The Dishonesty of ‘Greenhouse Gases’
This is a scientific essay on how such gases cool the planet, and thereby permit life on it. The mathematical calculation of the Greenhouse Gas Effect (GHE) is the biggest scientific error ever made. But it remains unrecognized by the Developed World’s citizens who are forced to live with it.
Governments are partly responsible for the costly consequences because they didn’t probe the fundamental science as fully as they should have, especially with their given large scientific resources. So, they need to try again by starting with the revelations of this essay.
That error originated from the mis-application of a simple scientific equation known as the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship which was discovered experimentally by Stefan in 1876, and verified theoretically via thermodynamics in 1884 by Boltzmann. It states that the intensity of radiation emanating from a hot body in space (eg the Sun) is directly proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
With further careful application of thermodynamics, this can be extended to relate the average surface temperature of a warm body in space (eg planet Earth) to the average intensity of radiation that it is receiving (eg from the Sun). But it was the lack of care in making that extension that has caused the world’s worst-ever scientific miscalculation.
An over-simplified calculation was concocted about 20 years ago, that misleads most scientists who might probe it into thinking that the average level of radiation that Earth’s outer atmospheric surface (the tropopause) receives from the Sun is 25% of the level that a satellite would measure when existing in space at the same distance from the Sun.
Alternatively, chemical engineers who have studied design procedures for furnaces and kilns, or perhaps have gained experience with solar power systems should detect the error, but only if they had received higher statistical training too.
So the perpetrators of the concocted calculation could have been reasonably sure that they would escape detection for many decades, when they first launched their concocted science with its calculated surface temperature of -18oC and a 33oC GHE Effect to arrive at Earth’s measured temperature of 15oC. And while those scientists may not have understood then that global warming has been arising from solar variations and orbital interactions, of which neither can possibly be ameliorated by mankind, they should have at least tried to understand the thermodynamics of greenhouse gases before they labelled them as the cause of global warming.
Their carelessness is inexcusable, even although the science is subtle. But mankind must now regain proper perspectives on GHE molecules.
The true science can be expounded most simply by taking a snapshot of Earth, from say 20,000 km into space, so that the half that receives daylight can be easily seen, along with its tiny 10-km blue “skin” of atmosphere around it.
It is then necessary only to formulate from that instantaneous snapshot what the radiation level is that falls on each square meter of that sunlit half of the tropopause and then average it correctly, to obtain the average instantaneous intensity of the radiation striking the atmosphere. Although Earth rotates, that average figure will not alter because exactly half of the surface is always exposed.
If one imagines the central-most 1.00 meter square ray that falls on the tropopause and strikes it orthogonally (ie at right angles), then one can see that it illuminates 1.0000 square meters of that surface.
Hence the true average intensity reaching the atmosphere’s outer surface is 553.3 [W/m2].
As a final step in the full calculation, which the concocted calculation did correctly include, the 29.9% of arriving radiation that gets reflected back out into space by clouds and snow before it can affect Earth’s temperature must be subtracted, ie 165.4 [W/m2], to give 387.9 [W/m2] that actually reaches Earth’s surface on average.
So when that value is used in the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship, Earth’s actual average surface temperature is found to be 14.5oC, (justifiably rounded to 15oC), thus equalling the measured value. And this value makes the greenhouse gas effect both zero and redundant and ridiculous. And in turn this makes the further concoctions of “Global Warming” and “Emissions Control” and “Paris Accords” equally redundant and equally ridiculous.
It may be noted that an alternative derivation of the double-cosine relationship, above, can be obtained from the quantum theory of light which involves calculating the orthogonal component of radiation when it strikes a surface. Unsurprisingly, the same logic applies in the chemical engineering design procedures for furnaces and for other radiative heat exchangers.
Solar power systems also exhibit the same double-cosine effect daily between sunrise and sunset, and seasonally between winter and summer, so this should not be regarded as a new phenomenon. It is just proper analysis. As a final pointer, the flow of radiation from Earth’s night-time hemisphere into the hemisphere of deep space at -270oC is fully orthogonal and so in using the emitting Stefan-Boltzmann relationship to calculate Earth’s surface temperature, a value of 15oC is obtained, again.
This all means that the GHE effect is 0oC, and that the spurious role of CO2 and other GHE, which supposedly raise Earth’s surface temperature by 33oC, is exposed as part of the scientific fiction. Earth does receive sufficient solar radiation directly to reach its average surface temperature exactly.
