In his April 9 address to the Heartland Climate Conference, physicist John Clauser devoted the first quarter of his time to the issue of extreme weather events, and the remainder to something called the Earth’s Energy Imbalance, or EEI. On April 10, I summarized the portion of the presentation relating to extreme weather events in my prior post here. Today I will discuss Clauser’s presentation on EEI.
Before hearing Clauser’s presentation, I had heard of the EEI metric, but I had not studied it in depth. Nor had I realized the extent to which the IPCC and the climate cabal have embraced this metric as providing the preferred proof of impending dangerous global warming.
The metric that has previously been most used as the supposed proof of dangerous atmospheric warming generally goes by the name Global Average Surface Temperature, or GAST. Multiple entities put out non-identical versions of GAST. The big three entities that report GAST data are NOAA and NASA in the U.S., and the Hadley Center in the UK. To calculate some version of GAST, these organizations identify a collection of surface thermometer monitoring stations around the world, and obtain the readings from each of those stations on a daily basis. Typically, they average the high and low temperatures at each station to obtain a daily average for that station, and then average all the daily averages to obtain a monthly average for each station. Then they average the monthly averages for all the stations to obtain a world-wide average for each month. The number is typically reported not as an absolute temperature, but rather as an “anomaly,” that is, a deviation from some baseline. Each of the reporting entities has a different collection of stations and a different method for calculating the baseline.
The GAST methodology is how NASA and NOAA create their monthly charts showing a sharply rising world temperature trend. This is the methodology used by Mann, et al., to create the rapidly-rising “blade” of their famous Hockey Stick graph. And it is one of the three “lines of evidence” by which EPA claimed to find CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” to be a “danger to human health and welfare” in the 2009 Endangerment Finding (recently rescinded by the Trump administration).
But do the GAST graphs really prove that some kind of “average” temperature of the earth is rising, let alone that it will continue to rise in the future? There are big problems with using GAST as a measure of global average temperature, many of which Clauser pointed out:
- Temperature is what is called an “intensive” parameter, not legitimately addable, and therefore not subject to averaging.
- Many of the ground thermometers in the GAST networks are near buildings, parking lots, airports and the like, that can bias their readings with “urban heat island” effects.
- Many sites in the GAST networks have been abandoned over the years, leading to efforts to in-fill missing data by algorithms.
- There are not nearly enough thermometers in the GAST networks to constitute a sufficient sample for statistical purposes.
- Vast areas of the world have no or almost no data for large portions of the record, e.g., Southern Hemisphere oceans, and again data have been created (rather than measured) and in-filled by algorithms.
- The methods for determining the baselines for the “anomalies” are poorly defined and inconsistent among reporting entities..
The deficiencies in the GAST data, and particularly the in-filling (fabrication) of missing data, were a main basis for the Petition for Reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding that I pursued with colleagues during the Trump 45 and Biden administrations.
Clauser described a process by which the IPCC has gradually moved away from relying on GAST as its proof of global warming. The change occurred between IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (2013) and its Sixth Assessment Report (2021). From Clauser’s slides:
The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report AR5 (2013) reports include a graph versus time of “temperature anomaly”. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report AR6 (2021) now relies on values for the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI).
Most recently, on March 23, 2026 (in case you were paying attention), UN Secretary General Antonia Guterres declared a “world climate emergency.” The alleged basis for the “emergency” was said to be the EEI, as presented in a Report by the World Meteorological Organization:
The [WMO] Report confirms that the Earth’s energy imbalance – the gap between heat absorbed and heat released – is the highest on record. In other words, our planet is trapping heat faster than it can shed it.
Granted, the EEI metric, if it can be observed with sufficient accuracy, offers tremendous advantages over GAST as an indicator of global warming (if that is in fact occurring). It avoids the problem of averaging non-averageable data; it avoids the expense of thousands of stations (and ocean-based buoys) around the world; it avoids problems of station continuity, instrument changes, and location changes. Theoretically, it could just be measured by some satellites. And, if satellite measurements can show heat building up in the atmosphere, that can provide a basis for prediction of ongoing warming.
It seemed like such a great idea. Unfortunately, Clauser shows in great detail why the whole project has been a bust. Satellites got launched at substantial expense, originally in 1985. A second generation, known as the Terra and Aqua satellites, went up in 1999 and 2002. Unfortunately, the satellites have proven to have insufficient accuracy and gaps in their measurement abilities that make it impossible to determine if there is any “energy imbalance” at all, and if so, how much.
The basic problem is that the amounts of energy coming in from the sun, and then departing back into space, are large; but the difference (if any) between the two, representing a possible build-up of energy in the atmosphere or oceans, is small. The IPCC gives a figure of the incoming radiation from the sun of 340 watts/square meter. The claimed EEI is 0.7 watts/square meter, which is only about 0.2% of the overall energy flux. This figure, appearing on Clauser’s Slide 27, is from the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report:
The numbers across the top show the incoming radiation from the sun of 340 w/sq.m. and outgoing of 100 w/sq.m. of short wave reflected solar radiation and 239 w/sq.m. of infrared radiation. The total of those two is 339. If you look in the lower left hand corner, you will see a figure of 0.7 w/sq.m. as the “imbalance.” That’s not exactly the difference between 340 and 339, but apparently they think it’s OK to do some random rounding of some figures but not others.
From Clauser’s Slide 34:
[P]ower-IN and power-OUT are both huge numbers, and . . . the difference between them is minuscule – about 0.2% of power-IN. That minuscule difference is the net imbalance that is sought, both experimentally and theoretically. A second difficulty occurs when power-IN and power-OUT are both hugely varying, both in time and in space, in a seemingly random and totally irreproducible fashion. Measurement and calculation errors (including round-off errors) of any of the three large component powers readily swamp the resulting error of the very small power difference. Extreme absolute measurement accuracy is thus required.
But do the satellites actually have the ability to measure the incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) with sufficient accuracy to be confident that this small 0.7 w/sq.m. difference is real? Clauser has multiple quotes from the literature admitting that the measurement accuracy is not nearly adequate. Here are two quotes from Clauser Slide 33:
Loeb et al. (2012, p.111) admit, ”… A limitation of the satellite data is their inability to provide an absolute measure of the net TOA radiation imbalance to the required accuracy level. … .” Stephens et al. (2012) admit “… The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ± 4 W/m2 (95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors. …”
If your margin of error is +/- 4 w/sq.m. and you have measured an “imbalance” of 0.7 w/sq.m., then obviously that imbalance is not significantly different from zero. Honest scientists would admit that. Unfortunately, that is not the way of climate “science.”
Clauser’s slides go into great detail on the nature of the problem. Apparently, the portion of the outgoing radiation that constitutes reflected solar radiation gets widely scattered and comes from many random directions; and the satellite instrumentation is not sufficient to capture all of it. From Clauser Slide 37:
The field-of-view [of the satellite instruments] is not at all panoramic. As a result, scattered and/or reflected [outgoing] energy that arrived from angular directions from above and below the narrow angular acceptance ribbon [is] missed. . . . The result was a too-low reported [figure for outgoing reflected solar energy], and a corresponding very-much too-high reported EEI value (6.5 W/m2).
So the actual measured EEI from the satellites was 6.5 w/sq.m., but everyone recognized that that figure was impossible and would imply much more warming than observed. How to deal with the problem? Clauser quotes a 2011 paper from the famous James Hansen of NASA:
Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al. 2009). …
When the data are clearly wrong, you just use your favorite model to modify the data until they fit your preferred theory. And with that I’m only up to Slide 39 of Clauser’s 124 slides.
The story goes on and on from there. The climate “science” community was not willing to admit that they had no means to measure EEI to prove a build up of heat in the atmosphere and oceans. Hansen and others proposed using separately-measured changes in Ocean Heat Content (OHC) to fill the gaps in the satellite data, and extensive efforts have been made to do that. But the OHC metrics are filled with their own measurement problems, many of them comparable to the problems of measuring average atmospheric temperature via GAST: the measurement is done by buoys in the ocean, rather than satellites at TOA; there are not nearly enough buoys; they do not measure heat at TOA, and thus are not comparable to the satellite energy flux measurements; the buoys sink down and rise back up, but their location is only known when they surface; the process of converting temperature measurements to heat content is dubious; there is no coverage at all of the polar regions; and so on and on.
Clauser goes into great detail about how some combination of badly flawed satellite data and badly flawed OHC data get reverse-engineered to back into a pre-determined figure of about 0.7 or 0.8 w/sq.m. as the EEI. He includes several accusations of scientific misconduct, and uses the word “fraud” liberally.
But the gist is, the accuracy of the measurements is not sufficient to claim an EEI that is meaningfully different from zero. With regard to EEI, the answer to the question “What Is The Proof?” is that there is no proof.
This graphic is garbage.
Tgere are many ways to criticize the graphic. Which do you mean?
The 342 W/m2 of down energy is mostly from clouds and very little from CO2, but the image shows as if it all comes from CO2, which is a fake news falsification.
ISR = 1,368 discular.
Divide by 4 to average over spherical ToA = 342.
That is its origin!!
And a dumb thang to do.
Another dumb thang is averaging albedo. Don’t know how they ever got away with that.
I was going to make a comment on that but didn’t.
Averages in a dynamic system are never going to resolve anything. The insistence on arithmetic averages just can’t be justified. There is a reason calculus and differential equations were required in college when dealing with dynamic systems.
When was the last time you saw a study mention time series analysis processes
especially since the albedo in the tropics is maximum when the solar insolation is at its maximum. This means that the incident radiation gets a double whammy and using 1368 and divide by 4 gets even more antiphysical.
“especially since the albedo in the tropics is maximum when the solar insolation is at its maximum.”
Not quite correct.
In the tropics, solar insolation (at TOA) is maximum within about +/- one hour of local noon. However maximum cloud formation resulting from solar-heating-forced evaporation from open water and land vegetation surfaces occurs generally in the early to late afternoon, about 2-6 pm local time.
There is thermal inertia “built in” to Earth’s hydrological cycle.
Addition:
Clouds have vastly more water vapor molecules than CO2 molecules, so any down energy is mostly from clouds.
There is a scarcity of 15 micrometer photons at 6000 ft, due to low temps, that could be absorbed by CO2 molecules, whereas the plentiful water vapor molecules have many absorption windows which can absorb photons with different wavelengths.
Regarding plane contrails, they contain at least 100,000 sub-micron combustion particles, and hugely more combustion water vapor molecules for each CO2 molecule. The water vapor becomes visible by freezing on the combustion particles.
Decades of air travel has enveloped the world with an increasingly denser haze, which affects weather and climate.
I agree, my comment about airplane contrails is incorrect.
The rest is correct.
In normal cruise flight at approximately 35,000 feet, the exhaust from a jet engine typically contains between 𝟓.9 x 10^22 molecules/m3 and 1.9 x 10^23 molecules/m3 of CO2 and about 9.9 x 10^22 molecules of H2O, and about 10^11 to 10^12 particles/m3, i.e., there are about 10^10 molecules per particle.
The water vapor becomes visible by freezing on the combustion particles.
Decades of air travel has enveloped the world with an increasingly denser haze, which affects weather and climate.
If cloud bases were at 0C and covered 65% of the sky…they would account for 205 of the 342…CO2 if totally removed would only make 23 watts difference, and if doubled only add 4 watts….so your point is quite valid.
Thank you.
I think the 342 appears to be excessive, unless other physical factors, not identified, are active.
Did you look at the attachment??
Here’s TFK_bams09.
I read the attachment, I did not understand the markups were your own criticism. I agree in that case. There are numerous other problems to poke at.
I’d add that all the numbers are snapshots of time varying quantities. I criticize every article that attempts to define (any-kind-of) time varying Earth quantity using the short-relative-to-Earth-age data sets.
Ive seen almost 20k days, which I think has given me good evidence to claim tomorrow should have a sunrise and a sunset. Any process that takes more than a decade to happen, like an ice age or CO2 heating, is in some other category.You have to trust a proxy, then trust the person that studied the proxy, then assume the proxy-derived trend has an explanation…
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth outer space is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. 288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler -18 C Earth is just flat wrong. Dividing 1,368 by 4 to average 342 over Spherical ToA is wrong.
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. As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others.
When GHE fails the entire CAGW house of cards implodes like the Titan submersible.
Still getting more negatives than positives for pointing out a fundamental error that is perpetuated through climate fiisics.
“temperature of outer space is 394 K”….wrong
“ Average TOA 1368 /4 is wrong”…wrong
”back radiation violates second law of Thermo”…doesn’t violate when you use the correct equation.
”Surface BB impossible”….well BB is 97% correct…
So how many points does Nicholas need to have incorrect before we downvote him ?
In fact where do you feel he has pointed out a fundamental error?….because all I see is a fundamental lack of ability to calculate radiative heat transfer through an boundary.
“back radiation […] doesn’t violate [2nd Law] when you use the correct equation.”
Really? What’s the “correct equation”, DMac? And why is it “correct”? Can you even tell us what the Second Law actually says? Your fellow misinformed engineer MarkW couldn’t. Is that a little bit embarrassing for all of you engineers? It should be.
2nd law….spontaneous flow of heat is from hot to cold, and is not perfectly efficient thus causing the entropy of the universe to increase.
All you need to know about the correct equation is that it is that the
EMR= K x [Thot^4 – Tcold^4]
EMR is not HEAT until absorbed, and the minusT^4 part is the “back radiation” part that you and Schroeder have cognitive issues with, and the net flow of EMR is always from Thot to Tcold in that equation.
“2nd law….spontaneous flow of heat is from hot to cold,”
So how do you get the “flow of heat” from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface? That would explicitly violate this law you correctly described for us. Also, if you could help me teach MarkW this definition, that would be productive too. He refuses to grasp it.
“EMR= K x [Thot^4 – Tcold^4]”
A useful equation, yes. And it says nothing about “back radiation”. In fact it explicitly says that there is no such thing. This equation tells us that, again, energy only “flows” from a hotter object to a colder one.
“EMR is not HEAT until absorbed”
What do you think “absorbed” means? What do you think “heat” means? And what is EMR before it is “absorbed”?
“the minusT^4 part is the “back radiation””
Who told you that? It certainly wasn’t a physicist. Can you measure that for us, please? So we know you aren’t just hallucinating?
“cognitive issues”
But we aren’t the ones who are hallucinating, are we? I would say that someone around here definitely has cognitive issues, though.
“net flow”
Who told you that phrase? That didn’t come from a physicist either. Can you define “gross flow [power]” for us, please, from the textbook? In a measurable way? Thanks.
“Can you define “gross flow [power]” for us, please, from the textbook? In a measurable way?”
OK, let’s see:
***********************************************
DIE MECHANISCHE WÄRMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS (1887)
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTÄNDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
*
Therein we can read (translated into English using Google)
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect
…
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
” What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one. ”
********************
Heat cannot flow by itself from a colder body into a warmer body.
The words “by itself”, occurring in here, which are used for shortness, still require, in order to be perfectly understandable, an explanation, which I have given in my treatises at various places. First, they are supposed to express that, by conduction and radiation, heat can never accumulate in the warmer body at the expense of the colder one. … Moreover, the statement shall also refer to such processes as are composed of several different processes, such as, for example, cyclic processes. …
Indeed by such a process (…) heat can be transferred from a colder into a warmer body, either an opposite heat transfer from a warmer into a colder body must occur, or any other change must take place, the peculiarity of which is that it cannot be reversed without giving rise, directly or indirectly, to another such opposite heat transfer. This simultaneously occurring opposite heat transfer, or the other change, which results in such an opposite heat transfer, is then to be considered as a compensation for that heat transfer from the colder to the warmer body, and by application of this terminology one may replace the words “by itself” with the words “without compensation”.
*************************************
From Max Planck, “The Theory of Heat Radiation”, 2nd Edition 1913, Authorized translation by Morton Masius, 1914
Chapter 1, Page 1, General Introduction
“The state of the radiation at a given instant and at a given point of the medium cannot be represented, as can the flow of heat by conduction, by a single vector (that is, a single directed quantity). All heat rays which at a given instant pass through the same point of the medium are perfectly independent of one another, and in order to specify completely the state of the radiation the intensity of radiation must be known in all the directions, infinite in number, which pas through the point in question; for this purpose two opposite directions must be considered as distinct, because the radiation in one of them is quite independent of the radiation in the other.”
Chapter 1, Page 6, General Introduction
“But the empirical law that the emission of any volume element depends entirely on what takes place in the element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle). A body A at 100◦C emits toward a body B at 0◦C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward and equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000◦C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.
Clausius and Planck, what idiots!
1887, Ed? Can you try something from the 20th century, at least?
Please define “gross power” from a physics textbook that you would find in a classroom today. Go ahead and do that now.
“The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter [of energy] than A.”
This does not contradict anything I wrote. It does contradict DMacKenzie’s unmeasurable claim, though.
Since it doesn’t look like you have any intention of defending yourself, I should probably also point out that nowhere in your quotes does the phrase “gross power” appear at all. So I have to wonder how you thought you were actually responding to my question in any way. Is your reading comprehension really that poor?
Here’s a hint: your answer should be of the form “Gross power is defined as [X]”. And since I didn’t include any references to EM radiation in my question, there should be none in the answer either. It is a general physics question.
“cyclic processes”
Yeah, no one has ever observed any such thing in the realm of “heat transfer”, or indeed any other kind of physics “work”. I certainly haven’t. Have you? The Second Law, of course, has something to say about this idea. It says that it’s statistically impossible, which is what we indeed observe.
“heat can be transferred from a colder into a warmer body”
No it can’t. Show me.
“compensation for that heat transfer”
Well, having written this bit of baloney, yes, he obviously is an idiot. What “compensation”? Physics doesn’t work like that, and he hasn’t done the slightest bit of experimentation to show that it does. Sit down, Clausius. And Ed, you sit down too. Oh, I see that you already have. Excellent.
steve – Some of us have lives that extend beyond hurling ignorant insults on the internet. So forgive me if I do not respond instantaneously.
I provided detailed quotes from two of the most eminent physicists of all time, who made some of the most important contributions to this area of science. They are both very clearly describing what we call gross and net power transfers, even they do not use those specific words.
My copy of Planck’s book was used as the text for a graduate school course in the second half of the 20th century. It was written well after the work of Maxwell and even Poynting. I am completely unaware of any recent scientific update that says that Planck, or Clausius for that matter, got it wrong. Can you point me to anything that says it is?
It took me just a few minutes to find this page from a present MIT physics (not engineering) course.
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
It is very clearly discussing gross and net flows between two objects. It even uses the word “net”. I note with amusement that on a recent post, you discussed this same problem (the heat transfer between parallel planes of emissivities less than 1, and got the math significantly wrong. If you study the analysis on this page, you might learn something.
In the section I quoted from Planck, he said “A body A at 100◦C emits toward a body B at 0◦C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward and equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000◦C.” This is in direct contradiction to your arguments, but you claim that there is no contradiction.
And we see that stevekj claims that Clausius “obviously is an idiot”. Noted for future reference…
Ed,
Am wondering if you could explain why the example of two parallel plates that you cited, above, is relevant to the issue of so-called ‘back radiation’ that stevekj and DMacKenzie were discussing above.
I understand that the plates, which consist of condensed matter, adhere to Planck’s, as well as other laws applicable to thermal radiation, but don’t believe that extrapolating this behavior to atmospheric gases is appropriate.
Excellent questions Frank, and ones that usually don’t get enough attention in explanations of the science.
When we consider thermal radiation emitted from solid plates, this radiation comes from the very thin surface layer of the plate – think in terms of a few atoms. The same is true for liquid surfaces, like water.
However, when we are talking about gases that do absorb and emit some thermal radiation, the depth of the “radiative surface” can be very great – meters or even kilometers thick. Still, in many cases, a first-cut, or at least a conceptual, analysis can consider it to act like a solid surface well above the earth’s solid/liquid surface.
For example, many years ago, when I first studied heat transfer, I learned a rule of thumb that a clear night sky in temperate latitudes could be treated for purposes of radiative transfer with the earth’s surface as a solid shell with an “effective blackbody temperature” of -20C (253K).
Another issue is that while most solid and liquid objects emit “broadband” radiation whose intensity as a function of wavelength or frequency is very similar to that of an idealized “blackbody” radiator, but with somewhat less intensity, the emission from gases has a very differnt profile.
Many people misinterpret this to mean that gases do not emit thermal radiation. WRONG! It’s just that gas molecules are not in contact with other gas molecules for the overwhelming majority of the time, so their emissions are overwhelmingly limited to wavelengths corresponding to their natural frequencies of oscillation of the individual molecules. In spectroscopy, these are called “lines” of emission.
For most solid and liquid substances, the molecules are always in close contact with other molecules in complex manners, so there are many, many possible wavelengths/ frequencies that can be, and are, emitted.
But even for the “narrowband” emissions of gases, these are thermal emissions of radiation that do increase with temperature. And even with “isotropic” (equal in all directions) emissiton, about half of that emission has a downward component. And this downward component does exist, even if it is directed toward a warmer surface.
I hope this helps.
Ed,
Thanks for the considered response. As you’ve correctly noted, there are significant differences between the radiative properties of condensed matter (solids and liquids) and gases.
These differences, in addition to the fact that collisions between GHGs and non-GHG species markedly limit the ability of the former to spontaneously emit ‘photons’ (another ill-conceived concept) in the lower troposphere, have caused many persons, including some well-known physicists, to question the basic premise that radiative transfer, rather than convection, predominates in tropospheric energy transport.
Since you are obviously well versed on these matters, I’d be pleased if you would take a gander at the following ‘treatise’, which I find compelling, and provide any feedback that you might have on its merits or flaws. Thanks.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Shula_Ott_Collaboration_Rev_5_Multipart_For_Wuwt_16jul2024.pdf
I can’t find the web site that had a little different solution, but somewhat the same concept.
Because of density, there is little radiation from the near surface. Conduction+thermalization at the near surface results in convection. Density decreases in altitude and thermalization also reduces and that allows more spontaneous radiation to occur.
The website used gradients to define the various processes.
The upshot was that surface temperature drives the atmosphere’s temperature. A second conclusion was that the lapse rate controls the energy available for radiation at altitude. Where did a lot of energy go? Work against gravity slows the kinetic energy of molecules.
Yes, the basic idea is that spontaneous emission to space (outside of the atmospheric window) is effectively suppressed near the surface but becomes continually more prevalent as convecting air parcels rise higher in the troposphere.
