what is the theory of man made global warming? v8. by derek alker february 2015. the united nations...

What is the theory of man made global warming? V8. By

Derek Alker February 2015.

The United Nations states that –

We humans, by our activities emit carbon dioxide,this accumulates in the atmosphere, intensifying the greenhouse effect,

and thus the world warms.

Plainly current fears that find so much favour with politicians and the UN bureaucrats alike, that man made global climate change, man made global warming, Anthropogenic Climate Change (AGW), is happening now. That we MUST do something now to stop it are based upon the greenhouse effect and how by our

activities “we” are (supposedly) affecting, namely intensifying, the (supposed natural) greenhouse effect itself.

In short, AGW is how we are supposed to be affecting the greenhouse effect, by our activities, specifically by our emissions of CO2.

This raises the question, and it is THE question that has to be asked. What is greenhouse effect theory?

If “we” can not answer this question, how can we possibly know what AGW is?

A very brief potted history of AGW..

In 1988 James Hansen of NASA presented to a United States senate sub committee a climate modelled prediction of,

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). AGW has been referred to at various times since as, man made global warming,

man made climate change, climate change, climate disruption, climate chaos, etc, etc, etc.. .

What he presented was the then current climate modelling of radiative transfer greenhouse effect theory,to which he had added a positive water vapour feedback assumption that was controlled by

atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels. .

In short, Hansen modelled if the level of atmospheric CO2 went up, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere would also go up, this would then cause the temperature of the atmosphere to go up.

This is because the greenhouse effect intensified as water vapour is modelled as the most powerful and abundant greenhouse gas. The models predicted this relationship is a quite linear (straight) line.

.

More CO212345More water vapour23456More greenhouse effect23456The world warms.

THAT was the birth of AGW. That IS modelled AGW..

A complete modelled “theory”, hidden within the climate models, that were so complex no one would understand it or them. AGW was modelled and then presented, literally out of the blue to an unsuspecting world. Many concluded from the shock that the possibility of catastrophic AGW caused in them that earth

has to be saved from the ravages of man’s activities. “Save the planet” from AGW has since become many people’s mantra, and that is a reasonable reaction IF AGW is correct.

.

However what “we” should do FIRST, is check the basis of AGW, namely what is the greenhouse effect “theory” we are supposedly affecting by our activities? Without that there is no AGW to model….

Currently there are four versions, four stepped types of greenhouse effect “theory” being widely used. They will be referred to here as

1) “Old” (heat flow) Greenhouse effect “theory” (can be traced back to Balfour Stewart in1866, and possibly earlier).

The greenhouse analogy.Source link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ocr_gateway/energy_resources/global_warmingrev1.shtml

2) “New” simplified, (energy flow) Greenhouse effect “theory” ( for example 2007 Gavin Schmidt Real Climate blog).

Unphysically conserving energy. Source link.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/

3) “New” complex (energy flow) Greenhouse effect “theory” (1990s Kiehl and Trenberth and NASA).

Global Energy Budgets (GEBs).Source link.

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/

4) Radiative transfer (mathematical) Greenhouse effect “theory” (from the start of climate modelling with computers in the 1940s).

A simplified flow diagram of what is modelled.Source link.

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/archives/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf








1) “Old” (heat flow) Greenhouse effect “theory”. The greenhouse analogy

2) “New” simplified, (energy flow) Greenhouse effect “theory”.Unphysically conserving energy.

4) Radiative transfer (mathematical) Greenhouse effect “theory”.A simplified one dimensional model of what is modelled.

3) “New” complex (energy flow) Greenhouse effect “theory”.Global Energy Budgets (GEBs)

This presentation will try to show, with the aid of only four coloured arrows, and in as simple terms as possible, the four deliberately stepped versions of Greenhouse effect “theory” currently in use. The first explanations attempting to explain why is our planet’s surface is warmer than it is thought it should be (by the incorrect use and application of P/4), in both heat and energy flow versions, can be traced back to Balfour Stewart in 1866. There are no doubt earlier authors too,

but his is the most exhaustive, and complete early work I am aware of. ..

An Elementary Treatise on Heat. Balfour Stewart. (Google eBook) Clarendon Press, 1866.https://archive.org/details/anelementarytre03stewgoog

Heat and energy are different things. Heat is the temperature (the energy level) of matter. Energy is “merely” the ability to do work. Energy is not a physical thing of itself, but it does manifest itself physically. Heat therefore is only one of the

ways that energy can be redistributed in or by..

This presentation is intended to be viewed as a Microsoft powerpoint slide show. It will start with a simple BBC GCSE bite size heat flow diagram. It will then build up through the various energy flow versions of greenhouse effect “theory” up to a simplified mathematical climate model. It will be shown they are indeed all the same “theory”. They can also all

be traced back to Balfour Stewart and before, but given that is such a long and complicated history it will not be mentioned in any great detail in this presentation.

.

It will be explained why all the versions of the “theory” are physically impossible, and therefore can not explain what we are told they explain. Many people may feel a little uncomfortable that what they have been repeatedly told is so, what

they have honestly believed is so, just is NOT so. It can not be so..

So, what is happening then? Towards the end of the presentation a simple house brick analogy will be used to understandably and physically

illustrate and suggest a physical and therefore better basis from which we should be studying earth’s climate system from.

.

First though, the illustrations in the previous slide will be converted to the coloured arrows that will be used in the rest of this presentation. Throughout the presentation the yellow arrows will be incoming sunlight, the blue arrows longwave outgoing thermal radiation (OLR) emitted by earth’s surface, the red arrows are atmospheric back radiation of thermal

energy supposedly further warming earth’s surface, and finally the orange arrows are OLR escaping from earth’s climate system to space.

https://archive.org/details/anelementarytre03stewgoog

https://archive.org/details/anelementarytre03stewgoog

1) “Old” (heat flow) Greenhouse effect “theory”. The greenhouse analogy

2) “New” simplified, (energy flow) Greenhouse effect “theory”.Unphysically conserving energy.

3) “New” complex (energy flow) Greenhouse effect “theory”.Global Energy Budgets (GEBs)

4) Radiative transfer (mathematical) Greenhouse effect “theory”.A simplified one dimensional model of what is modelled.

Before describing the 4 deliberately stepped versions of greenhouse effect “theory” currently being taught, it is very important to note that,

in 1964 Professor Richard Feynman gave a series of lectures. ..

http://io9.com/watch-a-series-of-seven-brilliant-lectures-by-richard-f-5894600 .

“Richard Feynman was obviously famous for his work as a physicist, but he's also widely regarded as one of the most lucid and effective lecturers to ever address an audience.

So renowned, so readily accessible were his presentations, that his introductory physics lectures (which he delivered to undergraduates at Caltech) have since been immortalized in the form of a three-volume set called, quite simply,

The Feynman Lectures.”..

“in 1964, Feynman delivered a series of seven hour-long lectures at Cornell University. Those lectures were recorded by the BBC, and in 2009 (with a little help from Bill Gates),

they were released to the public. You'll find all seven of them featured below, but you'll also want to check out the lectures on Microsoft's Project Tuva,

where they have been carefully edited to include closed captioning and annotations.”..

Lecture 1: Law of Gravitation — An Example of Physical Law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=j3mhkYbznBk&x-yt-ts=1421914688 .

