Greenhouse Effect – SNAP BACK
I have sent many letters to MP’s, Councillors and other people and I have noticed a particular theme, from their responses, which has prompted me to write this article.
They always seem to have some wise guy smart arse answer, as to why they think the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ (GHE) is real. They snap back with the most stupid comments imaginable, coming out with the most tremendously moronic and idiotic statements yet they never have are able to get it right.
You can see for yourself. Send a letter to you MP and your local councillor, send them the link to this article and ask them if they think this accurate, that the GHE is a lie, it is being taught false from starting principles wrongly, see what “Snap Back” answers you receive. It’s very telling.
I find this particular article gets the most maddening response, everyone is in denial, they all think this is wrong, it is not. It is not perfect, but it is a good approximation start point to get people to notice that the GHE is just “ONE BIG LIE.” It is one gigantic fraud being forced upon people to make them pay money, in return for absolutely nothing.
REMIND THEM OF THIS.
A Metal Plate In Space Perpendicular to the Suns Rays is Hot, if we attach a glass steel framed greenhouse to the metal plate, the metal plate cools.
And the morons of the United Nations climate body, the IPCC call this the Radiation Greenhouse Effect, which will warm the Earth and start some sort of cascading runaway heating effect.
These two drawings are a quick and easy way to remember how the greenhouse effect as it is being taught is a lie.
PLATE ON ITS OWN – HOT (FULL VACUUM NO AIR)
After telling them this, just sit back relax and await the nonsense responses come flooding in.
The truthful facts as laid out above are undeniable, yet all whom are in power and are informed of this, just fly off in to a spin, the instant (and quite made up) fake-scientific knowledge these people snap-back with, it’s a bit disturbing. Try it for yourselves and see.
Personally, I want to see all those who scare the public with the lie that is the GHE in order to steal money in the form of Carbon Taxes, in exchange for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, charged with “Defrauding the Public” and jailed. It can happen. The con must come to an end and the more people that know of truths like this one the more likely that is.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, 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.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Hans Schreuder
| #
First of all, you need to convince CFACT, GWPF, CEI, Friends of Science, Lindzen, Spencer, Happer, Evans, Curry, Nova etc. etc. etc. before you can even begin to convince the died-in-the-wool climate alarmists. Trust me, I have tried for the past 11 years with zero results.The mentioned entities do not even understand how a real greenhouse works. Academic egos are the most formidable barrier you can imagine. PS: can you correct a typo in the graphic. “Grenhouse ” i.s.o. greenhouse. Cheers.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Hans,
I have a question: Why cannot I remember you ever making a comment to one of my recent essays about the data being measured at the Natural Laboratory at the USCRN Corvallis OR site? The foundation of SCIENCE is observation and not argument. And since you are a chemist, you should know this better than any other scientist. For on the basis of experimentation and the observed results, chemists knew the structures of simple molecules like water, methane, carbon dioxide, etc. before Schrodinger did his quantum mechanical calculation assuming that the electron of the hydrogen atom behaved as a wave.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Hans:
The “mentioned entities” most certainly do understand how a real greenhouse works. They also understand what a “metaphor” is. Do you?
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
The greenhouse effect isn’t a metaphor it is a lie. And they teach it falsely in order to mislead. Ed Bo is just another propagandist of the alarmist movement, I just wonder how deep his ignorance is?
Reply
Ashleigh Parsons
| #
Can one compare apples to oranges? Allow me to explain. In the plate only configuration, we do not know the dimensions of the plate but are given the reradiated blackbody energy in total watts per unknown sized side. Yet with the greenhouse configuration diagram we are given an unknown total geometry (and mass) of the unknown sized plate, glass, and steel with total reradiated blackbody energy in watts for an unknown number of sides or facets, in watts per meter!
Because the greenhouse has more mass and a more complex overall geometry and assuming the same enery input constant as the plate alone, because there are more facets, edges, and corners the reradiated energy would be spread out over a larger area thus lowering the “temperature” of the plate compared to plate only.
But that’s in a vacuum in space. Back here on Earth, when you build a greenhouse it’s precisely to heat the air inside! Air has a very high insulative value.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but your arguments need to be standardized and then there’s the apples to oranges thing too.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
The dimensions of a two sided flat plate are irrelevant. If can be 100m2 or 1m2, its just temperature when perpendicular to the suns rays will be the same. If you want more detail you can read this link.
