Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why are we 33C warmer than we would otherwise be?
#21
(01-24-2014, 02:25 PM)Derek Wrote: It is an observation that, on average, the moon is -18C only by solar input, and most probably so would the earth be, without an atmosphere.

Derek, at this point I'd like to ask again for the evidence of that alleged moon temperature. By evidence I do not mean articles where the same statement is made without evidences.

Besides, there is a significant difference between the Moon and the Earth that would lead to a significant difference in their surface temperatures: the dark side of the Moon has much more time to cool, because the Moon rotates much slower. The night on the moon is 28x longer. This must lead to a much lower average temperature on the Moon compared to the Earth. So, most certainly the average temperature on the Earth without atmosphere would be much higher than that on the Moon without atmosphere.

(01-24-2014, 02:25 PM)Derek Wrote: So, we are left a surface temperature of -18C without an atmosphere and a surface temperature of 25C with an atmosphere.
That is the observed difference, or effect of 43C to explain.

Derek, I understand that this is your central point and you need to understand that you are trying to explain something that is physically impossible. You can not have something at -18°C in vacuum and make it warmer by putting anything on it, including atmosphere, that is not more powerful source of energy than 239 W/m².

If you put an atmosphere on it, you will get a lapse rate, of course, with the highest temperature -18°C at the bottom and from that value only down with increasing altitude. A thing at -18°C can not warm anything, including itself, to a higher temperature.
Reply
#22
Derek Wrote: It is an observation that, on average, the moon is -18C only by solar input, and most probably so would the earth be, without an atmosphere.

Greg asks - "Derek, at this point I'd like to ask again for the evidence of that alleged moon temperature. By evidence I do not mean articles where the same statement is made without evidences."
A good question I have not really considered in any great depth.

It seems the consensus and the main stream skeptics agree the moon is - 18C, using NASA data.
The Moon is a Cold Mistress
Posted on January 8, 2012 by Willis Eschenbach


Willis Eschenbach writes - January 9, 2012 at 2:59 am
"I am looking at the moon without an atmosphere to try to get an estimate of the temperature fluctuations of the Earth if it had no atmosphere. It’s called a “thought experiment"."

I have also been reminded elsewhere that -
"The definition of "pseudoscience" is a theory that cannot be tested empirically using the scientific method."

it was further pointed out to me that -
Discussions of what the mean temperature of the Earth's surface would be if there where no atmosphere is pseudoscience because it cannot be tested empirically.

Discussions of what the mean near surface air temperature would be if there were no "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere is pseudoscience because it cannot be tested empirically.

The "greenhouse effect" hypothesis is pseudoscience because it's assertion that the present near surface air temperature is either 33 C or 48 C (or whatever) warmer than it should be is based on a comparison between the current mean near surface air temperature and either one or the other of the above non-testable hypothesis.


So, -18C is an almost meaningless, and very questionable overall average temperature for the moon's surface. I would especially note as the moon is also hidden behind earth from direct sunlight at least part of the time, then it is not directly comparable to earth (if it had no atmosphere).

Heck, previously "we" in this forum can not agree if the moon does or does not rotate on it's own axis...
The moon is very different to earth in many, many respects.

No one knows what earth's surface temp would be with no atmosphere, end of story.
BUT THAT IS THE BASIS GH "theory" starts from. It is pseudo science.

Thank you Greg, great question.


Derek Wrote: So, we are left a surface temperature of -18C without an atmosphere and a surface temperature of 25C with an atmosphere.
That is the observed difference, or effect of 43C to explain.

Greg asks - "Derek, I understand that this is your central point and you need to understand that you are trying to explain something that is physically impossible. You can not have something at -18°C in vacuum and make it warmer by putting anything on it, including atmosphere, that is not more powerful source of energy than 239 W/m²."

I now realise as I have hopefully shown above it is all pseudo science and has to be explained as such.

I think the second sentence of Greg's above is confusing average temp with peak sunlight received value at the surface and that the two different objects (systems) are seen as the same temp from space.

I have said both the earth and the moon are, when viewed as objects in space, observed as two objects at the same temperature. I have not said that earth with an atmosphere is warmer overall, but I have said that the earth with an atmosphere is warmer at the surface than the moon without an atmosphere because they are two differing systems. One can not directly compare the two surfaces, because they are differing parts of two different systems.

