Spencer on Varney & Co Talking Obama’s Clean Power Plan

August 11th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Stuart Varney interviewed me live this morning during Varney & Co on Fox Business…I did not know the specific questions he would ask, so I was kind of winging it:


221 Responses to “Spencer on Varney & Co Talking Obama’s Clean Power Plan”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. gbaikie says:

    I think you should remind people that Chinese manufacturing produces more CO2 than a US manufacturing. So what US has been doing and what Obama is doing is increasing global CO2.

    And in addition China causes more air pollution for each MW generated and compared to each MW generated in the US, and air pollution is has a global effect.
    One aspect is that soot will cause more of melting of Greenland ice cap then compared to a few tenths of degree in global average temperature.
    And other than the obvious effect of Chinese air pollution
    on the people in China, but from orbit can see Chinese pollution effect upon the globe.

    So the actions of US government and what Obama is doing has cause the Chinese double the amount of global CO2 emission in terms US total emission and has cause increase in global pollution [or more than wiped out any benefit of US clean air act in terms of global pollution.
    Or analogy is it’s like going back to 1950 US technology in terms of it’s energy efficiency and causation of pollution and increasing by more than factor 10.
    One part of this is the US has lowered in CO2 emission by using cleaner natural gas- because the fracking [which the Left is oppose to].
    The Chinese have lots natural gas available if they use the modern technology of fracking. Obama should have argued for Chinese to ramp up the production and use of natural gas, rather than continue to build coal power plants at completely mad rate [and it’s unwise for Chinese to consume their domestic coal reserves at such furious rate- it cost the Chinese people a lot money in the future and cause global economic crisis].

    • fonzarelli says:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/mean:24/derivative/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.10

      What people really need to be reminded of is that carbon growth tracks with temperature. Any nominal cuts in co2 will have no impact on carbon growth whatsoever (and thus no impact on global temps whatsoever) AND it remains to be seen what impact draconian cuts (such as kyoto) would have…

      • gbaikie says:

        “In the political battles over climate change, there are three distinct and relevant questions. First, does mankind have a material affect on the Earth’s climate? Second, if mankind does impact the climate, is that impact harmful? And third, if we assume that mankind is harming the environment, will any given American policy or collection of policies have a meaningful beneficial impact?”
        And:
        “The Left doesn’t seriously dispute the notion that American regulations aren’t going to save the planet, but they justify the demand for American sacrifice..”
        [[And Lefties, who are fundamentally immoral asshats, tend lecture about it in terms of morality.]]
        And:
        The short version of Fiorina’s argument is this: If the scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is real, there is also consensus that America, acting alone, cannot stop it. Indeed, the Chinese are only too happy to watch us constrict our economy as they capture the market in clean coal.”
        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422395/carly-fiorina-climate-change-left

        Fiorina is politician, actually, the Chinese capture the market by using coal.
        Coal is not clean- and what Chinese are doing is not something one should vaguely associate with clean coal or cleaner coal use.
        [Though burning coal is always cleaner than burning wood.]

        A significant part of “clean coal” is using better quality coal, and the Chinese are using coal which not better.
        And the coal powerplant can be designed to process coal so it burns with less pollutants, but the Chinese are also not doing this.
        [Unless you want to believe the Chinese propaganda. Rather than note that their cities are filled with smog with everyone walking around in face masks]

        • mpainter says:

          “First, does mankind have a material affect on the Earth’s climate?”

          ####

          That is a question separate and aside from AGW. CO2 is the issue; the quote above addresses all environmental considerations that relate to weather/climate: deforestation, irrigation, UHE, etc.

          Make the wise-sayers stick to CO2.

    • David Appell says:

      “I think you should remind people that Chinese manufacturing produces more CO2 than a US manufacturing.”

      The U.S. has played a major role in creating this problem – as a country, we’ve put up 28% of the extra CO2 that is in today’s atmosphere and ocean. China, only 12%, India 3%. That puts a moral obligation on us to lead.

      And as individuals, we emit 2.9 times more than the Chinese, and 11 times more than the Indians.

      Not to mention, about 16% of Chinese emissions are for products consumed in the U.S., and about 9% for Europe.

      • mpainter says:

        The world is indebted to the US for providing the biosphere with so much atmospheric CO2, entirely beneficial,the very essence of life.

        And it is not a bit poisonous is it David? Notwithstanding the _liars_ who say that it is.

      • gbaikie says:

        The moral aspect related to climate climate is tyranny of US government with it’s policies regarding purported solutions CO2 emission which entangled in massive amounts of corruption.
        And it’s regulatory regime which oppresses it’s citizens Plus stupidity of an EPA that accidentally pollute rivers:
        “CNN)The mustard hue of the Animas River in Colorado — the most visible effect of a mistake by the Environmental Protection Agency that dumped millions of gallons of pollutants into the water — is striking. ”
        http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/us/colorado-epa-mine-river-spill/

        As far as China is concerned it’s totalitarian state.
        And we don’t need any totalitarian states in our world.
        And a small example of such totalitarian state is Cuba:
        http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/cuba-neither-bread-nor-freedom
        Which is china on a mini scale and though Cuba State is more inexplicably incompetent and murderous, but has one advantage it’s museum for the results of socialism and totalitarian messianic beliefs.

        • mpainter says:

          “And we don’t need any totalitarian states in our world.”

          David Appell needs totalitarian states in order to implement his program: prison terms for “deniers”.

      • rah says:

        David Appell says:

        “The U.S. has played a major role in creating this problem”

        What “problem”?

        I have not seen one prognostication of negative impacts in the natural world that can be proven to be caused by man elevated CO2 come to pass so please fill me in.

        Show me the starting indications of the “death spiral” because I sure haven’t noticed any.

        It does seem though that all indications are that on a whole the world is greening.

      • Phyte On says:

        And thus Americans enjoy far less suffering and misery compared to China. CO2 carbon footprint has a direct correlation to improved standard of living. Higher carbon footprint = higher standard of living = higher quality of life.

        Low carbon footprint results in less prosperity.

      • david dohbro says:

        this POV is based on false prophecy: the thinking that we need “to pay” aka “suffer” for when things are going well (we’re sinning) and that we will pay when things go bad or we need to pay/suffer to prevent things from going bad. Anyway you look at it, this type of thinking -which is a christian/religious based thinking- ensures we always have to “pay”/suffer. As such environmentalism is based on religious thinking: both try to change mankind and government.

        But, real science does NOT try to change mankind and government. It theorizes, observes, and reports the observations to see if the theory is right or wrong. That’s all science does.

        Appell et al., the false environmental prophets, are therefore NOT scientists. They try to make us consume less (less than what? what is the right amount of consumption… they won’t tell because they can’t); try to make us live “simpler” (simpler than what?, back to the good old days? which were only old, not good); and try to refrain us from using policies that enhance economic growth and prosperity (without realizing that it is both that have gotten our well-being and well-fair to where we are now, and they are enjoying its very fruits).

        They want you to bet your farm on that if you pay/suffer now things will be better tomorrow, but they never bet their own farm. Instead they are part of the establishment. Hence, would you trust such a person’s predictions?

        People like Appell et al. have false misconceptions about the past. they paint an ideal picture of it forgetting things were far worse then vs now. (think cures for diseases, level of child-birth-deaths, food supply, drinking water quality, income, resource availability, easy of travel, etc etc) Due to our great advancements everything has gotten much better, and continue to get better. The things they try to enforce upon is will only make things worse.

  2. JDAM says:

    NOAA’s NCDC has managed to remove most of the warming pause.
    Last year I ran a few plots using the NDCD’s Climate at a Glance website and I reran them today.
    1995-2013 was 0.09°C/Decade it is now 0.12°C/Decade
    1996-2013 was 0.08°C/Decade it is now 0.12°C/Decade
    1997-2013 was 0.05°C/Decade it is now 0.09°C/Decade
    1998-2013 was 0.04°C/Decade it is now 0.08°C/Decade
    1999-2013 was 0.07°C/Decade it is now 0.11°C/Decade
    2000-2013 was 0.04°C/Decade it is now 0.09°C/Decade
    2001-2013 was 0.00°C/Decade it is now 0.05°C/Decade
    2002-2013 was -0.02°C/Decade it is now 0.03°C/Decade
    2003-2013 was -0.02°C/Decade it is now 0.03°C/Decade
    2004-2013 was -0.01°C/Decade it is now 0.04°C/Decade

    Just for fun I ran these
    1995-2014 0.13°C/Decade
    1996-2014 0.13°C/Decade
    1997-2014 0.10°C/Decade
    1998-2014 0.10°C/Decade
    1999-2014 0.13°C/Decade
    2000-2014 0.11°C/Decade
    2001-2014 0.08°C/Decade
    2002-2014 0.07°C/Decade
    2003-2014 0.07°C/Decade
    2004-2014 0.09°C/Decade
    2005-2014 0.08°C/Decade

    Source – http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

  3. Transport by Zeppelin says:

    Marvellous effort that, Roy.

  4. Dan Pangburn says:

    There has always been adequate CO2 in the atmosphere (more than about 150 ppmv). Without it, life as we know it could have never evolved. If CO2 was a forcing on temperature, it would cause temperature change according to the time-integral of the CO2 level (or the time-integral of a function of the CO2 level). The only way that this time-integral could consistently participate in the ‘measured’ (proxy estimate) average global temperature for at least the last 500 million years is if the effect of CO2 on average global temperature is zero and the temperature change resulted from other factors.

    • David Appell says:

      So do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit it?

      • mpainter says:

        CO2 does not absorb IR, except in a limited amount, being restricted to a very narrow portion of the spectrum (about 3%). Nothing to be concerned about.

        • Norman says:

          mpainter,

          I am not sure where you got the 3% of IR spectrum from?

          IR spectra observed by
          a satellite spectrometer
          From this link:
          http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/…/AtmoEmission_lecture_slides.pdf

          From looking at the missing energy making it to satellites in orbit I would strongly believe the area under the curve is missing a lot more than 3% of the energy emitted by the Earth’s surface.

          If you have other information please share it. We are here to learn. I just have a difficult time accepting unsubstantiated statements without some evidence to support them. You may have problems with David Appell but he does seem to send links to support his claims. It does not hurt to do this if learning or teaching are your primary goals.

          Thanks.

          • mpainter says:

            Norman, you say “We are here to learn.”

            If you are here to learn, then you must pay attention.
            The first thing that you need to do is read my comment again. Try to pay better attention. It is very tiresome when someone attributes meaning which they have made up. Let’s see if you can get it right.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Norman says:
            August 12, 2015 at 9:34 AM

            mpainter,

            I am not sure where you got the 3% of IR spectrum from?

            IR spectra observed by
            a satellite spectrometer
            From this link:
            http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/…/AtmoEmission_lecture_slides.pdf–
            That link doesn’t work

            –From looking at the missing energy making it to satellites in orbit I would strongly believe the area under the curve is missing a lot more than 3% of the energy emitted by the Earth’s surface.–
            Ok, how much do you think it is?

          • Norman says:

            gbaikie

            Maybe this link would work better.

            http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/AtmoEmission_lecture_slides.pdf

            I am not sure how much IR carbon dioxide absorbs out of the spectrum of Earth’s surface. In my chemistry days one method was to use a super precise balance and weigh the paper after cutting out the difference.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Norman says:
            August 12, 2015 at 12:23 PM

            gbaikie

            Maybe this link would work better.

            http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/AtmoEmission_lecture_slides.pdf

            I am not sure how much IR carbon dioxide absorbs out of the spectrum of Earth’s surface. In my chemistry days one method was to use a super precise balance and weigh the paper after cutting out the difference.–
            I don’t think that would be accurate.
            But from of link I saw nothing that indicated the CO2 blocks more than 3%

        • Norman says:

          mpainter,

          I did reread your comment and it is not really a meaningful in terms of being concerned or not concerned. You need to look at an IR spectrum of Earth’s IR. Most of the energy emitted by the Earth’s surface (in IR) is at the wavelengths carbon dioxide absorbs at. A more meaningful statement would be to determine how much energy is not leaving the system because of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And sorry to get you point wrong.

          http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/AtmoEmission_lecture_slides.pdf

          You can look at this link and see what you think about how much energy is not leaving the Earth system because of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere.

          I wonder if geran will think actual measured values are also pseudoscience?

          • fonzarelli says:

            Norman, a couple arguments that i’ve heard are that IR somehow gets converted to kinetic energy & that the IR ends up missing the satellite (through scattering?). Any thoughts on these arguments? As usual, thanx much…

          • geran says:

            Norm, “actual measured values” often “bust” pseudoscience. You know about getting “busted”, right?

      • geran says:

        Davie, do you think that CO2 just absorbs IR and never emits it?

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        David – Apparently you have not read the analysis at agwunveiled or lack the engineering science skill to understand it. Please identify specifically any error you find.

    • Mike M. says:

      Dan Pangburn,

      “If CO2 was a forcing on temperature, it would cause temperature change according to the time-integral of the CO2 level (or the time-integral of a function of the CO2 level).”

      Nice. Make up your own fantasy physics and then draw sweeping incorrect conclusions from it.

      • Bob Burban says:

        “If CO2 was a forcing on temperature, it would cause temperature change according to the time-integral of the CO2 level (or the time-integral of a function of the CO2 level).”

        And the first word in this statement is …?

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Mike – Apparently you lack the engineering science skill to understand this stuff in spite of two detailed discussions in the agwunveiled analysis. Perhaps you can find someone to explain it to you.

  5. Dan Pangburn says:

    Further discussion of the proof CO2 has no effect on average global temperature (AGT) and identification of what has caused AGT change for at least the last 400 years are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com Only one input (annual, average daily sunspot number) is needed or used and it is publicly available. The match is better than 97% since before 1900.

    • Slipstick says:

      Where are the aerosols in your equations?

      • Eunice says:

        Here’s a fun one, and maybe even Roy will weigh in.

        First, aerosol forcing took a pretty big haircut in the AR5.

        But second, I was nosing around this great site and came upon a satellite measurement of the most important aerosol, Total Column Sulfur Dioxide.

        I was expecting to see big maximums over China and India from the industry and unscrubbed coal use.

        What did I find instead?
        See for yourself here ( you may have to carefully scrape the URL ):

        http://realearth.ssec.wisc.edu/?products=globalir.50,AURA-SO2.100&center=38,-97&zoom=3&width=1110&height=639&timeproduct=AURA-SO2&timespan=-7200s

        I even amazed myself by nosing further and noticing the big maximum over Vanuatu and sure enough googling papers noting the exceptional volcanic release of SO2 there.

        But further I noticed the overall maximum over a wide area of the Southern Ocean and plumes which dynamically reached equatorward.

        Anthropogenic SO2 may be present, and may even have an effect, but it doesn’t even rate in the observations and is certainly determined in large part by dynamics.

        • David Appell says:

          That plot is for one day only, right?

          • mpainter says:

            Go find a day that you like, David, and show it to us. As in fat chance.

