The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2017 was +0.27 deg. C, up from the March, 2017 value of +0.19 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.98
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.08
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.64 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.33 +0.50 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.29 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.31 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.38 +0.37
2016 10 +0.40 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.26 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
2017 03 +0.19 +0.30 +0.07 +0.03
2017 04 +0.27 +0.27 +0.26 +0.21
The UAH LT global anomaly image for April, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated soon, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
I once said that when IR is absorbed and re-emmitted from a GHG, that 1/6 is redirected toward the Earth and 5/6 is toward space. I was corrected because of the cone shape toward Earth traced out toward Earth is not 1/6. Out of the blue it came to my mind this morning that time is a factor. The shortest distance/time back to Earth is straight down, thus as we trace out the distance/time back to Earth as we move outward along that cone, I’m sure that would trace and arc opposite of the curvature of the Earth, whose volume within might represent the 1/6 I was talking about.
Alick,
It should be about half back towards Earth and half back up towards space, because the probability of re-emission at any discrete layer is (by and large) equal in any direction.
RW,
The distribution of emission would be a sphere over time. There are six basic directions in 3D space, 5 of which are toward space, or in other words, away from Earth’s surface because of the nature of Earth being a sphere.
IR is vector isn’t it? It has magnitude and direction. Thus it can be broken down into it’s unit vectors along the x,y,z axis. Wouldn’t the distribution pattern of a sphere just breakdown into the 1/6 toward Earth and 5/6 away from Earth?
You are assuming that the IR emitted by a CO2 molecule travels all the way to the ground. Most do not — they are reabsorbed before they get there.
The IR that strikes the ground will come from very low altitudes, i.e. half of it will strike the ground.
Only a detailed calculation, requiring a model, can solve this completely.
“The IR that strikes the ground will come from very low altitudes, i.e. half of it will strike the ground. ”
I would agree. But what is very low altitude?
One might think 500 meters is very low altitude. Or it could be 100 feet or less.
As I recall there was some study showing warming from “very low altitude” CO2 concentration. But I don’t have the link to it [or effectively lost in large numbers bookmarks I keep:).
I think there could warming from low altitude CO2 concentration, but I don’t regard this as related to greenhouse effect theory- or I don’t regard +5 km altitude as “very low altitude”, though someone could consider this is very low.
+gbaikie
At precisely 15 microns, the mean free path under today’s CO2 concentrations is just over 30 cm.
Applied physics uses the Poynting vector to calculate the net flux ax a single component through a surface. Good enough for industry and real world machines. By vector analysis all horizontal components of surface and atmospheric fluxes cancel leaving a reduced radiative coupling in the purely vertical.
On line center it is less than 10 meters.
4 of the 5 non-Earthward directions of the 6 perpendicular ones are not all that spaceward, but essentially horizontal. At the altitude of a typical GHG molecule, the horizon is not much below perpendicular to straight up. Have you seen what the horizon looks like from a jetliner at cruising altitude, which is higher than most of the mass of the atmosphere?
Even if it is such a small amount, they are spaceward. They will reach space or achieve a higher altitude upon collision with another object. What happens from there is anyones guess.
Now maybe other things like Earth’s magnetic field would nullify what I’m talking about. It would be interesting to know if Earth’s magnetic field could influence CO2 molecules orientation that could influence a distribution pattern in which they emit IR or absorb it.
Alick
I think you’re oversimplifying. Distance above the earth’s surface is critical. Concider a molecule of GHG at 2 feet elevation compared to 2000 feet. At 2 feet, the curvature of the earth would be irrelevant.
Snape, it looks as if someone oversimplified because KT and AER both have the net upward flux from the surface to be 68W/m-2 which is almost exact 1/6th of the in vaccuo radiosity.
Snape says:
“I think youre oversimplifying. Distance above the earths surface is critical. Concider a molecule of GHG at 2 feet elevation compared to 2000 feet.”
The emissions of the molecule at 2000′ is very unlikely to reach the surface.
So why are you acting like it is??
Slightly upward paths curve back towards the higher density, in the same way that hot air near the ground produced a mirage.
Again, most emitted IR does not go far enough to reach the surface. So talking about its path is nonsense….
On the contrary David, you are talking about opacity, not heat transfer. Over very short distances the temperature difference between emitters is near zero so the subtraction of intensities leaves nearly zero. Over long vertical paths in side bands relative intensity drives heat transfer and produces the small surface to atmospheric ‘net’ of around 17 to 40W/m-2. That’s what LBLRTM reveals.
