I will run it’s numbers myself when I get a chance.
It took me around 2 hours to bash it into what I wanted it to do, including feeding it’s own answers back into it to “remind” it that indeed it was possible to calculate without the SB equation.
This is my formal public reply to Richard, beyond my previous replies, which where also public, hence making this entire introduction rather surpiflu…Ah, I can’t spell it…
It is indeed, quite astounding that I can’t find a single example of anyone who has openly published a representation of the earth, as a geological thing, floating in space, sans atmosphere, oceans, and biomass, as a starting point for verifying the (modified) Stefan-Blotzmann law.
That is, something as simple as taking say the thermal properties of an rock and working up something like a however makeshift, attempt at verification as to what the theoretical starting point is asserted to be.
That isn’t to say, if I continued to look I wouldn’t find someone who had, but the very fact that I would have to look so long at all is not a good sign that anyone in the mainstream has even bothered to do it.
So indeed, why should I bother to do it?
The need for the abstraction, is to my mind, skipping way ahead of what can be achieved with far simpler methods. Considering the diameter of the earth, it curvature, it basic surface composition, some form of recording it’s temperature, has been in human knowledge for thousands of years, I can’t find anything which models it with that basic understanding.
Every source I find, jumps straight to the modified Stefan-Blotzmann law, with not even as much as a passing acknowledgement that any other way of calculating it could even exist.
In other news, I am feeling really good right now. 
1 Like
They, the consensus of scientists, are waving around a very long pole.
So very long.
I would have been fired many times over if I was to use such measurements!
There isn’t even any hits on google of “whack jobs” building scale models of the earth and getting a blow torch to it. Very disappointed with that.
I guess It’s going to be up to me.
Which is of course, the point. The burden of proof is reversed.
Not so much as a scale model in a vacuum cooled to 3 K.
This reminds me of my favourite zoo joke;
I went to a zoo in a city I was visiting; all the cages where empty except one cage in the middle.
In the cage was a dog.
It was a Shih Tzu.
Richard, this is quite an odd angle of attack if your goal is to discredit anthropogenic global warming. The greenhouse effect was demonstrated in the 19th century well before the “guys-n-gals at Quantumville” produced any proper climate models of the Earth, and can be observed in action just as well on other planets like Venus and Mercury.
Are you really complaining that they didn’t write out and evaluate the surface integral over the daylit hemisphere ∫∫S Isuncos θincidencedS? I assure you that it simplifies to Isunπr²
In the physical world no externally heated substance can raise the temperature of its heat-source.
I assume you are referring to the second law of thermodynamics? The greenhouse effect doesn’t violate the second law. The net heat flow is still surface>atmosphere>space. The fact that infrared-absorbing gasses reflect some of this heat back to the surface would not cause the surface to “heat up” in the absence of external solar radiation. The net effect is to slow down the rate of energy emission from the surface out into space. Net heat flows from hot to cold in every step.
You may be confused by how the locally-valid rule I = Isuncos θincidence can give rise to the much simpler rule PEarth = Isunπr² when summed over all localities. The way to resolve such confusion is to evaluate the integral yourself and see that it all cancels out.
tl;dr: there is no “greenhouse effect” in reality (nor “greenhouse gases” either).
The greenhouse effect is so trivially shown experimentally that it’s a fairly standard activity for 6th grade kids to do.
I’m wondering where you got this rather interesting sequence of thoughts from. There are a whole bunch of various obvious errors that jump out - for example you seem to be confused as to what is actually warming, as you seem to think the Earth itself is a single system (like when you say no substance can raise the temperature of its heat source).
PS.: Can you link to a source for the supposedly-erroneous models?
Actually that does not demonstrate the greenhouse effect!
From the PDF at the link: “This activity mirrors how a greenhouse works, but it’s not exactly the same as the greenhouse effect that is taking place in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
The effect of the actual greenhouses is due to the glass preventing the air dissipating its heat due to convection.
The poorly-named “greenhouse effect” doesn’t actually explain how greenhouses work, it has to do with the so-called “back-radiation”.
Do you have a link to an experiment that demonstrates the actual effect in action? It should be easy to find one if the effect is real.
1 Like
Those are really fancy symbols there @lexej
Are you sure you know what they mean?
I’ve got a strange hunch that you do not. The jig is up.
phrase of jig
INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
the scheme or deception is revealed or foiled.
“the jig is up; you’ve had your last chance”
I did a quick check on as to why there is a flat disc approximation…Here is the exact same question asked and it’s replies :
Ahh not quite though. There are really two discs in play:
1- the disc to measure total sunlight into Earth, this being the shadow the earth would generate
2- the implied mathematical equivalent disc that happens from geometrically flattening the spherical earth into a disc
#1 is simply correct as far as I can tell. That is how one would measure total sunlight in, and it does ‘spread out’ as you get to the poles, as the link says. If you could get more sunlight in by varying the geometry of an object then solar panels would be wavy not flat 
#2 is where the quantumville flat Earth comes in. Because they equate this total energy in to energy out. They are saying that instantaneously, every speck of energy that comes in from the sun is instantaneously divided and radiated out across the entire surface area of the sphere, which mathematically comes out to 1/4th the energy out per square meter.
As energy in = energy out then also therefore (obviously; “trivially” 
) this energy out of 1/4th sun energy per square meter now also becomes the energy in per square meter too:
[source]
Note well that “Incoming Solar Radiation” is shown as 342 W m-2, not 1368 W m-2.
All this mathemagics has the effect of treating the Earth as a flat 4x-larger disk where each m^2 of it receives (and emits) this 1/4th solar energy sunlight.
Whoops, I linked the wrong one. The normal idea is to mix baking powder and vinegar in a jar to create CO2 and then compare it to various controls, like here.
That experiment seems to demonstrate that a jar with a higher concentration of CO2 in it will be hotter than a jar with regular air in it, after a period of being heated by an external source (eg a heat lamp) for 5 to 10 minutes.
The “greenhouse effect” however isn’t quite this. It is rather that the surface of the Earth is said to supposed to be -18C, but then the surface of the Earth heats the atmosphere which in turn heats the surface of the Earth to a higher temperature, raising it by +33C to reach +15C. i.e. the atmosphere is externally heated (by the Earth) and it then heats its heat source (the Earth) to a greater than original temperature.
As such the experiment you cited doesn’t demonstrate this. It would need to, for example, show that the gas in the jar ends up raising the heat source (e.g. the heat lamp)'s temperature.
I am spinning here.
It’s all a massive lie! There is no “greenhouse effect” .
This pdf here; is a great summary of many of the debunking points against the CO2 hoax.
Most of last week, I focused of the -18C starting point, which left me with some doubt that I could get to Richard’s tl;dr “there is no greenhouse effect”. Because, what if it could be verified by a more physical science based model?
However, though it’s incredibly important what the starting point is, there is other information that also debunks the entire greenhouse story.
It is now plainly obvious to me why there are no available simulations based on actual physical geological data validating the Stefan-Blotzmann equation starting point of -18C.
Because they can’t. Such a model based on the actual properties of the earth, sans atmosphere, oceans, and biomass, will debunk the -18C.
Specifically what’s warming is not “the Earth” but the oceans and troposphere. The other layers of the atmosphere are actually cooling because of the enhanced greenhouse effect within the troposphere. So it’s not the “heat source” that is being heated (most of the infrared radiation being captured by GHGs comes from radioactive decay of elements within the Earth’s crust).
Damn…things can get this nasty :
I raise my glass to “change”.
Although I was indeed disappointed to learn I don’t have a new Russian speaking scientific friend, I am however impressed with the ingeniously devised approach.
Although significant change is indeed very rare , and highly prized, small change is very underrated and often goes unnoticed.
I sincerely wish you well. Not because I am better than you, blessing you from above, but because I am you, the very same ‘stuff’.
Cheers to still being alive after all these years.
Здоровья тебе 
1 Like
So I was with my FWB at the University of WA last night, in the physics department discussing climate change.
Today, with my son, looking at geological core data.
Although, there is no chance of anyone changing the status quo through actual science, I have a lot of confidence that given enough centuries, there will indeed be a far more free and informed world. At the very least.
I’ve been told that carbon takes 1,000 years to breakdown and leave the atmosphere completely. I take it to mean we are stuck with current levels and what ever we add to the atmosphere each day. So when people talk about saving the planet they really mean it. Not human beings, but “Mother Earth” “Gaia”.
They have been saying the point of no return is ten years since I was ten years old.
My suspicion is that the science of climate change is not mistaken or a hoax but rather the politics of climate change is a gigantic scam. Green initiatives are all the rage. There is a lot of green to be made from it.
In other words I bet we passed the point of no return a long time ago but no one wants to say it out loud. What would be the benefit. Although we could be focused on adapting rather than undoing if undoing is indeed not an option.
Another thought that always occurs to me when I hear from the climate alarmist is “what about super volcanoes? Asteroids?” Where is the alarm and massive amounts of research dollars for these threats to life? My guess is that they can’t tax you for it so it’s not useful to the powers that be.
I didn’t read all the post in this thread so maybe this was already touched on. Also, I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about
This was roughly my opinion too, yet once I began to search over the last few weeks, with Claudiu’s help, and Richard’s invitation, the only thing I am still convinced of is the scam politics.
The science is a long way from being worthy of called “proof”.
Indeed, the science is itself hidden behind a huge amount of websites which simply copy each other.
One of the most “hit” climate sites (which I was linking to in this thread) is run by a so called “scientist” who was caught out big time back in 1998 for falsifying the infamous “hockey stick” chart which claims to show a dramatic temperature rise in the later half of the 20th century.
It’s a fascinating, if not damning story.
The guy named in this article “Mann” is the same that runs “skeptical science”.
Have a read. Then decide whether the science is worth further investigation.
I did it by just following what I found interesting.
I was very interested to see if anyone had modelled from actual geological data, a virtual globe which could confirm or deny the starting temperature which the entire “greenhouse effect” is based on.
Claudiu also extensively looked into it, and it would seem that the “Stefan-Blotzmann law” is the only calculation being used. It proposes that the earth, using mind you, a single emissivity number to model the entire planet, is theoretically starting at -18C. The rest of the temperature, a whole 33C to get us to the observed average of 15C, is due to the “greenhouse effect”.
Whatever avenue interests you is well worth having a look into.
No matter which point of interest I went down, there was nothing of substance to the claim which is behind the “greenhouse effect”.
It was indeed a “heady” couple of weeks.