Pirani gauge

The Pirani gauge, invented in 1906, is used to measure vacuum. It has a wire (the sensor or filament), normally gold-plated tungsten or platinum (but has sometimes been nickel), which behaves close to a black body emitter. The emissivity An electical, Wheatsone bridge, circuit is used to keep the temperature of the sensor constant. The whole is put inside a shell so that vacuum inside the shell can be measured down to about 0.001 Torr, up to 1 Torr. This range is dominated by conductive cooling. Below it, radiative cooling dominates. Above 1 Torr: conductive cooling tails off and convective cooling also comes into play. By conductive cooling, I mean the action of gas molecules, in the semi-vacuum, which cool the sensor by conductive loss. Each instrument also has 'end losses' but instruments are calibrated such that end-losses are ignored when measuring.

Consider the chart of showing typical Pirani gauge behavior. My annotations are written in a salmon (pink) colour. The green curve plots pressure (horizontal axis) against power used (vertical axis). Both axes have log scales. The horizontal axis shows pressure in Torr. 760 Torr ~ surface atmospheric pressure (labelled by the sp arrow). Below 0.1 Torr is normally called 'high vacuum'. The vertical axis shows the power used by the instrument to maintain a constant temperature at the Pirani sensor. We assume, that at any particular temperature the emission of infrared (heat) radiation is constant. Because physics shows that's the case: radiative emissions only depend on temperature for a 'black body'.

Over the Low vacuum range [ 1E-02 to 1E+03 (0.01 to 50 Torr), between points labelled by arrows rc to cc ) conductive cooling dominates. So most of the power is used to allay this conductive cooling to keep the Pirani sensor at a constant temperature.

The criticism of the Pirani gauge is that "it's not a good model for the earth". But the actual model of the earth used with backradiation of about 333 is a very, very bad model for the earth; and totally wrong. Climate alarmists are still using this very, very, wrong model today.

Nasif Nahle claims he measured some back-radiation (60 W/m² at night)

From: "Observations of Backradiation during Nighttime and Daytime" by Prof. Nasif Nahle, July 5, 2011

When we place a pyrometer on the ground under direct sunlight with its sensors facing up and measure the solar power flux during daytime, we record solar thermal radiation close to 1000 W/m² not 340 W/m²

If we place the same pyrometer on the ground, adjusted to longwave thermal radiation, during nighttime, the recorded power flux will be around 60 W/m². Nevertheless, the proponents of the greenhouse effect argue that backradiation is 340 W/m² day and night. Additionally, they assert they measured backradiation and it is around 300 W/m².

If we measure the power flux from the surface to the atmosphere during nighttime, we record around 310 W/m². This is five times higher than the power flux recorded from the atmosphere, which is around 60 W/m²

Climate models for politicians - comment on,

Reblog from Mar 20, 2012 at 6:38 AM, comment by Roy Clark on Bishop Hill blog

Most people, including many scientists, have been fooled by the pseudoscience that is hidden in the climate models. Every single result produced by the use of radiative forcing is invalid. The results from all of the models that use the empirical radiative forcing constants given by the IPCC are fraudulent.

The full explanation is little involved, but here goes:

In order to understand the issues it is necessary to go back to the beginning and look at the original 1967 paper by Manabe and Wetherald [J. Atmos. Sci. 24 241-249 (1967), ‘Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity’. This can be found at http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf The assumptions made in the derivations are clearly stated on the second page.

The Earth’s climate is stable, which means that there is an approximate energy balance between the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing LWIR flux somewhere ‘at the top of the atmosphere’. This is simply a statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy is conserved – more or less. However, this does not justify the assumption that an ‘average climate equilibrium state’ exists in which the solar flux is exactly balanced by the LWIR flux. This ignores the time dependence of the energy transfer and avoids the application Second Law of Thermodynamics to the surface temperature flux. It assumes that the sun is shining all the time with a single average flux. All of the subsequent mathematical derivations of the equilibrium flux equations and the use of perturbation theory have no basis in physical reality. There are no forcings or feedbacks because there is no equilibrium in the real climate.

Assumption 5 in Manabe and Wetherald is that ‘The heat capacity of the Earth’s surface is zero’. It is assumed that the Earth’s surface temperature is set by black body equilibrium, which is most definitely not the case. There is a significant lag between the peak solar flux and the peak surface temperatures that is characteristic of a classic thermal storage oscillator. The daily surface temperature lags by up to ~2 hours and the seasonal surface temperature lags by a couple of months. . Latent heat and wind driven evaporation are also fundamental in setting the surface temperature, especially over the oceans. The heat capacity of the ground is somewhere around 1.5 MJ.m^-3 and that of water is ~4 MJ.m-³.

It is also important to understand that the ‘equilibrium average surface temperature’ calculated by radiative forcing is not a measurable climate variable. It has no existence outside of the ‘equilibrium Earth’ that resides only in the universe of computerized climate fiction found inside these radiative forcing models. .

If we use a reverse argument, an increase of 1 K in a black body surface at 288 K will produce an increase in black body flux of 5.5 W.m-2. This is similar to the increase in downward LWIR flux that would be produced by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (to 580 ppm). Reliable atmospheric radiative transfer calculations using HITRAN, untainted by climate science give an increase in flux of about 4 W.m-2. However, there is simply no connection between either of these two numbers and the real surface temperature. The whole radiative forcing argument is nothing more than climate theology.

During the middle of the day, under full summer sun conditions, the peak solar flux is ~1000 W.m^-2. The corresponding surface temperature is at least 50 C for dry ground. The increase in LWIR flux for a black body going from 288 to 338 K (+30 C) is about 227 W.m^-2. Most of the solar heat is dissipated by convection. Heat is also stored below the surface and released later in the day. It is just impossible for a small change in LWIR flux from CO₂ to have any effect on surface temperature when it added correctly to the surface flux balance. At night, convection more or less stops and the surface cools mainly by LWIR emission. The downward LWIR flux from the first 2 km layer of the atmosphere slows the night time surface cooling, but the atmospheric heating process is controlled by convection, not LWIR radiation. Furthermore, this is not an equilibrium process. The troposphere acts as two independent thermal reservoirs. The upper reservoir radiates to space all the time, mainly from the water bands near 5 km. The lower reservoir acts as a night time ‘thermal blanket’. The atmosphere is an open cycle convective heat engine with a radiatively cooled cold reservoir.

Manabe and Wetherald were quite honest about what they were doing. They simply produced an invalid hypothesis that should have been superseded. Later workers just allowed themselves to be seduced by the mathematics of the flux equations and never bothered to validate the models or investigate the real physics. The result is the global warming dogma that we still have today. And the associated corruption.

Now we get to the fraudulent part. Manabe and Wetherald were quite clear that they were calculating a surface temperature, however it was defined. This means the temperature on the ground that we feel with our bare feet. However, there is no long term record of the surface temperature. Instead, the meteorological surface air temperature (MSAT) was substituted for the surface temperature. This is the ‘weather temperature’ that is the air temperature measured in a ventilated enclosure placed at eye level, 1.5 to 2 m above the ground. It is simply impossible for there to be any observable change in MSAT caused by a small change in LWIR flux at the surface below the weather station enclosure.

The MSAT or weather recorded has been treated as a mathematical number series to be manipulated to ‘prove’ that global warming exists. The correct interpretation of the record is that the minimum MSAT is, approximately, with caveats, a measure of the heat content (lapse rate) of the air mass of the weather system as it passes through. This is usually an indicator of the ocean surface temperatures in the region of origin of the weather system. The maximum MSAT is a measure of the daily surface convection at the MSAT thermometer produce by the solar heating of the ground. This convetive heating is added to the minimum MSAT.

The US continental MSAT record shows a clear peak in the 1930s and 1940s from the dust bowl drought and a second peak from the recent modern maximum. These peaks can be explained using variations in ocean surface temperatures, particularly the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The observed global warming signal is nothing more that the warming phase of these ocean oscillations with some urban heat island effects and plain old data fiddling added. This has been explained by Joe D’Aleo and others. The oceans and the Earth’s climate have been cooling for over 10 years.

