.2 Wm2.
Hence why:
THERMODYNAMICS IS AWOL
Climate change mechanics conspires to do away with the physics of the atmosphere, where action and reaction is abandoned. When a new gas molecule is introduced into the dense troposphere, dislocation takes place, where if the new molecule is denser than the atmosphere (contains less heat energy), such as carbon dioxide, the gas molecule sinks displacing upwards the warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Conversely, if the new gas molecule has more heat energy than the nitrogen-oxygen based atmosphere (such as methane), the new molecule rises, displacing relatively cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules downwards, which displaces upwards relatively more heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Thermodynamics in action in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth cool when increased radiation isn’t the new variable introduced.
At my blog, bead the articles…
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog…
https://djdnotice.blogspot.com/2018/09/d-notice-articles-article-55-7418.html
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi ean,
Wrong. All objects absorb radiated energy. The oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere absorb UV from the sun and convert it to IR. Read my article in PSI “On the Physics of Climate Change.”
Herb
Reply