Greg writes - "If you put an atmosphere on it, you will get a lapse rate, of course, with the highest temperature -18°C at the bottom and from that value only down with increasing altitude."
I think this is a misconception Greg. Surely the average would be -18C, and that could not be at the bottom of the atmosphere, it must be the weighted mean, and therefore at an altitude in the atmosphere. Given the laws of thermo, then, the base of the atmosphere must be warmer than the -18C overall average.

It is amazing the confusion and complexities contained within the -18C to +15C = 33C greenhouse effect comparison used to "justify" GH "theory" and therefore also AGW.
You could be forgiven for thinking it was a deliberately constructed scam....

I know "back radiation" never having been observed to have a warming effect at earth's surface disproves GH. ie, Nasif Nahle.

I know water and water vapour being THE dominant and negative feedback within earth's climate system disproves GH. ie, Carl Brehmer.

It also appears radiative science has been falsely misrepresented to "prove" GH, but I can not get my head around that subject area. I will leave that one to others such as Richard111.

I still want to try to tackle the 33C effect, which although it appears simple is actually a whole labyrinth of pseudo science, "thought experiments", miscomparisons, and misconceptions.

I doubt I can succeed, but what the heck, I will give it a go. In that respect, thank you again Greg House you have been a great and positive help for me.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#23
The plot thickens.... Greg House, thank you for your comments, it seems it is not only S/B that has been systematically misused, misrepresented and abused. So has Wien's, Kirchoff's, black body, and more, all it appears with a common thread / basis.

The old slayers emails are flying about at present...... Smile Smile Smile

I will report back asap.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#24
Hi All,
it appears it all boils down to this.

Yes, we have observed earth emits 239W/m2 to space, but this is probably an overestimation.
Yes, we observe that earth's near surface air temperature is very roughly 15C.
Both "on average".

If a surface is heated, then as one goes away from the surface it gets cooler, so no surprises there then.

However, adding "warmer than we would otherwise be" changes everything.
This is adding the bare earth model to the statement as if it is an observation. The bare earth model states earth's surface would be -18C if there were no atmosphere. IF earth had no atmosphere it would be completely different, there would be no oceans for starters. So, can the bare earth model be applied? No. To say it has been, or can be, is pseudo science. The bare earth model can not be tested within the scientific method.

So, "warmer than we would otherwise be" changes the two observations into a pseudo science assertion of a hypothesis. This may be subtle, but it is no small thing. The hypothesis relies upon atmospheric back radiation warming earth's surface, which has never been observed. Therefore the hypothesis fails the scientific method.

In the end two (questionable) observations are transformed into the pseudo science assertion of a failed hypothesis by the seemingly innocent addition of the words "warmer than we would otherwise be".
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#25
Satellites report that the average radiative temperature of the Earth from the top of the atmosphere is . . . . minus 18C !!!

Nicely balances solar input against albedo for a disk which is one quarter the size of the radiating Earth. Angel
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#26
(02-27-2014, 06:14 AM)Derek Wrote: we have observed earth emits 239W/m2 to space, [...]The bare earth model states earth's surface would be -18C if there were no atmosphere.

The 239W/m2 is a false number calculated via a false application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Therefore it can not be observed either. The alleged -18°C is simply the result of converting the false 239W/m2 to temperature, therefore it is false as well.
Reply
#27
Greg, if I may, just so that I can be clear I am understanding what you are saying.
There are two bites at the cherry so to speak.
(02-27-2014, 10:11 AM)Greg House Wrote: The 239W/m2 is a false number calculated via a false application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Therefore it can not be observed either.
Your saying that the "observed" 239W/m2 being emitted to space by earth is false. I would assume you refer to the fact it is gases mostly emitting this IR and therefore S/B for a black body / solid can not be used.

Is this a Wien's Law peak frequency of emission issue? Gases do not exactly follow, in fact can not follow that law. Well, except in steps. Is there a "step" that corresponds to 239W/m2? If there is, it will be water vapour I would suspect. Where is Brego when you need him?.

(02-27-2014, 10:11 AM)Greg House Wrote: The alleged -18°C is simply the result of converting the false 239W/m2 to temperature, therefore it is false as well.