The climate models have been rigged using empirical pseudoscience as follows:

It has been assumed, a-priori that the observed increase in the MSAT record, the mutilated ‘average global temperature anomaly’ has been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. In particular it is assumed, without any justification whatsoever, that an increase in the downward LWIR flux from CO2 of 1 W.m-2 has produced an increase in the ‘average global temperature anomaly’ of 2/3 C. This allows the increase in LWIR flux from an increase in concentration of any ‘greenhouse gas’ to be converted to an increase in surface temperature. However, the real climate fluctuates and is now cooling, so ‘aerosol cooling’ has been added to compensate for the over warming produced by just the LWIR flux from the greenhouse gases. Sulfate aerosols are used for basic cooling and volcanic aerosols are used for ‘fine tuning’. The hindcast is just an empirical fit and the models have no predictive skill whatsoever. The climate models are pure pseudoscience. They are nothing more than the hockey stick propagating itself with aerosol adjustments. This is all climate astrology, not climate science.

However, it is not sufficient to say what is wrong with the climate models, it is necessary to propose a viable replacement, or the global warming acrimony will continue ad nauseam.

Radiative forcing has to be replaced with a dynamic energy transfer model. There is no climate equilibrium and the time dependence of the energy transfer must be explicitly included. Once this is done, CO2 induced global warming disappears. The minimum description requires four thermal reservoirs and six energy transfer process. This is discussed in the book ‘The Dynamic Greenhouse Effect and the Climate Averaging Paradox’. It is available on Amazon. There is also further discussion at http://www.venturaphotonics.com

There has to be a fundamental paradigm shift in the way we describe climate and climate change. There is no climate equilibrium on any time scale and all of the energy transfer processes are dynamic, not static. The sun only shines during the day. Sun wind and water need no help from CO2 to set the Earth’s climate.

Sol Invicto Comiti

What the Pirani guage implies about atmospheric heat transport.

Tom Shula explains how the behaviour of the Pirani gauge precludes any significant greenhouse gas effect: YouTube | white paper (pdf) | WUWT

We can use the behaviour of the Pirani gauge to estimate what kind of heat transport should dominate in each layer of the atmosphere. The IPCC say radiative cooling dominates everywhere in the atmosphere; even at ground level. They are completely wrong. Not because 'the science is wrong'; but because the politicos politicized the science so much - they make it up.

The Pirani guage implies:

mode of heat transport	pressure	altitude	regions
convection	above 4 Torr	below 35km	troposphere, tropopause, lower stratosphere
conduction	0.1 to 4 Torr	35 to 65 km	upper stratosphere, stratopause, lower mesosphere
radiation	below 0.1 Torr	above 65km	above mid-mesosphere

Derivation of table above

In his book "A User's Guide to Vacuum Technology", 3rd edition, John F. O'Hanlon's presents the following diagram on page 88 to show that as one goes from atmospheric pressure to a vacuum, the cooling of the Pirani gauge sensor wire is dominated, in turn, by convection, conduction and radiation - the 3 heat transport mechanisms.

O'Hanlon's diagram did not label the axis because the precise curve one gets depends on the gas. But both axis are logarithmic. The basic outline (shape) of the curve is the same for all gases. So we can superipose the points - where convection gives way to conduction, and conduction gives way to radiation - onto the diagram supplied by Tom Shula. The enables us to find specific pressures at which these cross-overs happen.

convection (iii) gives way to conduction (ii)	~ 4 Torr
conduction (ii) gives way to radiation (i)	~ 0.1 Torr (100 microns).

The diagram below relates altitude to atmospheric region

Conclusions

pressure

mode of heat transport		altitude	regions
convection	above 4 Torr	below 35km	troposphere, tropopause, lower stratosphere
conduction	0.1 to 4 Torr	35 to 65 km	upper stratosphere, stratopause, lower mesosphere
radiation	below 0.1 Torr	above 65km	above mid-mesosphere

---

The table below, found here, associates specific pressures with altitude.

The Grip of Culture: The Social Psychology of Climate Change Catastrophism.

Book Review

The Grip of Culture: The Social Psychology of Climate Change Catastropism by Andy A. West, 8 June 2023, 448 pages, ISBN-13: 978-1838074746. Published by: GWPF. Paperback: £10 | E-book: free

GWPF publish at least 3 brilliant books with tendentious links to anthropomorphic global warming, AGW; AKA: 'climate change'. This book (Grip of Culture), Population Bombed (2018), by Pierre Desrochers and Joanna Szurkmak, and Searching for the Catastrophe Signal, by Bernie Lewin. I say 'tendentious link' because neither book is about how the climate works; but all 3 books explain how the climate issue arose to dominate the mindsets of global elites. These books explain how the climate mindset works.

• Searching for the Catastrophe Signal, 2017, by Bernie Lewin
• Population Bombed, 2018, by Pierre Desrochers and Joanna Szurkmak
• Grip of Culture, 2023, by Andy West

Searching for the Catastrophe Signal plays back the history of the IPCC: International Panel on Climate Change. How it first warped itself in the early 1990s - before CimateGate), and before it matured into the dishonest, globalist, elite-dominated, propaganda group it is today.

Population Bombed traces the origins of climate hysteria back to old (eitist) eugenic concerns such as the hoi polloi out-breeding the better classes. Especially tbe 1960's blossoming of eugenic-derived ideas under a new flag: over-population, which, itself, hid behind a 'new movement': environmentalism.

Andy West's 'Grip of Culture' even manages to eclipse the previous two essential reads! It is one of the most important books, I've ever read. Likely: the most important. I've always been fascinated by ideologies, since the age ten, when I asked myself the question: why should I believe in God, but was unable to satisfactorarily answer myself. My mid-teen econcounters with Scientology, and Hare Krishna, cememented my fascination. BTW: I even worked 3 days, for free, with Scientology - marking their psychological profile tests - they gave people; until I realized the tests were a scam to hook people into Scientology.

The Grip of Culture explains religions, cults, and ideologies as necessarily false narratives about the world. These systems exist to unify people around common ideas, and causes; to give us a sense of belonging and purpose in life. It's nominally about the climate crisis narrative (as it's subtitle implies), but Andy makes it clear, everthing he says applies to all cultural memes. Andy West has a fascinating argument as to why such cultural memes (idea sets) are necessarily false. The Grip of Culture is centred in modern social psychology. Such psychology applies scientific research methods (empiricism), and bases itsef on ideas derived from evolutionary biology (evo-psych). Andy's book eschews the waffle, and groupthink of the poitical, journalist, and activist classes. Yet, if anything, the book's mood, tradition, or culture, go back the the hey days of the 18th century Elightenment, to works such as Denis Diderot's, Letter on the Blind, and Letter on the Deaf and Dumb. To books which lead us to question everything we've been taught, told, and allowed to think.

So one might suspect that the usual suspects: progressives and radicals would be all for such a book. Not necessarily because it's ideas are true. But because, like Nietzsche, or Foucault - even if it's false: we need need to know it. Yet there's a deathly silence within 'progressive culture' regarding this book. The Grip of Culture, also calls out every progressive cause: climate crisis, socialism, woke, DEI, CRT, transmania. Every cultural movement is placed under the spotlight. Exposure to the glare of these ideas vapourizes them like vampires in daylight. So progressives and radicals are banned from reading this book because it presents ideas too far.

It is a more revolutionary read than anything philosophers dreamt up. More life-changing then Pomo, Socrates, Hegel, Marx or Nietzsche. Because the ideas presented within aren't just those of clever people taking side-sweeps at the world. Andy makes empiricst claims. This is how the world works and there's nowt one can do to change this world because it's man's world.

