By NickReality ~
(This image below is sized to fit the page here. For greater detail, just click on the image and it will open in a new and larger window)
RGHE theory exists only to explain why the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. Not so. The average global temperature of 288 K is a massive WAG at the ”surface.” The w/o temperature of 255 K is a theoretical S-B ideal BB OLR calculation at the top of – the atmosphere. An obviously flawed RGHE faux-thermodynamic “theory” pretends to explain a mechanism behind this non-existent phenomenon, the difference between two made up atmospheric numbers.
But with such great personal, professional and capital investment in this failed premise, like the man with only a hammer, assorted climate “experts” pontificate that every extreme, newsworthy weather or biospheric flora or fauna variation just must be due to “climate change.”
The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool. As albedo increases, heating and temperature decrease. As albedo decreases, heating and temperature increase.
Over 10,200 views of my five WriterBeat papers and zero rebuttals. There was one lecture on water vapor, but that kind of misses the CO2 point.
Step right up, bring science, I did.
https://principia-scientific.org/climate-science-what-doesnt-work-and-why/
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/19972-Space-Hot-or-Cold-and-RGHE
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15855-Venus-amp-RGHE-amp-UA-Delta-T
NickReality’s short bio – Decades ago I earned and was awarded a BSME degree which requires demonstrated competence in chemistry, physics, heat transfer, fluid dynamics, statistics, algebra, calculus, etc. Get the idea? I have followed CAGW since 1989 and have read related materials extensively. Much of my work has been peer reviewed on open climate change blogs, not just a closed system of good old boys. The postings are totally my own, not a clipboard hanging in a minimum wage cube, and as clearly noted several times based on IPCC AR5 and other sources.
Annie Apple
Carl
Dave the Sage
Ditzy Dee
Doc'
Grumpy Old Man
marlin6
mjmotley
Nick Anaxagoras
Aussie
PA Pundits - International
Guest Contributor
patpacer
petervburrows
Joe from PA
Jehanne
spanishbride
steevesna
T Lee Humphrey
T. L. Jenkins
TonyfromOz
Turtle
PA Pundits International 
cognog2
Sun 03/25/2018
Nick:
I would like to comment on your post; as it appears to drive a bus through the logic of these radiation calculations; but as you have not told us what the S -B BB equation is, I am at a loss.
I assume BB means Black Body; but what S or B is, is a mystery to me. perhaps it is the Steven-Boltzmann equation; but who knows? Also I cannot get my head around adding different unitary values together can produce a dimensionless ratio (emissivity) ; as in your footnote.
If you are referring to the Stefen equation then there is a major problem for all; as one of its assumptions is that the Body is a solid; so it is inappropriate to apply it, as is,for gaseous Bodies such as the atmosphere, particularly where the radiation arrives from two different directions (from the sun and from the ground). And where does the Albedo come in all of this?
Overall I get the impression that these scientists have got a bit screwed up and need an engineer to knock a bit of sense into them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nickreality65
Mon 03/26/2018
Yes, Stefan-Boltzman: Q, 3.412 Btu/h = W = sigma * emissivity * A, m^2 * T^4, K
Emissivity is the ratio between what a surface would radiate as an ideal BB at a given temperature and what it actually radiates. Kirchoff said a surface can radiate as much as is absorbed, but no more. However, a surface can radiate less than it absorbed if some of that absorbed energy leaves by other processes.
Radiation is a SURFACE property NOT a bulk property.
Planck observed that a surface must be larger than the wave length of the radiation it absorbs/emits. That works for a brick wall, but as you noted not so much for molecules.
The S-B ideal BB form works when radiating into the vacuum of space where there are no molecules to complicate matters, e.g. the surface of the sun, the moon, the earth above 32 km where molecules stop, ISS.
But at the earth’s surface with molecules participating through the cond/conv/advec/latent heat transfer processes, radiation’s W/m^2 share must be reduced by the emissivity.
In the case of the K-T diagram the actual 63 divided by the ideal 396 or emissivity 0.16.
This means the up/down/”back” loop of 333 disappears since it was nothing but a math concept in the first place with no real physical existence.
The up/down/”back” radiation appears to exist in SURFRAD data only because they don’t correct the IR instruments for emissivity.
Thanks for the response. I hope you have checked out my WriterBeat, LinkedIn and Principia papers, lot more info there.
Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
LikeLiked by 1 person
cognog2
Wed 03/28/2018
Thanks for your response nickreality65. You raise interesting points. Glad my guess was right on s -b.
I’m not sure I go along with your view that radiation is purely a surface property. Albedo is but I suspect Emissivity is a molecular property.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nickreality65
Wed 03/28/2018
Well, heat radiation theory defines it as a surface property. Energy from inside might transfer to the surface, but the absorption/emission takes place at the surface.
Emissivity is actual over ideal.
Processes that dissipate energy from the surface, i.e. cond/conv/advec/latent, reduce the amount handled by radiation so emissivity can much less than 1.0
LikeLiked by 1 person
cognog2
Wed 03/28/2018
Hands up! I get your point Emissions: — BB emissions X Emissivity. So there is a marked change in emissivity at phase change in addition to a change in Albedo.
In fact it seems, from what you say, that the Emissivity of liquid water at phase change is more or less Zero and moves up as the phase changes. Do you go along with that?
And as for Albedo it seems it moves from near 1.0 to near zero depending on the optical path.
Wow! Calculate that if one can. Don’t ask me.
Regards
LikeLiked by 2 people
cognog2
Wed 03/28/2018
Oops, seemed to have sent my reply before completion!
Continue:
Emissivity should not be confused with Emissions. They do not have the same units and this raises a problem where water is concerned as I suspect, on phase change the Albedo changes significantly whereas the Emissivity probably remains constant. However that is just my conjecture with no supporting evidence.
This is one (of many?) of the reasons why the IPCC gets confused over clouds; as radiation energy absorbed by liquid water gets converted to Latent Heat rather than an increase in temperature which would increase emissions.
Now these phase changes are taking place at the fractal level continuously as the water vapour (clouds) rise or fall as rain and drive a wedge through the IPCC RF concept.
It is a fascinating subject and my previous comment was very simplistic and ignored this aspect of what is actually happening at the micro level in those those rising clouds.
Hope you can combine my two comments. So much more to say.
Regards.
LikeLike
nickreality65
Wed 03/28/2018
I spent 35 years in power generation and one of my specialities was those wet cooling towers pluming vapor into the air. The power of water’s latent properties is awesome. The Rankine water/steam cycle was the cycle of choice and remains as the second half of combined cycles.
Yes, water vapor is a powerful factor in the atmospheric and climate heat engine. But how can water vapor be blamed on mankind?
Albedo is the combined effect of everything that reflects irradiation back into space, snow, ice, oceans, vegetation and clouds..
Albedo is not emissivity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
cognog2
Mon 04/02/2018
nickreality65:
Yes those images of cooling towers get my goat. There busy cooling the planet! False images by implication.?
Which brings me to my other beef with the AGW proponents. The Stephan equation tells us that if you want to WARM the planet; then plaster it with solar panels.🤔🤔🤔
Now, if they told everyone to paint everything white I might have some respect for them.
Lastly: When scientists measure upward radiation, how do they work out how much is due to Albedo and how much to Emissivity.? To me it is the ratio of these two ratios that is important; but I have no idea what that means or how it should be defined. I call it the “Glow Factor” and get queer looks if I mention it. It can be expressed as (1-A)/E and would fit nicely into the Stephan equation. Just a thought. How say you?
Regards
LikeLiked by 1 person
nickreality65
Mon 04/02/2018
Circulating water removes energy from the steam turbine exhaust condensing it into a liquid that can be effectively pumped back into the boiler. It’s actually about half of the fuel energy that went into the boiler. That energy is released into the surroundings by evaporation cooing the circulating water so it can return to the condenser and repeat the process. You only see the vapor plumes when the surrounding conditions are right. It’s just like seeing your breath on a cold morning.
Albedo and emissivity are very different.
Albedo is the amount of energy reflected away. For the earth that is about 30%. For Venus it’s over 70%. Even though Venus is closer to the sun its ToA outbound radiation is lower than the earth’s. The albedo reduces the amount of energy entering the atmosphere and lowers its temperature as compared to no atmosphere. The moon’s albedo is about 12% and is very hot as a result.
