Equating Perpendicular Planes is Plain Nonsense

Many people believe you can compare the Geothermal Heat Flux to Insolation, see that it’s pitiful and then exclude Geothermal from the energy budget. I have touched on this subject several times: here, here, and here. Today I will again show that this idea is plain nonsense.

Let’s start with the basics of radiation:

Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law

The radiation emerging out of a plane in the (x,y) dimension is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. The choice of variable names x,y is arbitrary. Now what about conduction?

Conduction through matter

Geothermal Heat Flux has been globally measured to be ~ 91.6 mW/m²; a very small number. Many people claim that you can convert this figure into a value that tells you what the surface temperature would be in the absence of the sun.

What they do is equate the radiation emerging out of a plane with the internal conductive heat flux. In the language of my previous articles, they equate Cold Side Radiation to Conductive Heat Flux: CSR = CHF. Then they solve for T_cold.

This is kind of funny, because even though we have proof that geothermal will deliver ~273 K, they still think geothermal can only deliver ~36 K.

They believe their argument is reasonable because both CSR and CHF are in units W/m², and therefore they can be equated to one another.

What they don’t understand is that the meters squared (m²) are in completely different dimensions.

In radiative flux, the m² comes from the surface plane. But in conductive flux, the m² comes from dividing the thermal conductivity constant (k) by the depth (L).

The depth is orthogonal (perpendicular) to the surface plane!

How much sense does it make to compare emergent radiation to something based on a 90 degree angle to it? None at all.

I derived the proper relationship between CSR and CHF in my previous articles:

Proper relationship between CSR and CHF

Now I do proper dimensional analysis:

Dimensional Analysis

Yes, their idea doesn’t make any sense at all, but it does make for great rhetorical pseudoscience.

Now for some satire …

Question: How much rain falls on a flat roof top?

Answer: It depends on the building material and height of the building.

Normal Person: Say what?

This is the best analogy I could come up with what their idea represents. Maybe someone else could come up with a better one. Main point: they’re 90 degrees wrong.

I hope to repeat this for the last time: the Geothermal Heat Flux is NOT enough information to say what radiation emerges out of the surface. There are many possibilities with the same heat flux value, as shown here. CHF divided by k (thermal conductivity) yields a temperature gradient. A gradient measure tells you nothing about what’s at the top.

Take care, -Zoe

Zoe’s 35th Birthday

48 thoughts on “Equating Perpendicular Planes is Plain Nonsense

  1. Beautifully articulated Zoe. I like the rain roof top analogy too. Better than the one I had of calculating the resultant temp of a length of resistance wire by the wattage of a nanometer of said wire.

    1) Have you explored the implications of your Geothermal Insight for the onset of Ice Ages? I have a bit. It’s profound and provides a far simpler explantion than the cosmic catastrophism, sun, micro nova, proton shower, etc hypotheses of the EU community

    2) Induction as a partial source of geothermal heating? The geology could help explain the Russian anomoly during the last ice age. So very suggestive geology there.

    Again – thank you so much Zoe.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you, Michael.

      1) Don’t think I have. Tell me more.
      2) Can’t evaluate induction. Remote charging is tricky business. Could be all, could be none, or somewhere in between. I’d hate to speculate.

      I appreciate comments from smart people who get it.

      Since first comment was nice, I included my 35th birthday photo at the end.

      Like

      1. I don’t want to front load others suggestions with what I have discovered, but as an entree:

        1) Ice Age onset – in the old model with the Sun providing almost all the heat, the Sun going into dark mode, hibernation, was not even considered as possible, as it would take us down to 35-50 Kelvin only, and that clearly doesn’t occur.

        In your Geothermal theory (far past hypothesis in my assesent), if the Sun goes “dark” (full corona), the earth drops to a minimum low av. of ~ 273K only, and resembles very much what proxy data suggests for the last ice age.

        This is an elegant, simple theory, a fusion of plasmoid earth and EU theories, but without the need for their explicit or implied cyclic catastropes (that is each time, somehow, finely calibrated so as not to destroy all life) to cause the transition in and out of bio-survivable ice ages.

        No need for micronovas, comet impacts, Milankovich cycles, implausibly complex pertubations, etc. Just a quiet, beating heatbeat of the cosmos to induce, and the infrared fire within keeping our blue orb sufficiently warm for life to suvive a vastly diminished solar output until it is pulsed up again 90k years later.

        It also suggests that the Sun could be a metastable entity, with “on” and “off” states, externally induced.