Footnote

Better classes. This was once such a common phrase among elites that Hollywood and its ilk turned it into a cipher (code word) for everything they disliked about elites. Such that the instant any actor uttered the phrase better classes to refer to those whom they preferred, for example, in a 1930s to 1970s movie, one knew they were the cultural badies - snobs. Yet, strangely, the internet does not know such a code-phrase exists, so I must footnote it here! Eugenics erases its own history.

Concerning the Cause of the General Trade-Winds: By Geoge Hadley

Reblog!! from 1735. OCR corrected. Hadley's apparently idiosyncratic, arbitrary, Georgian English capitalization is uncorrected.

30 June 1735 doi: 10.1098/rstl.1735.0014,

VI. Concerning the Cause of the General Trade-Winds: By Geo. Hadley, Esq., F.R.S.

I Think the Causes of the General Trade-Winds have not been fully explained by any of those who have wrote on that Subject, for want of more particularly and distinctly considering the Share the diurnal Motion of the Earth has in the Production of them: For although this has been mentioned by some amongst the Causes of those Winds, yet they have not proceeded to show how it contributes to their Production $ or else have applied it to the Explication of these Phenomena, upon such Principles as will appear upon Examination not to be sufficient.

That the Action of the Sun is the original Cause of these Winds, I think all are agreed ; and that it does it by causing a greater Rarefaction of the Air in those Parts upon which its Rays falling perpendicularly, or nearly so, produce a greater Degree of Heat there than in other Places; by which means the Air there becoming specifically lighter than the rest round about, the cooler Air will by its greater Density and Gravity, remove it out of its Place to succeed into it its self, and make it rise upwards. But it seems, this Rarefaction will have no other effect than to cause the Air to rush in from all Parts into the Part where ’tis most rarefied, especially from the North and South, where the Air is coolest, and not more from the East than the West, as is commonly supposed: So that, setting aside the diurnal Motion of the Earth, the Tendency of the Air would be from every Side towards that Part where the Sun’s Action is most intense at the Time, and so a N. W. Wind be produced in the Morning, and a N. E. in the Afternoon, by Turns, on this Side of the Parallel of the Sun’s Declination, and a S.W. and S. E. on the other.

That the perpetual Motion of the Air towards the West, cannot be derived merely from the Action of the Sun upon it, appears more evidently from this: If the Earth be supposed at Rest, that Motion of the Air will be communicated to the superficial Parts, and by little and little produce a Revolution of the Whole the same Way, except there be the same Quantity of Motion given the Air in a contrary Direction in other Parts at the same Time, which is hard to suppose. But if the Globe of the Earth had before a Revolution towards the East, this by the same means must be continually retarded: And if this Motion of the Air be supposed to arise from any Action of the Parts of it on one another, the Consequence will be the same, for this reason it seems necessary to show how these Phenomena of the Trade-Winds may be caused, without the Production of any real general Motion of the Air westwards. This will readily be done by taking in the Consideration of the diurnal Motion of the Earth: For, let us suppose the Air in every Part to keep an equal Pace with the Earth in its diurnal Motion ; in which Case there will be no relative Motion of the Surface of the Earth and Air, and consequently no Wind; then by the Action of the Sun on the Parts about the Equator, and the Rarefaction of the Air proceeding there from, let the Air be drawn down thither from the N. and S. Parts. The Parallels are each of them bigger than the other, as they approach to the Equator, and the Equator is bigger than the Tropicks, nearly in the Proportion of 1000 to 917, and consequently their Difference in Circuit about 2083 Miles, and the Surface of the Earth at the Equator moves so much faster than the Surface of the Earth with its Air at the Tropicks. From which it follows, that the Air, as it moves from the Tropicks towards the Equator, having a less Velocity than the Parts of the Earth it arrives at, will have a relative Motion contrary to that of the diurnal Motion of the Earth in those Parts, which being combined with the Motion towards the Equator, a N. E. Wind will be produced on this Side of the Equator, and a S. E. on the other. These, as the Air comes nearer to the Equator, will become stronger, and more and more Easterly, and be due East at the Equator itself, according to Experience, by reason of the Concourse of both Currents from the N. and S. where its Velocity will be at the rate of 2083 Miles in the Space of one Revolution of the Earth or Natural Day, and above 1 Mile and ⅓ in a Minute of Time; which, is greater than the Velocity of the Wind is supposed to be in the greatest Storm, which according to Dr. Derham's Observations, is not above 1 Mile in a Minute; But it is to be considered, that before the Air from the Tropicks can arrive at the Equator, it must have gained some Motion Eastward from the Surface of the Earth or Sea, whereby its relative Motion will be diminished, and in several successive Circulations, may be supposed to be reduced to the Strength it is found to be of.

Thus I think the N.E. Winds on this Side of the Equator, and the S.E. on the other Side, are fully accounted for. The same Principle as necessarily extends to the Production of the West Trade-Winds without the Tropicks; the Air rarefied by the Heat of the Sun about the Equatorial Parts, being removed to make room for the Air from the cooler Parts, must rise upwards from the Earth, and as it is a Fluid, will then spread itself abroad over the other Air, and so its Motion in the upper Regions must be to the N. and S. from the Equator. Being got up at a Distance from the Surface of the Earth, it will soon lose great Part of its Heat, and thereby acquire Density and Gravity sufficient to make it approach its Surface again, which may be supposed to be by that Time ’tis arrived at those Parts beyond the Tropicks where the westerly Winds are found. Being supposed at first to have the Velocity of the Surface of the Earth at the Equator, it will have a greater Velocity than the Parts it now arrives at; and thereby become a westerly Wind, with Strength proportionable to the Difference of Velocity, which in several Revolutions will be reduced to a certain Degree, as is said before, of the Easterly Winds, at the Equator: And thus the Air will continue to circulate, and gain and lose Velocity by Turns from the Surface of the Earth or Sea as it approaches to, or recedes from the Equator! I do not think it necessary to apply these Principles to solve the Phenomena of the Variations of these Winds at different Times of the Year, and different Parts of the Earth ; and do it would draw this Paper into greater Length than I propose. From what has been said it follows:

• First, That without the Assistance of the diurnal Motion of the Earth, Navigation, especially Easterly and Westerly, would be very tedious, and to make the whole Circuit of the Earth perhaps impracticable.
• Secondly, That the N. E. and S. E. Winds within the Tropicks must be compensated by as much N. W. and S. W. in other Parts, and generally all Winds from any one Quarter must be compensated by a contrary Wind somewhere or other; otherwise some Change must be produced in the Motion of the Earth round its Axis.

Reply to Ken Rice (provisional)

Ken Rice posted in reply to Ronan Connolly's summary of his first 3 papers on climate.

---

"Yes, but if there is no greenhouse effect, then the surface temperature would be the non-greenhouse temperature (255 K)."

-- Ken Rice, 2023

---

Short answer:

We get 255k when we assume earth's radiant heat loss is calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (SBL); without bothering even to add a correction for earth's emissivity. Such that earth cools predominantly by radiative emission throughout its entire atmosphere! (about 79% - at the surface, and 100% at the Top of the Atmosphere).

M = ε × σ × T⁴

M = 1 × 5.67e−08 × 255⁴ = 240 W/m² [ε = 1]

Yet the SBL only applies to an object in a vacuum. Earth's surface is bathed in a gas - its atmosphere. So SBL does not apply to earth's surface.

and if it did, there'd be an emissivity term in the calculation, which Ken and his self-styled 'climate consensus' have erroneously left out too! As I see it: their numbers, even within their own frame of reference, are deliberately wrong! Q: Why?

Long answer:

The GHE assumes radiation dominates heat transport throughout ALL earth's atmosphere. For example, two energy balance diagrams (for the surface), written by GHE fans, show:

	K+T1997 W/m²	NASA W/m²	Convective version W/m²
(eb1)	168	163.3	163.3	Incoming solar
(eb2)	324	340.3	1	Incoming infrared 'backradiation'
(eb3)	390	398.2	1	Outgoing infrared
(eb4)	78	88.4	88.4	Outgoing latent heat
(eb5)	24	18.4	74.9	Outgoing convection

Both examples have numbers in the same ball-park. I think Ken and myself agree on two of these numbers: (eb1) sunlight, and (eb4) evapotranspiration. But we disagree on the values for infrared, (eb2), (eb3) and convection (eb5).