          • Eunice says:

            The data appear to be refreshed daily, but as you can see, the satellite data of available calculation yields only the narrow tracks. Still, we can make out the large amounts over the Southern Ocean and even the Vanuatu max.

        • Mike M. says:

          Eunice,

          Your link does not seem to work. And what do you mean by “to carefully scrape the URL”?

          What is being plotted? If it is a global map, it might be from satellites. Satellites often only measure the column above a certain altitude. Anthropogenic SO2 emissions are mostly confined to the lowest part of the troposphere. So the measurements may largely exclude anthropogenic emissions.

          • Eunice says:

            Hmmm… when I click on the link as posted, it seems to work.

            You can go here:

            http://re.ssec.wisc.edu/ and add the layer.

            Click on: Layers->All->NESDIS->Total Column Sulfur Dioxide

            and click the add symbol (+)

            Yes, this is a calculation derived from satellite observations.
            It is an estimate of Total Column SO2.
            That Anthro SO2 is emitted low is true, but so too is the natural Vanuatu SO2, yet it appears as a striking maximum.

            This doesn’t mean anthro SO2 is not important.
            However, natural SO2 appears to be 5 times as large or more than
            it is over industrial areas.

            Because of this, it would seem that there is a large amount of uncertainty about the estimates of SO2 effect on albedo.

          • Eunice says:

            Although, looking at today’s imagery, I can see localized maxima over the Tibetan Palteau and the algorithm appears not to be perfect ( unlikely discontinuities ).

            Interesting to look at though.

        • mpainter says:

          Eunice,
          Interesting, but can you explain? I can see the satellite tracks, but why the tear shape lozenges in the southern oceans? Also, is that associated with the upwelling at the Anarctic Convergence Zone? If not, what natural processes account for the high SO2 levels there?
          Thanks, mpainter

        • Slipstick says:

          The reason I asked about aerosols was not so much about recent conditions, rather for historical reasons, which is the purpose of Mr. Pangburn’s curve fit equation. Aerosols were a significant factor in the mid-20th century climate, before strict controls were instituted in Europe and North America and Mr. Pangburn’s equation does not account for this. Note that aerosols have, in general, less persistence in the atmosphere than CO2.

          Regarding China, they began an aerosol emissions reduction program about 10 years ago. It will be some time before it becomes pervasive, although their SO2 emissions began declining about 5 years ago. I don’t have any knowledge of the situation in India.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Slip – It is revealing that you think that an equation expressing conservation of energy, which needs (and uses) only one publicly available input (sunspot numbers) and calculates average global temperatures that accurately match (R^2 = 0.97+) 5-year running average of reported measured average global temperatures since before 1900 is a “curve fit equation”.

            Any effect from aerosols must find room in the less than 3% that remains unexplained. Do you need to be reminded that it is a big planet (compared to area that might be affected by aerosols) and most of it is covered by oceans?

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Included in the less-than-3% unexplained.

    • David Appell says:

      Proof CO2 affects surface temperatures:

      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

      Press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

  6. fonzarelli says:

    fourteen of fifteen years are the warmest on record… This is akin to saying that anyone walking around on a landing atop a staircase is higher up than at any time that he was on the stairs.

    • Slipstick says:

      Except that we’re still adding to the stairs. I fully expect to see another step appear within the next 4 years; how big a step is to soon to say.

      • geran says:

        Slip, your bias is showing! (Bias, your slip is showing.)

        “Steps” can go down as well as up.

        • Slipstick says:

          geran,
          That actually made me laugh. My “bias” is based on the science, not some emotional/political/sociological/religious/whatever belief or wishful thinking.

          Show me one model that has been more correct than the one accepted by nearly every scientific organization on the planet, the one you constantly decry as “failed”.

          Allow me to quote an excerpt from the statement on climate change on the American Petroleum Institute website:
          [referring to oil and natural gas]”…, emissions from their production and use may be helping to warm our planet by enhancing the natural greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.”

          If there was any, ANY credible science that could demonstrate that CO2 is not “enhancing” the current global warming, don’t you think the petroleum industry, which includes some of the wealthiest corporations on Earth, would shower the scientists involved with every penny they could possibly want to further and promote their work. That ain’t happening, so there ain’t no such science.

          • geran says:

            “Show me one model that has been more correct…”
            ________
            That’s one of my points, Slip. The models don’t work for the Warmists.

            And Slip, major oil and gas companies give millions of $ to “green” and Warmist groups. It is not uncommon practice in the culture of “corporate think”. There is pretty strong evidence that even the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at UAE, was started with funding from Shell and BP.
            More often than not, big corporations are their own worst enemy.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Slip – You say “accepted by nearly every scientific organization on the planet,”

            Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

            The equation in the analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com does much better than the GCMs.

          • Andrew M. says:

            >>”Show me one model that has been more correct than the one accepted by nearly every scientific organization on the planet”

            You never specified it had to be a complete physical model, so here’s a hybrid statistical/physical model that meets your criteria.
            http://i.imgur.com/jOLMXcP.gif

            Using only training data up to 1990 it hindcasted the 2001-2013 hiatus when the IPCC’s solar-blind models couldn’t. Therefore it is more accurate on temperature prediction than any of the models used in AR4.

            By 2022, and no sooner, we will know how much CO2 contributes to surface temperature, because only then will we be in an era where solar activity and the AMO are pulling in the opposite direction from CO2.

          • Slipstick says:

            Mr. Pangburn,
            All the sunspot based models I’ve seen showed a cooling trend developing in the last 5 or 6 years; some were adjusted when that did not happen. Had temperatures remained low after the last ENSO “bounce”, I would be giving those models more credence, but that is not the case. Now it appears we are heading into a ’97-’98 magnitude El Nino; what is the source of that energy?

          • geran says:

            “…what is the source of that energy?”
            ________

            Slip, the Sun is the “source”. Atmospheric CO2 is the product of combustion. It represents a “spent fuel”. Hydrocarbons reacting with oxygen produce water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2 is not a “heat source”. Check ii out with any high school chemistry book.

            You might need to write it on your forehead: “CO2 is NOT a heat source”.

            That way, you won’t forget.

          • Slipstick says:

            geran,
            CO2 is not a “heat source”; it does however absorb IR radiation in a band near the peak of the Earth’s emission spectrum and where other atmospheric gases absorb little. Much of this energy is then reradiated at longer wavelengths where water, which, in case you weren’t aware, covers 70% of the Earth’s surface and is about 0.5% of the atmosphere, is a strong absorber, nearly 100%. Increasing CO2 enhances this effect and slows the release of the energy supplied, by our old friend Sol, from the Earth, raising the temperature of the Earth’s climate. Whether you consider this a slowing of cooling or a warming is merely matter of semantics; either way the result is the same.

            Of course, variations in solar output affect the Earth’s temperature, but the rate and magnitude of temperature change we’ve experienced in the last 30 years cannot be explained solely (is that a pun?) by those variations, since it exceeds those in the paleoclimatological record. So what has changed in the last century? The mix of climate gases has, and primarily because of human activities.

          • geran says:

            No Slip, you continue to let your belief system control you. CO2 is not “magic”. It cannot violate the laws of physics. It does not sit in the atmosphere, “trapping” heat and redirecting that “heat” back down to Earth to melt the mountains like a sci-fi ray gun! You need to cleanse the IPCC pseudoscience from your system so that you can think for yourself.

            1) The atmosphere (considered as a “control volume”) does not “warm” the oceans (considered as a “control volume”). If you continue to spout that, it just indicates you do not understand thermodynamics.

            2) “Whether you consider this a slowing of cooling or a warming is merely matter of semantics; either way the result is the same.” Slip, if you continue to spout that, it just indicates you do not understand thermodynamics. The atmosphere is not a “blanket” and it is not a “thermos bottle”.

            3) “…the rate and magnitude of temperature change we’ve experienced in the last 30 years cannot be explained solely by those [solar] variations, since it exceeds those in the paleoclimatological record.” Slip, that sentence is ENTIRELY your belief system. There is NO science there. You WANT to believe that, but it is NOT science. We do not yet fully understand our Sun and Earth systems, so there is NO way you can rule out “natural variation”. And, our “paleoclimatological record” is seriously FLAWED. “Tree rings”? Get serious!

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Slip – El Nino is part of a temperature oscillation of which the other part is La Nina which is cooler. The near perfect correlation since before 1900, between calculated and reported average global temperatures, considered that there was no net energy change to the planet from ocean surface temperature oscillations.

            CO2 has no effect on climate as demonstrated by paleo temperature data as discussed in detail in the agwunveiled paper.

            IMO warmer surface water increases atmospheric water vapor which slows energy loss from terrestrial radiation (temporarily propping up reported average global temperatures). When the on-going El Nino peters out, I expect it to be followed by a strong La Nina which, combined with other factors, will appear as a dramatic down trend in reported average global temperatures and expose the war on fossil fuels as an egregious mistake.

          • Slipstick says:

            geran,
            1) As I said, whether you call it slowing the rate of cooling or warming, the result is the same.
            2) It absolutely is.
            3) Ignoring the evidence is your choice; that doesn’t mean it’s the correct choice.

          • geran says:

            Oh, Slip, you are so confused.

            So, in your silly pseudoscience is Earth’s atmosphere a “blanket”, a “thermos bottle”, or a “greenhouse”?

  7. boris says:

    Roy,

    You were posted in this on Yahoo so gets the word out further. In my humble opinion I think the place to take off is that CO2 is not a pollutant! Despite all the misrepresentation to make it appear that this is somehow connected to suspended particulate pollution it is NOT. It’s a colorless, odorless, gas that is essential to all life and is not even toxic in concentrations 100’s of times those that currently exist. Seems to me that should always be made clear

  8. Bob Tisdale says:

    Roy, once again, well done. Well-timed statement that El Nino events cause long-term global warming.

    Thank you.

    • David Appell says:

      And where does all the added extra energy come from — 250 trillion Watts for the top half of the ocean over the last 10 years?>

    • GW says:

      Great Job Dr. Spencer ! Especially getting it out there about the more frequent El Nino’s.

      And Dave Appell, check the long term charts for ENSO. There are mutidecadal periods of stronger and more frequent El Nino’s followed (or preceded by) multidecadal periods of stronger and more frequent La Nina’s. The average period (one cycle) appears to be around 60 years. This is clearly evident throughout the record, and most obviously has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

      Now go get that cat scan.

  9. Norman says:

    Roy Spencer,

    I do think you did a good job of covering the basics of your perspective on Climate Science. You seemed relaxed and confident in your statements.

    You are getting the message out there that there are consequences to trying to eliminate fossil fuels. The poor will suffer most.

    After a vacation across the Midwest this last week more than just the poor may suffer if we rely too much on wind. There was very little wind and a lot of windmills were not even turning in Iowa, and Illinois. Man went away from wind because nothing has changed. It is not a reliable source of power.

    • David Appell says:

      Because the poor need cheap energy does not mean you or Roy does.

      Stop being a cheapskate and, immorally, using the poor as an excuse for your own pollution. You and Roy and I are easily affluent enough to afford clean energy. I buy 100% clean offsets from my power company — the extra cost comes to $2.37/month on average.

      Somehow I scrap the pennies together every month to pay this.

      • mpainter says:

        What pollution, pray tell.

        And talk about cheapskate- you are the true believer yet you pony up only $2.32/month? Tsk, tsk, what a hypocrite. How ugly the truth about you!

        • David Appell says:

          $2.32/month covers my CO2 pollution and makes my emissions 100% green.

          I also pay $5.00/month towards the development of 500 kWh of renewable power.

          • mpainter says:

            It looks worse and worse for you, Appell. Can’t you dig any deeper than that for the cause? Tsk, tsk. What a hypocrite.

          • geran says:

            Hey Davie, I will use a little extra electricity and gas now. Not only will I be more comfortable, but I will be canceling out your carbon “credits”.

            It just gets better and better….

          • Mike M. says:

            David,

            “$2.32/month covers my CO2 pollution and makes my emissions 100% green.”

            Bull. The 2.32 does not cover your pollution, it does not include the portion that I pay, or the portion that Roy pays, or the portion that all the other taxpayers pay. And the fact that you are posting here shows that you are far from “100% green” since your ISP is not 100% green. Neither is the manufacturer of your computer or the manufacturers of all its components. Or the producers of any of the products you use, including food.

            The reason that you and Roy and I are so affluent is largely due to the availability of abundant cheap energy. Get rid of that, and we won’t be nearly so affluent.

            You sound like a typical smug, ignorant leftist.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Mike, that’s because he IS a typical smug, ignorant leftist…

          • Lewis says:

            David: What a rationalization. Do you really believe you make a difference? Do you really believe CO2 generated by the actions of homo sapiens is detrimental to anything?

            In the meantime you most of what you consume is produced in large part by petroleum products and the electricity by coal. But if you’re serious about saving the planet from such, as the saying goes, ‘everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to leave.’ The choice to really help is available to you.

  10. rah says:

    Great Job again!

    OT, but I just took the dog out to do her business. Standing off the back of my deck facing east I saw my first two comets from what about has to be the Persied shower in a period of about four minutes. Thursday morning may be a better than average peak for that shower so if your lucky enough to have good skies and your so inclined go out and face the NE and enjoy the show.

  11. Doug Cotton says:

    Roy, I still say you need to understand the thermodynamics of the atmosphere so that you can grasp why there is absolutely no way that IR-active gases can cause the surface temperature to rise. The Sun’s direct radiation cannot warm the surface to observed levels, so the slowing of radiative cooling by back radiation is irrelevant. Besides, rain forests are not 60 degrees hotter than deserts. Look at the study in my 2013 paper linked at http://climate-change-theory.com and spot check the data used from the source I cited. It shows water vapor cools.

    You say in the video we don’t know how much of the warming is natural: but we do – all of it is.

    I pointed out in 2011 that there was not only slight cooling since 1998, but that the current trend of slight cooling would continue for a total of about 30 years after 1998, being half of the 60 year natural cycle that is superimposed on the long term (~1,000 year) cycle. The latter is still rising, but will turn to cooling for nearly 500 years, starting within the next 100 years, maybe as soon as the 2030’s.

    I have spent quite a bit of time this week recording two new videos explaining what is correct thermodynamics, and responding to people like Ball4 here, as in three long comments written just a few hours ago on another thread here. Read them Roy, because they contain correct physics. Ball4’s comments are water off a duck’s back, because he still has not come to grips with the fact that expressions for entropy must include a term for gravitational potential energy when considering the troposphere.

    Consider reading this stuff Roy and watching and listening carefully to the videos linked below, because frankly, the truth is indeed expressed in this little ditty I wrote:

    Oh what a wicked web we weave
    When in our head we do believe
    That we can sway another’s mind
    And with some hoaxsters lead the blind
    To fear and tremble at the warning
    That CO2 does all the warming
    By sending down its radiation
    Fooling leaders of the Nation
    ‘Til they from flooded houses sailing
    Join the weeping and the wailing …
    While Mother Nature calmly ruling
    Turns that warming into cooling.
    Natural cycles cooled and warmed.
    This will blow your mind – be warned …
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

  12. steve c says:

    I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this in the comment section, but the “poor” people have nothing to worry about because YOU will pay extra for your power and pay for the poor people’s power for them.