This is an apples to apples comparison. You have a plate it is hot, you add something to the plate, increasing its emissive area, it cools. Couldn’t get more straightforward. GHE? What GHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://principia-scientific.com/flat-plate-in-space-is-warmer-than-a-flat-plate-with-a-greenhouse-connected/
Reply
ron cirotto
| #
Geraint I am a Chemical Engineer and i agree with the problem of the metaphor of the Greenhouse Gas Effect is confusing to most if not many non technical people.
However I had trouble trying to understand the article and i suggest you rework the explanation a bit more because I found it confusing. So just imagine how a non science person feels when they read the article.
Reply
ron cirotto
| #
This remark has not been sent twice. There is something wrong in the software!!!
Geraint I am a Chemical Engineer and i agree with the problem of the metaphor of the Greenhouse Gas Effect is confusing to most if not many non technical people.
However I had trouble trying to understand the article and i suggest you rework the explanation a bit more because I found it confusing. So just imagine how a non science person feels when they read the article.
Reply
Geraint
| #
You found it confusing? Its simple, if you have a plate in space and compare it with a plate with a greenhouse attached, the plate is cooler with the GHE attached. (Because the Radiation GHE is a lie.)
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Why are you using flat earth physics??? The earth is spherical, not a flat disk. As such it has twice the surface area of the disk. So the 1368 W/m2 you show is reduced to 684 W/m2 on the hemisphere facing the sun.
Then the earth reflects about 30% of incident solar insolation directly back to space. So this reduces the absorbed power to 480 W/m2 on the daytime hemisphere. Of course, it is 0 W/m2 on the nighttime side.
You show an evenly distributed temperature in your example. Keeping with that, the surface must emit 240 W/m2 to space. At an emissivity of 1.0, this requires a temperature of 255K.
This is simple high school math. How do you get it so wrong? No wonder they dismiss you as a crank!
And you don’t even try to justify your second result here.
There are many real problems with the establishment climate science. Unfortunately, you are not even close to finding any of them. And in so doing, you discredit knowledgeable skeptics.
Reply
Gymbo
| #
“So this reduces the absorbed power to 480 W/m2 on the daytime hemisphere. Of course, it is 0 W/m2 on the nighttime side.”
Surely you’re not agreeing with Joe Postma – that would have to constitute heresy on your part wouldn’t it ?
Page 34 in the publication “the Model Atmosphere” available from the menu “Publications” cites a continuous hemispherical input of ~480 and a spherical output of ~240 and all without any sort of greenhouse effect.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Gymbo:
Joe’s analysis there is incoherent and confused, as usual. The key issue is that the earth’s surface emits far more than 240 W/m2 (averaged over time and area). It’s actually over twice this amount. But the earth and its atmosphere absorb only 240 W/m2 (again, averaged over time and area) from the sun. So what can make up the difference?
Joe loves to poke fun at the conceptual illustrations of the earth’s energy balance that simply show the 240 W/m2 input without emphasizing that it is not constant either over time or area. So in the link you cite he shows the daytime warming in 480 W/m2 input and nighttime cooling in 0 W/m2 input, but gets the same average output 240 W/m2 corresponding to 255K.
But this improves nothing compared to the conceptual illustrations he mocks. The earth’s surface averages substantially more than 255K even on the nighttime side. And it averages about 500 W/m2 output. He doesn’t have an explanation.
Reply
John Nicol
| #
Actually there are two very important points here that have been missed. In the locality of the earth’s surface in space, the height of the atmosphere above the earth is very much smaller than the surface area of the earth so in effect it behaves as “flat” plate as regards radiation. Without any absorbers/radiators and without the atmosphere itself, it would behave exactly as such a plate, except that the side of the soil/water(ocean) the energy will be absorbed and raise the temperature of the material depending on its thermal properties – conductivity and thermal capacity. During the night of course this absorbed energy is radiated at a rate determined by the temperature of the surface skin which depends on the rate at which energy in the ground/ocean can return to the cooling surface. Thus the surface skin temperature is cooler and the rate of radiation lower than might be at first suggested. But yes, the two sides – day and night – radiate in some way related to the flat, thin sheet but with a twelve hour delay.
In the presence of air, the air temperature depends on two facts – it is heated rapidly from the hot earth with the maximum temperature being equal, at its absolute highest value (never achieved over all of course) to the highest temperature (perhaps 365 K) reached by the warmed surface in the tropics.