        Hundreds of data points.

        2) valid of course. Nonetheless – you may find it informative to think about the Urals to Lena ice age and magnetic anomolies, and if there is anything in their Large Igneous flood geology and it’s electrical or geothermal properties that might cause chilly Siberia to counterintuitely and uniquely resist glaciation in the northern hemisphere during these hybernating Sun periods.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Zoe,
    I have had a go at fitting geothermal effects into the energy balance for Earth.
    Given that the incoming solar radiation, the Bond Albedo and the amount of solar radiation that actually reaches the surface are known values the only way to do this is if the Bond Albedo has been miscalculated.
    In other words a misunderstanding of geothermal has resulted in a further misunderstanding of the total amount of energy leaving the Earth. This means that Bond’s Albedo is also misunderstood and is in reality smaller, the geothermal contribution makes it look bigger than it actually is.

    I’ll lay out a speculative set of values:
    For incoming radiation of 340w/m2
    True Albedo 0.11
    Absorbed 303w/m2
    Reflected 37w/m2
    Geothermal 68w/m2

    This gives an apparent reflected value of 68+37=105. This gives an apparent Bond albedo of 105/340=0.31.

    Assuming an emissivity of 0.95 I get
    (303+68) / (0.00000005670373*0.95))^0.25 = 288

    As the solar radiation reaching the surface is 250w/m2 the above means that 53 is absorbed by the atmosphere.

    The “true” value of Bond albedo is therefore close to that of the Moon and Mercury.

    I’d be interested in your thoughts on this.

    Regards
    Chris

    Like

    1. 105/340 is Shortwave.
      Geothermal is not shortwave, and you can’t add 68 (longwave) to 37 (shortwave).

      Albedo is a geometric phenomena, and 88% of it is due to the atmosphere [Donohoe 2011].

      Like

  3. Why can’t you add them? I would have thought that they were both just Watts/m2 as far as far as an energy balance is concerned.

    Also the definition of the Bond albedo is based on all radiation at all angles leaving the body so if there was an extra source of heat from somewhere I’d expect that to create a “false” value for albedo?

    Have you got your own ideas for how the balance works, including both solar and geothermal effects, and if it changes any of the currently accepted values?

    I’ll have a search for your reference. I’m surprised that albedo is thought to be due to the atmosphere as albedos across the solar system don’t seem to bear much relation to the presence of an atmosphere.

    Like

    1. You can’t add them, because the albedo is supposed to be the reflected incoming shortwave radiation.

      I have an idea of how things work at the surface. I can explain why the surface temperature is what it is. As for the spread in the atmosphere, that is not complete. When it is, I will post about it.

      I don’t think the albedo is wrong by its own determined standards, it’s a question of how useful it is for the surface energy budget.

      Like

      1. In your post above you state that albedo is reflected shortwave. However Bond Albedo is based on the total portion of all reflected radiation, not just shortwave. Sunlight contains a lot of longwave and there would be no way of telling the difference between reflected longwave and emitted longwave.

        Resolving this might involve looking at the methods used to calculate Bond Albedo for Earth. The numbers used for this might actually be proof for your theory, at the least they would give some likely limits for the geothermal effect. The fact that mainstream science rejects internal heating indicates two possibilities:

        That emitted radiation has been incorrectly assessed and included in the reflected category which produces a false high value for Albedo
        That emitted radiation has been correctly assessed and rejected as “not reflected” which implies they know the value of emitted radiation (if you are right they don’t appear to know it or have simply dismissed it as an error).

        Like

        1. My definition of shortwave is not visible light and UV, but everything shorter than the Earth’s radiation. If you look at a diagram of solar and earth radiation, everything to the left of Earth, i.e. what the Sun gives, I consider shortwave. A more accurate name would be shorterwave.

          The visual geometric albedo is reflected sun light in the visible light spectrum.
          The bond albedo is the portion of solar radiation that is reflected: UV, Light, Near Infrared, etc.

          Like

  4. Zoe I think you will find this discussion at Judith Curry’s blog of interest.

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/21/geothermal-ocean-warming-discussion-thread/

    I spent a lot of time caving in WVA during my years at UVA. They are warm in the winter and cool in the summer. About 55 degrees in most WVA caves. How can this not have translate into an impact on surface temperatures.

    The contribution of geothermic heat to ocean heat content has puzzled me for some time. The above blog post and its comments provide some useful data.

    I think you should put together a post and submit it to Judith for publication at her site. I think the comments would be interesting.

