Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog
June 4th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Willis Eschenbach and I have been defending ourselves on Facebook against Joe Postma’s claims we have “flat Earth” beliefs about the radiative energy budget of the Earth. The guy is obviously passionate, as our discussion ended with expletive-laced insults hurled my way (I suspect Willis decided the discussion wasn’t worth the effort, and withdrew before the fireworks began).
Joe advertises himself as an astrophysicist who works at the University of Calgary. I don’t know his level of education, but his claims have considerable influence on others, which is why I am addressing them here. He has numerous writings and Youtube videos on the subject of Earth’s energy budget and greenhouse effect, and the supposed errors the climate research community has made. I get emails and comments on my blog from others who invoke his claims, and so he is difficult to ignore.
Here I want to address just one of his claims (repeated by others, and the basis of his accusation I am a flat-Earther), recently described here, regarding the value of solar flux at the top of the atmosphere that is found in many simplified diagrams of the Earth’s energy budget. I will use the same two graphics used in that article, one from Harvard and one from Penn State:
Joe’s claim (as far as I can tell) is that that the solar flux value (often quoted to be around 342 W/m2) is unrealistic because it is for a flat Earth. But as an astrophysicist, he should recognize the division by 4 (“Fs(1-A)/4” and “S/4”) in the upper-left portion of both figures, which takes the solar constant at the distance of the Earth from the sun (about 1,370 W/m2) and spreads it over the spherical shape of the Earth. Thus, the 342 W/m2 value represents a spherical (not flat) Earth.
Just because someone then draws a diagram using a flat surface representing the Earth doesn’t mean the calculation is for a “flat Earth”.
Next in that article, Joe’s (mistaken) value for the solar constant is then used to compute the resulting Earth-Sun distance implied by us silly climate scientists who believe the solar constant is 342.5 W/m2 (rather than the true value of 1,370 W/m2). He gets twice the true, known value of the Earth-Sun distance, simply because he used a solar flux that was off by a factor of 4.
Now, I find it hard to believe an actual astrophysicist could make such an elementary error. I can ignore Joe’s profane personal insults, but he ends up influencing many people, and then I have to deal with their questions individually. Sometimes it’s better if I can just point them to a blog post, which is why I wrote this.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please look at the actual empirical data. Satellite lower troposphere temperature data for the past 40 years is freely available from Dr Roy Spencer’s UAH data site. Atmospheric CO2 concentration data is available from hundreds of sites across the Globe. Mathematical analysis of some of this data has shown that the temperature is independent of the CO2 concentration, that is, there is no such thing as a “climate sensitivity”. It is a meaningless metric.
Further, the data analysis shows that climate determines the rate of generation of atmospheric CO2. The Fourier spectra of both the temperature and the rate of change of CO2 are essentially identical, showing periodicities that are most likely related to the interaction of the bodies within the Solar System. There is nothing to show an anthropogenic effect.
For detail see https://www.climateauditor.com
It is not valid to take averages, the integral of the function of a variable is not the same as that function applied to the integral of the variable.
Another input from actual empirical data: the UAH satellite lower troposphere temperature for the past 40 years shows a global minimum rate of temperature increase at the South Polar zone of 0.01 deg. C per decade and a global maximum rate of increase at the North Polar zone of 0.25 deg. C per decade. Obviously the asymmetric rate of warming of the Earth shows that the Sun’s irradiance is causing a completely different temperature response from South to North. Surely this negates the idea of using the solar flux averaged across the whole spherical surface of the globe in any calculation of energy budget.
It cannot have anything to do with the atmospheric CO2 concentration as that has increased almost uniformly across the globe.
The minimal increase for the South Polar zone is reasonable as the flattening of the globe at the South Pole implies that there will be very little change in its temperature regardless of the intensity of the irradiance because the angle of incidence of the Sun’s rays is almost horizontal to the surface. So why the maximum at the North Pole zone instead of at the Tropics zone where the angle of incidence is roughly vertical ?
The so-called one-dimensional radiative convection model is a toy model, that has none physical assumptions.
Toy models are simplified models to give a rough estimate if they are conceptual correct. In this case the objective was to come up with a sciency base for CAGW, not to solve a scientific problem.