We disagree on the two largest values and the smallest one! Evidence tells me the values shown for (eb2), (eb3), and (eb5) are very wrong.

That 255 K figure, is derived by Ken here (Ken Rice, 2017):

"Let’s imagine we have the Earth, but without an atmosphere (or with an atmosphere that is completely transparent). In such a scenario, the surface must radiate back into space – on average – as much energy as it receives from the Sun. If it didn’t, it would either heat up, or cool down, until it did so. If we assume this imaginary Earth has the same albedo as today’s Earth, and orbits today’s Sun, then it would reflect 30% of the incoming sunlight, and would absorb – on average – 240 W/m². It would also, therefore, radiate 240 W/m² and would have an effective surface temperature of 255K"

- KR-2017

Why do I disagree over 255K?

Because I assume:
(a1) Earth warms quickly as radiation travels at the speed of light.
(a2) Earth cools slowly because - in the lower atmosphere: it predominantly cools by convection and conduction, which travel, at best, at the speed of sound. Plus earth has a significant heat capacity. These factors explain why earth's actual temperature = 288K, not 255K.

The greenhouse effect is, of course, the difference between 288 (earth's actual temperature) and 255 = +33C. We're told this +33C warming is due to greenhouse gases.

I disagree with Ken on his 255K number because Ken assumes earth mainly cools by radiation throughout its entire atmosphere. Earth's surface temperature is above 255 K (actually: 288 K), because earth's surface does not cool as quickly as Ken assumes.

(a3) If, like Ken, and his 'climate consensus', friends, one assumes that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law explains 80% of earth's cooling, then one concludes that without a GHE, the surface averages to 255K (or close to that).

My evidence for assumption (a2) is given by Tom Shula in his interview with Tom Nelson regarding how the empirical behaviour of the Pirani gauge precludes a greenhouse effect, GHE, as it's conventionally understood.

Tom Shula disagrees with the Ken, and the 'climate consensus' use of Stefan-Boltzmann Law, SBL, to calculate how earth cools. Their error is to apply SBL out of context. The SBL is ONLY applicable to an object in a vacuum. Even then: ONLY in special circumstances.

For example, Max Planck wrote a book on heat, translated into English in 1914. CHAPTER II, STEFAN-BOLTZMANN LAW OF RADIATION, page 67 begins with a long discussion of an imaginary apparatus for investigating black body radiation. The apparatus which Max Planck describes to elucidate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law reads nothing like the surface of the earth. Planck begins:

"For the following we imagine a perfectly evacuated hollow cylinder with an absolutely tight-fitting piston free to move in a vertical direction with no friction. A part of the walls of the cylinder, say the rigid bottom, should consist of a black body, whose temperature T may be regulated arbitrarily from the outside. The rest of the walls including the inner surface of the piston may be assumed as totally reflecting."

I looked but I can find almost no one, in physics, who measured radiation in a none vacuum!

HELP ME: Please help me here Ken. Please cite some published experiments, done to show the SBL still applies to a surface in a non-vacuum (such as earth bathed in its atmosphere).

Fortunately, the Pirani gauge gives us an experimental setup to investigate heat transport where all of: radiation, convection and conduction can compete to cool a black body, or near black body.

We discover, that at, for example, 65C - a typical temperature used in Pirani gauge measurements, the contribution by radiation is almost negligible when 1 atmosphere of air is present. For each 100W cooling by conduction and convection, ONLY 0.4W of cooling is done by radiation.

The Pirani gauge

So far this - Pirani gauge is the ONLY setup I've seen for measuring radiative output when conduction and convection are also available to cool a body.

---

PS 1:

Does anyone else find it appalling that the Wikipedia entry on the SBL does not mention that the law only applies to bodies in a vacuum?

A suspicious person might conclude there's a global conspiracy of scientists to misrepresent the behaviour of the SBL, in order to con us into believing we're in a "climate crisis" - alternatively - someone who's read Andy West's new book "The Grip of Culture will understand that climate alarm is a cultural entity, in a similar vein to political and religious movements such as Communism or one of the monotheistic religions.". Also: we all know scientists would never do such a thing - conspire! They are paragons of virtue and saintlyness, who would never lie or dissemble - according to the tennants of the climate alarm cultural entity.

PS 2:

Consider the large backradiation value in the energy budgets: 324 W/m² (K+T1997) / 340.3 W/m² (NASA). This number is added to the energy budget to balance out the massive blackbody outgoing radiation previously calculated (390 / 398.2 ). Backradiation is an equation balancing device. It is also the rationale for the GHE! How convenient, to add a GHE by such slight of hand. If no argues against how the SBL is used, then everyone must agree on the backradiation term, so also agree with the GHE calculated by the 'climate consensus'; and so - ultimately agree with the 'climate crisis', and its net zero cure.

PS 3:

As an aside, I should add that both figures provided by NASA and K+T for radiative emissions: 390 W/m², 398.2 W/m² are obviously too high, even when assuming the Stefan-Boltzmann Law does determine earth's surface radiance! The SBL =

M = ε × σ × T⁴

M = emittance (watts); ε = emissivity (unit-less), ε = 1 (black body), ε = 0.92 (average earth surface); σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.67 × 10⁻⁸ W/m² × K^-4). , and T = temperature of the emitter. Assuming ε = 0.92, K+T-1997 should've calculated M = 359 W/m². It is ONLY 390 W/m² when one assumes all of earth's surface is a black body emitter - which is obviously a wrong assumption.

Earth's emissivity varies from 0.65 (desert) to 0.95 (water and ice). Given, a third of land is desert, and earth's emissivity is NEVER greater than 0.95; I calculated an average emissivity = 0.92 to get the theoretical: M = 359 W/m²

Oceans	+ Desserts		+ Antarctica	+ The rest
71% × 0.95	+ 4.5% × 0.65	+ 4.5% × 0.75	+ 3% × 0.95	+ 17% × 0.9
Earth's average emissivity =				0.919

Suppose Ken's imaginary average earth surface temperature = 255 K. Then:
M = ε × σ × T⁴
M = 0.92 × 5.67×10e-08 × 255⁴ = 221 W/m²
Ken gets M = 240 W/m²; 8%, or so, too high because he neglects the emissivity term in his SBL
Ken seems to be treating the earth's surface as a black body (assuming its emissivity = 1). It does not. Earth's emissivity is not greater than 0.92.
I cannot even agree with Ken, and his 'climate consensus' allies on how to correctly use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. I apply the emissivity correction to it. They do not. I doubt they will even justify their assumption that earth's emissivity = 1; when it is obviously not.
LOL. In their energy budget diagram, of 2017, NASA have fraction numbers all over, but they cannot be bothered to correctly apply Stefan-Boltzmann to their own calculations - giving their numbers for OLR and backradiation, at least, an 8% built-in error!
Decades of making stuff up, left them conceited and vainglorious. Or maybe they were already, conceited and vainglorious? That'd explain why the side with The Man's 'net zero', against the people.

Summary:

• Climate consensus energy balance diagrams are completely wrong. In particular the figure for convection (thermals), and infrared radiation (out outgoing, and backradiation) - are totally wrong.
• The figures are wrong because those are the numbers which the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, SBL, gives us.
• But the SBL is invalid because it ONLY applies to objects in a vacuum. Earth's surface is NOT in a vacuum.
• The operation of the Pirani gauge shows what a realistic ratio should be for radiation : convection and conduction, 1 : 250; at earth's surface.
• This changes the outgoing radiation - at the surface - to below 1W/m²; the back-radiation may be close to that too; Convection and conduction will take up the rest of the slack ~ 74.9 W/m²
• A greenhouse gas effect is ONLY required if one assumes radiation dominates cooling in the lower atmostphere. It clearly does not. Remember the wind you feel - that's convection. I repeat: the evidence of the Pirani gauge shows convection dominates radiation when cooling earth's surface.
• BTW: Evapotranspiration is latent heat moved by convection.
• As air thins, higher up in altitude, radiation becomes more important.
• Modellers, such as James Hansen, theorize a window opening to space - at an imaginary altitude where the atmosphere thinned so much that it is too sparse above to reabsorb radiation emitted to space from below. So the radiation escapes earth. Hansen calculated this window to be less than 10km above - still within the tropophere! This is key for him because Hansen's greenhouse effect happens here! (at this imaginary place):

  The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse effect, is simple. An increase of gases such as CO₂ makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This added opacity causes the planet's heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between the energy absorbed from the sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until planetary energy balance is restored.