If you are talking about the mean weighted temperature of the atmosphere, surely actual measurements and lapse rates confirm that -18C is the average temperature of the atmosphere?

Either way, to me it seems that the atmosphere on average has been observed in several ways to be -18C. That is not to say the techniques used are all correct, some (ie, satellites) may get the right answer by the wrong means. But weather balloons presumably get the right answer by the right means, as would lapse rates.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#28
(02-27-2014, 06:56 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Satellites report that the average radiative temperature of the Earth from the top of the atmosphere is . . . . minus 18C !!!

Officially, yes. AND, yes I agree with your reasoning "why" too..

Because of this thread I rewrote quite a lot of the FFF video in the making - forum review.
Excerpt -
What does earth emit to space as Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR)?
http://science1.nasa.gov/missions/erbs/
"NASA's Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) was designed to investigate how energy from the Sun is absorbed and re-radiated by the Earth. Understanding this process helps reveal patterns in Earth's weather. One of the longest-running spacecraft missions to date, ERBS was launched on October 5, 1984 on the Space Shuttle Challenger and retired on October 14, 2005."
In other words, 239 W/m² emission by earth to space has been observed.


I also mentioned this reservation -
"It is reasonable to say that earth has been observed as on average emitting 239W/m2 to space. This figure is questionable, and some suggest the actual ERBS data could be shown to be a far lower figure. That noted, the official observation is 239W/m2. According to the Stefan Boltzman equation for a black body, 239W/m2 = -18 degrees Celsius."

I wonder if the lower figure would be 161 to 168W/m2..... Including the atmospheric window to IR emitted by earth's actual surface.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#29
(02-27-2014, 10:35 AM)Derek Wrote: Your saying that the "observed" 239W/m2 being emitted to space by earth is false. I would assume you refer to the fact it is gases mostly emitting this IR and therefore S/B for a black body / solid can not be used.

No. I am referring to the fact that the well known warmists' calculation is false, because the falsely apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation where it is not applicable. Hence this false number can not be observed in reality either.

(02-27-2014, 10:35 AM)Derek Wrote: If you are talking about the mean weighted temperature of the atmosphere, surely actual measurements and lapse rates confirm that -18C is the average temperature of the atmosphere?

No. I was commenting on your "The bare earth model states earth's surface would be -18C if there were no atmosphere" from the #24.
Reply
#30
Ok Greg, thanks for the reply.

I agree completely that the bare earth model is pseudo science. That I had not realised until your posts here. Thank you. That way of calculating 239W/m2 emissions to space is wrong.

However, 239W/m2 to space have been measured by the ERBS satellite, for earth with an atmosphere.

"No. I am referring to the fact that the well known warmists' calculation is false, because the falsely apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation where it is not applicable. Hence this false number can not be observed in reality either."
But, it has been?

My issue here is that we have three figures.
Two are observations
1) 239W/m2 emitted to space by earth with an atmosphere. That appears to be an observation, by the ERBS satellite. If it is not, it does not matter, the fact that the atmosphere is at an average temperature of -18C is shown by other measurements, and lapse rates.

2) GMT is measured at very roughly 15C.

The third, is pseudo science.
3) 239W/m2 or -18C for the surface of the bare earth model.


The two observations show a 33C difference between earth's surface and the average atmospheric temperature. This is not a surprise given the earth's surface is heated.
Adding "warmer than we would otherwise be" is to assert the third figure as if it were an observation, when in fact it is pseudo science. That makes the supposed observation of the natural greenhouse effect ie, "we are 33C warmer than we would otherwise be", the pseudo science assertion of a failed hypothesis.

Yes, the bare earth model abuses / misapplies P/4, S/B, and black body.
Yes, the way the ERBS figures are calculated also abuses the same things, in the same ways.

I am merely trying to get across the mistake of the present ways the 33C different measurements have been spun. Hence I wrote -
"two (questionable) observations are transformed into the pseudo science assertion of a failed hypothesis by the seemingly innocent addition of the words "warmer than we would otherwise be"."
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#31
(02-27-2014, 03:22 PM)Derek Wrote: That way of calculating 239W/m2 emissions to space is wrong. However, 239W/m2 to space have been measured by the ERBS satellite, for earth with an atmosphere.