Even at that point, Will Happer noted in one of his essays that CO2 doesn’t spontaneously emit to space at 15 microns below an altitude of 84 km, which is near the top of the mesosphere. Hence, the alarmist narrative that we’re being fried alive by ‘back radiation’ from atmospheric CO2 is entirely specious.
Exactly.
“most eminent physicists [150 years ago]”
No they aren’t. Well, Planck more so than Clausius, for sure, at least. But Planck didn’t write “compensating”. And physics has advanced quite a lot in the last 150 years. I guess you missed that.
“text for a graduate school course in the second half of the 20th century”
Yes, but it doesn’t define the phrase “gross power”, does it? You still haven’t answered my question, I note. Can you do that, please?
“very clearly describing what we call gross and net power”
Clausius didn’t use the word “gross”, he used the word “compensating”, but he had no idea what it meant. You can tell because he didn’t define it for us. Like a real scientist would have. Planck is less obviously wrong, and didn’t use the words “net” or “gross” or “compensating”, but he used the word “heat rays”, which isn’t how physicists describe EM radiation any more, because it’s misleading. Both of those two pioneers were hallucinating. Stumbling around in the dark. They didn’t know any better, because no one did at the time. You can’t use that excuse, though.
“Clausius for that matter, got it wrong”
Of course he did. What do you think he meant by “compensating”? He clearly had no clue what that word meant. Do you? The obvious way to tell that they, and everyone who believed them, got it wrong, is that none of them can tell us what “gross power” is. And none have attempted to.
“MIT paper”
This is an engineering paper, not physics. You can tell because it is discussing “radiation heat transfer”, which is an engineering description. And they use the phrase “net heat flux”, which is not how physics works, as I’ve told you. And they constantly confuse quantum physics with classical physics as if these two fields are interchangeable, which they are not. (Not yet, anyway.)
“even uses the word “net””
Of course they do. Because every non-physicist does. But not the word “gross”, because that would obviously be a hilariously un-physical word to use. Right? Of course it would. And they all know it. Yet you can’t have a “net” without a “gross”, and no one has ever demonstrated a “gross”. Not even the “eminent” Clausius. It’s a fiction. An imaginary construct. A hallucination.
“A body A at 100◦C emits toward a body B at 0◦C exactly the same amount of radiation [energy] as toward and equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000◦C”
When you insert the correct description of “radiation” as “energy” in that quote, there is indeed no contradiction to anything I wrote.
If, however, you assume (falsely, as far as I can tell, but I may be wrong about that) that Planck meant “Watts” when he wrote “emits”, then he would be hallucinating just as badly as you are. And therefore he wouldn’t be able to measure that, any more than you can. Or anyone else.
What is the physics definition of “gross power”, please, Ed? Take your time, no rush on my end (and sorry if I implied you weren’t paying attention) – except that the thread will eventually time out (in about a week) and then we won’t be able to continue this conversation here. Remember what I told you: the definition of this term must appear in the form “Gross power is defined as [X]”. Just like the definition of “regular” (i.e. physics) power (and “work”, and “energy”, and “entropy”, etc.) And, being a general definition, it cannot be specific to EM radiation or “flux” in any way. Can you do that for me, please?
steve,
Why are you still arguing the definition of “gross”?
Gross1 + Gross2 = Net
If ObjectA is emitting 100 W/m^2 that is the value of Gross1. If ObjectB is emitting 100 W/m^2 that is the value of Gross2. Net then equals Gross1 + Gross2. Since this is a vector addition and the Gross emissions are in opposite directions you get 100 W/m^2 + (-100 W/m^2) = 0 (net)
Gross flux is the one-way flow of energy across a boundary. Net flux is the vector addition of however many gross flux flows exist.
When you insist that only a “net” flux exists you lose the directional information concerning the energy flows that create that net flux. Those individual “gross” energy flows *do* exist. You can’t simply define them out of existence.
F_net = Σ F_gross where the sum is a VECTOR sum, not a scalar sum
For instance, the true net radiative flux at the TOA is a vector sum of
F_net = Mecury_gross + Venus_gross + Mars_gross + sun_gross, + …
(where the bolding indicates VECTOR values, not scalar values)
All of the gross flux flows from the planets are so small compared to the sun that they are typically ignored BUT they still exist. You can’t just wish them out of existence.
With reference to “physics”, it simply doesn’t matter if the components are radiative flux flows or force vectors on an airplane with components from driving-force (e.g. propeller)/atmospheric friction/cross-winds/etc., all of which are “gross” force vectors which sum to a “net” vector force.
My (limited) understanding is that at any given point within an EM field, the so-called Poynting vector represents the directional energy flux or power flow at that point. Sort of puts the kibosh on two-way power flow, including so-called ‘back radiation’ from atmospheric GHGs.
Not exactly. Planck assumed there was no cancelation in the medium between two bodies. He said radiation from the cold body was compensated for in the hot body by new rays already being emmitted. In essence slowing cooling. The gradient rate of cooling might be -3K/sec and “back radiation” might change that to -2.7K/sec. What this does is extend the time to equilibrium.
If you think about it, as two bodies move to equilibrium, the time extends dramatically. It isn’t a linear function.
When equilibrium is achieved, both bodies are emmitting and absorbing the same amount of energy.
There will never be a point where the cold body becomes the hot body. If that could happen you would have a stair step progression of ever higher temperatures.
As long as the sun has a neglible direct interaction with the atmosphere, this turns into a two body problem. The sun could be inside the earth. In other words, the surface becomes the energy source for the atmosphere.
Another way some folks look at it is two Poynting vectors traveling in opposite direction with the same magnitude. Equilibrium results in a Poynting vector magnitude of zero, but with the energies combined, in other words, a standing wave. This isn’t nearly as easy to turn into heat and temperature gradients.
‘Another way some folks look at it is two Poynting vectors traveling in opposite direction with the same magnitude.’
At the same point in the EM field? What folks and how? Btw, I don’t know nearly enough about Planck’s works to ever tell you that your understanding of these isn’t correct, but I would kindly suggest that you keep in mind that ‘physics’ has moved on quite a bit since his time.
A very good synthesis of how the ‘physics’ has changed, and specifically why radiative transfer theory (RTT) is deemed (at least by some physicists) to have become ‘phenomenological’ can be found in the attached article by the late Michael Mishchencko:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140012672/downloads/20140012672.pdf
Pay particular attention to Sec. 3 that starts off with a discussion of the ‘polydirectional flow of radiant energy’.
Planck’s work is seminal from the standpoint of macro heat transfer by radiation. It does not deal with atomic level interactions by his own admission.
He used Maxwell’s equations as a second validation of his theories. Keep in mind, Planck curves are still used in radiation graphs. There were a number of contemporaries like Boltzmann, Stefan, Maxwell, Kirchhoff, etc. whose works he built upon and are still pertinent today.
I might add that he was very versed in entropy and it was a third method he used to validate the themodynamic flow of heat. I learned more about entropy from his treatises than I ever remember from my EE studies. He proved the hot to cold problem using entropy.
By the way, he has a section on gases.
‘Planck’s work is seminal from the standpoint of macro heat transfer by radiation. It does not deal with atomic level interactions by his own admission.’
I agree that his works, as well as those of the ‘contemporaries’ that you mention, are still useful today, provided, of course, that we’re specifically talking about applications involving condensed matter.
However, the specific problem with the phenomenological (or heuristic) physics of radiative transfer theory isn’t that it’s not useful in solving engineering problems, but that it has been effectively hijacked to provide a ‘scientific’ basis for the nefarious cause of climate alarmism.
Specifically, this has been enabled by conflating the thermal radiative properties of condensed matter with the radiative properties of GHGs along with the erroneous supposition of the existence of polydirectional flow of radiant energy through any given point in an EM field. Together, of course, these comprise the foundation of the alarmist concept of ‘back radiation’, which has only been modeled, never measured.
Planck says this in support of what you say.
The key here is that we know insolation consists of distinct parallel rays, each of which can have its history analyzed for creation, propagation, and destruction in a solid or liquid.
Then one moves to emission which is hemispherical from the surface. Radiation from the surface though a point, integrated over all the spots on the surface let’s one calculate the temperature of an object.
That brings us to a gas.
1st problem, are there sufficient molecules in a given volume to insure that random emissions occur equally in all directions. That’s tough when so many collisions occur. That quash radiation.
2nd problem, a volume radiates EQUALLY in all directions based on its temperature. That does not mean one half up and one half down. This is where the blue plate problem proposed solution falls apart. It is also where an average temperature in the atmosphere falls apart. There is a temperature gradient, therefore, there is a radiation gradient also.
There are other problems to deal with such a latent heat and pressure. It all adds up to making a gas hard to analyze for radiation using Planck, SB, gas laws, etc. along with simple arithmetic averaging.
“The key here is that we know insolation consists of distinct parallel rays,”
No, we “know” no such thing. Planck hallucinated that. He certainly couldn’t measure it. That’s why physicists don’t talk about “heat rays” any more. They were always a figment of someone’s imagination. How many “rays” are there? How do you propose to count them?
“a volume radiates [energy] EQUALLY in all directions based on its temperature”
Make sure you write that word “energy” in there. It’s important. Otherwise, people might think you meant “power”, which is obviously wrong.
I read through the paper and wow, what a slog.
Here is a portion of the text on pages 9 and 10.
Please note the bolded and underlined portion. “and θ is the angle between q and the normal n to dS”. This translates into the angle between a perpendicular line, ‘n’ to the surface and the vector ‘q’.
As you can see Planck’s definition was accepted and as far as I know has not been refuted. It is the basis for the Practical Meteorology textbook graphic I have shown here.
““The state of the radiation at a given instant and at a given point of the medium cannot be represented… by a single vector (that is, a single directed quantity)”
Professor Poynting would disagree with this, I believe.
“All heat rays”
Yeah, physicists don’t really talk like that any more, and with good reason.
“has not been refuted.”
Well, yes it has. As has been pointed out here before, by Miskolczi I believe, “radiant transfer theory” as originated by Planck is now basically a backwater island of physics. It also has never been measured, so that’s a good reason to throw it out right there. Because physicists don’t like to hallucinate. So the “refutation” consists of “show me the measurement”.
The only people still clinging to these outmoded descriptions are engineers and climate “scientists”, each for their own misguided reasons – those consisting primarily of “money”, “control”, and “intellectual laziness”, as far as I can tell.
“It also has never been measured, so that’s a good reason to throw it out right there. Because physicists don’t like to hallucinate. So the “refutation” consists of “show me the measurement”.”
Oh, malarky! Is thermal equilibrium a “hallucination”? How is equilibrium reached? How is equilibrium measured? Do two bodies at thermal equilibrium just stop radiating or does their radiation in different directions cancel?
FWIW, Planck did not develop “radiative transfer theory” as used by climate science. Planck’s theory is *still* used by stellar astrophysics to determine the temperature of distant suns based on Planck’s “blackbody” theories.
“Oh, malarky! Is thermal equilibrium a “hallucination””
Who said it was? Certainly not me. Are you lying again?
“Do two bodies at thermal equilibrium just stop radiating or does their radiation in different directions cancel?”
It’s not really a question of “cancelling”, Tim. The way this is described in physics is like this: two bodies at the same temperature radiate the same temperature of radiant energy. Therefore, there is no energy (temperature) gradient between them, and neither one will do work on the other. Therefore no power will be developed.
Note there is no need to use the words “net” or “gross” to describe how this works.
“Who said it was? Certainly not me. Are you lying again?”
You are the one saying that the gross components don’t exist. If they don’t exist then how does equilibrium exist?
“It’s not really a question of “cancelling”, Tim. The way this is described in physics is like this: two bodies at the same temperature radiate the same temperature of radiant energy. Therefore, there is no energy (temperature) gradient between them, and neither one will do work on the other. Therefore no power will be developed.”
Ahhhh! Now you are changing your assertion!
Now it’s that there is no “gradient” between them and NOT that separate component radiation fluxes don’t exist.
The issue has *NEVER* been whether work is done. It’s whether a GRADIENT is created by different flux flows from each object. The fact that you now admit that a gradient exists means that you must also admit that component flux values must also exist.
Did you *really* think you could change what you are asserting and no one would notice?
And now we are back to what Planck said in his Theory of Heat Radiation. Funny how Planck’s theories seem to be correct 125 years later even though “physics” has left them behind!
“Ahhhh! Now you are changing your assertion!
Now it’s that there is no “gradient” between them and NOT that separate component radiation fluxes don’t exist. ”
These are not different assertions, Tim. I haven’t “changed” anything.
“The issue has *NEVER* been whether work is done. ”
It wasn’t? Because people keep talking about “power” without showing any “work” being done. But physics doesn’t work like that.
“different flux flows”
You’re hallucinating again. Where is the work?
“It wasn’t? Because people keep talking about “power” without showing any “work” being done. But physics doesn’t work like that.”
Physics works *exactly* like that
Power is the RATE of energy transport. Work is an AMOUNT of energy transported.
Power is joules/sec. Work is just joules. They aren’t the same thing. An EM wave can theoretically travel forever and never encounter anything – meaning no work ever gets done.
You keep trying to deny this simple PHYSICS definition.
And your defense is that only YOU know the actual definitions of power and work.
“Physics works *exactly* like that”
It doesn’t.
“Power is the RATE of energy transport.”
No, that’s not how it’s defined. It’s defined as the rate of doing work.
” Work is an AMOUNT of energy transported.”
No, it’s defined as energy transferred or expended. Not “transported”. Because energy doesn’t need to get on a “bus” to get from object A to object B. And it doesn’t exist for a non-zero period of time in between the two objects, in some sort of “transportation limbo”, either. Energy cannot be measured to have left object A until it has arrived at object – in its own frame of reference, of course.
“An [imaginary] EM wave [denoted in Watts, i.e. power] can theoretically travel forever and never encounter anything – meaning no work ever gets done. ”
I don’t know who told you that, but it wasn’t a physicist. By definition, no power can be developed if no work is being done. And you don’t get to redefine these terms just to suit your hallucinated fantasies. You are welcome to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
“And your defense is that only YOU know the actual definitions of power and work.”
Lying again, Tim? I never said anything like that. The definitions I gave you are right out of the textbook. Have you ever read one? Even Willis can tell you the same thing. Because he has.
This is correct, Frank. The two Gormans are not physicists and of course won’t be able to get any of these definitions correct. However, note that even the (single-valued!) Poynting vector is really just a “notional” concept, and if you were to attempt to measure it in situ, you would disrupt it in the process. So it is a bit risky to consider it a “real” phenomenon. Although I do find it a useful conception myself.
You have no idea what you are speaking of.
Poynting vectors add vectorially.
S =(1/μ0) E x B where the bold x stands for cross product.
If you have two radiation fields then E_tot = (E1 + E2), and B_tot = (B1 + B2)
S_tot = (1/μ0) (E1+E2) x (B1+B2)
Can you work out what this simplifies to? S_tot = ?????
Can you understand what time averaging causes to happen?
This isn’t a “physics” vs “engineering” thing. It’s a math thing.
“and if you were to attempt to measure it in situ, you would disrupt it in the process.”
Malarky. Pure malarky. When I was a sophomore at university I helped a professor that was hired by an electric company putting in a new high voltage transmission line to travel the proposed path and measure the EM field strength at various frequences, various times, and various locations to create a record that could be used to analyze complaints from people along the line about radio and TV interference caused by the power lines. The collected data would be compared to the same measurements after the line was live.
In essence we were measuring the Poynting vector at each of the measurement points, i.e. the vector sum of all the radio and TV signals traversing the measurement point at specific frequencies.
And you *can* measure gross radio EM waves using directional antenna’s. I do it all the time on the amateur radio frequencies. While it becomes harder to do at frequencies with very long wavelengths and very short wavelengths that is an implementation problem, not a “physics” problem.
Do you even have a clue as to what “clear channel” meant back in 1970? And why it existed?
‘In essence we were measuring the Poynting vector at each of the measurement points, i.e. the vector sum of all the radio and TV signals traversing the measurement point at specific frequencies.’
With what?
“Suppose that we have at our disposal a Poynting-meter, i.e., a device that can measure both the direction and the absolute value of the time-averaged local Poynting vector. Then measuring at a sufficiently representative number of points densely distributed over the boundary and evaluating the integral in Eq. (1) numerically would solve the above radiation-budget problem.
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 electromagnetic energy flow [2], 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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022407313000149
Please note, I’m not trying to disparage the technical knowledge that engineers use on a daily basis to improve the lot of humanity. Rather, I’m just repeating a point made by others that using phenomenological physics that obtains the ‘right’ answer for the wrong reason AND then treating that physics as Gospel opens the door to misapplications of that physics, specifically, in the realm of ‘CliSci’.
The measurement of insolation is probably fairly accurate. Only scattered visible light would be a problem. That should be pretty small considering the angle of incidence on the surface.
Measuring the intensity of a plane wave that has the same intensity (visible light) everywhere is doable within limits.
Doing the same for IR radiation from the surface is much harder to do.
“With what?”
Yes, that’s a good point too, Frank, and I thought about bringing that up myself. So I’m glad you did. Instead, I concentrated on Tim’s inability to grasp that the Poynting vector is a single-valued (if fictional) vector, despite his own statement that he only ever (hypothetically) measured one at a time, at any given point. Contradicting himself, as usual.
“the ‘right’ answer for the wrong reason”
Andy’s excuse for this is, effectively, that it is a free world and he has every right to hallucinate if he wants to. Indeed he does, and by the same token, we have every right to laugh at him and the rest of the hallucinators while they do it 🙂
“misapplications of that physics, specifically, in the realm of ‘CliSci’.”
Such as the claim of “downwelling infrared power” from “scary CO2 molecules”, with which the uneducated masses are easily frightened into parting with their hard-earned cash.
‘Andy’s excuse’?
Yes, when I tried to teach him about the unphysical notion of “gross power” in another thread. He asserted the right to “decompose” actual power (the measurable kind) into any number of components he felt like. Of course, those are all fictions.
“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. “
Every radar system in operation today are poynting-meters. They measure the E-field impinging on the reception point directionally. E-field probes are not a phantom. They can be isotropic or directional and either broadband or frequency selective.
The issue becomes separating out the E-field from sources in close proximity emitting at the same frequency. Then “attribution” requires making measurements right at the sources – which can be difficult. But that is an implementation issue and not a physics issue.
The quote “ 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.” is a perfect example of the issue. This is a technical implementation issue and not a limitation inherent in the propagation of EM waves due to PHYSICS nor does it mean that only TOTAL poynting vectors exist and not component poynting vectors which combine vectorially to create a TOTAL.
‘Every radar system in operation today are poynting-meters. They measure the E-field impinging on the reception point directionally.’
I doubt if Mishchenko missed the existence of radar systems. But we do need to keep in mind the difference between measuring ‘radiance’ and ‘energy flow’ and how the phenomenological physics of radiant transfer theory (RTT) has conflated these concepts. Per Mishchenko:
“Whether spelled out explicitly or not, the key premise of phenomenological photometry as well as of the phenomenological RTT is that matter interacts with the energy of the electromagnetic field rather than with the electromagnetic field itself. This profoundly false assumption explains the deceitful simplicity of the phenomenological concepts as well as their ultimate failure. Indeed, the very outset of both phenomenological disciplines is the postulation of the existence of the radiance as the primordial physical quantity describing the “instantaneous directional distribution of the radiant energy flow” at a point in space. This is followed by a“derivation” of the scalar RTE on the basis of “simple energy conservation considerations” and the postulation that it is the electromagnetic energy rather than the electromagnetic field that gets scattered by particles and surfaces.”
As an engineer, I don’t agree with this assertion. Energy is not a standalone physical phenomena that one can reach out and touch. It must have a “carrier” if you will. Every manifestation of energy requires a calculation involving another physical phenomena.
A mass moving has kinetic energy. A mass in a field may have potential energy. E = mc². The energy carried within an electromagnetic field is based on the electric and magnetic values of the field. Energy is not separate from the EM wave.
I see no way to have “energy” scattered without the EM field also being changed. A particle may reflect, absorb, or transmit an EM wave thereby changing the makeup of the incident wave into multiple resulting waves (or current, heat, etc. if absorbed), with the provision that energy is conserved.
‘As an engineer, I don’t agree with this assertion.’
If I read Mishchenko’s quote correctly, he too doesn’t agree with the postulation ‘that it is the electromagnetic energy rather than the electromagnetic field that gets scattered by particles and surfaces’.
I have to admit that much of the physics in his articles goes well beyond anything I learned in school. But it’s very clear from his writings that sometime in the distant past the ‘profession’ waved its hands over the phenomenological RTT in order to derive a RTE on the basis of ‘physical obviousness’, rather than first principles.
“If I read Mishchenko’s quote correctly, he too doesn’t agree with the postulation ‘that it is the electromagnetic energy rather than the electromagnetic field that gets scattered by particles and surfaces’.”
yep. I think it is climate science’s assertion that Jim is not agreeing with.
“I see no way to have “energy” scattered without the EM field also being changed.”
The scattering of energy is a result of an EM wave being changed.
This can be seen by looking at the resultant poynting vector from the interaction of two EM waves.
(leaving out the 1/μ0 term)
S1 = E1 x B1
S2 = E2 x B2
S_total = S1 + S2 + [ (E1 x B2) +(E2 x B1) ]
The third term is the interference result, i.e. the change in EM wave.
I would suggest that they were enamored of Excel and the ability to do regression, averages, etc. That is, they could play with data to their hearts content. Then someone pointed out they could show how accurate the mean was by dividing by √n.
Climate science is not the only discipline to have fallen into that trap. The replication crisis is evidence of that.
‘I would suggest that they were enamored of Excel and the ability to do regression, averages, etc.’
Even worse, I think they are enamored with their Crays. After all, if you’re a politician or journalist, who are you more inclined to believe – the active ‘professionals’ with all the hardware or the mostly retired ‘amateurs’ with their PCs?
You pegged it! This *is* the issue.
RTT is purports to be phenomenological science but it isn’t. Phenomenological science emphasizes the use of observations to describe “phenomena” without having to understand the processes generating the observations. But climate science can’t “observe” a global average outgoing flux. And it doesn’t even properly account for average outgoing and incoming flux since it isn’t physically possible for them to be the same since they occur over different time intervals so “no” balance in flux is possible. What balances is HEAT-in and HEAT-out. But heat is not flux.
