Dumbest Math Theory Ever

Mainstream climate scientists believe in the dumbest math theory ever devised to try and explain physical reality. It is called the Greenhouse Effect. It’s so silly and unbelievable that I don’t even want to give it the honor of calling it a scientific theory, because it is nothing but ideological mathematics that has never been empirically validated. In fact it is nothing but a post hoc fallacy: the surface is hotter than what the sun alone can do, therefore greenhouse gases did it!

Today we will play with this silly math theory called the greenhouse effect. Here are two examples of its typical canonical depiction:

Let’s get started. Please create a new file called gheffect, and paste the following into it:

# bash gheffect
# Zoe Phin, 2020/03/03

[ -z $TSI ] && TSI=1361
[ -z $ALB ] && ALB=0.306

echo $1 | awk -vALB=$ALB -vTSI=$TSI 'BEGIN { 
		SIG = 5.67E-8 ; CURR = LAST = SUN = TSI*(1-ALB)/4
		printf "Sec | Upwelling |   Temp    | GH Effect |  Trapped  | To Space\n"
	} {
	for (i=1 ;; i++) {
		printf "%3d | %7.3f W | %7.3f C ", i, CURR, (CURR/SIG)^0.25-273.16

		CURR = SUN + $1*LAST/2 ; GHE = SUN - (LAST*(1-$1))

		printf "| %7.3f W | %7.3f W | %07.3f W\n", GHE, CURR-LAST, CURR-GHE

		if ( sprintf("%.3f", CURR) == sprintf("%.3f", LAST) ) break

		#if ( CURR==LAST ) break


Now run it with atmospheric emissivity = 0.792:

$ bash gheffect 0.792

Sec | Upwelling |   Temp    | GH Effect |  Trapped  | To Space
  1 | 236.133 W | -19.125 C | 187.018 W |  93.509 W | 142.625 W
  2 | 329.642 W |   2.971 C | 167.568 W |  37.030 W | 199.104 W
  3 | 366.672 W |  10.419 C | 159.866 W |  14.664 W | 221.470 W
  4 | 381.336 W |  13.212 C | 156.816 W |   5.807 W | 230.327 W
  5 | 387.142 W |  14.296 C | 155.608 W |   2.300 W | 233.834 W
  6 | 389.442 W |  14.722 C | 155.130 W |   0.911 W | 235.223 W
  7 | 390.352 W |  14.890 C | 154.940 W |   0.361 W | 235.773 W
  8 | 390.713 W |  14.957 C | 154.865 W |   0.143 W | 235.991 W
  9 | 390.856 W |  14.983 C | 154.835 W |   0.057 W | 236.077 W
 10 | 390.912 W |  14.994 C | 154.824 W |   0.022 W | 236.111 W
 11 | 390.935 W |  14.998 C | 154.819 W |   0.009 W | 236.125 W
 12 | 390.944 W |  14.999 C | 154.817 W |   0.004 W | 236.130 W
 13 | 390.947 W |  15.000 C | 154.816 W |   0.001 W | 236.132 W
 14 | 390.949 W |  15.000 C | 154.816 W |   0.001 W | 236.133 W

W is shorthand for W/m². Parameters are taken from NASA Earth Fact Sheet.

As you can see, by delaying outgoing radiation for 14 [¹] seconds [²], we have boosted surface up-welling radiation by an additional ~66% (154.8/236.1 W/m²). Amazing, right? That’s what my program shows, and that’s what is claimed:

This is zero in the absence of any long‐wave absorbers, and around 155 W/m² in the present‐day atmosphere [Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997]. This reduction in outgoing LW flux drives the 33°C greenhouse effect …

Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect

The main prediction of the theory is that as the atmosphere absorbs more infrared radiation, the surface will get warmer. Let’s rerun the program with a higher atmospheric emissivity = 0.8

$ bash gheffect 0.8

Sec | Upwelling |   Temp    | GH Effect |  Trapped  | To Space
  1 | 236.133 W | -19.125 C | 188.907 W |  94.453 W | 141.680 W
  2 | 330.587 W |   3.168 C | 170.016 W |  37.781 W | 198.352 W
  3 | 368.368 W |  10.746 C | 162.460 W |  15.113 W | 221.021 W
  4 | 383.481 W |  13.614 C | 159.437 W |   6.045 W | 230.088 W
  5 | 389.526 W |  14.738 C | 158.228 W |   2.418 W | 233.715 W
  6 | 391.944 W |  15.184 C | 157.745 W |   0.967 W | 235.166 W
  7 | 392.911 W |  15.361 C | 157.551 W |   0.387 W | 235.747 W
  8 | 393.298 W |  15.432 C | 157.474 W |   0.155 W | 235.979 W
  9 | 393.453 W |  15.461 C | 157.443 W |   0.062 W | 236.072 W
 10 | 393.515 W |  15.472 C | 157.431 W |   0.025 W | 236.109 W
 11 | 393.539 W |  15.477 C | 157.426 W |   0.010 W | 236.124 W
 12 | 393.549 W |  15.478 C | 157.424 W |   0.004 W | 236.130 W
 13 | 393.553 W |  15.479 C | 157.423 W |   0.002 W | 236.132 W
 14 | 393.555 W |  15.479 C | 157.423 W |   0.001 W | 236.133 W

A 1% rise in atmospheric emissivity (0.8/0.792) predicts a 0.479 °C rise in surface temperature.

You would think such intelligent and “correct” mathematics would be based on actual experiments, but you would be wrong; it is not based on anything other than its presuppositions, and has been so for more than a century by name, and two centuries by concept.

Let’s outline a very simple experiment to test whether the greenhouse effect is true:

          Solid Surface

1) Person   => |     IR Camera

2) Person   <- | ->  IR Camera

And repeats until "equilibrium"

Radiation leaves the body and strikes a screen. After absorption some radiation will go out to the IR camera, and the rest will go back to the person, thereby warming them up further, according to greenhouse effect theory. Note that we don’t even need absorption, merely reflecting back a person’s radiation should warm them up.