  -- James Hansen 2011
  
  The location of this supposed window to space - within the tropsophere - is crucial for Hansen's greenhouse effect to work, as he assumes "This added opacity causes the planet's heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere" If this window were above the troposphere there could not be any greenhouse effect according to Hansen! - because the atmosphere stops cooling at the top of the troposphere where the tropopause begins!
  <- therefore no man-made warming - no need to abandon fossil fuels - no ULEZ - no need for net zero - ...
  It's astounding how tendentious this greenhouse effect is. The special conditions it requires cannot be met.
• I think the evidence from the Pirani gauge shows that if Hansen's window of emission exists - it must be at a higher altitude - above the troposphere!
• At the very top of the troposphere (ToT), air pressure is still above 200 Torr. Radiative cooling does not dominate convection and conduction until the pressure is approaching 0.01 Torr (see Pirani gauge pressure diagram above). At 200 Torr (ToT) - the Pirani gauge diagram shows conduction and convection doing almost as much cooling as it does at 1 atmosphere!
  
  So it looks like James Hansen's greenhouse effect was fiction too.
  
• In the diagram of Earth's Atmosphere (above) James Hansen's imaginary window - where radiation escapes to space - is located at an altitude below the summit of Mount Everest. Where the atmosphere is still over 260 Torr. In the Pirani gauge diagram, atmospheric pressure, 760 Torr intersects the green curve at about 101 Watts. But 260 Torr intesects at about 100 Watts. So convection still dominates. I can't believe James Hansen's imaginary windown exists at an altitude where conduction and covection are still dominant in cooling. I can't believe in a greenhouse effect.
• Q: But if I think this Stefan-Boltzmann Law is unimportant in cooling earth's surface, why did I spend so much time on it above?
  A: Because alarmists misuse it. In particular none of them seem to use a proper term for emissivity! Ken Rice, Kiehl, Trenberth and NASA all miss it. If they cannot be honest about using their most important equation (SBL) - by always including a realistic emissivity term for earth - how can they be honest over anything else?

Hadley Cells

A Hadley Cell is large scale convective movement of air into the tropics which pushes warmer air up. Such warm, moist air releases it's moisture as it cools (which rising in altitude will cause), at the tropics. Hadley and Ferrel Cells explain the trade winds. The Westerlies and Easterlies.

Anyone with any understanding of earth's climate system, knows that convection if the main reason for earth's surface cooling; and the the claim of the IPCC that 79% of earth surface cooling is due to radiative emissions is an incompetent lie.

Citations:

• c1. Max Planck, 1914 (translation), The Theory of Heat Radiation
• c2. K+T1997: Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997
• c3. NASA 2023 : What is Earth’s Energy Budget?
• c4. Ken Rice, 2017
• c5. Tom Shula white paper:
• c6. Tom Shula interview with Tom Nelson
• c7. James Hansen et. al. 2011; 1 Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2011, 11, 13421-13449. doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011
• c8. Andy West, 2023, The Grip of Culture

Tom Shula clarifies some issues regarding the Pirani gauge and what it says about the "climate crisis"

This is a comment Tom Shula made on his interview by Tom Nelson, explaining how the Pirani gauge precludes the "climate crisis" :

There have been a number of comments/questions regarding the Pirani gauge. Rather than addressing each individually I will attempt explain in more detail here how the heated element in the Pirani gauge serves as a proxy for the surface of the Earth in my exposition. Most of the concepts involved are in the Appendix section of my paper. Also, for reference I will use the chart of the Pirani gauge response. Finally, the Pirani gauge is designed to measure vacuum in a limited range of pressures. There are other devices that operate outside those ranges in applications that need them. We are not concerned with the precision of the gauge. It's value in this exposition is its principle of operation and ability to directly measure the relative contributions of radiation vs. conduction/convection to heat transport in a gaseous environment.

Let's start with the Pirani gauge in a state with a near perfect vacuum in its enclosure. If calibrated as the device represented in the response graph, the controller will provide a current that heats the filament to a specific temperature, in this case the power dissipation is 0.4 milliwatts. That power represents the radiation loss from the filament as well as other losses from junction heating, etc. and may heat the enclosure slightly. At steady state this does not matter, because irrespective of the size of the enclosure the temperature of the filament will remain constant.

In this state, the filament can be expected to emit radiation according to a modified Stefan Boltzmann Law based on its temperature and (typically low by design) emissivity. In this case there is a spontaneous emission of photons from the filament that balances the power input (0.4 mw) from the power supply.

Now, let's introduce some air into the enclosure. We need to look at what is happening at the boundary layer at the filament/air interface. As soon as the gas molecules are introduced, they begin colliding with the filament. Three things happen: 1. Some of the colliding gas molecules pick up energy from the filament at a higher temperature. 2. Removal of the energy from the filament by 1 lowers the temperature of the filament. 3. As a result of 1 and 2, the frequency and average energy of photon emission by the filament is reduced. It is at this atomic level at the boundary where the heat transport begins, and where nature decides the balance.

The gauge controller responds by increasing the power to the filament until it returns to the original temperature, but now in a gaseous environment rather than a vacuum. The additional power is providing a continuous influx of heat capacity (remember this concept) that exactly balances the heat energy that the gas molecules receive from the filament. We know the power input required to maintain temperature under vacuum, and we know the power input required to maintain temperature at pressure. The difference between those two is the power that is being removed by the gas via conduction/convection.

Note that so far there has been no need to take into account enclosure size, enclosure finish/emissivity, filament emissivity, or specific temperature. These can change sensitivity, precision, range, and other operating characteristics of a specific gauge, but the operating PRINCIPLE remains the same. In determining heat transport between a solid surface and a gas, it's what happens at the boundary layer that counts. There is one requirement: the temperature of the filament must be higher than the temperature of the gas, otherwise there would be no net energy transfer from the filament to the gas.

If we are going to consider a particular pressure regime, we might as well look at atmospheric pressure at sea level since that's the place of interest in this exposition. What is the boundary layer at the surface? At atmospheric pressure the molecular mean free path is about 70 nanometers, and the collision rate with a planar surface is about 3 X 1027 collisions/m2-sec. As in the Pirani gauge, conduction at the surface is what triggers heat transport and creates convection. The rate of conduction is proportional to the difference of temperature between the surface and the gas, and INVERSELY proportional to the thickness of the boundary layer. With a mean free path of 70 nm the boundary layer thickness is extremely small, so even a small temperature difference can produce efficient conduction. It also perturbs the radiation output negatively. In the case of a large temperature difference, for example pavement on a very hot day, we can actually see a "mirage" in the distance due to the large lower density convective layer at the surface refracting the sunlight. For smaller temperature differences, it may not be that striking but convection is still occurring. The surface temperature is almost always higher than the air temperature above it. A layman's explanation of why this occurs in soil can be found at: soil temperature

Relative to air, the surface of the Earth whether land or water has a tremendous heat capacity, which is why this has a small effect on the temperature of the surface. This is all that is necessary to demonstrate that the principle of the Pirani gauge applies to the (land) surface of the Earth.

The heating of the surface is from incoming solar radiation. As the solar radiation wanes, the surface will cool, and so the air will cool as well, typically at a faster rate than the surface. The diurnal cycle is dynamic, and it changes throughout the day.