Mishchenko: “Whether spelled out explicitly or not, the key premise of phenomenological photometry as well as of the phenomenological RTT is that matter interacts with the energy of the electromagnetic field rather than with the electromagnetic field itself.”
This is just one more assumption of climate science that is not physical, not reality. Whether spelled out explicitly or not climate science assumes that temperature defines climate – but it doesn’t. It may be a component of climate but it isn’t *climate*. It isn’t even a metric for climate. If it was then the climates of Las Vegas and Miami would be similar. Trying to anticipate future “climate” using phenomenological science should involve observations of “climate” but so-called climate science has morphed that into using observations of temperature to anticipate future “climate” – decidedly not physical at all. This is what was actually at the base of Freeman Dyson’s criticism of climate science and its models as not being “holistic”.
In other words I guess I’m trying to say: climate science is not even a phenomenological science”.
Good reference to Freeman Dyson. I think Mishchenko was a fan, based on this snippet from the Q&A segment of his ‘Maniac Lecture’:
“Q: That’s how I was taught. I’m just curious whether Feynman at Cal Tech, teaching a class in radiative transfer, did he start from Maxwell?
MM: He didn’t teach a class in radiative transfer. No. Physicists, you know, I attended many conferences where there were physicists. And to them, radiative transfer is something really inconsequential, very simplistic, it’s fake, and, uh, they don’t trust us a single bit.
And this is a huge gap, so they’re arrogant and we behave like ostriches, there are no problems, as long as we don’t talk to each other. Unlike Freeman Dyson, he is this contrarian. But look, this guy developed quantum electrodynamics, so he’s a top notch physicist. He knows how physics works and how nature works to the best of our collective knowledge.
Now this guy questions what we do in climate modeling and in radiative transfer modeling, simply because it is so indirectly based, or maybe not based at all, on fundamental physics. To convince them that we know what we’re talking about, we have to use their language, because our language is archaic. It is 250 years old, and it was archaic even when it was developed.”
Long, but worth watching.
I watched this video and I think it is the same as the transcript. He has some good points.
My problem with this is that while this could explain some albedo as an EM wave travels through the air, a whole new series must be developed to take into account the land/oceans absorption and reflection. Transmission isn’t really an issue for either.
Absorption is a constantly varying component. You can walk away from a point and the soil composition can change from the type of grass and soil moisture. This is a step in the system we call earth but is ignored for the ease of dealing with temperature.
Sun – surface – atmosphere is the system. Ignoring the middle one just isn’t scientific.
“You have no idea what you are speaking of.”
This is coming from the man who contradicts himself every time he makes a new post. And sometimes several times within the same post, as in this one. Brilliant, Tim.
“Poynting vectors add vectorially.”
No they don’t.
Here is the definition:
“the Poynting vector S, at a point, gives the magnitude and direction of surface power density that are due to electromagnetic fields at that point.”
There is only one value of this vector at any given point. Because there is only one total (summed) magnitude of electric and magnetic field at a given point. Just one. Notice how it says “THE Poynting vector”? Not “MULTIPLE Poynting vectors”?
“Malarky. Pure malarky”
Sure, Tim. Is “radiation” a FLUX, or not?
“In essence we were measuring the Poynting vector at each of the measurement points, i.e. the vector sum of all the radio and TV signals traversing the measurement point at specific frequencies.”
Yes, that’s what I said. You measured the single Poynting vector at each measurement point. (See that word “the”? It means “one”.)
But, you also disrupted the fields in the process, as I also said. Changing the fields, and therefore the Poynting vector. (Not by much, to be sure.) But if I had another measurement device, my measurement would change when you put your measuring device between the transmitter and my device. Because your device has to interact with the fields, and thereby extract energy from them, in order to measure them. See how that works? No, of course you don’t.
“you *can* measure gross radio EM waves using directional antenna’s.”
No you can’t. You can measure directional electromagnetic power. That derives from an electromagnetic field energy gradient. There’s no “gross” about it. The only thing that’s “gross” around here is your gross inability to learn your physics properly, and stop contradicting yourself. You know, like a rational and literate adult.
“No they don’t.”
Go away troll. I GAVE YOU THE FORMULA FOR ADDING POYNTING VECTORS.
Here it is again:
S_tot = (1/μ0) (E1+E2) x (B1+B2)
““the Poynting vector S, at a point, gives the magnitude and direction of surface power density that are due to electromagnetic fields at that point.””
Your reading comprehension skills are sadly lacking:
“due to electromagnetic fields” (bolding mine, tpg)
Each of those FIELDS have a poynting vector associated with it. At any point the TOTAL poynting vector is the VECTOR sum of the component fields.
S_tot = (1/μ0) (E1+E2) x (B1+B2)
YOU KEEP ARGUING THAT THERE ARE NO “GROSS” COMPONENTS THAT COMBINE TO A NET.
That’s total and utter bullshite!
GO AWAY TROLL!
“Each of those FIELDS have a poynting vector associated with it.”
No they don’t. That’s not how the Poynting vector is defined. Here’s the definition again:
“the Poynting vector S, at a point, gives the magnitude and direction of surface power density that are due to electromagnetic fields at that point”
See? ONE vector. “The” Poynting vector. Notice how “the” means “one”.
“TOTAL poynting vector”
There’s no such thing. You’re hallucinating again. How many Poynting vectors did you measure at each point when you were doing your survey? You said you only measured one. Right? “In essence we were measuring the Poynting vector at each of the measurement points,” Notice where you said “THE Poynting vector”. Not “a whole bunch of Poynting vectors” at each point.
“YOU KEEP ARGUING THAT THERE ARE NO “GROSS” COMPONENTS THAT COMBINE TO A NET.”
I never said that in general. So your statement is technically another lie. But in physics, the terms “work” and “power”, specifically, do not come in “gross” and “net” varieties. No textbook claims that they do. Certainly none that I’ve read. How about yours?
” total and utter bullshite!”
Coming from a self-contradictory liar, that’s pretty rich. Sit down, Tim.
S_1 = E1 x B1
S_2 = E2 x B2
S_tot = (E1 + E2) x (B1 + B2)
Each wave has its own Poynting vector. The total at a point is the vector addition of the individual poynting vectors.
We measured the TOTAL. We weren’t concerned with defining the 3D component waves from multiple sources, only the total. That does *NOT* mean that the signal from each source didn’t have its own poynting vector. The TOTAL was the vector sum of the GROSS component vectors. We only needed to be able to determine the effect the high voltage line had on the TOTAL, not on each individual signal.
“But in physics, the terms “work” and “power”, specifically, do not come in “gross” and “net” varieties.”
Of course they come in gross and net varieties. Why do you think radar antennas rotate (either mechanically or electrically)? It’s because the received POWER is being measured directionally – i.e. the GROSS components making up the total NET.
It’s PHYSICS.
“Each wave has its own Poynting vector. ”
No it doesn’t. Here’s the definition again:
““the Poynting vector S, at a point, gives the magnitude and direction of surface power density that are due to electromagnetic fields at that point””
ALL the fields, Tim. All of them.
“We measured the TOTAL.”
You mean, you measured the ONE.
“GROSS component vectors.”
Unmeasurable fictions
“Of course they [work and power] come in gross and net varieties.”
Of course they don’t. Why don’t you show us the definition of “gross power” from the physics textbook, please?
“Unmeasurable fictions”
Does a voltmeter connected to the directional antenna indicate the strength of the two combined EM waves?
Does a voltmeter connected to the directional antenna indicate the strength of the signal from the east?
Does a voltmeter connected to the directional antenna indicate the strength of the signal from the west?
Is the strength indication related to the poynting vector coming from the east?
Is the strength indication related to the poynting vector coming from the west?
I know you aren’t going to answer these questions. But that will just tell everyone that you are still beating the dead horse.
“directional antenna”
Does that device look like a “point” to you? Because to me it looks a lot more like a “volume”. With a lot of individual “points” inside it, some of them electrically connected to each other in a very specific pattern. That isn’t what Poynting was talking about, though, was it?
Let’s review the definition again:
““the Poynting vector S, at a point, gives the magnitude and direction of surface power density that are due to electromagnetic fields at that point””
“Does a voltmeter connected to the directional antenna indicate the strength of the two combined EM waves?”
The voltmeter (I note we’ve switched from Watts to Volts again, within the same sentence, no less) indicates the combined averaged magnitude of excitation of all the electrons in the antenna, which have time-varying forces applied to them from electromagnetic fields originating all over the universe. If you want to call that “the strength of the two combined EM waves”, then by all means, knock yourself out. I won’t argue with the terminology, as long as you aren’t hallucinating or lying or contradicting yourself yet again.
“Is the strength indication related to the poynting vector coming from the east?”
There is no “poynting vector coming from the east”. There can be a field originating from the east, though. There are fields everywhere.
“beating the dead horse”
There’s a dead horse around here, for sure, but I’m not the one beating it. You can tell because I’m not the one contradicting myself, my own definitions, my own textbook, and my own measurements. That would be you, wouldn’t it? Of course it would.
“There is no “poynting vector coming from the east”. There can be a field originating from the east, though. There are fields everywhere.”
So EM fields can exist without an associated poynting vector?
S1 = (E1 x B1)
S2 = (E2 x B2)
So S_total = (E1 + E2) x (B1 + B2)
So S_total = S1 + S2 + [ (E1 x B2) + (E2 x B1) ]
are invalid statements? There is no S1 or S2?
If there is no S1 poynting vector and no S2 poynting vector then how can S_total = S1 + S2 + [ (E1 x B2) + (E2 x B1) ] be valid?
If there is no S1 and no S2 then there can be no S_total.
You are just going to continue beating that dead horse I guess.
You have no idea about how an EM wave disperses do you? How do you “disrupt” an ever expanding wavefront? You may extract energy at a point by absorption but that is far from disrupting it. You can block a segment of the wave by placing an opaque object or a reflecting surface into the wave front, but again, that is far from disrupting it.
Sorry to disappoint you as to my knowledge. As an EE, I had to learn vector calculus in order to deal with Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic waves and other phenomena. Designing antennas of all kinds for both transmitting and receiving requires that knowledge.
“an EM wave”
Is the “EM wave” in the room with us right now, Jim? How would you know?
Why are you even spouting all these words? You told us that “semantics are meaningless”. In other words, you are illiterate, and plan to stay that way. Why are you even here? It certainly isn’t to learn physics. Or anything else.
“Why are you still arguing the definition of “gross”?”
Because none of you engineers have any idea what it means, that’s why.
“If ObjectA is emitting 100 W/m^2”
That’s not how physics works. Remember, you told us that “radiation is EM energy”. Do we measure energy in W/m^2? Or should we use a different unit?
EM waves *are* physics. I keep asking you to tell me how many joules there are in a 100 watt radio signal and you just keep blowing it off.
Radiation is the FLOW of energy, not energy in and of itself. This has nothing to do with physics vs engineering. It has to do with you continually trying to say that a 100 watt signal is joules (i.e. a QUANTITY of joules) rather than a flow of joules (i.e. joules/sec). Physics doesn’t say that radiation is joules and neither does engineering. joules ≠ joules/sec
joules = ∫ (joules/sec) dt
Again, how many joules are there in a 100 watt signal? Are you just going to blow it off again?
“EM waves *are* physics.”
Well, that’s how people used to think in 1887. We have more modern concepts now. Do you know what any of them are?
For example, is the “EM wave” in the room with us right now? How would you know?
“100 watt radio signal”
Is that the “signal” you measured with your VOLTmeter? No, I am not the one who is “blowing it off”.
“Radiation is the FLOW of energy”
Contradicting yourself AGAIN, Tim? You told us that “radiation is energy”. Now you say it is the FLOW of energy. These are not the same. Sit down.
Well, that’s how people used to think in 1887. We have more modern concepts now.
Maxwell’s equations have not been refuted for the macro consideration of heat flow.
Quantum physics effects of EM waves are not necessary discussions in typical thermodynamics of heat flow.
I suggest you limit your discussions to the macro effects of radiation which are reflection, emission, transmission, and absorption.
Any other more micro discussion as to the causes of heat is akin to discussing how many angels can live on the head of a pin and takes away from the primary problem of heat flow in a macro environment.
“Maxwell’s equations have not been refuted”
Those equations are also not denoted in Watts. And I have never claimed that they have been “refuted”. You must be thinking of someone else.
“I suggest you limit your discussions to the macro effects of radiation”
Where did you get the impression that I was doing anything else? I’m not the one who’s pretending that “emitting a photon” constitutes a “gross Watt” (whatever that is). No, that would be your idiotic self-contradictory clone Tim (along with Andy, and Willis, and Rud, and Ferdinand, and the rest of the non-physicist clowns around here).
“Contradicting yourself AGAIN, Tim? You told us that “radiation is energy””
Nope. Radiation if the transport mechanism for energy. This was explained to you in detail in a different thread by several people. And here you are again trying to tell everyone that they don’t understand “physics”, that you are the only one on WUWT that does.
Now tell us how many joules there are in a 100watt signal.
You apparently don’t realize that your refusal to answer that simple question just highlights how much of a troll you are.
“[SKJ] You told us that “radiation is energy””
“[TPG] Nope.”
Yes you did. Lying again? Here is where you said it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4183207
The actual quote being ““radiation” is is EM energy in general.”, which I shortened slightly to save myself a few keystrokes. (the “EM” part is easily inferred from context, and the “in general” part doesn’t add anything useful)
“you are the only one on WUWT that does [understand physics].”
No, that is another lie. I said no such thing. RickWill is another physicist, as is Nicholas Schroeder. There are others too, but I don’t remember all their names at the moment.
“100watt signal”
What “100 watt signal”? The one you measured with your VOLTmeter?
“troll”
Why? Because I’m pointing out that you are contradicting yourself, the physics textbook, and all the measurements? What do you think “troll” means?
ANY 100 watt signal. How many joules in ANY 100 watt signal?
Why do you enjoy showing your ignorance so much?
The E field of an EM wave is typically measured using a small dipole antenna generating a voltage that can be measured. They are called E-field probes. The probes can be broadband or frequency selective and they can be isotropic or directional. The probes (i.e. antennas) are typically calibrated to produce a voltage value that is dependent on the incident E-field. That voltage is measured using a VOLTmeter.
Hard dealing with folks that are all hat and no cows.
Obviously never heard of the device called a Field Strength Meter.
They’ve obviously never used two vertical antennas to generate a directional signal based on Maxwell equations and the vector addition of the EM waves, including the interference cross terms. The EM wave generated from each antenna has its own poynting vector and they combine to create a total. I.e. two gross components generate a total. And the EM wave from each antenna *can* be separately measured, it’s done all the time at antenna evaluation ranges.
“The EM wave generated from each antenna has its own poynting vector”
No it doesn’t. That’s not how the Poynting vector works. Remember, it’s defined like this:
““the Poynting vector S, at a point, gives the magnitude and direction of surface power density that are due to electromagnetic fields at that point””
This includes ALL electromagnetic fields at that point. From ALL the antennae.
“EM wave from each antenna *can* be separately measured”
No it can’t. How precisely do you propose to do this? Since there is only one Poynting vector at any given point?
““the Poynting vector S, at a point, gives the magnitude and direction of surface power density that are due to electromagnetic fields at that point””” (bolding mine, tpg)
You still can’t read for comprehension, can you? The word “fieldS” means nothing to you.
EM field(S) each have their own poynting vector. They vector add to a total.
S_total = S1 + S2 + [ (E1 x B2) + (E2 x B1) ]
But you just can’t admit that S1 and S2 exist, can you?
That dead horse you are beating is beginning to stink. I guess you don’t care about that either, do you?
You are still denying that EM fieldS have their own poynting vectors that sum. How does an EM field exist without a poynting vector? How does a total poynting vector exist if there is nothing to create it?
There isn’t just one poynting vector at any given point. There is one S_total poynting vector, but that does not mean that the component poynting vectors don’t exist.
Think of it this way:
-That EM wave from the east has a poynting vector East1. –That EM wave from the west has a poyting vector West1
-The two EM waves combine to give a poynting vector sum of S_total.
Does the voltmeter connected to the antenna indicate an EM wave of strength S_total or does it indicate an EM wave of strength East1? Is the indication on the voltmeter a result of the poynting vector East1 or S_total?
Stop beating the dead horse. Bury it.
“But you just can’t admit that S1 and S2 exist, can you?”
As fantasies in your head, sure, they “exist”, Tim. Have fun with those. Knock yourself out.
“you have a directional antenna pointed east.”
You can’t measure the Poynting vector with a directional antenna.
“Stop beating the dead horse. Bury it.”
This dead horse, Tim?
““radiation” is is EM energy in general.”
Because that’s YOUR “dead horse”, isn’t it? So we are beating on the same “dead horse”. And I will stop “beating on it” as soon as you stop lying. And apologize.
“You can’t measure the Poynting vector with a directional antenna.”
What do you think a radar system is measuring? Relative humidity?
“Hard dealing with folks that are all hat and no cows.”
Sure, Jim. What is the magnitude of an “EM wave” inside a closed box, please?
“That voltage is measured using a VOLTmeter.”
Right. So where is the “100 watt signal”, exactly?
I notice you didn’t make any attempt to apologize for your lie about your definition of “radiation”. Are you just going to ignore that?
Steve – Some of us can understand that different people over time have used different words to express the same concepts.
So when Clausius says:
it is very clear to people of normal intellegence that he is talking about what many people now refer to as two opposite “gross” power flows, with resulting “net” power flow from the warmer body to the cooler body. This is not hard.
Planck says:
He also is obviously talking about two “gross” power flows, independent of each other.
And with regard to when Planck says:
you respond:
Are you seriously trying to say that it is alright to talk about the energy in radiation, but not the power? (When power is simply the rate of energy transfer.) That is the only interpretation of your words that is even partially coherent!
““gross” power flows”
Can you define “gross power” for me, please? I still don’t see a definition of this term in anything that you (or anyone else) wrote. It sounds like you think you know what it means, but you can’t define it. That’s not very scientific of you, is it?
“it is alright to talk about the energy in radiation, but not the power?”
Of course it is. What do you think the words “energy” and “power” mean, please?
You’ve been given the definition of “gross” by at least three people, including links to references on the internet.
And you just keep blowing them all off as not being “physics based”. But you can never tell anyone why the definitions are not “physics based”.
If I hook a water faucet to a hose and put the end of the hose in a bucket and turn on the water, and then hook a water pump to a hose so one end sucks water and put that end in the bucket EXACTLY WHAT FLOWS ARE INVOLVED IN CROSSING THE BOUNDARY OF THE BUCKET?
“You’ve been given the definition of “gross” by at least three people”
That is a lie, Tim. Where is it? I haven’t seen any such thing. Nor have you.
It’s pretty obvious that you don’t actually read what people post to you.
This is proof.
Here are some more for you to forget:
NERC glossary:
‘Actual Net Interchange: The algebraic sum of actual megawatt transfers across all Tie Lines, including Pseudo-Ties, to and from all adjacent Balancing Authority Areas within the same Interconnection. “(bolding mine, tpg)
In order to have an algebraic sum you must have components to sum – the GROSS transfers.
Here’s another:
from wikipedia on the divergence theorem
“More precisely, the divergence theorem states that the surface integral of a vector field over a closed surface, which is called the “flux” through the surface, is equal to the volume integral of the divergence over the region enclosed by the surface. Intuitively, it states that “the sum of all sources of the field in a region (with sinks regarded as negative sources) gives the net flux out of the region”.” (bolding mine, tpg)
from radiation_2025.pdf
=====================
Rn = SW↓−SW↑+LW↓−LW↑
The four components of the upward and downward, solar and thermal radiation, add up to th esurface net radiation(net radiation Rn, Wm−2; see Equation1).
====================== (bolding mine, tpg)
Each of the four components are a GROSS flow, which when summed, gives the NET flow.
From Merriam-Webster
——————————
gross
3 a
: of, relating to, or dealing with general aspects or broad distinctions
a gross outline of the plan
b
: consisting of an overall total exclusive of deductions
gross income
compare net
—————————–
——————————
net
3 of 5
adjective
1 : free from all charges or deductions: such as
a
: remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss
net earnings
net worth
compare gross
b
: excluding all tare
net weight
2
: excluding all nonessential considerations : basic, final
the net result
net effect
————————————-
YOU KEEP BEATING A DEAD HORSE.
Now, come back and tell us all how these definitions don’t apply to “physics”.
“GROSS transfers”
I note that neither you nor NERC tried to actually define this, never mind measure it. You just hallucinated it. Because electrical power doesn’t have a “gross transfer” any more than electromagnetic power does. That is because, like any other type of current, electrical power only flows in one direction. From higher voltage to lower voltage. Never the other way around.
In power grids, of course energy can flow in one direction across an intertie at one moment, and in the other direction (when the voltages change) at the next moment. No one said it couldn’t. When they want to calculate how much each power utility owes the other at the end of the month, they need to add up all these flows which occur at different times. I guess you missed that part.
” field in a region (with sinks regarded as negative sources) gives the net flux ”
“Field flux” is a force, measured in Newtons, though. There’s nothing wrong with adding up forces and Newtons. I never said there was.
“(net radiation Rn, Wm−2”
Where is the definition of “gross radiation”, please? You still haven’t provided one, despite lying that you did.
“Each of the four components are a GROSS flow,”
You hallucinated that. You have neither defined nor measured it. Nor has anyone else. It doesn’t exist.
“From Merriam-Webster”
They defined the word “gross”, yes. There’s nothing wrong with that word by itself. And of course I never said there was. But in physics there is no such thing as “gross power”. You still haven’t shown me where you got that idea from. It certainly didn’t come from a physics textbook.
“Now, come back and tell us all how these definitions don’t apply to “physics”.”
Well, they don’t, and you haven’t shown us that they did. None of your definitions tells us what “gross power” is. That phrase didn’t appear anywhere in your quotes. All we have are hallucinations, faulty analogies, and falsified inferences.
Here, to refresh your exceedingly poor memory, is Ed’s definition of regular power (the only kind physicists know about, and the only kind we can measure): “power is simply the rate of energy transfer.” Observe that there is no “net” or “gross” in sight. Because that’s physics.
While we are here, in the process of pointing out your total lack of reading comprehension, which of the two following statements do you think is the correct one:
“Radiation is energy”
“Radiation is the FLOW of energy”
You keep “whiffing” on this. Over and over. Who is beating a “dead horse”, exactly?
