This is a good primer post on energy balance by Joe Postma on his new blog. It explains his thesis in easier everyday language than his older ‘Copernicus’ post which was published here in April this year.
Reality-based model of the global energy flow which does not require the artificial creation of an AGHE.
In Part 1, we discussed how the idea for the atmospheric greenhouse effect (AGHE) originated in the first place, and that it was due to a simple and needles mathematical error of diluting the power of sunshine from its real value to a value which is far too cold and doesn’t actually have anything to do with reality.
Many of the climate scientists I have discussed this problem with say that the difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth is irrelevant, because the diluted and cold “average” value of sunshine power is simply how much strength it has over an entire day, and so the result, they claim, is the same.
But is this correct? Well, if you’ve read the “Copernicus” paper, you would understand how obvious it is that unrealistic freezing cold sunshine at -18oC can’t do any of the same things that the real power of sunshine can actually do all by itself. You can only get the fictional model with -18oC solar input to do the same things which the real model with real sunshine can do by itself, if you invent a fictional heating mechanism to make up the difference. That was the whole point of inventing the AGHE in the first place!
So, no, a fictional flat Earth model and a real model couldn’t be any more different. Theyare different, and so they are different. They don’t do the same thing.
Other climate scientists, on the other hand, have admitted that the flat Earth/cold Sunshine model isn’t actually real, and that they’re only used for teaching, and that it was silly for me to criticize it. However, they only admitted that such models were fiction after I had exposed it and forced them into saying so: they weren’t very open about it at all. Also, why would we use something fictional that doesn’t actually physically exist to teach the exact same thing which is claimed to exist? Why would we teach non-reality physics as reality? How incredibly contradictory. It would be good for these climate scientists to resolve their disagreement with the other bunch who claim that the difference between fiction and reality makes no difference. The one thing no one can admit, however, is that without the cold-sunshine paradigm, there is no reason to invent the AGHE at all.
So let us have a look at the reality-based model once again and briefly develop an understanding of how reality actually works with the real power of sunshine. An updated version (it is a work in progress) of the global energy model is shown at the top.
Read the rest here
The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 2: Moving to Reality.
Just a thought Stephen. Your acceptance of “UWIR and DWIR can only be equal at the effective radiating height.” is a first step towards the recognition of a GHE (of sorts).
Best regards, Ray.
I do accept a GHE of sorts but it isn’t affected by GHGs.
Oh come on, be fair! It is, just not as much as most people think.
Best regards, Ray.
Stephen 12/7 6:24 pm: “The difference between EEL and thermometer height can be anything depending on mass, gravity and insolation but NOT composition.”
No Stephen, not in science. Inspect the EEL height derivation. The composition of the atm. matters in the basic science eqn. developed for finding the height of EEL as it must. Specifically the density of the atm. IR absorbers/emitters is an important factor in the EEL height & pressure derivation for optically thick atm. Just look it up. Report back.
Stephen continues: “So what is your point ?”
My point is that Stephen has come to agree with science in that atm. composition matters in addition to mass, gravity and insolation for planetary Tavg. near surface when in balance at LTE since Stephen now agrees with textbook science: “UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.” In equation form:
Net solar flux-in – (UWIR-DWIR) = 0 at LTE.
So that as DWIR increases due an increase in the density of the absorbers in the atm. composition optically thick atm., so must UWIR in excess of solar throughput increase to always match increase DWIR if the atm. is to be retained and it does that by Tavg. increase and the density of the absorbers increasing EEL mathematically & physically measured by satellites to a pressure level a smidge lower and thus a smidge slightly cooler at that pressure height. All in the basic science that has been around a long while and as measured by satellites/atm. sounding probes.
Stephen continues: “You have simply sidestepped all the points made in my post of 9.34 am.”
Yeah, the science is a mess in them. I will clean them up with the right textbook based basic science based on Stephen being in agreement with texts when he writes “UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.”