Derek, the way of calculating 239W/m2 is wrong hence the resulting value 239W/m2 is wrong as well.

Whoever claims the opposite, it does not change this fact. It can not be true that this fiction was really measured.

(02-27-2014, 03:22 PM)Derek Wrote: the fact that the atmosphere is at an average temperature of -18C is shown by other measurements, and lapse rates. [...] The two observations show a 33C difference between earth's surface and the average atmospheric temperature. This is not a surprise given the earth's surface is heated.
Adding "warmer than we would otherwise be" is to assert the third figure as if it were an observation, when in fact it is pseudo science. That makes the supposed observation of the natural greenhouse effect ie, "we are 33C warmer than we would otherwise be", the pseudo science assertion of a failed hypothesis.

Derek, even if this "the atmosphere is at an average temperature of -18C" is correct, it is completely irrelevant to the topic "greenhouse effect" and does not in any way support the statement "we are warmer than otherwise etc.". Not does it refute this "warmer than otherwise". You can not use this average temperature of the atmosphere at all. You can neither use gravity nor lapse rate. All those explanations and theories are understandable attempts to explain the 33°C "additional temperature", but there is no "additional temperature" in reality and this renders those explanations invalid as well. I am sorry, but it has to be said.
Reply
#32
Thanks Greg, genuinely. I can now see what the issue is that we are discussing here.

My point is that two observations have been spun, not by me, but by advocates of GH "theory". That is what I have been trying to get to an explanation of from the perspective that most people will have been taught it.

Greg writes -
Derek, the way of calculating 239W/m2 is wrong hence the resulting value 239W/m2 is wrong as well.
I agree, although it is not my specialist area, and I could not tell you how it was calculated wrongly, nor what the actual figure should be.
Greg writes -
Whoever claims the opposite, it does not change this fact. It can not be true that this fiction was really measured.
Erm, I sort of agree, but correlation is not necessarily causation, if you see my point.
Greg writes -
Derek, even if this "the atmosphere is at an average temperature of -18C" is correct, it is completely irrelevant to the topic "greenhouse effect" and does not in any way support the statement "we are warmer than otherwise etc.".
It is roughly correct, it is also an observation. Just as GMT is. I have not said eitehr supports "warmer than we would otherwise be". I have said that the bare earth model, which is pseudo science has been used to spin the two observations into something they are not.
Greg writes -
You can not use this average temperature of the atmosphere at all.
??????? It is an observation, made by various methods.
Greg writes -
You can neither use gravity nor lapse rate.
I have not used gravity at all. That is the preserve of Doug Cotton and his Loschmidt based rubbish. Yes, I can use lapse rates, they too are an observation.
Greg writes -
but there is no "additional temperature" in reality
I have already said I agree with that, that is why I describe it as a 33C observed difference, not addition...
Greg writes -
All those explanations and theories are understandable attempts to explain the 33°C "additional temperature", but there is no "additional temperature" in reality and this renders those explanations invalid as well.
The 33C observed difference is only explained as additional temperature IF it is compared to the bare earth model....... QED.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#33
(02-28-2014, 12:57 AM)Derek Wrote: The 33C observed difference is only explained as additional temperature IF it is compared to the bare earth model....... QED.

No, if compared to the bare earth model there is no 33°C observed difference, whatever you mean by observed.

There is no 33°C difference between observed +15°C (just assuming this number is correctly calculated by warmists as " global temperature") and the alleged -18°C Earth's "black body temperature", because this -18°C is the result of false application of the Stefan-Boltzmann formula.
Reply
#34
I tried.....
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#35
(01-12-2014, 07:32 AM)Derek Wrote: Earth receives 1368W/m2 at the top of it's atmosphere, but as earth is a rotating globe, then the power of sunlight is divided by 4, and after allowing for reflection and refraction, causing a loss of 102W/m2 an average of 239W/m2 is received at earth's surface. [...]
The Stefan Boltzman law states that a black body receiving 239W/m2 will reach a temperature of -18C.

This is what you need to understand: although it is right that a black body receiving 239W/m2 will reach a temperature of -18°C, it is not applicable to the case of a sphere. It is only applicable to the area receiving this 239W/m2 at the same time.