Let’s assume the human body emits 522.7 W/m² (37 °C) (Emissivity: 0.9961, [Sanchez-Marin 2009]). For compatibility with my program, we multiply this figure by 4, and call it TSI. Let’s assume the screen and air in between together has a total emissivity of 0.9. Now run:

$ TSI=2090.8 bash gheffect 0.9
Sec | Upwelling |   Temp    | GH Effect |  Trapped  | To Space
  1 | 362.754 W |   9.658 C | 326.478 W | 163.239 W | 199.515 W
  2 | 525.993 W |  37.188 C | 310.154 W |  73.458 W | 289.296 W
  3 | 599.451 W |  47.498 C | 302.809 W |  33.056 W | 329.698 W
  4 | 632.507 W |  51.830 C | 299.503 W |  14.875 W | 347.879 W
  5 | 647.382 W |  53.725 C | 298.016 W |   6.694 W | 356.060 W
  6 | 654.076 W |  54.566 C | 297.346 W |   3.012 W | 359.742 W
  7 | 657.088 W |  54.943 C | 297.045 W |   1.356 W | 361.398 W
  8 | 658.443 W |  55.112 C | 296.909 W |   0.610 W | 362.144 W
  9 | 659.053 W |  55.188 C | 296.848 W |   0.274 W | 362.479 W
 10 | 659.328 W |  55.222 C | 296.821 W |   0.124 W | 362.630 W
 11 | 659.451 W |  55.238 C | 296.809 W |   0.056 W | 362.698 W
 12 | 659.507 W |  55.244 C | 296.803 W |   0.025 W | 362.729 W
 13 | 659.532 W |  55.248 C | 296.801 W |   0.011 W | 362.743 W
 14 | 659.543 W |  55.249 C | 296.799 W |   0.005 W | 362.749 W
 15 | 659.548 W |  55.250 C | 296.799 W |   0.002 W | 362.752 W
 16 | 659.550 W |  55.250 C | 296.799 W |   0.001 W | 362.753 W
 17 | 659.552 W |  55.250 C | 296.799 W |   0.000 W | 362.753 W

We see that the screen is “trapping” a lot of human radiation from reaching the IR camera, and we expect an extra 296.8 W/m² greenhouse effect, bringing us up to 55°C. Merely placing a screen in front of us should make us feel as if we’re stepping inside a sauna.

https://youtu.be/fpx7hsoYEt4 – Look at all the trapped radiation!
https://youtu.be/Fx49t4sv7f0 – Look at all the trapped radiation!

These people must be really feeling the heat. But they don’t, and for good reason: preventing radiation from reaching a colder place does not cause heating back at the source. Had these people had thermometers strapped to them, they would note the virtually zero temperature rise (due to blocked convection). Look very closely at the videos. Note the seconds the screens are placed in front of their faces and notice the lack of any thermal reading changes. None!

All empirical evidence shows the opposite of the claims of the greenhouse effect.

So the question remains, why is the surface hotter than the sun can make it alone?

Energy Budget

If we look at the energy budget, we can see a dependency loop between surface and atmosphere: Surface -> Atmo = 350 and Atmo -> Surface = 324. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? This is nonsense. You can’t have a dependency loop for heat flow. Let’s try a theory that does not cause mental anguish and lacks empirical evidence. For this, we ignore the climate “scientists”, and go to the geophysicists:


Here we see that Earth’s geothermal energy is capable of delivering 0 °C to the surface; This is equivalent to 315.7 W/m². We add the sun and subtract latent+sensible heat:

315.7 + 168 – 24 – 78 = 381.7 = Upwelling Radiadtion

Now we get a figure that that’s 390 – 381.7 = 8.3 W/m² off, but that’s OK because latent and sensible heat are not directly measured but estimated with certain physical assumptions, and/or the 0 °C geothermal is an approximation too.

Now we finally realize that the greenhouse effect is a hoax, and nothing but geothermal flipped up-side down. There is no Downwelling Radiation, there is only Upwelling-from-measurement-instrument Radiation (See here). Those who read Why is Venus so hot?, probably already saw where I was going. Now doesn’t it make more sense than backradiation temperature raising? Reality shows abolutely normal geothermal and solar combining to produce what we observe. We see all normal heating, and no ugly backwards zig-zag heating.

Let’s summarize:

  |      |       ^        ^
  v      |       |        |
         |    Latent  Sensible
Solar ---+     Heat      Heat 
         |       ^        ^         
         |       |        |
         +------ Geothermal

Now which explanation does Occam’s Razor favor?

I hope you have enjoyed the return to sanity.

Sincerely, -Zoe


[¹] We only care about matching 3 decimal places. If we want to extend it to IEEE754 64-bit precision, it takes 40 seconds. Not that this matters much; Most work is accomplished in the first 5 seconds.

[²] I debated with myself whether to use the term seconds or iterations. Real physical calculations would take mass and heat capacity into account, but since greenhouse theorists don’t use these, I won’t either. Their simple model is in seconds.

Published by Zoe Phin


68 thoughts on “Dumbest Math Theory Ever

  1. I didn’t get where your 381.7 W/m^2 for upwelling radiation came from, but another way to balance the energy fluxes to and from the surface is to equate 168 to the sum of sensible and latent heat plus 40 W/m^2 radiated directly to space. That leaves only 26 W/m^2 needed from geothermal for balance. I suspect that the geothermal component is even lower than that and that sensible and latent heat are underestimated.


      1. Actually your post seems all about math and an energy budget balance:

        “315.7 + 168 – 24 – 78 = 381.7 = Upwelling Radiation”

        I wrongly attributed 26 W/m^2 as geothermal gain to the surface when the 26 W/m^2 belongs in the loss category instead. To maintain 288 K, the surface only needs to shed an additional 26 W/m^2 (plus whatever geothermal adds) while gaining 168 W/m^2 solar and losing 142 W/m^2 by sensible and latent heats, and IR directly to space. So if geothermal contributes a negligible amount, upwelling infrared needs to contribute at least the 26 W/m^2 from the surface to the air.

        168 = 24 + 78 + 40 + 26

        The atmosphere only needs 235 – 40 = 67 + 24 + 78 + 26.