"I am more interested in the marvel of nature who can obey such a simple and elegant law...and how clever she is to pay attention to it.“

Professor Richard Feynman 1964.

http://io9.com/watch-a-series-of-seven-brilliant-lectures-by-richard-f-5894600

http://io9.com/watch-a-series-of-seven-brilliant-lectures-by-richard-f-5894600

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/06/22/gates-buys-feynmans-messenger-lectures/

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/index.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=j3mhkYbznBk&x-yt-ts=1421914688

Lecture 1: Law of Gravitation — An Example of Physical Law

In this the first lecture, Professor Feynman spent the first part of the lecture explaining what a physical law is.It is a simple and elegant mathematical way (he also uses the term generality for a the physical law) to calculate

(more accurately described as to predict) the result nature must some how obey in actual thermodynamic reality (ATR)..

It would seem many have not realised he was stating that the physical law is an unphysically calculated prediction. It is “merely” a “law” that nature must some how obey.

How she obeys the “law” is what we should marvel at, try to understand, and then try to explain. He is stating quite plainly that the mathematical (un)physical law does not explain, it “merely” predicts,

AND, that it is not HOW nature achieves the answer in ATR that the physical law predicts. .

If one bases an explanation on a physical law then one has not explained HOW, because the physical law itself is an unphysical calculation.

.

If one combines several physical laws into one explanation (ie GH “theory” which combines P/4, BB, S/B with radiative transfer “theory” to get the desired answer),

then one creates an imaginary, unphysical, alternative reality of “greenhouse land physics”, that because of their unphysical definitions, can not explain the ATR that it is supposed to explain, and in which we live.

.

In short, the physical MUST BE explained physically. Yes, overall the physical can be predicted by an unphysical calculation. That is the generality,

the physical “law”, that “merely” predicts the result, but no it can not, and does not explain the HOW in ATR. The HOW in ATR is what we have to study, try to physically understand, and then try to explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mhkYbznBk

“theory” = Failed hypothesis.Each (chubby) arrow has a value of 240W/m2.

There are four arrows.This is a heat flow diagram, it depicts the flow of heat.


1) “Old” Greenhouse effect “theory”.

This is a heat flow model, it depicts the flow of heat.



A black line is used to represent earth’s surface.

1) “Old” Greenhouse effect “theory”.“theory” = Failed hypothesis.

Each (chubby) arrow has a value of 240W/m2. There are four arrows.

This is a heat flow diagram, it depicts the flow of heat.

Earth’s surface




Earth’s atmosphere.

Earth’s surface

A black line is used to represent earth’s surface.

A blue dotted line is used to represent earth’s atmosphere.





Earth’s surface

This is a very simple, two parallel plane model.

1a) Yellow arrow = SW Solar input, averaged by P/4 = 240W/m2. According to the Stefan Boltzman (S/B) equation inducing an average (Earth) surface (solar input only) temperature of -18C.





Earth’s surface -18C.

1a




1a

Please see reference slide 1 at the end of this presentation.SW = Short Wave.

SW sunlight is high energy, ie, hot.










1a

Please see reference slides 2a and 2b at the end of this presentation.The Stefan Boltzman equation describes a curve, for the temperature that would be induced on

a black body surface absorbing a given power of IR. Reference slide 3 also describes briefly what the black body concept is, and how climatology currently uses and misuses it.

1a) Yellow arrow = SW Solar input, averaged by P/4 = 240W/m2. According to the Stefan Boltzman (S/B) equation inducing an average (Earth) surface (solar input only) temperature of -18C.2a) Blue arrow = Earth’s surface heated to -18C by averaged solar input, thus it radiates and warms Earth’s atmosphere to -18C.

Earth’s atmosphere -18C.


1a

2a




1a) Yellow arrow = SW Solar input, averaged by P/4 = 240W/m2. According to the Stefan Boltzman (S/B) equation inducing an average (Earth) surface (solar input only) temperature of -18C.2a) Blue arrow = Earth’s surface heated to -18C by averaged solar input, thus it radiates and warms Earth’s atmosphere to -18C.3a) Red arrow = Earth’s atmosphere radiates at an average power of 240W/m2, thus warming earth’s surface up to 480W/m2, which according to the S/B equation is an average temperature for earth’s surface of 30C.


Earth’s surface +30C.

1a

2a 3a




1a) Yellow arrow = SW Solar input, averaged by P/4 = 240W/m2. According to the Stefan Boltzman (S/B) equation inducing an average (Earth) surface (solar input only) temperature of -18C.2a) Blue arrow = Earth’s surface heated to -18C by averaged solar input, thus it radiates and warms Earth’s atmosphere to -18C.3a) Red arrow = Earth’s atmosphere radiates at an average power of 240W/m2, thus warming earth’s surface up to 480W/m2, which according to the S/B equation is an average temperature for earth’s surface of 30C.4a) Orange arrow = Earth’s atmosphere radiates, on average, 240W/m2 to space, as predicted by P/4 and the S/B equation.



1a

2a 3a

4a







1a

2a 3a




4a

Please note The atmosphere is creating energy, by radiating twice the amount of heat it receives.

Arrow 3a is in violation of the2nd Law of thermodynamics.

ie, cooler (or the same) can not heat hotter (or the same).

This is a heat flow diagram, why then is earth’s surface not depicted as emitting 480W/m2?




1a

2a 3a








4a




1a

2a 3a




4a





1a) Yellow arrow = SW Solar input, averaged by P/4 = 240W/m2. According to the Stefan Boltzman (S/B) equation inducing an average (Earth) surface (solar input only) temperature of -18C.2a) Blue arrow = Earth’s surface heated to -18C by averaged solar input, thus it radiates and warms Earth’s atmosphere to -18C.3a) Red arrow = Earth’s atmosphere radiates at an average power of 240W/m2, thus warming earth’s surface up to 480W/m2, which according to the S/B equation is an average temperature for earth’s surface of 30C.4a) Orange arrow = Earth’s atmosphere radiates, on average, 240W/m2 to space, as predicted by P/4 and the S/B equation.P/4 = The power of sunlight at the top of earth’s atmosphere divided by 4, because a globe has four times the surface area of (only) one side of the same diameter disc!!!



1a

2a 3a




4a





“Old” greenhouse effect

“theory”.

From this heat flow diagram,

Earth’s atmosphere

Earth’s surface

Yellow arrow = SW Solar input at TOA, divided by 4, minus albedo.

Blue arrows = Earth surface radiating heat energy as long wave radiation (LWR).

Red arrow = Atmospheric back radiation (supposedly) warming earth’s surface.

Orange arrow = Outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) from earth’s atmosphere.

Key.

All arrows have a value of 240W/m2.

Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow


“theory”.



Earth’s surface

This version of greenhouse effect “theory” depicts the atmosphere emitting twice what it receives. One arrow in, two arrows out.

For the “theory” to work energy has to be created. Energy can not be created.

Therefore the “theory” is a failed hypothesis.It simply is not possible for it to work.

So, the “theory” was changed…





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow


To this energy flow diagram.

“New” simplifiedgreenhouse effect

“theory”.


“theory”. Earth’s atmosphere

Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow

Which are probably better drawn as,




“theory”.



Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow




“theory”.



Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow




“theory”.


“theory”.

What was changed? Why was it changed? Was the change merely to misdirect, so that people did not question the unphysical starting point of the “theory”, P/4?


Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow




“theory”.


“theory”.

Most significantly the order that the arrows should be followed in was changedbetween the heat flow and the energy flow versions of the “theory”.


Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow

In this heat flow diagram the arrows should read,


“theory”.