Furthermore, the trace compositions of GHE present, and their specific heats mean that their heat capacity within the atmosphere can be calculated as less than 1% of the total heat capacity of the atmosphere. As such GHE can play no significant part in storing sensible heat energy within the atmosphere and thereby in altering its overall temperature, especially not by 33oC.
Their only role in being able to absorb that infrared (IR) radiation is as the first step in transmitting it onwards.
This first step, however, is extremely important because in trying to understand the flow of solar energy on to Earth’s surface, any sensible scientist must also ask as to what mechanism enables Earth’s surface to dissipate all of the daytime heat acquired so that its day-to-day temperature cycles remain stable?
And when the heat transport parameters for conduction are examined, the answer to this question becomes obvious.
The very low temperature gradient across the 10-km atmosphere, and the very low thermal conductivity of air (otherwise known as a good insulator in winter clothing) and the very high heat transport rate required (of 388 [W/m2]) all combine to make night-time conduction of the counter-balancing heat flows away from the surface about six million times too low to be feasible.
So then because of the GHE, and only because of the GHE, IR heat radiation has to be invoked as the only consistent mechanism that drives that outward night-time heat flow from season to season and around the whole planet. In short, that GHE act as the cooling agents for Earth’s surface, and this revelation can be further supported, as below.
Although heat transport rates are high for radiative heat transfers in the vacuum of space, as evident in the use of Stefan-Boltzmann equation above, that is not necessarily true for transfers across the troposphere where higher concentrations of atmospheric gases exist.
Although the IR radiation does not react with non-GHE, any GHE molecules that have been activated by IR radiation can dissipate their increase in energy, via Brownian motion, to non-GHE molecules anyway. And will thus slow down the overall rate of heat transport. The Beer-Lambert law can be used to help quantify such behaviour, but sufficient to say that for Earth, the twelve or so hours of night-time are normally sufficient to allow the thermal equilibrium to be maintained between day and night-time flows, for most of the time.
As further support, it is relevant to note that on December 17 and 18th of 2019, satellite photographs showed that all of Australia lay under cloudless skies with no rain or reflective ice-surfaces anywhere. Lake Eyre in central Australia was dry.
Daytime maximum temperature records were set for many towns, and the “area average maximum” temperature as produced by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) reached a new record of 41.9oC. The new calculated average surface temperature under zero reflectivity was 41.2oC, which seems to confirm that these BoM observations were indeed for zero reflection.
This is particularly pertinent in view of the large area of the continent, so it was not an isolated “local incident”. The equivalent temperature that would be obtained for zero reflection from the concocted calculation is +5.4oC, which implies a gap for this situation of 36oC between reality and that prediction. So this big discrepancy could be taken as an observational proof of the mathematical errors in that concocted calculation contrasted with the incident’s seeming further verification of the new double-cosine calculation.
It must also be noted in passing that without GHE to remove daily heat from the planet, and particularly without water to form clouds and ice that reflect 30% of incoming heat away from Earth anyway, our temperatures would average about 42oC and our life would not exist.
A closer examination of BoM data from around the 18th and 19th of December in Central Australia leads to further relevant and interesting points. Firstly, the BoM notes that “maximum temperatures generally occurred at between two to three hours after mid-day.”
This fits the earlier suggestion that although the newly proposed radiaductive process is very fast compared to conductive heat transport, nevertheless it might well take several hours for the billions of molecular Brownian interactions to equilibriate across the full 10 km. And secondly, that when the overnight falls in temperature (being the delta from one day’s maximum to the next morning’s minimum temperature) were charted for all of 2019 for the main weather stations, as in Figure 1 for Newman, it was found that a steady value of around 15.5oC was found for all stations and over the whole year, irrespective of the maximum temperatures of the previous day.
This suggests that that outward flow if IR heat is “choked” by the multitude of those molecular interactions that must occur, and so on very hot days, it may take two days of moderate temperatures before an overnight minimum temperature falls back below Earth’s average value of 15oC. The major conclusion that arises from such observations is that the stated daily IR flows in the concocted model are for changes of around 33oC, which clearly cannot be achieved, and thus also decries that model.
Figure 1: Daytime Maximum Temp & Night- Figure 2: Overnight Temp Fall Data vs Daytime
time Fall Data through 2019 for Newman Maximum Temps, 1972-2019, Kalgoorlie
Further information on the role of GHE became available when data for the annual average maximum temperature at a given station were plotted against the annual average overnight temperature fall for that year and station, as in Figure 2 for Kalgoorlie over the years from 1972 to 2019.