As noted below and as we have found by observations, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause 1C warming, however the 1C warming that does occur is high in the atmosphere and due to the decrease in the lapse rate the surface warming is only 0.1 to 0.2C.
The one-dimensional radiative convection toy models cheats by assuming there is no increase in convection transferred heat due to the addition of the CO2 which is required to get any measurable warming, i.e. The 1.2C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
One dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies
1. Failure of the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km
The modern anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory began from the one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies with the fixed absolute and relative humidity utilizing the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km (FLRA) for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 [Manabe & Strickler, 1964; Manabe & Wetherald, 1967; Hansen et al., 1981].
William: Comments:
1. Lapse rate is the change in temperature with elevation as one goes higher in the atmosphere. As the CO2 molecules transfer heat by contact to other gases in the atmosphere and all gases in the atmosphere transfer any excess heat by convection to maintain a linear lapse rate (Temperature change in degrees Celsius/Kelvin per kilometer increase in elevation.)
2. It is given in degrees kelvin which is confusing as it is a change so Celsius could have been used as a change in temperature per kilometer change in elevation is the same for the Kelvin and Celsius temperature systems as the only difference in the two temperature systems is selection of what temperature zero is to be.
..In the 1DRCM studies, the most basic assumption is the fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2.
There is no guarantee, however, for the same lapse rate maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 [Chylek & Kiehl, 1981; Sinha, 1995].
Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis as shown in Fig.1. In the figure, line B shows the FLRA giving a uniform warming for the troposphere and the surface.
Since the CS (FAH) greatly changes with a minute variation of the lapse rate for 2xCO2, the computed results of the 1DRCM studies in Table 1 are theoretically meaningless along with the failure of the FLRA.
In physical reality, the surface climate sensitivity is 0.1~0.2K from the energy budget of the earth and the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W.m2 for 2xCO2. Since there is no positive feedback from water vapor and ice albedo at the surface, the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS (FAH) is also 0.1~0.2K.
A 1K warming occurs in responding to the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the effective radiation height of 5km. This gives the slightly reduced lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km as shown in Fig.2.
In the physical reality with a bold line in Fig.2, the surface temperature increases as much as 0.1~0.2K with the slightly decreased lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km.
Since the CS (FAH) is negligible small at the surface, there is no water vapor and ice albedo feedback which are large positive feedbacks in the 3DGCMs studies of the IPCC.
…. (c) More than 100 parameters are utilized in the 3DGCMs (William: Three dimensional General Circulation Models, silly toy models) giving the canonical climate sensitivity of 3K claimed by the IPCC with the tuning of them.
The followings are supporting data for the Kimoto lapse rate theory above.
(A) Kiehl & Ramanathan (1982) shows the following radiative forcing for 2xCO2.
Radiative forcing at the tropopause: 3.7W/m2.
Radiative forcing at the surface: 0.55~1.56W/m2 (averaged 1.1W/m2).
This denies the FLRA giving the uniform warming throughout the troposphere in the 1DRCM and the 3DGCMs studies.
(B) Newell & Dopplick (1979) obtained a climate sensitivity of 0.24K considering the
evaporation cooling from the surface of the ocean.
(C) Ramanathan (1981) shows the surface temperature increase of 0.17K with the
direct heating of 1.2W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the surface.
Transcript of a portion of Weart’s interview with Hansen.
Weart:
This was a radiative convective model, so where’s the convective part come in. Again, are you using somebody else’s…
Hansen: That’s trivial. You just put in…
Weart: … a lapse rate…
Hansen: Yes. So it’s a fudge. That’s why you have to have a 3-D model to do it properly. In the 1-D model, it’s just a fudge, and you can choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers
William: Different answers that invalidate CAGW, the 3-D models have more than 100 parameters to play with so any answer is possible. The 1-D model is so simple so it possible to see the fudging/shenanigans which is fixing the lapse rate.
W Astley ”
As noted below and as we have found by observations, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause 1C warming, however the 1C warming that does occur is high in the atmosphere and due to the decrease in the lapse rate the surface warming is only 0.1 to 0.2C.”
No.
It occurs in global mean near-surface air temperature.
Not just up in the clouds.
–
The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric equivalent CO.
the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C
Angech,
CAGW is a dead theory.
As noted in my above comments CO2 does not correlate with temperature changes in the ancient climate or to the recent temperature changes.
The IPCC predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot did not occur.
Water vapor in the upper atmosphere has decreased which increases the amount of radiation that is emitted to space. This is opposite to what the IPCC predicted and is exactly what one would if the CAGW theory is completely incorrect.
There has been almost no tropical region warming, most of the warming has been high latitude warming which has no stopped, which is the end of warming, calling it a pause in warming is only an attempt to keep CAGW alive.
Repeating the cult of CAGW talking points, emphatically does not change the fact that observations do not support.
CAGW is contingent on humans causing the rise in atmospheric CO2. If humans did not cause the rise in atmospheric CO2 there is no CAGW. Observations and analysis results in peer review papers show human CO2 emissions caused less than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.
Science is not a fight, it is solving puzzles.
William Astley June 5, CAGW is a theory. Certainly not dead while adherents believe.
The IPCC predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot did not occur.
“Water vapor in the upper atmosphere has decreased which increases the amount of radiation that is emitted to space.”
Energy in should equal energy out, doubt that there is any true “increase” in energy out and certainly does not depend on the nature of the atmosphere.
“Science is not a fight, it is solving puzzles.”
GHG theory seems reasonable ie temperature should go up with an increase in CO2 or water vapour. Many feedbacks of unknown magnitude, lots of discrepancy at the moment. I think it is very hard to admit to most science but leave one section out because of its putative conclusions. You have to solve the puzzle and explain why this little bit of science should be wrong when all the rest ties in.
Or accept it is right and then look for the complex reasons why the theory is not working. Not the science but the feedbacks.
Thanks for trying to work things out and putting ideas out there.
Of the many believers of a flat earth also believe the moon is a projection.
“… hard to believe an actual astrophysicist could make such an elementary error.”
If they’re indoctrinated into the climate religion, another application of the geometric partitioning of energy often denied is how radiant energy absorbed by the atmosphere is redistributed. To satisfy the nominal sensitivity, about 3.4 times more energy must be returned to the surface than was absorbed to result in the next W/m^2 of TOA imbalance (forcing or ERF) in order to offset the incremental emissions consequential to an 0.8C temperature increase. Meanwhile, the geometry tell us about half of the radiant energy absorbed by the atmosphere ends up emitted into space and the other half returns back to the surface, or more than 6 times less than required for the nominal sensitivity. This 50/50 split is often denied owing to confusion regarding non radiant energy like latent heat, not realizing that whatever effect non radiant heat entering the atmosphere, plus its return to the surface has, is already manifested by the average steady state temperature and its consequential net radiant emissions. If non radiant energy is included, then certainly a larger fraction of the total energy entering the atmosphere is returned to the surface, but that’s independent of the requirement for a 50/50 split of the net radiant flux leaving the surface.
The end result of everything that acts on solar energy (forcing) can be distilled down to a single value, which is 620 mw per W/m^2 of surface emissions above and beyond the 1 W/m^2 of emissions per W/m^2 of forcing characteristic of an ideal black body. The nominal sensitivity requires a value of 3.4 W/m^2 per W/m^2 above and beyond what an ideal BB can do which is obviously impossible since Joules are Joules and the Earth can’t tell the difference between the next W/m^2 and the average W/m^2.
Maxwell was praised by Einstein for making his own discoveries possible. With the thermodynamic equations etc.. His huge body of work also included his Theory of Heat and studies of all phases and states of matter. Plus many experiments of the highest quality.
There he showed that gases act as one, energetically, in atmospheres. The Gas Laws/Poisson Effect.. Exit GHG before it was out of diapers.
Quantum effects among others disallow any old radiation effect (or kinetic one) from heating warmer objects. Or we would have an “IR catastrophe” as well as a UV one. Colder lacks the force to affect warmer, simple as that. Cognomens of silliness or rant do not belong here. Or else honest debate does not. Much depends on that. I do my own research to, so rely not just on authority.
Early winter, NZ, 35deg Sth. Grass T in sun, 20C; shade 16-17C Vertically, blue sky, minus 2C
Summer, over 40C normal. With fogging, the violent uplift is obvious. Add latent Heat transfer, unseen, and no need for agw if not for marxism.
A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight. In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region below characterized by convection, weather and clouds.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020?WT.feed_name=subjects_giant-planets&foxtrotcallback=true
“characteristic of many thick atmospheres”
“In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region below characterized by convection, weather and clouds5,6. However, it is not obvious why the tropopause occurs at the specific pressure near 0.1 bar. Here we use a simple, physically based model7 to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere. At higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue. ”
Seems to be specific to atmospheres with lower level IR absorbing properties, One imagines a fictitious world with no water or CO2, Sulphur Dioxide, dust etc but lots of O2 and Nitrogen would not have a stratosphere as such?
We reason that a tropopause at a pressure of approximately 0.1 bar is characteristic of many thick atmospheres, including exoplanets and exomoons in our galaxy and beyond. Judicious use of this rule could help constrain the atmospheric structure, and thus the surface environments and habitability, of exoplanets.
Now, as a rough cross-check, we enter the Venus altitude-versus-atmospheric pressure graph at 1000 millibars (the Earth’s average sea level atmospheric pressure) and go up to intersect the altitude-pressure profile line, and across to the left axis where we find the corresponding altitude of 49.5 kilometers (31 miles). This altitude is only three kilometers (or six percent) different than we found from the temperature graph.
So, in spite of the surface temperature of Venus being on the order of 864 degrees Fahrenheit, there is a region in the Venusian atmosphere which approximates that of Earth with respect to temperature and pressure.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080205025041/http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
The difference is only due to the difference in the distance between the Earth and Venus from the Sun.
“Quantum effects among others disallow any old radiation effect (or kinetic one) from heating warmer objects.”
This is incorrect. A photon absorbed by matter (for example the Earth’s surface) increases the stored energy (temperature) of that matter independent of anything else. Photons absorbed by the surface whether from the Sun, the atmosphere or deep space, are indistinguishable from each other and all warm the surface (i.e. replace incremental surface emissions) regardless of respective temperatures.
Think of it this way. Technically, outer space is heating the planet and outer space is very cold.
The one quarter rule only applies to planets without atmospheres.
As soon as one introduces an atmosphere then the surface temperature will rise higher due to conduction and convection but that was not the point of the initial post.
Correction:
The one quarter rule applies to all planets but does not determine surface temperature for planets with convecting atmospheres.
Stephen Wilde – “The one quarter rule applies to all planets ”
I made this response above, I’m curious how you would answer:
Imagine if we were able to drag a notched trowel over the Mojave Desert such that the surface area is doubled. We can then divide the energy received by the Mojave Desert from the Sun by 2 correct? And, we can double the amount of energy emitted to space since the surface area has been doubled. So the desert would receive half the amount of energy from the Sun and emit twice as much energy to space.
Irregularities across a two dimensional object are self cancelling so you can’t use that analogy for a three dimensional object.
At all times one side of the furrow would receive more insolation but the other side would receive less so net effect zero.
Stephen Wilde “Irregularities across a two dimensional object are self cancelling so you can’t use that analogy for a three dimensional object.”
What is the two dimensional object you’re referencing? Your calculations require the surface of the Earth to be Flat? That makes Joe Postma correct.
“At all times one side of the furrow would receive more insolation but the other side would receive less so net effect zero.” ??? “At all times” – Which side receives more at night?
When the sun is directly overhead, each side of furrow would receive an equal amount, and since the surface area has been doubled we divide by 2 to match your theory right? So, noontime would be cooler than a non-notched surface.
The emission rate stays the same right? And since the surface area has been doubled, the total emissions also double?
Average hourly solar radiation in watts per meter sq. from USCRN data.
Mauna Loa 19.5353 -155.5761 3407.4 meters
June 8th 2017
0000 0
0100 0
0200 0
0300 0
0400 0
0500 0
0600 5
0700 143
0800 370
0900 583
1000 784
1100 932
1200 1011
1300 1050
1400 1001
1500 902
1600 745
1700 550
1800 298
1900 81
2000 0
2100 0
2200 0
2300 0
24hr average 352
Just figured you folks might find actual data helpful to the discussion.
Bob Koss Average hourly solar radiation in watts per meter sq. 24hr average 352
Thanks.
Both sides can use it, I guess.
Fits in with the removal of the albedo effect.
8 hours above 352, 16 hours below of which 10 hours have no direct/indirect solar radiation.
So …. would you by chance have the same data for Alaska?