    I wonder if there is a spherical instrument that can continuously measure radiation across all wave lengths at all points on the sphere. The energy budget graphs with up and down arrows just weird me out.

    You have to wonder about the effects we will observe if the earth’s magnetic field continues to weaken. My guess is that geothermic activity will rise.

    You should watch the movie 2012. It a great disaster movie that is driven by solar flares heating up the earths mantle.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Your final sentence in your last reply to me contains an important point.

    The key word is “reflected”. There is no fundamental difference between radiation that is incident, transmitted, reflected or absorbed, it is just radiation. Regarding long or short the sun outputs across the entire range of wavelengths and the usual calculation of Bond Albedo includes all wavelengths.

    Consequently there is a big assumption in there that mainstream science might have missed. The assumption is that they know the value going in and that they know the value “reflected” purely because they assume all outgoing radiation from Earth is “reflected”. Your theory implies that a significant portion of outgoing radiation is not reflected, it has in fact been incorrectly assigned as such when it is actually emitted geothermal.

    I have been thinking how to resolve this. If the actual numbers and method for calculating the Earth’s albedo could be established they could be checked for different assumptions for reflected and emitted to see what range of values fits your theory. This in turn would give the likely range for the geothermal contribution. This would be an interesting inquiry to see as you are not the first person to propose a theory that Bond Albedo might be wrong or not applicable.

    Like

    1. Radiation is waves. Waves have wavelengths. Wavelengths are subjected to the peculiarities of molecular dimensions and space in between. Some go through the medium of molecules, others do not.

      Bond Albedo is not calculated, but measured by satellite. If ~340 W/m^2 was supposed to return, but ~240 W/m^2 did, then albedo is ~0.3.

      What is returned to space is not 1 minus what arrives at the surface. The atmosphere absorbs an additional ~0.22 of solar radiation, and this does not reach the satellite. It’s below its view, so to speak.

      We can’t count solar spectrum atmospheric absorption as part of albedo, nor can we add it to surface absorption.

      I think the Bond Albedo is fine by its standards. It’s not guaranteed to tell you how much radiation reaches the surface. If there is no atmosphere, then obviously it does.

      Like

      1. Are you proposing a different definition of Albedo? Your post suggests that you separate Bond Albedo into atmospheric and surface values. There was a discussion on another forum some years ago regarding assuming black body behaviour (Albedo=0) for worlds with atmospheres. You seem to be heading in a parallel direction, towards a different treatment for this parameter.

        The commonly used definition of Bond Albedo is reflected/Incoming. The “reflected” radiation isn’t sorted into atmospheric and surface, its an aggregate result. So the common definition includes absorption and reflection at all levels of the atmosphere, surface and water as far as radiation penetrates. If the assumption in the measurements and final calculation is that all outgoing radiation is reflected then any geothermal would skew the Bond Albedo result.

        This gives us:
        Mainstream Bond Albedo = 0.3, assumes all outgoing radiation is reflected, no geothermal
        or
        Zoe’s theory corrected Bond Albedo = 0.1-0.2???, takes into account that some outgoing is not reflected but is geothermal in origin

        I did look for papers showing the calculation of Bond albedo from multiple satellite measurements and there seems to be wide variation across the Earth’s surface. I’d expect that combining this into a single value would give plenty of chance for a wrong assumption to be hidden in the error bars.

        There is a paper that revises the Bond Albedo for Jupiter from 0.34 to 0.50 and to maintain the energy balance this demanded that the value for internal heat was also revised.

        Like

  6. –I hope to repeat this for the last time: the Geothermal Heat Flux is NOT enough information to say what radiation emerges out of the surface. There are many possibilities with the same heat flux value, as shown here.–
    And:
    –Geothermal Heat Flux has been globally measured to be ~ 91.6 mW/m²; a very small number. Many people claim that you can convert this figure into a value that tells you what the surface temperature would be in the absence of the sun.–

    I would say 91.6 mW/m² does not tell you how hot it can get.