Photons have energy.
Where they do, energy goes.
Period.
Easily provably incorrect by repeatable experiment.
Find a source of IR photons and optically condense the radiation onto a smaller area. The theoretical condensation of the energy you think is there, doesn’t heat the target beyond the temperature of the source. Which for a cold object remains cold at the target irrespective of the number of calculated photons carrying ‘energy’. It doesn’t matter how many optical paths (additional photons) you add to focus upon the target. ‘Theoretical’ photons do not add up in heating a warmer target.
Do the same with sunlight and you can heat a 300K environment. But you couldn’t heat a target already at 5880K.
If what you are suggesting is true we should all invest in a large terrahertz lens and power our lives with it from downwelling long wave!!!!!
Classic mistake. What the downwelling radiation does is compensate for some of the upwelling radiation. Net effect is to slow down how fast the surface cools.
Ask yourself why the temperature decrease at night when is is humid is slower than when it is not (MS vs AZ if you will)
‘Ask yourself why the temperature decrease at night when is is humid is slower than when it is not (MS vs AZ if you will)”
One reason could be related to humid air having condensed water droplets.
Warm air holds more H20 in form of a gas, and as air cools it is unable to have as much H2O as gas in the cooler air. When H2O gas become liquid it has latent heat. Or opposite of when liquid water evaporates it requires energy to become a gas.
So typical actual droplet visible has millions of molecules in it. A rain droplet.
“Water drops vary dramatically in size, so this starting number defines the calculation. The rest of it is a simple chemistry calculation. Let’s use the volume of a water drop that is used by the medical and scientific community. The accepted average volume of a drop of water is exactly 0.05 mL (20 drops per milliliter). It turns out there are over 1.5 sextillion molecules in a water drop and more than 5 sextillion atoms per droplet.”
https://www.thoughtco.com/atoms-in-a-drop-of-water-609425
And sextillion.
1.
a cardinal number represented in the U.S. by 1 followed by 21 zeros, and in Great Britain by 1 followed by 36 zeros.
I will assume US. And a drop of water must begin with a smaller number and a droplet with just 1 million molecules would be small. And at some point of when they get large enough they will more rapidly grow in size and then you get something like dew on the ground or mist in the air. But you have to have smaller droplets in the air before this.
And in addition to the latent heat, water has higher specific heat than air or H20 gas- or requires more energy per molecule mass to warm or cool down.
The so-called ‘plane parallel assumption’ is what’s operative here. I’m not following what you’re saying.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law involves area. Clearly the projected area of the earth versus that of the cold outer space is a function of altitude from the standpoint of a greenhouse gas That goes further to explain that the upper atmosphere is cooler than the surface, along with the fact that greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere have more warm neighbors.
Huh?
Alick: it will depend on altitude and wavelength. Altitude not just because of the angle to the ground, but because it also determines the density of air (and hence CO2). And wavelength, because CO2 does not absorb (or, hence, emit) all wavelengths equally. Some emitted IR will be reabsorbed within centimeters; some won’t.
This is one of the problems that climate models solve.
Two points David,
1, Altitude plays a rather large role because the temp of a body dictates its IR emission levels.
2, All my wine maker friends fill the empty space in the top of the wine barrels with CO2, they do this because the co2 sinks down to the surface of the wine and stops oxygen from reaching the surface. This stops the wine from going off.
The laws of physics that exist in the wine barrels exists in the atmosphere.
Re #1: that’s exactly what I said.
Re #2: utterly irrelevant to the discussion of the gaseous atmosphere or climate change. It’s well known that CO2 is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere, as these data show:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/joe-bastardi-idiot-liar-or-both.html
It is debatable whether CO2 is well mixed at high altitudes, but it is certainly not well mixed at low altitude.
The IPCC take the position that CO2 is not a well mixed gas at low altitude and it is because of this, that they reject the Beck historical chemical analysis. You may recall that this historic data suggest that CO2 was over 400ppm in the 1940s.
I recall discussing this with Ferdinand Engelbeen, and he provided me with an example where CO2 levels, at low altitude, varied between about 300 ppm and about 650 ppm (ie, more than double) depending upon the conditions of wind, sun, temperature.