It is incorrect to put into the Stefan-Boltzman formula the total area of a sphere.

So, mathematically you can calculate "average input" over the whole area of a sphere (or any number of spheres or hemispheres), but you can not apply the Stefan-Boltzman formula to this number to calculate temperature of the total area of a sphere, this is the central point. Therefore this -18°C is wrong.

So, if you apply the Stefan-Boltzman formula to a hemisphere, the average input will be 480W/m² and the temperature +30°C accordingly. The temperature of the dark side depends on the rate of it's cooling (after it was heated to the same +30°C), so as you can see the average blackbody temperature of a (rotating) sphere can not be determined based on the solar constant and the Stefan-Boltzman formula alone. But the maximum possible blackbody average temperature of the sphere Earth is +30°C, not -18°C (assuming the warmists data is otherwise correct and ignoring the other problem of deriving average temperature from average radiation for a hemisphere).

So, as you can possibly see, there is no 33°C difference in the first place.
Reply
#36
For what it's worth.

Global Temperature Report – Jan 2014

I'll leave it to the more interested parties to post any of the pretty pictures. Wink
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#37
(02-28-2014, 11:26 AM)Greg House Wrote: So, if you apply the Stefan-Boltzman formula to a hemisphere, the average input will be 480W/m² and the temperature +30°C accordingly. The temperature of the dark side depends on the rate of it's cooling (after it was heated to the same +30°C), so as you can see the average blackbody temperature of a (rotating) sphere can not be determined based on the solar constant and the Stefan-Boltzman formula alone. But the maximum possible blackbody average temperature of the sphere Earth is +30°C, not -18°C (assuming the warmists data is otherwise correct and ignoring the other problem of deriving average temperature from average radiation for a hemisphere).

So, as you can possibly see, there is no 33°C difference in the first place.

I will resist putting a number of small quotes of Greg's above post followed by I know, and have already tried to explain that.

However, Greg's last paragraph has a major omission, namely that the whole of the sphere radiates all of the time, even though as he correctly points out only half is heated. Therefore, the maximum black body temperature must be below +30C, by some margin. Warmists assume averaging the input covers this. It does not, the dark side of the planet does not instantly plunge to 0 degrees Kelvin. But that is what they do. They have to, because a black body instantly emits all it receives.

Greg, seems to take the opposite view, no cooling at all on the dark side of the sphere, which is also patently wrong. IF I have read Greg's last paragraph as he intended it to mean. ie, the sphere in question, Greg states, receiving 480W/m2 has a possible maximum average (all over) temperature of +30C? It would not though, perfect insulation is impossible, so it must be a lot lower than +30C.
btw surface temperature IS NOT GMT. GMT is with an atmosphere. The bare earth model, by definition can not and does not have a GMT.
When Greg writes -
"So, as you can possibly see, there is no 33°C difference in the first place."
I suspect he has missed that the 33C warmer than we would otherwise be effect is the warmists making a miscomparison between the predicted by the bare earth model surface temperature and GMT.
Which is the main point I have been trying to get across.....

Earth is a grey body, it has not just a surface that the sun heats, and geothermal inputs heat, it has subsurface, volume, too. Heat is retained and later released by earth's surface and volume, particularly the oceans, and in ways other than IR emission. There are sensible and latent heat losses too. So, the bare earth model is not applicable because earth has volume, it has oceans, etc, etc, and the temp of such a body, without an atmosphere but with oceans is impossible to recreate. It's surface temp, IF it could be created, let's use clingfilm to stop the oceans vapourising in a vacuum :lol: would be below +30C with perfect insulation of dark side :lol: and above -18C for the black body 0k dark side :lol:. What it would be though, no one knows, and no one will ever know.

What are we left with? Two observations that are not currently explained, but boy have they been spun by GH "theory" based pseudo science. Namely in this case, that we are supposedly 33C warmer than we would otherwise be, by the bare earth model...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#38
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.co...se-effect/

Derek Alker says:
March 1, 2014 at 9:52 am

“Tom.

THS and Ronan Connolly are using GHG to mean Well Mixed Greenhouse Gases, and that they would argue that the altitude of effective radiation is set by water vapour.