    Let say one very far from the sun, and at that distance, sunlight is 91.6 mW/m².
    That would tell the sunlight is not going to warm anything by much.
    But one can magnify that sunlight and the sunlight can melt steel..
    The sun is very hot and therefore it capable of heating something to a high temperature..
    It it could be 91.6 mW/m², because at that distance the energy spread out over greater area.
    Or instead the energy of being in 1 square meter, over the greater distance it’s spread out over
    1 km square area.
    Or to precise, at 1 AU distance sunlight is about 1360 watts per square, Or 1,360,000 mW/m
    1,360,000 / 91.6 = 14,847.16.
    Where sunlight spread out over 14,847.16 times more area, it’s 91.6 mW/m².
    And magnification one collect say 1 square meter and focus the light into 1 square cm.
    Or take 14,848 1 meter square reflector and have all them reflect light to point of 1 square meter
    and the 91.6 mW/m² becomes as powerful as 1,360,000 mW/m {1360 watts per square meter}.
    So a lit match has cold temperature compared to sunlight. Match might be 2000 F and no magnification
    can make hotter. Or 1 million burning matches only has temperature of about 2000 F.
    Anyhow Earth heat melts rocks, and matches can’t.. And 1 AU sunlight magnified can melt rocks.

    This is one of the screw up of Greenhouse Effect Theory- they reduce the power of sunlight with amount of
    sunlight reflected from Earth. Which is no different than as though they moved Earth further from the Sun.
    And they get the crazy average global temperature of -18 C.
    Or the ideal thermal conductive blackbody at 1 AU, is model than would give an uniform temperature of about 5 C.
    Then went to ideal thermal conductive blackbody at 1 AU that reflects about 30% of sunlight {which makes means no sense] but ideal thermal conductive blackbody at about 1.2 AU would have an uniform temperature of about
    -18 C.
    1 AU vs 1.2 AU, what the differences?? The intensity of sunlight.
    Though it’s interesting question, what would Earth like at 1.2 AU.
    Well, my guess is it will not be a Snowball Earth.
    And wouldn’t even have to be in Ice Age like Earth currently is,
    But if was exactly like our present Earth, it probably would be in Ice Age, like we are.
    But why we in Ice Age is complicated, and couldn’t assume it was in Ice Age.
    But assuming was, what difference would it make?
    The simple thing, is the tropical ocean heat engine would be weaker. And probably not allow hurricanes.
    Our average surface temperature of tropical ocean is about 26 C. At 1,2 AU, it probably be about 20 C.
    Hurricanes need about 26 C. One have have at least a lot less hurricanes.
    Wouldn’t have “hot weather”. Poles would colder, and probably freeze out CO2.
    Anyhow, if on tropical island paradise, it’s bit cooler. still pretty nice. Europe would be far colder. But Spain would like Germany. US wouldn’t be as cold as Canada {Canada average currently is -4 C, at 1.2 AU Canada would be about -14 C or colder.
    Probably have less icecaps than we have at 1 AU- they would evaporate and not get any moisture.
    Certainly a drier world.

    Like

  7. Need more photos Zoe. For the sake of scientific provocation (in a fearful and stagnant environment) we need your resemblance out there in the aether. The latest is particularly good. But I’m not sure if the search engines are picking it up.

    Like

    1. Thanks for cheering me up, V.

      My simple revolutionary discovery is completely unappreciated, and my confidence is low. I can’t believe the “scientists” are so stupid and have a large following.

      Maybe I’ll get my stride back.

      Like

  8. Zoe, I crossed a bright fellow who might be of interest to you. I gave him your website he’ll be looking at your work soon, I hope. He has some fascinating ideas about geothermal, maybe you two can brainstorm?

    His name is Alan Lowey, on YouTube anyway. I hope he contacts you. Challenging the field of science, wrong or right, is the only way to push science forward.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Alan Lowey:
        “I was sponsored to study astronomy, physics & computing in combined studies at the university of Hertfordshire and was awarded joint prize for the best student out of 300+. I then went on to be sponsored to study simulation modelling at Brunel university at masters level. I’m a former defence scientist.

        The IPCC could easily test this new gravity hypothesis by drilling boreholes 1km to 5km and measuring the rock temperature in real time. I predict that mantle convection is increasing and therefore warming the lower crust. I’ve shown Baylor Fox-Kemper, an IPCC
        chapter head scientist, that the warming of 0.2°C of Lake Tanganiyka at 1000m+ over time, directly matches the sudden increase in geothermal gradients of two deep mines in Tasmania. He said it was “interesting”.”

        Zoe, you just need the right minds working as a team to work out the kinks and prove or disprove your hypothesis(es) and some proper funding. I do believe geothermal is contributing, deep oceans warming are an absolute confirmation of geothermal increasing, that is not a sign to be taken lightly and I think scientists should be looking into this more seriously.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. I’m sorry but there is nothing new in this theory, it is simply another in a (very) long list of ad-hoc theories attempting to reconcile “gravity” with reality. Geothermal is 100% EM field generated. That geothermal should increase during a period of lower solar magnetic activity should be no surprise if you understand induction in conductive materials, eddy currents, and hysteresis curves.

