| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Temperature Rise of the Earth from Global Warming derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Physics, ignored by the U.N.
Notes on global warming, one way or the other:
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law concerns the radiation striking the earth and other bodies. It also covers the radiation of energy back into space from the earth.
It states:
Power = (Surface area of the the earth) times (the Stefan-Boltzmann constant) times (the net emissivity of the earth) times (the temperature of a body) raised to the fourth power.
So let's use this formula with and without man made global warming, GW. The real problem is to eliminate the net emissivity variable which is where GW believers fuzz up the math, the science, and say this law of physics doesn't apply. Really? It does
and that can be
proved. The surface area of a sphere like the solid earth, SA, is almost constant. So is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, SB, verified by Wein and Planck..
P1 = SA * E * SB * T1^4 without GW
P2 = SA * E *SB *T2^4 with GW from man
Just below, all the constants are combined into one number that is a new constant, K. It's value is about 1, (SA*E1*SB)/(SA*E2*SB). Let's assume the emissivity of the earth is constant. If it wasn't, then the temperature fluctuations over time on this planet would be larger than they are, year to year or within a year. So K is really equal to one on a constant climate earth, for now.
So, dividing these two formulas yields:
P2/P1 = K * (T2/T1)^4 = 1 * (T2/T1)^4
Or for a warming of 0.1 degrees at our average temperature on earth we get,
P2/P1 = K * [(288.1° Kelvin) / (288° Kelvin )]^4
P2/P1 is
a power ratio that can be expressed as a fraction or percentage.. T2/T1 can also be expressed as a percentage but it varies as the forth power.
All we need to do first is calculate the percentage of change of K from a slight 0.1 degree of temperature rise to get a feel for the change in E per 0.1 degree Kelvin or Centigrade.
(288.1º / 288º )^4 = 1.00138 = 1.0014
That's how much 0.1 degree of GW will change the constant K. It will change by 1.0014 or go up by a whopping 0.14% Now let's look at the other side of the formula, the power ratio. Here we have the same problem. How do you measure the radiation from the activities from man alone? Well, let's go outside the environmentalist box and run a few numbers.
Here are the two facts we need:
3.9×10^22 Joules, the estimated energy contained in the world's TOTAL fossil fuel *reserves* as of 2003. 5.5×10^24 Joules, the total energy from
the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth each year. This is the value of P1 normally hitting the earth.
P2 is really P1 plus the extra (heat) power from GW, Pgw, or P2 = P1 +Pgw.. However, we are interested in only the GW portion from Pgw caused by man, not the total increase from natural heating by the Sun.
Now remember, this is the total energy from all fossil fuel reserves not yet burned up but let's burn up all the fossil fuels up in one year in a super duper gas guzzler engine and the coal in a gazillion new Chinese and Indian power plants while the US switches to LED lights.
(3.9x 10^22 Joules burned up in one year) / (5.5 x 10^ 24 Joules from the sun per year) =
(0.709 X 10^-2) = 0.00709 or 0.709% from only man's activities as defined above.
So if we burned up all the fossil fuels remaining on the earth in one year, what would the resulting temperature rise be? K was only changed by 0.14%
from our fourth power of T calculation.
0.14% raises the temperature of the earth by 0.1 degree. So (0.1) * (0.709) / (0.14) is a 0.5 degrees Kelvin, Centigrade, or Celsius of warming from burning all the fossil fuel reserves in and on the earth in one year!!!
What a big threat. The temperature will go up 0.5 degrees after we burn up a 100 to 200 hundred year supply of all fossil fuels in one year. So the real temperature rise from the activities of man over time will be 0.5 degrees spread out over a hundred years or 0.005 degrees per year, assuming a straight line plot of usage. If I use 200 years, it will be even lower. Can your thermometer read a change of 0.005 degrees or less? Gore and his GW buddies can.
In my calculations, I assumed my earth had a constant emissivity because that is a sticky problem for environmentalists. The U.N. hates and doesn't use the S-B law and besides
the true emissivity is hard to determine.. Can we actually back calculate the value of the emissivity of the earth or at least it's range? Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we can.
I assumed that E2/E1 was equal to one in my outside the box calculation.
Now E for the earth is about 0.64. E can vary but how much does it vary because of MAN MADE GW? All we have to do is look at K = (SA*E2*SB)/(SA*E1*SB) = E2/E1.
So for the earth, E1 = 0.64. So any change in temperature has to be directly affecting E2, the new emissivity from the extra GW.
"The emissivities of terrestrial surfaces are all in the range of 0.96 to 0..99"******
"Clouds, however, which cover about half of the earth’s surface, have an average emissivity of about 0.5"******
"Taking all this properly into account results in an effective earth emissivity of about 0.64"*****
"E ice is 0.98"
"E water is 0.67"
"E black stuff is
0.96"
"E aluminum foil is 0.09!!"******
"E gold, polished foil is 0.03 (reflects infrared better than Al)"
Now the earth is not a polished gold surface nor a perfect reflector. It is more like a mix of sand, dirt, clouds, water, ice, and the biggest green house gas of all, water vapor. So we can increase the earth's emissivity to a totally outrageous painted black earth to near the new absurd E value of one by using the factor 1.0 / (0.64). Applying this new directly proportional and ridiculous factor, one can derive a new value for 0.005 degrees per year which I derived from the power side of the equation to yield a new maximum increase of 0.0078 degrees per year, [(1 * 0.005) / 0.64]. What's this ridiculous temperature rise in 100 years? 0.78 degrees. You'll see this number as 0.74 later.