      2. Zoe Phin March 4, 2020 at 7:56 pm

        The atmosphere needs ~520 W/m^2.

        Why would the atmosphere need ~520 W/m^2?
        At the top of the atmosphere Earth is losing on average ~240 W/m^2.
        To maintain the status quo only ~240 W/m^2 has to be re-supplied, what the sun is doing nicely.
        We have an ENERGY balance.
        What you (and the Greenhouse believers) are calculating is RADIATIVE balance.
        Does exist more or less on the dayside of the moon, not on Earth.
        Better calculate how much energy eg one day of sunshine delivers to the upper few meters of our oceans.
        You’ll find that a good day of sunshine delivers 20-30 MJ/m^2, enough energy to increase the temperature of the upper 5-10 m of water 1K.
        We need to think in 3 dimensions for the absorption of solar energy. The silly 2 dimensional plots are meaningless.


        1. “At the top of the atmosphere Earth is losing on average ~240 W/m^2.”

          To what is it losing 240? Matter can only heat other matter. The flyby satellite will get 240, but it’s a tiny satellite.

          I am thinking in 3D.

          The atmosphere needs ~540 to be an atmosphere, otherwise it shrinks. 240 is an AVERAGE for the whole atmosphere. The bottom needs to be warmer. It is warmer. And it got warmer from geo + solar. If we had just solar (no geo), the atmo and subsurface would dissipate the incoming 340 in 3 dimensions.

          There is a reason why the moon is below BB-balanced temperature – because the sun is dissipated into subsurface conduction. But if the moon did not have its own energy supply, the dissipation would continue to the core – decreasing surface T even more dramatically.


        2. Zoe Phin March 6, 2020 at 1:38 pm

          To what is it losing 240?

          Space perhaps?
          When Earth loses ~240 W/m^2 on average, it just needs ~240 W/m^2 to MAINTAIN its temperature.
          The reason why our surface temperatures are so high is a totally different matter.

          There is a reason why the moon is below BB-balanced temperature – because the sun is dissipated into subsurface conduction.

          The moon is actually WARMER than radiative balance temperature.
          N&Z calculate ~154K, simple calc gives ~162K (albedo .11)
          So whatever you think the reason is, it’s wrong.


        3. The BB temperature of the moon is 270.4K. https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

          Losing energy to space itself is strictly PHILOSOPHICAL.

          The sun’s radiation is converted into mechanical energy (kinetic energy). When the sun “goes down” for the night, the mechanics decreases. To suggest that energy is then sent to space is a double counting of energy.

          The sun’s radiative energy was used in real time for kinetic energy. That’s it. Energy was conserved.

          The corpuscular photon is a terrible and confusion-inducing paradigm.


        4. Zoe Phin March 8, 2020 at 11:41 am

          The BB temperature of the moon is 270.4K.

          Utter nonsense. That’s the Effective temperature of the moon. Has nothing to do with RADIATIVE balance temperature.
          In the solar system I live in we have only one sun, so every planet/moon receives solar radiation on one half of the body at any one time. So RADIATIVE balance temperature for that half can be calculated and then averaged with the RADIATIVE balance temperature for the night side.
          For the moon this gives ~331K and 0K (~3K if you want to include Cosmic Background Radiation).
          So average BB RADIATIVE balance temperature for the moon is 167K.
          GB temperature ~164K.
          More exact calculation like N&Z gave results in a slightly lower temperature.


        5. So NASA labeled it wrong? and you derived an alternative thing, and want to label it the same thing and then claim I’m wrong? Ben, if you don’t shape up, you will only get one more comment.


        6. > When the sun “goes down” for the night, the mechanics decreases. To suggest that energy is then sent to space is a double counting of energy.

          How does that work? “the mechanics decreases” without energy being lost to anything (?) and that does not contradict the first law of thermodynamics? This is endlessly confusing.
          “The sun’s radiative energy was used in real time for kinetic energy. That’s it. Energy was conserved.”
          So, uh. Energy is “used” in real time for kinetic energy, therefore energy is neither added nor lost? It is “used” – what does that mean in technical terms?

          How is the law called and how does it look like (math)? Why didn’t you account for it in your surface temp simulation?


        7. The sun is like gasoline in your tank. While you have gasoline, you can drive. When it runs out, your car slows down, then stops. What’s confusing about that?

          Why does anything have to be emitted? The solar energy is making the molecules dance. The dance doesn’t slow down the molecules, the lack of the sun does.


        8. Radiation is turned into chemical energy by plants, in the end you get oil.
          [Now let’s say you step on the accelerator for a few seconds and then your tank is empty – let’s also do this in a vacuum to reduce complications :D; let’s also ignore and inefficiencies in the engine].
          The chemical energy in oil is turned into kinetic energy.
          The kinetic energy is turned into heat via friction between [for example] the tyres and the road.

          In short, all of the energy from the oil is turned into kinetic energy which is then entirely turned back into heat.
          Any ineffeciencies refer to energy getting converted into heat for some reason or another.

          You propose something different that also slows the car down. I have absolutely no idea what that is. Hence the question: Name of the effect and formula. What does “used” mean if it does not refer to conversion or transfer of energy? And where does the energy go? It does not disappear, does it?

          In explaining, keep in mind that Voyager is speeding along at kilometers per second without anything slowing it down or speeding it up, so that its kinetic energy is constant [if we ignore the very weak gravitational pull from the sun and planets].


        9. I don’t understand why your thinking is so convoluted. Solar radiation on the ground causes thermalization: A conversion of vibrational (EM) energy into translational energy. There is no room for emission because that translational energy (what you feel as “heat”) is already due to a conversion of electromagnetic to mechanical energy – at the molecular level.

          You seem to want to undo the motion (expenditure of energy) and turn it back into EM.


        10. “Convoluted” whatever.

          In your response you told me what does not happen – I am interested in what *does* happen.

          Let’s repeat this question out of the many: Why do cars slow down when the tank gets empty and Voyager does not?