    Like

      1. Zoe I found an old comment I posted thought it was funny…
        Bo: “Like many over at PSI, Zoe confuses the case of static equilibrium (no power transfers) with dynamic steady state conditions (constant power transfers). This means that she, like the others, goes off the rails before she even gets going.

        To anyone familiar with basic thermodynamics and heat transfer, it should be obvious that this problem is the second case of dynamic steady state.”

        Interpretation: I’ll use confusion and misrepresentation to explain that I refuse to accept the fundamental laws of Delta T.

        (((We can’t afford people to know the GHGe is based on disproved science!)))

        Liked by 2 people

        1. It’s frustrating to me to watch you get fooled by Postma’s divide by 4 issue. He’s clearly wrong and ocasionally refers to N&Z theory to explain surface temperature. Why would he need to do that?
          I weep for Postma’s loss of sanity. He was very influencial in my early research.

          Like

        2. I’m not getting in the middle of your toxicity with Postma. I prefer to keep things cordial and myself out of it.

          Capeesh?

          Like

        3. I’m just upset he banned me. I used to be a fan. I really liked the guy. Now I think he’s destined for oblivion. The divide insolation by 4 for 24 hours issue is not in his favor. The sun, as hot as it feels, is really not enough.

          Of course you shouldn’t be involved in my dispute. No problem.

          Like

        4. You both could have handled that better, Zoe. He’s right about the model error and the Sun is plenty hot enough for the surface. Argue that all you want to but the satellite feeds doesn’t lie, the heat is coming from the equator and burning over it from the Sun. The patterns are easy to follow. I do think geothermal is the other part of the puzzle that’s been covered up as much as the Sun for climate consensus science. 940 W/m^2 at the Equatorial Zenith is more than enough and its accurate. Heck where I’m at I got 100C in the Sun. Oceans however, drive the climate and that is without question being heated from both the top and bottom. By how much is the million dollar question.

          Geothermal has to fluctuate in its contribution to surface/area temperatures just as much as the Sun does. Part of Antarctica was wiped out by geothermal. They are discovering hot spots all the time, unknown volcanic activity and constant deep sea floor warming.

          Like

        5. “Geothermal has to fluctuate in its contribution to surface/area temperatures just as much as the Sun does.”

          Sun shines on avg 12hrs.
          Geothermal is ON 24hrs. My calculations find the mean. It’s around 4C by my 2 methods and exactly 0C by geophysicists’ convention.

          Of course there are exotic hot spots (and cold spots) all over the Earth.

          Liked by 1 person

  10. Pure speculation and impossible to falsify, therefore it is not a valid theory. I was actually responding to the last post by CD Marshall. Sorry.

    Like

    1. “That geothermal should increase during a period of lower solar magnetic activity should be no surprise..”
      Do you have a reference to a scientific paper to support this claim?

      Like

    2. Expound please on what you were referring to? The greenhouse gas isn’t a theory, its a failed hypothesis easily debunked by QM.

      Any longer wavelength/frequency radiation does not increase the source temperature of a shorter wavelength/frequency.

      The atmosphere is not a radiating black body and not a source of thermodynamic heat. Thus the claim of “back radiation” increasing the planet’s temperature above its radiating source is easily debunked.

      Like

  11. Yes, I managed to convince a science journalist in a telephone interview to write an outline article on the issue.

    You can google ‘Dark Matter Shock Announcement’. It’s online Daily Express.