“Because electrical power doesn’t have a “gross transfer” any more than electromagnetic power does. “
In other words the equation
S_tot = (E1 + E2) x (B1 + B2)
doesn’t exist in your world.
That just about says it all.
E and B are the components of an EM wave – i.e. RADIATION.
And E1, E2, B1, and B2 are the “GROSS” components of the NET value S_tot. The gross components exist no matter how much you try to write them out of existence.
Electrical power, i.e. current flow, GENERATES A MAGNETIC FIELD AROUND THE CONDUCTOR.
Maxwell equations work for DC as well as AC and work for current in a wire as well as propagating EM waves.
V x B = (μ0)I + (μ0)(ε0)(∂E/∂t)
where ∂E/∂t = 0 for a DC current in a wire thus no propagating EM wave. But the DC current is *still* an electromagnetic phenomenon.
My guess is that you have absolutely no understanding of why the NEC requires all current carrying conductors in an electrical box to be grouped together.
YOU ARE STILL TROLLING. YOU ARE STILL BEATING A DEAD HORSE. YOU STILL HAVE YOUR FINGERS IN YOUR EARS GOING NAH.NAH.NAH…..
“In other words the equation
S_tot = (E1 + E2) x (B1 + B2)
doesn’t exist in your world. ”
No, that is another lie. I said no such thing, of course.
I would simply not write the left hand side as “S_tot”. Because that’s not how the universe works. It’s just “S”, i.e. the Poynting vector. The one you claimed you were able to measure, remember? You didn’t measure multiple Poynting vectors at a single point, did you? Of course you didn’t.
” EM wave – i.e. RADIATION.”
Since you told us that radiation is energy, does that mean we should measure “EM waves” in Joules?
“The gross components exist”
Sure they do, Tim, sure they do. Why don’t you go ahead and measure them for us? To show us that you aren’t just hallucinating?
” no matter how much you try to write them out of existence. ”
No, Tim, that is yet another lie. You are the one who is trying to write them into existence. But the universe doesn’t work that way, does it? Of course not.
“the NEC”
What do they have to do with anything? They aren’t the ones who are lying, contradicting themselves, contradicting the textbook, and contradicting their own measurements. That would be you, wouldn’t it? Of course it would.
“YOU ARE STILL TROLLING.”
No, Tim. Another lie. You really should stop that. It’s quite reprehensible of you.
“Of course you did. You say E1/B1 and E2/B2 don’t exist, only S_tot exists.”
Bullshite! S1 = E1 x B1. S2 = E2 x B2
S_total is the vector sum of S1 and S2.
S_total = S1 + S2 + [ (E1 x B2) + (E2 x B1) ]
You just confirmed that you don’t believe S1 and S2 exist, BTW.
The fact that we didn’t measure the individual components doesn’t mean that we couldn’t have! If “THE” poynting vector is one vector with no components then how does a radar system differentiate between multiple targets? Why doesn’t the radar screen just show one big blob on the screen?
You’ve been told MULTIPLE times that radiation is an energy transport mechanism. Somehow you can’t seem to get that simple fact into your head.
Answer the question: How many joules in a 100 watt signal?
Again, tell us how a radar system differentiates between targets if it isn’t measuring the individual components of the total EM wave at the antenna?
“No, Tim, that is yet another lie. You are the one who is trying to write them into existence. But the universe doesn’t work that way, does it? Of course not.”
In other words, radar doesn’t work, it *can’t* work because individual components of a total EM wave can’t be differentiated through measurement techniques.
But then you also deny that you said S_total = (E1 + E2) x (B1 x B2) doesn’t exist. Meaning apparently that you *do* think S_total = (E1 + E2) x (B1 x B2) exists.
Huh?
“What do they have to do with anything?”
OMG! OMG! The methods and procedures that lowly (to you anyway) electricians must follow in installing high current systems is BASED on Maxwell equations. While the NEC doesn’t pretend to teach Maxwell equations, trig, etc., the methods and procedures are based on them.
And you have absolutely no idea of what the effects of those high currents are in a junction box do you? All you know is the Argument by Dismissal argumentative fallacy.
You ARE still trolling.
“S1 = E1 x B1. S2 = E2 x B2″
Those individual fields cannot be separated from each other in the real world. That’s the entire point of the Poynting vector. I guess you missed that.
“The fact that we didn’t measure the individual components doesn’t mean that we couldn’t have!”
Sure, Tim. This is the kind of excuse that four-year-olds come up with. Why don’t you go ahead and do that measurement now? Make sure you describe how your measuring equipment is measuring individual “components” at a single point in space and time.
“If “THE” poynting vector is one vector with no [individually measurable] components”
As it’s defined
“then how does a radar system”
A radar system does not make a measurement at a single point in space and time, though, does it? If it did, it would give you very little useful information. Just a single vector. So that’s not what it does.
“You’ve been told MULTIPLE times that radiation is an energy transport mechanism.”
What I’ve been “told” by undereducated self-contradictory numpties is irrelevant. What you told us specifically, though, is that ““radiation” is is EM energy in general.” I don’t see the word “mechanism” in your definition at all. Lying again?
“OMG! OMG!”
Tim is having a panic attack. Maybe you should lie down for a bit.
“Maxwell equations”
which describe the evolution of forces. Consisting of energy, as you said. Since electromagnetism is, as everyone knows, one of the four fundamental forces of nature.
“You ARE still trolling.”
No, Tim, I’m teaching you physics. And you’re doing really well, too. You got the definition of radiation correct, which many of your fellow non-physicists cannot. Congratulations!
You can’t even argue logically. The absence of evidence is *NOT* evidence of absence. The fact that we didn’t measure the individual components (i.e. the absence of evidence) doesn’t mean that we couldn’t have done so (evidence of absence).
It is measuring the radiative flux at a specific azimuth and elevation (i.e. a single point in space) at a specific time! How do you think an FAA operator tells where an aircraft is and its altitude on the radar display?
ROFL!! That’s the entire point! Finding a single component vector rather then the sum of the individual component single vectors!
You are *still* beating a dead horse, trying to argue that you can only measure the total vector created by the individual component vectors and not the individual components themselves.
“What I’ve been “told” by undereducated self-contradictory numpties is irrelevant.”
ROFL!! You can’t even refute the simple math equations that
S1 = E1 x B1
S2 = E2 x B2
S_total = S1 + S2 + [ (E1 x B2) + (E2 x B1) ]
You are trying to argue that S1 and S2 don’t exist, i.e. you can’t measure them, that you can only measure S_total.
It’s a dead horse and it is stinking to high heaven from you beating on it instead of burying it.
“What you told us specifically, though, is that ““radiation” is is EM energy in general.””
No one has *EVER* told you that. All you’ve ever been told is that radiation is an energy transport, joules/sec. If radiation was energy then *YOU* should be able to tell us how many joules there are in a 100 watt signal. But you can’t. That fact would tell most people that an EM signal is not energy but an energy transport mechanism – but apparently not you.
“You can’t even argue logically. ”
Sure, Tim. Which of the following claims do you think is the “logical” one?
“Radiation is a FLOW, it is a FLUX”
“Radiation is NOT radiant flux”
“Radiation is EM energy”
“Radiation is the FLOW of energy”
“Radiation is a TRANSPORT MECHANISM for energy – like a BUS”
Pick any one and stick to it, please. You can’t have all five at once.
[SKJ says that Tim said] ““radiation” is is EM energy in general.”
[Tim says] “No one has *EVER* told you that.”
Lying again, Tim? I showed you where you wrote that. There is no point lying about it. It is on the Internet, forever, for all to see. Here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4183207
ROFL!!
You can’t even admit that you used the “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” logical fallacy!
Stop beating the dead horse.
S1 = E1 x B1
S2 = E2 x B2
S_total = S1 + S2 + [ (E1 x B2) + (E2 x B1)
S1 and S2 *do* exist.
“ROFL!!”
Says the liar. You planning to apologize for that?
“Stop beating the dead horse”
You mean *this* dead horse? The one I’ve been trying to teach you the whole time? And you finally learned it? This one?
““radiation” is is EM energy in general.”
I can’t tell if you’re still thinking or if you just gave up the effort, Ed, but there are another couple of points I should make. I asked you to define “power”, but indeed you already did that, so you can strike that request from the record. I would still like you to define “energy”, though, so that we can discuss why it makes sense to consider “energy” without having to also consider “power” at the same time. It sounds like you are incapable of doing that. Or, merely unwilling. That, of course, would be a “you” problem, not a “me” problem.
It is also possible that I misinterpreted your question of “[not alright] to talk about the […] power [in radiation]”. I never said anything like that. But you need to think about energy first, then energy gradients, if any, and then power. In that order.
“power is simply the rate of energy transfer.”
Correct. Where do you see the word “gross” in there? Are you hallucinating it? Of course you are.
“even partially coherent!”
I’m not the one who is contradicting the textbook and the measurements, am I? Of course not. That would be you, wouldn’t it? Of course it would.
Out of town visitors now. Have not been able to cut loose the time to properly refute your nonsense.
“refute your nonsense.”
Sure, Ed. What nonsense, precisely, though? Have you found a definition of “gross power” in the physics textbook for us yet? Tim hasn’t. How about a definition of “radiant energy”? Or just regular energy?
In case you don’t have a chance to come back here before Monday when the thread expires, Ed, I’ll just point out that Tim has correctly defined “radiation” as “energy” for us, which was the entire point of my lesson. So I’m done here, as far as that goes, and if you have any problems with that definition, you should take it up with Tim. There’s no need to disagree with me any more.
“I’ll just point out that Tim has correctly defined “radiation” as “energy” for us”
You simply cannot read for comprehension. Radiation is a “ENERGY TRANSPORT” mechanism. It is *not* energy. If it was energy you could tell us how much energy there is in a 100 watt signal – but you can’t.
“You simply cannot read for comprehension. Radiation is a “ENERGY TRANSPORT” mechanism”
*comprehension”, Tim? Do you “comprehend” this statement? Because I do. It’s what I’ve been trying to teach you, isn’t it?
““radiation” is is EM energy in general.”
The negative votes all come from non-physicists, and should all be ignored 🙂
“Badges? We ain’t got no badges!We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinking badges!”
Many papers have documented that the error bars in climate models are 10-100x greater than the tiny effect they are trying to quantify. Pure pseudoscience to make any conclusions when the signal is buried so deep in the noise. Blatant fraud to present conclusions with the certainty they do about climate when “we don’t know” is the scientifically accurate statement.
I didn’t know the satellite measurements lacked resolution that much. My problem with simplistic TOA calculations was that they ignore the complex internal dynamics that produce those imbalances and falsely assume that CO2 is the source of all of it.
+100
All true, but they also, at least in that graphic, ignore the actual 3-d shape of the planet.
Most of the empirical evidence about climate is ignored by climate ideologists.
Makes no practical difference whether you consider 2 spheres one of diameter of the surface, on of diameter TOA….or 2 flat plates of the area of the surface separated by 70 km. A factor of about 1.003, IIRC, so irrelevant in the instrument error.
I understand the error based on using the center of the planet for the 1/R^2 solar field strength versus 8000 miles closer.
But that is not the point. 1 m^2 in the TOA circle is 0.7 m^2 (high noon) at 45 degrees latitude due to the shape of a sphere.
Correction. 4000 miles closer (r not d).
…oops……should be…”two spheres, one of the diameter of the surface, one of diameter of TOA…”
Actually the diameter of the sphere at TOA is immaterial. The EM wave that intercepts the earth is a plane wave with the same intensity, for all intents and purpose, at every point of the wave. The intensity does not vary by any spherical consideration.
Here is a simulation of a plane wave. This shows that many point on the cup was touched.
Assume the number of nails tends toward infinite and that a sphere is passed into it. Each nail has the same intensity, 1360.
The only thing that changes is the angle of incidence.
Angle of incidence is critical.
When projecting a 3D object into 2D plane, the angles determine the areas of projection.
The wavefront from the sun is based on the center of the sun, not the earth.
It is not perfectly flat, but the variation is tiny.
“A factor of about 1.003, IIRC, so irrelevant in the instrument error.”
0.3% of 1368 W/m^2 = 4.1 W/m^2
0.3% of 342 W/m^2 =1.0 W/m^2
Claimed energy imbalance = 0.7 W/m^2
Seems it is not so irrelevant in and of itself and this is in addition to instrumentation measurement errors and uncertainties.
My objection is simpler. The average temperature during any day is not the mean of the max and min. Never. Not even for a single day.
They are using the temperature as a proxy for energy content of the air. On what basis? GAST is not energy content. Energy is temperature and thermal mass together, the latter being pressure + humidity, essentially, (close enough for government work).
To detect any meaningful increase in the system’s energy content you have to have the thermal mass and temperature, otherwise you cannot calculate a difference in energy. That’s how its done. Averaging a bunch of temperatures doesn’t tell us anything useful. After all, it might be 1 degree warmer but 5% drier.
If one cubic metre of air has 50% humidity at 25 deg C, and another cubic metre has 45% humidity at 26 deg C, they have about the same energy content. A whole degree warmer, same energy content. Means what??
The basic claim for the GAST calculation is false. It gives a number but…so what? Divide Pi by E. You also get a number. I have others….
Exactly what many of us have been saying. It is why Miami and Las Vegas have similar average temperatures but vastly different climates.
GAST is a meaningless number as you have demonstrated!
Great article. It is way past the time to hold climate science feet to the fire about measurement uncertainty and it’s effects on conclusions.
One problem no covered is the fact that the sun doesn’t warm the atmosphere directly (ideally). It first warms the surface, ocean/land, which converts insolation to IR. This conversion is not black body where what comes in also goes out.
Both the ocean and land are heat sinks, and the land especially, diffuses heat into depths of several (10 – 20) inches. The oceans are heated much deeper by insolation. The heat stored is not immediately released. It can be months, years, or even decades before the stored heat is released.
Where is this heat storage accounted for in the calculations? It is not science to simply make up numbers that agree with a preconceived idea, it is fiction.
I could go on about the determination of 360 W/m² being an incorrect value to use in an exponential functional relationship but maybe later.
“Where is this heat storage accounted for in the calculations?”
A key point! The measured reduction in clouds during the modern warm period allowed more of the suns energy to reach the surface and heat the oceans to depth. I doubt that that thermal inertia can be accurately quantified.
So we shall apply averages and statistics based on a handful of isolated onetime measurements. Right? /s
Global average temperature is a meaningless statisitc!
It does not, IMHO, qualify as a statistic. A calculation only with no statistical significance.
We are saying the same thing, methinks.
“We are saying the same thing”
Yes!
Well yes, it is, if the water heated by the radiation becomes hotter than it was before, and the source of heat is removed. Place a bowl of ice in the sun. First it gets hotter, liquifies, and its temperature rises to a maximum. The sun goes down, the water cools – under the right conditions in desert areas, the water will freeze and solidify!
No “heat trapping”.
I didn’t say heat was trapped. I said.
As you indicate the liquid cools, that is, it releases stored heat.
The time frame is what you are arguing about, not trapping. Using averages of time varying phenomena is exactly the problem climate science suffers from.
I beg to differ. Heat is not “stored”, either. Heat is a concept, if you like. Poorly defined as “energy in transfer . . .”, or something equally vague.
If you accept the principles of quantum electrodynamics, then you accept that photons are bosons, and not subject to the exclusion principle. In other words, the absolute amount of energy in transit (heat) in any volume is literally impossible to determine.
“Climate scientists” refuse to accept reality, and invent bizarre “physics” as they go along. There is no “GHE”. Adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter. Anyone seriously claiming to be a “climate scientist” is either a fool, a fraud, or mad.
If one goes by permafrost, the thermal depth of land extends to ~ 20 meters (or is it feet).
If one looks at soil temperatures, it becomes obvious that heat is stored for a time then released. If it wasn’t, agriculture would be very limited.
Oh yes. As at sun rise, as the surface warms, thermal energy is transferred into the planet and the surface temperature is not at the temperature an ignorant BB calculation would conclude. After high noon, the below surface energy starts rising and slows the cooling of the surface by replacing some of the energy the surface releases.
The notion of any measurable energy imbalance over a complete orbit is nonscience .
Consider that the integral over decades is a barely measurable degree out of ~ 288 .
Oh , & btw , Any temperature accounting which leaves out the adiabatic gravitational >< thermal gradient violates Conservation of Energy .
“There are not nearly enough thermometers in the GAST networks to constitute a sufficient sample for statistical purposes.”
The surface of the Earth is 197 million square miles. So, 10 million thermometers might be enough if spread over the entire planet. About 1 every 20 square miles.
Make that 25 km^2 to match the grid in the climate models.
Even then the temperature variance over 20 miles can be very large making the uncertainty in an average large also.
Right, so it’s absurd that they think they know the planet’s temperature to a decimal place.
Similar BS here in Wokeachusetts by the state forestry agency. The feds do a statistical survey of all the forest land in the nation. It’s something like 1 study plot (each a small % of an acre) every few hundred acres (600?). Then the state used that data to claim they know the wood volume in the state to 2 decimal places. When I ranted to them that it’s impossible to claim that- they just ignored me. That convinced that they are ignoramuses.
45 mile drive home from work can see 15 F temperature drop, more some days, less others. It depends on weather.
“Clauser described a process by which the IPCC has gradually moved away from relying on GAST as its proof of global warming.”
They had to tip toe away in order not to cause nervous breakdowns and suicides among alarmists.
Just one of many ways the Climate Liars have of lying.
IMHO, the above is an excellent article by Francis Menton summarizing Dr. John Clauser’s science- and mathematics-based reasoning on why EEI simply cannot be calculated to an accuracy of 0.7 W/m2 net incoming. It likely cannot be accurately calculated to be even within a range of +/- 7 W/m^2, or about +/- 2% of the average TOA incoming solar irradiance.
I state this because there is the unreasonable assumption that EEI (which really is in units of power flux, not energy) can be calculated from a group of assumed “steady state”, aka “time averaged” parameters, when in fact most factors comprising EEI have varying time constants and widely different phase lags relative to each other.
For example, Earth’s insolation has a total variation of about 7% over the time period of one-year due to Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun. But the coupling of TOA solar insolation to Earth and its atmosphere depends primarily on Earth’s albedo, which varies greatly with areal cloud coverage which itself can vary greatly over periods of many years (ENSO with El Niños and La Niñas) to many decades (PDO and AMO/AMOC), as well as with shorter, more intense erratic variations due to weather events such as typhoons, hurricanes, tropical storms, and “prevailing” jet streams/winds.
The world’s oceans have much greater thermal inertia compared to the relatively smaller thermal inertia of Earth’s land and vegetative masses, but the Trenberth-style EEI cartoon and cited parameters (as shown in the above article) just treat these different bodies as if they were all the same and constant-as-averged. Wind-driven EvapoTranspiration (with associated surface-to-air heat transfer) from land will be much different than that from water (see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/04/08/proposed-theory-of-historical-global-cloud-cover/ ).
Even Earth’s hydrological cycle is not constant (“steady state”), and thus amenable to averaging, over periods much longer than five or so years, as evidenced by various areas of Earth that have experiencing decades-long to centuries-long intervals of drought/megadrought. Tree-ring data indicates North American droughts lasting over 200 years, while Africa’s Sahel region and the Mayan civilization (A.D. 760–910) suffered severe multi-decadal to centennial dry periods.
Then too, Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events are rapid, abrupt climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period (roughly 11,600 to 115,000 years ago), with time phasing suggesting a possible quasi-periodicity of roughly 1,470 years. D-O events have never been correlated with changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Although most pronounced in the North Atlantic, D-O events have global footprints. In fact, there has been scientific speculation that the last 200 or so years of “global warming” on Earth may be nothing more than the appearance of another D-O event.
Bottom line: an asserted EEI of 0.7 W/m^2 net incoming is simply not scientifically credible on either a short or long time scale.
The other fun one is “equilibrium climate sensitivity.”
The earth’s energy systems (multiple, chaotic, and coupled) never achieve equilibrium as a system.
The sun is not constant both in intensity and spectrum.
The planet orbits the barycenter.
The planet rotates on a wobbling axis.
The moon and other celestial objects are not stationary.
Even the background cosmic radiation varies, especially as the solar system orbits within the galaxy.
First, any organization that claims heat can be trapped is to be ignored.
The specific definition of heat is the flow of thermal energy (via kinetic interaction of molecules) from warm to cold. If the flow is “trapped” it is not heat.
Second, the measurement tolerance of CERES per NASA envelopes the EEI.
Third, that graphic that is used excessively represents a flat earth that is not rotating. The earth is an oblate spheroid and to get 25% of the incoming solar EM radiation puts it at a high latitude or an hour or so from the day-night terminator.
All true, and to your second point, John Clauser has been doing great work for some time taking the leading lights of EEI-based climate alarmism out to the woodshed for a good thrashing, e.g.:
clausers-case-ghg-science-wrong-clouds-the-climate-thermostat
Unfortunately, on the subject of EEI, I don’t think it ever goes away until ‘mainstream’ climate science comes to grips with the phenomenological physics of radiant transfer theory, particularly the idea that surface pyrgeometers can’t possibly measure the energy flow of so-called ‘back radiation’ from atmospheric CO2. See one of the late Michael Mishchenko’s many articles on the subject here:
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article/1531/1/11/922276/125-years-of-radiative-transfer-Enduring-triumphs
“The RTE [radiant transfer equation] was introduced 125 years ago by Eugene von Lommel, while the heuristic concept of radiance was definitively formulated in 1906 by Max Planck. Subsequently, they were supplemented by the seemingly obvious concept of a directional radiometer [DR]. Since then, measurements with WCRs [well-collimated radiometers)]and calculations based on the RTE have been at the very heart of the disciplines of atmospheric radiation, remote sensing, astrophysics, heat energy transfer, and biomedical optics. Yet from the fundamental-physics perspective, both the discipline of DR and the RTT [radiant transfer theory] have been based on phenomenological notions many of which turned out to be profound misconceptions. It has been demonstrated that contrary to the widespread belief, a WCR does not, in general, measure the flow of electromagnetic energy along its axis, while the radiance cannot be interpreted as quantifying the amounts of electromagnetic energy transported simultaneously in various directions.”
Sorry, corrected to post comment to Sparta Nova 4 and not to you.
From Google’s AI bot:
“Energy produced by nuclear fusion in the Sun’s core does indeed take thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to reach the surface, according to NASA and other space science sources. While the light travels from the Sun to Earth in only 8 minutes and 20 seconds, the journey from the core to the surface is a slow, chaotic process due to the extreme density of the solar interior . . .
The Trap (Radiative Zone): The Sun’s interior is so dense (about 150 times denser than water) that these photons cannot travel directly outward. Instead, they are continuously absorbed and re-emitted by particles in a “random walk” or “zigzag” path.”
(my bold emphasis added)
If heat is defined as the flow of thermal energy (via kinetic interaction of molecules) from warm to cold, then:
a) heat could never flow through nobles gases such as helium, neon and argon as these are monatomic gases, not molecules,
b) heat could never flow through metals such as iron, copper, tin, aluminum, mercury, silver or gold because these don’t exist as molecules; instead, they are metallic elements often found in lattice structures when in solid phase, and
c) the heat energy created in the core of the Sun could never flow to the cooler outer surface (aka photosphere) because there no molecules in the Sun’s interior due to the extreme temperatures there (>15 million °C in the core) creating a plasma of ionized particles. Molecules can only exist in the cooler “sunspot” regions on the surface, where temperatures drop enough for atoms to combine.
“The great tragedy of Science—the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
— Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895)
. . . but in this case, slain by three separate facts
a. I accept the clarification. I fell into the trap of common language, context derived definitions. Monoatomic gasses and molecules is more precise.
b. I should have been specific in the description applied to gasses. That aside, atoms in a lattice structure are held in place via electrostatic forces (charge). As one atom moves, it delivers energy to an adjacent atom. It is similar to kinetic (gas). While it is possible, perhaps plausible, that atmospheric gas molecules and atoms actually make contact, it is also likely that electrostatic forces are the kinetic energy transfer mechanism.
c. Plasma of ionized particles can and do transfer energy, that it not thermal energy and more than IR is heat.
So not so much slain.
Correcting typos:
c. Plasma of ionized particles can and do transfer energy, that is not thermal energy any more than IR is heat.
Follow up.
Earth atmosphere:
N2 78.08%
O2 20.95%
~ 99.03% for those 2, except when H2O 0% to 4% pushes a few out of the mix.
CO2 0.04%
CH4 trace
AR 0.93%
HE trace
NE trace
KR trace
XE trace
So you are arguing that < 1% makes the statement false. Ok.
The physics in the interior of the sun are nuclear, not thermal. Also, photons are a mathematical concept, regardless of what you think.
We calculate the sun’s surface temperature using the black bock T^4 equation, but we have never measured it. It is possible that the solar EM radiation is generated in the interior by the fusion and fission reaction. We can only guess.
Most molecules disassociate at well below the estimated solar surface temperature of 5500 C to 5800 C. So we only have guesses of the surface composition.
The sun’s atmosphere, the corona is estimated to be 1E6 to 3E6 C. (E6 is million.) There are no estimates of EM energy emitted by the corona but declaring it to be zero would be a false claim.
Hmmm . . . generations of photographers, videographers, filmmakers and TV watchers will be very surprised to hear that. I conclude that silver iodide, emulsion dye couplers, CCD devices and devices using lasers and solid state LEDs (e.g., CD & DVD players, digital display panels/TVs) should then likewise be considered as “mathematical concepts”
. . . that is, regardless of what I or others think to the contrary.
/sarc
‘Hmmm . . . generations of photographers, videographers, filmmakers and TV watchers will be very surprised to hear that.’
I doubt if many of the people comprising your list spend a lot of time thinking about ‘photons’. In fact, it would probably improve our knowledge of science immensely if those who currently give credence to the phenomenological physics of radiant transfer theory, including Google’s AI bot, backed away from their fixation on photons.
From the conclusion of the Mishchenko article I posted, above:
“In summary, there has been a paradigm-changing shift in the physical understanding of the discipline of directional photometry established phenomenologically 250 years ago by Bouguer and Lambert and of the RTE introduced 125 years ago by Lommel. From allegedly describing the “directional flow of radiant energy”, photometry has been reduced to making measurements with WCRs and modeling these measurements theoretically on the basis of fundamental physical theories. Paraphrasing the famous pronouncement by Willis Lamb, Jr. that “there is no such thing as a photon”, we can conclude that there is no such thing as the specific intensity allegedly quantifying multidirectional flow of electromagnetic energy. What does exist is a potentially useful instrument called the WCR and the urgent need to understand its actual physical functionality in various practical situations.”
“Photon” was the nickname given to the quantum of energy required to elevate an electron to a higher energy state and likewise the energy emitted when through quantum probabilities, the electron transititioned to its lower energy state.
You know this, I am sure.
Thanks. I do find this stuff difficult because I have no formal training in physics, hence I’m sure I make my share of mistakes throwing around various terms and concepts.
You do well.
Not quite true.
“At the dawn of the 20th century, Max Planck and Albert Einstein turned physics on its ear by introducing the notion of quanta. Einstein’s paper of 1905 dealt with the particle nature of light, but didn’t call the particles photons. The coinage of that terminology comes from an American physical chemist named Gilbert Newton Lewis. . . . He was the first to coin the word “photon” to describe the unit of light in a December 18, 1926 letter to Nature. Technically, his understanding of the term was that it described a carrier of “radiant energy” — not a particle of light per se: ‘I therefore take the liberty of proposing for this hypothetical new atom, which is not light but plays an essential part in every process of radiation, the name photon.’ In that sense, his concept differed from Einstein’s 1905 quantum theory of light, but “photon” came to be used to describe what Einstein originally termed ‘light quantum’ (lichtquant).”
— https://www.aps.org/apsnews/2012/12/gilbert-lewis-coins-photon-letter (my underlining emphasis added)
Max Planck introduced the theory of “quanta” on December 14, 1900, during a meeting of the Physikalische Gesellschaft in Berlin. He proposed that energy is emitted or absorbed in discrete packets called quanta. Albert Einstein introduced the concept of light quanta (much later called “photons”) in his seminal 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, titled “On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light”. He proposed that light behaves not just as a wave, but as discrete “packets” of energy that can be absorbed or generated only as whole units.
1900 and 1905 preceded 1926 by . . . ummmm . . . quite a few years.
You just confirmed my statement with your history lesson.
What is the mass of a photon?
What is the diameter (or dimensions) of a photon?
You obviously are oblivious to electromagnetic fields and waves and equally oblivious to valence physics or you would not take ownership of such tripe.
Read up on Einstein’s theory of mass-energy equivalence (made famous by his equation E=m*c^2). Combine that with the Plank-Einstein relationship E=h*f. With those two simple equations one can calculate the effective mass (m) of any photon of frequency, f, in an inertial frame of reference.
Since physics has proven the particle-wave duality of photons by showing that light exhibits properties of both waves (diffraction/interference) and particles (photon collisions) depending on the experimental setup, the concept of physical dimensions as understood in classic geometry/trigonometry cannot be applied to photons. In addition, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, combined with the fixed speed of light photons (in a vacuum) in an inertial reference frame say that it is impossible to even measure the position (and thus likewise measure the “diameter”) of a photon of any frequency.
A simple Web search reveals the standard physics considers photons as having zero size. Standard physics also considers photons to have zero rest mass since they travel in vacuo at the speed of light and the Lorentz equations of special relativity would require infinite energy to create a non-zero-rest-mass particle traveling at the speed of light.
Finally, sorry, but I do not “take ownership” of such great discoveries—continue to call them tripe if you wish—that came from others far smarter than me.
Once again, you prove my post.
Photon is a concept, a mathematical definition of something we do not fully understand.
The tripe was in reference to your claims that photography prove photons are real.
“b) heat could never flow through metals such as iron, copper, tin, aluminum, mercury, silver or gold because these don’t exist as molecules; instead, they are metallic elements often found in lattice structures when in solid phase, and”
I guess we cannot forge iron or make copper wire or build WTGs and SVs because “heat” never flows through metals.
That is not correct.
Total solar power flux that is intercepted by the disk of the Earth at the Sun-Earth average distance = A*(solar constant) = (pi*r^2)*(solar constant), where r is the Earth’s radius and solar constant = ~1360 W/m^2.
Area of Earth’s surface as approximated by a sphere (Earth deviates from a perfect sphere by only about 0.3%) = 4*pi*r^2
Therefore, solar power flux as averaged over total surface area = [(pi*r^2)*1360 W/m^2]/(4*pi*r^2) = (1/4)*1360 W/m^2 = 340 W/m^2.
Averaging the intercepted energy by the total surface area and working in units of “flux” automatically accounts for the Earth’s rotation as well as cosine effects from angle-of-solar-incidence versus latitude across all Earth’s surface. It’s basic physics and spherical geometry.
It’s basic physics and spherical geometry.
No it isn’t.
Here is a Carl Sagan quote.
“The sun is so far away that its rays are parallel when they reach the Earth,” Sagan pointed out.
Here is a screeshot from a meteorology textbook that illustrates the effect of those parallel rays.
Here is an image that helps explain.
Every ray has the same intensity when it strikes the earth. There is NO average! Every square meter of surface receives 1360 W/m^2. What does change is what the textbook shows, the angle of incidence. Please note that the value of insolation is always the same, 1360. The absorbed amount varies by the cosine of the angle of radiation.
Here is a slide showing that the intensity of a plane wave is constant across the plane wave.
I can give you more references if you need them.
You stated “Every square meter of surface receives 1360 W/m^2.”
That is simply wrong.
As your posted first graphic indicates (and calculates), one square meter of Earth’s surface at at 60 degrees north latitude at noontime on the day of the summer solstice receives only 681 W/m^2 due to its slanted angle to incoming solar rays (discounting albedo) whereas one square meter of Earth’s surface at the same time at the equator receives 1361 W/m^2 (again discounting albedo) because that equatorial area is normal to the incoming solar rays.
You appear to be hopelessly confused by the geometry of the incoming solar flux versus the realized solar flux as illuminating surfaces that are slanted with respect to that incoming vector . . . commonly referred to by scientists as the “cosine effect”.
Sagan, of course, did get it right: at the Sun-Earth distance, with the Sun’s disk subtending an angle of only about 0.5 degrees in the sky, the radiation from the Sun arrives as essentially parallel rays with uniform cross-sectional power flux . . . but that not the whole story for how Earth’s surface receives that radiation flux.
You misunderstand what the graphic is showing. The square meter of earth is subjected to the entire 1360 value. However, due to the angle of incidence, only 681 IS ABSORBED.
The key geometric quantity is the solar zenith angle θ: the angle between the local surface normal and the Sun’s rays. For a horizontal surface the fraction of the plane‑wave flux intercepted is cos θ (Lambert’s cosine law). The zenith angle depends on latitude, solar declination (season), and hour angle (time of day)
I emphasized the word “receives” as you used it your post that I quoted verbatim above.
So, now you want to shift it to “is subjected to”. OK, got it.
“A distinction without a difference” is known as a logical fallacy.
Stop nitpicking. Heck. I could even say 1360 impinges on the earth, but only the perpendicular part of the insolation vector is absorbed.
The major point is that averages of insolation over a flat earth for 24 hours is a back of the envelope conjecture one might use in a coffee shop conversation. It is not a scientific calculation using calculus and trigonometry to obtain a correct value.
Nonsense, the angle of incidence does not refer to the absorption it refers to the area that the square meter of incoming radiation is spread over (incident on)!
Not true, Toldyouso was right: “one square meter of Earth’s surface at at 60 degrees north latitude at noontime on the day of the summer solstice receives only 681 W/m^2 due to its slanted angle to incoming solar rays (discounting albedo)”, i.e. the original one square metre of light is now spread over a bigger area due to the slant.
Remember the ray still arrives at a 60°° angle to the surface. The part that is absorbed is the normal component of the vector. Consequently, what is absorbed is,
681 × cos(60) = 341 W/m²
(341 ÷ 5.67×10⁻⁸)⁰.²⁵ = 278K = 5°C = 41°F
That is a pretty cold temperature for surface soil temperature in the middle of summer.
Let’s do it my way.
1360 × 0.7 = 952 W/m² (with albedo)
952 × cos 60 = 476 W/m²
(476 ÷ 5.67×10⁻⁸)⁰.²⁵ = 303K = 30°C = 86°F
Here is a graph of soil temperatures from Iowa. From https://styves.co.za/iowa-soil-temps-everything-you-need-to-know/
Which temperature of 5°C or 30°C is a better representation of summer soil temperatures? Also, remember that this is the 4 inch values. What do you think the surface soil temperature would be.
Iowa is ~42ºN not 60ºN, that’s more like Oslo! Again we’re talking about the angle of incidence and the light being spread over a bigger area as a result, not absorbance.
Iowa is ~42ºN not 60ºN, that’s more like Oslo! Again we’re talking about the angle of incidence and the light being spread over a bigger area as a result, not absorbance.
You have not answered any of my points with math of your own or data of your own. Here again is a screenshot from an online meteorology textbook that describes how to determine the ABSORPTION value in an asphalt parking lot at angle of cost 60.
[img
[/img]
Are you declaring this textbook as being incorrect?
Why don’t you do some research and find soil temperatures in the summer at a location at 60 degrees north? Show me how they never exceed 5°C.
I forgot to add that the textbook example is at latitude φ = 60°.
“You have not answered any of my points with math of your own or data of your own. Here again is a screenshot from an online meteorology textbook that describes how to determine the ABSORPTION value in an asphalt parking lot at angle of cost 60.”
It does not determine ABSORPTION as it explicitly says “Because the solar radiation is striking the parking lot at an angle, the radiative flux into the parking lot is half the solar irradiance.”
It is describing the incident flux as I am, your textbook agrees with me not you!
Because it treats the surface as a black body all of that radiation will be absorbed in that case, otherwise it will be less.
I have never mentioned soil temperature, that’s an irrelevancy you brought up.
So you have never verified that your interpretation validates with soil temperatures.
It specifically says ” the radiative flux INTO the parking lot”. Maybe you have a different definition of INTO versus ONTO than I do.
Table 8-6 also says,
“Average solar insolation (irradiation) on a horizontal surface under average atmospheric conditions.”
The text also says,
“Iₒ = Eₒ sin α
where α is again the angle the rays make with the horizontal.”
The statements concerning the horizontal are important. The horizontal is a tangent line at the point of intersection on the sphere. It is how you calculate the normal component of the ray because that is what is absorbed.
Here is a graphic showing the tangent lines.
I appreciate the fact that you bothered reading what I posted as a resource.
“The statements concerning the horizontal are important. The horizontal is a tangent line at the point of intersection on the sphere. It is how you calculate the normal component of the ray because that is what is absorbed.”
No, the text calculated the incident flux due to the angle then assumed it was all absorbed because it was a black body.
Show the text you are referring to.
Do you know what a horizontal line to a point on a sphere is and how it is calculated? A line perpendicular to a horizontal line is used to calculate the angle of incidence.
Here is the most important question. Do you believe that the normal component of insolation is what is absorbed by the surface with the remainder being reflected?
Show the text you are referring to.
Here it is:
“During the equinox at noon at latitude p =60°, the solar elevation angle is ‘ = 90° – 60º = 30º. If the atmosphere is perfectly transparent, then how much radiative flux is absorbed into a perfectly black asphalt parking lot?”
My emphasis.
“Use eq. (2.19):
rad = (1361 W•m-2)-sin(30°) = 680.5 W.m-.
Because the solar radiation is striking the parking lot at an angle, the radiative flux into the parking lot is half of the solar irradiance.”
Because it is ‘perfectly black’ all the incident light is absorbed.
“ Do you believe that the normal component of insolation is what is absorbed by the surface with the remainder being reflected?”
Absolutely not since the surface is not a flat plane of glass!
Did you miss the part about a plane wave having the same intensity at all points on the wave? That means every point, however small, receives the same intensity.
What you are calling “realized solar flux” is the portion of the incoming solar flux that is perpendicular to the “slanted” surface. It is the part of the solar flux that is absorbed and converted into heat. It is the cosine effect.
That is not the ‘cosine effect’!
ToldYouSo – It’s hopeless, I’m afraid. Jim has his idee fixe, and nothing will shake it.
I’ve explained to him until I’m blue in the face that the calculation of the flux through a surface uses the dot product of the flux vector and the surface normal vector. So this value includes the cosine of the angle between the two vectors.
I just checked, and this is clearly explained on page 23 of my freshman electricity and magnetism textbook I used at MIT many years ago. So very basic introductory stuff, but he cannot get it.
I have emphasized, like you, that this calculates the flux reaching the surface. What happens to it when it hits the surface is completely dependent on surface properties – material, roughness, etc.
Next, he completely misunderstands Lambert’s cosine law, which (a) only applies to ideally diffuse reflectors, and (b) does not come close to saying what he thinks it says. It most certainly does NOT say that a surface can only absorb the fraction of incident radiation upon it equal to the cosine of the angle of incidence, even for these ideally diffuse reflectors.
I’d like to see him apply his concepts to “Vantablack”, a real-world substance that has a measured “total hemispheric reflectance” of 0.25%. So welll under 1% of incident radiation at ALL ANGLES is reflected.
I admire your efforts, but I’m not holding out much hope for your success.
Thank you, sir, for your independent observations. Reluctantly, from the ever-changing word-salads I’ve recently received from JG, I acknowledge the value of your wisdom and I’m coming around to acting on your advice in this matter.
Absolutely agree Bo, not much chance of persuading him but hopefully we can prevent others from believing his nonsense.
Exactly what is the difference in what you are saying versus my explanation.
The absorbed vector is the normal component of the flux vector. The value of that normal vector is the magnitude of the flux vector multiplied by the cosine of the angle of incidence. The direction of the normal vector is 90° to the surface.
Here is a screenshot of a textbook Heat Transfer, J. P. Holman Ph.D, Southern Methodist University.
As you can see, his equation, [Iₒ = E₆ₒ sin α], along with a resulting table, is similar to what I have shown, although his perspective is more similar to that mentioned by Sparta.
I will show the graphic from another textbook that I have included earlier. This is from Practical Meteorology, Roland Stull Ph.D, University of British Columbia.
I have yet to see any references from you that addresses the absorption of heat from the sun at various points on the earth. Perhaps you are having a hard time finding one.
Let me add a quote from Planck about how his experiments analyzed the impact of “heat rays”.
As a side note. Reflection at the surface is a big deal. See all that green outside, that is reflected visible light that basically leaves the earth and is never seen again. Look at photos the astronauts have taken. See all those blue oceans, the oceans are not warm enough to generate blue radiation. That is all reflected visible light from the sun.
The systems we are dealing with are the sun, the surface, and the atmosphere. Look at soil temperatures sometime. How many joules does it take to raise soil 4°C at 4 to 5 inches deep. Those are joules not sent to the atmosphere immediately.
Jim, you ask:
The difference is that I am calculating the flux that falls on the surface in the first place. How much is absorbed, reflected, or transmitted depends on the material properties of the surface depends on the material, but these three CANNOT sum to more than this amount.
You are erroneously thinking that you are calculating the amount absorbed by the surface.
You include a table from Holman’s heat transfer text. (I used an earlier edition in my university studies.) The table is of the “Average solar insolation (irradiation) on a horizontal surface…” as a function of solar altitude angle.
It says NOTHING about how much is absorbed, so once again you cite a source that agrees with me, not you.
The Stull reference you keep citing refers to a “perfectly black” surface, which obvious means that it perfectly absorbs all incident radiation. So once again, it agrees with me, not you.
The surface integral equation for flux through a surface that I have been referring to:
Q = ∫ ∫ (F’ (dot) N’) dA
Where F’ is the flux vector, and N’ is the surface normal vector is a very basic one. You should have gotten it in about the 2nd week of your first electricity and magnetism physics course. As I said above, it I explained on Page23 of the introductory textbook I used back in the day.
The dot product of these two vectors contains the cosine term that these equations hold. Remember that this result, with the cosine term, is for the flux falling on the surface in the first place. It has nothing to do with how much of that is absorbed by the surface.
This is not the least bit controversial. It is not open to debate at all. If in a university course, you calculate a result without the cosine term (as you keep doing here), you will simply be marked wrong. Your professor or TA will not consider this to be a matter of opinion or contention.
You have been effectively arguing that the only factor determining how much of the radiation is absorbed is the angle of incidence. Seriously? You think that a mirror, a diffuse white surface, a gray surface, and a rough black surface all act the same in this regard?
Since you have access to the on-line Holman heat transfer text, I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the parts of that chapter dealing with surface properties of various materials.
And again, I recommend you familiarize yourself with the real substance Vantablack, which has a measured “total hemispheric reflectance” of 0.25%. It most certainly does NOT reflect 50% of the incoming radiation at an angle of incidence of 60 degrees.
The point is that the average is not 340 W/m² Over the entire area of the earth.
Look at the table closely. It says,
“Average atmospheric conditions”, in other words, including albedo. And don’t forget that a “horizontal” surface indicates a 90° angle or normal vector that would be absorbed. The remainder of the insolation is reflected.
I am not sure what Holman used for albedo throughout but if you calculate
1063/1395 = 0.762
and use this throughout along with the cos(90 – θ) you obtain.
(1395) • 0.762 • cos(0) = 1063 vs 1063
(1395) • 0.762 • cos(10) = 1047 vs 1043
(1395) • 0.762 • cos(20) = 999 vs 992
(1395) • 0.762 • cos(40) = 814 vs 781
.
.
.
(1395) • 0.762 • cos(85) = 92 vs 41
Because the table has the normal vector values, they are comparable to what I have been saying. The vertical component of the insolation vector.
These are far from an overall average of 340 W/m². The temperatures at the “equator” are far higher than those caused at the poles with just 92/41 W/m². In fact, using my numbers gives an average of 628 W/m². Using the table’s values gives an average of 533 W/m².
Lets look at temperatures.
(340 ÷ 5.67×10⁻⁸)⁰.²⁵ = 278K = 5°C
(628 ÷ 5.67×10⁻⁸)⁰.²⁵ = 324K = 51°C
(533 ÷ 5.67×10⁻⁸)⁰.²⁵ = 311K = 38°C
Wow. Remember, averaging is a linear function. Averaging trig functions when cosine/sine are used is not the correct mathematical process.
Jim – Core question that you have been dodging all along:
I presented you above the equation for flux through a surface:
Q = ∫ ∫ (F’ (dot) N’) dA
This equation is given in every introductory electricity and magnetism physics class there is. It contains a dot product of the flux vector and the surface normal vector, which means that it contains the cosine of the angle between them.
The result of this equation is the total flux through the surface. It says nothing about what happens to the flux after it has passed through the surface. But it already contains the cosine term.
You obviously don’t use this equation in your own flux calculations, as you insist that the full flux falls on any surface regardless of the angle of incidence.
So I ask you: Do you really believe that every university E&M physics class gets this wrong? And that we have been teaching generations of scientists and engineers a fundamental error?
By the way, I just did the formal integration of that equation for the solar insolation reaching the earth (top of atmosphere) over the entire hemisphere facing the sun, and got the result:
Q (watts) = S (watts/m^2) * Pi * R^2
The surface area of this hemisphere is 2 * Pi * R^2, so the average over this hemisphere is S/2.
Of course, the other hemisphere, which also has surface area of 2 * Pi * R^2, has zero insolation, so the average solar flux over the full sphere is S/4. If S = 1360 W/m^2, then S/4 = 340 W/m^2.
Or if you understand basic geometry, you could obtain this result by inspection.
As soon as you spread the insolation over both sides, you have lost the plot. You can no longer calculate accurate temperatures nor their gradients.
Compute a soil temperature at 2 inches using 340. It won’t come close to providing an accurate value except maybe near the poles.
What you are doing is saying the nighttime receives 340 right along with the sunlite side. Does that really make sense to you? Do you think the tropics only receive 340?
If you were measuring the outgoing radiation from geosynchronous satellites in space, would the radiation from the sunlite side be higher than the radiation from the unlite side?
Here are two images that may help explain the reason a “spreading” of a beam is a popular mistake.
This diagram is drawn as if the sun is a point source the same size as or even smaller than the earth. Notice the rays are not parallel. That means the assumption is that the EM waves do not create a plane wave.
Now here is another from an astronomer, Gary A Becker.
Notice how the rays are parallel. The do not diverge at all. The imlication is that the sun is both far away and that the EM waves are all parallel.
The tangent lines to the sphere are meaningful. This is what Hanson was discussing in his textbook. They are horizontal to the earth and the angle of incidence on that horizontal line is important.
I have shown you two textbook and multiple graphics. All you have provided is an equation that really isn’t applicable. You need to up your game in providing resources.
Jim – you say:
Good grief! I am wasting my time arguing with a person who doesn’t even understand what an average is! (As in some more, some less…)
I keep emphasizing over and over that I am talking about parallel lines of solar flux, and you just don’t get it! The reduced flux density on the surface when the sun is low in the sky occurs EVEN WITH parallel lines of flux.
You say to me:
No, the equation is directly applicable. In fact, it is THE KEY equation for this analysis. And as it covers the first step in the analysis, if you get it wrong — as you do — all subsequent analysis will be wrong as well.
I repeat: For you to be right, E&M physics as has been taught for over a century must be wrong. Is that your claim???
I repeat: For you to be right, E&M physics as has been taught for over a century must be wrong. Is that your claim???
Let’s take the Becker drawing you provided. Extend the parallel lines of flux from the sun until they reach the earth. They will be farther apart at high latitudes than at low latitudes, which graphically demonstrates a lower flux density reaching the surface at high latitudes. As I keep emphasizing, this has nothing to do with how much of that radiation is absorbed by the surface.
There is no point for me to scrounge up diagrams when you keep providing ones that prove my point!
Correct, I’ve lost count how many times I’ve explained this to the gormless ones, there failure to understand the difference between the Earth’s surface and the ToA is astounding!
?? That corroborates what ToldYouSo said…which is correct… but you say “no it isn’t”. Maybe you need to be more specific…
This is what was said. “flux that is intercepted by the disk if the earth”, yet the earth is not a flat disk.
The equation used was
A•1360 = πr²• 1360
What I am trying to point out is that every point on the half of the surface of the earth facing the sun, at any point in time, is receiving 1360 and absorbing an amount based on the angle of incidence.
In an ideal system that means points on the equator would be absorbing an ideal 1360, while points at higher latitudes would absorb less and less based on cosine function. Since the earth is tilted and other factors there are other variables to include.
The other factor is that every point is subjected to insolation that varies as a sine function from sunrise to sunset.
Because of an exponential variable T, averages just don’t work from a scientific standpoint.
As has been said multiple times before your wrong it’s angle of incidence not absorption!
For your edification:
Q (put to the Web): What do astronomers mean when referring to the “disk” of a planetary body?
A-1 (from IAU Office of Astronomy for Education):
1. The Visible Disk (Optical Observation)
“When looking through a telescope, the planet appears as a 2D circle rather than a single point of light (like a star). Astronomers refer to this as the ‘disk’ or ‘planetary disk’ to discuss its brightness, size, and atmospheric features.” (my bold emphasis added)
A-2 (from Google’s AI bot):
“In astronomy, when referring to the disk of a planetary body, astronomers typically mean one of two things depending on the context: the apparent, two-dimensional circular image of a planet seen through a telescope, or a flattened, rotating structure of material (gas, dust, or debris) surrounding a body.” (my bold emphasis added)
A-3 (from Google’s AI bot):
“In astrophotography, the ‘disk’ of a planetary body refers to the visible, circular, or near-circular surface area of a planet (like Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, or Venus) as seen through a telescope, rather than just a point of light.” (my bold emphasis added, pointing specifically to the term circular surface area being used instead of spherical surface area)
Yes, the Earth is not a “flat disk”, but with regard to intercepting near-parallel light rays from the SUN, it is essentially indistinguishable from one. Basic physics—not idle musings—proves so.
Oh, and you’ll probably need to consider this before introducing deflecting comments about “telescope views”:
If viewed from the Sun’s photosphere with the unaided eye, Earth would look like a bright, bluish star or a tiny, glowing speck, similar to how Venus or Mars appear to us, rather than a large, detailed orb.
Note to WUWT Editors:
It appears that WordPress (or whatever program is the basis for WUWT handling posted comments) is now defaulting to eliminating both bold text and underlined text between the time such formatting is first applied to italicized text being composed by a poster and the time it is finally displayed as a posted on this website. (Happened to me in the above post.)
I’ve tried editing a recent post (within the allotted time period to do such) and the reintroduction of bold and/or underlining formats to italicized text just WILL NOT be accepted.
Too bad.
Jim,
Seems awfully complicated. What’s wrong with just dividing the area of a circle (pi*r^2) by the area of a sphere (4*pi*r^2) and getting 1/4? And can we not all agree that the real issue is that the Earth’s climate would differ significantly, depending on whether it rotated once every 24, 12, 48 hrs, or even not at all for that matter, notwithstanding that in each of these scenarios (and endless others), it receives the same amount of solar radiation as in Trenberth’s idiotic cartoon?
Using the area of a circle just isn’t correct. Look at it this way. The surface area of a sphere is 4πr². At any point in time, 1/2 of the earth is illuminated. That area is 2πr².
The use of the area of a circle was originated by folks that thought that is the area “cut out” of the sun’s radiation reaching the earth. Like poking a cookie cutter through a sheet of dough. They then complicated that error by “averaging over 24 hours” which cuts the actual value of insolation in half. Voila! Divide by 4.
Here is a photo of a nail board than can be used to copy a curved surface. It is a good simaculum of a plane wave.
Imagine a large number of nails, each being a ray of 1360 intensity. Every square meter will be impacted by that intensity. The only difference is the angle of incidence.
IR works similarly to optics. A ray of light has three basic quantities. Incident, reflected, and transmitted. In reference to heat, transmitted is what is absorbed.
So are you saying that ‘mainstream’ climate science has miscalculated Earth’s average insolation by a factor of 2?
I think you’re overthinking this. We’ve already determined that the wavefront of the Sun’s rays are ‘planar’, so to go with your nail board analogy, the correct way to calculate the amount of radiation that the coffee cup would intercept at TOA would be to multiply the area of a single nail head by the total number of nails displaced, regardless of how far they’ve been displaced.
The issue is using this average surface area flux as if it applies to every square meter of the planet. It does not.
Why is this important? T^4.
The EM emissions from a surface at 40 C averaged with the EM emissions from a surface at 20 C is not the same as the EM emissions from a surface at 30 C.
Using the average surface area flux to calculate an energy imbalance is as bad as or worse that GAST.
I agree 100% with everything you’re saying here given that f(E(x)) <> E(f(x)) for non-linear functions, e.g., T^4. (Jensen’s Inequality?).
My difference with Jim is that I maintain that the projection of a sphere on a plane is a circle, hence the instantaneous amount of energy impinging on the sphere is equal to that impinging on the circle.
This is where the ‘1/4’ factor arises in the ‘flat earth’ analyses beloved by the alarmists. But as we all know, these have no bearing on how energy is actually distributed on Earth.
The projection you are using is only two-dimensional, not three dimensional. The surface areas subjected to radiation are not equivalent between the two.
You almost have it. Let’s assume there are an infinite number of nails. Now as you push the sphere through that essentially “solid” bed of nails, will every point on the sphere be touched?
Now, not every nail carry 1360 W/m, but if you add up all the energy from all the nails in a square meter on the earth you will have that.
Here is another analogy. Make a laser the diameter of the earth. Assume all the rays are perfectly parallel and continuous. Is every point on the earth subjected to the same intensity? Are the total ljoules absorbed arger or smaller than that of a flat circle the same diameter?
Don’t be fooled by the flat circle and insolation averaged over 24 hours. That was done to obtain a sufficiently low temperature that could be used to show that the greenhouse effect adds 33 degrees to the earths temperature.
Here is the key. The sun illuminates one half of the earth at a time. That surface area is 2πr². That is the surface area of an equivalent flat surface that is needed to properly calculate values of insolation.
‘Let’s assume there are an infinite number of nails.’
Increasing the number of nails increases the accuracy of the estimated area of the projection. Period.
Here’s another experiment for you: Place a rod of know radius, r, into the ground near an outside wall exposed to sunlight and measure the width of the rod’s shadow on the wall. Assuming both the wall and rod are ‘plumb’, is the width of the shadow 2*r or pi*r?
Different issue. You are trying to equate a projection to insolation. The rod isn’t a sphere. It is basically a circle stacked together a large number of times.
The real issue is does the sunlight equally strike the sunward side of the rod. I don’t deny that the projection’s surface area is smaller. But try placing that flat disk onto the sphere. Will it cover one hemisphere of the sphere? No it won’t. It will only cover 1/2 of it. The surface areas of a sphere and a flat disk ARE different.
The number of nail points equates to the area each nail touches. Do the nail points near to the outside of a curve touch larger areas or are all nails touching the same area? That is what others here are saying happens when a beam expands.
We are discussing square meters. What is the wavelength of a red visible wave? 750 nanometers. And they are all parallel. Do you imagine each wave covering larger and larger areas? They would have to diverge to cover a larger erea.
‘Different issue. You are trying to equate a projection to insolation.’
No it isn’t, what I’m ‘trying to equate’ is that the Earth’s projection on a plane defines the amount of sunlight that is instantaneously available to insolate the Earth’s surface.
Consider this thought experiment:
Install a square planar screen at TOA sufficiently large to completely darken the Earth’s surface. (For good measure, double its size to prevent any edge effects). Now cut a hole in this screen until the entire hemisphere of the Earth’s surface facing the screen is illuminated and measure the area of the hole.
Can we agree that the sunlight instantaneously passing through this hole at any time is all the sunlight that is available to instantaneously insolate the Earth’s surface? And can we agree that the area of this hole is very nearly 1/4 that of the Earth’s surface?
The question is not about the two surface areas.
I agree that the flat “lens” can have a surface area of 1/4th the surface area of the earth.
However, a spherical “lens” with the radius of the earth could also pass the energy in a plane wave on to earth also.
The edge effect is an important one in this argument. The claim is that a “ray” covers a larger and larger area as one examines what occurs.
However, what happens to the next parallel ray? Does it also cover most of the larger area of the one next to it.
What happens to the last parallel ray. Is it forced out into space without touching the earth? That is what would happen if the rays don’t overlap.
This assumption also fails to deal with overlapping areas of intersections from different rays.
One of the prior posters thinks a ray spreads to 2.8 the area. The hidden assumption here is that a ray is square with the dimensions of 1×1 m and they never overlap. (I guess it could be a circle with a radius of 1/√π). Either way the surrounding rays are going to lap over into the same area. What is the insolation in a square meter when you add up all the overlapping rays?
I can assure you that a light ray is not that big. It’s wavelength is something like 700 nanometers. What is the number of rays contained in a square meter? Do they all expand to maintain a coherent beam?
“One of the prior posters thinks a ray spreads to 2.8 the area. The hidden assumption here is that a ray is square with the dimensions of 1×1 m and they never overlap.”
No I know that it does! The assumption is that it’s a parallel beam of light with cross section 1 sq m, when it intersects with a surface at an angle to the line of sight it illuminates a larger area, expanding in the direction of the line of sight. The adjacent beams being parallel do the same but do not overlap with the neighboring beams.
“What is the insolation in a square meter when you add up all the overlapping rays?”
There are no overlapping rays!
LOL. How large do you think the rays are? How many pass through you lens of πr² area.
If they don’t overlap, what happens the rays are the edge that would have hit the earth? Are they pushed out of the way?
You do realize that “rays” are a lay term don’t you. A plane EM wave is a continuous phenomena in a flat plane made up of electric and magnetic fields. It has the same intensity at all points.
What you are basically proposing is taking a piece of saran wrap of πr² and stretching it to cover an area of 2πr². When you stretch it, you will no longer have parallel “rays”.
“How large do you think the rays are? How many pass through you lens of πr² area.
If they don’t overlap, what happens the rays are the edge that would have hit the earth? Are they pushed out of the way?
You do realize that “rays” are a lay term don’t you. A plane EM wave is a continuous phenomena in a flat plane made up of electric and magnetic fields. It has the same intensity at all points.”
I’m well aware of how light propagates from my many years of running a laser diagnostics research laboratory!
“What you are basically proposing is taking a piece of saran wrap of πr² and stretching it to cover an area of 2πr². When you stretch it, you will no longer have parallel “rays”.”
No I’m describing how the rectilinear propagation of light works. Something you are apparently unaware of!
I notice you didn’t answer my questions at all.
The edge question is very important. How do parallel rays cover expanding areas without overlapping?
“I notice you didn’t answer my questions at all.”
Sorry, I thought that you’d know what rectilinear propagation of light was, it should be covered in those text books you keep quoting, otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectilinear_propagation#:~:text=Rectilinear%20propagation%20describes%20the%20tendency%20of%20electromagnetic,refractive%20index%20throughout;%20otherwise%2C%20light%20experiences%20refraction.
“The edge question is very important. How do parallel rays cover expanding areas without overlapping?”
Simple geometry, two adjacent parallel beams pass through the atmosphere and stay in the same relative positions all the way, no overlapping.
“ the same relative positions all the way”
Then how does the surface area involved expand? Expansion of the surface area involved implies that there must be some overlap between the beams at the surface.
See my post on the divergence theorem and the surface integral. The area involved is “dS”. That doesn’t change size with the angle of incidence. What changes is the component of the flux field that enters/leaves the surface area “dS” and the component of the flux field that does not enter/leave the surface are “dS”.
Only the part of the flux field that enters/leaves the surface can affect the divergence of the field inside the volume, i.e. the volume enclosed by the surface.
You didn’t show a graphic. Is that because you can’t keep the spacing constant yet also have expanded areas with no overlap?
If the area covered expands, there must be overlap. In your view of how it works, that keeps the intensity the same. The absorption is still based upon the angle of incidence.
Then show us a drawing of how a rectilinear set of rays can expand coverage on a sphere without overlapping.
Every drawing I’ve ever seen with expanding areas looks like this one that originates from a point source with diverging rays.
You can do this pretty easy by drawing a 4×4 matrix of dots. The dots will be the centers of circles or squares, which ever you choose. The dots will be a diameter away from other dots. Draw a series where the rays (dots) all have the same size but are touching. Now start expanding the squares on the top side as far as the next center point. The center points don’t change because they are as you call them, rectilinear with constant spacing. Can you expand the size without overlapping?
Here is another example. Take a single EM wave of green carrying the power of one photon. Does that single wave spread out over a larger and larger area or does it intersect the earth at a single point regardless of the angle?
“Every drawing I’ve ever seen with expanding areas looks like this one that originates from a point source with diverging rays.”
Not any more!
https://cdn.shopifycdn.net/s/files/1/0558/3332/9831/files/Geographical_latitude_affects_solar_radiant_energy.webp?v=1652697430
LOL! I almost posted this one myself.
The problem here is assuming each single ray is about 500 mi in radius! It also assumes that the 1360 is distributed across the entire size of the single ray. That would give about 1360 / πr² or about 0.02 W/m² per square mile. The math just doesn’t add up.
How many rays does the NH get? Maybe 7!
Look at the slightly darker lines that outline each ray in the graphic ( you may have to zoom in closer to see them.). Each one of those lines have an intensity of 1360 W/m². Tell us what you think the “radius” of each light ray actually is.
Somehow you fail to miss that light rays are atom/molecule sized. Their added energy in a square meter is 1360. Yet each ray is separate and parallel to all the others. Each ray touches only an extremely small patch of earth as compared to the curvature of the earth.
I have tried to get that across by using a nail board. If a nail board had nails the size of a hair, each at 1360, each nail would not touch an expanded area thereby reducing the effective power per square length. The path length would be longer is all.
“The problem here is assuming each single ray is about 500 mi in radius! It also assumes that the 1360 is distributed across the entire size of the single ray. That would give about 1360 / πr² or about 0.02 W/m² per square mile. The math just doesn’t add up.”
Yes the 1360 is distributed across the incident beam, you even say so yourself, each sq m has 1360 W passing through it. Since there are 2.59×10^6 sq m/sq mile that means there are 1360×2.59×10^6 W/sq mile!
A 1 sq m beam at the same latitudes would be spread in the same manner since it’s due to the angle of incidence.
You also seem to have the erroneous impression that trig does apply at a small scale.
At the molecular scale there are no ‘light rays’ there are just quanta traveling in the same direction. The original N quanta per sq m at the ToA at noon will be spread over cos(𝛳) at an incident angle of 𝛳.
Trig does apply at “small” scale. Solutions to Maxwell’s equations have trig involved. Time varying electric and magnetic fields have trig functions. Heck, it is all based on trig functions.
Should be “You also seem to have the erroneous impression that trig doesn’t apply at a small scale”.
You haven’t read any of Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation have you? That has trig at a very small scale. The scale we are discussing.
I’ll just leave you with this. If, as you say, the ray is spread over a larger area then the intensity is what must be reduced. You must then assume that 100% of that reduced intensity is absorbed in order to obtain a useful answer.
Find a physics book or reference that shows that there is 100% absorption of heat from an incident ray with an angle less than 90°. Show the reference here.
The area in question is “dS”, i.e. the limit as the area goes to zero.
The divergence theorem relates the flux of a vector field through a closed surface to the divergence of the field over the volume enclosed by that surface. Note carefully the operative words “through a closed surface”.
The divergence theorem involves the surface integral
∬𝐅·𝐧dS
where n is the unit normal vector to the surface.
The unit normal vector indicates the amount of the flux entering or leaving through the surface.
In essence, you must split the incidence ray into a component, cos(θ), that enters/leaves the surface and a component sin(θ) that is parallel to the surface but never enters or leaves through the surface.
Only that portion of the flux entering/leaving the surface can transfer heat energy. That portion of the flux that is parallel to the surface can not transfer heat energy.
The intensity of the total ray does not change because of an expansion of the area being illuminated due to the angle of incidence. The amount of heat energy transmitted through the surface changes because of the flux entering/leaving the surface due to the angle of incidence.
“ The sun illuminates one half of the earth at a time. That surface area is 2πr². That is the surface area of an equivalent flat surface that is needed to properly calculate values of insolation.”
No, because the insolation at the ToA covers an area of πr² which is the correct surface area to evaluate the total insolation value. On impacting the Earth’s surface it covers an area of 2πr².
LOL. Exactly how many rays do you think are moving thru that pretend πr² disk toward earth? Are there enough to touch every square nanometer on the earth?
Look at this graphic. See that little yellow dot on the plane wave? That is the earth compared to the plane wave.
Tell you what, draw a circle with the same radius as a basketball on a piece of paper. Cut it out. Now lay that onto the basketball, does it cover the entire half hemisphere?
You’ve never done any mechanical drawing where you do different projections of a 3d object have you?
Try answering my question about what happens when your ray expansion occurs. Do the adjacent rays overlap into the first one? How many rays overlap into the first area? What is the resultant power.
If they don’t overlap, do 2.8 of them get shoved out of the way of hitting the earth?
The “frontal” area of those protruding nails is exactly the same as it was when those nails were originally all in the same plane.
Think about it.
The frontal area is exactly the issue. Would increasing the quantity of nails by several orders of magnitude touch even more of the cup? Do the points of the nails spread out to cover more area on the cup as curves are pushed through? If there were 10,000,000 nails and they were continuous would all the points on the cup be touched?
Then you need to address how to determine the normal vector each nail has to the surface to emulate insolation.
(Sigh) . . . Hopeless.
Hopeless is you providing any resources such as textbooks and graphics. All of my assertions have backup. Maybe you should find some.
That isn’t the issue. The issue is a plane wave where each nail has the same “intensity”. Is the area on the cup covered by each nail expanded? What if there were 10,000,000 nails. If the area is expanded of each nail, what happens to the surrounding nails? Are they forced to change directions? Or do they overlap areas?
Remember we are discussing light waves here, not a single ray with the dimensions 1×1 m.
Does the north pole receive that calculated surface area average?
Is the north pole the same temperature as the equator (at any time of day)?
According to Jim Gorman one square metre at the North Pole receives 1360w/m^2.
It does! Now tell us how much of that is absorbed and how much is reflected.
You seem to have a problem that “heat” transfer depends on the normal vector of radiation.
Download the textbook Practical Meteorology and study the sections on radiation. It is enlightening.
It certainly does not! In the winter it receives zero, at the summer solstice the sun reaches its maximum and the angle of incidence is ~23.5º. At that angle one m^2 of light at the ToA will be spread over 2.6 m^2, so 523W/m^2. Absorption is another matter.
Let me point out that you are using a point source close to earth where the rats are still expanding and are not parallel. That means a ray can intersect an expanding area in a nearby concentric sphere. Many web sites and even textbooks make this mistake.
A plane wave is made up of parallel rays. Technically not accurate, but useful. Even Carl Sagan admitted this. Google “Carl Sagan parallel sun rays”.