However, oxygen and nitrogen cannot radiate energy because of quantum restraints at the temperatures achieved, needing to be at least 500 K??, say, before their allowed frequencies (wavelengths) can be produced through intermolecular, collisional excitation. Thus the air remains “hot”/”warm” for 24 hours, cooling only by more slowly exchanging heat with the cooler parts of the earth through circulation, and most importantly cooling through the radiation to space of energy by, ironically, greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide and water vapour. Thus the air acts like a huge vacuum flask, retaining its heat from the daytime but losing it slowly and continuously both day and night – just like your picnic flask – thanks largely to the evil carbon dioxide and water vapour! Without these, the earth would be much hotter.
Remember that while the air heats quickly and efficiently during daytime because of its movement over the earth’s surface because it rises when heated in convection, at night say, when circulation returns warmer air to the surface, the thin sliver of air in contact with the earth’s surface, cools rapidly, but stays put and does not make way for warmer air since colder air remains at the bottom of the column.
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
” So the 1368 W/m2 you show is reduced to 684 W/m2 on the hemisphere facing the sun.”
Reduced by 2πr² from πr², yes. And then through a double spherical volume, gas and solid, (4/3)πr³. So:
1/2(TSI/(4/3)²)=σ287⁴=14°C
Spot on, no greenhouse effect. The equation above gives σT⁴ for Earth, Mars and Venus at 1 bar pressure.
The greenhouse theory is dead.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Ed Bo, is clearly rambling. You add nothing other than to show the world what a fool you are. If you add a GHE to a plate in space with no air, the plate cools. (I.e. No GHE) Get over it, LOSER.
Reply
Ron Kessler
| #
Ed,
I agree with you on this explanation. can you explain how a .012% increase in CO2 into the atmosphere will Cause Global Warming. in essence going from 280 PPM to 400 PPM? I just cannot comprehend this basic fact that the Believers have tried to push on the World.
What am I missing?
Reply
Gymbo
| #
It is better to think of CO2 concentrations in terms of mass ppm rather than volume.
As CO2 has a mass ~1.46 times that of air the cited 420 ppm volume becomes ~616 ppm mass.
Thus anyone who thinks 616 grams of CO2 has a completely dominating effect on 1,000,000 grams = 1000 kg = 1 tonne of air is nothing short of a credulous, ill educated person.
Air at sea level has a mass density of 1.225 kg/cubic metre.
Again, anyone who thinks 616 grams of CO2 in ~816 cubic metres of air can have a dominating effect is not thinking straight.
Powerful stuff that CO2 which is inert and does not undergo phase changes at ambient temperatures.
In 4 words – the idea is nonsense !
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Ron:
Add a few ppm of food coloring to water in a glass measuring cup, and you can immediately observe how the solution now absorbs considerable radiation (and so the energy in that radiation) of wavelengths you can detect with your eyes, with significant absorption over just a few centimeters.
IR absorbing gases such as H2O and CO2 can do this for wavelengths the earth’s surface emits. They can do this measurably in ppm concentrations over meters or kilometers.
Reply
Julian Fell
| #
Do not confuse a pigment, which blocks all except a certain colour which is transmitted (or reflected) with a material that absorbs only a small spectrum and is transparent to the rest. Dyes are usually pigments. These are extremes of the same phenomenon. Water vapour might be considered equivalent to a pigment because of its broad spectrum of absorption. CO2 is transparent to most frequencies so the dye analogy is perhaps unsuitable.
Reply
Gymbo
| #
This is one of the most nonsensical articles I’ve ever had the misfortune to read.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Ed,
Geraint wrote: “REMIND THEM OF THIS.
A Metal Plate In Space Perpendicular to the Suns Rays is Hot, if we attach a glass steel framed greenhouse to the metal plate, the metal plate cools.”
Geraint wrote this as if it were an observed fact and, of course, we know that no glass greenhouse with a metal frame has ever been placed in a ‘space’ orbit. But Geraint wrote: “Remind them of this.”
But, Ed, you wrote: “So this reduces the absorbed power to 480 W/m2 on the daytime hemisphere.” Now, it seems an observed fact that the earth’s hemisphere has a very great area. Are you really saying that each square meter of the surface is absorbing 480 watts during its entire, say 12 hour, daytime?