    Like

  12. Earth as a star.
    The sun’s interior is very hot and Earth interior is quite hot.
    It’s assumed the sun emits the energy it generates in it’s interior- if it it generates 1000 , it emits 1000 {watts}.
    If some time it generates more energy, but does not emit it, then gets hotter and will eventually emit as much as it generated. And likewise if generates less, eventually emits less.
    I said the energy {light} generated in interior of sun, takes million years to be emitted.
    When consider primordial heat of Earth, it’s billions of years for Earth.
    Why is it longer with the Earth?
    When primordial heat from impactors occurs, it’s hotter than sun generated heat. Or heat from impactors is like nuclear bomb {without the flood of neutrons {{harmful radiation}}. But such intense heat is “gone in a flash” mostly, and again similar to nuclear bomb.
    But let’s look at nukes exploding 4000 meter under the ocean- there isn’t heat “gone in a flash”. Or one could be on boat 4000 meters above the explosion and not detect it {not notice it happened}. Or all energy is absorbed by the ocean and ocean warms by a small amount. So intense temperature is gone, but stays on earth for long time.
    So with current Earth, most space rock hitting earth, hit the ocean {70% of total surface area} and most of that energy likewise “stays in the ocean}. BUT it’s similar to when impactors hit land surface. Or “to impactor” there not much differnence between solid rock and ocean water- it plows thru both in a fraction of second. Though one could say ocean keeps a bit more energy than land. But temperature seconds after the impact is say less than 1000 C.
    So, the vast massive star, we call the sun, can only take somewhere around 1 million year, because it’s very hot,
    And much smaller Earth takes billions of year because it’s cool compared to the Sun.
    Currently Earth is mostly molten ball rock. If you believe the Moon was formed by a “mars size rock” hitting a proto Earth, would been molten ball of rock, before in was hit, and would have had entire thin surface become a very hot molten rock after being impacted plus the entire molten rock would become significantly hotter. BUT relatively quickly the thin surface would have cooled, leaving the molten rock, being hotter than before the impact.
    Plus it’s though Mars size rock “left” Earth a chuck of it’s iron core {and perhaps some of “left over” iron core could be
    “still falling” to our Earth’s core {which generates more heat].
    The other part of heat generation is the radioactive decay, of mostly thorium. If you believe wiki:
    “Its radioactive decay is the largest single contributor to the Earth’s internal heat; the other major contributors are the shorter-lived primordial radionuclides, which are 238U, 40K, and 235U in descending order of their contribution. (At the time of the Earth’s formation, 40K and 235U contributed much more by virtue of their short half-lives, but they have decayed more quickly, leaving the contribution from 232Th and 238U predominant.)”

    The other factor of heat generation is tidal heating. The Moon is slowing down Earth rotation {that creates heat] one ask where it creates heat. As one might ask where heat generated from nuclear decay. It seem to it’s where most the Earth mass is, which is upper part of Earth’s mantle.

    Like

    1. But wanted to get the greenhouse effect.
      Earth mostly is very hot, and and our atmosphere is quite cold, and there is 10 tons of it per square meter.
      I think our atmosphere retains heat. And compared to vacuum it slows heat from reaching to void of space.
      I am happy to call these effects a greenhouse effect. Or a greenhouse lets sunlight in, retains heat and slows heat from reaching our atmosphere {or the void of space- if a greenhouse is in void of space}.
      Or works as analogy. Analogies can be bad way to explain something- but tend provide clues, if a good analogy.
      An analogy should prompt questions, how are two different things, different. If stick idea two things are the same- the analogy is not “working”. An actual greenhouse works by inhibiting convectional heat loss- the glass ceiling stops warm air mixing without outside colder air. How improve an actual greenhouse. Improving is to having higher air temperature at night when air is colder. Making hotter in daytime and killing plants would not count as “improving”.
      To improve greenhouse one can add a barrel full of water Water retain a lot heat- slow to warm, slow to cool. Or you make greenhouse bigger {or having bigger volume of air- like water,slower warm up and slower to cool down}.
      But enough that.
      How about Earth as Star. Earth surface is cold. IR is from stuff which is cold. And as analogy Earth atmosphere is a fog of cold light. Oh, is Sun surrounded by fog of cold light. sure, but no one care about it- it’s the big hot ball of intense light which gets your attention {and violent “weather”/various eruptions of the Sun}.
      So Earth emits around 240 watts per square meter of diffuse “cold light”.
      So got balloon say 20 km elevation at night and got this 240 watts of diffuse cold light what effect does it have.
      The balloon should about whatever the air temperature is, though if higher and into even thinner air at thermosphere
      starting at around 80 km, the hot air temperature has no effect upon the balloon: Wiki:
      “The highly attenuated gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Despite the high temperature, an observer or object will experience cold temperatures in the thermosphere, because the extremely low density of gas (practically a hard vacuum) is insufficient for the molecules to conduct heat.”
      Or 2500 C air nor 240 watts pr square meter of “cold light” does anything.
      But assuming one measuring it correctly the 240 watts only significant is earth surface on average absorbed and emitting that much energy.
      And you can wonder why Earth emitting so much energy {or why the hotter Venus of emitting less energy}.
      Well in terms of Venus, it’s emitting less because it’s absorbing less sunlight then Earth, despite having sunlight twice as intense because it’s closer to the sun {it’s the thick clouds- reflecting sunlight]
      So got Earth with it’s cold 240 watts of diffuse light, which doesn’t warm anything.
      What if Earth shined directed light. Oh, actually it does- if you magnify earth’s light from say 1 AU away, you make light warm something to what 240 watts per square can warm something which is -50 C to -18 C.
      But when near it’s diffused.
      Now if have a source of heat trying give off it’s diffused light, incoming the diffused interferes with it.
      Or say balloon at 20 km elevation was heated by IR light bulb to 50 C, the side facing away from earth will emit {lose} more energy than side facing Earth.
      Which is roughly the point of someone like Roy W. Spencer {a lukewarmer} is saying is warming effect of
      greenhouse gases. Which kind of agree with, but I think it’s more to do with the 10 tons of air per square meter.
      More to do with ocean covering 70% of planet, and more to do with having geothermal energy {which mostly related to it warming oceans}.
      Or in terms of geothermal and land surface, geothermal mostly about keeping ground warmer than it would be without geothermal heat, but in terms adding to “fog of cold light”. The fog of cold light not very significant and it’s leaving, Earth, and geothermal is small portion of this light.
      BUT if waving wands over surface of land area, the geothermal heat could be significant part of that measurement {perhaps}. Or geothermal from land, could be as much as CO2 levels, but I put doubling of global CO2 levels at somewhere around, 0 to .5 C added to global average surface temperatures. And Roy thinks doubling is about 1 C or warmer.
      But I am talking warming in terms within a century of time. And I believe average global air temperature of 15 C is cold, and 16 C is not much warmer. And what is global climate, is average temperature of ocean which is about 3.5 C- and that is cold. Or why we are in an Ice Age. And we aren’t going eave the Ice Age within thousands of years.
      Unless, human in future who somehow manage to be much smarter than current humans, reasonably decide, they want make it warmer.