Light rays have an extremely small wavelength. Almost infinitely small when compared to a square meter. When parallel, they do not cover a larger area. This idea originates from a flashlight illuminating a larger area when you point farther away. That is what a point source does. Take a laser pointer and how far does it expand when pointed at a distant point.
“Let me point out that you are using a point source close to earth where the rats are still expanding and are not parallel. That means a ray can intersect an expanding area in a nearby concentric sphere.”
No I am not I’m using a parallel ray striking the surface at an angle (what actually happens)!
Here is another textbook that disagrees with you.
Look closely at the table. It shows that at 1395 there will be somewhere between 290 and 381 absorbed.
It also based on the amount absorbed by a horizontal plate (perpendicular to the ray), in other words, the normal portion of the ray.
Maybe you should explain how you determine how much is absorbed from your insolation value of 523 W/m² at 23°.
“Look closely at the table. It shows that at 1395 there will be somewhere between 290 and 381 absorbed.”
No it doesn’t, it refers to the insolation not absorption, the number it quotes is less than mine because it includes attenuation by the atmosphere.
“Maybe you should explain how you determine how much is absorbed from your insolation value of 523 W/m² at 23°.”
Like the other textbook you quoted, if it’s a blackbody then it will all be absorbed otherwise less.
The power flux averaged over the surface area does not match reality as only a narrow band of earth gets that precise amount. Use of averages negates the use of T^4.
In addition, the angle of incidence plays into the angle of reflection.
So, no, it is averages, not basic physics and definitely not spherical geometry.
“The power flux averaged over the surface area does not match reality as only a narrow band of earth gets that precise amount. Use of averages negates the use of T^4.”
Good grief!
The solar constant is a MEASURED, average value representing the total solar radiation energy received per unit area at the top of Earth’s atmosphere, perpendicular to the sun’s rays, at a mean sun-earth distance. Measured by satellite-based radiometers, it is approximately 1,361 Watts per square meter.
The satellite-based radiometers measure solar radiation over effectively 99+% of the full solar spectrum’s power output, from ultra-short UV to deep LWIR.
The solar constant is NOT based on any calculation using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (P/A =εσT^4), where
P/A = radiation power flux,
ε = radiating body emissivity,
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and
T = absolute temperature of the radiating body.
I am not contesting the measured value at TOA. I am contesting using a surface area average across the whole planet.
Just because one can calculate an average per unit surface area does not mean that average applies everywhere on a sphere..
Simple geometry.
It is 1 m^2 of the surface at 45 degrees latitude that maps up to the TOA as 0.707 m^2.
It receives 0.707 times 1361 W/m^2 = 962.4 W/m^2
The 1 m^2 at the equator at nadir receives 1361 W/m^2.
If the equator 1 m^2 at nadir received your 340.25 W/m^2 it would not be as warm as it is.
T^4 for emitting 1361 W/m^2 energy flux is a much warmer temperature than the T^4 temperature resulting in 340 W/m^2 emitted.
You missed the point;. And you certainly did not read the post. Your understanding of basic Euclidean geometry is quite suspect.
Blow their minds. What is the angle of incidence of a point at 45° at sunrise?
By definition, points cannot have angles of incidence no matter where they may be located on a sphere.
Does that fact “blow your mind”?
You guys are a trip, man!
I am a single person . . . you must indeed be on a trip to call me “guys”.
Happy landing, man!
/sarc
Don’t know where you learned this, but you are entirely incorrect. A ray, a vector with magnitude and direction, may strike a point of any size.
Show us where you obtained this little jewel of not-information.
Maybe you should read up about how to find the slope of a tangent line at a POINT on a curve.
I’m fine playing these games with you for the entertainment I receive from doing so.
But that incoming vector does not define an angle of incidence for a single point, does it? That would require the receiving surface to be planar at the point of incidence. Since geometric points, by definition, do not have ANY surface area, they cannot have any planar surface.
Then too, by the definition of geometric points, they cannot be “of any size”.
So, logically and finally, here’s the resulting question for you: for a point that has some reflectance, what is the angle of reflection compared to the angle of incidence?
ROTFL.
But that incoming vector does not define an angle of incidence for a single point, does it?
Yes, it most certainly does. The two textbook references I have given you both show that.
I suggest you obtain Max Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation. All of his experiments and math deal with a microscopic volume called dσ that is homogenous and isotropic and which is large enough to contain sufficient elements that one can ignore atomic interactions. It must also be large enough that the wavelengths being dealt with aren’t comparable to the size of dσ. In other words a point.
Thus . . . congratulations! . . . this statement is NOT consistent with the definition of a “point”, which does not have any volume, or any dimensions, or the quality of “largeness”, even “microscopically”.
So, I suggest you obtain Euclid’s Elements and look up the definition of a geometrical “point”.
ROTFLMAO!
When you find the derivative of a curved function, say a sphere, it can be used to calculate the slope at any POINT on the curve.
You don’t appear to have calculus or you would know this. Here is a good reference. Tangent Line – Equation, Slope, Horizontal | Point of Tangency
You appear to have the idea that incoming insolation can not be broken into vectors based on the tangent line. You also appear to not understand that the absorbed radiation is based only on the normal vector to the tangent line.
And that’s why you should divide by 4 to calculate the average incident on the Earth’s surface!
You haven’t learned a thing have you?
Assume a perfect sphere with the sun directly over the equator. Albedo = 1 and S = 1360 W/m².
What is the average insolation for 12 hours at a point on the equator?
1360 • (1/(π/2)∫sin(θ) dθ
1360 • 0.637 = 866 W/m²
What is the average insolation for 12 hours at 90° from the equator?
1360 • 0 = 0
What is the average?
(866 + 0)/2 = 433 W/m²
Now what is the value when dividing 1360 by 4?
1360 / 4 = 340 W/m²
Let’s look at temps on the surface.
at 433 W/m² -> 295K = 22°C
at 340 W/m² -> 278K = 5° C
Do you really think the average temperature of all the oceans and lands in tropical and temperate zones is 5°C? How about at the poles?
‘Dividing by 4’ gives the average over 24 hrs not 12!
Does insolation occur over 24 hours? Does using a 24 hour average somehow predict average [not (Tmax+Tmin)/2)] temperature? Do you really think that all the oceans (70% of the earth) average about 5°C? My research shows SST’s average about 17°C.
As an aside, none of this takes into account the heat storage of the Earth’s surface.
Hmmm, how about this:
“First, any organization that claims heat can be trapped is to be ignored.
The specific definition of heat is the flow of thermal energy (via kinetic interaction of molecules) from warm to cold. If the flow is “trapped” it is not heat.”
— posted by Sparta Nova 4, April 13, 2026 2:31 pm
Yeah, I’m considering the word “storage” to be functionally the equivalent of “trapped”.
So, it appears that you need to get together with Sparta Nova 4 to get your combined acts in synch.
/sarc
Bad assumption.
Storage is one reason that the earth is not a black body. It is not isotropic, isothermal, and the surface encounters conduction which is anthema to a black body.
Storage can be released at some future point in time. Hours, days, seasons, decades, centuries. The greenhouse theory requires actual “trapping” with no chance of release in order to raise the Earth’s temperature by 33°C.
You appear to have a bias that overlooks the thermodynamics in the Earth’s surface. The surface is what absorbs the predominant amount insolation. You and most of climate science simply assumes that insolation flux can be instantly converted to outgoing flux. Sorry it doesn’t work that way.
Have you ever wondered why climate science wasn’t the preeminent group to discover longer growing seasons? It took agronomy scientists to find out that minimum temps were increasing resulting in longer growing seasons. Climate science has pointedly ignored this. Why?
How about CO2 fertilization? Climate science has little to no papers about how this occurs and what effects it has on temperatures. Greenery has increased by 30-40%. Greenery reflects green light away from the surface. Does this have any effect on reducing global absorbed insolation?
I’m not talking about temperature i’m talking about insolation! Why do you ignore the fact that there is no incident light for 12 hrs?
Do you have night time where you are? Does the insolation 180° away from you have an effect on the temperature at your location?
Over 24 hours every point on earth will receive insolation. For a sphere with the sun over the equator every point on the equator will receive a sine wave value with a peak of 1360.
It isn’t divided by 2 or by 4 to get an average. The average is actually
1360 × 0.637 = 866. (the average value of a sine from 0 to π/2 is 0.637.
Previously you said:
“What I am trying to point out is that every point on the half of the surface of the earth facing the sun, at any point in time, is receiving 1360″
And yet here you say:
“For a sphere with the sun over the equator every point on the equator will receive a sine wave value with a peak of 1360.”
Make up your mind! Either the incident light depends on the angle of incidence or it does not, you can’t have it both ways, if the radiance at the equator depends on the angle of incidence then the same applies at the poles.
The magnitude of the incident ray is constant. The ABSORPTION at the surface is subject to the angle of incidence. Only the normal component of the incident ray is absorbed.
Those are two different things.
No that’s wrong, the magnitude of the INCIDENT light depends on the angle of incidence. Absorption depends on the nature of the surface, in the case of a black body all the incident light is absorbed as indicated in the text book example you have shown. In your weather station you’re measuring incident light not absorption
You are getting way out there. How does the emmitter know what angle of incidence is going to occur at any object within its field so it can modify the magnitude in that direction?
Remember the magnitude of the intensity is set by the temperature of the emmitter.
“How does the emmitter know what angle of incidence is going to occur at any object within its field so it can modify the magnitude in that direction?
Remember the magnitude of the intensity is set by the temperature of the emmitter.”
What a crazy question! It doesn’t, it emits the same amount of light irrespective of its ultimate target. The intensity drops as the light expands over 92 million miles until it strikes the Earth as an approximately parallel, uniform beam of light. The amount of incident light/unit area depends on the incident angle, most when overhead and less as the angle decreases. How much is absorbed depends on the nature of the surface, a black body will absorb all the incident light, fresh snow will reflect about 90% and moist black soil will absorb about 95%.
“No that’s wrong, the magnitude of the INCIDENT light depends on the angle of incidence. Absorption depends on the nature of the surface”
The magnitude of the incident light is set by the emitter. The amount that is absorbed by the receiver is dependent on the angle of incidence.
The same error as made by your brother, see above!
I’ve given you how the divergence theory works before. Apparently you just blew it off.
The energy crossing the surface boundary is
∫∫_S F · N dS
where F is a vector field (i.e. the EM wave incident at a point dS and,
N is the normal vector.
(the “∫_S” denotes a surface integral)
Geometrically, if the angle between the vector field and the normal vector is Θ then F · N = F cos(Θ).
It’s the same whether this is electric flux through a boundary, heat flux through a boundary, fluid flow through a surface, or Poynting flux through a surface. Only that portion of the flux normal to the boundary/surface will cross the boundary/surface. It doesn’t have anything to do with the illuminated area changing size.
dS in the integral doesn’t change size, it’s “infintesimal. It is the area in the limit as the area size -> 0. Just like when you integrate a cosine function against time where h = t0 – t1 as h -> zero.
This separates the flux into a horizontal and a vertical component. Only the vertical component can cross the boundary. The horizontal component just misses the point dS entirely.
Fundamentally this is no different than breaking the gravity flux on an inclined plane into a component vertical to the inclined plane and a component that is horizontal to the plane. Only the component horizontal to the plane can accelerate an object on the plane. The vertical component can’t.
In our case of flux flow only the component vertical to the surface can cross the boundary, the horizontal component cannot.
Think of aiming a water hose directly at a fine screen and without changing the size of the screen tilt the hose so it hits the screen at an angle. The maximum flow through the screen will be when the stream of water is hitting it directly, i.e. at 90deg. As you add a tilt to the hose more and more of the water flows along the screen horizontally and less and less gets through the screen. But the same amount of water hits the screen, i.e. the flux flow stays the same. That screen represents dS.
“Does insolation occur over 24 hours? “
Fortunately yes it does, during which time the Earth completes one rotation about its axis!
I agree: Yes, as scientifically defined, solar insolation is occurring continuously, independent of Earth’s rotation, or even Earth’s existence.
However, solar insolation as received on Earth’s surface is a function of Earth’s rotation relative to incoming solar radiation . . . and therfeore the average received insolation at Earth TOA must account for the 1:4 difference between intercepted solar radiation flux and the distributed solar radiation flux across Earth’s ~spherical surface area.
Agreed.
Since the solar flux, in units of W/m^ = units of joules/sec/m^2, is already “normalized” for time, there is no need to adjust for time.
The 1:4 area averaging between intercepted incoming planar solar power flux (pi*r^2) and the total surface area of Earth as approximated to high accuracy as a sphere (4*pi*r^2) remains the same if the Earth rotated once every hour, once every 12 hours, once every 24 hours, or simply didn’t rotate at all.
Having said that, the climate effects of not considering such rotation rates in the dynamics of distributing the intercepted radiation power across the totality of Earth surface area would be extraordinarily different.
The earth has two functions occurring over 24 hours 12 hours of a sine function of insolation and 12 hours of an exponential cooling without insolation. Arithmetic averages are a linear function and ignore the exponential functions going on.
340 simply cannot accurately determine the radiation temperature of the earth during the period of insolation. Nor can it accurately portray the average of of the exponential decay at night
Download the Practical Meteorology textbook and study it. We are discussing just one variable here. There are several other variables that have trig relationships that determine insolation throughout the day. They are useful for determining the state at a point at a given time using algebra. You want to extend that to time based functions? Get ready to create the relationships into gradients and to dig into calculus to integrate the various time gradient variables associated with insolation.
Nonsense.
Solar insolation at TOA is a measured, nearly constant physical parameter (being a value averaged over Earth’s elliptical orbit). Being defined as a radiometer-measured value in vacuum (i.e., external to Earth’s atmosphere) and being expressed in units of power flux, W/m^2, as integrated across the full solar spectrum, it depends only on the 1/r^2 scaling of radiation intensity dropoff with distance from the radiating source.
There are no trigonometry considerations involved with establishing the value of solar insolation “throughout the day” because it exists independent of Earth’s rotation rate. That is, the Sun does not stop radiating during the night . . . that belief goes back to the days of hominids living in caves.
BTW, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by your statement:
“340 simply cannot accurately determine the radiation temperature of the earth during the period of insolation”,
especially given the fact that solar insolation has absolutely no dependence on the temperature of Earth nor its day-night cycles.
Likewise for your statement:
“Nor can it accurately portray the average of of the exponential decay at night”
However, in totality, your post is another yummy word salad.
Every point on earth receives insolation for a limited time. Here is a screenshot of the Insolation at my weather station.
As you can see, it is pretty much a sine wave. The insolation disappears at sunset.
That the sun is illuminating a different point than me at night has no effect on my insolation.
The fact that the sun continues to radiate is meaningless. The temperature of my soil will be based on the Insolation received, not some average over 24 hours.
As has been pointed out to you numerous times, you are confusing locally absorbed energy (with attendant dependencies on things such as time-of-day [Sun angle], time-of-season, latitude, local cloud coverage/albedo, and local ground absorptivity/emissivity) versus TOA solar irradiance and solar constant.
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance ): “Solar irradiance is the power per unit area (surface power density) received from the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of the measuring instrument. Solar irradiance is measured in watts per square metre (W/m2) in SI units.”
And from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant ):
“The solar constant . . .To put simply, it is measuring the amount of energy per second per square meter that arrives from the Sun at the distance of Earth’s orbit. More specifically, it is a flux density measuring mean solar electromagnetic radiation (total solar irradiance) per unit area. It is measured on a surface perpendicular to the rays, one astronomical unit (au) from the Sun (roughly the distance from the Sun to the Earth).
The solar constant includes radiation over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. It is measured by satellite as being 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m2) at solar minimum (the time in the 11-year solar cycle when the number of sunspots is minimal) and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m2) at solar maximum.”
And from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit ):
“The astronomical unit is a unit of length defined to be exactly equal to 149597870700 m.Historically, the astronomical unit was conceived as the average Earth-Sun distance (the average of Earth’s aphelion and perihelion), before its modern redefinition in 2012.”
There is no significant sine wave associated with solar irradiance or the solar constant.
Are you just making stuff up?
Look at the bottom right of the image. See that label (W/m²). That is insolation. It is a sine wave.
Every point on earth sees this function as the earth rotates through the sunlight.
Here is a web page for solar panels. Read it closely. Insolation varies over the daylight hours. It follows a sine function. Why? Angle of incidence. You didn’t think insolation varies only by latitude did you. Longitude has an effect also.
Look closely at the right side. Do you see the note referring to sunset and sunrise as radians? Why do you think that is?
More word salad. I’m overstuffed. We’re done.
So your weather station receives ~800 W/m^2 not 1360? According to you every point on Earth receives 1360W/m^2, what happened?
“That the sun is illuminating a different point than me at night has no effect on my insolation.”
No but it does effect the total insolation received by the Earth as a whole which is the subject of the post!
Have you heard of the concept of albedo?
Look at the example closely from the Practical Meteorology textbook. Note that it says;
You do realize that longer paths through the atmosphere scatters the intensity. On March 20, at Topeka, Ks the sun is still low in the sky and suffers more scattering.
The variables that occur in accurately analyzing how the value of incoming insolation is determined at the surface and how it is absorbed in the surface are many.
Even the Practical Meteorology textbook uses only algebra although it does include trigonometry
Using simple arithmetic averages is not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. Show us a climate science paper that includes the use of integral calculus which is the proper method of analyzing periodic functions associated with things like insolation, the diffusion of heat into the soil of land, or the decay of temperature after sunset.
Lastly, I have never pretended that my insolation values are accurate. However, it does illustrate the sinusoidal effect of insolation and a general overall value. Remember that clouds, dust, smoke, etc. have a major effect on albedo.
FYI, 800/1360 = 59%. Not exactly an unreasonable albedo. (70 – 59)/70 = 16% error when compared to the accepted average. Not bad considering measurement uncertainty, clouds, dust, height of the sun, etc.
Have you heard of the concept of albedo?”
So you finally agree that ‘every point on Earth’ does not ‘receive 1360 W/m^2’, that’s progress!
“On March 20, at Topeka, Ks the sun is still low in the sky”
About 50º.
“The fact that the sun continues to radiate is meaningless. The temperature of my soil will be based on the Insolation received, not some average over 24 hours.”
So your soil doesn’t cool during the 14hrs of darkness?
It does cool at a different gradient rate than the gradient of warming from insolation. Therefore the temperature of each period will be different.
Tmax can not be derived independently nor can Tmin from an average intensity of radiation over 24 hours.
You can not ignore the fact that soil is a heat sink that doesn’t always dissipate all the heat it receives. If it didn’t store heat, soil would never warm in spring/summer, and agriculture wouldn’t exist as we know it.
That storage is done through a gradient of heat transport into a solid and determines the temperature of the soil at varying depths.
Cooling at night has a different gradient due to different temperatures.
You can determine the intensity of radiation using SB at a given temperature.
Here is a question for you.
Can you define the rate of temperature change that occurs when a known, given amount of radiation leaves a substance such as soil?
That is an important factor in how much cooling occurs over a definite time such as night time.
I have shown you the appropriate equation earlier.
“Tmax can not be derived independently nor can Tmin from an average intensity of radiation over 24 hours.”
Exactly. And if you can’t derive the temperatures independently from an “average” intensity then you can’t use the S-B relationship to determine the intensity of radiation from the earth.
Well, it was you that posted above, at April 14, 2026 7:26 am:
It was you that introduced “T^4” into this discussion thread, and now your appear to be hopelessly confused by doing so.
Huh ? Regardless of Earth’s surface T^4, and angle of incidence…the energy “missing” in Earth’s shadow is 1360 x Pi R^2…
The biggest factor affecting energy absorbed by the planet is how much of the ocean’s albedo of about 0.1 (70% of the planet) is overlaid by clouds with albedo up to 0.9 (65% of the planet)…yielding about an average albedo of about 0.3…but local cloud cover averages are quite variable from month to month…
Actually it is more than that. At any point in time, one half of the spherical body is not receiving insolation and is cooling. That is 2πr².
Another factor is that the surface is a heat sink. At my location, some of the insolation is stored in the soil from March to September and not released into the atmosphere. Most of that is released from October to February depending on how warm the winter is.
“. . . some of the insolation is stored in the soil from March to September and not released into the atmosphere . . .”
Just wondering how incoming solar insolation, in units of W/m^2, is “stored” in the soil?
Would it be stored in units of power flux (W/m^2)?
In units of power (W)?
In units of energy (joules)?
In units temperature (deg-C)?
Or perhaps in units of volumetric specific heat (joules/m^3)?
Are you really wondering that?
Or just be gratutuitously argumentative?
The Sun heats the ground.
The ground warms up.
Some of that warmth propagates downward into the underground.
There is a reason the warmistas have so many people buying their lies when literally every word they speak is hogwash.
It is the same reason Democrats get so much done and Republicans cannot do squat.
They do not spend their time arguing with people on their own side over bullshit.
He creates the perception of gratuitously argumentative.
He is apparently not here to study or to learn, but rather inflate his ego by scoring “debating points” which he self-judges and tabulates.
In Plato’s time, such were called “Sophists” who had the infamous reputation of being able to win a debate by any means possible including insulting their opponents into submission.
Your perceptions (in terms of your remote armchair psychoanalysis) are worth exactly what I, and perhaps Nicholas McGinley, paid to get such.
You are free to call facts “debating points”, “gratuitious arguments” and “insults” as you wish.
Hah! . . . Did you forget to check that assertion with Sparta Nova 4 who posted upthread at April 13, 2026 2:31 pm:
“First, any organization that claims heat can be trapped is to be ignored.
The specific definition of heat is the flow of thermal energy (via kinetic interaction of molecules) from warm to cold. If the flow is “trapped” it is not heat.”
And then Sparta Nova 4 went on to posted at April 14, 2026 10:01 am:
“Also, photons are a mathematical concept, regardless of what you think.”
So with SN4’s assertions, please explain how the Sun is able to heat the Earth’s surfaces (“the ground”) and is able to propagate “downward into the underground” under conditions where no photons of radiate energy are involved and where heat flow can only occur via “kinetic interaction of molecules” (that is gas convection, not solid conduction).
If that heat entering the ground is not “trapped”, one wonders where is goes.
Now, you were saying something about hogwash . . .
This rant is beyond fatuous.
How in the heck do you think soil warms? It does do that you know! It also cools enough for moisture in the soil to freeze. That is why building codes establish frost depths to bury foundations and service lines.
Here is the equation.
Q = m•cᵥ•∆T
Where
m = mass
cᵥ = specific heat
∆ T = change in temperature.