Emissivity is the ratio between what a surface actually radiates and the theoretical maximum per S-B BB ε=1.0. Because of other forms of energy transfer at the surface, conduction, convection, advection (winds), latent water vapor evaporating and condensing, radiation’s share is much less than predicted by the S-B BB theory. NOAA assumes emissivity is 95% or so and as a consequence creates 333 W/m^2 out of mathematical thin air. The actual operating emissivity is about 16%, per K-T diagram 63 actual / 396 theoretical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
cognog2
Mon 04/02/2018
nickreality65:
You have me puzzled. I thought that accepted global values of Albedo and Emissivity for the Earth were 0.3 and 0.62 respectively. These values produce the 288K global temperature as per the Stephan-Boltzmann equation. Am I missing something here. would it be that these Emissivities relate to the specific radiation spectrum considered? In which case perhaps this should be mentioned. Just asking. There seems to be some confusion here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nickreality65
Thu 04/05/2018
288K is considered the “average” surface temperature. 255 K is the S-B BB calc for the 240 W/m^2 LWIR at the top of the atmosphere. That might be where the 0.62 applies.
288 K and S-B BB are used to calc upwelling LWIR of 390 W/m^2. But that discounts the actual LWIR of 63 W/m^2 and emissivity of the surface =0 .16. 63/396.
When the emissivity is considered the up/down/back of RGHE theory disappears.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hifast
Sun 03/25/2018
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rudellenatashamay
Mon 03/19/2018
Thank you
On Mar 11, 2018 10:32, “PA Pundits – International” wrote:
> Guest Contributor posted: “By NickReality ~ (This image below is sized to > fit the page here. For greater detail, just click on the image and it will > open in a new and larger window) RGHE theory exists only to explain why the > earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than with” >
LikeLike
nickreality65
Tue 03/13/2018
USCRN SUR_TEMP and SURFRAD uw_ir are surface upwelling infrared measurements from instruments that appear configured to apply ideal S-B BB equations, emissivity of about 1.0.
Consequently, in some cases the upwelling power flux readings produced from these instruments can be as much as twice the amount of the measured downwelling solar irradiation power flux delivered to the surface. Energy from thin air by a misapplied equation is a rather clear violation of thermodynamic conservation of energy.
An ideal S-B BB configuration works fine at the surface of the sun or earth’s ToA radiating out into the non-participating vacuum of space.
But at the surface of the earth, submerged under 32 km of molecules participating through the thermal processes of conduction, convection, advection and latent, is an entirely different scenario.
Applying an emissivity correction of 0.16 appears to bring these surface upwelling measurements into reasonable balance with the solar, convective and latent surface down and up welling power fluxes.
‘twould be more than a little bit disconcerting to discover that RGHE/GHG loop/CAGW are all based on a handful of improperly configured IR instruments.
LikeLiked by 3 people
nickreality65
Mon 03/12/2018
Oops!
17 + 80 + 63 = 160 396 – 160 = 236 not 333 333 – 236 = 87 = 17 + 80
236 looks a whole bunch like 242 – effectively doubling the OLR in the system.
Looks a lot like Bernie Madoff’s accounting.
LikeLiked by 3 people
nickreality65
Mon 03/12/2018
Footnote
I’m engaged in a hallway conversation with a few folks over at PSI regarding apparent discrepancies and confusion among USCRN T_DAILY_AVE, SOLARAD, SOIL_5_cm and SUR_TEMP, the “measured” IR “upwelling” from the ground.
The power flux, W/m^2, energy leaving the surface (K-T balance) is split among latent at 80, convection at 17 and LWIR at 63 which accounts for the total 160 absorbed. The 333 appears out of thin air.
S-B equation is applied using a 16 C/289 K average and a 1.0 emissivity to obtain 396, 116% of the solar constant and 333 more than the 160 that arrived in the first place, a true violation of energy conservation.
Obviously, this cannot be.
63 W/m^2 + 289 K + S-B equation = 0.16 emissivity.
What I have determined is that when an emissivity of 0.16 is applied to the SUR_TEMP LWIR data the GHG power flux loop and RGHE theory vanish, POOF!, back into the thin air from whence they come.
NReality
LikeLiked by 2 people
PA Pundits - International
Sun 03/11/2018
Nick,
Excellent post.
Certainly Climate Change is a reality, and always has been.
But much less than 1% is caused by mankind OR by cows farting!
Sadly unscrupulous “Chicken Little” Climate Alarmists, many Politicians and some Scientists are using this as their Cash Cow!
Keep pushing the truth.
Ed
LikeLiked by 4 people