Something I don’t see in these diagrams is conductive heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere (To to T1). Given the observed weather effects of thermals and other mass convection, and that approx 90% of the atmosphere cannot be heated directly by radiation, I would expect to see some comment on it since it has a major effect on the where energy radiates from (planetary surface or atmospheric GHG). It’s also hard to imagine that all (or even a major part) of atmospheric temperature increase is driven by ghg radiation given the frequency and implications of inversion layer formation.
There was a recent article here about UHI and it’s downstream detection that noted that it was indetectable at windspeeds above 7 m/s i believe (working from memory here so don’t hold me to the number). That is a solid example of the conductive-convective process, but it seemed as if the article was trying to state that UHI didn’t matter once wind became part of the picture. That is an erroneous assumption though because the heat still has to go somewhere it is just “diluted” into a greater mass of air so the total temperature rise of any single particle is lower. That is the entire working model of fluid to fluid heat exchangers.
sorry mods, this was not meant to be a reply to this coment. it was a general comment to the thread, please move it if possible.
Was this an average for clear days? What about cloudy days? Is it never cloudy over Mauna Loa?
A black body absorbs and radiates at the same time. It doesn’t absorb during the day and cool at night. An orb that has a surface of black bodies will drop to zero quickly at night and rise quickly to the equilibrium temperature for the insolation at that spot. Its not so much about the flat Earth but pretending that the averages are like the exact uniform surface of a disc for absorbing and a uniform sphere for radiating.
I’ll find my simple model and put it up again soon. Its for 8 uniform surfaces of a planet acting like black bodies. One with a 300 K spread of temperatures like at the equator of the Moon and one with 30K spread like the sea surface of the Earth. Tweaked a little ( only needed to change one surface of the ‘Earth’ from 273K to 275K) so that the mean of T^4 was equal for both. With mean T being close to the values for the Moon at the equator and Earth’s sea surface. Just the storing and spreading of heat makes a 30 K difference to mean temperatures, all else being equal. Its why you can’t have this ‘flat Earth’ analysis anywhere in the modelling or influencing the modelling ie implying an equilibrium with the oceans and the upper atmosphere.
Many thanks to Ronald J. Larsen for his patience and clarity on this and to Jim Steele for having the courage to back him up.
Averages are useless when tying to find a specific value, like the “human fingerprint in climate change”. If memory serves, all climate models initialise the earth as a flat, idealised, black-body radiator, which it isn’t, correct me if I am wrong?
You are wrong.
Please explain my wrongness, otherwise be quiet.
You asked for correction, I provided. Find out something about GCMs before making such ignorant claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model
Nick Stokes “You are wrong.” Well said, Nick.
People, stay out of the weeds. We’ve won. Find something else to do, and do it as well as you have done this!
Anthony,
I think this must be related to the paper supposedly giving the “correct” value of a the temperature of the moon. This paper assumes no atmosphere and that the moon rotates. In reality, the moon has many different temperatures because there is no atmosphere to redistribute and equalise the temperature and as a result you’ve got to be pretty dumb to believe there’s only one interpretation of the “temperature” of the moon.
However, this became important because of the group who tried to argue that pressure alone was the cause of the increased surface temperature. Because to get their “fit” to their curve-matching they had to find a value for the moon’s temperature that was different from normal. So, they started arguing that the “correct” temperature for the moon was something that made their curve match look better.
However, it hardly helps your own case to use an energy flow diagram that leaves out 50% of the energy leaving the surface through convective currents. Nor does it help when you confuse heat flow with work flow (IR is both work and heat and you’re going to get thermodynamic bullshit unless you are very careful in your treatment of the subject).
Ironic that accusations about believing in a Flat Earth comes from someone who doesn’t believe in Euclid.
OK, then what accounts for the fact that for the majority of Earth history, the temp was much higher than now?
Glacials/interglacials are another question, as are the fluctuations over the Holocene.
I am not seeing any explanation for how the temp can fluctuate over time in any these arguments.
Has the solar constant been constant over long spans of time (besides for the whole faint young Sun thing)?
Thousands, millions, tens of millions of years?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
It is about total mass of atmosphere on sea level.
It looks that both Earth and Venus started with similar level of CO2 atmosphere around 100bars.
During Eons this CO2 was sequestrated by life to carbonates on Earth, Venus stayed same.
Temperature is directly proportional to mass of atmosphere above ground.
This higher atmospheric pressure allowed megafauna to fly, created coal deposits and compensated for lower sun output.
It is probably worth forgetting about the flat Earth, it is much more useful to fully understand this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc.
Real climate science is out there, it is just ignored by many. If you ignore the foolish “greenhouse effect” nonsense, it is fairly easy to prove that there is no abnormal warming. Stop pandering to the opposition, take the argument to your own scientific understanding.
This is the old 4 weak suns argument. Dividing the power radiated by the sun by 4 and expecting the result to make any sense.
We have a pig turning on a spit, cooking gloriously on a fire below. We divide the power radiated by the fire by 4, create 4 equal power sources of P/4 and place them around the pig (having removed the original source), stop the pig rotating and wait for the pig to cook.
How long will it take?
Dividing, subtracting, adding fluxes and equating them to temperatures is meaningless.
It like saying the average person has one testicle.
Are you ignoring the fact that much of the heat comes from hot air rising?
What is the speed at which the pig is turning?
Are you ignoring the end effects?
When you say “ready”? Do you mean all above a specified temperature, that it’s nice and roasted outside and the OUTSIDE is ready to eat? Or what is your definition?
What about cooking sauces?
Will you be basting the pig?
But most importantly, does the pig come with an atmosphere that redistributes the heat?
re: “Are you ignoring the fact that much of the heat comes from hot air rising?”
When did you last spend time in front of a roaring fire? We disposed of some old lumber in late 2017 and I can testify to the large amount of radiant (IR) heat coming off a “burn barrel” (let alone the fire itself) – it is ASTOUNDING the amount of thermal energy burning carbon-based “wood” can produce … but that’s not the point.
I think you wildly over-estimating the hot-air thing; open air pit =/= forced convection oven.
OK, replace the fire with an overhead grill, Mike. Replace the pig with an inanimate object, if you like. My point is still the same. 4 weak suns will not be as effective as one hot sun in raising the temperature of the object.
As Roald says: Sophistry.
leitmotif: And yet, the sunlight being intercepted by the Earth (before albedo effects) does get spread over the full sphere of the Earth. That is basic geometry. Area is important. Watts **per square meter**. Averages are useful metrics, and just because the average temperature where you live is seldom ever actually measured at any give instant, doesn’t mean the average temperature isn’t a useful metric. The average temperature in Miami is very different from that in Fairbanks, and no amount of nitpicking about the average temperature value almost never actually being measured at either location will change that fact.
Define average temperature: (max + min)/2? Something more relevant? More useful?
Average number in a telephone directory. Useful metric?
leitmotif
“Define average temperature: (max + min)/2? Something more relevant? More useful?”
Did you ever process ANY temperature series providing for TAVG, TMIN, TMAX?
Do you REALLY think that TAVG records all are the same as (TMIN+TMAX)/2 ?
Did you ever compare TAVG with (TMIN+TMAX)/2 where both are available?
My guess: the answer is ‘no’ for all three questions.
Bindidon.
My point is …. whatever?
What does an average temperature mean?
Do you use the method you like to support your argument?
Average temperatures are totally meaningless.
A lot of people get hung up on whether the 2nd law is violated. When a body emits a photon in a random direction it has no knowledge of where it is going and whether the destination is warmer or colder. An object radiates depending on its temperature. That is all there is to it.
At the quantum level you have to think about probabilities. A cold body will likely receive more photons from the adjacent hot body than the hot body will receive from the adjacent cold body.
Strictly speaking, they both receive heat from each other, but the net effect is that the heat travels from the hotter body to the colder one. The 2nd law is not violated.
Fundamental error 1:
Greenhouse theory says the atmosphere warms the earth. Since this is incorrect an entire field of bogus physics, i.e. up/down/”back” and BB LWIR, cold to hot, perpetual 100 % efficient, etc. “climate science” must be fabricated to explain how this non-existent process works.
Fundamental error 2:
Dividing ISR by 4 to average/spread it evenly over the entire spherical ToA 24/7 is really dumb.
As far as the sun cares ISR sees the earth as a flat disc where ASR = (1-α) * ISR (1,368 W/m^2)
To model the perpendicular energy distribution over the hemispherical lit side apply the following equation: ASR = ISR *(1-α) * Cos Latitude. Any engineer siting solar panels can explain why.