Because the incident solar radiation upon a square meter can be rapidly changing each hour for several hours after sunrise and for several hours before sunset, it is necessary to average the incident solar radiation during each of these hours. Because the air temperature can also be rapidly changing during these hours, usually due to the changing solar radiation, it is necessary to average the measured air temperatures during each of these hours. And the USCRN project also measures surface temperatures during each hour so they report the mean surface temperature, the maximum surface temperature, and the minimum surface temperature for each preceding hour. Now I consider to be an important fact that these maximum and minimum are actual measurements and not averaged anything.
So I am curious why I have not read that you refer to this actually observed data and only seem to question what others do?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Jerry:
Geraint’s flat plate analysis is the effective equivalent to having the sun directly overhead for 12 hours per day. This leads to a total power density on the surface of twice what the earth’s spherical daytime hemisphere actually receives.
His error is so big that it is not worth continuing with further details of what else he got wrong. Of course, I don’t believe that the average 480 W/m2 is constant over the hemisphere. Noon is higher than dawn or dusk, and the tropics are higher than the polar regions. But first you have to get the overall level correct, and he does not come close.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Ed,
Until you (or anybody) study(s) the actual ‘hourly averaged’ measurements available, you, or they, can never come close. But the soil temperatures at depths change so slowly that they do not need to be average. And maximum and minimum temperatures that are measured during the preceding hour are actual measurements which do not deceive and help one to better see what is occurring during the previous hours whose values have been averaged for that hour. As is done at the USCRN projects. Take a look.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Geraint
| #
And this drivel above is the type of nonsense BS I am talking about.
If you add a GHE to a plate, it will cool (Not warm as the liars teach). I.e. Proving in a stroke that Radiation GHE is a lie.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Wow, just wow! You really don’t understand the difference between fins, which improve heat loss, and insulation, which lessens heat loss. I really didn’t imagine you could be so confused!
When I design finned heat sinks in my professional capacity, I make sure that the conductive path from the device that needs cooling to the fins is as large as I can make it.
On the other hand, an insulating container such as a dewar or “thermos” jug minimizes the heat transfer to ambient. Your logic leads you to the conclusion that because the outer shell of the thermos jug is larger than the inner container walls, it facilitates heat transfer to ambient, providing an additional cooling effect for hot contents. Any child know otherwise. Any competent adult would realize that minimizing conduction between the inner and outer shells, and providing radiative insulation, has the opposite effect.
The earth’s atmosphere has thermal conductivity so low that it cannot conduct any significant thermal energy up to the levels where it is radiated to space. And unlike your cubic greenhouse around a flat plate, the “outer surface” of the atmosphere, especially that part of it that is actively involved in heat transfer (i.e. the troposphere) is barely greater than that of the surface.
So multiple gross failures in you most basic analysis.
Reply
Geraint
| #
The calculations to do this are easy. Plus I am going to build this too in another demonstration, which will portable and can be taken anywhere. Anyone who thinks adding a GHE to a plate, will increase the temperature of the plate when in space is “a bit stupid” to say the least. Greenhouses work by restricting convective cooling, the radiation element adds no heat at all. Understanding this is a necessary start point in getting people to know that they are being lied to.
Reply
Gymbo
| #
Most people really believe that near Earth orbit space is cold.
However all of the people who talk like lunatics about the CMB radiation miss the completely obvious fact that the huge almost spherical area of space mapped out by Earth’s orbit has powerful directional solar radiation with a minimum power of ~1,361 W/m2 continuously passing by.
If there is one thing that proves the whole nonsense of climate science it is the Skylab incident – you know where Skylab lost part of its radiation shield in a liftoff accident.
“https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4208/ch14.htm
“The shield had failed to deploy at the scheduled time and subsequent ground commands had no effect. While officials were debating further action, Saturn engineers discovered flight data indicating an anomalous lateral acceleration about a minute after liftoff. The data, coming just before the space vehicle reached its maximum dynamic pressure, suggested some structural failure. A short time later, workshop temperatures began rising, strong evidence that the shield was gone. Within a few hours, readings on many of the outside sensors exceeded 82°C, the maximum scale reading. Internal temperatures moved above 38° C. Working from the thermal model, Huntsville engineers figured that workshop temperatures would go as high as 77°C internally and 165°C on the outside, endangering food, film, perhaps even the structure itself. Mission Control therefore began maneuvering the exposed area out of direct sunlight, and some cooling occurred.5”
“For a time Mission Control pointed the forward end directly at the sun, which lowered temperatures somewhat but also reduced power generation. Experiments with various attitudes showed the best compromise to be pitched up about 45° toward the sun. During the daylight portion of each orbit enough sunshine struck the solar panels to charge the batteries for the next period of darkness, and internal temperatures stabilized near 42°C.”