In the heat flow version of the “theory” the arrows should be simply read from left to right.


Earth’s surface

1





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface


2

1






Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface


2

3

1






Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface


2

3

4

1






Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow

In the flow diagram the arrows should be read,


“theory”.



Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface

In the energy flow version of the “theory” the order the arrows should be read in is changed in what appears at first, to be a small and insignificant way.

2

3

4

1





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow


“theory”.



Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface

1

2

3

4

1








Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow


“theory”.



Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface

1

2

3

4

1

2








Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow


“theory”.



Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface

1

2

3

4

1

2




3b3a





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow


“theory”.



Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface

1

2

3

4

1

2

4




3b3a





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow


“theory”.



Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface

1

2

3

4

1

2

4

Why?



3b3a





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow

2) “New” simplified Greenhouse effect “theory”.

This is an energy flow model.


Solar radiation coming in is (TSI) 1368 / 4 = 342, 342 – (Albedo TOA)102 = 240, S = 240W/m2.TSI the solar ‘constant’ and the factor 4 deals with the geometry (the ratio of the area of the disk to the area of the sphere).

The surface emission is where sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and is the surface temperature.Therefore, S = 240W/m2. G = 480W/m2. A = 240W/m2.

Albedo from TOA is 102W/m2.




Gavin Schmidt’s diagram, partially corrected by Derek Alker February 2015…


Solar radiation coming in is (TSI) 1368 / 4 = 342, 342 – (Albedo TOA)102 = 240, S = 240W/m2.TSI the solar ‘constant’ and the factor 4 deals with the geometry (the ratio of the area of the disk to the area of the sphere).

The surface emission is where sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and is the surface temperature.Therefore, S = 240W/m2. G = 480W/m2. A = 240W/m2.

Albedo from TOA is 102W/m2.




Gavin Schmidt’s diagram, more fully corrected by Derek Alker February 2015…


Please note - “(the ratio of the area of the disk to the area of the sphere).”

This is incorrect. A disc has two sides. The ratio of 4 is to a black body, because a black body disc of the same diameter only emits IR from one side. This is because a black body surface has no mass, by definition.

Therefore P/4 is a black body assumption. P/4 is NOT comparing the surface areas of a globe and a disc that emit IR.P/4 SHOULD BE P/2, but then the “theory” would not be a theory, nor a failed hypothesis at all….



Earth’s surface.

2) “New” simplified Greenhouse effect “theory”.Please note. All 5 outlined arrows have a value of 240W/m2.

This is an energy flow model. But the “theory” is still the same four coloured arrows..

240W/m2.

240W/m2 infrom the

sun.

1

1) Solar input, per second, to earth’s surface. At the Top of Earth’s Atmosphere (TOA), the Total Solar irradiance (TSI), the solar “constant” is 1368W/m2. This power (of sunlight) is divided by 4, and then 102W/m2 is subtracted for albedo at TOA. So, the sun, on average, inputs 240W/m2 to the earth’s surface, every second, of every minute, of every hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, every year. Constantly.

The fact we experience day and night, as well as dawn and dusk at earth’s surface tells us this is NOT the case, but that is the starting point for all the heat and energy flow versions of greenhouse effect “theory”.


Earth’s surface.



240W/m2.

240W/m2 infrom the

sun.

1

1) Solar input = 240W/m2 to the earth’s surface, every second.


Earth’s surface.



240W/m2

480W/m2.

240W/m2 infrom the

sun.

2

1


2) Atmospheric back radiation adds a further 240W/m2 to earth’s surface. Earth’s surface therefore receives 480W/m2.


Earth’s surface.



240W/m2

480W/m2.

240W/m2 infrom the

sun.

2

1


2) Atmospheric back radiation adds a further 240W/m2 to earth’s surface. Earth’s surface therefore receives 480W/m2. Where does the energy the atmosphere is radiating come from?


Earth’s surface.



480W/m2.

480W/m2.

240W/m2 infrom the

sun.

3b3a2

1



3a and 3b) The surface radiates the 480W/m2 it has received, and the atmosphere wholly absorbs this radiated energy.


Earth’s surface.



480W/m2.

480W/m2.

240W/m2 infrom the

sun.

2

1

3b3a



3a and 3b) The surface radiates the 480W/m2 it has received, and the atmosphere wholly absorbs this radiated energy. Thus supposedly explaining where the energy the atmosphere is radiating came from. However, which came first, the energy of arrow 2 or the energy of arrow 3b? AND, where did that energy come from? Was it simply created, and then recycled to hide the fact it was created from nothing?


Earth’s surface.



480W/m2.

480W/m2.

240W/m2 infrom the

sun.

240W/m2 outto space.

1

2

4

3b3a



3a and 3b) The surface radiates the 480W/m2 it has received, and the atmosphere wholly absorbs this radiated energy.

4) The atmosphere which has received 480W/m2 radiates that energy both up and down. Half becomes atmospheric back radiation (arrow 2), and the other half is OLR to space (arrow 4).



Earth’s surface

1

2

3

4

The heat flow version of the “theory” was correctly criticised because it depicts the atmosphere emitting twice the amount of heat / energy it receives. 1 arrow (blue) in, and two (red and orange) out. Thereby the “theory” is creating heat / energy.

That is unphysical, that is impossible, that can not happen. The “theory” fails.





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



“theory”.



Earth’s surface


Earth’s surface

1

2

3

4

1

2

4

To answer this criticism advocates of the “theory” changed the order that the arrows should be read in, changed the diagram from a heat flow to an energy flow and added another blue arrow. The energy flow version of the “theory” depicts 2 arrows (yellow and red)

into earth’s surface and 2 arrows (both blue) out of earth’s surface. Energy is therefore (supposedly) conserved.

3a 3b





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface

1

2

However, there is a major criticism of the new order in which the arrows are supposed to be read.

3a 3b

4





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface

1

2

Where did the energy for arrow 2 come from? Was it simply created from nothing? If so, then the “theory” fails again.





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface

1

2

Either the energy for arrow 2 came from the previous second, or it has been recycled by the atmosphere.Obviously the atmosphere is depicted as not yet having been heated by the surface, so the energy must have come from the previous second. BUT, in the previous second energy was conserved, there was nothing left to pass on to the next second.





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface

1

2

The energy flow versions of greenhouse effect “theory” therefore fail too. In short, to recycle something, FIRST one has to have something to recycle.

In the previous second energy was conserved, and in this second the atmosphere has not been heated yet.





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface

1

2

Therefore, arrow 2 is simply created energy. Energy can not be created, and without this created energy there is no “theory”.

The energy flow version of greenhouse effect “theory” is also a failed hypothesis. It can not possibly work.





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface

1

2

Some will suggest that the atmosphere stored the energy by it’s heat capacity to pass it on from one second to the next. However, GH “theory” treats the parts of, and the system as a whole as a black body. A black body has no heat capacity, by it’s definition.

Therefore, according to the basis of the “theory” itself, energy can not be passed from one second to the next.





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface

1

2

It is apparent that the value of arrow 2 could be whatever value you wanted it to be, as long as that was also the value of the arrow that then recycles within the second the created energy… As will be demonstrated later in this presentation this trick is repeated again to try to make the Global Energy budgets look different to the simple energy flow versions of greenhouse effect “theory”.





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface

1

2

It is apparent that the value of arrow 2 could be whatever value you wanted it to be, as long as that was also the value of the arrow that then recycles within the second the created energy… As will be demonstrated later in this presentation this trick is repeated again to try to make the Global Energy budgets look different to the simple energy flow versions of greenhouse effect “theory”.