They’ve never made that specific argument as far as I can tell. THS certainly thinks that water vapour cools because it produces a negative lapse rate feedback, reduces dT/dz, and hence reduces the surface temperature. What this seems to ignore is that increased water vapour would also produce a radiative forcing that should increase the effective emission height.”

YET, the tropopause lowers over convective cells? An effect that has been measured (some time ago) locally, and regionally as well as seasonally in the tropics. Further studies would confirm it happens elsewhere, and it has been observed (quite dramatically, and some time ago) along weather fronts in the mid latitudes.

Is the increase in effective emission height associated with increased water vapour only “observable” in the climate models?
-----------------------------
Derek Alker says:
March 1, 2014 at 9:56 am

“The are two properties that we can calculate easily. The equilibrium non-greenhouse temperature (255K) and the adiabatic lapse rate (-g/Cp).”

“The equilibrium non-greenhouse temperature (255K)” Is that the bare earth model predicted surface temperature?
Has that been tested within the scientific method? If not, it is pseudo science. Shame it is relied upon so heavily then…
--------------------------------
andthentheresphysics says:
March 1, 2014 at 9:57 am

Derek,
I’ve seen your description of the greenhouse effect, and it is horribly flawed. I’m not really that interested in more discussions with people who think the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. They’re wrong.
----------------------------
andthentheresphysics says:
March 1, 2014 at 11:44 am

Derek,

Has that been tested within the scientific method? If not, it is pseudo science. Shame it is relied upon so heavily then…

If you measure the outgoing spectrum of the Earth, I believe that one can show that the amount of energy the Earth radiates into space averages to be the same as a blackbody with a temperature of 255 K. So, the answer to your question I, I believe, yes.
---------------------------
Derek Alker says:
March 1, 2014 at 1:52 pm

“Earth radiates into space averages to be the same as a blackbody with a temperature of 255 K.”

Err, obviously, correlation is not necessarily causation. I say obviously because earth is a grey body. Nor is the explanation you give testing the “theory” within the scientific method.

How can a bare earth have oceans, and their specific heat, ie, heat retention and later release? Slow to heat, slow to cool.

How can a bare earth have an unlit hemisphere at 0 degrees Kelvin????

Earth is not an imaginary black body, therefore the bare earth model, which is a black body model, can not be tested within the scientific method. QED it is pseudo science.
---------------------------
andthentheresphysics says:
March 1, 2014 at 1:55 pm

Derek,
I’m not going to start this kind of debate with you. It’s absurd. Nobody’s referring to a bare earth model in the sense that you seem to think. Go and read Stoat’s recent post about the the idealise greenhouse effect and its enemies. You might learn something.

It is tempting to reply, I did, and did not learn anything, other than you and Stoat did not learn anything either. But, I couldn't be bothered.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#39
(03-01-2014, 01:42 AM)Derek Wrote: However, Greg's last paragraph has a major omission, namely that the whole of the sphere radiates all of the time, even though as he correctly points out only half is heated. ... Greg, seems to take the opposite view, no cooling at all on the dark side of the sphere, which is also patently wrong.

No, it is not my view, the opposite is true. I said clearly: "So, if you apply the Stefan-Boltzman formula to a hemisphere, the average input will be 480W/m² and the temperature +30°C accordingly. The temperature of the dark side depends on the rate of it's cooling (after it was heated to the same +30°C), so as you can see the average blackbody temperature of a (rotating) sphere can not be determined based on the solar constant and the Stefan-Boltzman formula alone. But the maximum possible blackbody average temperature of the sphere Earth is +30°C, not -18°C (assuming the warmists data is otherwise correct and ignoring the other problem of deriving average temperature from average radiation for a hemisphere)."

If you wish to have it formulated in a precise way, then the maximum average temperature of the sphere Earth is indefinitely close to +30°C, but not exactly +30°C. Again, as I said, it depends on the rate of cooling.

Anyway, what is patently wrong here is the warmists approach to the calculation. The Stefan-Boltzmann formula is simply not applicable to the total area of a sphere. Their -18°C value has no basis in science.
Reply
#40
Hi folks, might be some interest here.

Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere” Papers 1-3
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Climate Science Humiliated…Earlier Model Prognoses Of Warmer Winters Now Today’s Laug Sunsettommy 0 1,965 02-22-2015, 07:47 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)