In one of your comments above, you argue “The IR that strikes the ground will come from very low altitudes, i.e. half of it will strike the ground.” but you fail to take account of the fact that CO2 is anything but a well mixed gas at low altitude.
This, of course, is one of the problems that models face and do not address well.
richard:
The data I cited prove you wrong.
Read it.
David, ‘utterly irrelevant’ is a totally appropriate phrase when discussing the effects of ‘back radiation’ upon surface temperature, irrespective of all notions about how short the mean free path is.
Listen, from altitude where water has precipitated out the total thermodynamic energy per unit mass is exactly the same as the surface layer. In the tropics the surface layer has slightly less energy than the tropospheric cold point (380K isentrope) due to horizontal fluxes poleward.
That is, within the bulk of the atmosphere there is no evidence of increased thermal energy in the surface layer or at the surface itself, due to ‘heat trapping’ of the gases people obsess about.
Pyrgeometers measure radiative potential not heat transfer. Back to back units give net surface losses as true sensible fluxes which in a long term sustained gradient do not come back but are transferred to space and are rendered products due to the fact that the efficacy of this heat transfer process does not modify the gradient.
David
Naturally, I read the reference before responding, but it does not deal with the issue that I raise.
At high altitude (circa the height at which Mauna Loa samples are drawn), CO2 varies between about 385 to 415 ppm, ie., approx 400 ppm +/- 3.5% Now it is debatable whether that range constitutes well mixed. My personal view is that for practical purposes CO2 is sufficiently well mixed at high altitude.
However, at low altitude, ie., below say 1,000 feet, it is a very different story. As I noted, this is the reason that the IPCC reject the Beck historical chemical analysis study, and instead favour ice cores. It is not that there is any problem with equipment or laboratory standards used in the many chemical analyses, merely that the samples are said to be unrepresentative because CO2 fluctuates so widely at low altitudes and at which height the samples were drawn
I would suggest that you look at the Beck study, and also consider why the IPCC rejected the study. It is illuminating.
Just to give you one example, see:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/diekirch_diurnal.jpg
So for example, on 14th July 2005 (at Giessen Germany), CO2 varied between 380ppm and 480ppm. Such a variation is anything but well mixed. As I say, I have ssen data where the variance is more than 100%.
The observations still show you are wrong.
Time to give it up.
richard, in what peer reviewed journal was your study published?
richard verney says:
“So for example, on 14th July 2005 (at Giessen Germany), CO2 varied between 380ppm and 480ppm. Such a variation is anything but well mixed. As I say, I have ssen data where the variance is more than 100%.”
One dumb little stupid day?
Is that really all you got, Richard??
Stop wasting my time.
Roy,
It is a darn shame that you can’t call in “Pest Control” to get rid of annoying twerps such as David Appell.
David has his own blog called “Quark Soup” to promote his weird views but it attracts little attention which explains why he has so much time to make a nuisance of himself here
Alick: You are assuming that any emitted IR has a clear, uninterrupted path to the surface.
But you haven’t proved this assumption, in any way. (It is, in fact, not true.)
And herein lies one of the problems. Once a molecule of CO2 has absorbed a photon, and then re-radiates it in a downward direction, how does the photon get back to the surface?
CO2 is only a trace gas, and that means that there are very few molecules of CO2 near to one another. In fact in a vertical direction, CO2 is probably separated by about 13 molecules of other non radiating gases.
This means that when a molecule of CO2 re-radiates a photon in a downward direction, the photon probably will not be absorbed by another molecule of CO2, that could theoretically re-radiate the photon once more in a downward direction, but instead the photon will be absorbed by a molecule of Nitrogen or Oxygen and thereby end its downward travel.
Richard:
Learn to calculate.
You are arguing science by waving your hands. That’s always a bad and dumb move.
Calculate!
richard verney says:
“CO2 is only a trace gas, and that means that there are very few molecules of CO2 near to one another.”
Calculate dude. Calculate.
If you are scientifically capable…. (Are you??)
Your approximation could be improved and it might help you to think about not only 6 directions, but the 26 directions defined by non-null vectors {[-1..1 -1..1 -1..1]}. Using a randomly oriented base, 13 of those vectors point towards the Earth unless the distance from the ground is large (say > 100 km), in which case still more than 1/6 of the 26 vectors point towards the Earth. If you go beyond the Moon, then less than 1/6 of the vectors points toward the Earth.