The slope of about 0.5 suggests that as daily maximum temperatures rose (from solar and orbital effects), then the average values of the overnight falls also increased by about half as much. The explanation that can be deduced is that as the daily temperatures rose over time, then so did oceanic temperature with its consequent greater release of dissoved GHE. This extra GHE then improved the night-time heat transport of IR radiation from Earth into space, and so increased the overnight temperature fall.
As such, this represents a negative feedback against temperature increases that are forced onto Earth from those solar or orbital causes. And in turn, this helps to stabilize Earth’s temperature history through this additional cooling effect of the GHE, as postulated above.
Two climate mysteries can also be solved with the GHE “cooling effect” proposition. The first was the clear decline in temperatures that occurred towards the end of WW2 and into the 1970’s, during times when wartime production and then infrastructure re-construction increased enormously.
The new revelations suggest that the large increases in GHE that were produced had an initial effect of increasing night-time heat flows to the extent that daytime maximum temperatures also fell, but as those gases dissolved into oceans, that effect was reduced. The fact that the dissolved CO2 profile is predictably sluggish in showing any increase in CO2 content is simply due to the large size of the oceans and their expected large time-constants of around 20 years in showing such changes.
The other mystery arises in the study of Ice-age cycles, where the rapid turnaround in temperature and GHE concentration profiles that occur at the start of the Interglacial periods can be explained by the rapid decline in transport capability of the atmosphere when firstly humidity and then finally CO2 largely disappear from the atmosphere.
This leaves no cooling escape-path for the daily heat load and so causes those interglacial measurements to increase relatively quickly up until sufficient snow has turned to water, and then water has evaporated into humidity for normal IR heat flows to resume at about today’s levels.
Hence the realization that comes from the previous seven paragraphs is that GHE always act as cooling agents for Earth’s surface, and cannot in any way be blamed for causing Earth’s temperature to rise. This last idea of blaming Global Warming on CO2 is an unnecessary fallacy that arose from within the concocted narrative of trying to explain how Earth’s surface temperature can get daily from -18 to +15oC.
The new revelations show that Earth’s radiative temperature is 15oC anyway. And while Figure 2 does indicate a slight degree of Global warming over the 50 years of data shown, it does also show that GHE provide negative feedback against the solar and orbital variations which are understandably the real cause of slow Global Warming. And hence this means that mankind is wasting resources in trying to reduce GHE emissions when paradoxically it would be better to increase them through the use of clean, and remote coal-or-gas-fired electricity stations, and increasing the farming of ruminants for their protein, and even in the increased farming of forests.
New Zealand and Australia should withdraw immediately from the Paris Accord, and explain why, at the forthcoming Glasgow event. It can be only through the political reversing of the mistake made in blaming GHE for Global Warming that the associated myths and errors can be corrected.
The tragedy of not doing those things is that unemployment, sleeping rough, crime, hunger, suicides and pauper burials will all increase in that order if mankind fails to recognize his failings in elementary planetary calculations. Politicians have to recognize and then implement the merits of breaking the above chain by installing coal-or-gas-fired, base-load power stations to help keep poorer people employed, fed, and warm.
About the author: Dr Ron Murtagh. BE(Chem), PhD is a retired R&D chemical engineer with an extensive career in finding fundamental team-based answers for practical problems, in NZ, UK and Australia. Worked in explosives, cement, water-treatment, polythene film, and integrated process control via DDC. Experienced with large-scale modelling, statistical analysis, and LP optimization.
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.
Zoe Phin
| #
Is this a joke?
2/p = 533? How’d you pull that off?
Reply
geran
| #
Same question here.
Reply
RON MURTAGH
| #
To Zoe & Geran, Yes, Sorry. As an older mathematician, I love the charm of a few Greek symbols in simple relationships. So my Adobe and then my requested Word submission each correctly contained three such characters being theta, lambda, and pi. I suppose that with the Christmas rush to get my new explanation “out”, one of the team in the publisher’s office didn’t look for such complications and so those Greek characters became evident as q, l and p respectively. While the first two should not strictly have caused problems, the third could have and did. I’ve asked for them all to be remedied, and to remove the duplicated chart, but that may not be possible over the Christmas period. Once again, sorry.
Reply
RON MURTAGH
| #
Thanks, Zoe and all others who have responded. I’ve tried to answer all of them as well as I can, and have been interested in all of them as my first experience in such on;line “conversations” I think they’re called. Zoe please see my next response to Geran .