3b





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow



Earth’s surface

1

23b3a

4

One arrow in, and one arrow out of the system, but two arrows in and two arrows out within the system?????Where did the extra arrows within the system come from!





Key.


Blue arrow/s

Red arrow

Orange arrow

Yellow arrow

3) “New” complex Energy flow “theory”.





3) “New” complex Energy flow “theory”.Few people seem to realise that the global energy budgets are the “New” complex version of greenhouse effect “theory”.This version is the latest NASA Global Energy budget. At first it may not be readily apparent, but on closer inspection one can clearly see that this is indeed the same four coloured arrows greenhouse effect (GH) “theory” presented slightly differently.

3) “New” complex Energy flow “theory”.Few people seem to realise that the global energy budgets are the “New” complex version of greenhouse effect “theory”.This version is the latest NASA Global Energy budget. At first it may not be readily apparent, but on closer inspection one can clearly see that this is indeed the same four coloured arrows greenhouse effect (GH) “theory” presented slightly differently.

One can only wonder that atmospheric back radiation is depicted as being more than twice as powerful as the sun at earth’s surface!


There is a simple knack that makes understanding the global energy budgets a lot easier. Please see reference slide 4.

3) “New” complex Energy flow “theory”.In this version of greenhouse effect “theory” the solar input and albedo are split between the atmosphere and the surface.

Surface albedo will be treated as TOA albedo, as it is in affect, within the system, no different to TOA albedo.

3) “New” complex Energy flow “theory”.In this version of greenhouse effect “theory” the solar input and albedo are split between the atmosphere and the surface.

Surface albedo will be treated as TOA albedo, as it is in affect, within the system, no different to TOA albedo. However the solar input will be split into two, and the values of the arrows will also be rounded slightly for clarity.

Solar input changes from 240W/m2 to the surface in the simple energy flow version to 80W/m2 to the atmosphere, and 160W/m2 to the surface in this, the complex version.


240W/m2.

In this version of greenhouse effect “theory” the solar input and albedo are split between the atmosphere and the surface. Surface albedo will be treated as TOA albedo, as it is in affect, within the system, no different to TOA albedo.

However the solar input will be split into two, and the values of the arrows will also be rounded slightly for clarity.Solar input changes from 240W/m2 to the surface in the simple energy flow version to 80W/m2 to the atmosphere, and 160W/m2 to the surface in this, the complex version.



Earth’s surface.

80W/m2.

160W/m2.

240W/m2.

The same lines previously used for the atmosphere and surface will also be added.The boxes are to indicate the total values for the energy input to that part of the system, the energy within the system,

and the energy emitted to space by the system.



Earth’s surface.

80W/m2.

480W/m2.

240W/m2.

Atmospheric back radiation at this point will be included as “only” 320W/m2. This “error”, the missing extra 20W/m2, will be explained, and included, as this explanation is completed.

The bigger arrows having a value of 160W/m2 and the smaller arrow 80W/m2.



Earth’s surface.

480W/m2.

480W/m2.

240W/m2.

The surface looses 400W/m2 of energy.That means there is 80W/m2 too much energy at the surface.



Earth’s surface.

480W/m2.

480W/m2.

40W/m2. 240W/m2.

The 80W/m2 is lost from the surface to space by two pathways.Firstly, 40W/m2 is emitted by the surface, absorbed by clouds, and then emitted to space.



Earth’s surface.

480W/m2.

480W/m2.

80W/m2. 240W/m2.

The 80W/m2 is lost from the surface to space by two pathways.Firstly, 40W/m2 is emitted by the surface, absorbed by clouds, and then emitted to space.

Secondly, 40W/m2 is emitted by earth’s surface and via the atmospheric window escapes directly to space.


480W/m2.

480W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2. 240W/m2.

The atmosphere now has an excess of 160W/m2, these are emitted to space as OLR.Thus we have a system that is 240W/m2 in, 480W/m2 within, and 240W/m2 out.

Identical to the simple version of the energy flow version.So, to make it look different an extra 20W/m2 is recycled within the system.


480W/m2.

500W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2. 240W/m2.

The atmosphere now has an excess of 160W/m2, these are emitted to space as OLR.Thus we have a system that is 240W/m2 in, 480W/m2 within, and 240W/m2 out.

Identical to the simple version of the energy flow version.So, to make it look different an extra 20W/m2 is recycled within the system.The earlier 20W/m2 atmospheric back radiation that was “ignored” earlier.


500W/m2.

500W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2. 240W/m2.

The extra 20W/m2 is simply recycled as sensible heat losses.This figure could be any figure you wanted it to be, as long as the arrow that recycles it is the same value…

The complex energy flow version is 240 in, 500 within, and 240 out.


500W/m2.

500W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2. 240W/m2.

The extra 20W/m2 is simply recycled as sensible heat losses.This figure could be any figure you wanted it to be, as long as the arrow that recycles it is the same value…

The complex energy flow version is 240 in, 500 within, and 240 out.Which is not that different to the simple energy flow version of

240 in, 480 within, and 240 out.


500W/m2.

500W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2.240W/m2.

160W/m280W/m2 20W/m2

40W/m2

Key.


500W/m2.

500W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2.240W/m2.

160W/m280W/m2 20W/m2

40W/m2

Key.The arrows can be rearranged as depicted.No arrows have be altered in value or direction.


500W/m2.

500W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2.240W/m2.

160W/m280W/m2 20W/m2

40W/m2

Key.Atmospheric back radiation can also be split into four arrows.With values of 160, 80, 80 and 20 W/m2. Total 320W/m2


80W/m2.

240W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2.240W/m2.

160W/m280W/m2 20W/m2

40W/m2

Key.240W/m2 into the system, (reaching the surface).


240W/m2.

240W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2.240W/m2.

160W/m280W/m2 20W/m2

40W/m2

Key.240W/m2 out of the system, (emitted by the surface).


240W/m2.

240W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2.240W/m2.

160W/m280W/m2 20W/m2

40W/m2

Key.240W/m2 recycled within the system, (from atmosphere to surface).


20W/m2.

20W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2.240W/m2.

160W/m280W/m2 20W/m2

40W/m2

Key.And, another 20W/m2 is recycled, (within the system).


500W/m2.

500W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2.240W/m2.

160W/m280W/m2 20W/m2

40W/m2

Key.The system has 240 W/m2 in, and out of the system and, 260W/m2 being recycled within the system.


260W/m2.

260W/m2.


Earth’s surface.

240W/m2.240W/m2.

160W/m280W/m2 20W/m2

40W/m2

Key.However, in the first second, what is the source of the recycled energy within the system, other than itself?

4) Radiative transfer (mathematical) Greenhouse effect “theory”.http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/archives/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf



Excerpts from page 3.“Our model assumptions are quite simple and general: ”

“(a) — The available SW flux is totally absorbed in the system. In the process of thermalization F0 is instantly converted to isotropic upward and downward LW radiation."

“(c) — The atmosphere is in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE). In case of the Earth this is true up to about 60 km altitude."

“(d) — The surface heat capacity is equal to zero, the surface emissivity ε G is equal to one, and the surface radiates as a perfect blackbody."

All of these assumptions are false.

All of these assumptions treat earth’s climate system, in whole and in part, as a series of interrelated black bodies..

IDŐJÁRÁSQuarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service

Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40 Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary

atmospheresFerenc M. Miskolczi

4) Radiative transfer (mathematical) Greenhouse effect “theory”.

Can this mathematical model version of greenhouse effect “theory” be explained using the coloured arrows used in this powerpoint presentation? Yes.


1) Solar input to the system.


1) Solar input to the system. 2) Atmospheric back radiation.


1) Solar input to the system. 2) Atmospheric back radiation.3) Losses from earth’s surface.


1) Solar input to the system. 4) OLR losses from the system.2) Atmospheric back radiation “input” to earth’s surface.3) Losses from earth’s surface.


1) Solar input to the system. 4) OLR losses from the system.2) Atmospheric back radiation “input” to earth’s surface. 5) Geothermal inputs to the surface.3) Losses from earth’s surface.


Excerpt from page 3 where the models assumptions are listed.“(f) — In case of the Earth it is also assumed that the global average thermal flux from the planetary interior to the surface-atmosphere system is negligible, P = 0.” The green arrow depicted has no value.

o

4) Radiative transfer (mathematical) Greenhouse effect “theory”.Geothermal inputs to earth’s surface and atmosphere are

currently, and generally dismissed as being so small as to be insignificant.Hence the green arrow, as it has no value, can simply be removed and forgotten about.


To some, this author included, dismissing geothermal inputs to earth’s surface and atmosphere as insignificant, makes as much sense as stating earth’s surface has no heat capacity. In point of fact the heat capacity of the world’s oceans could easily be “hiding” a geothermal input equal to the size that atmospheric back radiation (the red arrows) is depicted to be in all versions of greenhouse effect “theory”. This will be explained (very simply) later in this presentation with the help of nothing more

complicated than an insulated housing brick analogy.

A potted history of,Dr. Ferenc Mark Miskolczi’s mathematical radiative transfer version of greenhouse effect “theory”.

A brilliant Hungarian mathematician taken to NASA by James Hansen to produce a simplified version of what climate models model.

He did.

BUT, when observations were input to Dr. Miskolczi’s simplified and accurate model there appeared to be no effect. Or at best a constant effect.

This is because the observations do not show the positive water vapour feedback Hansen had had to build into the climate models.

Dr. Miskolczi argued there was a constant effect, because the atmosphere remained “saturated”, ie, the system as a whole is self balancing.

Hansen knew this would be the end of the computer modelled AGW scam, so he effectively sacked Dr. Miskolczi and,

had him ostracised, as best he could.

Please see reference slides 5a, 5b, and 6 for a brief history and description of the modelling and why the positive water vapour feedback assumption

Hansen had to build into the climate models is so important.

A potted history of,Dr. Ferenc Mark Miskolczi’s mathematical radiative transfer version of greenhouse effect “theory”.

This model also plainly states, in it’s assumptions that the whole of earth’s climate systemis treated as a black body, or rather as an interrelated series of black bodies.

This is important because it means all parts of the climate system are considered to have no heat capacity at all. This is simply unphysical. Mass has heat capacity, period.

Therefore, whatever is being modelled is not, and can not be what is happening in actual thermodynamic reality.

Further more, the assumptions used in this model apply to all four versions of greenhouse effect “theory” as described in this presentation.

Dr. Miskolczi’s simplified climate model is the “missing link” from the simplest heat flow versionof greenhouse effect “theory” to the most complex climate modelling of AGW.

All the versions of the “theory” fail because they are black body descriptions of actual thermodynamic reality, that by the definition of a black body, they can not describe.

Please see reference slide 3 for a brief description of what the black body concept is, and reference slide 2a for some of the issues

with the use and application of the S/B equation in current climate science.

240W/m2 average all over solar inputAccording to the S/B equation

= -18 degrees Celsius

Solar surface5500C.

SunlightTOA

P/4

Albedo

Earth’s surface warmed by the sun only

to -18C.

TOA1368W/m2.

1368 / 4 = 342W/m2.342 – 102 = 240W/m2.

ALL versions of Greenhouse effect “theory” start with P/4, which as day and night at earth’s surface prove, P/4 is unphysical. P/4 removes the highs and lows of thermodynamic reality (day and night), THAT is the problem. For example, one can not cook a chicken at 50C for four hours, but one can cook a chicken at 200C for 1 hour. The sun does not shine at one quarter power, all over earth’s surface, 24 hours a day, but P/4 states exactly THAT.

P/4 also creates the false “need” for a warming, by lowering the temperature the sun can supposedly only warm earth’s surface up to. Anyone standing out in the midday sun KNOWS the sun warms earth’s surface up to a far higher temperature (123C possible maximum) than the -18C P/4 states it can only warm earth’s surface up to. Literally without the starting point of P/4 there is no need for a further warming mechanism, such as the (supposed) warming affect of atmospheric back radiation at earth’s surface.

Due to the inverse square lawsunlight at TOA is 1368W/m2.

ALL versions of Greenhouse effect “theory” start with P/4, which as day and night at earth’s surface prove, P/4 is unphysical. P/4 removes the highs and lows of thermodynamic reality (day and night), THAT is the problem. For example, one can not cook a chicken at 50C for four hours, but one can cook a chicken at 200C for 1 hour. The sun does not shine at one quarter power, all over earth’s surface, 24 hours a day, but P/4 states exactly THAT.

P/4 also creates the false “need” for a warming, by lowering the temperature the sun can supposedly only warm earth’s surface up to. Anyone standing out in the midday sun KNOWS the sun warms earth’s surface up to a far higher temperature (123C possible maximum) than the -18C P/4 states it can only warm earth’s surface up to. Literally without the starting point of P/4 there is no need for a further warming mechanism, such as the (supposed) warming affect of atmospheric back radiation at earth’s surface.



Solar surface5500C.

SunlightTOA

P/4

Albedo


to -18C.

TOA1368W/m2.

1368 / 4 = 342W/m2.342 – 102 = 240W/m2.


ALL versions of Greenhouse effect “theory” start with P/4.

P/4 is a black body assumption. This is because a globe has to be 3D, and a 3D disc MUST emit from both sides,therefore P/4 is mathematically WRONG. It should be P/2.

For a disc to only emit from one side it MUST BE a black body, therefore P/4 is a black body assumption being misapplied to actual thermodynamic 3D reality.



Solar surface5500C.

SunlightTOA

P/4

Albedo


to -18C.

TOA1368W/m2.

1368 / 4 = 342W/m2.342 – 102 = 240W/m2.


ALL versions of GH “theory” show that atmospheric back radiation warms earth’s surface, which is in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Heat can not be piled, cooler can not heat hotter.


Joseph Postma has an excellent explanation of why heat can not be piled at his blog in the below thread. http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/21/atmosphere-not-insulation/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/21/atmosphere-not-insulation/



Joseph Postma has an excellent explanation of why heat can not be piled at his blog in the below thread. http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/21/atmosphere-not-insulation/

AND, as Jim Peden has so well illustrated in 2008, IF IT WERE TRUE, that atmospheric back radiation could further warm earth’s surface, then a frozen chicken would cook itself, with no further energy input required other than the

frozen chicken itself…



Maths can not be used to determine the physics. Maths can only be used to describe the physics (the HOW),

when it is applied correctly, and physically, to a given physical situation.ie, actual thermodynamic reality (ATR), the physical, has to be explained physically.

The simple and elegant overall generality, the “law” nature has to obey,IS NOT an explanation of HOW,

it is merely a prediction of the answer nature has to achieve.ie, the Stefan Boltzman equation and P/4 are “laws”, they are not an explanation of HOW in ATR.