In the case of a water surface (extremely important so not to neglect it) evaporation is occurring on a more or less continuous basis which results in convective transport as well.

Nature has priorities. Flowing water will follow the most efficient path driven by gravity. If something gets in the way, it will go around it or annihilate it. Heat will follow the most efficient path driven by temperature differences. Radiation is natures last resort, when there is no physical medium to transport the heat. When the options of conduction or convection are available, they will always win.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists (reblog)

Reblog: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists

One of the significant errors commonly made by the advocates of catastrophic man-made global warming due to CO₂ emissions is the claim by the settled science proclaimers that radiation from a non-vacuum interface is the same as radiation from a surface into a vacuum. This error in the physics of radiation from the Earth’s surface results in an exaggeration of the cooling radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface and contributes to them positing a hugely larger back-radiation from greenhouse gases than can actually occur.

I have previously pointed out that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law actually only tells us the amount of radiation emitted by a surface into a vacuum. A surface in contact with another material will lose energy by other mechanisms, so one must apply the law of Conservation of Energy to determine the actual amount of radiation in many cases of material contact across an interface. In the case of the Earth’s surface, water is evaporated at the surface with a very substantial cooling effect. In addition, air molecules strike the surface and carry away heat gained in collisions with the surface. Despite these obvious problems with an unchanged surface emission of radiant energy into the atmosphere compared to that into a vacuum, the settled science proclaimers have in many cases steadfastly said that I am wrong. OK, so I will try to explain this in greater detail in this post.

Atoms in solid materials such as in soil and rock, are held at distances from one another which are determined by a minimum in the potential energy. The atoms can only be forced closer with the expenditure of energy and they can only be pulled further apart with the expenditure of energy. An electron in orbit about a nucleus will also have motion constrained by a potential energy well. The greater the temperature, the more an atom may move near the potential energy minimum and the more the electron can move in the nucleus-electron potential well. In both cases, positive and negative charges will move with respect to one another. When positive and negative charges are close to one another, but have offset centers of charge, they form a dipole. Because the displacement movements of the charges in the dipoles are small for the temperatures near the Earth’s surface, the results are dipole charges with an oscillating distance between them similar to a mass hanging from a spring in small motion. These are harmonic oscillators and they emit radiant energy. While the interatomic potential energy wells in a liquid are broader than those in a solid material, the same principle applies to liquids. Of course, in either a solid or a liquid, atoms have several nearest neighbors or near neighbors. Multiple harmonic oscillators are interacting.

If a harmonic oscillator in a vacuum is set into motion by a heating process and the heat source is removed, the harmonic oscillation will lose strength as it emits energy into a strengthening radiant energy field. Conversely, an increase in the harmonic oscillation caused by an electromagnetic field, such as the solar insolation acting on the Earth's surface, will decrease the energy in the radiation field. A cooling surface radiating energy will have decreased harmonic oscillator displacements as it pours energy into the electromagnetic field. A surface near 300K will generate infra-red and microwave radiation, though almost all of the energy given off will be in the infra-red radiation range. The generation of a radiant energy field decreases the kinetic energy of the harmonic oscillators in the surface. There is Conservation of Energy between the harmonic oscillators and the electromagnetic field which is generated.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law tells us how much energy is radiated per unit time into the electromagnetic field of the vacuum:

P = ε σ A T⁴,

where P is the power, ε is the emissivity and characteristic of the surface, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, A is the surface area of the radiating material, and T is its temperature in Kelvin.

We must remember however that the radiated energy comes from harmonic oscillators. If the surface is a water surface or if it is a soil or a plant with water content and water is evaporated from the surface, we must remember that the energy required to change water from its liquid to its vapor form has to come from somewhere. The Earth’s surface does have considerable water evaporating from it and the latent heat of vaporization for water is very high. Where does this energy come from? Well it comes from the kinetic energy of the oscillating dipoles at temperatures near the average Earth temperature of 288K. As the warm surface materials evaporate water, their harmonic oscillators lose kinetic energy and settle more towards their potential minima except insofar as the energy is replaced by more solar insolation or by heat flow from the subsurface. The oscillation displacements decrease. There is a conservation of energy between the harmonic oscillators and the energy used to evaporate the water. The same is true when the harmonic oscillators warm air molecules that strike the Earth’s surface. Those air molecules take away some of the kinetic energy of the harmonic oscillators.

Consequently, the harmonic oscillators that generate radiation into vacuum will not be able to generate as much radiant energy into the atmosphere. The presence of contacting liquid water and air molecule collisions with the surface remove energy from the harmonic oscillators that generate the radiation field. Consequently, the amount of infra-red and microwave energy emitted from the surface will be less than if that surface were radiating into vacuum. It has to be so because energy is conserved.

This is why it is clear that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law tells us the maximum energy that can be obtained from a warm surface of material. At a vacuum interface, that energy given off will be entirely radiant energy and it will all go into strengthening the electromagnetic field. The Earth’s surface however is taking the same kinetic energy from its many harmonic oscillators and it is partitioning that energy among the processes of generating water vapor, warming colliding air molecules, and emitting radiant energy. The amplitude of the oscillation in the harmonic oscillators decreases as they pour energy into these three loss mechanisms. Energy is thus conserved.

The Kiehl-Trenberth Earth Energy Budget used so prominently in the UN IPCC 4th Report of 2007 made the mistake of not adjusting the Earth's surface radiation downward due to the evaporation of water and the warming of air. Here is that diagram:

It is claimed in this diagram that the Earth's surface at 288K emits 390 W/m² or 114% of the average power incident at the top of the atmosphere and 2.32 times the power absorbed by the surface from solar insolation. The 390 W/m² of surface radiated energy assumes that the Earth’s surface is a black body radiator emitting the same energy it would into vacuum into the atmosphere. As I have explained in my post The Earth Surface Temperature without Greenhouse Gases: The Shade Effect of Infra-Red Active Gases, the Earth’s surface is not a black body radiator. It does not have an emissivity of one as a black body radiator does. It has an emissivity of less than 0.5. But even if it were a black body radiator, energy conservation would require that the emitted radiant energy be (390 – 78 – 24) W/m² or 288 W/m² due to subtracting the energy put into evaporation and thermals. This is 112 W/m² less than they claim is emitted from the surface.

They then make the further mistake of believing that most of that exaggerated surface emitted radiant energy is returned to the surface by greenhouse gases. This makes up much of the 324 W/m² they claim is absorbed by the surface after it had been absorbed in the atmosphere first. The back radiation energy is thus exaggerated hugely by a combination of errors. Among the errors are:

• The belief that the Earth’s surface is a black body radiator with emissivity 1.
• The violation of the Conservation of Energy by failure to subtract the energy used to cause evaporation and to generate thermals from the energy that would be emitted as radiant energy into vacuum.
• The failure to understand the consequences of the high gas molecule collision rates near the surface and the very short mean free path of infra-red radiation which can be absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide, as well as their rarity among air molecules. In the lower troposphere, energy is almost entirely transported upward.

The most recent Earth Energy Budget posted by NASA makes the same errors:

This is an incredible comedy of errors for science that has been funded by about $140 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money. It is a comedy of errors with very tragic consequences. Obama and his Democrat Socialist Party are still calling for the destruction of the American economy and the lowering of our standard of living for the supposed purpose of saving the world from catastrophic man-made global warming due to the use of fossil fuels. This disastrous crusade is pursued in the name of this childishly wrong "settled" science. A great many scientists are eagerly participating in this pandering for the goodies handed out by a government eager to exercise still more power while pretending to protect us from a fictional catastrophe. We are ruled by pimps and fools.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant is in Error (reblog)

Reblog from: The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant is in Error

It shows about 40 times too much radiation at normal temperatures. (NASA Charts)

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant says that matter emits 459 watts per square meter of infrared radiation at the normal room temperature of 27°C. That's one half of a table top emitting as much energy as five 100 watt light bulbs. Nothing resembling it is happening. Ice supposedly radiates 315 W/m². That's three 100 watt light bulbs per square meter of ice. You could heat a room with a few square meters of ice. Reduce the Stefan-Boltzmann constant by a factor of 40, and the calculated global warming reduces by a factor of 40.