Reply
RON MURTAGH
| #
Thanks, Zoe and all others who have responded. I’ve tried to answer all of them as well as I can, and have been interested in all of them as my first experience in such on;line “conversations” I think they’re called. Zoe please see my next response to Geran, which somehow got duplicated.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Dr Ron Murtagh:
The mathematical calculation of the Greenhouse Gas Effect (GHE) is the biggest scientific error ever made.
JMcG: I think the biggest scientific error ever made has to do with H2O in my opinion. The GHG calculations are secondary and possibly consequential to the the mischaracterization of H2O that goes back to a major error made by Linus Pauling, way back in the 1950s. Follow this link for more:
Hydrogen Bonding in Water Solved
https://youtu.be/AAuYt6T0A6o
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You have written here at PSI multiple times something like: “The GHG calculations are secondary and possibly consequential to the the mischaracterization of H2O that goes back to a major error made by Linus Pauling, way back in the 1950s.” But I have not yet read, here at PSI, what you claim this mischaracterization to be.
As an experimental chemist, I know that it is very difficult to do experiments with pure water. For distilled water rapidly dissolves nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide molecules from our natural atmosphere. And of these three gas molecules, carbon dioxide is the must soluble. For carbon dioxide molecules react with water molecules in liquid water to form the molecules commonly referred to as carbonic acid. Which are quite capable of hydrogen bonding with the other water molecules of liquid water.
So, since you claim to be a genius, I ask you to please tell us PSI reader what specifically are the ‘mischaracterizations’ you are continually referring to but not defining. For the publishers (Elzevir) of Galileo’s book wrote (as translated by Crew and de Salvio) in their preface to the reader that “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” And you do not even try to define what these ‘mischaracterizations’ actually are. So it seems we can have no intuitive knowledge about that which you write.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
So, since you claim to be a genius, I ask you to please tell us PSI reader what specifically are the ‘mischaracterizations’ you are continually referring to but not defining.
My claim of genius notwithstanding, Linus Pauling’s mischaracterization of hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules involved the application of electronegativity to determine polarity. More concisely, the mistake caused him to fail to recognize that H2O polarity is actually variable:
Why H2O Polarity is Variable
https://youtu.be/KzkxdWWg3HU
In short, Pauling used an arithmetic technique to describe H2O polarity, which he labelled relative electronegativity. He should have also used geometry. This error is what underlies all of the anomalies of H2O.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Thank you for describing what you consider that Pauling’s mistakes (misconceptions) were.
Since our meeting years ago, I have had two questions. One, what was Pauling’s misconceptions? And what are water’s anomalies?
When I read that you stated that Pauling never considered the geometry of the water molecule, I knew that you could have never read Pauling’s book: ‘The Nature of the Chemical Bond’.
Which prompted me to finally see that you have created water’s anomaly by reasoning that the Earth’s atmosphere does not contain any water molecules.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
When I read that you stated that Pauling never considered the geometry of the water molecule, I knew that you could have never read Pauling’s book: ‘The Nature of the Chemical Bond’.
James:
What’s funny is the hero worship of Pauling despite all of the evidence (anomalies of H2O) that his theory failed to comprehend H bonding in water.
Hydrogen Bonding in Water Solved
James McGinn / Super Genius
Alan
| #
Why would governments question this? The error comes from the UN via the IPCC and the governments of the member countries fund their work. They would have to admit that they have been wasting taxpayer money on a scientific fraud for years and they will never do that, and of course they have not only accepted the fraud, but they are also acting on it and the consequences of their zero-carbon policies are unthinkable.
Reply
Chris
| #
You have a good point that they would have admitt that they screwed up. Now it’ll make them look bad. But I wonder if the consequences that are soon to come is the objective.
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
[[An over-simplified calculation was concocted about 20 years ago, that misleads most scientists who might probe it into thinking that the average level of radiation that Earth’s outer atmospheric surface (the tropopause) receives from the Sun is 25% of the level that a satellite would measure when existing in space at the same distance from the Sun.]]
[[As shown below, that factor should be 40.6%, (being 4/p2) but non-scientific people have no chance of recognizing that error. In fact, most scientists cannot do so either because that would require them to have studied the Quantum Mechanical theory of light, and to have a good background in statistics as well.]]
[[So the perpetrators of the concocted calculation could have been reasonably sure that they would escape detection for many decades, when they first launched their concocted science with its calculated surface temperature of -18oC and a 33oC GHE Effect to arrive at Earth’s measured temperature of 15oC. And while those scientists may not have understood then that global warming has been arising from solar variations and orbital interactions, of which neither can possibly be ameliorated by mankind, they should have at least tried to understand the thermodynamics of greenhouse gases before they labelled them as the cause of global warming.]]