Confusing or thinking that the “law” explains HOW nature achieves the predicted result,is to think one can explain the physically, unphysically.That, we all should know, by definition, can not be true.

ie, combining S/B, P/4, and BB to produce GH “theory” is NOT an explanation of ATR, it is an imaginary scenario of invented physics, that can not happen in ATR.

P/4 is unphysical. Both the heat flow and energy flow versions of greenhouse effect “theory” start with P/4.

Therefore,both versions of the GH “theory” are unphysical,

and therefore,they are failed hypothesises.

They can not be true.

WHY,

do so many waste their, and our time (and so much more besides) by MERELY quibbling the figures of

Greenhouse effect “theory” and it’s utterly dependent bastard child

“man made” climate change ???

WHY,

do so many waste their, and our time (and so much more besides) by MERELY quibbling the figures of

Greenhouse effect “theory” and it’s utterly dependent bastard child

“man made” climate change ???When they should be

questioning the PRINCIPLES of the failed hypothesis.

But, what is happening, as it can not be a greenhouse effect?

It would seem many people think they are caught in a catch 22. They are not. There can not be, there never has been, and there never ever will be a greenhouse effect.

The hunch, the hypothesis is unphysical, and therefore it can only be a failed (impossible) hypothesis.

So, what is happening? How can we simply explain the basics of what is actually happening, physically?Does the presence of an atmosphere make earth’s surface warmer than it would otherwise be?

Yes, but how?

Earth is a rotating globe (oblate spheroid) in space that is permanently half lit by the sun.

Without an atmosphere there would be no water, no oceans at earth’s surface. With an atmosphere, earth’s surface is 70% covered in (on average) 4.5 kilometre deep oceans.

Water has a very high heat capacity. A simple way to think of heat capacity. Slow to warm is slow to cool.

Earth’s surface is constantly experiencing warming and cooling phases (day and night) as earth spins relative to the sun.

Increasing the heat capacity of earth’s surface (by adding oceans) due to the presence of an atmosphereGREATLY insulates earth’s surface. So, during the day it does not warm as much, and at night it does not cool as much, as it would without an atmosphere, and therefore no oceans. The insulating effect of the gargantuan thermal

inertia of the worlds oceans raises the average surface temperature at earth’s surface.

Thermal inertia can be thought of as inertia due to weight, ie, a ping pong ball and a golf ball will move very differently for the same impact. So it is at earth’s surface, without an atmosphere earth would probably experience very similar temperature extremes and average surface temperature that the moon experiences, for the same solar

input power as earth experiences. But with an atmosphere and therefore oceans earth does not experience the same diurnal (daily) highs or lows of temperature, and has a higher average surface temperature due to the

increased heat capacity (insulation) of the worlds oceans.

It is correct that the presence of an atmosphere means earth’s surface is also cooled by sensible heat losses and convection of those losses, as well as losses due to the vapourisation of water, latent heat losses and convection of

those (far greater than sensible heat) losses. In fact the water cycle is a very powerful heat pipe within earth’s atmosphere. It is THE most powerful cooling mechanism at earth’s surface.

HOWEVER, the thermal mass, inertia, and insulating effect of the world’s oceans is more than enough to compensate for the increased cooling compared to that that could happen in a vacuum.

The insulated housing brick analogy.

Two housing bricks have electric heating elements placed within them. Both bricks also have surface, and subsurface temperature sensors. One of the bricks is then insulated with a layer of polyurethane foam.

.The heating element in the brick with no insulation is turned on and the brick is warmed. When the temperature

sensor for the surface of the brick reaches a predetermined level the heating element is turned off. The amount of time the heating element was turned on for becomes the length of time of the heating cycle. The heated brick, with no insulation is then left to cool to room temperature, as determined by the subsurface temperature sensor of the

brick. The amount of time the brick takes to cool is the cooling phase.

The uninsulated brick is then subjected to these repeated heating and cooling cycles. The results will always be the same. The brick will take an amount of time to warm up, and then an amount of time to cool down.

The insulated brick is then put through exactly the same length of time heating and cooling cycles. The results will not be the same. The brick will take longer to cool down, because of the insulation. This means that the insulated

brick will enter another heating cycle before it has fully cooled, so the minimum temperature it cools to will rise with each heating and cooling cycle. If there were such a thing as perfect insulation, eventually the brick would remain at

the maximum temperature attained during the heating cycle. Because there is no such thing as perfect insulation, the insulated brick reaches a far higher average temperature over the length of a heating and cooling cycle than the uninsulated brick, for exactly the same heating and cooling cycles. BUT, the brick WILL NEVER get to a higher

temperature than the maximum temperature of the heating element itself. Put simply, the maximum rate of heat loss by the insulation will determine how high the average temperature of the brick rises to over the full, and repeated

heating and cooling cycles. .

The heat capacity of the brick can be increased by soaking the brick in water, then sealing the brick surface itself (with liquid plastic possibly). The exact same heating and cooling cycles could be repeated. The results would be

slightly different. The “wet” and insulated brick would take longer to warm up, or rather heat less for the same given heat input. This is because of the increased heat capacity, remembering increased heat capacity can be simply

described as slow to warm, slow to cool.

At first this brick will not get as warm as the other bricks, but with repeated cycles it will attain the same maximum temperature. The “wet” insulated brick will also cool less per cooling cycle, so eventually the average temperature

will be higher than the brick that is only insulated, and very much higher than the uninsulated brick. .

Earth is akin to the “wet” insulated brick, but the insulation of the surface by the atmosphere is very poor. However the extra heat capacity of the oceans more than makes up for this.

As a housing brick can be used to demonstrate.

The next two following slides depict why earth’s atmosphere is such a poor “insulator” of earth’s surface in the first slide, and, that the heat capacity of the oceans is the dominant factor in the second slide.

Please see reference slide 7. Latent heat losses by water vapourisation is the most powerful cooling mechanism at earth’s surface.

From,http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/hydrosphere/hydrologic_cycle.html

The most powerful cooling mechanism at earth’s surface is

The water cycle.

Fluid, vapourises as it absorbs heat.

Endothermic process.

Condensation from gas to a fluid, releasing heat.

Exothermic process.

The water cycle is earth’s atmosphere’s sun and gravity powered (water) heat pipe.

ie,Gas Fluid

This is a possible (physical) explanation of earth’s diurnal temperature range, and average surface temperature.



Solar surface5500C.

SunlightTOA

P/4

Albedo


to -18C.

TOA1368W/m2.

1368 / 4 = 342W/m2.342 – 102 = 240W/m2.


The current unphysical basis from which to study earth’s climate system from.Is this the overall generality, the “law” nature has to obey?

Solar surface5500C.

SunlightTOA

Albedo

TOA1368W/m2.


P/2

Heat / energy from the sun,and earth’s hot core

absorbed by sub surface,

Previous and geothermal inputs of heat / energy

released by subsurfaceto the atmosphere, and then to space.

HEAT CAPACITY.

A suggested physical basis to study earth’s climate system from.Is this the basis of the HOW that nature obeys the “law” with?

Why then have we had all this concern about man made global warming?Who could possibly benefit from such a false alarm?