I’ll leave it up to you to do the dimensional analysis in the units of your choice.
Here is a graphic of soil temperatures to help you along.
Notice that surface temps have a range of 15 – 20°C and at 10 inches about 5 – 6°C.
AI is useful in determining the mass of a typical soil in a 1 meter square and 10 inches of depth.
Then you can integrate that value over 0 – π hours using a sine function and a max value from what you find the heat value is
Then you can determine from a gradient loss how much heat is left in the soil at the end of 24 hours.
I assure you, farmers attend to soil temperature increases in the spring like a hawk watching a mouse. It tells them when planting can begin. That increasing temperature is stored heat that is not released into the atmosphere.
Thanks, but the following dimensional analysis does not need any of the fluff you provided:
1. The dimensions of solar power flux is given in W/m^2 (watts per square meter normal to the radiation vector, equivalent to joules per second per square meter).
2. The dimensions of energy (aka heat) as represented by the symbol “Q” in the standard thermal conduction equation you posted is given in joules.
3. Since units of joules per second per square meter DOES NOT equal units of joules, solar insolation cannot be transferred into, let alone “stored” as energy or heat, by application of the thermal conduction equation.
QED.
Joules are joules. They can be provided by a bunsen burner, by absorbed radiation, or by a chemical reaction.
Look at this graph.
The soil at 10 inches goes from about 22°C to 30°C in about 8 hours.
How many joules does it take to heat a typical mass of soil 2×2×0.254 meters to a delta of 8°C? I think you’ll find that the equation Q = mc∆T very useful.
If you don’t think soil stores heat in spring and summer, then loses it in fall and winter, you obviously have a lack of education in agronomy. As I said before farmers watch soil closely. It is a major factor in seed germination and survival.
You simply do not understand dimensional analysis.
Nobody has ever shown the climate works the way the models work. In other words, the models do not accurately reflect the real climate.
Duh
The warmunist observational problems are profound. They relied on GAST ignoring for decades that temperature is an intensive property that cannot be averaged. When that finally sunk in, they switched to EEI and are now finding the uncertainty in that is an order of magnitude greater than the supposed number itself.
All they have left are climate models, and there they have used hindcast anomaly model ‘agreement’ to supposedly show model validity. A 30 year hindcast is the first required CMIP ‘validation’ submission. But hindcast anomalies hides the fact that those model hindcasts actually vary by about +/-3C between models (CMIP 5 and 6) in a world where warming 1.5C is supposed to be a crisis. The reality is lousy model disagreement.
So warmunists got nothing after 40 plus years of fearmongering. Arctic summer sea ice didn’t disappear. Sea level rise didn’t accelerate. Earth is greening thanks to the beneficial effect of more CO2 on C3 photosynthesis plants (about 85% of all plant species) whose stomata can be less open so they lose less water to evapotranspiration. And although greening can be satellite measured, it is palpable on the ground in places like the Sahel.
Rud,
A minor comment on greening. In June 1978 I travelled by taxi from Tehran, north over the Alborz mountains, almost to the Caspian sea and return, about 6 hours of slow travel. Last week I viewed three YouTube videos taken recently by others making the same trip on this old Road 59. I checked my 30 old colour slides and concluded at once that there was markedly more green vegetation now, at all altitudes from roughly 500 to 3,000 metres above sea level and on both sides of the mountain range. Most of the views are of large, steep, mountainous areas where evidence of human agriculture is absent or hard to observe.
There are possible explanations that do not rely on CO2 fertilization, but I am happy to accept it.
Geoff S
Just a minor nit, my friend.
CO2 does not fertilize plants. CO2 feeds plants.
One needs to recognize that “hindcasting” (involves tweaking so-called control knobs) is merely and simply curve fitting.
Especially when what is being hindcast is a distortion of the temperature record.
Accurately hindcasting a bogus temperature record (Hockey Stick) means there is something seriously wrong with your model.
Hindcasting for “calibration” period means there is something wrong or missing or both with your model.
Averaging is a valuable and useful concept. The outdoor temp goes up and down a bit depending on clouds. I don’t take the dog for a walk in the afternoon till it averages over 10 C.
Certainly for walking dogs.
So, you do not walk the dogs until the 10 C average is achieved 24/7/365? Poor dog.
For part of my early scientific career, I part owned an analytical chemistry laboratory, servicing Australian geological and agricultural sectors. It was competitive. My personal income was affected by our ability to perform to high accuracy within our estimates of measurement uncertainty. I exited this field because some competitors gamed their estimated uncertainties and claimed better accuracy to clients. We had a lot of experience with measurement uncertainty theory and practice.
Later, as in interested scientific onlooker, I saw measurements of global energy from five satellite platforms and the big numbers for energy in minus energy out to reveal the tiny number dubbed energy imbalance.
My immediate and confident reaction was that the energy imbalance had measurement uncertainty too large to be useful. I studied the assumptions used to derive the imbalance and quickly concluded that the imbalance was gamed. I posted this conclusion on public blogs including WUWT. This was nearly 10 years ago, or as we say in the trade, 10+/-2 years to 1 sigma.
It was my expectation that numerous other scientists would call out the fiddling until it was corrected. Instead, there were very few objections. Others seemed comfortable to accept the fiddles, perhaps because this allowed acceptance of the whole new concept of global warming demonstrated by this global energy imbalance. The only reasonable cure would require scrapping the theory until acceptably accurate measurements became available from future satellite platforms.
Next came the switch in the IPCC when, instead of stating the prepared position that links between global warming and acts of mankind were not yet evident, a senior American scientist intervened at last minute and asserted that such a link was now proven. Outstanding effrontery, but very low marks for observing the proper procedures of science. The fix was in, propaganda would flow stronger than ever.
Kudos to Heartland Institute, to WUWT, to Nobel Laureate Dr John Clauser for their public claims that this Energy Imbalance Emperor has no clothes.
My main question is, why have so many competent scientists failed to raise an outcry years ago? It is kindergarten level science to see the fiddles that have gained prominence and encouraged wrong political policies in several major countries that are highly damaging not only to the proper advance of science, but also to the economies of those countries.
What a mess! The root cause is multiple personal intellectual dishonesty.
Fix it, you guilty people. Geoff S
It is no different than the warmists here. None have had to assume any responsibility for accurate data analysis. It is obvious that none have any experience in meeting contractual or legal requirements for measurements.
When one creates an RF preamplifier and indicates the sensivity, people aren’t interested in the standard error, they are interested in the spread of possible values that they can use in their designs using your amp. No divide by √n. They want to know your test setup, the devices you used, your uncertainty budget, etc.
Climate science from academia and government simply ignore this. When have you ever seen an uncertainy budget from the warmists? How about the variance of the measured data? The lack of these is enlightening.
Can you imagine what would happen if NASA used the save averaging, uncertainty, and error propagation used in climate models?
The Artimis II crew would now be sailing off into oblivion with a capsule full of “waste”.
That or a repeat of Challenger.
There is an excellent paper that uses the AIRS radiation spectral data to arrive at an exact figure for the increase in absorption of OLR in the CO2 bands. It quantifies that at 0.36W/m^2 due to the 37ppm increases in CO2 during the AIRS era to 2019. You will find the paper at this link:
RADIATIVE FORCING BY CO2 OBSERVED AT TOP OF ATMOSPHERE FROM 2002-2019
The amount of data analysed to arrive at that value is immense and truly a credit to the author.
What the reader has to recognise is that the result was achieved after discarding all daytime data because reflected radiation made it impossible to distinguish OLR. Then the signal could not be detected clearly when there were clouds. Accordingly, only 11% of the nighttime data was retained as it had sufficient clear sky conditions to enable the CO2 absorption to be isolated.
So the 0.39W/m^2 was arrived at after discarding 94.5% of the available data.
Figure 6 depicts the key result. The reduction in radiance around wavenumber 700/cm is the CO2 signal. But note that this is more than offset by the increase in OLR at larger wave numbers. The author waves this away as being due to the increase in surface temperature over that time.
Both MS CoPilot and Grok now “know” that ocean surface temperature cannot sustain more than 30C. That invalidates all climate models because they all show warming trends in the tropical west Pacific, which is already stuck at the 30C limit.
It is worth noting that the 342W/m^2 down “cold” radiation in the diagram does not exist. It is unphysical nonsense based on lack of understanding of power transfer in the E-M field.
Electromagnetic radiation is not “Heat” until absorbed…your microwave oven is an example. The EMR most certainly exists and is not “unphysical nonsense”….as does the 398 of EMR from the surface….for a net radiant heat of 56 watts from warm surface to colder atmosphere.
It is unfortunate that the energy budget diagrams show the infrared EMR instead of just the 56 net heat since, say sunlight, is already a net number in the diagram…and then with a note saying that the 63 is a result of Stephan Boltzmann’s equation and a mosaic of TSurface and Tsky temperatures…I think it would be much clearer to everyone from junior high school students on up…but Trenberth and others were trying to investigate differing EMR absorption by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for which the EMR is an important factor and they ended up with what we now have to somewhat befuddle us for a while….
You did not read his post or your reading comprehension needs a jolt of coffee.
Key phrase you apparently missed:
“down “cold” radiation”
Great article summarizing the major issues.
I would like to add a reference here to Loeb et al 2018. This paper is currently referenced from the NASA CERES documentation page.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/documentation/
The first entry under Data Product References – EBAF is the Loeb et al 2018 paper.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/2/jcli-d-17-0208.1.xml
Yikes. The blindingly obvious issue is “hiding in plain sight” and Clauser is right to point it out.
From the abstract – “A one-time adjustment to shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) TOA fluxes is made to ensure that global mean net TOA flux for July 2005–June 2015 is consistent with the in situ value of 0.71 W m−2.” It goes on from there.
The “in situ” value is mainly from Argo OHC. The value is stated (absurdly) to a precision of 10 mW/m^2.
I think it’s important for skeptics of climate alarm to know what this paper has documented as the basis for the CERES EBAF products, which brings in EEI.
That is all for now.
One more thing. An imbalance is trivially true if indeed the oceans are warming, the validity of which is itself in question. But assuming OHC is in fact trending up, attribution to incremental CO2, CH4, N2O in the atmosphere is not a physically sound claim. This is because dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms the computed increase in IR absorption within the atmosphere. Can a 0.7 W/m^2 EEI ever be isolated to confirm this hypothesized cause? No. Do radiometric observations and spectrometer analyses provide indirect confirmation? Also no. No one *knows* that rising concentrations of these trace non-condensing gases have anything to do with a reported “warming” trend.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your patience on this point.
Yikes is a good term. In other words, the adjustments are made to meet a preconceived and unmeasured value.
To hell with actually using measured values, they aren’t correct anyway, right?
Neither are CERES.
They convert measured EM energy to temperature based on models.
Better to say ‘radiance’ than ‘energy’.
Perhaps. 🙂
It’s not one or the other (temperature change or energy imbalance)… basic physics (actually, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) says it’s both: Temperature change in a system (any system) is the result of an imbalance between energy gain and energy loss (energy imbalance).
True.
The point in contention:
The planet’s surface is neither the ingress or the egress point of the EM energy transfer.
Heat does not transfer to or through a vacuum. That leaves EM only.
The problem occurs due to incoming energy being predominantly absorbed by the surface, both land and ocean. Outgoing energy originates with the surface. Temperature changes at the surface vary due to mass, specific heat values, angle of incidence of insolation, and heat inertia. The heat inertia of the surface varies greatly in time causing delays of days, months, years, and decades. That makes the analysis of an imbalance difficult. Is delay due to CO2 or heat inertia of the surface and over what time frame.
AR5 and NCA4 had a version of that “Earth energy budget” diagram with more realistic confidence intervals (0.2 to 1.0 W/m² for radiative imbalance). I annotated it here:
Some people think that “radiative imbalance” is measured. It’s not, as Andy May pointed out here on WUWT a couple of weeks ago:
Radiative imbalance is very roughly estimated, mostly from Ocean Heat Content estimates, which, in turn, are generated by computer modelling, which are informed by minuscule changes in Argo float temperature measurements over the last 20 years (which Josh Willis helpfully corrected), but which are informed by very little data before the 21st century. It’s models, all the way down.
Source: https://www.climate.gov/feeds/dashboard/dashboard-data-ocean-heat-graph (scroll way down)
Although radiative imbalance is not measurable, it is possible to estimate it from other evidence. I built an online calculator / spreadsheet, where you can calculate your own estimates of Earth’s radiative energy imbalance (and ECS climate sensitivity), from other evidence:
https://sealevel.info/radiative_imbalance_calc.html
When I plug in my best estimates for the inputs, I calculate a radiative energy imbalance of about 0.33 W/m², and ECS of 1.5 °C / doubling of CO2.|
Why don’t you see what you get? Just adjust the values in the yellow cells, then press the Tab key [↹] to recalculate.
BTW, if you look up that (Leob 2018) paper, this sentence is their sole justification for choosing that 0.71 W/m² estimate of radiative imbalance as the figure to which they adjusted their data to match:
Here’s the reference for Johnson et al. (2016):
Johnson, G. C., J. M. Lyman, and N. G. Loeb, 2016: Improving estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance. Nat. Climate Change, 6, 639–640, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3043.
If you look that up, it is just a letter to the editor of Nature Climate Change: 524 words + a graph & caption.
It is not clear whether it was peer-reviewed. Nature says, “Correspondence may be peer-reviewed at the editors’ discretion.”
However, Nature also says, “This format may not be used for presentation of research data or analysis,” a rule which they obviously ignored in this case. So who knows?
One would think that someone . . . anyone scientifically literate! . . . at Nature would recognize the flat out IMPOSSIBILITY of calculating EEI to an uncertainty of ± 0.10 W m⁻², let alone that uncertainty being asserted to have a 95% confidence level.
Such would, of course, require knowing the largest magnitude single input variable in EEI calculations, the TOA solar constant, to better than ± 0.10 W m⁻², or one part in about 13,600, equivalent to ± 0.007%, over a duration of 10 years.
By NASA’s own admission (https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/climate/projects/solar-irradiance/science ):
“The total solar irradiance (TSI), or the so-called solar constant, is the integrated solar energy arriving at Earth. But it is not a constant. It changes by ~0.1% in an 11-year solar cycle. Prior to the measurements obtained by the SORCE, the TSI value was estimated at 1366 Wm-2. One of the major SORCE contributions was to establish a more accurate value at 1361 Wm-2, which leads to 340 W m-2 for the globally averaged solar input to Earth. The current TSI value from the TSIS-1 is 1361.6 ± 0.3 Wm-2 for the 2019 solar minimum.”
Compare the stated ± 0.3 Wm-2 uncertainty to the EEI asserted uncertainty of ± 0.10 Wm-2 . . . TILT!
Furthermore, other independent variables would need to be known to fairly high accuracy . . . well beyond that which can scientifically documented. The prime example of such a parameter critical to calculating EEI is Earth’s areal cloud coverage (as it affects Earth’s albedo). Consider this from Google’s AI bot:
“Earth’s cloud coverage is known with high, but not absolute, certainty, estimated to average approximately 65%–67% at any given time. Decades of satellite data (like MODIS) have established this average, though daily fluctuations can vary by up to 30%, with higher coverage over oceans (~72%) than land (~55%).”
Compare the stated ” . . . certainty, estimated to average approximately 65%–67% at any given time . . .” to the EEI asserted uncertainty of ± 0.10 Wm-2 . . . DOUBLE TILT!!
I need not go on.
Climate science has been convinced that measurement uncertainty is the experimental standard deviation OF THE MEAN. This says the more measurements you average the smaller and smaller the measurement uncertainty. They fail to realize this only applies if you are measuring a single thing under repeatable conditions.
The moment you measure something different or at a different time, you no longer have repeatable measurements of the same thing. It is basically using different input quantities, each of which has independent measurement uncertainty. In essence, determine a property of a non-homogenous measured.
Why? Because I am a rocket scientist and I do not use analysis tools that I did not design or that lack sufficient detail to know exactly what is included in the equations. I am not about to reverse engineer your spreadsheet. I have better things to do with my limited time.
You didn’t even look at it, did you Sparta?
I can tell that because if you had looked at it you would not have written, “…or that lack sufficient detail to know exactly what is included in the equations,” since it shows exactly what is included in the equations, right beside each formula cell. No “reverse engineering” required.
The spreadsheet has a big, wide column on the left with a description of the input cell or formula cell to the right.
For formula cells, there’s also a big, wide column on the right entitled, “references & notes,” which describes the calculation done by the formula to the left.
The tricky part was making it into an interactive webpage, to work on the web. But there’s also a “download” link at the bottom, to pull down the original .xlsx source, and use it (or modify it) like any other spreadsheet.
https://sealevel.info/radiative_imbalance_calc.htm
You are correct. I did not look.
It takes time I do not have to study tools and as I am at work, the only tools I study apply to my job.
Part of the review I am not conducting is an assessment of assumptions in the model, stated, unintended, or otherwise.
I believe 0.33 W/m^2 is inaccurate.
Nature is not what it used to be.
Again, it is not a lack of interest, it is a lack of free time.
In addition, due to rules I will not discuss, I am not allowed to download non-work related files.
Dave, the ARGO floats initially showed cooling.
Josh Willis used the TOA imbalance to “correct” the calibration of the floats to get the expected warming.
Let that sink in.
“Radiative imbalance is very roughly estimated, “
Absolutely true but it needs the qualifier: based on oversimplification of models that also do not address all factors in a highly complex energy system.
Here’s why I hate acronyms when I read WUWT articles: This was from A.I,:
“That makes perfect sense! In a long technical article, your brain has to do a “mini-translation” every time you see EEI, which actually interrupts your flow and makes the science harder to follow.
It’s a classic case of the author trying to save space, but accidentally making the reader work twice as hard. When you read “Earth’s Energy Imbalance,” you immediately visualize the concept; when you read “EEI,” you just see a clunky government-style label.”
Acronyms R US.
Funny . . . just that partial sentence you posted contains two abbreviations.
Oh, well . . . ROTFL.
BTW, acronyms are words formed from the first letter(s) of a series of words, pronounced as a single word, such as “PIN”, “RADAR” and “NASA”. In comparison, abbreviations are shortened forms of a words or phrases, used to save space and time in writing but not generally pronounced as a single word, such as “WUWT, “AI”, “EEI”, and, of course, “ROTFL”.
“So the actual measured EEI from the satellites was 6.5 w/sq.m., but everyone recognized that that figure was impossible and would imply much more warming than observed. How to deal with the problem? Clauser quotes a 2011 paper from the famous James Hansen of NASA:
Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al. 2009). …
When the data are clearly wrong, you just use your favorite model to modify the data until they fit your preferred theory.”
How is this indistinguisible from fraud?
How is this indistinguishible from fraud?
It isn’t.
Definitely fraud.
When you become comfortable with changing data, it becomes second nature. When you know that you are correct in doing so, you become incompetent.
It is why when I attended university doing this would not only get a failing grade, but quite likely one could be dismissed. Upperlevel students didn’t dare do this.
Think about how many students have been taught that changing data is not only ok, but ethical too.
I suspect that you also were taught that all values have to be reported as a range which must…MUST….contain the proper number of significant figures.
You know, like we used to do if we wanted to be called scientists.
You are exactly right. We also had to show how the data was analyzed for outliers, which were rejected. Data was sacrosanct, if one felt it was wrong, it was rejected and new data collected.
A long time ago, as I recall, there was a method (name escapes me) that prior to calculating the average of a large group of numbers one first eliminated the maximum outlier and the minimum outlier even if they did not cancel.
The proper number of significant figures?
You can’t mean, *gasp*, Scientific Notation rules?
The degree of resolution (precision) in an answer cannot be resolved beyond the least precise number in the calculation.
4 x 1.2 = 5
4.0 x 1.2 = 4.8
4.00 x 1.2 = 4.8
4.0 x 1.20 = 4.8
4.00 x 1.20 = 4.80
When looking at the diagram I realised that one source of heat is missing: geological heat. According to Grok, about half of the heat is radiological (from radioactive isotopes) and the other half is from other geological processes (of course Earth’s core is extremely hot). The total geological heat emission is 87–92 mW/m2, which is about 0.09 Watts per square meter.
I agree with Clauser when he uses the word “fraud”. The figure of 0.7 was almost certainly cooked up to fit the models, as explained by Hansen (how did he not realise his words were an admission of fraud?). But geological heat would reduce it to 0.6.
It would be amusing if the true imbalance were just 0.1. Then it would be explained perfectly by geological heat which, last time I checked, has nothing to do with climate change.
I have seen various estimates of geological energy release and sometimes it is different if going into the ocean or presenting on land.
That aside, you are correct. It is not included.
Likewise Lunar tidal energy is not included.
The details matter, especially when the “result” is such a small fraction of the total. There never was an analysis of alternatives of a fishbone done to determine if other factors were missed.
From the moment the summary was changed to indict humanity, the science was “settled” by political action and there was no more checking the details and possible factors not included.
The same analysis and conclusions can be found here:
(66) Refuting “evidence” for anthropogenic global climate change
When results of measurements or data are less than the uncertainty of the data, then it is not possible to draw any certain conclusions based on the data. However, this is the case of the man made climate narrative, whose supporters are quite so certain. Change of global temperature or other climate variables are so small that the changes are not statistically significant, and may thus be just natural random deviations from natural conditions (e.g. Dagsvik & Moen2023 1). “Evidence” that global climate change is anthropogenic can be refuted with the climate alarmists’ own reports, data, and models. Global temperature and climate change are natural phenomena where the sun, clouds and atmospheric pressure are the most important factors.
Ahhh, but if you are a climate scientist, you can say that we are using 10,000 stations so it is possible to reduce the uncertainty by dividing by √10000 = 100 or two orders of magnitude.
/sarc
If you are a climate scientist….it is important to tell your boss that your work is important and the harder you look, the more terrifying possibilities you uncover, and a bigger department, and bigger funding are absolutely necessary.
Your boss can’t calculate the heat loss from his garage knowing the R-value of the insulation, much less planet Earth, so Chicken Little stories are a good go-to.
100 likes.
There should be a big wide arrow coming out of the cloud and going into outer space.
There IS a big orange arrow coming out of the atmosphere (including, by definition, radiant energy from clouds) and going to space. A very part of that arrow is attributed to radiation from Earth’s surface directly passing through the atmosphere to space via the portion of the LWIR spectrum that is not effectively blocked by GHGs, known and identified in the graphic as the “atmospheric window”.