[[When that double-cosine point-intensity is averaged over the whole sunlit hemisphere, where both q and l each range independently from –p/2 to +p/2 radians, an averaging factor of 2/p is obtained for each component.]]
You’re getting close but no cigar, sorry.
To use the S-B T^4 law on the Earth, the U.N. IPCC fake scientists first turn it into a flat motionless disk with no oceans or atmosphere, so that the “average global temperature” can be calculated from pure instantaneous radiation absorption/emission independent of time. But as Galileo said, “E pur si muove” (Nevertheless it moves). Making the Earth spin, with the Sun illuminating a hemisphere instead of a disk, and the oceans and atmosphere acting as heat storage makes this 5th grader model into junk that bears no resemblance to reality. Funny why they want to use a flat Earth with surface area of 1/4 the sphere, and reduce the Sun’s power to 1/4 supposedly to compensate, when that also lowers the Sun’s Planck radiation temperature and shifts the whole curve, creating a fake weak Sun that of course can’t keep the Earth from freezing, with a net temperature of -18C. The IPCC hoaxers than want you to believe that the real figure of +15C proves that CO2 supplies the missing 33C, but without any physical explanation including why they waved away the rest of the atmosphere. Why don’t they reduce the Sun’s power by only 1/2 and have it illuminate a stationary hemisphere sans oceans and atmosphere? Because they worked backwards, the sure sign of junk science that’s trying to find the truth no matter where it leads, not justify a preconceived conclusion for political purposes.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-natural-greenhouse-effect-and-the-anthropogenic-greenhouse-effect-What-is-the-difference-between-them/answer/TL-Winslow
How many times do I have to bring out the killer sword? The IPCC CO2 warming hoax relies on widespread ignorance of radiative physics based on Nature’s ironclad Planck’s Radiation Law, which
makes CO2’s weak puny 15 micron photons with a Planck radiation temperature of -80C incapable of melting an ice cube, or raising the temperature of any molecule higher than -80C.
Planck’s Law makes optical IR thermometers (OIRTs) possible that can measure a radiating body’s temperature by just sampling it from a distance and focusing the signal with a lens on a thermopile. This only works because photons have a Planck radiation temperature based on their wavelength via Wien’s Displacement Law, which is derived from Planck’s Radiation Law. If this weren’t true then the remote IR signal would keep building up the temperature and never stop, but instead if levels off at a value determined by Wien’s/Planck’s Law.
The complementary big lie by the IPCC is to show a graph of Earth surface IR vs. wavelength as seen from satellites displayed side by side with one of solar energy hitting the atmosphere, and point out notches at CO2’s 15 micron radiation wavelength, claiming that this proves that CO2 “traps and piles heat” in the atmosphere and raises the surface temperature. Zonk! Distortions or not, the surface IR curve as seen from space has a clear peak corresponding to the surface temperature from Planck’s Law, and notches only indicate blocking of some wavelengths of radiation on its way to space, which might affect the frigid sky temperatures, but the surface temperature is the surface temperature, and CO2 didn’t change it. Instead, they push the sick hoax that CO2’s x watts per square meter of IR from the sky raises the surface temperature so many degrees C, when it can’t raise it even one millionth of a degree C, and their own satellite data proves it, else they’d prominently show the shift in those graphs.
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
This is a classic case of lies flying around the world at jet speed while the truth limps behind. What will it take to wake the public up and laugh the IPCC away, along with its plans to bilk trillions in the name of saving the world from CO2 but actually planning on redistributing it for their idea of Marxist social-racist justice?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-WEFs-Great-Reset-proposal-and-communism-or-socialism/answer/TL-Winslow
Reply
Alan
| #
Flat earth is a good description but it is worse than that in my view. They have calculated the average temperature at which the earth radiates to space and then make the assumption that since energy in = energy out, that the sun can only heat the surface to the same outgoing temperature. Temperature is not heat. This is really their fundamental error. Of course, the must know. They are lying about everything and they know they can get away with it now we have generations of students educated to imbecility.
Reply
Barry
| #
That is a great point Alan, I can understand a lay person like myself getting caught in this lie but there is no excuse for a thinking academic to go along with this nonsense. They have been indoctrinated with it for so long now that it has replaced actual physics with a lie that is not defensible. I use the argument now that either the sun or co2 heats the earth,you can’t have it both ways,that tends to at least make them think about it.