Q: What’s a non-null vector?
A: Go out to play football.
Test
Test
Testing 123
In the troposphere strictly apply hydrostatic equilibrium. This applies to atmospheres up to a pressure of less than 100 hPa.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
You can see how the cold troposphere shrinks over the south pole.
Time-height cross section of zonal mean temperature averaged over 60S – 90S (top) and time-series representation of vertical components of E-P flux averaged over 30S – 90S at the 100-hPa level (bottom).
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/jikei_tep_sh.gif
The above graphic also shows that practically in winter the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere over the polar circle disappears.
Temperature jumps in the stratosphere in winter in the northern hemisphere.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/pole30_nh.gif
Time-height cross section of zonal mean temperature averaged over 60N – 90N (top) and time-series representation of vertical components of E-P flux averaged over 30N – 90N at the 100-hPa level (bottom).
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/jikei_tep_nh.gif
Please stop with the irrelevant picayune links, ren — you are just clogging up the comments.
Davie, it might be that you are the one clogging up the comments.
As solar conditions weaken the upshot is going to be for the albedo of the earth to increase, while surface sea surface temperatures cool.
Albedo will increase due to an increase in global cloud coverage, global snow coverage , an increase in major volcanic activity, a greater meridional atmospheric circulation pattern.
This in response to very low solar conditions compounded by the weakening geo magnetic field.
The test is now on as low solar is now in play versus increasing co2. Which way global temperatures go from this point on should shed light as to which side is correct.
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
The best I can tell, it is cooler now than it was in 2010.
Further, the AGW predictions are a bit off. Where is that hockey stick David?
Lewis, is that really your “best?”
Do you ever look at the data, Lewis?
average UAH LT v6.0 temperature for 2010 = +0.33 C
average UAH LT v6.0 temperature for 2016 = +0.50 C
And, of course, none of this says anything the long-term trend, which is what is important for AGW….
Nice cherry picking there Davie.
But, that’s what you do best.
Why didn’t you start your “trend” from same time last year?
0.71 vs. 0.27.
Answer: It’s not about science, it’s about agenda.
@g*e*r*a*n:
David didn’t cherry pick, he responded to Lewis’ comment about 2010 being hotter than now. 2010 was objectively cooler than 2016. Not that difficult to parse…
Nope.
Lewis used the word “now”, not “2016”.
Now is weather.
2010 is weather.
None of that above makes any difference.
No response, Lewis?
Can’t back up your claim?
THen withdraw it.
Why is now weather, and a year weather, and not 10 years, or fifty, according to Nasa climate is a 30 year average. If we use that, they we have very little warming. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html If we took the 30 year average in the graph above it would be flat. How accurate are temperatures before 50 years ago. And before that. When you see climate temperatures over thousands of years, It should be a 30 year average. But why is it 30 and not 50? Who knows. Scientist say man has only played a factor in global warming since the 1960’s well if we do a running average of the data over 30 years, the global tempertures haven’t increased much since the 1960, considering is only 57 years ago, that basically only two samples of data. This is why climate vs weather debate doesn’t make much since, because even the current warming is still technically weather.
If you plot the 30 year average of this data, it looks like this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:360
Most distinctly not flat.
Look at the scale, looks basically flat, only a 10th of a degree. and again it’s there isn’t enough data to accurately see change over a “climate” period. That’s the whole point we don’t have enough accurate data.
Salvatore, I’m curious — how do you know there will be an increase in “major volcanic activity?”
What is this conclusion based on?
David, you’re paying such close attention to Salvatore, you should go back and read where he talks about volcanos.
Why can’t Salvatore simply answer his question?
I’d like to know what the answer is, but I’m not in the mood for a research project.
Lewis: what did Salvatore once write about major volcanic eruptions?
You can provide a link, I’m sure….
THanks.
Funny how Lewis can never respond to questions…when his claims get shot down in an instant.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
May 1, 2017 at 7:33 AM
As solar conditions weaken the upshot is going to be for the albedo of the earth to increase…
Albedo increase? Certainly not in the Arctic! The sea ice extent is on the decline there since years due to high surface temperatures, and even the troposphere is warming above.
Look at UAH’s 2.5 deg grid data, average the 9,504 grid cell anomalies for 2016, and you will see that the 600 highest anomalies all are located in latitudes between 60N and 82.5N.