      Like

      1. Earth’s surface on average emits ~335 W/m^2. ~100 W/m^2 is “lost” in the atmosphere. Lost means taken up by the atmosphere. ~235 W/m^2 makes it to a satellite equiped with monitoring sensors.

        Like

        1. “Earth’s surface on average emits ~335 W/m^2.”

          Say have flat surface which is 1 square meter and it’s radiating, 335 W/m^2
          If select a point on the square meter, the radiant heat in nanosecond time period, it will radiate in random
          direction. Which means it radiates in random hemispherical direction. And all parts of square meter
          and at all times, the flat square meter will radiate in hemispherical direction.
          Which means little radiant energy could go straight up.

          In terms of our earth surface with the 10 tons of atmosphere above each square meter, the heat transfer is mostly convectional and evaporation convectional heat transfers.
          Or surface transfers heat by evaporation or surface in contact air molecules, heating the air molecules- which re pushed against surface at 10 tons per square meter or 14.7 psi.

          Which happens to be the way the human body loses heat- not radiant heat transfers, but mostly evaporative cooling or air convectional heat loss. Or wrap someone in saran wrap, the body can’t regulate heat, and death is possible.\
          Human body make 100 watts, and has more 1 square meter of surface area
          Or if have a 10 by 10 room, the 6 side and how much they emit, is not what control temperature, rather room air temperature controls the temperature of the room.
          Or go bigger: 10 km cube. If in of middle it, the four walls 5 km away, the ceiling 10 km up and the floor are going to have much to do with temperature. But if had duck pond in middle spot and poured 1 ton of liquid air it, you going to get very cold. And 1 ton boiling hot water- makes you hot

          Anyways, the surface temperature of earth controls the air temperature. Though mostly the surface temperature of ocean control global air temperature. Take square km of tropical ocean {average surface temperature of 26 C} you have kilometres of cold water below it. Mix cold water with warm surface water and could get surface temperature of say 4 C.
          That going make the 1 square km area have cold air temperature, and would not matter if sun is at noon and shining 1000 watts of sunlight on the cold ocean [it would take days to warm up}.

          Anyhow Earth has no average temperature, rather humans are averaging the temperature.
          Earth average tropical ocean surface is 26 C, the rest of ocean {60%} has average of about 11 C, giving the average ocean surface temperature of 17 C. And average land surface temperature is about 10 C. Giving the global average surface air temperature of about 15 C.
          The warm ocean average surface temperature of tropical ocean is “why” the tropical ocean is heat engine of the world- warms the rest of tropics {20% is land area} and warm everything else {including the poles}.