        11. We don’t consider large scale directed motion as the same thing as kinetic energy of RANDOMLY moving molecules. We don’t think of Voyager’s main motion as thermal.

          Why are you even focused on a literal interpretation of my analogy?


  2. Here we see that Earth’s geothermal energy is capable of delivering 0 °C to the surface; This is equivalent to 315.7 W/m².

    Geothermal heat is even capable of warming the entire crust to just BELOW the surface to even much higher temperatures, like 1500K or more.
    Only condition is that something else heats the surface and thus creates a “blocking” layer, that prevents geothermal heat from reaching the surface until the crust has heated up to match the new situation and the flux can reach the surface again.

    If we shut down the sun in this example the surface temperature would continue to drop below the JAN line until the surface temperature is such that the radiation to atmosphere/space is equal to the geothermal energy input.
    For an Earthlike Geothermal Flux this temperature would be ~50K or so.

    see eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Variations


    1. This is nonsense. Cold does not prevent hot from heating it. Mass from the core increseases radially, and so you would never expect all that 1500K to reach the top. You’e been on this site for a while, and have seen that CSR != CHF with logic and empirical evidence, and yet you still learned nothing, but keep repeating the same stupid talking points.

      Now apply your stupid talking points to the sun. The sun also has a tiny CHF, therefore according to you, the sun can’t heat much and its temperature “must” drop, to match its CHF.

      Unbelievable. Yes, it will drop below the January line until ~-5 C. The atmosphere shrinks, bringing matter down, and then it will rise to 0C.

      The surface warms the atmosphere, and so heat below must be depleted. The atmosphere doesn’t heat the surface. Learn heat capacity.


      1. We don’t want to mix apples with oranges here. With the suns temperature we are thinking about the photosphere. Which is the far outer atmosphere. The temperature seems to drop as you go deeper, and increase to the Corona. If I am right, and the sun goes atmosphere, ocean, rocky planet, we don’t have much of a clue how hot it is far underneath the photosphere. Not taking sides here. Just a minor note on your comparison.


  3. In support of your great post, Noether’s law and the principle of least action also call into question atmosphere warming by CO2.

    Fermat’s theorem and the principle of least action apply to the atmosphere’s response to increasing CO2 and show that a vast energy expenditure to heat atmosphere and ocean, is contrary to these laws. They oppose the notion that increasing the trace gas CO2 heats the ocean and atmosphere.

    The principle of least action states that the universe will choose the path between two states that minimises the action. This principle is a generalisation of Fermat’s theorem which requires light to take the path between two locations that minimises the travel time.

    The principle of least action can be extended to any system evolving between two states. It is the founding assumption behind Noether’ theorem that is required to explain why Einsteinian relativity does not break conservation of energy.

    Amalie Emmy Noether (she preferred the name Emmy) was a German mathematician who was born in 1882 – 13 years after my grandfather. In that time she was (sadly and inevitably) under-recognised as a female academic, but made important contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics that later would grow further in importance in cosmology and quantum physics.

    Noether’s theorem is fundamental. It allows calculation of the true conserved quantities for any system that is evolving according to the principle of least action. (As long as we can identify the system’s symmetries.) Noether’s theorem is used in both cosmology and quantum physics.

    The principle of least action applies to atmospheric thermodynamics. For instance, the CO2 concentration in air increases. How will the atmosphere’s state evolve as a result? Conventionally we are told that the atmosphere’s response to a small increase in this trace gas is to exert vast quantities of energy to increase the temperature of both atmosphere and ocean. This is an enormous thermodynamic response to this tiny trace gas perturbation, that transgresses the principle of least action.

    However, a response by the system rearranging its structure, changing for instance water vapour content or the emission height, or adjustment of convection or even radiative interactions, could lead the system toward a new equilibrium with much less expenditure of energy. And thus fulfil the laws of least action, Noether’s and Fermat’s theorems. Miskolczi’s hypothesis was of this nature – a rearrangement of the emission structure without temperature change.

    On the other hand, response to the tiny adjustment of CO2 amount by heating up the whole atmosphere and ocean, is the exact opposite of what one would expect in fulfilment of the principle of least action. It’s the principle of most action, and most (empty) heat and noise.

    The enormous response to CO2 is supposed to come from water vapor. Increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are supposed to cause an increase in water vapor and water vapor is what is supposed to overheat the Earth.

    So far, no significant increase in water vapor is seen and no tropospheric “hotspot” has been seen to develop, which is a requirement of the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) speculation.

    Alarmist predictions are not coming to pass.

    “Initial” is the word that is always ‘forgotten’. CO2 has an INITIAL warming effect. A ‘missing cloud’ also has ‘an initial warming effect’, not changing everything.

    After initial warming the system adapts, probably in a way to search the way of ‘least action’. Always trying to stay close to ‘equilibrium point’ in which already many forces together created ‘equilibrium temperature’. An equilibrium temperature which will not change much by a change in just one single item. Because all other forces will react.

    In line with Fermat and Noether is Le Chatelier’s Principle in chemistry formulated in the latter half of the 19th Century. It became recognized after his death as having a much broader application and being properly a ‘law’.
    From Wiki, the broader statement of it is

    “When a settled system is disturbed, it will adjust to diminish the change that has been made to it”

    That is to say the system resists changes from applied new temperature, pressure, volume and composition. One could equally say the principle is present in Newton’s laws of motion. If I push on a stone wall it pushes back, not budging until I exceed the ‘bending’ strength of the wall. Or ‘back-EMF’ in electric motors. Similarly in economics if we increase price, demand declines and this leads to a supply surplus, resisting the price increase.

    This doesn’t seem to be distinct from Noether’s and Fermat’s theorems.

    (Contributions to this post by Tom Abbot, Wim Rost and Gary Pearse are acknowledged.)

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Zoe I’m expecting you to really shake this study up and it will be a tragedy if absolutism gets in the way of that. You want to show here that this greenhouse effect is nutty and basically it doesn’t exist at all. That may be going too far. You are right to give up on photon theory. But since we can see the stars that kind of implies that there is aether between us and they, or failing that energy transmission, so that suggests for practical purposes, and probably for all purposes we can say that energy is radiated to space. You are holding your alternative theory a little too tightly. Like a $100 dollar note between the butt-cheeks. Your needle has swung against Einstein and aether denial and rightly so. But its not time to clamp down on that needle quite yet.