What physicists say is that most things are emitting and absorbing at the same rate, so you don't notice the difference and the above absurdities are facts. They are idiot frauds. A lot of things do not absorb and emit at the same rate including eyes. If half a table top were emitting as much radiation as five 100 watt light bulbs, it would glow so much that it would damage eyes. If it were five heat lamps, it would burn a person's skin.

radiation

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant shows how much radiation is given off by a square meter of any substance at a particular temperature. It is inappropriately applied to the atmosphere where there is no surface and where a transparent gas emits radiation much more readily than a surface does.

W/m² = 5.670373 × 10^-8 × K⁴

Watts per square meter radiation equals a constant times degrees Kelvin to the fourth power.

Simple observations indicate that 20-50 times too much radiation is projected by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant at normal temperatures. The accuracy at higher temperatures is not apparent. The actual curve would be different for each type of molecule. Straight lines should exist between changes in molecular states.

An indication of the error is in the global energy budget which climatologists use. They have to show 79% of the energy leaving the surface of the earth is in the form of radiation because of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. (See the NASA Energy Budget) A white hot light bulb could not emit 79% radiation without a vacuum environment. Climatologists know that number is preposterous, but it is locked into a narrow range by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The actual amount should be 1-3% (estimated maximum). Representing that amount as 2%, in means the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is too high by a factor of 40.

The 1-3% is my estimate of a maximum possibility having worked extensively with temperature effects in electronics; but only a maximum possibility can be estimated through elimination, while the actual would be much less. Radiation is so minuscule that it is ignored in most heat analysis, which means it could not be more than 1-3% of heat loss, while the actual would be much less but cannot be estimated at such a low level. Physicists have not determined what the number should be, which is why they could produce the absurd 79%.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is this:

W/m² = 5.670373 × 10^-8 × K⁴

This result is the number of watts per square meter of infrared radiation supposedly given off by matter at a temperature represented by K (degrees Kelvin, which is 273 + °C).

For exactness, this calculation must be adjusted for emissivity, which means variation from the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. For rough, nonreflective materials, it is usually in the range of 75-95%. These variations show the influence of chemistry.

At a normal temperature of 27°C (80°F), the Stefan-Boltzmann constant without emissivity indicates 459 W/m² being radiated.

At the assumed average temperature of the earth (15°C, 59°F), it's 390 W/m².

At the freezing temperature of water (0°C, 32°F), it's 315 W/m².

On a hot day of 37°C (98°F), it's 524 W/m².

On a real cold day of -23°C (-10°F), it's 221 W/m².

It isn't happening. Normal temperature matter is not giving off that much infrared radiation. Virtually everything in physics is in error, unless someone gets the error corrected, which requires a lot more accountability than often exists.

If freezing water were emitting and absorbing the heat of three 100 watt light bulbs per square meter, the heat would interfere with the freezing process. Freezing would be highly finicky and prone to variation.

Physicists have an answer. They say the same amount of radiation is being emitted as absorbed at a stable temperature, so you don't notice the difference. No way. If skin cells were giving off and absorbing 524 W/m² at 98°F, tissue damage would occur between absorption and emission. Energy gets moved around by conduction between absorption and emission of radiation.

Warm clothes would not be warm, if radiation were such a high rate. The insulating effect is largely air space. Air space would be irrelevant at such a high level of radiation. Eskimos use very loose clothes, so a lot of warm air accumulates in them. Warm air would be ineffective if there were a lot of radiation going outward at 524 W/m² and a lot less radiation going inward at 221 W/m² (-23°C).

For example, all electronic components are evaluated for heat to make sure they won't over-heat. Without a fan or air currents for significant convection, which means mostly radiation, almost no cooling occurs. Radiation is in the 1-3% range for warm objects which are cooling by normal convection into the air and closer to zero percent with some air movement such as the constant wind over the surface of the earth.

Yet, climatologists claim radiation is 79% of the heat dissipation from the surface of the earth, which is a cold 15°C average with wind equivalent of a fan blowing.

Not the least reason for the error is that Planck's constant is used to derive the SBC, while there is no Planck's constant, because the whole concept of photons is absurd and admittedly in conflict with the wave nature of light.

The errors in the Stefan-Boltzmann constant are used to rationalize greenhouse gases.

Background Science: Heat causes molecules to vibrate. The vibration of the nuclei sends infrared radiation outward at the same frequency that the nuclei vibrate. More heat creates higher frequency vibrations and higher frequency infrared radiation. Heat also increases the intensity of the radiation.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant deals with the amount of radiation emitted. With an opaque solid, only the surface molecules emit radiation. Radiation cannot escape from within. That's what opaque means. But a transparent gas such as the atmosphere will obviously allow radiation to escape from within it.

This is why infrared cameras show the atmosphere glowing at night, while solids are black. The depth of the atmosphere allows much more radiation to be emitted than does the surface of solids.

Physicists wrote an equation for the relationship between temperature and the amount of radiation emitted from a surface. Now they apply it to radiation from the atmosphere, which does not have a surface. Square meters are interchanged with cubic meters.

They apply it to all matter—solids and gasses—at all temperatures. It is not logical that radiation would be uninfluenced by molecular forces including bonding and molecular weight. The absurdity of the result at normal temperatures shows that the equation does not properly represent nature.

Anyone would know that radiation will escape from a transparent gas immensely easier than from an opaque solid. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to the atmosphere says the emission is the same for the atmosphere as for a solid surface. The only reason it is being done is because climatology cannot be reduced to simple math without the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

Do you think physicists measured the different substances to determine whether they all emit the same? They wrote up a ridiculously simplified equation and applied it to everything. It's a convenience equation. And it's not science. Physicists operate on the engineering principle that if they all use the same twisted ruler, it doesn't matter; and therefore, ultra simplification is called for. In science it matters.

In engineering, it's valid to reduce math to its simplest form; in science, it's not. Yet physicists do; and they reduce physics to engineering in the process. When the basics of physics were being formulated into mathematical equations, about a century ago, the gods of physics had not the slightest ability to evaluate the complexities of the subject, yet they wrote math equations to represent complex phenomena as if nature could be reduced to such simplicity. Their equations are not valid for the complexities of nature. With the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, the reality is that every molecular difference would produce a different constant, yet only one constant is used for all conditions. Engineering thrives on such simplifications, but science is reduced to fraud by it.

---

Here's the problem with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant: Satellite measurements indicate that the sun's energy approaching the earth is 1366 watts per square meter. The amount reflected away is said to be 26%. The amount absorbed into the atmosphere is said to be 16%. (See NASA chart). That's 1366 minus 26% minus 16% = 792 W/m². That's how much radiation would fall on a black asphalt surface at the equator at noon. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant indicates that in a dark basement, a concrete wall at 59°F (the global average temperature) would emit 390 W/m². That's 49% as much radiation emitted from a dark, cold basement as falls on a black surface at the equator. It isn't happening.

---

Night vision equipment shows that there is very little infrared radiation given off by normal temperature matter.

---

You have to realize that physicists pull their equations out of thin air and adapt them to a purpose, usually to expedite technology. It's not a scientific process. Their math is always too simplistic to represent the complexities of nature.

Fake Curve

On the graph below, the solid line is the curve produced by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The dotted line shows that there needs to be less radiation given off by normal temperature matter. The difference is the error in the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

Supposedly, the sun gives off 63 million W/m² at 5,780°K; an incandescent bulb, 4.6 million W/m² at 3,000°K; and normal matter, 459 W/m² at 300°K.

To scale, the Stefan-Boltzmann curve looks like this:

The fourth power on temperature creates an extreme bend in the curve and causes it to go almost straight horizontal at normal temperatures. The horizontal area shows way too much radiation at normal temperatures. The excessive radiation at normal temperatures is used to rationalize greenhouse gases.

