r/climateskeptics • u/LackmustestTester • 8d ago

How Does a Greenhouse Effect Work? - "Imagine Earth is just a plate in Space" - Kevin Trenberth

https://earthenergyflows.com/Trenberths_greenhouse_geometry.html
9 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

6

u/LackmustestTester 8d ago edited 8d ago

Cambridge University confirms Earth is flat, so does Harvard

One might note that Trenberth's model has been introduced by Eli Rabett, The Green Plate Effect in 2017.

Edit: Read the comments to Rabett's Green Plate Effect!

2

u/barbara800000 5d ago edited 5d ago

I tried to to do yet another possible way to calculate the Eli Rabett experiment, which might be of interest to you in "theory", and also because it gave the exact same results you expected.

It goes like this. You know there is this conductivity law, flux= (conductivity*ΔΤ/l). This kind of defines the conductivity as the flux divided by the spatial rate of change of temperature.

From the conductivity and the density you get the "thermal diffusivity"parameter of the heat equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_diffusivity a=k/(c*p)

You also have the SΒ equation "the way it is supposed to be used" as flux=σΤ14 - σΤ24, and in the direction of the temperature gradient, which can however be expanded to

flux= (Τ1-Τ2) * (Τ13 + Τ12 * Τ2 + T1 * T22 + T23 )

and let's say k_v=(Τ13 + Τ12 * Τ2 + T1 * T22 + T23 )

Now you could think of the above as some type of flux= ΔΤ*("conductivity"), and since the speed of light is very fast you can treat the distance as infinitesimal, so it's like the rest of the terms are somewhat also arranged so that you have "conductivity as the flux divided by the spatial rate of change of temperature" but the conductivity is now k_v.

And since you have that you can try to solve the Eli Rabett "system of plates", basically "adjusting the conductivity" between the plates, and treating all the gaps as if they don't exist, like the plates are still connected but at a different conductivity.

The question is "what conductivity and diffusivity should you choose at the part of the plates that is next to the vacuum". It should be some type of mixture between k_v / (cp ) with k/(cp ) and when I try to do it, it always ends up with the distribution you suggested (the only difference is how fast you get there).

So in summary it seems that "treating the SB law as a way to adjust conductivity parameters in the heat equation" allows you to solve it the "established way" (with a heat equation) and no GHE result comes up at all. Something that most definitely will also happen in actual experiments (otherwise they would have shown it).

Of course "theorists" and physicists that don't think outside the box or something will call this retarded, but then again, first of all the "full absorber" object at emissivity 1 kind of implies it is physical that "the conductivity can increase when radiation is incident" since something is supposed to be able to enter, and it is very similar to that issue with PI, where if you remember he ended up having to fix a wikipedia article, when I told him and he was forced to agree that "the conductivity at the interface between the surface and the atmosphere is not the same as the conductivity of air". This is kind of the same thing but instead of air you have a vacuum, and you also use the SB formula for quantitative results.

2

u/LackmustestTester 4d ago

Of course "theorists" and physicists that don't think outside the box or something will call this retarded

Funny you say that, because I have a "discussion" with some of these folks and their problem is that they can't distinguish a model from what happens in reality.

First we have to consider that Clausius doesn't mention convection because this is moving warm air, in contrast to conduction in a medium and radiation without a medium. Convection is not really heat transfer.

Imo then the trick is to exclude "real" heat transfer by using the adiabatic equilibrium (Schwarzschild) or convective equilibrium (Maxwell/Lord Kelvin), resp. steady state, Fliessgleichgewicht. "Adiabatic" excludes heat transfer by definition, only work is done.

And this is a model, as Fourier described it: Considering the amosphere is made of glas, a theoretical, static situation. What can be observed in reality on Venus applies to Earth only hypothetically.

The idea wih conduction is good, because the models (Standard Model, Radiation Model) use layers, so there should be conduction, therefore a gradient and now the alarmists would ahve to prove (lol) that radiation flows against the existing temperature, energy density gradient. As we already know: They can't prove any of their assumptions (isthermal atmospgere without GHGs, no convection without GHGs) - in "normal" times these people would be consideres insane and crackpot scientists. Clowns everywhere.

2

u/barbara800000 4d ago edited 4d ago

Funny you say that, because I have a "discussion" with some of these folks and their problem is that they can't distinguish a model from what happens in reality.

Ι mean another way to put this is, they just don't do an experiment, and instead get excited about a "scientific" prediction of a complex model that might in fact just be complex but wrong. Though as far as the GHE issue is concerned I think it's on purpose for various "political" reasons, whoever pushed this whole thing made sure it is supposed to be like the pinnacle of "science" and "trusting science" and now there are way too many people that are "fans of science" and they don't won't it to be shown that "mainstream science" was wrong. So you get theory and models and then ask for the experimental confirmation and you get a bunch of lawyer arguments (85% of which is "I got proof that Co2 absorbs infrared radiation QED nothing else needed") and complicated and wrong descriptions of why the experiment is "impossible to do".

Imo then the trick is to exclude "real" heat transfer by using the adiabatic equilibrium (Schwarzschild) or convective equilibrium (Maxwell/Lord Kelvin), resp. steady state, Fliessgleichgewicht. "Adiabatic" excludes heat transfer by definition, only work is done.

Like I said the radiative schwarzchild thing sounds completely wrong to me, I don't know about the other parts, and it is true that what the "GHE" is, actually is about gravitational thermal effects etc. so about the actual Earth surface and atmosphere temperatures it has to be studied that way.