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
Temperature is not heat? Yes it is. The true statement is that radiation is not heat. Heat is caused by radiation that’s been absorbed into a molecule as internal kinetic energy, which has to spread via radiation, conduction, convection, and/or evaporation, getting cooler (lower temperature) after each transformation because of entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics)., which applies to the micro and macro scales, including the Universe itself (Heat Death of the Universe). The IPCC hoax is to treat all radiation energy as equally capable of raising the temperature of molecules indefinitely instead of only to a temperature set by the photon energy via Wien’s/Planck’s Law.
Energy in = energy out? That’s the IPCC’s big lie. There can be no Sun-Earth radiation energy balance because the Earth’s surface absorbs the solar radiation that’s not reflected and heats up, then emits longer wavelength (weaker photons) infrared radiation that doesn’t make it back to space untouched but gets sapped by surface air via direct contact AKA conduction, making it more buoyant and taking the absorbed heat slowly upwards via convection, transforming most of it to work to power winds and weather along with an endless vertical treadmill of colder air pushing itself down and forcing the warmer air up like bubbles in an aquarium, only to itself become colder via adiabatic expansion and waiting to sink again. In other words, a Carnot heat engine. But the IPCC hoaxers want you to believe there is a pure radiation balance without any atmospheric or oceanic interference, as if the Earth were the Moon, else their 5th grader S-B Law calculation of avg. global temperature would be exposed as moose hockey. Their own satellite graphs attempt to equate incoming solar radiation with outgoing surface radiation, even though they’re at widely different temperature/wavelength ranges, and they display the numerous notches themselves.
You can’t believe anything the IPCC octopus says, and worse, it’s a hydra of cacophonous voices with no ultimate authority or infallible pope, hence every time you claim that “the IPCC octopus says”, one of their propagandists chimes in with “Show me the passage in one of the IPCC’s official reports”, which sidesteps the mountain of lies from IPCC octopus orgs. NASA, the Am. Chemical Society, DeSmog Blog, etc.. Meanwhile no matter what lies the myriad of IPCC octopus shills spout, they’re all on the same train steaming down the tracks attempting to bilk trillions, and now it’s on the verge of capturing the White House and tying the once mighty U.S. down like Gulliver in Lilliput. Being a Marxist political scam, any “climate deniers” are treated like crypto-racist kooks who should be grateful they aren’t in jail. The global Marxists have successfully hijacked Big Science, marginalizing real science to the shadows to keep their train rolling, and there’s no hint of any change in the near future. I’m sad that Big Oil spends its big bucks only on political lobbyists to fight attempts to shut it down, and doesn’t proudly shower money on all IPCC critics to make the fight more fair.It doesn’t even have to proclaim an official position on the science, just point out that there is a healthy opposition, making it unwise to fix something that isn’t broke. Leftist globalist billionaire George Soros is busy funding every leftist org. on Earth through his hydra of front orgs., and is winning walking away. Big Oil should fund P-S with millions a year to increase its readership to compete with the IPCC as long as it implements a charter providing for a membership-elected governing board along with rules to enforce free thought and free speech so the IPCC can’t take it over too.
https://greenjihad.com/2020/12/17/biden-taps-gina-mccarthy-as-climate-czar/
Reply
Alan
| #
Heat is thermal energy transferring from a high temperature to a lower temperature, so they are not the same. Temperature is also not the same as thermal energy, since thermal energy depend on the mass and specific heat. Try thinking about water and air and discover why thermal energy and temperature are not the same. Take a simple example of the same mass of air and water, the heat that transfer between then will be very different before equilibrium is reached depending on which way it transfers. Water contains a huge amount of energy and could raise the temperature of air, but air at the higher temperature will not increase the temperature of the water very much.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TL,
Enjoyed reading this comment and went to your referenced article and by doing so established to my satisfaction that you never went back to the beginning. Which was “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. Svante Arrhenius. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.”
Where one can read that Arrhenius reduced the incoming solar radiation incident upon the earth’s surfaces by a consideration of the measured (and calculated) earth’s and sky’s albedo. While he considered nothing beside the carbon dioxide of the natural atmosphere (sky) to limit the transmission of the longer wavelength IR radiation being emitting toward space from surfaces of the earth’s condensed (solid and liquid) matter.
And from my reading of your comment and your referenced article, I must conclude: neither do you. You seem to ignore the possible influence of the easily observed atmospheric clouds; just as Arrhenius did.