    • GW says:

      PRECISELY !!!

      If these leftist loonies actually succeed in their goals – regardless if it is via executive fiat, EPA mandate, or Congressional legislation, what will quickly follow are laws, perhaps federally or perhaps at the state or even county levels – which will create SUBSIDIES for those too poor to pay retail prices for electricity like you and I do right now.

      Don’t believe it ??? Don’t forget, they already get free cell phones and monthly service !!! Remember the OBAMAPHONE controversy in the news a few years ago ?

      Maybe the electrical subsidies will be coined OBAMA-JUICE !

  13. ossqss says:

    Dr. Roy, “Where’s the Bleep?”

    Nice job, but you left the door open without addressing the adjustments to the temp records with respect to the POTUS statements. Without the adjustments, just take Karl Et al out, what happens to that 14 year statement?

  14. Norman says:

    geran,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

    A link so you can use your terms correctly. Measured data is not considered to be a pseudoscience. Maybe you need to look for a better term to describe data collected by measuring devices like satellites. Thanks. Always glad to help a fellow poster.

    • geran says:

      Norm, suppose you were to comment here, trying to sound like an immature 14-year old.

      How would we know the difference?

      • Norman says:

        geran

        Awesome post! Now I know what you mean by “How would WE know the difference?”

        Sorry I didn’t know you are “Me, myself and Irene” a multiple personality.

        I think you would know the difference if the intelligent part of geran would ever surface, this one could be able to comprehend and understand logical thought process. I guess it might be a little above “Irene”. Maybe I should simplify to help. I guess radiation transfer concepts are too difficult.

        Have a good day!

        • geran says:

          Irene? Is that your imaginary wife’s name?

          (Surely with all your belief systems you could have come up with an assumed persona more believable. It does not compute.)

          • Norman says:

            geran

            I am not the one who needs to use “We” repeatedly in his posts. I think that is your trademark. Sorry you are delusional at this point. I guess your mixed personality bunch is now incoherent. In time it will “compute” when you straighten out which one will dominate the mix. Until then have a nice an pleasant evening. Don’t let the evil science infect your dreams, you may become intelligent and that could freak Irene!

            Sleep well with all your many selves. You don’t even need a wife to warm the bed you have many of your own people taking care of it.

          • geran says:

            And, someone said you didn’t have much imagination….

  15. Doug Cotton says:

    Once again, Roy you had a golden opportunity in the media to put forward the correct physics in the new 21st Century Paradigm which is so totally different from the radiative GH conjecture that is wrong.

    Consider this: if the Earth (with its atmosphere) had once been cold and located about half way between our Sun and the nearest star, but had then travelled this way and been trapped in its current orbit around the Sun, then all temperatures even down to the core would have ended up as they are now after whatever time it would have taken. But the core temperature would not have been acquired by radiation – heat creep supplied the energy; the mantle temperature would not have been acquired by radiation – heat creep supplied the energy; the surface temperature would not have been acquired by radiation – heat creep supplied the energy.

    Oh what a wicked web we weave
    When in our head we do believe
    That we can sway another’s mind
    And with some hoaxsters lead the blind
    To fear and tremble at the warning
    That CO2 does all the warming
    By sending down its radiation
    Fooling leaders of the Nation
    ‘Til they from flooded houses sailing
    Join the weeping and the wailing …
    While Mother Nature calmly ruling
    Turns that warming into cooling.
    Natural cycles cooled and warmed.
    This will blow your mind – be warned …
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

    • Doug Cotton says:

      And we have proof that what I say above is correct, Roy, because the evidence is that the planet Uranus is not cooling off, yet at the base of its 350Km high nominal troposphere it is hotter than Earth’s surface, and its small solid core (about 55% the mass of Earth) is nearly as hot as Earth’s core – all this, even though the planet is about 30 times further from the Sun and thus receiving about 1/900th of the solar radiative flux that Earth receives.

      • Norman says:

        Doug Cotton,

        The only reason the temperature of Uranus core baffles you is because you do not know about the heat of formation of planets plus the very insulating nature of gases and the very slow loss of energy by such cores surrounded by such insulating gas. Also if a gas giant collapses just a little it will convert this energy into heat.

        I think Ball4 did a great job of working with you. He kept up longer than I thought possible. He is a real trooper!

        • Rick Adkison says:

          Is the Enterprise circling Uranus in search of Klingons?😉

        • Doug Cotton says:

          When did I say I was baffled by core temperatures? I wrote a whole paper about such. The heat of formation is totally and utterly irrelevant to current planetary core temperatures. You haven’t a clue about this topic Normie, boy. Meanwhile over 350 others have watched my video these last 3 days and found out about the process. As I have said to you before, if you can prove the Second Law (from which I derived my hypothesis) to be wrong, then you’re half way there. Then you just need to produce a study like mine, but showing rain forests are 60° hotter than deserts as the IPCC implies should be the case.

        • Doug Cotton says:

          And Normie boy, it is my hypothesis which actually explains why planetary cores don’t lose energy and how the atmosphere prevents that happening. You can call it an “insulating” process in your school boy fissics – that sort of explanation will be good enough for kids – just not quite what correct physics tells us, but the end result is similar, though much better than any insulating could be – after all, it’s done a good job over a few billion years – not bad for the Moon’s core, for example, when the surface cools by over 250 degrees each rotation, yet the core is still over 1,300°C, despite there being no atmosphere. Why is it so, Normie boy? The answer is in what I have explained.

          • Norman says:

            Doug Cotton,

            You are a person completely devoid of memory. I have linked to to articles that explain the moon core temperature and it is not your goofy hypothesis! It is tidal forces.

            Ball4 has already wasted much time in explaining in vivid detail with actual experimental evidence of why your thinking is flawed but you do not listen. So I will not waste time with you as you still can’t grasp the concept of parcels even though I linked you to video of atomic bombs demonstrating directly what an air parcel is and how it stays together even at millions of degrees.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            The Sun’s radiation would have to be 20 times as strong for it to be able to raise the mean surface temperature of Earth to the observed values.

            The calculations are in this comment, and so we can deduce that Roy’s “experiment” (proving, quite correctly, that radiation from a cold atmosphere can slow that portion of the the cooling of a warmer surface which is by radiation) is totally irrelevant, because it is not radiation into the surface which sets the temperature in the first place. What does is explained here and that correct physics clearly refutes the radiative greenhouse hoax. Only those without a correct understanding of entropy maximization fall for the AGW fictitious fiddled fissics.

            Yes it is the Sun’s energy which maintains the temperatures in the atmospheres, surfaces, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons in our Solar System, but the required energy is not supplied by radiation striking any surface.

  16. Norman says:

    fonzarelli

    In you post way up above you ask for my opinion.

    “Norman, a couple arguments that i’ve heard are that IR somehow gets converted to kinetic energy & that the IR ends up missing the satellite (through scattering?). Any thoughts on these arguments? As usual, thanx much…”

    I have heard both of those. The first seems a zero sum exchange. An excited Carbon Dioxide transfers its energy to an O2 or N2 molecule and does not radiate, but then a higher energy N2 or O2 will strike the Carbon Dioxide and now it can radiate again in any direction. If it was not a zero sum exchange I would think you could detect the increase in energy in the atmosphere. A clear night with still winds should have an increasing temperature in the atmosphere as the surface cools, CO2 absorb this upwelling radiation, it is then converted to kinetic energy of O2 or N2. I am unaware of such a temperature increase. You get inversions at night as air cools near the surface but I do not believe the air above is warming at the rate the Earth is cooling.

    https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/courses/meteo101/Section4p05.html

    The second argument does not help either. If it is missing from the satellite it is being redirected in all directions so you have lots of the surface energy moving back to the surface. Any change in the path of the outgoing surface radiation would mean some is heading back down (backradiation) and slowing down the cooling rate which will allow a higher equilibrium temperature to develop with an energy input (the Sun).

    Try this website.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

    check downwelling IR, upwelling IR and Net IR and plot a graph. You will see that the downwelling IR never exceeds the upwelling radiation. The downwelling radiation is only redirected upwelling radiation and not a perpetural heating cycle. Things still cool in absence of solar input just slower.

    These graphs are based upon actual instruments. Some on this blog may not accept or believe the results or think they mean something else but I do not see any of them showing alternate data to challenge these instruments.

    Have a nice day!

    • geran says:

      “Things still cool in absence of solar input just slower.”
      ______

      That has got to be the most ridiculous pseudoscience EVER!

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        It is awesome that you grace Roy Spencer’s blog with your true shining brilliance (hold on while I get out my sunglasses). I know getting you to understand physics is a waste of time but I hope you keep posting your terrific and awe inspiring posts that contain so much valuable information. The world can’t wait for your next enlightened post. Thank your parents daily for birthing a shining star that knows so much, is so intelligent and awesome and really grasps physics to such a deep and wonderful depth. I guess I am most fortunate to be born in the same time frame as geran. So many have lived and died never to have read one of your brilliant and thought provoking posts. No doubt if you continue posting the world will move on to a most glorious and amazing future and you may even be voted as leader of the world. But with your most awesome personality I think you would do better and be elected President of the Galactic Federation of Planets! Please do not stop posting, the Universe is in need of your endless wisdom!

        Have a most wonderful evening!

    • Doug Cotton says:

      You guys will never, ever, ever explain planetary surface temperatures with radiation, because that ain’t what sets such temperatures. To understand what does you need to understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the implicated maximum entropy production. It’s all explained here in just 43 minutes. Sorry I don’t have any transcript of the video – because I just sat down (without notes) and explained it, which was easy because I understand it.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      “but then a higher energy N2 or O2 will strike the Carbon Dioxide and now it can radiate again

      No, being 1 in 2,500 molecules CO2 far more likely to warm any of the other 2,499 by molecular collision. Then subsequently it is more likely that the energy ends up being radiated by water vapor, because the chances are about 98% that will be the case, rather than another CO2 molecule getting it back. That’s why there are still notches in the TOA spectrum and stupid climatologists think that means CO2 has trapped the energy permanently, whereas it’s just come out another gate in the disguise of WV frequencies.

      You could have learnt this from my papers 2 or 3 years ago.

      • Norman says:

        Doug Cotton,

        Why do you believe this to be a true statement? “No, being 1 in 2,500 molecules CO2 far more likely to warm any of the other 2,499 by molecular collision.”

        What empirical evidence do you have to make such a bold assertion?

  17. Joe Born says:

    Another good job.

    Keep up the good work.

  18. Doug Cotton says:

    slowing down the cooling rate”

    From what temperature? The Sun’s mean radiation cannot achieve anything remotely as hot as 15°C mean surface temperature. Show me your Stefan Boltzmann calculations, taking into account a reasonable spread of flux for different regions on Earth, but that flux averaging whatever you think it should be. Actually you’ll need over 3,000W/m^2 as a mean flux into the surface to explain above 280K, as per my calculations in another comment which, at 12.25am here, I can’t be bothered linking you to.

  19. Norman says:

    Doug Cotton,

    Do you mean these calculations?

    From another thread:

    “Location 1: 600W/m^2 S-B temp = 320.7K
    Location 2: 300W/m^2 S-B temp = 269.7K
    Location 3: 108W/m^2 S-B temp = 208.9K
    Location 4: 0
    Location 5: 0
    Location 6: 0

    Total: 1008W/m^2
    Mean = 1008/6 = 168W/m^2

    Mean Temp: 799.3/6 = 133.2K = -140°C

    Even if we multiply those flux figures by 20 (that is, 3,360W/m^2 mean solar radiation into the surface) we get a mean temperature of only 281.7K.”

    I really do not know what you are calculating with your temperatures. I can see the 168 watts/m^2 but do not see how you went from there to a Mean Temp of -140C? You may need to elaborate more on what you are doing here. If the overall flux is 168 W/m^2 you get an equilibrium temp of -38 not -140. I do not know where you took 799.3/6 from?

  20. Norman says:

    Doug Cotton,

    Never mind I see where you got the 799.3 from and that might be the worst display of using math and thought yet displayed on an open blog. You should run for cover with this level of incompetence. Horrible is not even a word that can describe this garbage.

    You do not even have the slightest clue of what the Stefan-Boltzmann constant will give you or how to use it correctly! Please mercy! Since you do not know here is how you would use it. It will give you the equilibrium temperature of a given flux based on the material emissitivity. You can only use the equation for a constant energy flux to use it in any way to determine a real world temperature. At equilibrium the energy in equals the energy out. So after heating a surface with radiation a while (real world material does not heat instantly but takes a time factor) if you have a flux of 600 watts/meter^2 then eventually the surface receiving this flux will warm to the point it is emitting 600 watts/meter^2 (equilibrium state). You can’t use this to figure out specific temperatures at the Earth’s surface with no knowledge of how long the flux was hitting the surface or how long it was not.

    Now in your crazy math you are assuming (I can’t fathom why) that an area on Earth that is not receiving radiant energy will be at absolute zero and you actually use this to figure out the temperature of the Earth’s mean temperature. Ouch and pow! Will you end your impossible to believe statements that you took University level physics. You could not have possibly thought this math was reasonable or even useful in any way!!

    Probably the worst post yet from you. F for complete failure in all aspects of physics.

    The greatest contribution you may have in the science world is to educate people on how NOT to THINK and how not to calculate things they completely and totally do not understand. No one can begin to debate you seriously because you are too far gone in La La Land, the Australian Sun has fried your brain!

  21. Norman says:

    Doug Cotton

    I will link you to this web site please try and make some graphs. It is based upon measured values. You will see how radiant energy works (since you have zero understanding of it at this time).

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

    With this tool (again based upon actual measuring devices) you can see how incoming solar radiation directly raises the air and surface temperature (surface temperature is hotter than the air above during the day). You have both upwelling and downwelling IR also you get a NET IR check box. You can see that the GHE does not warm the surface. The net radiation is always negative. The Earth is always losing IR to space. The warming comes directly from the sun in vivid fashion when you plot incoming solar with surface and air tempertures. You can then see how much GHE slows the cooling rate keeping the nighttime low much warmer than would be without a GHE.

    Hope this helps in your understanding of what science is. Measurements and data and correct useful understanding of things.

  22. geran says:

    “You can then see how much GHE slows the cooling rate keeping the nighttime low much warmer than would be without a GHE.”
    ______

    Norm, that is NOT the GHE you are “seeing”. The atmosphere does not “slow the cooling”. That is the effect of natural heat transfer rate. The IPCC “GHE” is pseudoscience, steer clear of it.