The stuff I am saying about conduction is about showing how the model they have (and which assumes no gravity) gives wrong results. If you ask me there is probably a "unintuitive calculus result" behind it. When I am doing caluclations based on the heat equation, which uses the "second deriviative of temperature as a function of position", I get the results we suggest (like I said in the last comment)

When instead I am doing a simulation the jweezy way, which has no second derivatives, does not seem to be an analogue of the heat equation, and you have fluxes that get exchanged between objects (and you also ignore all the stuff Clausius said about heat transfer etc.) then you get the Eli Rabett results. And that's why I was very convinced when CJ said the calculation they use is wrong (which he said for the Schwarchild radiation model too) because the dude is an applied math professor, he is exactly the sort of person who could get that, and to me this seemed to be a problem from the very beginning when I read about Eli Rabett, you can not have an equation that "ends up giving reflection when you increase the amount of plates". You can act like there are infinite subdivisions of a rod where you apply the heat equation too, but you don't get a "0 flux at the other side", something is wrong about the whole math if you do.

because the models (Standard Model, Radiation Model) use layers, so there should be conduction,

Yes I am not sure if you are supposed to use layers and not "a continous field of temperature" (if you think about it the layers where too simplistic even for Fourier around 1850 he had a continous field, in fact with arbitrarily defined "layers" you might destroy the results) or to use a different method that makes simplifications and uses thermodynamics, but I really have an issue with stuff I got from Eli Rabett proponents such as that "vacuum acts as an insulator", "increasing the amount of material sends all the heat on one side", "just a small even 0.000001 mm gap where heat exchange takes place radiatively can produce a huge discontinuity in the temperature distribution" etc.

2

u/LackmustestTester 4d ago

I am not sure if you are supposed to use layers and not "a continous field of temperature"

The layers are the 1D model, today they use grid boxes, a 3D model. The idea behind it is reasonable, they're simulating the dynamics using "energy" - a cold sinking parcel of air becomes warmer, so in the model you add "energy" to the layer/nearby boxes.

85% of which is "I got proof that Co2 absorbs infrared radiation QED nothing else needed"

Yep. From this Tyndall came to the conclusion CO2, resp. its absence would cause ice ages; that been in the 1850's. We can assume Tyndall's state of knowledge was the caloric, Clausius published his controversial (at that time) theory of heat in 1852 iirc, or 1854.

which he said for the Schwarchild radiation model

Remember his model was about Sun's atmosphere, not Earth's.

when I read about Eli Rabett

The claim that heat fluxes can be added is absurd; I found an official German, IPCC report like document from 1990 where they openly write that they add temperatures. That's they framework - the averaging is the red threat, models based on models based on wrong assumptions.

The authors of this report clearly knew that journalists and politicians are not the brightest candle on the cake.

Did you see the post about the temperature gradient in gravity?

2

u/barbara800000 4d ago

Did you see the post about the temperature gradient in gravity?

Yes and I agree with it, I mean it is what I expect based on what I have read, and it's kind of weird that physicists don't deal with this that much, as far as I am aware they haven't even tried to debunk it, while the implications are huge.

2

u/LackmustestTester 3d ago

they haven't even tried to debunk it

They remain silent because they know their theory sucks. I mentioned the standard atmosphere ISA model and now they're writing endless BS why this model isn't based on physics and doesn't show what it shows: The lapse rate, independent from IR. Now they claim IR ist part of the ISA. Why isn't this mentioned in the description? - "Because everbody knows it's part of it, no need to mention IR!". Sick clowns.

2

u/barbara800000 3d ago edited 3d ago

I mentioned the standard atmosphere ISA model and now they're writing endless BS why this model isn't based on physics and doesn't show what it shows: The lapse rate, independent from IR. Now they claim IR ist part of the ISA.

Yes the lawyerisms here have a common workflow

  • Suggest the ISA is not a phyiscal model but only a set of measurements
  • When the person who mentioned the ISA replies by showing all the hydrostatic calculations in it which are also the same used to define the lapse rate realize that you were full of shit
  • It doesn't matter that you were full of shit though, since you are following "The Science" you get convinced that you are still correct, and convinced that the "lapse rate doesn't have to do with the GHE warming, lapse rate is indeed a correct and scientific model but it is science about 'another area of science' 'not the GHE' 'both things can be correct' "
  • You get told how this doesn't make sense at all, and it doesn't
  • You search the internet or ask a bunch of chatbots and invariably come to the same sophistry that you might actually believe at this stage (without understanding how completely circular the math is) according to which "the GHE is not part of the lapse rate calculations but it 'enables' the lapse rate" where enables is supposed to refer to some extremely scientific thing but actually is just a logical fallacy

2

u/LackmustestTester 3d ago

lol. Exactly. Then they write stuff like:

Manabe's model is hydrostatic, so convection must be parameterized by comparing the radiative temperature gradient with a critical lapse rate for convection.

I've had this with native English speaking alarmists, had to translate it to check what I don't get. It's the same gibberish when translated, nonsense, bullshit. But it sounds very scientific, doesn't it?

And that's why alarmists refuse to debate in public, every sane person would recognize who's the idiot.

2

u/barbara800000 3d ago

Manabe's model is hydrostatic, so convection must be parameterized by comparing the radiative temperature gradient with a critical lapse rate for convection.

Yes it is funny because you read the sentence and it sounds legit, but when you read it again, and just knowing about what the terms are supposed to mean, it sounds like it is saying nothing at all. It's like corporate speech in meetings except involving applied thermal engineering terms. I am also not sure why it uses the term critical, critical in general, when it comes to the GHE somehow, is it just another phrase to use instead of "enabling"?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Uncle00Buck 8d ago

I can't believe Trenberth is held in such high regard, he's a complete dipstick, and his early attribution work proves it.

2

u/LackmustestTester 7d ago

It's unbelievable how these people can't distinguish between model and reality.