          Anyways, we living in world in which the air has warmed up a bit. If turned off the sun, our shining star would keep shining almost as brightly for at least a few days. Or takes few days for the 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter to cool down. And when cools down- the sky falls- and such falling adds some heat, delaying the cooling a bit.
          But during the days of cooling, earth would still radiating at around 240 watts or ~235 W/m^2. Or there not direct instantaneous connection between solar input of 240 watts and it emitting 240 watts. Other the 240 watts the Earth is emitting indicates how much Earth is absorbing sunlight. Or if Earth was absorbing 260 watts, it emits 260 watt. If absorbed 200 watts, it would emit 200 watts.

          But you could say the the ocean has absorbed centuries worth of sunlight {or centuries worth heat the sun could warm it}, and if turn off the sun, it emits those “centuries of absorbed sunlight” of energy. Without the sun for century of time, Earth will be quite cold, but not as cold as night side on Moon. Or Earth might be emitting say, 100 watts per square meter {on average}. And the moon at night {14 day time period of night} emits about 10 watts per square meter {or it’s about 100 K (-173.15 C)}.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. When heat is “lost”, it´s converted to work, which must be the work of convection acting against the resistance of gravity, according to the first law: dU=Q-W. Strangely enough, work is always left out of energy budgets, even though we know lots of work is done in the earth system.

          Keep up your fight. In time, when it´s obvious that Earth temperature varies naturally, the GHE will be discarded. But you´ll probably never convince many people no matter how right you are. The whole system is corrupt.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. The Earth’s atmosphere has a “Thermal Effect” by delaying or rather, slowing the cooling effect. A GH prevents the completion of convection where as the atmosphere never does.Oddly still, greenhouse gases in the climate consensus science, isn’t even associating that with the thermal effect but the IR interaction effect of molecules with a magnetic dipole.

        To add even more confusion, the water cycle and water vapor’s interaction with IR are completely separate functions.

        Like

        1. You can´t warm something up with cold air. Insulating effects come from reduction of heat absorption, you have to minimize heat absorption in surroundings to retain heat. The atmosphere increases heat absorption by adding convection, conduction and radiative absorbtion compared to in vacuum where you have only radiative heat loss. The atmosphere cools the earth surface more than without an atmosphere, but it also redistributes heat also reducing maximum temperature. An incandescent filament in vacuum runs hotter than with gas surrounding it.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. “You can´t warm something up with cold air”
          Obviously cold air can warm something colder than the cold air.
          And:
          Venus surface air made hotter by colder air above it.
          And say it’s noon, and 4000 meter above surface the air has been warmed, but
          it much colder then air at the surface. Say lapse rate per 1000 meter of 6.5 C, so
          4 times 6.5 = 26, so is 26 K colder than surface air. In night as surface cools, the cold
          air above {4 km up} also cools {or it’s warming the surface air- or one could say prevent/slows surface air
          from cooling as much is would if didn’t have that cold air above it [which will continue to be 26 K colder
          than surface air]. Though you also say the cold air 4 km up cooled the surface air during the day when surface
          was warming this colder air.
          Or the 10 tons of air per square meter, is being warmed by the surface when surface warmed by sunlight, but
          warm the surface air you have warm air above it. Or day starts cold surface air, say 15 C, the sunlight can’t
          warm the surface up much, because needs to heat the 10 tons of air per square meter.
          So roughly if morning air is cold, day not going to get very hot, but starts warmer, it can get hotter.
          Though if air is dry, it’s easier to heat up- or dry air can have wider swings in daytime and nighttime
          air temperature.
          Of course weather can flow in or out warmer or colder air masses. Or one could think morning
          tells what day air temperature will be, then it doesn’t happen.
          “The atmosphere increases heat absorption by adding convection, conduction and radiative absorbtion compared to in vacuum where you have only radiative heat loss. ”
          Yes, 10 tons per square meter. Plus got Earth’s trillions of tons of clouds {water droplets/ice particles}.
          “The atmosphere cools the earth surface more than without an atmosphere, but it also redistributes heat also reducing maximum temperature.”
          Yeah And 70% of atmosphere is over ocean. Which never get “hot” and does not dump heat from such hot land surfaces into space {it keeps the heat which causes warmer night air temperatures- or causing higher day and night air temperature- higher average temperatures.]

          “An incandescent filament in vacuum runs hotter than with gas surrounding it.”
          Yes, which was “found out” or one could say, it was “remembered” with the Apollo missions.

          Like

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

%d bloggers like this: