From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
The brilliant Colin Brazier returns for our second short film on the cult of Net Zero and how it protects ‘green’ policies from being questioned by stifling debate and cracking down on free speech.
Kewl! V for Veritas.
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth outer space is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate LoT. Refer to TFK_bams09.
Solar balance 1: 160 in = 17 + 80 + 63 out. Balance complete.
Calculated balance 2: 396 S-B BB at 16 C / 333 “back” radiation cold to warm w/o work violates Lot 2. 63 LWIR net duplicates balance 1 violating GAAP.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible. By definition all energy entering and leaving a BB must do so by radiation. Entering: 30% albedo = not BB. OLR: 17sensible & 80 latent = not BB. TFK_bams09: 97 out of 160 leave by kinetic processes, 63 by LWIR = not BB.
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others.
There are so many things wrong with that graphic and not just the items you point out, that it is essentially a cartoon spoofing reality.
The central problem with this graphic and numerous clones is that it creates a duplicate/extraneous balance loop by treating the surface as a black body upwelling 396 W/m^2 at 16 C, 289 K.
Not possible.
This number is a calculation for the denominator of the emissivity ratio: 63/396 = 0.16.
If this graphic fails so does RGHE and all of the man caused climate terrors stacked on top of it.
The biggest ‘problem with this graphic and numerous clones’ is that it treats atmospheric gases as a black body back-radiating 333 W/m^2 towards the Earth’s surface.
First of all, thermal radiation is an electromagnetic property of condensed matter, hence gases, at least on this planet, can not be modeled as black bodies, meaning they do not exhibit the thermal radiative properties promulgated by the likes of Planck, Wien, Kirchoff, etc.
Second, even assuming the above wasn’t true, so-called ‘back radiation’ has never been measured because no instrument capable of doing so actually exists:
“Unfortunately, none of the instruments that have ever been used in the disciplines of atmospheric radiation and remote sensing can, strictly speaking, be considered a Poynting-meter. Despite the wide variety of specific designs and the alleged ability to quantify the electro-magnetic energy flow, the actual physical nature of the measurements afforded by these instruments has remained poorly understood and has rarely been formulated in the context of advanced theories of light–matter interactions. Furthermore, it is hardly recognized that the physical meaning of the signal generated by these instruments depends critically on the very nature of the electromagnetic field transporting radiative energy and hence on the object creating the electromagnetic field.”
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140016779/downloads/20140016779.pdf
Another of the phrases I object to is “thermal radiation.”
That expression was created so the conflation of thermal energy and EM (IR) was overlooked. IR is not heat, but the expression allows it to be assumed.
I know what it is supposed to convey, that the temperature of a surface defines the BB radiation (EM) flux or power density. The EM radiation intensity falls as 1/R^2.
Thermal radiation is thermal energy (not EM energy) radiating from a source, intensity falls as 1/R^3. Why 1/R^? because it is kinetic interactions of molecules and all the molecules in the spherical volume are involved.
I am a purist. Control the language, control the ideas. I do not like control of either.
I would heartily agree with you that ‘IR is not heat’, but would maintain that ‘[t]hermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted by the thermal motion of particles in [condensed] matter’.
The second quote is a snippet from Wikipedia’s (please forgive me) entry for thermal radiation, to which I’ve added the word ‘condensed’. I do this because the real ‘conflation’ that has taken place in the literature over time has been to replace terms like ‘bodies’ and ‘surfaces’, which obviously exclude gases, with ‘matter’, which does include gases.
Not to be too paranoid, but I’m willing to bet that this subtle change in the definition has occurred because it was very, very convenient for our friends in the climate community.
My model of it.
And IR heats stuff.
Heat is kinetic energy of stuff. Thank you Carnot, Joule, Kelvin, etc.
EMR contacts stuff and converts to KE.
ISR creates KE of 400 K.
Unfortunately, your model fails to take into account EM Fields and Waves and how they interact with matter. My time in radar was quite an education.
While it is possible that the EM emitted is due to thermal motion of the molecules, that has not been established. The original Black Body hypothesis asserted that “quantum wells” was the source.
Having done a bit of work in acoustics and radar, I can offer another possibility. The gaps between molecules (or atoms) resonate due to molecular (or atom) motion.
What is difficult to reconcile with each of those possibilities is that a single point on a black body surface in the ideal model radiates all frequencies.
You are correct on a very salient point. BB radiation requires a surface and gases do not meet that criterion. Water has a skin effect that does.
I also contend that the makeup on the matter in the surface influences the spectrum emitted. No proof. Granite and asphalt at the same temperature would have different spectra. I have yet to find anything about this.
‘I also contend that the makeup on the matter in the surface influences the spectrum emitted.’
I would agree with that, if only because the arrangement of the dipoles would be different, hence different electromagnetic responses?
The 396 calculation comes first.
63 is copied/duplicated from the solar balance.
That leaves 333 that can’t continue OLR and must “back” radiate.
The 396/333/63 imaginary loop can be erased from the graphic balance without adverse effect.
Bickering over its thermal properties is pointless and silly.
You have to belive for it to have any meaning at all? At best ideobabble Alchemy? ?
Let’s get this thread out of the esoteric weeds and back on topic.
RGHE says without it Earth would be 33 C cooler, a -18 C ice ball.
That’s just flat wrong.
RGHE requires the surface to upwell as a BB.
That, too, is just flat wrong.
No BB & no ice ball = no RGHE & no CAGW.
All the rest is moot.
The 333w-m2 isn’t back radiation. It’s the build up of heat in the stratosphere, when the surface is dry and emissivity is close to 1 (covered by thick ice sheets) and sunlight is shining 24 hrs. The stratosphere heats up by 2-5w-m2 per day during early part of the summer. Up to 260w-m2. Negate the coolest part of the stratosphere, you get 161w-m2. Now this solar UV is absorbed by ozone. Both solar from the sun (absorbed by the surface) and solar UV absorbed by ozone plus 11 w-m2 (68-78w-m2) equals 333w-m2. Some EEB has 342w-m2 (163+163+ 16w-m2 (61w-m2 IR – 77w-m2 Atmosphere)).
If theycan get you to reject reason, they can get you to reject reality. If you reject reality, they can get you to belive whatever they want, at which point you will put money in the hat.This is probably based on Hermeticism, or Hermetism? Hegel’s ideobabble is the basis of Marxism and Fascism
The Net Zero cult centres around a shared devotion to an ideology. This group often requires intense devotion and loyalty and uses manipulation and control to enforce and maintain power.
Get an EV, heat pump etc or else
Sounds like the Catholic Church. The climate cult does have its priests, missionaries, holy ones, and the equivalent of the Jesuits as enforcers. And its vigorous defenders who visit here occasionally. 🙂
A cult is a cult; eg transubstantiation – with a bit of cannibalism.
‘Sounds like the Catholic Church.’
I’ll bite. Do you have any relatively recent observations to support your premise that ‘[t]his group often requires intense devotion and loyalty and uses manipulation and control to enforce and maintain power’?
Just watch the video.
I did. I must have missed the reference to ‘the Catholic Church’ or Christianity in general. Can you provide a time stamp?
pay attention- my reference to The Church is called “an analogy”
You pay attention. Analogies don’t work if one of the comparators, ‘The Church’ in this case, doesn’t share the malicious properties of your other comparator, ‘the climate cult’.
Not saying it does now- but it has a long history that some scholars are critical of. Criticizing the church is not criticizing the essence of Christianity. I’d go further into this topic but it’s inappropriate for this site.
To me it sounds like judaism and Islam too.
Remember how religions over time attributed things they did not understand to the preferred diety?
Makes “Attribution Science” merely a religious process.
good point
Consensus = superstition.
Good point.
Well done. Let’s see how far it gets before banning in the UK.