Reality:
The atmosphere cools the earth and Q = U A (Surface T – ToA T) explains why the surface is warmer than ToA. No GHG hocus-pocus physics needed.
It is weird how there are some people denying the GHE and come up with totally unreasonable arguments. Some would argue with the law of thermodynamics which would not allow a cold(er) atmosphere to heat a warm(er) surface, but they do obviously not understand what the GHE is supposed to be and possibly take Al Gore as a reference. Then we had this (perfect) gas equation showing that if you have pressure, density and so on you can calculate the temperature, which for some reason should falsify the GHE theory, while indeed being just tautology. And we have this “flat earth” issue..
On the other side we have a lot of critcal climatologists (or people of private interest) which take the GHE for granted. They oppose global warming, or parts of it, but are not at all critical over the GHE itself.
This is so weird from my perspective, because I can tell the GHE theory is totally wrong, it is just not for the reasons named above. And it will not require some stupid, fancy approach to come to this result, but simply careful and precise analysis. The GHE theory is not constituted by one mistake only, but quite a number of which and they all go one direction. Sorting them out will marginalize the GHE due to GHGs to about 5K or so.
I am just about putting it all together in a nice little essay that should end the global warming non sense once and for all (it is just about time I guess). Btw. if you want to contribute you will be welcome..
In the meanwhile you can have a look at this paper which deals with some of the issues with the “GHE” (there are some flaws in it and it is really just a part of the bigger story)..
https://de.scribd.com/document/369953233/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-2
Leitwolf,
The atmosphere does not warm the earth, it cools it.
That fact alone is sufficient to condemn RGHE theory to the historical dust bin of failed theories.
What more is needed?
Leitwolf,
Thank you for the very informative link.
Let Joe Postma speak for himself…
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/06/05/response-to-roy-spencer-regarding-his-support-of-flat-earth/
Well, this was an interesting read and the comments were interesting, but without “Passion” (no foul language). I cannot comment on the the whole argument of averages, but to me you use an average in simple models because the computations are complex for “real” numbers. As I understand it, the Earth is a complex chaotic model that has it’s secrets and surprises. One cannot model that. As models grow (computers becoming faster allowing more variables), we get some answers. Still, we are talking a chaotic system. Consider that the surface of the Earth is not totally flat (but flatter than a billiard ball!).
Keep conversing and improving!
By the way, foul language is not “Passion”, it is a loss of reasoning.
“Now, I find it hard to believe an actual astrophysicist could make such an elementary error.”
Not fair.
It is a bit like that 3 doors problem.
Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, “Do you want to pick door No. 2?” Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
Many readers of vos Savant’s column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991).
The surface area of a sphere is exactly four times the area of a circle with the same radius. You can see this in the area formula, since the area of a circle is πr2 and the surface area of a sphere is 4πr2
N.B. Only half the sphere or half the flat earth is getting solar irradiation at anyone time.
*** Together we may have put up an easy explanation for Roy to use.
I still have trouble with the doors!!!
I still have trouble with the doors!!!
Angech i think her explanation was the best. With the initial pick, the odds are 1 in 3. Those odds don’t go up just because a goat has been revealed in one of the other doors. (door number one still has a 1 in 3 chance of success) Switching, therefore, will give you a 2 in 3 chance of success. i’d elaborate, but my battery is dying (☹️). Maybe sometime over at Dr Curry’s…
I still have trouble with the doors!!!
Angech, i think her explanation was the best. With the initial pick, the odds are 1 in 3. Those odds don’t go up just because a goat has been revealed in one of the other doors. (door number one still has a 1 in 3 chance of success) Switching, therefore, will give you a 2 in 3 chance of success. i’d elaborate, but my battery is dying (☹️). Maybe sometime over at Dr Curry’s…
I still have trouble with the doors!!!
Angech, i think her explanation was the best. The odds of success are 1 in 3. Just because a goat is revealed in another door doesn’t mean that those odds go up. (door number one still has a 1 in 3 chance of success) Therefore, switching doors will give you a 2 in 3 chance of success. Maybe i’ll elaborate sometime over at Dr Curry’s*…
*i’m having trouble posting here and am ticked off by it, so i wanna keep this one short (😖)
>>
I still have trouble with the doors!!!