    See over at Joannes place, where WXCycles (I call him EpiCycles) is being sarcastic towards you? I’ve got a big history with him, where I take his observations and show very clearly how they imply electrical energy moving down through the atmosphere. He won’t admit I’m right …. BUT I NEVER ONCE DOUBTED HIS OBSERVATIONS. I think he may even be a New Zealand CO2-bedwetter (in public) slumming it with the climate-rationalists. Because I’ve only seen one other fellow whom I feel right to take his observations so seriously, and so I wonder if they are two different people, or just the one talented reprobate.

    Now when he sees columns of high water vapour air but without clouds he is seeing a lot of heat retention. He just calls this “the greenhouse effect”. To my mind that column of air will be blocking more incoming joules than its retaining overnight via greenhouse alone, and so the afternoon temperature will be a somewhat equalised and if it was just greenhouse there wouldn’t be much in it. But if its truly without clouds … and we bring in the magic of latent heat …. well that column, if that heat were NOT latent would radiate this heat out and wouldn’t absorb so much during the day. Being cooler than its unrealised heat, it will absorb more. So Epi-cycles would say greenhouse, I would say a tad greenhouse but mostly this latent heat magic, and also the excellent specific heat capacity of water vapour and also of tiny floating micro-droplets …. (an issue that is under-researched.)

    But I don’t doubt the observations of Epi-cycles. How could I? They consistently prove all my prejudices correct.

    Now how about CO2? Where we don’t have good specific heat capacity like with liquid and gaseous water? Where we don’t have this latent heat capacity?

    So hard to get good data. So I go to Tony Heller for micro-data. I thought I could see some minor CO2-warming in the last five years from the satellite stuff. So I wrote a blogpost on how this could be a false positive. Then Tony showed us that even this data was rigged. But the totality of Tony Heller’s videos does yield some progress here. It doesn’t look like the extra CO2 is causing warming that we can yet detect. Or cooling that we can detect. But it does look like its taking the edge off the hottest part of the day. In the end I think this will be VERY CLEAR.

    But there has to be a reason for this and there has to be a reason for the falling intensity (not prevalence) of extreme weather events. Looks pretty solid to me. And its what you would expect because the light encounters the CO2 first before the water vapour. So there is the opportunity for the CO2 to block incoming and take the edge off the hottest of the afternoons.

    So if CO2 can block incoming. It can also block outgoing a little bit. So perhaps the extra CO2 can take the edge off the coldest mornings for the Lapp-Landers … thats a good thing. But we would have to say that this is something like what these people are calling greenhouse. As one eye blind as they are, about this “greenhouse effect”, It might be going too far to say that this is nothing-at-all. That might be taking a few good ideas and pushing them too far. Personally I wish the phrase had never been invented.

    You have done great work in the past, and you will do great work in the future. I cannot do this work. I lack your skills. I have high hopes for your efforts. You were right to recoil against all that Oligarchical bullshit science that is out there. But I feel you are getting bogged down because you have locked a few assumptions in, as the gold standard or the gospel way too early. You’ve got to ease up a bit. Backpedal a little. And I’ll tell you a symptom of this. I usually thought of Keith as a bit of a dummy. I think he got the better of you over at Joannes place. I was quite surprised. You’ve got about 50 IQ points on this fellow. I think he got the upper hand.

    Feel free to wipe this post in a few days. Get your husband to give you a good massage. Loosen up a bit. You are losing your way. Not because you are on the wrong track. But just because you are being a little absolutist about one or two things.


    1. The correlation between clouds and warmth has backwards causation. Because it’s warm, and there’s water, there are clouds. Where it’s cold, the clouds rain out or never form. It’s a little more complicated than that (dew point, etc), but you get the idea. The warmth makes the cloud and it can travel to a colder area, bringing its warmth with it. This doesn’t prove the greenhouse effect. You can take a hot pan top after you heat it and place it over an ice cube on the counter. This horizontal transfer is not the GH effect.

      Correlationists and GH effect believers are just fabricating causation where none exists.

      So I do recognize the difference between a warm cloudy night and a cool cloudless night. I just don’t think the cloud makes it warm. To oversimplify: It’s warm, therefore there’s a cloud.


        1. Roy’s rhetoric reassures his ideological mathematics.

          Energy can only flow when there’s a potential for it to flow, that is hot -> cold. But if you ignore that, anything is possible!

          “A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

          — Max Planck


  5. Damn that’s a frightening quote from Plank. This ‘victory by age and attrition’ is what I fear will happen with the global warming debate. In other words, the climate zealots have captured the youth and there’s nothing we can do about it.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. As a retired geophysicist, I am baffled by the problem that you have brought to the fore. There would appear to be something very wrong with our ideas about the interior heat generated by the Earth.
    The interior heat is quoted as being about 47 TeraWatts or thereabouts
    The area of the earth is quoted as being 5.1007 x 10^14 square metres.
    Dividing the first by the second gives a potential flow of 0.08822 Watts per square metre at the surface.
    Applying the Stefan Boltzmann law, that equates to an average surface temperature for the Earth of 35.4 degrees Kelvin.
    Having been underground in a couple of mines, I am quite certain that the temperature was not below freezing point, probably more like 300 degrees Kelvin.
    Is my reasoning wrong or is the estimated heat flow completely wrong?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Bevan Dockery March 17, 2020 at 6:21 am

    Is my reasoning wrong or is the estimated heat flow completely wrong?

    Neither. The FLUX through 10-40 km of rock is indeed very small.
    The temperature gradient from mantle to surface is ao depending on the surface temperature.
    Without input from eg our sun the surface temperature will drop to 30-50K as you calculated.
    When the sun heats the surface, the geothermal gradient will settle at the surface near the average surface temperature.