Let me highlight some of the text – “Within a few hours, readings on many of the outside sensors exceeded 82°C,” – a few hours and 82°C !
“Huntsville engineers figured that workshop temperatures would go as high as 77°C internally and 165°C on the outside,”
Facts like these expose the global warming hypothesis nonsense not a ridiculous model of a greenhouse in orbit – this actually occurred and required remediation to make Skylab usable.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
You can fashion a focusing lens out of ice, use it in the midday sun providing about 1000 W/m2, and cause things to light on fire through it. Is it your contention that this ice is very hot? Or is it still no more that 273K (0C)?
Astronomers have pointed very sensitive radiation sensors outward from earth in all directions. Except for the 1/2-degree by 1/2 degree section occupied by the sun, all they see is 3 microwatts per m2 of microwave radiation, and another 3 microwatts per m2 of starlight radiation.
The microwave radiation received by the earth in all directions exactly matches that of a blackbody at 2.725K (+/-0.001K) in spectrum. Even if you argue that deep space is not “at” that temperature, for the purposes of any heat transfer calculations, you must treat it as if it were.
The fact that there is 1360 W/m2 of solar radiation passing through space but going away from the earth is absolutely irrelevant. Do you think that this solar radiation does a U-turn back to the night side of the earth???
Reply
Gymbo
| #
You just can’t help yourself can you ? – “Do you think that this solar radiation does a U-turn back to the night side of the earth???” The only idiot that said ANYTHING AS STUPID AS THAT WAS YOU.
Who said anything about the night side at all ?
Show me the experiment or any evidence at all where a magnifying glass made of ice is creating fire !
Are you claiming ice does not melt under the solar radiation ? Apparently ! It does by the way.
Do you know anything at all about physical properties of materials ?
The answer is apparently not because even school children understand that during phase change the temperature of ice doesn’t change at all until the process is complete. This completely destroys your other favourite BS that all radiation absorbed must cause a temperature increase.
Seriously you would be really funny except that you are an ignorant TROLL who just makes up ridiculous mindless BS and insults anyone who disagrees – most often with mindless gobbledygook.
I’ve never claimed the cosmic microwave background radiation doesn’t exist BUT it is irrelevant when considering a planet that rotates every 24 hours and is continuously irradiated by ~1360 W/m2 on average over a hemisphere – allowing for the cosine of latitude factor of incidence normal to the surface and albedo.
The simple fact is that there is a constant minimum of ~1360 W/m2 solar radiation in every bit of space in the huge “spherical area mapped by Earth’s orbit as radius” – this is FACTUAL no matter what the radiation coming from other quarters is – there is always ~1360 W/m2. Directionality does not repudiate this fact.
You apparently think being irradiated by this radiation is irrelevant – WOW !
I simply cited the evidence of NASA from the story of Skylab which disproves absolutely the nonsensical BS that an object irradiated by the solar radiation which is not engineered to reflect it away is heated to high temperatures at near earth orbit and not the BS stated by climate science or the nonsense in Wikipedia claiming a blackbody at earth orbit would be 5°C – LOL !
The Earth is heated by this radiation as is every other object in this area of our solar system – the only irrelevant thing is this REALITY is the cosmic microwave background radiation is completely irrelevant !
Your stupidity is breathtaking “The microwave radiation received by the earth in all directions exactly matches that of a blackbody at 2.725K (+/-0.001K) in spectrum. Even if you argue that deep space is not “at” that temperature, for the purposes of any heat transfer calculations, you must treat it as if it were.” BUT “The fact that there is 1360 W/m2 of solar radiation passing through space but going away from the earth is absolutely irrelevant.”
You must consider 2.725 K against the 355 K Skylab reached in a few hours after it emerged from the earth’s shadow – seriously ??:?
Ever seen heat lamps keeping food hot ? You apparently think the tiny radiation from every other angle is more important than the directional radiation from the lamp – What an idiot !
I remember you once saying that when the cue ball hits the target does the target increase in temperature ? Of course it does – the DRS system used in cricket proves this heat transfer conclusively – the heat generated by the contact of bat and ball emits a clear IR image of the heat of contact.
We’ve all seen your nonsense over the years – please stop !