Natural effects do not normally have high exponents. The fourth power is probably a result of two errors combined—a squared result (exponent of 2) in heat and temperature relationships, which are assumed to be linear (nonexponential) and a squared result for heat and radiation relationships. But there would not be one curve for heat-radiation relationships. Chemistry and other forces would create too much variation for a single curve, as indicated by emissivity. At extreme temperatures, additional forces probably add more variations.

The linear relationship between heat and temperature is a convenience assumption based upon a closed circle of logic, because the actual measurements are extremely difficult to make and are not realistically being made. The transformation of kinetic energy into heat is represented by Joule's constant, which is given to 5 significant digits. But I showed mathematical proof that the definition of kinetic energy is wrong, which means there is no consistent Joule's constant. The 5 digit number has to be fakery.

The actual curve for heat and radiation relationships looks like it would be S shaped, because a lot of change would occur at normal temperatures. Physicists used a smooth curve resulting from a simple exponent, and as a result, they got too much radiation at normal temperatures.

Due to the exponent of 4 in the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, physicists have 11 times as much radiation being given off by the sun as a light bulb filament but only 1.9 times as much temperature. There could be other forces entering at the temperature of the sun, but this would be a bend in the curve, not an exponential curve. Is twice the temperature of a light bulb filament supposed to produce hydrogen fusion? Not hardly.

The Atmosphere Supposedly adds 33C to the Earth's Surface.

There is an average of 235 W/m² energy leaving the earth. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant says that an object at -19°C emits 235 W/m² black body radiation. But the average earth surface temperature is 15°C. So the earth's surface is 15 + 19 = 34 (rounded to 33) degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. The atmosphere supposedly keeps the earth's surface warm.

In truth, greenhouse gasses add no heat to the atmosphere, because heat as radiation cools the planet by going around them, not through them. The atmosphere does not need greenhouse gasses to absorb and hold heat, as explained on the page titled Summary in Simple Words.

With a corrected Stefan-Boltzmann constant, the surface of the earth without an atmosphere would emit 235 W/m² at a temperature of something like 50°C, not -19°C. With an atmosphere, the surface average is 15°C. The atmosphere cools, as it should, because it is like a heat sink. This means the atmosphere picks up energy through conduction and convection, which removes heat much faster than radiation alone. Heat sinks (usually made of aluminum) are used for this reason throughout electronics to speed cooling.

Theoretical Concepts

Physicists do not do conception analysis. They despise intuitive logic. Instead, they apply math without regard for the resulting absurdities. The problem is that the math has a high tendency to be wrong, incomplete or over-simplified.

Besides the Stefan-Boltzmann constant resulting in too high of a quantity at low temperatures, the constant is applied to solids and gasses equally, which is absurd. Gasses have a three dimensional surface and low density, which promote the escape of radiation. Therefore, gasses should have a much higher quantity for radiation emission than solids. But there would not be a single constant for gasses, because the chemical composition would determine how radiation escapes, as greenhouse gasses demonstrate.

These points should be quite secondary and not much relevance to global warming, because other factors determine the result. But fake scientists rely heavily upon the Stefan-Boltzmann constant as a rationalization gimmick. They focus upon such claims as radiation leaving the earth at a height of 5km attempting to create a concept in minds of there being a greenhouse effect. Global warming propaganda is all about impressions and a dark pit of unaccountable rationalizations.

Errors in Physics

Why is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant so far off? Observable evidence shows that errors in science, particularly physics, are the maximum which accountability will allow. In physics, there is far less accountability than in biology due to its highly abstract nature.

Consider this simple example. Physicists claim that the Bernoulli principle shows that the pressure of a gas is inversely proportional to velocity, and this allows airplane wings to lift weight due to the high velocity of the air over the top. The velocity is lower under the wing due to less curvature and less distance to travel. You can prove the physicists wrong by blowing on one side of a sheet of paper. Nothing happens. But fold a crease in the paper, and then blow across it. The paper is rapidly pulled by the crease. The crease creates a vacuum pump in the shaded area. High velocity air pulls air molecules out of a shaded area creating a vacuum pump. It is not the velocity alone but the shaded area that creates the force. This means physical shape, not raw velocity, determines the pressure effects of moving air, contrary to the claims of physicists.

This is why an airplane wing needs its bulge near the front instead of the back. If it were raw velocity creating the lift, the bulge would need to be near the back of the wing to increase the surface over which the high velocity air travels. But if it is a vacuum pump creating the lift, the bulge needs to be near the front, so there is more area for the vacuum behind the bulge. The wings have the bulge in front showing that it is the vacuum behind the bulge, not the high velocity in front of the bulge, which does the lifting.

Tim Ball explains the "climate crisis"

"Earlier, I identified what Maurice Strong said was the global problem. “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

The question is how do you bring that about? The answer is understood by comparing the industrial nation to a car engine. They both run on fossil fuels. You can stop the engine by stopping the fuel supply. However, if you do that the people will react quickly and negatively – it is politically dangerous. However, you can also stop the engine by plugging the exhaust. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a major release from fossil fuels. If you show that it is causing global warming, that is destroying the planet, you justify stopping its production and use. This would shut down the industrialized nation."

-- Tim Ball "Human caused global warming"

PS: Maurice Strong was the first chairman of the UN Environment Programme.

Q: Will Ocean Acidity extinct calciferous ocean organisms? A: No it can't and won't

Over the previous 1 billion years, earths oceans have steadily become more alkaline - not "more acidic". [ alkalinity is the opposite of acidity ] Oceans were far more "acidic" hundreds of millions of years ago when many of these CaCO₃-shelled creatures (calciferous organisms) were evolving. According to the people who invented this acidification scare these calciferous creatures could never have evolved - because the oceans back then were far too acidic for them to exist!

CO₂ was once plentiful on earth. Where is it go?

pH of oceans can vary from 8.2 to 7.4 depending on time of year, and latitude. Normal range is 8.2 to 7.9. So a few measurements, carefully cherry-picked to show a statistical increase will basically be statistical fraud. Yet most of the time, there's no attempt to even bother doing that. They simply declare ocean acidification as fait accompli. Because no will dare call them out. They rely on intellectual terrorism - baiting people as climate skeptics - as the did with Ian Plimer - See: "Heaven and Earth". I mention Ian because he's one of the few skeptics to cover the acidification scare - in that book. Unfortunately he doesn't cover it very well. He should've put more charts and tables in his book and fewer citations!

Most of the carbon - in the carbon cycle - is present as limestone. This carbon was once in the ocean. It has been sequestered away over hundreds of millions of years; often as calciferous creatures die, and fall to the ocean bottom.

Q: Where did the carbon go?

A: It became limestone.

Over hundreds of millions of years, calcium carbonate as been deposited from oceans to make limestone.

Earth's crust is now about 0.25% limestone. Earth's crust mass ~ 2.77 * 10^22 kg. Leaving limestone = 6.925e+19 kg = 6.925e+07 Gt = 69,250,000 gigatonnes. Let's compare the limestone to the amount of other carbon in the carbon cycle. Assume 13% of the limestone is carbon.

Carbon on earth's crust is:

9,003,000 Gt	Limestone
38,000 Gt	in oceans
5,000 Gt	all fossil fuel reserves on earth

So I calculate there's > 2 orders of magnitude (200 ×) more carbon in limestone, than everywhere else on earth's crust.

So the reason why there's little calcium carbonate available to make carboniferous microorganisms might be because it's nearly all been seqestered away as limestone!! Nowt to do with supposed "acidification".

Global carbon cycle

This diagram, above, has no limestone in it because once CO₂ becomes limestone it's no longer available on earth. This is called Sequestration. In fact, we're now living close to a CO₂ famine. Plants need at least 150ppm CO₂ in the atmosphere to even grow. If the CO₂ levels fall much lower the viability of plant life on earth will be at risk. As animals eat plants - the viability of all life on earth may be at risk with too little CO₂