But you did review other important information which I do not commonly read. So if we all work together maybe we can get rid of the absolutely wrong idea known as the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
For I know that the Earth’s atmosphere has an observed Scientific Law which limits its observed (measured) minimum temperatures. This law is that the measured temperature of the atmosphere had never been observed (measured) to be lower than the atmosphere’s observed (measured) dew point temperature at the same place and time.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Tim C
| #
There are issues with your integral for evaluating solar flux over a hemisphere. You didn’t insert the Jacobian for integrating in spherical coordinates, R^2 cos(l). Done correctly, the integral for total solar flux should be:
int_-pi/2^pi/2 int_-pi/2^pi/2 S R^2 cos^2(l) cos(q) dl dq
= S R^2 * 2 * int_-pi/2^pi/2 (1+cos(2l))/2 dl
= S R^2 pi
To get the average over the whole surface, just divide by the surface area of the earth, 4 pi R^2. The result is the familiar S/4 .
Reply
RON MURTAGH
| #
to Tim C, As an older chemical engineer, I prefer to use rate equations with, say, a per-second time base rather than a 24-hour period for the analysis. Hence my given derivation of the double cosine point intensity for the hemispherical solar input to Earth’s surface. Initially I used the orthogonality requirements as for furnace design, but later realized that this was equivalent to the Quantum mechanical approach, and then realized that a simple geometric explanation for the expansion in unit illuminated area that occurs for increasing q and l might be easier for more readers to understand. Its consequences of near-zero intensity for polar and sunrise and sunset localities should certainly be obvious. No transformation of coordinates was needed for any of these approaches, and indeed the proper statistical averaging of that double-cosine point intensity over the whole illuminated hemisphere could be done via simple calculus techniques without transforming coordinates either. I don’t think that Dr Jacobi would have been too disappointed in my failure to use his mathematical toy for such a simple problem in just two dimensions. The averaging factor of 4/pi^2 (40.6%) so derived is perfectly reasonable from inspection of a cosine curve over the range of -pi/2 to +pi/2 with two such variables.
In contrast, you should be concerned that the your final-line divisor involving 24 hours covers the period where Earth’s surface is emanating radiation out into space, and not receiving it. So either you need to reduce the net heat received over 24 hours to zero, being the long-term actual value, or alter your receiving period to 12 hours which then gives you an averaging factor of 50%. (Still not actually correct). In this case, your resultant average surface temperature becomes 30oC via Stefan-Boltzmann, and you thus have different problems to explain ! In my humble opinion, the un-named originators of the 25% averaging factor used the 24-hour period deliberately in order to create human despair about CO2 dust and grime that they were quite reasonably concerned about. But this didn’t justify the consequences that have occurred and are occurring from their very serious and possibly c..m—l mistake which has cost people’s jobs.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Ron and PSI Mathematicians,
The geometry of mathematics has no equations or mathematical symbols. It begins by accurately defining words.
I doubt, but do not know, if the PSI mathematicians who write about SCIENCE have ever read Galileo’s ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’ as translated to English by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio and published in 1914. Therefore, they may not have read that Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Galileo’s book first read it in 1636 and wrote in his introduction (preface?) to the reader of the Italian language “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times; or, as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
Once I read the latter saying, at about 50 years of age, I struggled for years to understand what was this ‘accurate definition’. And until this moment I had not studied what Galileo wrote the FOURTH DAY. For I am not a good mathematician and geometry is mathematics. But I now see that the geometry of mathematics has no equations or mathematical symbols. That is begins by accurately defining words and then reasons with these accurately defined words using geometrical figures.
The topic of the fourth day was the motion of projectiles. And the first paragraph was: “In the preceding pages we have discussed the properties of uniform motion and of motion naturally accelerated along planes of all inclinations. I now propose to set forth those properties which belong to a body whose motion is compounded of two other motions, namely, one uniform and one naturally accelerated; these properties, well worth knowing, I propose to demonstrate in a rigid manner. This is the kind of motion seen in a moving projectile; its origin I conceive to be as follows:
“Imagine any particle predicted along a horizontal plane without friction; then we know, from what has been more fully explained in the preceding pages, that this particle will move along this same plane with a motion which is uniform and perpetual, provided the plane has no limits. … “
I urge you PSI mathematicians to read what Galileo actually wrote. And I believe, if you also read Motte’s English translation of Newton’s ‘The Principlia’, you too will see, as I do, how Newton had freely used what Galileo had written without any acknowledgement.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
David B Russell
| #
The average insolation reaching the illuminated hemisphere of Earth’s upper atmosphere is half the solar constant because the area of of a hemisphere is twice the area of a circle with the same diameter. The entire Earth, including the hemisphere being heated, is cooling to Space The hemisphere not being heated by the Sun is only cooling. Using a solar constant at 1 AU of 1365.2 W/m^2 and an albedo of 0.299, the average insolation reaching the surface of Earth’s illuminated hemisphere is 478.5 W/m^2. The S-B temperature for the hemisphere being heated by the Sun is 303K.. The average surface temperature of the hemisphere not being heated is about 273K and the average surface temperature of the Earth is about 288K.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
Einstein stated: “If you can’t explain it simply you don’t understand it well enough.” But he also stated: “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
You began: “The average insolation …”. The is no such thing as ‘average insolation’. There is only measured ‘actual insulation’. It is a fact, that when something is continuously varying is being continuously measured with an instrument, that it is necessary to average by recording the instantaneous value at some interval of time and then average these values over a longer period of time. NOAA, in a project (U.S. Climate Reference Network) averaged the values being measured at the shorter intervals of time for the previous hour. But they also did a very critical thing of recording and reporting the maximum and minimum value measured during the previous hour. Which maximum and minimum valves were actually measured values.
But besides the time element involved, there is another problem with the averaging to which you referred. It involves averaging the values being measured at specific locations over a ‘hemisphere’. There are two words I seldom read any more: homogeneous and heterogenous. If one averages something over a hemisphere you make the hemisphere’s surface homogenous when it is easy to see that it is actually quite heterogenous. And this actual heterogeneity makes it impossible to computer model the NATURAL world, or even a hemisphere of it.
Maybe I haven’t written enough that averaging the averaged hourly temperatures for a day makes the earth stand still. That is, unless one reports the maximum and minimum temperatures for that day.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Exactly Jerry,
The Earths libido changes by the minute!
What if there is a huge high over Australia therefore no cloud, the Libido goes down, does this matter, well if night time the average temperature goes down way down, if during the day the average temperature goes up, way up!
Highs over this southern continent last days if not weeks, how does that effect the AVERAGE Libido of earth!
One is reminded of the butterfly in new mexico that response, that causes a tornado in Kansas
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Michael.
The recent fires in Australia followed a high pressure system that sat over Australia for well over twelve months with the one exception being the high drifted the wrong way back over the Indian Ocean and then drifted back to sit over Australia again which was no more than a two or three day excursion.
I wonder what the difference is between albedo and libido. A romantic planet earth maybe?
Best wishes. Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
I was under the impression that libido increases at night, especially in the presence of alcohol.
Gotta love spell check.
Hern
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
I see you signed yourself “Hern” (mythical hunter) which is quite appropriate for Summer/Winter solstice.
I saw a photo of the standing stones at Stonehenge from a raised and slightly distant perspective recently and it looked as if the stones were a consistent height to support a raised dwelling or dwellings.
The stones would be fireproof and a raised platform dwelling would keep inhabitants clear of marauding animals and savages.
Then they would have built Old Sarum as an evolution of the fortress.
Nevertheless, at 23.00 last night I set fire to the clothes I was wearing and danced round and around the rocks in my head and prayed that Hern would provide a successful hunt.
Cheers Herb.
Michael Clarke
| #
Thanks for the correction, got to love spell checker.
MattH
| #
If the standing stones had ever been a dwelling platform they would have excavated chicken bones and KFC wrappers etc. I spoke without thinking.
RON MURTAGH
| #
Thanks, David. Although the original concoctors didn’t bother to do this, my understanding is that you have to average the spot intensities arriving at the surface, ie the double-cosine spot values. And this gives the 4/pi^2 factor rather than your 50% factor. I’d also understood, perhaps incorrectly, that molecular motion in the vicinity of all surfaces could hold and average-out the different vibration levels (temperatures) experienced by those molecules. The original concoction that I read didn’t delve into such intricacies that you and I are discussing. Also see my comments above on the 50% factor and using a 24-hr timebase.
Reply
David B Russell
| #
Heat is being stored in the oceans, land and air of the heated hemisphere and being carried by Earth rotation, ocean currents and winds to the unheated hemisphere.
Reply
Max Polo
| #
DB Russel : “The average surface temperature of the hemisphere not being heated is about 273K and the average surface temperature of the Earth is about 288K.” Where is the 273K coming from ?
Reply