  23. Nomran says:

    geran,

    The IPCC version of the GHE may indeed be pseudoscience (based upon models that do not correlate with reality because of some faulty assumptions made).

    I do not think the physics of the GHE is pseudoscience. I understand that you do. I don’t mind you holding this opinion. I would just wish you would link to supporting material based upon some actual physics (valid equations that have withstood the test of time or else some empirical data to go with your posts).

    If you go back to this Roy Spencer post:
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

    He created a simple model to show at what rate the Earth’s surface would cool without backradiation.

    If you go to this website and plot your own graphs. Downwelling IR, Upwelling IR, Net IR and temperature and use some 1st Law thermodynamics (Energy can neither be created nor destroyed)
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

    Then a slower cooling is very obvious when you have an upwelling loss to radiation of over 400 watts/meter^2) (400 joules/sec-meter^2) but the net radiation is less than 100 watts/m^2 at night (surface is losing less than 100 watts of energy per meter at night). Here is where you must take the leap and you will understand the slower cooling rate caused by having GHG’s in the atmosphere. Without any GHG the surface would lose energy at the rate of 400 watts/m^2 (going down in flux intensity as the surface cools which Roy already has done in his simple model, you can put your own numbers in there, I already have). With GHG present the loss is less than 100 watts/m^2. In the same time frame, say one hour in the first case of 400 watts you would lose 1,440,000 joules of energy/meter^2 from your surface (and your temperature would depend upon how much energy the surface has stored). With a loss of less than 100 (we can even make it 100) in an hour the surface would have lost 360,000 joules/m^2. If the surface is the same material in both cases the second case would have 1,080,000 more joules/meter^2 than in the case without GHG. How would this not be a slowed cooling effect?? Thanks if you actually answer this with real information or data. I do like your humor but I would like to see the thinking side of geran and not just his humor side.

    Enjoy the evening!

    • mpainter says:

      Tell me, Nomran,..ah, I mean Norman, when this back radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface, is the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecules raised? Or does it stay the same?

      • Norman says:

        mpainter,

        I think I have already answered your question numerous times on another thread but I could not get you to see what I was saying.

        The backradiation is a redirection of a portion of the energy the surface has already lost. Please check out this link and check upwelling and downwelling IR.

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

        No matter what place you choose or what day you choose you will always see the downwelling IR radiation is always less than the upwelling IR. That means before the backradiation returns to the surface (which would be a very short time at the speed of light but still a slight time change) the surface has lost more energy than what is returned by the backradiation so the backradition is not raising the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecules. It is not even staying the same. The absorbing molecules are losing energy at a faster rate than they are gaining it (check the NET IR radiation box in the link for any place or time and you will see the negative amount). The molecules are doing simultaneously two things that I can not get you to see. They are doing both, absorbing and emitting at the same time. They are emitting more than they are absorbing so the kinetic energy of the molecules is decreasing.

        • mpainter says:

          Norman says ” They are emitting more than they are absorbing so the kinetic energy of the molecules is decreasing.”

          ###

          Norman, you did it again. Please try to think. What happens when the kinetic energy of molecules is always decreasing?

          • Norman says:

            mpainter

            Your question: “Norman, you did it again. Please try to think. What happens when the kinetic energy of molecules is always decreasing?”

            Not sure what I did again. When the kinetic energy of molecules is always decreasing the object made up of these molecules cools down, its temperature drops. Exactly what happens to the Earth’s surface when the Sun no longer supplies energy to increase the kinetic energy.

            Did you go to the link I sent to you and check some boxes? It really will explain what is going in in very direct fashion.

          • mpainter says:

            Norman says

            “When the kinetic energy of molecules is always decreasing the object made up of these molecules cools down, its temperature drops. Exactly what happens to the Earth’s surface when the Sun no longer supplies energy to increase the kinetic energy.”

            ###

          • mpainter says:

            Continued: and when the sun shines? What does the DWLWIR do then?

          • Norman says:

            mpainter,

            If you go this link and check on the boxes you are asking about and plot a graph it will show you.

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

            I put in some different locations and what happens is the DWLWIR does go up some but not nearly as much as the UWLWIR and hence the net IR radiation goes from less than 100 Watts/m^2 to maybe over 200 Watts/m^2. As the surface warms it starts emitting a lot more radiation than during the night but the DWLWIR does not go up nearly as rapidly.

          • mpainter says:

            Norman,I can see that you have learned nothing. As long as you believe that DWLWIR is absorbed by the surface without an increase in the KE of the absorbing molecules, you are lost. To me, this sort of thinking is incomprehensible.

          • Norman says:

            mpainter,

            It is not I who is lost. You cannot think of dual activity.

            If something is losing more energy than it is gaining WHY for the sake of reason would you believe the kinetic energy is increasing? How do you logically conclude this.

            Any object or material in this reality and under the laws of this Universe will lose kinetic energy if the energy it is gaining is less the the energy it is losing. I cannot grasp what science you have studied that allows you to conclude something entirely different. Do you have any links to this type of science.

            Definitions of Kinetic Energy:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

            The energy unit of science is the joule or erg (for very small quantities). Kinetic energy is expressed in joules. A watt is joules/second (a rate of energy loss or gain…power energy with a time component).

            When you make this claim: ” As long as you believe that DWLWIR is absorbed by the surface without an increase in the KE of the absorbing molecules, you are lost.” I do not know what rational and real science you base it upon. Clearly the DWLWIR is of lower flux than the UWLWIR from the same molecules. First Law of Thermodynamics, if a body is losing energy faster than it is gaining it the kinetic energy of the molecules cannot increase. Your current arguments defy the First Law and they really have no logical foundation within the science framework.

            So give me any supporting evidence that DWLWIR will add kinetic energy to the surface?

            Why is it so difficult for you to grasp dual activity of molecules? They are not only losing and gaining energy via radiation they also gain and lose energy by conduction, they are doing more than one thing at the same time. Anyway like I have said I have explained it to you many times and you do not grasp it. I have linked you to a site with actual measured values of DWLWIR as well as UWLWIR and you will find that the DWLWIR is less or equal to the UWLWIR (really thick clouds make these very close as no radiation seems to be leaving under this condition).

          • mpainter says:

            Again you adamantly insist that DWLWIR absorbed by the earth’s surface does not increase the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecules.
            I rest my case. I am content that others can understand your problem.

          • Norman says:

            mpainter,

            Okay, instead of writing a long post which you do not read.

            A question to your post: “Again you adamantly insist that DWLWIR absorbed by the earth’s surface does not increase the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecules.
            I rest my case. I am content that others can understand your problem.”

            How does less energy NET energy increase kinetic energy? Please answer this question and enlighten me. And what problem do others need to understand?

            Please explain how DWLWIR will increase the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecules? Thanks!

    • geran says:

      Norm, largely my “humor” is ridicule of the bogus science touted by Warmists and Gassers. I’ve learned that they do not want to learn, so I just enjoy ridiculing them. But, I’ll make an exception this time, since you appear sincere.

      The trouble with the “models” you mentioned is that they all start with built-in formulae that do not happen, in reality. You cannot use these to “prove” anything. People use them to confirm their “belief systems”, which is not the way science should be done.

      The phrase “slow the cooling” is borderline “nonsense”. This phrase started when Gassers realized that their pseudoscience (back-radiation warming Earth’s surface) violated the 2LoT. I say “borderline” because a REAL blanket does “slow the cooling”, as you know. So, it is useful to those trying to “sell” the idea that Earth’s atmosphere acts as a blanket. In the atmosphere, what you perceive as “slowing the cooling”, is nothing more than the natural heat transfer to space.

      The basic conductive heat transfer equation works for a blanket. The heat transfer rate [kA(Th-Tc)/d] is set. But, if you increase “Th”, the values “k”, “A”, and “d” do not change.
      In the atmosphere, if you increase the value of Th, guess what, all three values change! And, that’s just the conductive equation, there’s still convection and radiative, which all also change.

      There are so many things wrong with the IPCC pseudoscience, but many will do anything to avoid learning about it. I was explaining to someone why a heat transfer rate equation did not prove you could “slow the cooling”. I used the example of a car going 60 mph, and I asked how long did the car travel. Of course, you can’t determine that, because there isn’t enough information. But, instead of admitting he was confused, he stated that he could tell that a car going 30 mph was going slower. He completely missed the point that he could not tell how long the 30 mph car had traveled either! He just looked ridiculous. Don’t let pseudoscience do that to you!

  24. Norman says:

    geran,

    I would still like you to point out when any Climate Scientist has ever stated the GHE warms the surface. All the diagrams I have every seen (and the link to measured backradiation) shows the downwelling IR as less than the upwelling IR. You could only violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics if the downwelling radiation was greater than the upwelling (meaning the atmosphere got colder as the surface got warmer which is a direct violation of the 2nd Law).

    I do not know who these “Gassers” are but they would not represent Climate scientists.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=global+energy+budget+diagrams&biw=1920&bih=955&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCJG65fGOqscCFYJdkgodE6sBng#imgrc=zs38KeFqap-4EM%3A

    If the link works it is to a whole page of global energy budget graphs. In all these can you find one to confirm your “Gasser” point that backradiation exceeds in any way the energy being lost by the surface? I don’t think you will. Most have the upwelling value around 390 watts/m^2 and the backradiation at around 330. Always less then the upwelling always warm to cold. I do not know where this idea came from that backradiation violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Is Doug Cotton really that influential on the PSI side that he has convinced all of you that Climate Scientists were claiming the GHE worked by having a colder atmosphere warm a hotter surface?

    I gave you a basic and simple math description of how cooling is slowed by GHG by using real and actual measured IR flux.

    I am not sure if you understand what is being stated when one says “slows the cooling”. It is a relative concept of having two identical surfaces (the Earth under two conditions). You are comparing two states with each other. In such a situation you can relate them. In one case energy is leaving at a set rate of 400 watts/m^2 so you may not be able to determine what the temperature of the surface will be in one hour (because of a lot of variables as you have stated) you can still compare the cooling rate to a situation with the same surface you are only losing 100 watts/m^2.

    That is why I brought up the point of the car. You may not know how long (which I am not sure what this point has to do with surface temperature) the car travels but if you have two cars going the same direction and one travels at 60 mph and the other at 30 mph, you may not know how long each travels but you can definitely tell that after the same time period the 60 mph car will have traveled farther. I guess I really do not understand your point with the car or how it relates to temperature or radiation heat transfer.

    Also conduction and convection will only move energy within the system. These heat transfer mechanisms may cool the surface at one place but the energy will remain in the larger system, it is not leaving. The only way for energy to leave the larger system is via radiation and that is why Climate scientists focus on this aspect. The others move energy here or there and help balance and moderate the overall temperatures but they will not cool the Earth System.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      Prove with Stefan-Boltzmann calculations that Climatology’s figure of a mean of 168W/m^2 solar radiation (as shown here) would raise the Earth’s mean surface temperature to 14°C. If you can’t prove this, then you need an alternate explanation. Provide such! I’ll be waiting.

      • Norman says:

        Doug Cotton,

        I can prove it but you will not accept my proof. The question to you would be why do you want a proof that you already know you will not accept?

        I think one of your big problems with climate science is you do not understand the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. You claim knowledge of the 2nd Law and entropy, maybe you should go back and study the 1st Law then climate science will make a lot more sense to you and you will no longer have the compulsion to carpet bomb and blog that allows your posts. This will not happen but I will answer your question anyway, not that it will matter an iota. You will not understand anything I post.

        If you want to use the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation to determine a surface temperature it can only be used in one case, the case with no backradiation. An change in radiation flow will make the equation invalid for what you are suggesting it be used for. With zero backradiation a flux of energy of 168 watts/m^2 will give you a surface temperature of -38 C. The surface will warm until it is emitting 168 watts/m^2 and you have an equilibrium state that the radiation out is equal to the radiation in. So the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation works in such a case.

        This will be the part you are not able to understand, it is a grand waste of time on my part but I will continue. If you have anything that slows the loss of energy from the surface (backradiation) the Stefan-Boltzmann equation will not set the surface temperature based upon the incoming flux.

        This may help you but it is highly unlikely. Consider a case where you have this super insulation that allows no energy to leave the system (thermos bottles attempt this, some are better than others). Maybe perfect mirrors or whatever. If all the energy emitted by the surface is then returned to the surface the surface has the same amount of energy, its temperature will not drop (kind of like why we can stand on top of this very hot molten iron core and not burn our feet…the insulation between the Earth’s core and our feet is really really good and only a little of that blazing energy is reaching the surface). So now we have a state where the surface temperature is maintaining the same temperature indefinitely (this is the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed). If you add any energy to this system be it 10 watts or 1000, both of these energy flows will increase the temperature of the system. The only difference between the two fluxes would be how fast the surface heated. A mere 10 watts will heat an object if that object is losing energy at a rate less than 10 watts.

        So back to the more real Earth system. The 168 watts/m^2 is energy added to the system. If the current surface temperature is 14 C and that is at equilibrium with energy in and energy out than that is the temperature that will be reached because that is what it takes (with backradiation) to balance the incoming solar radiation.

    • geran says:

      Norm, all Warmists and Gassers claim the GHE warms the planet. Some just try to twist the wording so that it is not obvious they are violating the 2LoT. You will hear things like “Oh, back-radiation does not violate the 2LoT, it just “slows the cooling”.

      The rest of your comment reverts, unfortunately, to “rambling pseudoscience”. For example, you are still trying to confuse the “60 mph car” issue, instead of admitting you were wrong. You had tried to claim the radiative heat transfer equation proved you could “slow the cooling”. But, when I explained (with the “60 mph car” analogy) that it did not, you then tried to forget what you had previously claimed.

      Your time spent on peddling pseudoscience is all wasted time. Is that what you want?

  25. Norman says:

    geran,

    If you really think about some of the things I am posting you may actually realize I am not as stupid or brain dead as you suppose. It really is rational and logical.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      No, that’s beyond me, Norman, but you might salvage some credibility if you can answer my question at 11:57pm.

    • geran says:

      Norm says: “…I am not as stupid or brain dead as you suppose.”
      __________

      Norm, I don’t “suppose” that. You have demonstrated that you are not a scientist. You do not adhere to the scientific method. You have a belief system, and you attempt to use science to support your false belief system, thereby producing pseudoscience.

      I’ve given you examples before, but here are some things you should be investigating, if you were interested in the “scientific method”:

      1) Why does the IPCC base their pseudoscience on an equation that has NO scientific/mathematical proof?

      2) When the equation does not apply to global temperatures, why does the IPCC attempt to add “climate sensitivity”, to make “adjustments”?

      3) Why is “institutional science” adjusting actual temperatures?

      4) Why is there a “pause” in global temps, while CO2 continues to rise?

      And, there are more….

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        Thanks for a more thoughtful answer! I think we are on different pages and not communicating very well.

        I think you assume I am like David Appell with a CAGW view which I am not. My debate with you is not to convince you that IPCC or their view is correct. I do not accept many of the conclusion of the CAGW camp (extreme weather events are increasing, we are on the road to doom etc).