Please see reference slide 8 and reference slide 9.History could be about to repeat itself,

without most people even beginning to understand what is happening…


The hobgoblins HAVE TO BE imaginary, so that the politicians can suggest their preferred solutions to problems (IF they actually exist),

rather than have the correct solutions dictated to them by science. That would just NOT do in the view of, and for the purposes of politicians, bureaucrats, and anyone else that wants to increase their power and control over you…

My unicorn is sick, how do I cure it?

You can cure your unicorn anyway you want to. A unicorn is unphysical, it is imaginary.

Just like the unphysical, and therefore imaginary greenhouse effect failed hypothesis.

GH “theory” is politically correct, politically funded, for politically purposes and for political objectives pseudo science. Nothing more, nothing less.

GH “theory” tells us absolutely nothing about how earth’s climate system may or may not work. It is useless, it is worthless, it is a compete waste of our time and effort, for no benefit whatsoever. There are now 30 plus years

of “climate science” that will have to be just thrown in the bin, AT OUR EXPENSE…..

The END...

Reference slides follow.

SW sunlight.Photons emitted by The sun’s surface at a temperature of

5,505C.

Long wavethermal radiation.

Photons emittedby earth’s surface (and within earth’s atmosphere) at an

average surface temperature

between approximately

25C to 28C

SW is Short wave radiation. Sunlight is SW solar radiation. Short wave = higher energy level. ie, hot.OLR is Outgoing Long wave Radiation. Long wave = Lower energy level. ie, relatively cool.

IR is Infrared radiation. Sunlight is within the visible part of, and IR is below the visible part of, the electromagnetic spectrum.

A photon is a small packet of energy, energy being the ability to do work. Sometimes a photon acts like a wave, at other times like a particle. No one really knows why.

Heat is only one of the ways in which energy moves from higher to lower. Heat can never be trapped.

1

Explaining the S/B equation and the curved plot it produces.

S/B is the Stefan Boltzman equation, and W/m2 is Watts per square meter, per second.

The S/B equation is not a law, unless the object is a black body. A black body is an imaginary but useful concept.So, when can S/B be applied?

For a black body the power of Thermal Radiation (of diluted sunlight) received can be converted to the induced surface temperature using the Stefan Boltzman equation. It is assumed that the source/s of the TR is at a temperature above

the sum of the powers of the TR received.But a real object could be in path of two sources of 500W/m2 TR, emitted from two 30C objects.

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics states the receiving object can not have an induced surface temperature above 30C.

2a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_constant

Explaining the S/B equation and the curved plot it produces.

S/B is the Stefan Boltzman equation, and W/m2 is Watts per square meter, per second.

A Watt and a Joule are the same amount of energy. However a Watt can have a second in it, and become a flow too. A Joule can not perform this confusing "trick", it is always an amount.

But, times a Joule by 1 and you have a flow in Watts, because the 1 is per second, by default. That can be an amount in Watts if you then divide it by 1 and remove the per second...

One can also change the unit of time the amount of Watts is flowing over, if one so desires, but if not stated, then the unit of time the amount of Watts is flowing over is 1 second, by default.

2b

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_constant

Explaining the Black Body (BB) concept…An imaginary, unphysical, but useful concept used in physics,

to describe the over all rule, the generality, the law, that provides the answer, but not an explanation of how… .

A BB is a massless surface that is a perfect instantaneous absorber of all incident thermal radiation (TR) and, a perfect instantaneous emitter of that absorbed TR. The S/B equation predicts the induced surface temperature by the

absorbed TR..

TR that is assumed to be diluted sunshine by the S/B equation. This may help to explain why some think TR inputs can be summed, when they can not, THAT would be in violation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, AND, a misuse of the

conservation of energy principle, if the source of the TR is cooler than the sum of the received total TR..

The world, actual thermodynamic reality, is not perfect. BUT, nature has to obey the Laws… How, that is THE question.

www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2289-post-13044.html

"I am more interested in the marvel of nature who can obey such a simple and elegant law...and how clever she is to pay attention to it."

Richard Feynman 1964.

In other words, the overall rule, the simple, elegant law, the generality, is not of itself an explanation, but a prediction of what the answer will be. We should marvel at, and try to understand HOW nature achieved the answer. In the specific

nature may well not obey the generality, but overall she must, between the two lies the understanding and explanation of what is actually happening.

.

The overall rule, the generality, is P/4 and S/B for earth = 240W/m2 emitted to space. P/4 being the Power of sunlight received at the top of earth's atmosphere, divided by 4. This is because the same diameter globe has four times the surface area of the same diameter flat disc that is actually a black body. This is because the disc

is assumed to only emit from one side…. .

But, how nature obeys this, is what we should marvel at and try to understand.

3

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2289-post-13044.html

A knack to help one understand the global energy budgets..

Think 16 and 8, because they make 24.ie, 160 + 80 = 240.

But, what is the left over 20? Probably misdirection,

so it is not immediately obvious that 480 (type 1 and type 2) has become 500 (type 3).

The “extra” 20 is merely sensible heat losses from the surface that is the additional atmospheric back radiation.

Hence that is 340, not 320…Two more small arrows required.

But, the arrows could be called whatever you wanted them to be called, as long as the two arrows that recycle the amount are of the same value. It all adds up….

4

5a In 1988 James Hansen made a presentation that changed human history.BUT, where did the climate models he presented the results of come from?

Were they all his own work? If not, what were the models a development / continuation of?

Spencer Weart suggestshttp://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#N_62_

that Hansen's models (Hansen made his name in climate modelling circles with his treatment of aerosols with these models) were similar to, if not a direct development of,

Manabe and Wetherald 1967http://www.clidyn.ethz.ch/ese101/Papers/manabe67.pdf

Which references,Manabe and Stickler 1964

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6401.pdf Which references,

Manabe and Moller 1961http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/089/mwr-089-12-0503.pdf

Which references,Norman A Phillips 1956

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/gv219/classics.d/Phillips56.pdf Which references,

Charney and Phillips 1953http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281953%29010%3C0071%3ANIOTQG%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Which references,Jules G. Charney 1949

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281949%29006%3C0372%3AOAPBFN%3E2.0.CO%3B2

If one skims through these papers it is obvious that the climate modellers were from the get go modelling the radiative transfer version of GH "theory". It was never questioned. What the modellers put so much effort into was

modelling that, with the lateral movement of heat / energy from the equator to the poles.

The radiative transfer "theory" basis is not even mentioned, let alone questioned, in particular, by climate modellers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm

http://www.clidyn.ethz.ch/ese101/Papers/manabe67.pdf

http://www.clidyn.ethz.ch/ese101/Papers/manabe67.pdf

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6401.pdf

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6401.pdf

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/089/mwr-089-12-0503.pdf

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/089/mwr-089-12-0503.pdf

http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/charneyreport.html"In 1979, the National Academy of Sciences was asked by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

to prepare a report to assess the scientific basis for projection of possible future climate changes resulting from anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

.

The Academy convened an ad hoc study group, headed by Jules G. Charney, to write the report. This report became influential for both policy makers and scientists, and is frequently cited as "the Charney report."

It is especially useful as an outline of the state of climate models in the late 1970s, including some discussion of the largest unknowns in climate modelling."

.

Part 1 – The physical science basis.http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

.

Part 2 – The numerical methods basis.http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/numerical_methods.html

.

Dr. Vincent Gray gave a brief account of the influence of this report in his March 2008 presentation at the Heartland Institute Climate Change Conference in New York.