Awesome. I’m sending the YouTube link to the Net Zero nuts, the burros, the enviros and others here in Wokeachusetts. 🙂
It’s quite fitting that Colin Brazier chose one of the West’s most elite universities as a back-drop to his excellent video. Let’s make no mistake, during the early 1960’s, when socialism was clearly seen to be failing everywhere in the world, it retained a critical core of disciples in academia under the aegis of ‘post-modernism’. By ignoring logic and objective reality, these academics were not only able to overlook the abject failures of Marxism, but also expand its confrontational tenets far beyond ‘class’ to race, gender, culture, etc. It’s ironic that while the early universities may have saved Western knowledge and culture during the Dark Ages, their modern counterparts have been actively eroding its foundations over the past 60 years, or so.
“Postmodernism is a late-20th-century intellectual, cultural, and artistic movement characterized by broad skepticism, irony, and a rejection of “grand narratives” or universal truths. It emerged as a reaction against modernism, challenging objective reality, authority, and structuralism by emphasizing subjectivism, fragmentation, and the social construction of knowledge.”
No commentary, just I end up looking up words and think others might do the same. Time saver.
Maybe 60 years is when we can identify definite impacts, but the roots go back 100+ years.
‘…but the roots go back 100+ years.’
You’re correct in that the ‘Frankfurt School’ got underway in 1920’s Germany. For obvious reasons, it was subsequently scattered to the four winds by the Nazis, with the result that many of its leading lights ended up
infectingestablishing outposts in US universities. But as you noted, they, and their neo-Marxist descendants, really didn’t start popping out of the woodwork until the 1960’s.We had eugenics (proposals and studies) in the US in the 1920s.
The earliest identified socialist professor in the US was in a CA university in the early 1960s. That ties in with the 60 years.
‘We had eugenics (proposals and studies) in the US in the 1920s.’
Ah yes, our delightful Progressives.
‘The earliest identified socialist professor in the US was in a CA university in the early 1960s. That ties in with the 60 years.’
The ’60’s sounds a bit late given that Herbert Marcuse emigrated to the US in 1934 and began formally teaching at Columbia, Harvard, etc. following WWII. There are a lot of flavors of ‘socialism’, and while Marcuse may have been critical of Soviet Communism, there’s no doubt re. his affinity towards Marxism and his role in the New Left.
100 years later, eugenics is thriving in politics, academia, the arts and pop culture – abortion, infanticide, euthanasia (or it’s politically correct “assisted suicide” or “death with dignity”), child mutilation. All accepted, promoted and even demanded by governments, academia, “science,” medicine and the arts.
This is not a safe time for designated organ donors.
Story tip: True Cost of Net Zero
Between 2004 and 2015, the population jumped by nearly 20,000 and local businesses flourished.
The picture is starkly different today. – Aberdeen
Our Democrats have a penchant for ruining cities, too. At least the denizens of Aberdeen have so far refrained from burning the place down.
STORY TIP
DOE secretary Chris Wright unloads on Europeans at an IEA conference in Paris over Europe’s green energy/Net Zero agenda rooted in climate alarmism:
Energy Secretary Chris Wright blasts European leaders over green agenda | Fox News
“Energy Secretary Chris Wright blasted European leaders in Paris on Tuesday, accusing the International Energy Agency of pushing “net zero” policies divorced from reality and warning the continent to abandon its green agenda or face economic catastrophe.”
Kudos to him. The UK and Europe ignore him at their own peril. They can’t say they were never warned.
Also from the Fox News article…
“Energy secretary tells International Energy Agency that net zero policies have resulted in $10T spending for just 2.6% renewable energy addition to global grid.”
Ten trillion for such as small percentage of global electricity production. I have trouble wrapping my head around that because it is so insanely irrational.
Very nice, we need lots more like this.
GREAT
All religions are manmade constructs that first enforce an individual’s spirituality and then usurp it for the enrichment and power of their leadership. The religion of Secular Socialism, whose deity is the government, is no different. The theocracy of the government in DC is comprised of 4 main denominations; the Churches of Warming, Racism, Feminism and Sexual Dysphoria that are constantly sermonized by the propaganda media.