<<
The three-door version seems to cause people problems.
Try it this way:
There are a million doors. One door has a car behind it, and all the other doors have a goat behind them. You pick a door. The host then opens 999,998 doors showing only goats (which he can always do whether you picked the car or not). So there are two doors left–the one you picked and one other door. Your original pick had a 1 in a million chance of being right.
Essentially, the host has shown you where the car is. Your odds don’t change. Staying with the original door gives you a 1 in a million chance to win. Switching gives you a 999,999 in a million chance to win–the odds don’t change to fifty-fifty because there are now two doors.
You can do the same thing with fewer doors, say 1,000, then 100, and 10. In each case you should see that it improves your odds to switch. Finally, with three doors, it’s the same problem. Your first pick is 1 out of three. Switching gives you a 2 out of three chance to win–not fifty-fifty as many think.
Jim
I still have trouble with the doors!!!
I show you Ace, Jack, Jack; I mix them up and you pick one to hold (no looking). I look at the other cards, show you a Jack, tear it up & through it away. I then let you chose from the remaining two cards try to get the single Ace. Do you keep your original or switch.
Then I do it a little different; I show you Ace, Jack, Jack. I mix them up and you pick one to hold (no looking). I don’t look at the two cards this time, but I remind you that at least one of the remaining two cards is a Jack (which you already should know unless you are an Ocasio voter), and I put the remaining two cards on the table. I tell you that I could look & tear up the remaining Jack in the two card stack for appearance sake, but I won’t do it this time.
Now you can pick from the two cards on the table or keep the one you have. Do you pick the two or keep the single?
Do you pick the two or keep the single?
You can pick any of the three, as odds without extra information is still only 1 in 3.
It is only when you actually tear up the jack, from the table, that you have extra information that changes the odds and makes it wise to switch.
Change the terms.
Show the card in your hand is a jack.
Do you switch or stay with the jack?
Obviously the card is on the table . Still only 50/50 but you would switch.
If you were then shown a jack on the table you would know the other was the car.
So 2 out of three times the car is on the table .
1 in 3 the car is in your hand.
So when you remove one jack from the table the car is still 2 out of 3 times likely to be on the table compared to 1 in 3 in your hand.
Ie switch to table as double the odds when you remove one of the unknowns.
You had a 2/3rd chance you were wrong.
But if you know the game host is going to show you the goat.
Therefore, if wait for host to show you the goat, then you have a 1/2 chance of being wrong
if you pick again.
Or by discarding your first pick, you gain a 1/3rd chance of winning.
Though it depend if the host will always show the door with the goat and always
give you chance to make another choice.
If that the case, one can ask, do want 2/3rd chance you are wrong or 1/2 chance you are
wrong.
And if don’t change our choice you will always have 2/3rd chance to lose.
So look at as being your first choice didn’t matter, and always going to wait to get
the 1/2 chance of winning.
Or game host is going to have two goats or goat and a car. 50% chance of either.
Picking the one discarded gives 50% of winning, which is better 33% chance of winning.
Or host always has 2/3rd chance to get the car, you always have 1/3rd chance to get car,
by trading with host you get his odds.
I guess last is best way to say it.
Here’s essentially the same question applied to the ocean:
Is this the daily average depth of solar penetration into the ocean or is it the daily peak solar input?
Did the 99.99% absorbed solar energy depth as shown result exclusively from daytime clear sky peak solar irradiance or is it from the 24-hr average that includes zero nighttime solar penetration?
Obviously, for all practical purposes, the sun’s ocean penetration depth is driven by daytime sunshine, when solar insolation is at its highest peak, not from the daily average insolation value that includes nighttime darkness.
Also, the daily tropical evaporation cycle responds to daytime sunshine, instantaneous solar insolation, not the daily average value.
So it comes down to what you’re trying to figure out whether to use peak or average insolation.
Bob Weber
A lot of people with technical backgrounds read and comment on this blog. From the insistence on using averages, it would seem that most of them have forgotten whatever calculus they may have learned as undergraduates!
Here is my video response:
I will do another follow-up today I think to address one of the central comments made in the OP here, which will help clarify things.
[Thank you for the courtesy of your reply here. .mod]