Why don't climatologists use it to show how much radiation is given off by the earth? They should all show the same result if they did. But their claims for emissions from the earth's surface vary wildly based on estimates. Apparently, the Stephan-Boltzmann constant is too absurd for them to use.

The Stephan-Boltzmann constant is this:

5.67051 x 10^-8 ÷ K^-4

This result is the number of watts per square meter of infrared radiation supposedly given off by matter at a temperature represented by K (degrees Kelvin).

For exactness, this calculation must include the emissivity, which means percent radiation which is not blocked due to such things as reflection. But for nonmetalic surfaces, the emissivity is around 90-95%, which means it can be ignored for the rough estimates of nonmetals.

At a normal temperature of 27°C (80°F), the calculated result without emissivity is 459 W/m².

At the assumed average temperature of the earth (15°C, 59°F), it's 390 W/m².

At the freezing temperature of water (0°C, 32°F), it's 315 W/m².

On a hot day of 37°C (98°F), it's 524 W/m².

It isn't happening. Normal temperature matter is not giving off that much infrared radiation. Virtually everything in physics is in error, unless someone gets the error corrected, which requires a lot more accountability than often exists.

If freezing water were emitting and absorbing the heat of three 100 watt light bulbs per square meter, the heat would interfere with the freezing process. In some environments, water would freeze at 40°F, and elsewhere, it would freeze at 25°F. The stability of the freezing temperature of water shows that there is not a significant amount of radiation being emitted and absorbed at that temperature.

Conceptualize

Here's how to conceptualize the situation. Consider an object sitting on a table. If it were giving off radiation, it would be getting colder. It's temperature equilibrates for two reasons: It absorbs some radiation, while it gives off radiation; and air molecules add heat through conduction and convection.

But air has a very low heat capacity; so it does not add heat very effectively. And there is very little convection on a flat surface. So air is not doing a lot of equilibrating.

This type of radiation is called "black body radiation" or "black box radiation," because in a black box, the same amount of radiation is absorbed as emitted. Therefore, its temperature is not changed by radiation. To some extent, the same is assumed to be occurring for the surface of the earth. But there are a lot of errors in the assumptions.

First, compare a black box to a large room. In a large room, there is not the same amount of radiation going in all directions. If a chair were near an inside corner, it would be getting radiation from two directions near by and getting hot. If it were near an outside corner, it would not be getting much radiation, and it would be getting cold. But it always appears to be equilibrated at room temperature. Is this because the radiation from the far walls produces a homogeneous environment? No, because water vapor absorbs all radiation available to it in less than a meter, carbon dioxide in less than ten meters. Also, large rooms have so many angles that not all radiation is uniformly distributed. This means that if radiation were significant, objects would have various temperatures in a large room, but they always equilibrate at room temperature. This shows that the meager effects of air molecules totally over-ride the miniscule effects of radiation.

Outdoors, the differences are even more extreme, because there are no opposite walls. Shade on a hot day shows that there is a lot of difference between areas radiated by the sun and those that are not. The sun's energy will typically be two or three times the amount as the black body radiation on the earth's surface as indicated by the Stephan-Boltzmann constant. This means that there should be a very significant differential due to black body radiation apart from the sun's energy. If so, a thermometer in the shade would not give an accurate measurement of air temperature. But the thermometer is considered to be equilibrated with the air temerature. Almost a complete absence of black body radiation would be required to get such an equilibration with air temperature in the shade.

In other words, if normal temperature matter were really giving off a significant amount of infrared radiation, as the Stephan-Boltzmann constant indicates, a thermometer in the shade would not show a reliable temperature, because radiation would be altering its temperature.

Of course, the air is emitting black body radiation apart from sunshine. But how much? Emissions from a gas are nothing resembling emissions from the surface of a solid, because a gas does not have a surface. The extreme difference between a gas and a solid means radiation would not equilibrate at the same temperature as air temperature. But everything equilibrates extremely close to air temperature, which indicates that there is, in truth, very little radiation given off by normal temperature matter.

Emissivity Fudges for Metals

Physicists primary work with metals, not wood. The huge discrepancy between measurement and the Stephan-Boltzmann constant for metals is attributed to emissivity. For the tungsten filament of a light bulb, the Stephan-Boltzmann constant shows three times as much radiant energy as electrical energy. Supposedly, emissivity takes care of it.

Wikipedia states that a 60W incandescent light bulb has a filament length of 580 mm and diameter of 0.045 mm. That's 82 mm² or 8.2x10^-5 m². The electrical energy is 732,000 watts per square meter.

The temperature of incandescent filaments is said to be 2,000 to 3,300°K. A conservative estimate for a 60W bulb would be 2,500°K. (It is sometimes studied as 2,600°K.)

The Stephan-Boltzmann constant indicates that black body radiation emitted at 2,500°K should be 2,200,000 watts per square meter. That's three times as much radiation as electrical energy for the 60W bulb, and a lot of the energy goes to heat, not radiation. But the emissivity of tungsten is said to be 0.45 to 0.35 in the visible range. That still leaves a lot of unaccounted for energy, but there seems to be enough slop in the logic to dispel questions.

The real problem is that normal temperature non-metals (such as materials on the surface of the earth) have a high emissivity, and then the Stephan-Boltzmann constant appears to show about ten times as much radiation as actually occurs.

All in all, the Stephan-Boltzmann constant does not show enough slope. It's only slightly high for the hot filament of a light bulb, but it is about ten times what it should be for normal temperature matter. This slope is real convenient for diminishing the error where the measuring and studying occur (with a light bulb) while rationalizing the carbon dioxide fraud. Does this point to a conspiracy? It absolutely does. The conspiring is not done at some table, which doesn't exist; it is done in the spirit world, where every dot of every i is tailored for corrupt motives.

Errors in Physics

Why is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant so far off? Observable evidence shows that errors in science, particularly physics, are the maximum which accountability will allow. In physics, there is far less accountability than in biology due to its highly abstract nature.

Consider this simple example. Physicists claim that the Burnelli principle shows that the pressure of a gas is inversely proportional to velocity, and this allows airplane wings to lift weight due to the high velocity of the air over the top. The velocity is lower under the wing due to less curvature and less distance to travel. You can prove the physicists wrong by blowing on one side of a sheet of paper. Nothing happens. But fold a crease in the paper, and then blow across it. The paper is rapidly pulled by the crease. The crease creates a vacuum pump in the shaded area. High velocity air pulls air molecules out of a shaded area creating a vacuum pump. It is not the velocity alone but the shaded area that creates the force. This means physical shape, not raw velocity, determines the pressure effects of moving air, contrary to the claims of physicists.

This is why an airplane wing needs its bulge near the front instead of the back. If it were raw velocity creating the lift, the bulge would need to be near the back of the wing to increase the surface over which the high velocity air travels. But if it is a vacuum pump creating the lift, the bulge needs to be near the front, so there is more area for the vacuum behind the bulge. The wings have the bulge in front showing that it is the vacuum behind the bulge, not the high velocity in front of the bulge, which does the lifting.

The 41% Fraud