If you feel depressed, here are two nice ways to get happy again: Buy a Tesla or a Pyrgeometer. You know what a Tesla is and what a pyrgeometer is can be read by downloading the manual for the Kipp and Zonen CGR3 Pyrgeometer. It shows that a pyrgeometer, when directed to the sky, on its display shows Downwelling Long Wave Radiation DLWR (also named back radiation) from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth surface of typically size 340 W/m2 to be compared with the 170 W/m2 absorbed by the surface from the Sun, about two extra Suns.
If you are a CO2 alarmist this makes you really happy because you can now point to these two extra Suns as a supposed massive effect from so called atmospheric greenhouse gasses supposed to radiate massive DWLR.
Now, the manual shows that the thermopile of the pyrgeometer measures a voltage scaling with the difference of atmospheric and Earth surface temperature of typically 15 C with estimated net radiative flux of 60 W/m2 from the surface to the atmosphere. That is what is measured, which is not so fun to look at for an alarmist, so to make such people happy Kipp and Zonen instead displays 340 W/m2 from the atmosphere to the surface computed from the following equation
where 400 is by Planck postulated Outgoing Long Wave Radiation OLWR from the pyrgeometer at 15 C, as if the pyrgeometer as a blackbody is in radiative contact with the cold outer space at 0 Kelvin. Further, 340 is DWLR and 60 as above radiation from surface to atmosphere. So we get 340 = 400 - 60 as DWLR. But doing so the pyrgeometer acts as a ghost detector by assuming massive OLWR from the pyrgeometer as if it is in radiative contact with cold outer space at 0 C, while in fact it is radiative contact with a 15 C colder atmosphere. What is measured is 60 up, but what is reported is 340 down.
This is nothing but scientific fraud created by a misrepresentation of a key physical fact: The pyrgeometer is not in radiative contact with outer space at 0 K, but with a 15 C colder atmosphere (the atmospheric window is small). This is massive fraud serving as the instrumental basis for Net Zero, which if implemented would throw humanity back to the Stone Edge at greatly reduced numbers. Can you think of something bigger?
When you realise this you will get depressed again, but then after a second thought you can restore happiness by recalling that you have revealed/understood the scientific fraud of global warming, and then you can proceed to a happy life without worrying about CO2 emissions and Net Zero. Happy, right?
To compare with the Tesla, suppose your
Government offers you a massive repay/refund as
Downwelling Government Money DGM of 70.000 dollars if you purchase a new Tesla for 80.000 and thus only have to pay net 10.000 according to the formula:
You would then get happy, right? But you may quickly get a second thought and ask who will pay the DGM? From where can this money come? Could it be that it will come from taxes you pay, so that in fact you have to pay the full amount 80.000, which is way beyond your budget. Ok, so this will make you depressed. But again, when you realise that there is no need for any Tesla at all if there is no Net Zero, and so you are not pressed to buy a Tesla to save the World. Happy, right?
Compare now with the Wikipedia energy budget without Back Radiation DWLR:
We thus meet two versions of Earth's energy budget underlying CO2 alarmism,
one with and
one without Back Radiation. This connects to Bohr's idea of
complementarity: Light is both particles (photons) and waves, which are viewed not as contradictory but simply as complementary views of a richer particle-wave phenomenon. In fact, any contradiction in physics can be handled this way, in particular Earth's energy budget, which in a fundamental way is based on Back Radiation (top picture), while at the same time it has nothing to do with any such concept (below picture). Back Radiation is truly fundamental, yet you can do without it completely. It exists and does not exist, and that is no contradiction, only complementary views. This is modern physics at its best.
If you have in your hands both A and notA as being true, then you can win any discussion. Whatever your opponent say, A or notA, you can say that he/she is wrong and that you are right. Very clever strategy.
Try it to see how smoothly it works!
Agree completely on all, Claes. From my prior writings:
SvaraRaderaFirst, remember that the S-B equation has two forms, one for idealized blackbody objects, one for graybody objects:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
In fact, the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram...
https://i.imgur.com/RJMT26o.png
... does exactly as I stated... it treats a real-world (graybody) surface as if it were an idealized blackbody object, with emission to 0 K ambient and ε = 1. That's the only way that diagram can get to 390 W m-2 surface radiant exitance.
https://i.imgur.com/nJh4Z7U.png
That's proof-positive that they've misused the S-B equation to fit their narrative. Had they used the actual emissivity, they couldn't have arrived at 390 W m-2 (see below), and had they used the proper form of the S-B equation for graybody objects, they'd not have even gotten close to 390 W m-2 (see below).