So let's check this calculation with KNOWN published GW facts. In the last 100 years, the earth
has only warmed less than a degree or 0.5 degrees.
IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
"Warming in the last 100 years has caused about a 0.74 °C increase in global average temperature. This is up from the 0.6 °C increase in the 100 years prior to the Third Assessment Report."
So the real UN temperature rise from a new recalculation is being used to prove GW was only in error by a puny 0.14 degrees.
Oh darn. My bonfire guzzler temperature rise number of 0.5 degrees for a hundred years is off from the real rise of global temperatures of the "new" 0.74° C rise in the new "reevaluation" in the "new" UN report. Who's collecting this data and doing these calculations?
However, if the earth was painted black (E=0.999), then, (100 years) * [(1 * 0.005° C) / 0.64] is 0.78 degrees per year. So the UN number of 0.74 is real and has proved the earth is painted black, their effective emissivity value
for E2 must be 0.99, but none of this matches our real color of the earth, does it?
I am crushed. The infallible or unscrupulous UN has proved we were doomed over the last 100 years and are already dead. We were living on a black water world that absorbed all the energy since the Civil War in the USA. The world of Mick Jaggered Gore is painted black and we are all doomed. Sing along.
So if the power ratio for man GW goes up by a factor of 0.00709 times, what is the temperature rise in a back calculation in our Stefan-Boltzmann derived formula as related to the rise or fall in E2? What is the real E2 of the earth? The total power ratio would be 1 plus 0.00709.
1.00709/(E1/E2)(SA*SB/SA*SB) = 1.00709E2/E1 = (T2/288)^4
For E1 = 0.64 for the real earth, 1.5736 * E2 = (T2/288°)^4
The UN says the rise from man made GW is now recalculated to be 0.74 degrees. Fine. So that's
288.74 = T2
E2 = [(288.74/288)^4]/1.5736 = 0.642
So Mother Nature has buffered the effects of any global warming by using the biggest green house gas of all, water vapor that can change it's state of matter to do that buffering, unlike the trace gas that stays a gas, CO2. E2 really is almost constant like I initially used above.
Now let's look at the painted black earth of the UN and Gore where E2 = 0..99
1.00709/(E1/E2)(SA*SB/SA*SB) = 1.00709E2/E1 = (T2/288)^4
For E2 = 0.99, 1.5736 * 0.99 = (T2/288)^4
1.5579^.25 * 288 = T2 = 321.8
That's a whopping rise of 33.75 degrees C or K for a UN doomsday emissivity of 0.99 for the good black earth.
So 321.8°K is an average temperature of the earth of 119.6 degree F. Really?
Clearly the emissivity of the earth changed very little to 0.642 and is almost constant. Okay. It's a 0.31% rise that the climate of earth and man changes the earth's emissivity to
yield an incorrect rise of 0.74 degrees C, according to the UN, Gore, and his buddies.
Remember I used the infallible UN's new temperature rise number, 0.74, and the factor for burning up all the fossil fuels on earth in one year, 1.00709.
The levels of CO2 have risen 50% in the last hundred years but the emissivity has not changed much at all and neither has the earth warmed up into the UN's 119.6 degrees F average temperature. A 50% rise in the emissivity would be E2 = 0.64 * 1.50 = 0.96. Oops! CO2 didn't make the emissivity rise to 0.96, did it?
Gore and the UN are a fraud. My average temperature at my house has never ever peaked to 119.6 degrees F (E2 = 0.99).
So CO2 levels are changing wildly. What didn't change much? What was the green house gas that can buffer the effects of the Sun's output and those of man? What is the only condensible gas that is a green house gas above -30 C? What gas is present in high concentrations so that minor fluctuations will not affect the average emissivity or earth climate much? The answer is water vapor, the biggest green house and buffering gas of them all.
The burning of all the fossil fuel reserves on the earth in one year is like throwing a tanker truck of sulfuric acid into the huge volume of the ocean and saying you raised the pH of the ocean an alarming amount after mixing it in. When things get out of control, Mother Nature either condenses water vapor with its associated removal of the heat of vaporization, forms ice from water with its removal of its heat of fusion, heats up the top layer of the ocean to volatilize water and create clouds with its added heat of vaporization, or melts ice to water with an added heat of fusion. CO2 can't do that and is a trace gas.
Mother Nature created a beautiful water molecule feedback system to maintain Her various
creations of DNA macromolecules and buffer the effects of the variable output of Her creation of our Sun. It's a beautiful system that follows the Stefan-Boltzmann law proven by the likes of Max Planck, Wein, and others mentioned in the 1911 Noble Peace Prize speech available on line. Stefan and Boltzmann never knew how big and fundamental their law really was. It was Wein that hammered in the first nail to prove half the Stefan-Boltzmann Law of physics. It was Planck and Planck's Law that hammered in the last nail to prove the Stefan-Boltzmann law of physics covers a wide range of radiation that is part of any global heating or cooling.
No wonder the UN never used this law in their report to prove GW! It proves they and Global Warming is a HOAX.
Stefan.