    This is the reason why we have permafrost at high latitudes and a much higher temperature just below the surface in the tropics.
    On the moon we have most probably a similar flux as on the Earth. The Hermite crater where the sun never shines on its floor has a year round temperature of ~25K.
    So yes, our crust is much warmer than the flux alone could accomplish, and yes this is heat that came from within the earth. But the sun needs to provide the “blocking” layer that allows the crust the maintain its high temperature.


    1. The conductive heat flux is also tiny inside the sun! No worries about the sun though, right?

      CHF will always be small due to inverse length in the formula.

      No, it would not drop that low. It would drop to a global average of -5 to 5C.

      The diagram you showed is typical for 64N latitude. You can work out here what the result would be for that location:


      The moon has much less energy than Earth. Not the same. Don’t cherrypick craters, the mean lunathermal is like 70-100K, while geothermal is like ~273K.

      “But the sun needs to provide the “blocking” layer that allows the crust the maintain its high temperature.”

      OK, and the sun needs geothermal to get from -42C to 15C plus evaporation and sensible heat.

      The sun can’t do it alone. The sun is not even the #1 player, as hard as it is to accept.


  8. This is all really fascinating to me. One question that I have, (no need to jump on me because I’ve completely missed the science) and this is curiosity based: if we think of “space”, e.g. what surrounds the planets asteroids/debris, stars, galaxies and so on, as nothing, or something that cannot be a part of energy loss, is that the same “nothing” that the electrons of an atom are orbiting in? And if it is, doesn’t it seem logical that in order for things to form in the first place, there must be “something” to form in? What other examples can be found of the “nothing”I’ve described? It feels more plausible that the “nothing” is really “something” that we just haven’t figured out.

    And I’m sure there are lots of scientific phenomena that I would find illogical.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. By your reasoning there is clearly no reason for people to wear clothes. They’re colder than our bodies, they don’t have any heat source of their own, therefore, they are not going to send any heat back to us. And yet, we all know that they do.


    1. Oh we do, do we? Please tell us which experiment(s) you refer to. Clothing KEEPS you warm, it doesn’t raise your temperature. Where did you get your “knowledge”? The climate change cult?


    2. Food for thought..
      Clothes increase thermal resistance and decrease convection cooling. If a thermal gradient exists between 2 spots with a thermal conductor between them (eg. heatsink on CPU): if you increase the temperature of the cold side, less heat will initially flow so the hot side temperature increases until the temperature gradient returns to the Kelvin/Watt.

      If the atmosphere warms the surface then warming the atmosphere will increase the surface temperature. If the surface warms the atmosphere then a warmer atmosphere reduces the heat loss of the surface until the surface increases temperature. If the sun provides the heat then it mostly heats the surface and a diminishing temperature gradient occurs with diminishing air pressure until the molecules/atoms are so sparse temperature is less meaningful.
      We’re dealing with spheres, wedge shaped columns of the spheres and very complicated mathematics. A molecule will radiate infrared (IR) in proportion to it’s temperature while absorbing IR or other heat source. All those can occur sometime during the cycle of day&night and overlap. You can’t simplify it down to a square box experiment (eg. greenhouse).


      1. “reduces the heat loss of the surface until the surface increases temperature.”

        Where did you get such a silly idea?
        Reducing heat loss does not lead to a temperature gain. Such an idea is empty rhetoric. With rhetoric, anything is possible! But in science that is not so.

        Instead of rhetoric, try to find an actual experiment that supports you.

        Here’s some more empty rhetoric:

        On a flat road, reduced breaking leads to accelarating.

        Reduced smoking leads to lung cancer.

        Any idiot can come up with a whole bunch of other nonsense with the same formula.

        Did you know that sponges make a spill wetter due to backmoisture? lol

        Please quit the nonsense rhetoric.


  10. The entire Greenhouse Gases Global Warming theory is an old Climate science

    And here is why:

    Comparison of results the planet Te calculated by the Incomplete Formula:

    Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    the planet Te calculated by the Complete Formula:

    Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

    and the planet Tsat.mean measured by satellites:


    Mercury……437 K…….346,11 K…….340 K
    Earth………..255 K……288,36 K…….288 K
    Moon………..271 Κ…….221,74 Κ…..220 Κ
    Mars………209,91 K…..213,42 K…..210 K

    Te.incomplete = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ gives very confusing results:

    Planet…Te. incomplete

    Mercury……….437 K
    Earth…………..255 K
    Moon…………..271 Κ
    Mars…………209,91 K

    When inserting the values, this calculation yields a surface temperature of about Te = 255 K. Even though this value is not quite bad for a very simple model, it still deviates significantly from the actual value of Te = 288 K.

    So the old formula yields Te = 255 K instead of the actual Te = 288 K..
    But we have not finished yet:

    This formula Te.incomplete = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ also deviates significantly for the Mercury Te = 437 K, instead of the actual Te = 340 K

    and it deviates significantly for the Moon Te = 271 K, instead of the actual Te = 220 K.

    It is time to abandon the old effective temperature
    Te.incomplete = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ formula, because it gives very confusing results.

    The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC means the by atmosphere +Δ33 oC Earth’s surface warming phenomenon, which does not exist in the real world.

    There are only traces of greenhouse gasses. The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin.
    There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

    The entire Greenhouse Gases Global Warming theory is based on the old effective temperature

    Te.incomplete = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ formula the Earth’s effective temperature calculation
    Te = 255 K which does not exist

    When applying the Effective Temperature Complete Formula

    Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
    we have identical to the satellites measured results:


    Mercury…..346,11 K……..340 K
    Earth……….288,36 K……..288 K
    Moon……….221,74 Κ……..220 Κ
    Mars………..213,42 K……..210 K

    The Earth’s Te is calculated Te = 288,36 K and it is identical to the measured by satellites the actual value of
    Te = 288 K.

    Also almost identical are the calculated with the Complete Formula

    Mercury…….346,11 K = 340 K
    Moon……….221,74 Κ = 220 Κ
    Mars………..213,42 K = 210 K

    Now everything falls in place and the entire Greenhouse Gases Global Warming theory becomes an old Climate science.

    Because Te = 255 K

    does not exist


    Liked by 1 person

  11. There is back radiation. You can feel it on a cloudy night. Clouds and water vapour provide the back radiation. At nightime without clouds, it can be up to 11C cooler than a night with clouds, all else being =. Deserts are colder at night without clouds than nearby places that have more water vapour. I agree with you that CO2 does not cause back radiation therefore the GHG theory is a scam.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The averaged day AND night temperature of subtropical deserts are warmer than the tropical rainforest.

      The data does support clouds ~ warmer, but it’s a correlation fallacy with causality reversed.

      It’s because it’s warm that there are clouds. If it was cold, clouds wouldn’t form or they would rain out.

      Clouds are formed by evaporation (hot) and rain out due to condensation (cold). If clouds made it warm, one could then argue that clouds aid their own formation, which makes no sense.

      It would be odd for 0.0025 (water vapor) the mass of the atmosphere to warm anything! But the surface and other gases could easily warm water vapor.


    1. The Earth has a lot mass to heat. So billions of year to heat to some foolish number.
      So one have something less mass and it would heat up faster.
      So can something with 1/billionth of mass.
      How much mass is involved per square meter in regards to earth.
      You have 10 tonnes of atmosphere per square meter.
      Earth is mostly ocean, which has 4000 meter of water per square meter, so that is 4000 tons of water which about
      4 times more earth to heat than air,. Or equal 16,000 tons of air.
      So if what had to heat was equal 1/4 of ton of air, it’s 64,040 times quicker to heat up.
      15,615 years rather than 1 billion years. to just heat air of water of earth.
      A square meter is heated by 240 watts and you increase it to 1360 watt per square meter, and so heat up about
      5 1/2 times faster:: 2839 years..
      And let’s heat up 10,000 times less than 800,000 K, or increase by only 80 K.
      So that is .2839 years or 104 days.
      Well one have blackbody surface insulated face the sun, and part heated has less thermal mass that 1/4 ton of air.
      And it will heat up rapidly to about 120 C {400 K} and it will heat to higher temperature.

      And wacky greenhouse effect theory is based upon this known fact.
      Or it’s why an ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere at 1 AU distance from the Sun has uniform temperature of about 5 C.

      But if stop all heat from leaving earth, and there was no Sun. the geothermal energy of the radioactive Earth core will have evenually a nuclear “meltdown”- or will melt anything which one tries to insulate with. Because nuclear reaction “burns” at over million degrees- far hotter than the surface of the sun [which is 5,778 K}.
      Or any kind of fire, can only heat at the temperature it burn at.
      Or perhaps you “know” that airplane fuel can not melt steel. {but it weaken steel if gets enough hot}.
      Or jet burns at certain temperature and it’s below the temperature to melt steel.


  12. Hi Zoe – why no updates to your blog ? I’m missing your articles !
    One more question : if the green plate math is incorrect, how would you write the correct energy balance for the two plates in order to determine the relevant temperatures ? I have to confess I am scratching my had since a while. Thanks. Max.


    1. Sorry, been busy. This COVID19 thing has been both a curse and a blessing for me. Children were at home while my business was booming. All work, kids, no science.

      Heating is a resonance phenomenon. Assuming the distance between plates is small, such that the view factor is 1 to 1, and there is nothing behind the 2nd plate, the two plates will come to thermal equilibrium.


      1. If heat is a resonance phenomenon, how come hot food in my microwave oven doesn’t reach ambient temperature ultrafast once oven is turned off?


    2. The ISS can easily test if the greenplate effect is true …

      Just line up 8 panels facing perpendicular toward the sun:
      || || || ||

      Adjust for view factor. First plate should get super duper hot. Much more than the sun could make it alone … if greenplate effect was true.

      Of course, they won’t do it, because … they already know the answer, and it doesn’t match climate “scientists” claims.


  13. Zoe,
    Hi my dear how are you getting along? I hope well.

    I’ve been sparring with an old friend of yours, EM F a real climate clown. I was wondering if you’d like to say hi to him again? He’s arguing with me right now on geothermal not making ocean floors warmer. So, since it’s your turf I was wondering if you’s like to set his old mind straight? Presently he denies anything I say that doesn’t go along with what he thinks is true.

    The comment is under EM F has 81 comments so far. This is his latest:


  14. Thanks Zoe. What I really, really, cannot believe, is how no proper experiment is being performed anywhere in the world to definitively ascertain (debunk) this, for the benefit of both parties (“alarmists” and “deniers”). If you are right (as I believe) this is really a fraud of planetary proportions. It will throw discredit to climatologists and physicists for centuries. How is it possible that honest supporters of greenplate theory (with all its implications), trusting in their theory, are not willing to undergo any experimental verification….(ok maybe I am naive). I’d be even willing to participate to financing such experiment (but I’m a poor guy).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, we know how to keep a house warm, so as to lower heating costs. And it has little to do with radiant heat loss and largely to do convectional heat loss. If want to keep a house warm or cool, large aspect is to keep the door shut {and close the windows}. And can use weather stripping {prevents convection heat loss} and double panel windows- prevents convection heat loss.
      A big aspect is having insulation in ceiling {or roof}- convectional heat loss. And better job, put insulation in the walls [and maybe in the floors}. And generally it’s a good idea to insulate the hot water plumbing {convectional heat lost}.
      Generally one should put twice as insulation in ceiling as walls, and warm air rises. And having air circulation- a ceiling fan and/or central air conditioning prevents warming building up near the ceiling and having warming air near ceiling will cause more heat loss {convectional and conductional heat loss}. And CO2 gas has nothing to do with keeping a house warm {or cool}.
      And generally Earth atmosphere insulates Earth surface- regardless of it’s trace gases. And that called greenhouse effect {though that can be called a misnomer- it has some use in terms of analogous way of explanation, but analogous ways explanation are generally inadequate}. But anyhow an actual greenhouse works because it prevents
      convectional heat loss. And if know that, the term greenhouse effect is not much of problem.


  15. I would hope that at least the heat transfer professors (not the climatologists, we know they have some difficulties…) would agree on the flaw of the “dumbest math theory ever”…so I contacted professor Howell at thermalradiation.net to ask a question in the most “neutral” way possible…but I either did not understand, or he seem to support the “back radiation” concept….
    I have put the email exchange here : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OjpDVchnj_N29WN0C-ZSPg_nMEyVhnsJ/view?usp=sharing

    What do thermal physics professors really think ? 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. He didn’t answer the question.

      It’s an unrealistic question to begin with. Keeping the shield at a fixed 20C is impossible. That would require an active system, thus destroying the point.

      It’s very important to know what objects are outside the shield, and how far away they are.

      Steady state heat flow is only established from matter to matter. The steel greenhouse assumes emission to space is a heat flow. It is not.

      Assuming nothing is outside the shell, there is ZERO heat flow.

      A better question would just be: will the inside sphere ever warm up due to the shield?

      The answer is a simple NO. An honest thermal physics professor would just say that.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. I think it’s fraud.
      The ice thaws at room temperature and then convects up. The hot plate wastes its energy heating formerly-ice gas. When you block this gas from arriving with a shield, the hot plate heats up. It didn’t really heat up, it was just prevented from cooling due to the mass of gas it was heating before.

      “The hot plate is kept above the ice to minimize any air convection effects on the results.”

      Completely the opposite of the truth. If the ice was above the plate, it would have eliminated convection from the post-ice gas. Sure there is still regular air being convected from hot plate, but it’s not ice gas which has greater energy due to “heat of vaporization”. So in essence, he purposely structured his experiment to yield maximum heat up – including the face of the ice being larger than hot plate. Clever guy he is.

      None of this proves heat-up due to radiative effects. Notice he doesn’t model or predict results using theoretical physics taking into consideration all types of heat transfer. It’s a shame that he stoops to this level. He knows exactly the trick he’s playing.

      Thanks, Max.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. I specifically remember from school days that the physics teacher said that on a winter night, when the window panes in your house are cold, it helps to draw the curtains. The idea being that the cold panes are then hidden from view of the IR-radiation wanting to exchange heat with them. Any comments to this?


        2. Your windows are transfering heat to the air by all 3 heat transfer mechanisms. Curtains are mass. More mass cools slower. If your windows were twice as thick, it would also cool slower. Notice that your curtains do not get warmer due to backradiation from the window.

          Liked by 1 person

      1. Let’s suppose the experiment is made in the vacuum so that convective effects can be neglected. While the lamp is heating the plate, the presence or absence of the shield does not affect the plate temperature increase rate. But if the lamp is switched off, then the plate starts cooling, and will do that quicker when the screen is removed from top of the sink…am I understanding correctly ?


        1. It matters what the temperature of the shield is. For if it is colder, then its presence facilitates plate cooling. In this case REMOVING it would make the plate cool slower. But if shield is same or greater temperature, then its removal would force plate to cool faster. If lamp was the only heat source, then you can expect equilibrium to form, and then everything cools to zero.

          When lamp is off, it’s easy to see that plate and shield “block” each other from cooling, i.e. plate and shield can reverse roles. Doesn’t matter though, they’re both going to zero. And the time it takes is a function of their masses and heat capacities.

          Edit: zero = external environment.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. “There is no violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the net flow of heat must be from higher to lower temperature, which does not preclude cooler object from emitting IR radiation in the direction of warmer objects.”
      Let’s say somewhat true, or certainly can be true.
      “If the atmosphere didn’t exist, the Earth’s surface would lose IR radiation directly to the cold depths of outer space, which is essentially at absolute zero temperature, and emits no energy back to the Earth”

      “Cold depths of space” is fiction. The nothingness of space is more factual. Though roughly, “emits no energy back” is accurate enough.

      “; but instead the atmosphere, in effect, blocks some of that radiation, and emits some of its own IR radiation back towards the surface.”

      Well the hot thermosphere emits some radiation “back towards the surface” but it’s insignificant- though I believe it’s measurably from the Earth surface. But a question is where does atmosphere block most of that radiation and where does it radiate most of that radiation back to earth surface. I would say within the first 1000 meters of the surface. And greenhouse effect theory does not make such claims. And what else is within the atmosphere in first 1000 meter other than greenhouse gases? Also I will note that Ozone is considered an important greenhouse gas and generally regarded as being much higher than 1000 meter above the surface. It {to me} seems it doesn’t “fit” with the idea of back radiation. I would does not “fit” in similar way the whatever small effects of the hot thermosphere likewise doesn’t “fit” in the idea of back radiation.
      Another issue is what direction does most the radiation from Earth surface go? I would say the radiation radiates in hemispheric direction or most of goes sideways and little goes straight up. And there is lot’s of “things”- like a fence or tree, which are sideways. So Earth has 40% of total area in tropics, 23.5 degrees north and south latitude.
      Cut Earth in half at equator, there is 40% of area which 23.5 degree away from equator, an 30 degrees is almost half and polar region is less than 5%. Or less than 5% is roughly straight up.
      And to “inferfere” with radiation does not require the radiation to be absorbed. Or atmosphere without any gases which absorb certain certain wavelengths of IR, can still interfere with any and all radiation. Whereas in a vacuum, there is no interference by the nothing. Of course another thing, is surface would actually radiate in spherical direction- it it goes a random direction- though that is getting into weeds a bit. And continue to go into the weeds, most Earth is covered by water, and surface of water, is a crazy place- barely, explored.

      “The net effect is that the surface and lower atmosphere cannot cool as rapidly to deep space, raising its average temperature.”

      I would say all surface air and all atmosphere above it, can not cool rapidly.
      Or go back to the thermosphere, it is very hot {though it has no temperature} it’s near the “Cold depths of space” and doesn’t radiate any significant heat/energy.


  16. Sorry, but I believe you skipped commenting on the essential part “hidden from view”. Is it not so that IR can only heat what is in sight? In the 80’s, the fashion was to use electric heating foil in the ceiling. This warmed up the room by IR. One negative side effect was that if you held your hands underneath the table, they would instantly feel cold. Does the mass of the table really have anything to do with it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: