So, this is embarrassing. How could I miss this? On the other hand, everyone else did too. Take a look at what Einstein actually wrote:
He says that a body loses mass as it radiates heat. Since we have two constants and two variables, we can get a new constant between mass and temperature.
What I’ve done is actually an empty sphere with two shells, it has no clouds. The point is that this empty sphere of arbitrary size replicates Earth’s heat flow perfectly. Which indicates to me that clouds and fluid circulation are completely contained within the constant heat flow range from the sun. Clouds is then a self regulative process to keep temperature in a range. On long scale this range would be 11-15C based on the range of TSI, if it is constant. Then we’re not anywhere near the maximum where we sit at 13.7C, and 15C would be no problem. It’s the 11C minimum that’s scary.
I found that Planck uses 4/3σT^4(V-V’) for a system that does work at constant temperature while heat is supplied externally. An extra 33% power is needed to keep temperature constant as some energy is ”lost” as work.
For a surface temperature at 286.6K, and with constant volume even though work is being done as currents flow on the surface and in the atmosphere, then the surface, the inner shell, must absorb 4πr^2(4/3σT^4). For two shells that is
(4/3)^2(4πr^2σT^4)
=2πr^2(TSI)
It’s a perfect match with surface temperature within 0.5C, and TSI at 1360.9W/m^2
Check for raw average T:
temperature.global
It seems like Earth is a perfect thermodynamic system following thermodynamic theory exactly. This would mean that all the dynamics -like clouds- emerge from a fixed relationship between heat flow and surface temperature. Clouds are purely a consequence and shouldn’t be included in the planetary energy balance at all. This would apply to everything in the biosphere including intelligent life, it’s all contained in 4/3σT^4.
All work and heat is accounted for, the system dynamics are entirely secondary.
It makes me question the nature of our solar system, it is so precise.
But I’m just speculating. The equation works better than the greenhouse hypothesis though.
In the book ”The theory of heat radiation” by Max Planck there is a short statement about heat emission which is all you need to refute the whole greenhouse hypothesis. You find it on page 8, in the last sentence of this paragraph.
He says that the emission of a volume element depends entirely on what happens inside it. In all cases. He refers to Prevosts principle, which says ”the emission of a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state”.
The atmosphere is not a component of the internal state of the Earth surface, it’s an external component. The greenhouse hypothesis explicitly says that the intensity of surface emission is determined by the cold atmosphere. It’s a direct contradiction of Planck’s and Prevost’s statements. This is all we need to refute the greenhouse hypothesis. This principle, this empirical law, has never been questioned before, and there are no exceptions to it.
Right after Plancks statement about Prevost’s principle he talks about emission from bodies at different temperatures and their relationship to each other.
This paragraph adds to the argument against the GHE(greenhouse effect). In the GHE it’s claimed that the cold atmosphere heats the warm surface, but here Planck clearly says that a lower temperature body will cool a warmer body.
We all knew this already, that a warm body is cooled by colder bodies, but proponents of the GHE have big problems understanding this, and it’s convenient to use this statement from Planck. You can just say: ”why do you think Planck is wrong?” and show them this. Nobody dares to question Planck.
It’s amazing that so few have actually read what Planck and Prevost have written. I believe that incompetence is a major factor in how the greenhouse theory was accepted as a way to find Earth’s energy balance. The laws that determine heat transfer, temperature and emission are old and glossed over by most people, including the vast majority of climate scientists. I have to this day never met or interacted with a climate scientist that has good knowledge about thermodynamics.
We just have to look at basic applied thermal physics to demonstrate the contradictions in the GHE. An example is air cooled engines.
How do you cool an air cooled engine?
By air absorbing the heat from the surface of the cylinder.
How does the greenhouse hypothesis say that greenhouse gases warms the surface?
By air absorbing the heat from the Earth surface.
In both cases we have a hot surface and cold air absorbing the heat from the surface, but the result is the opposite in the GHE compared to the engine. You don’t get opposite results from the same principle in physics. Both these cases can’t be true, and we know that air cooling of engines work, so the GHE must be wrong.
If the atmosphere cools everything ON the surface, and it does, then it must also cool the surface itself. If the atmosphere cools the engine, then it must cool the surface.
Cold gases cools warm solids, there are no exceptions. The atmosphere is a cold gas, the surface is a warm solid.
Now, let’s see if my twitter account gets unbanned on monday. See you there!
Have a nice weekend!
The crust is less than 1% of the volume. Where does Earth’s emitted heat come from?
Over at the religious page scienceofdoom.com you can find this post where the priest is preaching about how he misunderstands science so badly that he disproves his own theory. I am going to answer his post here, because I like freedom of speech, and he doesn´t, which he admits in the post.
He starts with blabbing about the radiative transfer formula for radiation emitted at the surface and how it passes through the atmosphere:
Iλ(0) = Iλ(τm)e-τm + ∫ Bλ(T)e-τ dτ
He explains it like this:
”The intensity at the top of atmosphere equals.. The surface radiation attenuated by the transmittance of the atmosphere, plus.. The sum of all the contributions of atmospheric radiation – each contribution attenuated by the transmittance from that location to the top of atmosphere.”
This is all fine. But the problem is he thinks he has calculated a greenhouse effect, even though he himself writes ”attenuation”. He must not know what that means.
He then shows this spectrum and points out how good the match is:
And he is correct. It is a beautiful calculation with accuracy that almost gives you goosebumps. Now comes the funny part, he thinks it is a spectrum that proves his theory!!!
Look at the left scale, it says: Intensity+units. This is intensity of heat, and the higher up the graph goes, the higher the intensity(hotter)
Now look at the action of co2 in wavelengths 20-13. What happens to the intensity?
A deep drop in intensity, that is what happens. This means that the action of co2 in the atmosphere, is to decrease intensity/heat emission. That is not a greenhouse effect, that is the effect you get when you spray dry ice(co2) in air. It cools.
But the greenhouse-believer think that heat can hide, so they claim that the invisible ghost-heat stays in the system and accumulates.
Non-religious people know from logic that dry ice doesn´t make hot surfaces hotter, just colder.
Then we get this nice little picture, adding to the display of ignorance.
The picture shows, and the text describes, how heat transfers to surroundings of a body. What we know is that the sb-law tells us that at equal temperature there is no transfer of heat between surroundings and solid. When discussing gh-theory, the defenders like to add ”net”, which is pathetic, because the sb-law only calculates heat transfer. Nothing changes from ”net”, because ”net” is heat. The rest is not heat and cannot heat anything.
Do you notice anything missing in the picture? Yeah, a sun. Another proof of ignorance delivered by the priest himself.
Again, we know that at equal temperature there is NO transfer of heat. 0.
In the gh-theory there is the idea that if one body is at lower temperature, it starts to transfer the negative difference, which is not ”net” and therefore not heat.
Anyone with knowledge about heat transfer and thermodynamics knows that only work and heat can increase temperature. Co2 is not producing heat, even greenhouse believers know this. Co2 absorbs heat. The question is then, does co2 do work on the system? Of course not.
Knowing this, can co2 raise the temperature of it´s own heat source? Absolutely not!
Kids understand this, but not blanket-people.
Isn´t this a funny coincidence:
Look at the graph in each figure, the upper figure is the temperature gradient in the atmosphere, and the other figure is a van der waals fluid where the terms of stability is broken. The model of the fluid in the right picture is the exact same function that determines the gradient in the atmospheric fluid.
It is the part of the graph holding the points M to F that is violating the terms for stability, it is said to be a region where other processes supersedes the isotherm. So, my interpretation of the temperature gradient show that the heat flow in the atmosphere behaves like a van der Waal fluid with the action of gravity included.
There has been some talk about perfect fluid in the universe, in relation to dark matter and other problems. Could it be that heat/radiation is what has the behaviour of a fluid? It looks like that on earth anyway.
In any case, the similarity between the heat flow behaviour and the principles that describe vdW-fluids, indicates that there is something else at work than a greenhouse effect.
I try to find the relevance in this;
”Now, consider rerunning the simulation, but with a slightly different longwavelength cloud forcing. Again, if we run it long enough, it will settle to an equilibrium state, in which the fluxes balance, and the temperature is constant. However, since the longwavelength cloud forcing is different, some of the other fluxes will also be different, and the equilibrium temperature will, consequently, also be different. There will be an offset, compared to the first simulation, but it won’t grow with time simply because one simulation had a different longwavelength cloud forcing compared to the other”
I cannot find this offset in the heat transfer equations. But there is a time-dependent drop in temperature from dropping the emissive power of a heat absorber, like what happens when increasing the amount co2. It shows that without increasing the power of the heat source, the only effect is a drop in the temperature of the system.
I keep on pointing out the problems of gh-theory;
”If we then increase atmospheric CO2, while leaving everything else unchanged, that will act to block some of the outgoing flux. What essentially happens is that some of the flux will end up coming from higher in the atmosphere that it did when atmospheric CO2 was lower. Since the temperature drops with altitude (in the troposphere) this means that it will now be coming from regions that are cooler and that, hence, emit less. Therefore, the outgoing flux goes down and the system will have to warm to return to energy balance. As already pointed out, doubling atmospheric CO2 is estimated to reduce the outgoing flux by about 3.7Wm-2.”
The bold part is at the core of the problem. This is a completely backwards statement, a demonstration of the lack of understanding in thermodynamic relationships. ”The outgoing flux” is the ”flux density” which is equal to the emissive power of the body via T^4. A body does not have any possible way to compensate for a dropping flux density from any part of the system, if there is not an increasing power density from the heat source. It just simply drops in temperature in that part, and the source must increase the transfer rate to keep a steady state. Since heat flow from both the sun and the internal generation is constant, there can not be any increasing temperature anywhere.
You cannot ”block” heat by increasing the rate of heat transfer via dropping temperature of the absorber, that is the opposite of ”blocking heat”,
One can only ask these people to study heat transfer and heat engines carefully. Only when they understand that, they will know why they are wrong.
I read something amazing:
”If we then increase atmospheric CO2, while leaving everything else unchanged, that will act to block some of the outgoing flux. What essentially happens is that some of the flux will end up coming from higher in the atmosphere that it did when atmospheric CO2 was lower. Since the temperature drops with altitude (in the troposphere) this means that it will now be coming from regions that are cooler and that, hence, emit less. Therefore, the outgoing flux goes down and the system will have to warm to return to energy balance. As already pointed out, doubling atmospheric CO2 is estimated to reduce the outgoing flux by about 3.7Wm-2.”
You see there?
He actually claims that emission at a lower temperature causes higher temperature in another solid body which has higher temperature. He says that: carbon dioxide causes emission at lower temperature, and that emission at lower temperature it causes heating.
Heating is always correlates with emission at higher intensity, at higher temperature, not lower. All laws of thermodynamics are broken with this reasoning.
Life is thermal 