
Gary Novak
The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate 
The StefanBoltzmann Constant is in Error It shows 2050 times too much radiation at normal temperatures. (NASA Charts)
The StefanBoltzmann constant shows how much radiation is given off by a square meter of any substance at a particular temperature. It is inappropriately applied to the atmosphere where there is no surface and where a transparent gas emits radiation much more readily than a surface does. W/m² = 5.670373 x 10^{8} x K^{4} Watts per square meter radiation equals a constant times degrees Kelvin to the fourth power.
Simple observations indicate that 2050 times too much radiation is projected by the StefanBoltzmann constant at normal temperatures. (See the NASA Energy Budget) The accuracy at higher temperatures is not apparent. A possible explanation is an S shaped curve due to chemical interactions and changes in state at normal temperatures. The actual curve would be different for each type of molelcule. At the claimed global average surface temperature of the earth (15°C), the error appears to be at least a factor of 30, and perhaps 50, as energy flows cannot be balanced properly with such high levels of radiation. Not the least reason for the error is that Planck's constant is used to derive the SBC, while there is no Planck's constant, because the whole concept of photons is absurd and admittedly in conflict with the wave nature of light. The errors in the StefanBoltzmann constant are used to rationalize greenhouse gases.
Physicists wrote an equation for the relationship between temperature and the amount of radiation emitted from a surface. Now they apply it to radiation from the atmosphere, which does not have a surface. Square meters are interchanged with cubic meters. They apply it to all matter—solids and gasses—at all temperatures. It is not logical that radiation would be uninfluenced by molecular forces including bonding and molecular weight. The absurdity of the result at normal temperatures shows that the equation does not properly represent nature. Anyone would know that radiation will escape from a transparent gas immensely easier than from an opaque solid. Applying the StefanBoltzmann constant to the atmosphere says the emission is the same for the atmosphere as for a solid surface. The only reason it is being done is because climatology cannot be reduced to simple math without the StefanBoltzmann constant. Do you think physicists measured the different substances to determine whether they all emit the same? They wrote up a ridiculously simplified equation and applied it to everything. It's a convenience equation. And it's not science. Physicists operate on the engineering principle that if they all use the same twisted ruler, it doesn't matter; and therefore, ultra simplification is called for. In science it matters.
StefanBoltzmann constant is too absurd to be used. It shows 459 watts per square meter being given off at room temperature of 27°C. That's almost five 100 watt bulbs from half of a table top. Night vision equipment shows it isn't happening. The StefanBoltzmann constant is this: W/m² = 5.670373 x 10^{8} x 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, which is 273 + °C). For exactness, this calculation must be adjusted for emissivity, which means variation from the StefanBoltzmann constant. For rough, nonreflective materials, it is usually in the range of 7595%. These variations show the influence of chemistry. At a normal temperature of 27°C (80°F), the StefanBoltzmann constant without emissivity indicates 459 W/m^{2} being radiated. At the assumed average temperature of the earth (15°C, 59°F), it's 390 W/m^{2}. At the freezing temperature of water (0°C, 32°F), it's 315 W/m^{2}. On a hot day of 37°C (98°F), it's 524 W/m^{2}. 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 3 100 watt light bulbs per square meter, the heat would interfere with the freezing process. Freezing would be highly finicky and prone to variation. On the graph below, the solid line is the curve produced by the StefanBoltzmann constant. The dotted line shows that there needs to be less radiation given off by normal temperature matter. The difference is the error in the StefanBoltzmann constant. Supposedly, the sun gives off 63 million W/m² at 5,780°K; an incandescent bulb, 4.6 million W/m² at 3,000°K; and normal matter, 459 W/m² at 300°K. To scale, the StefanBoltzmann curve looks like this: The fourth power on temperature creates an extreme bend in the curve and causes it to go almost straight horizontal at normal temperatures. The horizontal area shows way too much radiation at normal temperatures. The excessive radiation at normal temperatures is used to rationalize greenhouse gases. Natural effects do not normally have high exponents. The fourth power is probably a result of two errors combined—a squared result (exponent of 2) in heat and temperature relationships, which are assumed to be linear (nonexponential) and a squared result for heat and radiation relationships. But there would not be one curve for heatradiation relationships. Chemistry and other forces would create too much variation for a single curve, as indicated by emissivity. At extreme temperatures, additional forces probably add more variations. The linear relationship between heat and temperature is a convenience assumption based upon a closed circle of logic, because the actual measurements are extremely difficult to make and are not realistically being made. The transformation of kinetic energy into heat is represented by Joule's constant, which is given to 5 significant digits. But I showed mathematical proof that the definition of kinetic energy is wrong, which means there is no consistent Joule's constant. The 5 digit number has to be fakery. The actual curve for heat and radiation relationships looks like it would be S shaped, because a lot of change would occur at normal temperatures. Physicists used a smooth curve resulting from a simple exponent, and as a result, they got too much radiation at normal temperatures. Due to the exponent of 4 in the StefanBoltzmann constant, physicists have 11 times as much radiation being given off by the sun as a light bulb filament but only 1.9 times as much temperature. There could be other forces entering at the temperature of the sun, but this would be a bend in the curve, not an exponential curve. Is twice the temperature of a light bulb filament supposed to produce hydrogen fusion? Not hardly. In truth, greenhouse gasses add no heat to the atmosphere, because heat as radiation cools the planet by going around them, not through them. The atmosphere does not need greenhouse gasses to absorb and hold heat, as explained on the page titled Summary in Simple Words. With a corrected StefanBoltzmann constant, the surface of the earth without an atmosphere would emit 235 W/m^{2} at a temperature of something like 50°C, not 19°C. With an atmosphere, the surface average is 15°C. The atmosphere cools, as it should, because it is like a heat sink. This means the atmosphere picks up energy through conduction and convection, which removes heat much faster than radiation alone. Heat sinks (usually made of aluminum) are used for this reason throughout electronics to speed cooling. Physicists do not do conception analysis. They despise intuitive logic. Instead, they apply math without regard for the resulting absurdities. The problem is that the math has a high tendency to be wrong, incomplete or oversimplified. Besides the StefanBoltzmann constant resulting in too high of a quantity at low temperatures, the constant is applied to solids and gasses equally, which is absurd. Gasses have a three dimensional surface and low density, which promote the escape of radiation. Therefore, gasses should have a much higher quantity for radiation emission than solids. But there would not be a single constant for gasses, because the chemical composition would determine how radiation escapes, as greenhouse gasses demonstrate. These points should be quite secondary and not much relevance to global warming, because other factors determine the result. But fake scientists rely heavily upon the StefanBoltzmann constant as a rationalization gimmick. They focus upon such claims as radiation leaving the earth at a height of 5km attempting to create a concept in minds of there being a greenhouse effect. Global warming propaganda is all about impressions and a dark pit of unaccountable rationalizations. Why is the StefanBoltzmann 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 Bernoulli 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.