        Since you asked me to research the climate sensitivity equation I did and found this link.
        http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

        For your Point 1)
        It is not a “made” up equation from nowhere. It is based upon some measured values and lots of assumptions. They used CO2 concentrations found in Antarctic ice vs global temp. I think lots of assumptions are made here. One is that CO2 gas in ice is the same concentration as when it was formed. Carbon dioxide gas does dissolve in water to form carbonic acid so I am not sure of he ice studies at this time. But the equation does have some background in the sciences (that does not mean it is true or correct).

        2)I do believe IPCC is a political organization with an agenda (like the EPA) and not truly scientific based (let the data and information dictate the reality) so I would assume they are doing this to enhance a political view that the “left wing” seems to embrace without the slightest question of integrity.

        3)I believe they have lots of reasons that they give. I am not sure this is good science or the reasons are valid. They seem to lower past temperatures and raise current ones to make global warming appear worse than it is. That is why it is great to have a counter climate scientist in Roy Spencer that is also monitoring the global temperature so you have an alternative perspective.
        My opinion and only my opinion, I have no facts to back it up it is just based upon my understanding of human motivation. Climate science without a disaster component would not be so interesting to the general public or politicians. Climate scientist want to be important (ego needs) and they need money to feed their families and have a better living standard (not to mention paying back student loans). The greater the threat that can be generated in the public mind, the more important the science than the more funding it can receive. It directly benefits a scientist to spread a message of alarm so it may be very hard to resist going there.

        4) The influence of carbon dioxide on temperature is not large. Even climate scientists believe it might be 1C for doubling. The rapid temperature rise is supposed to occur because of positive feedback mechanisms. If these mechanisms are not real (and I see no solid evidence for them) then the carbon dioxide addition on itself will do very little to warm the Earth’s surface. I think this is correct because Carbon Dioxide levels have been 10 times what they are now without any runaway GHE or extreme heating. The Earth was generally warmer but not in an extreme way.

        I think I would agree with you on many points. But backradiation is not pseudoscience at all. It is actually measured by satellite and ground observations. I work with spectrometers at my job and they do exactly this, the material in question absorbs light that does not make it to a photocell on the opposite side of a cuvette.
        The material is both absorbing and emitting the radiant energy in its path but it is emitting the absorbed radiation in all directions so very little makes it to the detector and you can then determine concentration with Beer’s Law. Backradiation is not only based upon physics it is also empirically measured. I would have to throw out science completely to not accept it as a scientific reality. I hope you do not do this.

        • geran says:

          Norm says: “It is not a “made” up equation from nowhere.”
          ________
          It was indeed a “made up” equation. Arrhenius conjured it up trying to “guess” at the reason the glaciers melted. “Climate scientists” went on to try to justify the equation, using more guesses and “assumptions”, as you stated.

          Norm says: “It is based upon some measured values and lots of assumptions. I think lots of assumptions are made here…But the equation does have some background in the sciences (that does not mean it is true or correct).”
          ___________
          Don’t cling to pseudoscience that you have just about completely debunked. Guesses, assumptions, and cherry-picked data do not make a “background in the sciences”. The emphasis here is “that does not mean it is true or correct”.

          Norm says: “I do believe IPCC is a political organization with an agenda (like the EPA) and not truly scientific based (let the data and information dictate the reality) so I would assume they are doing this to enhance a political view that the “left wing” seems to embrace without the slightest question of integrity.
          __________
          Yep.

          Norm says: “But backradiation is not pseudoscience at all. It is actually measured by satellite and ground observations.
          __________
          I don’t think anyone denies back-radiation can be measured. The problem is many people believe it is a “heat source”. They believe it can “warm the planet”. The ability of back-radiation to warm the planet, or “slow the cooling”, is the crux of the GHE. When Gassers realize back-radiation can NOT “do as advertised”, the GHE theory dies.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            If you slow cooling (allow less energy out relative to another system). Earth without GHG would be even cooler than the moon since Earth has a higher albedo. The 1st Law of thermodynamics applies in the slowing cooling situation to end with a higher overall temperature of a surface.

            You have two conditions (moon with no slowing of radiation loss and a much cooler mean temperature than Earth)
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
            Link for moon’s average surface temperature.

            One surface does not impede radiation at all. The surface radiates at the rate set by its surface temperature and emissitivity and will cool at that rate (which is very rapid) as this graph will show:
            http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.html

            If our atmosphere impedes the outflow of radiation by having a backradiation do to IR absorbing molecules and some of this radiation is redirected to the surface, the surface will not cool as fast as if it had none of these gases and will be warmer after the same time frame. When sunlight comes around again the surface has more energy stored than it would have if it had no backradiation and the sun will add energy to this store.

            What do you think backradiation does? It is real energy. It is not going up and out. What does this energy do?

          • gbaikie says:

            –I don’t think anyone denies back-radiation can be measured. The problem is many people believe it is a “heat source”. They believe it can “warm the planet”. The ability of back-radiation to warm the planet, or “slow the cooling”, is the crux of the GHE. When Gassers realize back-radiation can NOT “do as advertised”, the GHE theory dies.–

            The crux of GHE is that ideal blackbody is 5 C.
            Using this idea is the beginning of the cargo cult.
            Or if we made something that looks like an airport, the planes will land.

            An ideal blackbody at Earth distance from the Sun would [if ideal blackbody could be created] be about 5 C.
            And ideal blackbody distribute the heat absorbed and radiates
            it uniformly. And one call an ideal blackbody a refrigerator- or the most amazing thing about it is it cools a surface to 5 C when the sun is at zenith. Or ideal blackbody “magical property” is it does this. Or the magical property of an airplane is it heavier than air and it flies.

            Or if ideal blackbody didn’t uniformly heat the entire sphere instantaneously, it would have uniform temperature of 5 C.

            So uniform blackbody is not like Earth, just a bamboo “plane” in not a plane.

          • geran says:

            Norm, just when I think you are starting to get it, you fall back into the abyss. You are really fixated on this GHE nonsense. Try to step back and REQUIRE some evidence of it, not just IPCC pseudoscience.

            Look how silly you make yourself appear:

            *N = Norm says
            *G = geran says

            *N If you slow cooling (allow less energy out relative to another system), Earth without GHG would be even cooler than the moon since Earth has a higher albedo.
            *G If you change Earth’s atmosphere, you change albedo. “If you slow cooling”, then it would be “even cooler”???? That makes NO sense. I have no idea what your point is.

            *N The 1st Law of thermodynamics applies in the slowing cooling situation to end with a higher overall temperature of a surface.
            *G ??? I have no idea what your point is.

            *N You have two conditions (moon with no slowing of radiation loss and a much cooler mean temperature than Earth)
            *G That is not a complete sentence. I have no idea what your point is.

            *N One surface does not impede radiation at all.
            *G ??? What surface are you talking about? What radiation? I have no idea what your point is.

            *N The surface radiates at the rate set by its surface temperature and emissitivity and will cool at that rate (which is very rapid) as this graph will show:
            http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.html
            *G If you consider about 3K per Earth-day “very rapid”, but I still have no idea what your point is.

            *N If our atmosphere impedes the outflow of radiation by having a backradiation do to IR absorbing molecules and some of this radiation is redirected to the surface, the surface will not cool as fast as if it had none of these gases and will be warmer after the same time frame. When sunlight comes around again the surface has more energy stored than it would have if it had no backradiation and the sun will add energy to this store.
            *G Nope! You are back to your “belief system”. You fell “off the wagon”, again. The Sun does not “add” to existing surface temperature, it “overrides” it. If what you are saying is true, Earth’s temperature would increase each day until the oceans were boiling. Pseudoscience ALWAYS blows up in your face.

            *N What do you think backradiation does? It is real energy. It is not going up and out. What does this energy do?
            *G Any radiation that is not absorbed by the Earth gets “bounced” back to space.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Norman says:
            August 15, 2015 at 10:58 AM

            geran,

            If you slow cooling (allow less energy out relative to another system). Earth without GHG would be even cooler than the moon since Earth has a higher albedo. The 1st Law of thermodynamics applies in the slowing cooling situation to end with a higher overall temperature of a surface.

            You have two conditions (moon with no slowing of radiation loss and a much cooler mean temperature than Earth)
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
            Link for moon’s average surface temperature.

            One surface does not impede radiation at all. The surface radiates at the rate set by its surface temperature and emissitivity and will cool at that rate (which is very rapid) as this graph will show:
            http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.html

            That ref does not seem to show that Moon cools quickly.
            diviner did measure 100 K drop in surface temperature in about 2 hour when the Earth blocked the Sun [during eclipse].
            But something blocked the sun for several hours AND the Earth surface was 120 C, it would roughly cool by 100 K
            in 2 hours of darkness also.
            Heat a frying pan to 120 C, and it will cool by about 50 K within 1 hour.

            Now if Earth’s day was 28 day long, instead of 24 hours, it’s nights would cool by a significant amount and during day time the earth would not warm higher than it is now. So if had same daytime high but had much cooler nighttime low, then Earth average temperature would be cooler.
            Or if the Moon had a 24 hour day. the Moon would have higher nighttime temperature and the same daytime temperature- though it might only be 10 K warmer average temperature.
            Though if Moon had same rotation speed 1000 mph, since it’s smaller it could shorter day then Earth.
            Or Moon circumference is 6770 miles so it’s day would be about 7 hours- 3.5 hour day and 3.5 night- and so night could easily be 100 K warmer. Or it still would warm to 120 C and would cool to say 0 C at the equator at night. So somewhere around global average temperature of 20 to 30 C.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            Even if I am a little sloppy with my posts I do believe you know what I am saying.

            From your post: “*N The 1st Law of thermodynamics applies in the slowing cooling situation to end with a higher overall temperature of a surface.
            *G ??? I have no idea what your point is.”

            I think you know what the point is you are just trying to pull my chain, get a reaction. I have explained it numerous times. 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Energy (joules) cannot be created nor destroyed.

            If you have so many joules of energy in two identical material systems (each system has the same number of joules and temperature at the initial point) but one is losing energy at a faster RATE than the other, one is losing energy at the rate of 400 watts and the other is losing energy at the rate of 100 watts. After an equal time period the one losing 400 watts will have less joules and be cooler than the other one. It is really a VERY SIMPLE idea to understand. That you are choosing not to is an intentional choice on your part for reasons unknown to me.

          • geran says:

            Yup, two identical systems, losing energy at differing rates, will end up with different temps.

            Sometimes your attempted obfuscation of your confusion actually makes you end up with the correct conclusion.

            It’s always amazing.

          • Norman says:

            gbaikie

            I was reading your post about the moon. I could not find data to determine how hot the moon’s surface would rise if the day/night cylce was 7 hours. You said it would get up to 120 C but would only drop to around 0 C at night so would end up much warmer.

            It is interesting but I do not know how you calculated your results. Thanks if you can inform me.

  26. Slipstick says:

    geran,
    If the classical 2LoT applies to the absorption of individual photons, how do the molecules of my retina detect the chemiluminescent photons from a glowstick or the luciferin of a cold blooded firefly on a cool summer evening?

    As I’ve demonstrated repeatedly in these threads,
    “backradiation” does not violate the classical Laws of Thermodynamics. The classical LoT are a consequence of quantum mechanics; they do not control it. There is a separate set of similar, but fundamentally different, laws that govern quantum interactions; they are referred to collectively as quantum thermodynamics if you’re interested (which you probably aren’t, since the information would conflict with your beliefs).

    For the Second Law to apply to individual photon events, the receiving molecule would also need information regarding the temperature of the emitting molecule, information which is not carried by the photon. A photon has an energy and a direction; that is all the information it carries. The exchange of additional information would require additional energy and this would violate the First Law. In quantum thermodynamics, this information would violate the uncertainty principle, and by extension, both the First and Second Laws. In attempting to force the classical Laws of Thermodynamics onto quantum interactions, you are violating those same Laws.

    Even if your mistaken application of classical LoT to quantum interactions was correct, there are innumerable occasions when a particular CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is “warmer” than the nearby H2O molecule that receives its photon or an air mass is warmer than ocean, or even land surface, over which it passes. Are you now going to tell me that the photons emitted in those circumstances are not absorbed?

    • Doug Cotton says:

      The way in which nature ensures that radiation obeys the Second Law is explained in the paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics and you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the 21st century advances in the understanding of this process among physicists.

      • Slipstick says:

        No, I demonstrate a lack of understanding of the nonsense you believe, because it does not conform to reality.

        Which physicists? Name some.

    • geran says:

      Slip asks: “If the classical 2LoT applies to the absorption of individual photons, how do the molecules of my retina detect the chemiluminescent photons from a glowstick or the luciferin of a cold blooded firefly on a cool summer evening?”
      ________
      Slip, the photons you ask about are NOT produced by temperature. They are produced by other mechanisms, just as are the photons from LEDs. And, your eyes do not detect infrared. That’s why it’s called the “visible” spectrum.

      Slip says: “As I’ve demonstrated repeatedly in these threads, “backradiation” does not violate the classical Laws of Thermodynamics.”
      ________
      Well, I don’t know if you’ve demonstrated that or not, but back-radiation definitely does NOT violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, because a cool emitter cannot warm a warmer absorber.

      (BTW, Slip, I have heard that the IPCC has dropped the “back-radiation” pseudoscience. I have heard that the term was not even used in AR5. I searched briefly and couldn’t find it. They still use “radiative forcing”, but I couldn’t find “back-radiation”. But, since you believe in the IPCC nonsense, maybe you would know, or would be interested in finding out. Can you verify, is the term “back-radiation” gone from AR5?)

      Keep learning science and you will eventually reject pseudoscience.

    • geran says:

      Slip says: “For the Second Law to apply to individual photon events, the receiving molecule would also need information regarding the temperature of the emitting molecule, information which is not carried by the photon. A photon has an energy and a direction; that is all the information it carries.”
      ____________

      Slip, each photon also has a frequency and corresponding wavelength.

      (I didn’t catch this example of your pseudoscience on the first read. You put out so much pseudoscience, it is hard to keep up with all of it!)

      • Slipstick says:

        geran,
        The frequency, wavelength, or wavenumber are dependent on the energy; they are not a separate piece of information.

        • geran says:

          Slip, you are soooo slippery! Unfortunately for you, your record is here for all to see.

          You distinctly (but incorrectly) implied that the ONLY information a photon carries is direction and energy.

          Hilarious! Now we know (from Slippery) that wavelength does not count. You better tell all those CO2 molecules that are expecting 14.7µ photons.

          What a clown!

  27. Slipstick says:

    geran,
    Whether a photon is produced from the internal energy of a molecule, its temperature, or by some electrochemical interaction with another molecule is completely irrelevant; a photon carries no temperature information, only an energy and direction. There is no mechanism which conveys the temperature of a photon emitter to the absorber. If there is such a mechanism, please describe it for me and tell me why such a fundamental and important effect is not described in the physics literature.