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
gymbo:
You are obviously completely unfamiliar with the science on this subject. Max Planck, in his book “The Theory of Heat Radiation”, published in 1912, says on the very first page of the first chapter:
“Radiation of heat, however, is in itself entirely independent of the temperature of the medium through which it passes. It is possible, for example, to concentrate the solar rays at a focus by passing them through a converging lens of ice, the latter remaining at a constant
temperature of 0◦, and so to ignite an inflammable body.”
This was well understood over 100 years ago. Please do try and keep up. (Do you consider Max Planck an ignorant troll?)
Of course, eventually an ice lens would melt in sunlight, even though it is largely transparent to it. But while it is still solid, and not above 0C, it can still pass through enough intense radiation to light a fire. Empirical fact.
You say: ” This [phase change] completely destroys your other favourite BS that all radiation absorbed must cause a temperature increase.”
When did I EVER claim otherwise?
But you are completely missing the larger picture. To even begin to analyze the earth’s energy balance, we must understand two radiative transfer properties. The first is the highly directional transfer from the sun to the earth. As you say, ~1360 W/m2 striking a hemisphere of the earth at all times. I can’t fathom why you think anyone here believes otherwise.
But the second transfer process (that you completely ignore) is between the earth to the rest of the universe. And this must transfer about as much away from the earth as the earth absorbs from the sun for the earth to be in approximate energy balance (and not even the worst alarmist thinks the earth is out of balance by more than 1 W/m2).
And here it matters what the downward (from our point of view) radiation is. Above the atmosphere, we have only the 3 uW/m2 CMB radiation, which is effectively nothing. (Geraint uses “nothing” in his diagram.) And the fact that there is ~1360 W/m2 passing AWAY from the earth through this space is absolutely irrelevant to this process. That was my point.
But at the earth’s surface, there is typically over 300 W/m2 of downward LWIR radiation, again, well measured. This is a huge difference, and it has a big impact on earth’s temperature.
Now, it has become completely obvious to me that you have never done a single real energy balance calculation, because you seem completely unaware that the output is as important as the input. When people talk about “space being cold”, they are talking about the radiative transfer process between the earth and space, and for this transfer, space indeed “has a temperature” of -270C (3K). That’s COLD!
And because you don’t know how to do this kind of analysis, you screw up your Skylab analysis badly. Since it is (was) in low earth orbit, half of its field of view is always pointed to the earth. This always provides it with ~240 W/m2 of infrared on that side, and when it is on the daytime side, an additional ~300 W/m2 of reflected sunlight. These very significant fluxes must be taken into account. (You also do not consider any issues of thermal capacitance or thermal resistance, very important in any dynamic analysis.)
The earth and the moon have nothing like this around them, only the 3uW/m2 of CMB radiation in all directions except the tiny angle occupied by the sun. The moon’s average surface temperature is far below the 5C value you disapprovingly cite for a hypothetical uniform-temperature blackbody in this orbit, even though it absorbs a significantly higher fraction of insolation than the earth does.
Reply
Gymbo
| #
Who was even talking about Earth’s energy balance – this type of misdirection is typical of you.
All I ever said is it is simply insane to deny that every point inside the “sphere” mapped by earth’s radius has a minimum flux of ~1361 W/m2 continuously.
The directionality doesn’t matter – it is always present at all points.
Any object that absorbs this will heat up to high temperatures.
Your nonsense about Earth’s IR is just that.
To call any point in that space cold is insane.
Ed Bo
| #
gymbo:
You started this by saying: “Most people really believe that near Earth orbit space is cold.”
Now you say: “Who was even talking about Earth’s energy balance – this type of misdirection is typical of you.”
You don’t even have enough of a basic grasp of the issues to understand the context. The people talking about “space [being] cold” are talking about earth’s heat transfer to space, where the temperature of the ambient to which the earth is radiating. And this temperature is critical to the balance of this radiative exchange.
Further you say: “To call any point in that space cold is insane.”
No, it’s accurate! You don’t even understand the concept of temperature.
You still don’t realize, even after it’s been directly pointed out to you, the most basic tenet of radiative heat transfer. I repeat — it’s the VERY FIRST THING Planck said in his book on the subject: “Radiation of heat, however, is in itself entirely independent of the temperature of the medium through which it passes.”
Ed Bo
| #
And you have a very nasty habit of accusing people of making claims they never made — I see that you never actually quote the claim.