This was quoted in post 9 of this GWS forum thread. http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1966.html

Paraphrased excerpt.“The very influential NAS Charney report of 1979 quantified the effect as follows,

a doubling of CO2 (in the atmosphere) will cause a temperature change of 4.5 degrees Celsius.Seemingly in broad agreement with Arrhenius’s 1897 paper.

Climate modellers, most notably James Hansen of NASA, interpreted from this report the “theory” that a change of CO2 caused a change of temperature, which caused a change of water vapour content of the atmosphere,

that caused an increased change in OLR (heat) and it was generally accepted. These steps were assumed to be a positive feedback mechanism,

the “blanket” that we are making thicker and is warming the planet as such.”

5b

6Dr Gray said in his presentation – “Hansen’s early GISS model assumed that a doubling of CO2 would cause the upper tropospheric RH not just to stay constant but to actually increase. His assumed upper tropospheric increase of water vapour (q) for a doubling of CO2 led to a water vapour increase (Δq) in the upper troposphere of as much as an extremely unlikely 50%. These large vapor increases caused Hansen to require that his model have a tropical (30oN-30oS) upper tropospheric warming for a doubling of CO2 of as much as 7oC (Figure 10). A 7oC warming at the upper level emission level is equivalent to a 23 W/m2 enhancement of OLR for a doubling of CO2 forcing of only 3.7 W/m2. No wonder Hansen got such high values of global warming for a doubling of CO2. This logically followed from his extremely high and unrealistic water vapor assumptions.

In order to obtain the global balance of incoming and outgoing radiation for his assumed high values of upper tropospheric water vapor it was necessary for Hansen to unrealistically raise his model’s upper tropospheric temperatures to obtain the amounts of OLR (or σT4) to space that would accomplish net radiation balance. It is amazing that Hansen’s high water vapor increase and massively high upper tropospheric temperature rise assumptions for a doubling of CO2 were not immediately challenged.

It was these large amounts of warming resulting from his model’s gross over-estimate of water vapor which Hansen presented to a US Senate Committee hearing at the request of then Senator Al Gore during the hot summer of 1988. The media and much of the general public accepted it all. The environmentalists salivated. Hansen had secured his place in the sun. History will reverse such adulation when his warming predictions are inevitable proven to be wrong.

Not only have Hansen’s extreme and unrealistically high values of upper tropospheric moisture and temperature changes (for a doubling of CO2) not been challenged, they were instead closely emulated by most of the other prominent early GCM groups of NOAA-GFDL (Figure 11), NCAR (Figure 12) and the British Met Service (Figure 13). They all followed suit and incorporated unrealistically high amounts of upper tropospheric water vapor and, as a result, obtained unrealistically high values of global upper and surface temperature just as Hansen had. The fact that most of the (assumed independent) GCMs produced similar warming results were used as verification of each model’s results. But this was untrue. All the modellers were wrong in the same direction and in the same way.”

Dr. Vincent Gray explains why the positive water vapour feedback assumption is so important to climate modelling, GH effect “theory”, and therefore AGW.

Without a positive water vapour feedback there is no man made global warming to model.It was not a good career move for Dr. Miskolczi to show this.

7 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/attachment.php?aid=457

Excerpt - To put it as succinctly as possible, radiation, conduction and latent heat are all losses from the objects surface. Convection of sensible and latent heat ONLY happens AFTER the fact of heat loss from the object. Therefore the

three forms of heat transfer from the objects surface are, radiation, conduction and latent heat losses.They are not radiation, conduction and convection as is currently taught.

Conduction and convection of sensible (actual) heat is far more important, overall than IR losses, but the "mother" of it all is undoubtedly the latent heat movements associated with the vapourisation and

condensation of water. Therefore, on the water planet earth, at it's surface, the three forms of heat transfer in order of importance

MUST BE,•Latent heat losses (which causes convection).

2) Conduction (which causes convection).

3) Radiation (which may enhance / cause convection).

This is the reverse of what we are currently taught, and that is widely "accepted“

If it is correct that latent heat losses of water vapourisation is the most powerful cooling mechanism at earth’s surface can this be easily demonstrated? Yes, we sweat to keep cool, plants transpire to keep cool, dogs pant to keep cool.

There is also a very simple and cheap experiment almost anyone can perform at home that confirms this.

The oily mug experiment.http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1617.html

Excerpt - “If there was any wind in the room then the difference would be even more dramatic,

which is why you blow on a hot cup of coffee, or tea, to cool it down quickly.”

How much money is invested in the GH “theory” justified so called Green agenda, and by whom?Way, way too much, and much, much more than is at first apparent….

.

How much of our pensions have been invested, without our knowledge or consent, in ways that we are told are to mitigate climate change?

In the UK - IIGCC, http://www.iigcc.org/

“IIGCC is a network of 100 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, who represent nearly €9 trillion in assets and take a pro-active approach to managing risks and opportunities related to climate change”

In the USA - INCRhttp://www.ceres.org/investor-network/incr

“a network of 100 institutional investors representing more than $13 trillion in assets committed to addressing the risks and seizing the opportunities resulting from climate change and other sustainability challenges. In 2013, INCR turned 10 years old, celebrating a decade of

investor action on climate risk.”

In Australia - IGCChttp://www.igcc.org.au/about

“The Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) is a collaboration of Australian and New Zealand investors - with total funds under management of approximately $1 trillion - The IGCC aims to encourage government policies and investment practices that address the risks

and opportunities of climate change, for the ultimate benefit of superannuants and unit holders.”

Globally - http://investorsonclimatechange.org/ “nearly 350 global institutional investors representing over $24 trillion in assets”

.

When a Ponzi scheme as large as AGW collapses, who pays?

8

A possible lesson from history, the Darien scheme…http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1140.html

" As the Darien company was backed by about a quarter of the money circulating in Scotland, its failure left the country - which had suffered a run of bad harvests

almost completely ruined and was an important factor in weakening resistance to the Act of Union (finally consummated in 1707) among the political elite. "

and," Scotland was almost bankrupted by the "Darien Fiasco".

Some Scots nobility petitioned Westminster to wipe out the Scottish national debt and stabilise the currency. The first request was not met though the second was and a Scottish Pound was given the fixed value of a shilling.

Personal Scottish financial interests were also involved. Scottish Commissioners had invested heavily in the Darien Scheme and they believed that they would receive compensation for their losses.

The 1707 Acts of Union, Article 14, granted £398,085 10s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt. "

From this was borne the American Constitution?Probably, it certainly had a major influence. It seems it could be said that either directly because of the way the Scottish elites sold out the Scottish peoples rights in the Act of Union, or because of the success of the Scots slave (ie, sugar)

plantations in English colonies, some very influential people were, well, influenced. Weatherspoon, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin and many others (principally ex students of Princeton's Weatherspoon), could all be included in this group of

influential people effected by The Darien Schemes failure and what entailed.

The possible lesson then is that elites have sold out the rights of the people in exchange for the promise of politicians to preserve their own monies, especially when Ponzi schemes head south. It seems a lesson the American constitution was at least partially drafted for, it would certainly seem to have been written in the awareness of such dangers to the peoples

freedoms and rights.

If AGW is a great big Ponzi scheme (that's a no brainer), who will bail out who, and,what price of freedom will the people be forced to pay, without their consent?

Is it any surprise then that the EU (and the UN) is so pro AGW...

9

what is the theory of man made global warming? v8. by derek alker february 2015. the united nations...

Documents

modelled agw

greenhouse analogy

birth of agw

basis of agw

theory of man

global climate change

climate models

climate modelled prediction