Their use of the wrong formula increases radiant exitance of graybody objects far above what it actually is:
https://i.imgur.com/4ulMbq6.png
... which necessitates that they carry those incorrect values through their calculation and subtract a fictional 'cooler to warmer' energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus too high) 'warmer to cooler' energy flow.
Thus, some of the alarmists come to believe that energy actually can flow 'cooler to warmer' (the basis of their 'backradiation' blather). This violates 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense... energy cannot flow from lower energy density to higher energy density without external energy doing work upon the system to push that energy against the energy density gradient.
Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object.
https://i.imgur.com/kS20QG1.png
The equation for the radiation energy density is Stefan’s Law and a is Stefan’s constant.
e = aT^4
∴ T = 4^√(e/a)
In other words, temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant. It is a measure of energy density.
Keep in mind that Stefan’s constant above equals 4σ/c (which is sometimes known as the radiation constant).
Which is why: U = T^4 4σ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
If ΔU = 0, then (ΔU * c/4σ) = 0, thus no energy can flow.
U has the same physical units as pressure (J m-3) and U ∝ T. That is radiation pressure, which sets up the energy density gradient.
This agrees with Planck’s Law: ρ(T) = aT^4 = T^4 4σ/c.
The S-B equation integrates Planck’s Radiation Formula (which calculates the energy density for a given wavelength) over all wavelengths.
F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy (J)
U = internal energy (J)
T = absolute temp (K)
S = system final entropy (J K-1)
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment
If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
Free energy is defined as the capacity to do work. If U = TS, p_photon = u/3 = p_object, energy cannot flow because no work can be done. Helmholtz Free Energy is zero. Photon chemical potential is zero.
So in the real world, the energy density gradient determines radiant exitance, energy does not flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient and 2LoT applies always and everywhere.
https://i.imgur.com/IgxATSg.png
Why would they do this? Because the easiest lie to tell is that which flips reality on its head, which flips causality... one needn't invent new physics to explain their lies, and most people can't tell the difference between reality and flipped-causality, because to do so, one must dig down into the fundamental physical laws.
RaderaFor instance, their claim that energy can flow from cooler to warmer (backradiation) violates on its face 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense.
They make the above claim because they claim all objects > 0 K emit, no matter the energy density gradient.
Their claim that all objects > 0 K emit means they must claim all objects at thermodynamic equilibrium are emitting and absorbing radiation... and that violates the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium as a quiescent state.
Similarly, their claim that all objects at thermodynamic equilibrium emit and absorb means they must claim that radiative energy transfer is an idealized reversible process because entropy doesn't change at thermodynamic equilibrium.
Except we know radiative energy transfer is an entropic, temporal and irreversible process, and we know that entropy doesn't change at thermodynamic equilibrium because no energy can flow. That alone should have destroyed CAGW from the outset, but most people can't grasp the technical details, and so it continues on.
For instance, their claim that all objects > 0 K emit and absorb radiation means that at thermodynamic equilibrium, if what they claim were true, it would lead to double the energy density in a cavity space than what we calculate from Stefan's Law.
So their blather violates 2LoT, the Principle of Entropy Maximization and Stefan's Law, amongst many other physical laws. It's a scam.
Study the graphic below well... it contains the information necessary to destroy CAGW...
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
Actual science is testable and falsifiable, a null result means a new hypothesis is necessary. Climate ‘science’, when falsified, simply moves the goalposts… we see this in their change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ (never mind that the climate was changing long before humans came on the scene) to ‘climate weirding’ to ‘climate crisis’ to whatever they’ve named their propaganda today; we see this in their recent proclamations that record cold and snow over large swaths of the planet (and the fastest recorded global temperature decline (2016-2021) in more than 100 years) is actually caused by global warming; we see this in their proclamations that global warming would mean the end of snow (“kids won’t know what snow looks like”) and their proclamations of global warming causing snow (“that snow outside is what global warming looks like”); we see this in their religious mantra of “the warming will come back stronger than ever!” to explain away the 20+ year ‘global warming’ hiatus (after they tried (and failed... no one is buying their data alterations) to alter the data to remove the hiatus); we see this in their various attempts at ignoring direct-measuring thermometers (in millions of weather-balloon radiosondes, which didn’t find the mid-tropospheric ‘hotspot’ the climate alarmist models predicted), opting instead to alter the data and use proxies to “find” the hotspot.
SvaraRaderaClaes, you'll likely have a mission-posting warmist show up here using a sockpuppet and subtly twisting scientific concepts to bolster his claim that continual 2LoT violations cause CAGW. He's known by the sock he's most notorious for, the one with which he made the most egregious fundamental errors in pursuit of his kooky hypothesis... 'evenminded'. He's from Lakeway, TX and claims to be a professor. The IP address he used to hijack a climate skeptic's pseudonym on PSI is 72.180.210.113, email address of annamay314159 [at] gmail.com (the kook likes socking up as a female... he thinks it gives him an argumentative advantage). He's also hijacked Joe Postma's real-life name on CFACT. Best to proactively block him.
He started, years ago, with a two ball collision problem. He claimed a 1 kg 1 m sec-1 ball traveling along the x-axis and colliding at the exact center of a 1 kg 2 m sec-1 ball traveling along the y-axis constituted a violation of 2LoT... the 1 kg 1 m sec-1 ball imparted all of its momentum to the 1 kg 2 m sec-1 ball. Then he conflated that to atmospheric particles (atoms, molecules) to claim that this 'violation of 2LoT' happened all the time and that was what caused CAGW.
In reality, he didn't realize the 3 DOF of translational movement are not inherently connected and thus can be partitioned.
Thus the 1 kg 2 m sec-1 ball has a velocity of 0 m sec-1 in the plane of the direction of movement of the 1 kg 1 m sec-1 ball... it's essentially a head-on collision with additional data thrown in to confuse the reader.
So the 1 kg 1 m sec-1 ball isn't imparting energy to a faster ball, that 1 kg 2 m sec-1 ball isn't faster in the plane of motion of the other ball, it's slower (0 m sec-1).
And thus energy only flows from higher to lower energy density.
Thus, what he describes isn't a 2LoT violation, it's constructive interference. And that most certainly isn't the cause of CAGW, as that contructive interference boost of the momentum of the 1 kg 2 m sec-1 ball will be 'smeared out' over subsequent collisions.
He's gone on to other 'gotcha' problems (you'll note he never gives the full set of initial conditions... that's part of the 'gotcha') of increasing ridiculousness in subsequent years, failing each time, but polluting forums with ad hominem argumentation in the process. Just block him. He's a kook, best ignored, left to scream into the void.
Claes, for the second energy budget graphic (the one without 'backradiation')... it shows 100% incoming energy and 100% outgoing energy... kind of difficult to show any CAGW without any energy build-up in the system known as 'Earth'. LOL
SvaraRaderaFurther, they place the figure for conduction, convection and latent heat really low... if it were that low, real greenhouses wouldn't work as they do (real greenhouses are so effective at trapping energy inside a greenhouse because they hinder convection, thus hindering that energy from being convected away).
In reality, ~76.2% of all surface energy is removed via conduction (atmospheric atoms and molecules picking up energy by contacting the surface), latent heat of vaporization of water, and convection:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/figure-2.png
So (76.2) + (23.8) = (100)
(conduction, latent heat, convection) + (radiation) = (total surface energy removal)
You'll note we're not using units here, but the numbers are the percentage proportion of surface energy removed... we'll keep it as simple as possible so as not to confuse the hoi polloi.
The climastrologists claim that by taking the first term away (and thus forcing the second term to pick up the slack of energy removal from the planet's surface), that the planet will cool... almost as if they can't do simple math. They're claiming 23.8 is greater than 100, in effect.
If the first term were taken away and the second term required to pick up the slack in removing that surface energy, that would mean a higher surface radiant exitance... and a higher surface radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature.
As I said, the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality... they perpetuate their climate doom lie via flipping reality on its head, because they then don't need to invent new physics to explain their blather, and most people cannot discern between reality and flipped-causality.