1) “..at the same atmospheric pressure the temperatures within the atmospheres of both Earth and Venus are much the same. Their vastly differing atmospheric compositions make no difference” Planet atm. density adjusted for difference in orbit, Stephen gets this right, the ideal gas law holds on Venus and Earth. That is how they got Venus atm. specifics from probes.
2) “the sole determinants of surface temperature are mass, gravity and insolation.” Not in science, Stephen just learned the science shows composition of the atm. matters to maintain balance too when he writes to clarify “UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.”
3) Stephen gets the science right in 3) except greenhouse gases are from resident cats with digestive issues. Infrared active gas density composition of the atm. is really what matters in an optically thick atm.
4) Temperature Tavg. near the surface is not just controlled by mass, gravity, insolation since Stephen just agreed the atmosphere composition also matters since he writes in agreement with basic science: “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR.”
5) Stephen just worked out why this must be so where he writes; “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR” meaning atm. composition matters. Atm. composition affects the DWIR which then forces UWIR to a new balance at LTE at a different Tavg. near surface temperature and affecting the EEL pressure height.
6) UWIR and DWIR cannot cancel out near the surface because “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR.”
7) UWIR and DWIR cannot cancel out near the surface because “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR.”
8) UWIR and DWIR are more than mathematical constructs, they are measured everyday at multiple locations by engineers calibrating instruments to +/- 2 W/m^2 one pointed up, the other pointed down at the same height as the GHCN thermometers,
9) UWIR and DWIR almost never measured the same by engineers at the diverse locations at different altitudes and regions. At LTE, in & out energy remains in balance with different near surface Tavg. as it has for eons. Or we would not be here observing it.
10) The Earth system is stable, it manages to change the Tavg. near the surface stably over eons.
11) Stephen just learned there is a 4th determinate: atm. composition because “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR.”
12) Is fine, none of these affects crosses the balanced big picture control volume at TOA. Potential temperature of near surface on average changes w/atm. composition to keep balance for eons.
13) Be precise Stephen, the important point is atm. Tavg. near surface changes to restore the balance and save the atm. UWIR and DWIR are not in balance near the surface, check the eqn. above since “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR.”
14) Atm. compositional changes affect the DWIR which then affects the UWIR to restore balance as Stephen writes at a new near surface Tavg.
15) THAT is the best question. I dunno, others are working on it. Stay tuned.
16) Maybe no general agreement Tavg. changing near surface is measurable today within CI, but that is no proof; since the atm. composition changes every day, the experiment continues, may be measurable some day in the future with improved methods and instruments. Keep working folks.
Stephen doesn’t agree? Look up the science Stephen before you report back – like I did; my list is based on basic science as Stephen writes “UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.” I gave the relevant references in the thread to save you the trouble but feel free to find your own. And again no warranty on my typo.s, point ‘em out for an across the board reward… They happen. Deal with it.
Trick.
I’ve worked out what is missing from your scenario.
Stay tuned.
“Oh come on, be fair! It is, just not as much as most people think”
True, up to a point, but it is the circulation that changes and not the temperature.
You don’t necessarily need a rise in surface temperature to cause a circulation change if the imbalance is in the atmosphere rather than at the surface.
All will become clear
Who are the True Deniers?
http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/12/13/about-joseph-e-postma-joe-postma-the-climate-denier-list-who-are-the-true-deniers/
Little info about Me:
http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/12/13/about-joseph-e-postma-joe-postma-the-climate-denier-list-sophistry/
The Stupidity of Backradiation:
http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/11/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-6-the-stupidity-of-backradiation/
http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/12/15/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-6-the-stupidity-of-backradiation/
Your link is broken, should be 2012/12/15 I think.
What IS the GHE?
http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/12/27/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-8-what-is-the-ghe/
Sophistry Part 2: Analogously, but Different”, or why the IPCC Lies, or how the IPCC Disproves the Greenhouse Effect
http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/01/25/sophistry-part-2-analogously-but-different-or-why-the-ipcc-lies-or-how-the-ipcc-disproves-the-greenhouse-effect/