I don’t remember any claim about a cue ball, but I will say it is an almost universally used example in first-year physics classes of an almost perfectly elastic collision, so close that you can often assume perfect elasticity without significant error. I have never noticed my pool balls getting hot, have you? Are you going to write to universities to tell them to stop using this example?
Reply
Gymbo
| #
You most certainly did claim the nonsense about a cue ball colliding with a target ball not causing an increase in the temperature of the target ball when you were trying to diss the kinetic theory of heat transfer in collisions of gas molecules.
Here is a link that shows just how clueless you are – a photo of the ir image of the heat transferred from a cricket ball to the bat used in DRS in international cricket.
https://www.sportsmirchi.com/hot-spot-will-not-be-used-in-2015-world-cup/
Ed Bo
| #
gymbo:
It is incredibly bad form to go after someone for something you claim they said years ago without linking or quoting.
Even so, your claims are ridiculous. Anyone who has ever played pool knows that when the cue ball hits another ball head on, the other ball moves virtually as fast as the cue ball was before the collision.
This is only possible in an almost perfectly elastic collision. This is something that anyone who understood introductory physics would realize.
Oh, and there’s no way the slight inelasticity in the collision of the cricket bat and ball would cause the OPPOSITE side of the ball to be hotter at the moment of collision. You’ve obviously never done any real heat transfer analysis.
And WTF do you mean when you say: “when you were trying to diss the kinetic theory of heat transfer in collisions of gas molecules.”
Either quote me of STFU!
Ed Bo
| #
“OR” STFU…
Gymbo
| #
I forgot this little gem –
“Astronomers have pointed very sensitive radiation sensors outward from earth in all directions. Except for the 1/2-degree by 1/2 degree section occupied by the sun, all they see is 3 microwatts per m2 of microwave radiation, and another 3 microwatts per m2 of starlight radiation.”
Precisely how does this disprove my claim that every moment of time every square metre of the imaginary surface of a huge sphere mapped by Earth’s orbit is irradiated by ~1360 W/m2 and at every point in 3D space from this imaginary spherical surface inwards towards the sun the power increases and precisely how is this irrelevant ?
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
As explained above, this is “precisely irrelevant to the calculations of radiative transfer between earth and deep space, where deep space must be considered to be at 3K to get correct results.
Reply
Julian Fell
| #
Do not confuse a pigment, which blocks all except a certain colour which is transmitted (or reflected) with a material that absorbs only a small spectrum and is transparent to the rest. Dyes are usually pigments. These are extremes of the same phenomenon. Water vapour might be considered equivalent to a pigment because of its broad spectrum of absorption. CO2 is transparent to most frequencies so the dye analogy is perhaps unsuitable.
Reply
Julian Fell
| #
Passing over the technical stuff and addressing the original thesis… the response of elected persons. I can speak with some authority here as I have been a local government councilor for 7 years. Knowledge of fundamental physics of radiative gases and atmospheric thermodynamics is exceptionally rare to the degree that I have not encountered one so equipped in thousands. My eyeball estimate is that about 10% are hardcore believers in CO2 warming junkscience and most of the remainder dont know what to think. About half of these will go with the flow or want to be seen as going with the flow and the other half are hesitant to go with the flow but dont want to be seen this way. The extremists are vociferous with the certainty that goes with a religious fanatic. My strongest disappointment goes to the media who like the elected types go with the flow and deliberately downplay or ignore opinion to the contrary. This phenomenon actually goes to all the SJW stances. I have found it very hard to debate anyone or more accurately to find anyone willing to debate. They are religiously adherent or they just run away from the discussion. My communications with MPs and MLAs and provincial ministries are never acknowledged or responded to. In one on one discussions, when they sense things are not going in a way that they are comfortable with they parrot the 97% of scientists agree, or everyone knows that etc, and then they announce they dont want to discuss it anymore and walk off. I am labelled a denier and treated by many as a crackpot, but I also have some who will quietly tell me they are glad of my public stance, which never makes it into the papers,…..except the time I said David Suzuki was loosing it.
Reply
geran
| #
Hear, hear!
Reply
Gerarint Hughes
| #
This is why spreading knowledge which is simple and easy to understand needs to be done. Anything too complex and it goes over their heads. My example is undeniable and it will be totally undeniable once I have the portable model built. The teaching of radiation GHE needs to be made a crime as it is a total lie, and those preaching it need to be charged with “defrauding the public.”
Reply