    An atom on the 5800 K surface of a star, 100 ly from Earth, emits a 575 nm photon and, a few minutes later, a 290 K glowstick, on a planet in orbit about that star, emits a photon of the same wavelength. 100 years later, both of those photons reach the molecules of the retina of a human’s eye. How do the 310 K molecules of the retina discern the different temperatures of the emitting molecules or the mechanisms of photon production? The answer is, of course, they cannot; both photons will be absorbed.

    The classical Second Law of Thermodynamics arises because a warmer atom will emit more photons, and at a higher average energy, than a colder atom. Thus, the NET energy flow between the two atoms will always be from the warmer to the colder. This does not mean that photons emitted by the colder atom that are in the warmer atom’s absorption spectrum cannot be absorbed.

    Applying classical thermodynamics to individual quantum interactions is like using Newtonian theory to predict the orbit of Mercury around the Sun; it doesn’t work.

    Regarding “back-radiation” vs. “radiative forcing”, your near-obsession with semantics confounds me; “a rose by any other name…”. An “infrared” photon differs from a “visible” photon only in its energy, and the corresponding wavelength, wave number, or frequency; “infrared” and “visible” are simply convenient labels that convey whether the energy of a photon is sufficient to cause a recognizable electrical impulse to be transmitted from the human retina to the visual cortex of the human brain. (Some animals do “see” into the near-infrared, whereas, humans do not.) Whether you call it “back-radiation”, “radiative forcing”, or “an important factor in the average temperature of a climate” is immaterial; to me, it’s just radiation from the atmosphere that is not emitted to space.

    • geran says:

      Slip, as you like tying yourself in knots, what do you believe is the best rope to use?

      • Slipstick says:

        What knots? What the heck are you talking about?

        • Norman says:

          Slipstick,

          If you are able to decipher geran’s posts please clue me in on the code. I am often perplexed by his points, I think most is a form of sarcasm and humor.

          He covers for his lack of physics knowledge with humor and sarcasm, he wants people to see him as intelligent but if you notice he almost never uses physics of any kind. Maybe he will throw out some simple equation from time to time to create the illusion he knows the subject matter but if you read the content of his posts you can see that most his learning comes from PSI website.

          He posts at this site like an expert.
          http://www.principia-scientific.org/

          • geran says:

            Hilarious!

            Norm, you have so many fixations. You are fascinated by the GHE. You are fascinated by the PSI website. You are fascinated with “slowing the cooling” (my favorite). You are fascinated with “links”. You are fascinated with pseudoscience.

            I can hardly keep up….

        • geran says:

          What the heck are you talking about Bubba? You are off on some distant star, trying to “out distance” Cotton.

          Hint: A photon’s wavelength IS information. Why try to “spin” your way out of your confusion?

  28. Norman says:

    Slipstick,

    I may not agree with you on CAGW but I do agree with your physics. It is based upon real and actual physics. Others seem to make up physics to suit their own views but none seem to have any experiments or empirical evidence of any kind to support their claims. They make faith based statements with the belief that if presented with certainty it will pass as a true statement.

    I do not believe you will be any more successful than anyone else with Doug Cotton, geran, or mpainter. You can link them to dozens of actual science sites but I think they rarely look at them. Doug is an outsider even of PSI. I know geran is deeply in the PSI camp of false and phony physics where they derive nonsensical equations designed to baffle and amaze those with no real physics backgrounds.

    Good luck! I know Ball4 may have posted hundreds of times with Doug and it went absolutely nowhere. Some people like to learn, others need to be right at all costs and will not waste time researching or questioning their beliefs. I have seen empirical evidence in support of GHE and can only rationally conclude it is valid physics. I have not seen any rational counter evidence from the PSI crowd.

    • geran says:

      Norm, if I were to offer you an experiment, that you could do in your own parents basement, that would disprove your “slow the cooling” nonsense. Would you do it?

      No, you wouldn’t.

      Because you will NEVER let anything come between you and your cult belief.

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        You do not post real physics why would you post an experiment to disprove slow the cooling (which you could not since slowing cooling rate is a reality that one can already experience if they live in a climate with summer and winter. Go outside in shorts and T-shirt on an 80 F day. The air temperature is still lower than your body temp of 98.6 F so you are still moving energy from your body to the surrounding environment. Now in winter do the same thing and see if the surrounding temp has no influence).

        I think your really should try to learn some physics.

        Anyway give me the experiment if you have one and I will try it. Thanks.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            Typing the letters QED is not an experiment that can be performed.
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

            Do you have an experiment or are you teasing?

          • geran says:

            Norm, in simple, easy-to-understand, numbered steps, just for you:

            1) I asked you, if there were an experiment that would disprove your pseudoscience, would you do it.

            2) Within the same comment, I answered my own question, knowing that your “mind” is already made up, and you do not observe the scientific method.

            3) You responded in a rambling paragraph indicating that, in effect, nothing would disprove your pseudoscience, therefore you would not be bothered. But, almost with regret, you asked me for the experiment.

            4) I responded with “QED”, indicating that I had proved my point (steps 1 &2).

            5) Then, you responded, indicating you did not understand. (That’s nothing new.) Of course, you also included some links in your continuing effort to legitimize your pseudoscience.

          • geran says:

            BTW, “QED” is an acronym for “quod erat demonstrandum”.

            You’re not familiar with it because the acronym is not used in pseudoscience….

  29. Slipstick says:

    Norman,
    There is no hope of altering the views of the gentlemen you mentioned; you cannot reason with belief. I make the posts I do because I enjoy a debate, even against bad debaters with flawed arguments (perhaps more so, in those cases), and the mental calisthenics required when discussing physics, one of my favorite subjects, helps keep my mind sharp. I also have a nearly pathological need for accuracy and truth, especially when discussing science, and have difficulty letting irrational nonsense go unanswered.

    Regarding AGW, the basis for my acceptance of CO2 as a primary contributor to the current climactic conditions is quite simple. Current conditions and their rate of change over the last few decades are outside the range of values for the last 400,000 years or so and the only factor that is also outside the normal range is CO2 (I see methane and fluorocarbons as minor contributors, at least at present), the change of which corresponds precisely with the rapid increase in humanity’s use of fossil fuels. Also, the onset of the unusually rapid increase in temperature corresponds with implementation of controls of cooling aerosols, the other major product of the use of fossil fuels.

    Cause and effect are often difficult to assign, so I consider

    • Norman says:

      Slipstick,

      I have a difficult time attributing the increase to Carbon Dioxide because of the fact that carbon dioxide has been over 10 times the current level (with oceans present at that time as a source of water vapor) and the Earth never had a runaway GHE or conditions unfavorable to life throughout all these billions of years except for brief periods, perhaps intense volcanism with toxic gases, large asteroid impacts. No evidence that high levels of carbon dioxide will do as claimed. There were even ice ages with this high amount of carbon dioxide.

      http://edberry.com/blog/climate-clash/b-temperature-and-co2-history/b-temperature-and-co2-history/

      This shows temperatures have gone up and down numerous times in the last 400,000 years. I still think in order to establish AGW as a valid science to assign cause and effect you absolutely have to control for the other big variable in this mix, albedo. It is unscientific to assume this stays the same or cannot be changed by changing conditions. As long as climate scientists do not have valid and good measurements of global albedo they will not be able to assign and cause and effect to carbon dioxide.

      Anyway I hope you have the energy to continue the debate.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Slip – Is it not clear that if a forcing has an effect on temperature, it is the time-integral of the forcing (or a function thereof), not the instantaneous value of the forcing, that causes the temperature to change? The change, if any, must be in the form of a transient.

      • Slipstick says:

        Actually, all of the above is true depending on whether you are measuring an instantaneous value or an average. I’m not sure what your point is.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Some folks (e.g. big Al and apparently many in the consensus) believe that, because, during previous glacials/interglacials, the CO2 level and temperature went up and down in ‘lock step’ it proves that CO2 change causes temperature change. This is wrong. Because, if CO2 is a forcing (it is not), temperature must respond to the time-integral of the CO2 level (or the time-integral of a function thereof), this ‘lock step’ observation actually demonstrates the opposite; that CO2 level changed in response to temperature change and that CO2 has no effect on average global temperature.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          CO2 & temp during glacial and interglacial periods of the current ice age: Figure 1 at http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm (Ignore the narrative nonsense at this site. SS has a poor grasp of the relation between mathematics and the physical world.)

  30. Slipstick says:

    Norman,
    There is no hope of altering the views of the gentlemen you mentioned; you cannot reason with belief. I make the posts I do because I enjoy a debate, even against bad debaters with flawed arguments (perhaps more so, in some cases), and the mental calisthenics required when discussing physics, one of my favorite subjects, helps keep my mind sharp. I also have a nearly pathological need for accuracy and truth, especially when discussing science, and have difficulty letting irrational nonsense, which might misinform the less knowledgeable, go unanswered.

    Regarding AGW, the basis for my acceptance of CO2 as a primary contributor to the current climatic conditions is quite simple and not based on any equation. Current conditions and their rate of change over the last few decades are outside the range of values for the last 400,000 years or so and the only factor that is also outside the normal range is CO2 (I see methane and fluorocarbons as minor factors, at least at present). The change of CO2 corresponds precisely with the rapid increase in humanity’s use of fossil fuels. Also, the recent onset of the unusually rapid increase in temperature corresponds with implementation of controls of cooling aerosols, the other major product of the use of fossil fuels.

    In contrast, insolation is not outside the range of the past. Also, the simplistic “solar-only” models I’ve seen all seem to depend on equations that overlook the fact that the effect of “natural” CO2 is already inherent in the temperature at a given time and use “magic” coefficients, with little physical basis, to make the curves fit.

    In general, I think using relatively simple equations to model the climate at time scales other weeks or decades is ridiculous; the climate is far too chaotic and past data too spotty to model over months or years, except statistically. I find arguments that a given model is wrong because it didn’t track linearly over 5 or 10 years just plain silly.

    Cause and effect are often difficult to assign, so I consider the current El Nino as an excellent test for the CO2 vs. solar models. If the El Nino is as strong as is currently expected and average temperatures after the La Nina, which will almost certainly follow, do not increase, then I will need to give more consideration to other models. Based on past temperature records, I’m giving it four years before I make a judgement.

    One of the beauties of science is that it is inherently self-correcting. I am more than willing to accept new models if they are well-supported and better represent the reality I know. If you have any climatic models that you think I should consider, please share them.

  31. mpainter says:

    Slipstick: “Current conditions and their rate of change over the last few decades are outside the range of values for the last 400,000 years or so..”
    ###

    Simply untrue and easily shown so. The beginning of the Holocene saw a global temperature rise of 4-6 °C in a few decades, as per ice core data. The whole Pleistocene is punctuated by such precipitous temperature rises, as per ice core data. These are known as interstadials. The Holocene itself shows swings in temperature comparable to the late warming trend which ended before this century began (which trend, by the way, has been shown to be due to increases in cloud albedo).

    Your system of beliefs rests on a foundation of ignorance, in typical AGW fashion.

    • Slipstick says:

      I stand corrected; thank you. Researching this has been most interesting. I had been under the mistaken impression that this temperature rise had occurred over centuries, not decades. I will stop the comparison to rates of temperature rise over the last 400,000 years and confine myself to the Boreal and later.

      However, this information does not alter the fact that, now that we have significant and pervasive sensor data on the climate, the only climate component that has changed significantly over the last century and can explain the recent warming is the mix of atmospheric gases and CO2 concentration, which is now significantly higher than at any time since the Pleistocene. Until I see a more convincing model than the so-called “greenhouse effect”, such as if the cooling predicted by solar models becomes apparent, or some hitherto undiscovered mechanism is identified, I must continue to accept that model. In any case, let’s hope that, whatever the cause of the recent warming, we are not headed for a 1.5 deg per decade temperature increase.

      As to cloud albedo, although I haven’t followed this closely, my understanding is there is still significant debate as to whether this is a cause or an effect.

      • mpainter says:

        Slipstick,
        I am astonished that you actually took the trouble to inform yourself on the matter. I congratulate you.

        Here is something else to research. What was the estimated anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 circa 1918-1940?
        (When the global temperature anomaly rose about .4°C)

        • Slipstick says:

          mpainter,
          You should not be astonished. Those that know me would tell you that I seek the truth, as best as it can be known.

          • mpainter says:

            And the truth shall set you free:

            Estimated anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 – about 22 ppm circa 1918, at the beginning of the trend, about 25 ppm at the end. Go figure.

            Just think, Slipstick, no more daemon CO2 hiding under your bed.

      • Norman says:

        Slipstick,

        As mpainter pointed out, there was just as drastic temperature rise from 1918 to 1940.

        “As to cloud albedo, although I haven’t followed this closely, my understanding is there is still significant debate as to whether this is a cause or an effect.”

        What if the PDO or ADO or other factors does greatly effect the cloud albedo? Albedo changes can easily explain warming and cooling events especially if they are long term and sustained.

        If you change the global albedo by 1% you change the global temp by 1 K (same as 1 C).
        http://www.geo.umass.edu/courses/climat/radbal.html

        Until climate science controls for albedo by actually measuring it (like they do carbon dioxide levels) the AGW hypothesis cannot be upgraded to a theory. I do accept the GHE but that does not mean I fully accept AGW since it is unclear how much contribution CO2 has on global temperature if you do eliminate potential changes in albedo that can cause the same effect.

        It is very refreshing to communicate with you after interacting with geran. At least you put out an effort to debate science.

    • fonzarelli says:

      Painter, and let’s not forget that temps rose just one hundred years ago as much as we’ve seen over the last few decades as well…

  32. Norman says:

    geran,

    I want to ask you a question of what your current reading level is at since in a post above you state this.

    “*N One surface does not impede radiation at all.
    *G ??? What surface are you talking about? What radiation? I have no idea what your point is.”

    Now this is my original post that you cannot seem to comprehend:
    “You have two conditions (moon with no slowing of radiation loss and a much cooler mean temperature than Earth)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
    Link for moon’s average surface temperature.

    One surface does not impede radiation at all. The surface radiates at the rate set by its surface temperature and emissitivity and will cool at that rate (which is very rapid) as this graph will show:”

    I guess you can’t follow a thought the way most people can. I was talking about the moon and Earth. One surface does not impede radiation at all would be the moon if you had normal reading comprehension as it was what I was talking about in the material above. I even state it in parenthesis that the moon will not slow radiation loss.

    I guess since you possess a simplistic reading ability I will have to be very careful to clarify every statement I make since you will not be able to grasp the content by thinking about it.

    • geran says:

      Oh, I get it now.

      You are of the speaking from the level of a third grader. Fortunately, i have or used to have or didn’t have but wanted to have since i lost my computer-aided punctuation app but that is before you didn’t know and then the Moon showed up. After that the surface did not impede like I thought, but then on Earth the surface was being the moon and then the radiation caused the parenthesis and most people know what happened then.

      How’d I do?

  33. Norman says:

    geran,

    This statement in your post is really lame did you post it to compete with Doug Cotton to see who can come up with ideas as far as possible away from real physics? Is that what the two of you are up to? A posting war to see who can show the least knowledge of physics?

    From you post above:

    “*N If our atmosphere impedes the outflow of radiation by having a backradiation do to IR absorbing molecules and some of this radiation is redirected to the surface, the surface will not cool as fast as if it had none of these gases and will be warmer after the same time frame. When sunlight comes around again the surface has more energy stored than it would have if it had no backradiation and the sun will add energy to this store.
    *G Nope! You are back to your “belief system”. You fell “off the wagon”, again. The Sun does not “add” to existing surface temperature, it “overrides” it. If what you are saying is true, Earth’s temperature would increase each day until the oceans were boiling. Pseudoscience ALWAYS blows up in your face.”

    Why the hell would you come up with this comment? Based upon what.

    For some reason you will not go to this link and generate some plots. Why I do not know, probably because it will expose you as a moron or Doug Cotton wannabe…Did you tell your parents that when you grow up you want to be just like good old Doug Cotton your hero?
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

    Plot graphs goofy clown, your hilarious posts are giving me belly cramps. You are too funny for words.

    Now clown of the century, click on some boxes to see what is going on. You will see that at night with a GHE and backradiation the surface of the Earth and the air temperature both go down. Why? Okay clown can you figure out why? If you can I would be more than amazed. The reason is so hilarious, the NET IR radiation is negative at night. How can that be? That would mean the Earth’s surface is losing energy and cooling (don’t tell mpainter it might flip him out!) at night. Whoops do I see the Air and surface temperatures trending down during the night time? Oh no my stupidity is exposed for all to see, I’m a hilarious clown and my name is geran! Wait what is that? The sun is out and pouring radiation into the system and the temperature is starting to rise, it is reaching a peak and now it is going back down. It is not boiling the oceans. How can I be so incredibly wrong? What am I to do now. I think I will respond to Norman’s post about me and tell him he is a clown and is hilarious and the people reading it will forget how little I know of physics, radiation, heat, temperature, energy, joules, First Law of thermodynamics. I will look like a champ smelling like a rose. My many followers will sing praises about my awesome brilliance and how I out thought the Norman clown!

  34. geran says:

    Norm says: “I will respond to Norman’s post about me and tell him he is a clown and is hilarious”
    _______
    Yup.

  35. Norman says:

    geran says “Yup, two identical systems, losing energy at differing rates, will end up with different temps.”

    Okay a start. I must choose each word carefully for my low level comprehension friend going by the name geran.

    Now the most difficult part. Even though geran is able to understand that the rate of energy loss will determine relative temperature between two identical systems and that one will be colder than the other, he will not be able to understand that the warmer one is COOLING SLOWER than the colder one.

    It must be something to do with the combination of the two words that totally confuses this person. I guess it might be a reference frame confusion. Rather than make a statement that the Earth cools slower than the moon I should have stated that the Moon cools faster than the Earth. Since the term “slower cooling” confuses geran it would probably be better to use the term “cools faster”, such a switch in terminology will probably help him to understand and compute the information.

    So without GHG in Earth’s atmosphere the Earth would cool faster than an atmosphere with such gases.

    Now it makes sense to him. Pat myself on the back for helping clarify a confusing choice of terms.

    • geran says:

      “Pat myself on the back…”

      Norm, you could just pat yourself on the back and save a lot of electrons!

      (But, we would miss the hilarity.)

  36. gbaikie says:

    Some reason my post was eaten, I’ll re-post it, try
    removing some links & see what happens:
    – Norman says:
    August 15, 2015 at 9:03 PM

    gbaikie

    I was reading your post about the moon. I could not find data to determine how hot the moon’s surface would rise if the day/night cylce was 7 hours. You said it would get up to 120 C but would only drop to around 0 C at night so would end up much warmer.

    It is interesting but I do not know how you calculated your results. Thanks if you can inform me.–

    The lunar surface is completely covered with fine fluffy dust.
    So, it the temperature of this dust which is the surface of the Moon and what is meant by the lunar surface temperature.
    Though there are some bare rocks, and solid rocks would conduct heat a lot better than the dust. And the dust if compacted would more resemble the conduction of heat of solid rocks.
    But as said most of the moon is covered by the fluffy dust.
    Which tends to be darkish and greyish.

    I would say a good analogy or loose approximation of lunar dust is aerogel [or I know nothing which is should be closer]:
    “Aerogel is a synthetic porous ultralight material derived from a gel, in which the liquid component of the gel has been replaced with a gas.The result is a solid with extremely low density and low thermal conductivity. Nicknames include frozen smoke, solid smoke, solid air, or blue smoke owing to its translucent nature and the way light scatters in the material. It feels like fragile expanded polystyrene to the touch. Aerogels can be made from a variety of chemical compounds.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel
    Or one could just say better than most insulation one can buy at Home Depot.
    And the Moon has a vacuum which difficult to make on Earth
    and the Moon has lower gravity. And very dry.
    Of course Aerogel can be made to be more translucent than lunar dust- so not saying that the picture of the translucent Aerogel [wiki] is like this fluffy lunar regolith- though I imagine it is somewhat translucent to the bright sunlight.

    So I am saying that in a hour the sun is warming about 1 cm of silica and not saying much about the temperature below this. So maybe range of fluffy layer is 2 to 8 cm, and what warming up to to 120 C is top 1 cm.
    So now have look up the density:
    “I’m at the foot of the ladder. The LM [Lunar
    Module] footpads are only depressed in the
    surface about 1 or 2 inches, although the
    surface appears to be very, very fine-grained, as
    you get close to it, it’s almost like a powder;
    down there, it’s very fine … I’m going to step off
    the LM now. That’s one small step for (a) man.
    One giant leap for mankind. As the—The surface
    is fine and powdery. I can—I can pick it up
    loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers
    like powdered charcoal to the sole and sides of
    my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch.
    Maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the
    footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine
    sandy particles.”
    Neil A. Armstrong Tranquillity Base
    (Apollo 11), July 20, 1969
    continue:

    “The median particle size is 40 to 130
    µm, with an average of 70 µm
    ; i.e., approximately half
    of the soil by weight is finer than the human eye can
    resolve. Roughly 10% to 20% of the soil is finer than 20
    µm, and a thin layer of dust”

    “Values for lunar soils range from 2.3 to >3.2; we recommend a value
    of 3.1 for general scientific and engineering analyses
    of lunar soils.
    The average specific gravity of a given lunar soil is
    related to the relative proportions of different particle
    types; i.e., basalts, mineral fragments, breccias, agglutinates, and glasses (Fig. 7.1).
    However, the interpretation of the specific
    gravity is complicated by the porosity of the particles.
    As illustrated in Fig. 9.3,
    the porosity may be divided into three categories: (1)
    intergranular porosity, or the volume of space
    between individual particles; ”
    &

    The bulk density of soil is defined as the mass of
    the material contained within a given volume, usually
    expressed in grams per cubic centimeter.
    And 0-15 cm: 1.45 to 1.55
    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter09.pdf

    Right, so due to space [voids] between the grain in density it’s about 1.5 but material is about 3.1- or about 1/2 volume voids.

    Specific heat of granite: 790 joules kg per K, density 2.7
    So lunar about same per kg, but it’s 1.5.
    So square meter 1 cm deep is about 15 kg or 11,185 joules.
    If could perfectly conduct heat, it’s 11,185 divided by 1360 watts per square meter- 8.7 seconds of sunlight per K.
    Or 200 K in 1742.5 second.
    But it’s not perfect conductor, rather it’s essentially a perfect insulator. But as said I also think it’s somewhat translucent- say 1 mm [or maybe more].
    I gave 120 C of the surface at equator at day and 0 C night.
    And at equator that’s average surface temperature of 60 C.
    And a foot under ground could be about 30 C- and doesn’t change much whether it’s day or night [which the case with earth with it’s 24 hour day- though varies with season].
    So 1 foot under the ground might be better way to describe
    it’s average temperature- but it’s not how done now.
    And with Moon’s slow rotation the average temperature foot under ground is about -30 C.
    So I would say such faster rotation give both illusion of being warmer, plus actually does increase the average temperature. Or if want to put white boxes 5 feet above the ground in lunar “natural setting” the faster rotation would also raise the temperature it measures.

    • Norman says:

      gbaikie

      Thanks for you thoughtful post. You do have a deep thinking ability, I do like that.

      I did see a potential flaw to your calculation you may wish to correct. If you are good with calculus it will be very easy for you since you would need to integrate the energy the moon’s surface would actually receive in the 3.5 hours.

      You used 1360 watts/m^2 for your calculation but that amount of energy would only strike the surface at noon, the rest of the day the value would be lower based upon the following equation.

      I=S cos Z (S is the 1360 and Z is the angle from Zenith, directly overhead is 0)
      http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/July61999siteupdate/inv99Project.Site/Pages/solar.insolation.html

      And a cosine calculator
      http://www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/Cos_Calculator.htm

      If you took the total energy joules that will hit a meter of ground you would be able to get an precise temperature based upon your other equations like you need 11,185 joules to heat one square meter of moon’s surface 1 K.

      I was trying to find an online intergal calculator to find the area under the curve of cos(Z) to multiply it by 1360 but have not been successful.

      • gbaikie says:

        With 3.5 hour day at equator, you have 1.75 hours where sun is above 45 degree above horizon.
        In morning there .865 hours prior to sun reaching 45 degree above the horizon.
        1.75 hours is 6300 seconds
        .865 hours is 3114 second
        And each “hour” is 1050 seconds.
        The day starts at 6 am and ends at 6 pm.
        At 7 am the sun is 15 degrees above horizon and 1360 watts
        is about 1/4th with about 340 watt per square meter. And this would warm a perfect blackbody to 5 C. Or according to GHE lore the ideal blackbody which emitted 340 watts would be 5.3 C.
        One my assumptions is the lunar surface would be translucent to a depth 1 mm, or +1 mm, but with the 7 am sunlight the surface would be translucent to 1/4 this vertical depth.

        And one could also say that by 7 am, whatever the temperature of the night before the top 1 mm of lunar surface should warmer than 0 C. Or if square meter 1 cm deep is about 15 kg or 11,185 joules. Then 1 mm is 1.5 kg and 1118.5 joules and at 340 watts, about 4 second per K or about 15 K a minute. 200 K in 13 mins. Though my guess is surface cools to only about 0 C at night and 1 foot [30 cm] under the surface it’s 30 C.
        So at 7 am the surface 1 mm is + 0 C and it is warming under 1 mm, though 30 cm under the surface it is still very slowly cooling from it’s average of 30 C and in the 7 hour day varies less than 1 K, so a 7 am therefore accordingly it’s more than 29 C [if that is correct].

        In the 1050 seconds between 7 am and 8 am, the sun travels 15 degree. Going from 15 to 30 degrees above the horizon.
        And goes from 340 to 680 watts per square meter, surface should be cooler than 333 K [less than 60 C]. And at 8 am that 1 inch [2.5 cm] below the surface somewhere around 30 C or less. Or 60 C is fairly warm beach sand and one expect less than 30 K difference in inch of beach sand, but this much better insulator than beach sand. Or [checking] my dirt outside is 56 C and and about +40 C about 1 inch below the surface at 11:50 am.
        And surface will warm closer to 60 C within 30 min or hour- I would guess. And assume much of heat is drying the soil- which don’t have on the Moon. Oh wetter dirt [checking] 38 C
        and about 32 C inch below [quite wet as watered it a couple hours ago].
        Anyhow from 8 am to 9 am the sun goes another 15 degree
        and goes from 30 degrees to 45 degree or from 680 watts to
        about 970 watts [perfect blackbody over 355 K [81 C]] and so moon top 1 mm should about 80 C, and by this time should warmer inch below the surface [or going from about 30 K difference in inch to 50 K difference of about 15 C to 25 C difference per cm. And sun more directly over head the top 1 mm is somewhat transparent/translucent.

        So from 9 am to noon, I don’t see any problem with surface warming to 120 C, the questionable aspect is how deep is the ground warmed to. And it should continue warming under the ground in a significant manner until about 3 pm.
        Check my dirt: +60 C and wet is 38 C.

  37. Doug Cotton says:

    “And with Moon’s slow rotation the average temperature foot under ground is about -30°C”

    Yes – just about exactly half way between the maximum and minimum, and very representative of mean surface temperatures.

    Which proves my point, thank you, that the Sun’s direct radiation cannot possibly raise Earth’s surface temperature to observed mean values.

    The Earth’s surface requires a net input of thermal energy to rise in temperature in the morning.

    Now, there’s a $5,000 reward at stake here.

    Still no one has qualified for that reward, and I defy you all to find any attempt at it in any comment on any climate blog which meets the requirements.

    To be the first in the world (since my book was published nearly 18 months ago) to qualify, you have to prove the physics that is actually explained in the book (or the paper which you can read free, or the 43 minute video linked at http://climate-change-theory.com) to be substantially wrong, and then you need to outline (with computations and correct physics) how you think a planet’s surface gets the net input of thermal energy to rise in temperature as observed in the morning, and you need to show empirical evidence in a study with similar methodology to mine, but which shows water vapor warms substantial in accord with IPCC claims, rather than cools as my hypothesis says it should, and as my study confirms from 30 years of data from three continents.

    PS: If the guy who argued with me at Carlingford Court, NSW today (Sunday) happens to read this – well, yes, you’ve found where you can continue the argument.

  38. gbaikie says:

    “The take-home message of the satellite data is two-fold. First, at the global level, all recent studies show there has been a significant greening of the planet over the past few decades despite the occurrence of a number of real (and imagined) assaults on Earth’s vegetation, including wildfires, disease, pest outbreaks, deforestation, and climatic changes in temperature and precipitation. Greening has more than compensated for any of the negative effects these phenomena may have had on the global biosphere during that time.”
    http://www.cato.org/blog/co2-induced-greening-earth-benefiting-biosphere-while-lifting-poor-out-poverty

  39. Norman says:

    gbaikie

    On your moon heating and cooling rate for a much more rapidly rotating moon. I am taking your calculation of heat capacity of moon surface of 11,185 joules/m^2 K. To raise the temp from 0 to 120 would require 1,342,200 joules of energy (One also must calculate rate of energy loss as the material is heated as that energy will not help in raising the temperature unless you use mpainter’s logic that any absorbed radiation raises temperature and you do not consider loss rate).

    I am doing the reverse calculation using your equations. Your moon surface has to lose 1,342,000 joules/meter^2 to go from 120 C to 0 C.

    At night the surface will only radiate away energy. I looked up the emissitivity of granite. It is 0.45 according to this website.
    http://www.omega.com/literature/transactions/volume1/emissivityb.html

    Using a online Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, at 120 K the surface would be radiating at a rate of around 608 watts/m^2. The night will last 12,600 seconds. At 0 C the rate of emission will be 141 watts/m^2. Midpoint would be 374 watts/m^2. If you radiated away energy at the 374 average for 12,600 seconds the surface would lose 4,712,400 joules. Even at the temperature of 0 C for granite with 141 watts/m^2 radiation flux away from the surface the net loss of energy would be 1,776,600 joules. Even at the lowest rate of radiation loss at night the surface would still be losing more energy than is has available to go to just 0 C from 120 C. Either the rock must store more energy or you will still cool way below 0 C during the night.

    Thanks for you very thought provoking posts. Let me know how you calculate the cooling at night for a fast moving moon. Maybe I am wrong in how I calculated these numbers.

    • gbaikie says:

      — Norman says:
      August 16, 2015 at 2:28 PM

      gbaikie

      On your moon heating and cooling rate for a much more rapidly rotating moon. I am taking your calculation of heat capacity of moon surface of 11,185 joules/m^2 K. To raise the temp from 0 to 120 would require 1,342,200 joules of energy (One also must calculate rate of energy loss as the material is heated as that energy will not help in raising the temperature unless you use mpainter’s logic that any absorbed radiation raises temperature and you do not consider loss rate).–

      But as indicate by 9 am the surface should be about 60 C
      and slowly conducting heat below the surface, and such conduction will lower the surface temperature as compared to not conducting the heat.
      Or at 9 am if the surface were a blackbody and was radiating 921 watts it would be 357 C [84 C], instead getting 970 watts but not absorbing all of it, because it’s not a perfect blackbody and it’s conducting heat below the surface, and conducting more heat below the surface because more heat is conducted with greater temperature difference per some distance [meter or cm] it’s 60 C conducting to less than 30 C, less than 1 foot [or actually surface is assumed to be 0 C before dawn meaning the couple cm of surface is near O C and 2 cm depth would not warmed much by 9 am, so swag of 10 C at 2 cm depth [warmer than +29 C at 30 cm] and so 50 K difference in distance of 1 cm regarding solar heat and 20 C difference over distance of 28 cm, or each cm depth below 2 cm could about 1 K difference per cm

      So got 3000 second before noon and already half way between 0 and 120 C, and by noon adding 390 watts to the 970 watt of sunlight, and we know that 1360 watt makes lunar surface over 120 C. And when lunar surface reaches it’s maxium temperature we can assume not many watts are warming beneath the surface. Suppose it warming it by 10 watts per square meter, that it doing this for days. One day is 86400 second so 864000 joules per day- hmm, probably about right. But with this faster day, one might heating by say 100 watts per square meter, because there greater difference of temperature between the top surface and say each layer which is 1 cm deeper- or the greater the difference the more heat can be conducted thru the good insulator.

      So if conducting say 100 watts per square, it would radiating 100 watts less than the sunlight- how else could it be?
      And because it’s not perfect blackbody it won’t radiate as much wattage that perfect blackbody radiate at a given temperature.
      Or if was conducting heat beneath the surface, than it be very similar temperature as present slow rotating moon.
      Or per average second of heating from the Moon, the fast rotating moon absorbs and conducts more heat than slow rotating moon. Plus it has less time to radiate at night- and why it would have higher average temperature.
      So faster rotation is increasing the conduction rate per second of daytime heating and has less seconds to cool.

      –I am doing the reverse calculation using your equations. Your moon surface has to lose 1,342,000 joules/meter^2 to go from 120 C to 0 C.

      At night the surface will only radiate away energy. I looked up the emissitivity of granite. It is 0.45 according to this website.
      http://www.omega.com/literature/transactions/volume1/emissivityb.html

      Using a online Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, at 120 K the surface would be radiating at a rate of around 608 watts/m^2. The night will last 12,600 seconds. At 0 C the rate of emission will be 141 watts/m^2. Midpoint would be 374 watts/m^2. —

      Remember:
      –At 7 am the sun is 15 degrees above horizon and 1360 watts
      is about 1/4th with about 340 watt per square meter. And this would warm a perfect blackbody to 5 C.–

      So, at 5 pm, the top 1 cm of surface is no longer 120 C.
      Or 4 pm it’s probably less than 100 C, but couple cm below the surface it could be say 110 C, and this warmer section would still be heating below it [and heating above it]. And sunset surface might around 30 C and 2 cm below it could be 60 C. And 3 cm might be 70 C warming the 2 cm and below it

      It’s still daylight and 6:47 pm: dirt in sunlight is 26 C, and inch under it’s 27 C. And that Moon day would be going faster.

  40. Norman says:

    gbaikie

    Another thing about Stefan-Boltzmann is that grey bodies will reach a higher equilibrium temperatures than a blackbody under a constant radiation flux. It should convince any that the GHE is real. You can go to an online Stefan-Boltzmann calculator to see this. With a constant flux of 1360 watts/m^2 a black-body will reach an equilibrium temperature of 393.5 K (120 C). A grey body say an emissitivity of 0.5 will reach an equilibrium temperature of 468 K (195 C). That is because a grey body will radiate away at a much lower rate than a blackbody and with the same amount of energy coming in will reach a higher temperature at equilibrium conditions. The grey body has to get much get to a much hotter temperature to get to a point it can radiate away 1360 watts/m^2. So the GHG in the atmosphere turn the Earth with its almost blackbody surface (water is 0.98). With backradiation it makes the surface like a grey body. The outgoing radiation is much less so the surface has to get much warmer to radiate at an equilbrium rate.

    If you put in 0.397 as the emissitivity of a GHE (rather than a 1) and use 161 watts as the amount of solar energy reaching every meter^2 you get an equilibrium temperature very close to the 288 K given as a GHE.

    • mpainter says:

      Norman says “Another thing about Stefan-Boltzmann is that grey bodies will reach a higher equilibrium temperatures than a blackbody under a constant radiation flux.”
      ####

      Nope. Depends on the reflectivity of the gray body. A gray body absorbs radiation imperfectly. Norman, you have screwy ideas. The reflectivity of the earth is put at 0.3.

      Also “

      • Norman says:

        mpainter,

        You are correct but I do learn from my screwy ideas. Can you learn from yours and explain how does kinetic energy increase when the Net flow of energy of an object is negative? We all have flaws (sorry geran) can you learn from yours? Examine what you believe and see if it is still correct after you work through it.

    • gbaikie says:

      — Norman says:
      August 16, 2015 at 3:08 PM

      gbaikie

      Another thing about Stefan-Boltzmann is that grey bodies will reach a higher equilibrium temperatures than a blackbody under a constant radiation flux. —
      A blackbody at 100 C will radiate more energy than a greybody at 100 C.
      But equilibrium temperature depends on time and “things”.
      In space something painted white might reach 50 C [and not get warmer regardless of time] and something painted black could reach 100 C [and not get warmer regardless of time].

      In terms of greybodies, that 1 mm of lunar dust being translucent to sunlight could make a difference in terms of equilibrium temperatures.

      “It should convince any that the GHE is real. You can go to an online Stefan-Boltzmann calculator to see this. With a constant flux of 1360 watts/m^2 a black-body will reach an equilibrium temperature of 393.5 K (120 C). A grey body say an emissitivity of 0.5 will reach an equilibrium temperature of 468 K (195 C). That is because a grey body will radiate away at a much lower rate than a blackbody and with the same amount of energy coming in will reach a higher temperature at equilibrium conditions. ”

      GHE could be real.
      But my problem is with Greenhouse Effect Theory, and idea that only greenhouse gases could cause a spherical planet to warmer the ideal blackbody sphere.
      Or I think it’s possible greenhouse gases could be warming by say 10 C- I have not yet rule out that possibility.
      But I have ruled out that CO2 is a control knob, though strictly speaking it’s not part of Greenhouse Effect Theory, but rather one result of the pseudo science of Greenhouse Effect Theory.

  41. geran says:

    Norm says: “Another thing about Stefan-Boltzmann is that grey bodies will reach a higher equilibrium temperatures than a blackbody under a constant radiation flux.”
    ________
    Norm, your “belief systems” and pseudoscience are plenty hilarious. But, I like it even better when you display your confusion over the well-established science.

    Keep it up, we’re enjoying the heck out of it.

  42. Doug Cotton says:

    Norman makes yet another blunder or two

    “When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 253°F (123°C). The “dark side of the moon” can have temperatures dipping to minus 243°F (minus 153°C).” [source]

    So you see the maximum temperature 123°C (in just a very small region of the surface of the Moon – not the whole sunlit hemisphere) is indeed very close to the black body temperature for 1360W/m^2 that being about 120°C. The difference could be measurement error.

    But Norman, a grey body does not reach a higher equilibrium temperature than a black body. It is “grey” because it reflects. So, just like Pierrehumbert calculated for the whole Earth+atmosphere system, we deduct the reflected radiation first (about 30%) and only apply the rest in S-B calculations. Try leaving a silver spoon in the Sun all day. If you were right, Norman, it would get rather hot.

    Furthermore, Norman, the mean solar flux reaching the sunlit hemisphere of the Moon is half of 1360W/m^2 and, although that flux of 680W/m^2 has a black body temperature of 58°C, the actual mean temperature would be quite a bit colder because of the T^4 relationship.

    When flux varies, the mean temperature achieved is always lower than the temperature that would be achieved by the mean of the flux. And that’s why the solar radiation of 168W/m^2 reaching Earth’s surface could not achieve a mean temperature of about -40°C because the mean it could achieve would be somewhat colder than that. And of course that’s irrelevant, because the radiation from the atmosphere might well support a mean temperature higher than that, say -20°C because the atmosphere gets warmed by radiation more than the surface, and that’s because more of the radiation has been absorbed by the time it gets to the surface.

    So have fun with your radiation calculations, boys. Radiation ain’t what’s doing it. Try listening to 43 minutes of correct explanation, and I make no apology for the length of the video, because the physics is at the forefront of 21st century understanding of thermodynamics and entropy and not something you’ll find in textbooks yet.

    And don’t forget to leave a silver spoon in the Sun, Norman. Maybe make a trip to Singapore in a few weeks when the Sun will pass directly overhead and warm that tropical rain forest climate to a blistering 32°C – and your silver spoon to 32°C also. Do you still believe rain forests are hotter than dry deserts, Norman, because IPCC & Co does.

    • Norman says:

      Doug Cotton,

      Thanks for pointing out the flaw in my thinking. I have corrected it at this time.

      In order for a polished silver spoon with an emissitivity of 0.02 to radiate 1360 watts/m^2 it would have to be at a temperature of 1046 K or 773 C. That is the part I was thinking and it is wrong in a radiant field. In the radiation field of 1360 watts the silver spoon can only absorb 27.2 watts/m^2. It will reach equilibrium temperature when the silver spoon emits at the rate of 27.2 watts/m^2 which is what it can absorb from the 1360 watts/m^2. The temperature the spoon will reach, with constant radiation of 1360 watts/m^2 hitting it, is 393.5 K or 120 C. That is the temperature any object in a radiation field of 1360 watts/m^2 will reach.

  43. Doug Cotton says:

    Roy

    Please read the above comment to Norman and, if you want correct material for your next TV appearance, spend the time listening to my video presentation (linked in that comment) because that brings it all together, refuting the greenhouse garbage and explaining with valid physics what really happens.

    Doug

  44. MikeB says:

    I see many people using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law wrongly to calculate how hot an object may become by absorbing radiation at a given intensity. It cannot be used like that. An object may lose heat in other ways apart from radiative losses, e.g. conduction, convection, evaporation. Stefan-Boltzmann only applies the other way around, i.e. how much a blackbody will radiate at a given temperature.

    The amount a blackbody radiates is fully determined by its own temperature, regardless of evaporation, convection etc.

    • mpainter says:

      MikeB says “The amount a blackbody radiates is fully determined by its own temperature, regardless of evaporation, convection etc.”

      ###

      I cannot see that. Perhaps you’d meaning escapes me. Or perhaps you are thinking in terms of radiative loss as a function of temperature and other means of energy loss, combined.

    • gbaikie says:

      –The amount a blackbody radiates is fully determined by its own temperature, regardless of evaporation, convection etc.–

      Perhaps, but it depends upon correctly measuring it’s temperature- or unless air temperature is same, convection will increase or lower a surface temperature.
      Now of course if air temperature is the same, the gas and the surface are still exchanging energy- but it’s a balance of energy, though one can say this exchange could alter some things- it could alter depending on how you measure it.
      Or this model is better in vacuum and better if the radiating surface is thin.

  45. Doug  C o t t o n   says:

    gbaikie, Roy and others:

    Yes indeed. It is “about absorbed [stored] energy” as you say. You’ll find my hypothesis is about energy that has been trapped (by gravity) “under” the sloping thermal plane over the life of the planet.

    And, because you now admit that fact, you are agreeing that the solar radiation is having no effect in typical early morning and late afternoon situations I described. Unfortunately for the GH advocates, it has to be having an effect, for otherwise their mean solar radiation (and their assumed temperature supposedly caused by that radiation) is invalidated, because the calculation of their mean includes all these situations and locations (probably more than 80% of the sunlit hemisphere) where they should not be counting the solar radiation because it’s not having any warming effect.

    By the time you have spent three or four hours really studying the two papers linked from the ‘Evidence‘ page the penny will drop (if I can assume you are an intelligent person with a grasp of physics) and you will realize that all the pieces of the jigsaw fit together. Radiation can’t explain it: gravity can and does – throughout the Solar System.

    Just remember, 168W/m^2 of direct solar radiation can’t explain a mean surface temperature above -40°C. You can’t turn around then and say we should add the radiation from the atmosphere. All the radiation in all directions between the surface and the atmosphere is only cooling the surface and causing a transfer of thermal energy out of the surface. You can’t add just the downward radiation and say its value can be included in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. But even if you do (incorrectly) do that, so that even if you think you can use (168+324)W/m^2 in S-B calculations, the mean temperature that a uniform flux (24 hours a day) of 492W/m^2 striking a flat Earth (without an atmosphere) would produce is 32°C. But we don’t have that kind of Earth, and when the mean is really made up of quite variable flux (sometimes up to 1,000W/m^2) and that variable flux has a mean of 492W/m^2, then I’m afraid to have to tell you that the mean temperature achieved would be below 0°C. And it gets worse, because at the top of Mt Everest, even though we know why, the solar radiation of around 1,000W/m^2 on a clear summer day does not achieve anything like the calculated value of 91°C. So everywhere that we think S-B is explaining the temperature it is doing no such thing because the Earth is not only not flat, but it’s also rotating and the Sun doesn’t have enough time in the day to achieve S-B temperatures. So much of the day’s solar radiation is not used to raise the maximum temperature, but to make the nights less cold. And remember, you really shouldn’t have added the back radiation anyway.

    PS – My blog that accepts comments is on FaceBook where I have a group of about 170 members at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/689409151120443/

Leave a Reply