+1
I always have trouble with this. The December as usually was cloudy here, meaning the ground was wet, low albedo. But, there is no DWSW to use that. The clouds, looking from space, have a high albedo, but the incidence angle is low, so they have little effect.
Albedo has an effect at low and mid-latitudes, but in the Arctic, it works in a limited manner.
What comes to Salvatore, I’m not sure there’s any common ground to have exchange at.
I see UAH6 is still not being plotted correctly in WoodForTrees. This capability was added to WFT back in August 2016 but now seems stuck with data only through October 2016.
Did the UAH6 data sets change at that time? Is there a way to pass on the correct data sets to Paul?
the paths to the files might have changed, but the formats shouldn’t have…it would be an easy fix for him.
In my experience you can’t trust Wood for Trees — they often do not use the latest versions of the data.
Everybody may switch to e.g.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
There you obtain the stuff with 2 sigma CIs.
But Kevin doesn’t provide for superposition of plots in charts for comparison, that is so nice at WFT or in Excel (I don#t like GNUplot very much).
Bin, if you “massage” the data enough, you may be able to find some hint of AGW.
I prefer to download the new data every month and do my own calculations.
That way I’m sure of the data and the math.
“and the math”
ROFLMAO !!!
High farce, for sure.!
The UAHv6 link being used at WFT goes to the beta6.5 data, which no longer updates. People notify Paul but he only updates occasionally. I emailed him the correct link a while back.
Thanks for the report, Roy.
Looks like a couple of months of ENSO neutrality has allowed the atmosphere to stabilize around the 0.20-25 range following the brief La Nia. Should remain stable for several more months of ENSO neutrality which could change depending on rate of El Nio development.
Such a circulation in the lower stratosphere will cause great cooling in northern and central Europe.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/06/0000Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-348.21,59.03,684
And in the east of the USA.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/06/0000Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-108.14,50.26,684
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/06/0000Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-82.22,45.12,684
On 5 May in California, thunderstorms will occur.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/05/0000Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-120.89,42.02,1572
Please see the jet stream forecast on May 6.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/06/0600Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-103.16,45.04,1191
I am not a scientist, but I do have some experience with the practical aspects of Thermodynamics and heat transfer along with data analysis as it pertains to process control. I notice two important trends. One is that the temperature trend is upward — not nearly as much as the CMIP5 models, but up nonetheless. It very much seems more like a step change in the late 1900s rather than a steady progression. Is this possible, or just a result of the random nature of the data due to various competing forcings both positive and negative?
The other observation I have is that the 13 month running average is almost never flat except when at the top or bottom a transition. Is this possibly due to the very strong effect of the swings in the ENSO?
Thanks to anyone who can answer.
Tim
If we had seen step-ups after the last 4 or 5 strong El Nino’s, then I would predict we’d get one now. In reality, our records are too short, so the step-up you notice after 1998 shouldn’t, by itself, be considered a pattern, and therefore not a predictor. Just my opinion.
Another term for “step-ups” is “global warming.”
DavidA
I agree the “step-ups” we’re talking about are the result of global warming. My point was that global warming doesn’t necessarily have to appear in steps.
I agree with you, Snape. THanks for clarifying.
I don’t really think “step-ups” is the appropriate term. Roughly speaking, what we are seeing is similar to a sinusoidal model of temperatures superimposed upon an increasing trend, eg. the graph of y=x+sinx. The fluctuating cycle seems to correspond quite closely with positive and negative phases of the PDO.
Bob says:
May 2, 2017 at 2:38 AM
The fluctuating cycle seems to correspond quite closely with positive and negative phases of the PDO.
Really? I’m not quite sure…
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170502/dt44vih6.jpg
And if the steps occurred three times as often with three times the magnitude, the CMIP5 models might represent reality. But they don’t, so the models don’t either. 🙂
But as far as AGW is concerned, it should be noted that step changes in temperature are not consistent with CO2 driving temperature, since CO2 is not increasing in steps. Step changes in temperatures suggest some process other than CO2 being involved.
The step changes, sirs, are figments of your imagination. You can only call them steps if you have a physical explanation, like qualitative ocean circulation change, that happened at the time.
I’m not saying such changes did not happen, but you can’t detect them by just looking at the centered 13-month line.
richard verney says:
“But as far as AGW is concerned, it should be noted that step changes in temperature are not consistent with CO2 driving temperature, since CO2 is not increasing in steps.”
Oh, please. There are many factors that influence temperature, not just CO2.
Long-term trends are what matter.
But, CO2 emissions *are* the prime variable we have control over.
Tim – In the engineering physics of transient heat transfer, a step change in temperature is not physically possible. They are prevented by the effective thermal capacitance. Any perceived step change is therefore an artifact of measurement.
Dan
Please explain what you mean by “artifact of measurement”?
Dan
Maybe you’re talking about how it’s not possible to jump straight up or down from one temperature to the next? Therefore, when it comes to changes in temperature, a perfectly vertical “step-up” (90 deg. angle) is not possible?
If this is what you mean, I should point out that steps don’t have to be at 90 deg. angles! (flat,diagonal,flat,diagonal,flat….etc.)
Snape – I think you might grasp the concept but even a step change in forcing (such as turning on the burner under a tea kettle) results in a 1-e^(-kt) shaped transient for temperature.
The time constant (time to reach 63.21% of the final temperature change after a step change in forcing) for the planet is about 5 years. If you only looked at the beginning and end of the transient it would look like a step. But step changes in a year or less for the planet are not possible.
Dan
“If you only looked at the beginning and end of the transient it would look like a step.”
So if you also looked at the middle of the transient, why would it no longer look like a step?
Snape – Of course looking at the beginning and ‘half way’ would look like a step. But the second ‘half’ of the transient would follow the step. The second ‘half’ can not be flat.
Do you not understand what is meant by ‘time constant’ in thermal analysis? It would take about 11.5 yr to get 90% of the temperature change from a step change in forcing.
If you measured the temperature at regular time intervals you could graph them and see the shape of the transient.
Dan
I guess I don’t understand what you’re saying.
You wrote, “Tim In the engineering physics of transient heat transfer, a step change in temperature is not physically possible. They are prevented by the effective thermal capacitance. Any perceived step change is therefore an artifact of measurement.”
My understanding is that If temperatures start off relatively stable, rise steeply during an El Nino , and then stabilize again at the higher temperature, we would see a “step-up” on a graph (similar to what is observed around 1997/1998).
How is this step-up not possible except as an artifact of measurement?
Snape – “If temperatures start off relatively stable, rise steeply during an El Nino , and then stabilize again at the higher temperature, we would see a step-up on a graph” is not physically possible because of the high effective thermal capacitance as corroborated by the time constant.
Apparently transient heat transfer analysis is not your strong suit.
What is “transient” about it?
Dav – ‘transient’ heat transfer analysis means to calculate the temperature as a function of time such as the rising temperature of a teapot after you turn the burner on. This is different from ‘steady state’ heat transfer analysis which only calculates the final temperature after it stops changing.
In what way is climate heating transient?
Dav – The net forcing (causing climate heating/cooling) is essentially always changing. Average global temperature depends on variations of OLR modulated by water vapor and clouds (which appear to be influenced by SSN) and incoming radiation modulated by clouds, solar variations (multiple cycles including the approx. 11 year cycles) and is therefore essentially always in transient.
Step changes as fully instantious change don’t exist, but we’re not talking about that.
step-like behavior can be the result of a linear trend superimposed on a low frequency cycle. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
Roy
Thanks for the interesting link. Makes sense.
And the PDO “cycle” explains the “pause” and the subsequent exit from the pause pretty well.
I can see two distinct step-ups there, and three pauses.
I can see spaghetti, but science is not about just seeing but quantifying things in a precice manner.
Like, you calculate a trend line, you don’t draw it just as how you see it.
TimS. A bit out of my former area of research, but there are ocean circulation patterns that can store and release heat after a lag. One is the ~4 yr El Nino or ENSO, another is the multi-decadal PDO. The two are clearly linked with warm El Nino events dominating cool La Nina events during a positive PDO and visa versa. I think the PDO stores heat then a step ups in global temp occur when PDO flips back to a positive phase. So the flat trend in global temperature during the 50s to 70s was a negative PDO. The warming trend was partially stored heat from the past. This current hiatus in warming is also a mostly negative PDO phase. I am excited to see if the PDO just flipped back to positive and if so if the temp will jump. I evaluate the PDO index at a 5yr running average.
That was my point.
TimS.
Sorry to state the obvious then. One other hypothesis i am excited to have tested is when the PDO does flip back to positive phase- I am curious if the deep ocean heat added to the G..I..S…S and H.A.D.C.R.U.T 4 data will break down. Sort of like robbing Peter to pay Paul does not right a wrong. In a complex zero sum game of oscillating currents, scientists adding heat to the surface temperature from deeper in one phase might prove to be a real problem in the counter phase. This is why with every manipulation of the thermometer methods it is really back to uncalibrated estimate to test the new hypothesis. It is also why Dr. John Bates whistle blowing that this most recent set of manipulation should have been a new version and included “Karl’s thumb on the scale, pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation” becomes very interesting. Only time will tell.
The PDO doesn’t add heat to the Earth system, it just shuffles some around. (And not that much, really, compared to changes in ocean heat content.)
Dave, I agree that the PDO is one of many ocean circulation patterns that redistribute heat in space and time (a lag) and none create significant heat. AMO, ENSO, Thermohaline etc all contribute as well as the antarctic one that was credited for storing heat and preventing predicted warming there in a Nature paper. The PDO and tropical Pacific are a large source of Earths total warmth because the low latitude and high annual insolation. What data are you using to for ocean heat content to compare? I ask because i dont see it in A.R.G.O. and dont buy the pre instrumental guestimates.
Global Ocean Heat Content:
http://tinyurl.com/jbf2xco
Apparently links to noaa-dot-gov aren’t allowed to be posted here.
How stupid is that, for a science blog?
Dave 100% agree that it is difficult to communicate and discuss.
I posted this comment near the end of the last thread, so I thought I’d repost it here:
TLT and surface models are measuring different things (virtually no overlap), so why would we expect them to show the same rates of warming? In other words, maybe both datasets are accurate, even though they produce different results.
According to Nick Stokes:
..The reason is that satellites really cant measure near the surface, because that is itself a big emitter of microwave radiation, which is just noise to this signal. In fact the definition of TLT has been creeping up. UAH V5.6 claimed a peak weight at 2km, but V6 has settled for 4, as does RSS TTT V4. And you may note that John Christy nowadays rarely mentions TLT, but usually TMT. NOAA produces a TMT measure, but not TLT.
Satellites really have very little ability to discriminate levels. They just have one signal beam coming in, with different channels, and they rely on differential weighting of this channels. Very little depth resolution.
“…so why would we expect them to show the same rates of warming?”
We don’t. But, according to the AGW hypothesis, we should be seeing the troposphere warming faster than the surface.
Why do you think the troposphere should warm faster than the surface?
Because the inventors of the AWG hypothesis said so that’s why.
Every theory needs to be able to be tested……falsified, the LTL (8K’s up approx.) should warm at three times the rate of the surface if it does not then AGW theory is along way down the road of falsification.
I’m sure you mean UPPER troposphere. Would you please link to an IPCC projection that the upper troposphere would warm faster than the lower troposphere at ALL latitudes.
Its called the missing hotspot Bob you may have heard of it. Google will give you pages of links.
Cheers
Bob
We’re talking about the lower troposphere (near surface compared to vast area above).
crakar24 says:
May 2, 2017 at 12:27 AM & May 2, 2017 at 4:05 AM
Well I’m not a fan of SKS, but… having a tough look at
https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
is really helpful.
Bin admits “Well Im not a fan of SKS…”
Bin, you should have left it at that.
The painful part there is the consistent tendency of the site. If they really wanted to create a useful site, then Cook should have allowed more room for uncertainty and differing opinion. There is always differing opinion, pet theories, conjectures and such in science. Cook tried to create a consensus even where it doesn’t exist and then ridicules people who dare to object. That makes the site stink. It turns me off and makes me feel facts don’t matter in the church of Cook.
But, if you want to know how the climatariat explains the inconsistency between theory of socialism and real socialism, them Cook’s your restaurant.
The ‘hotpspot’ is an expectation that enhanced warming occurs in the tropical mid-troposphere if the atmosphere warms. It’s not a function of any particular cause of warming. A lack of enhanced warming doesn’t say anything about ‘greenhouse’ warming, but it would mean that modeling of heat transfer through the atmosphere is wrong.
The jury appears to be out on whether the hotspot has been observed, as getting good data for that part of the atmosphere is problematic. It’s an active area of research.
“Its not a function of any particular cause of warming.”
Yes, it is. The heat aggregates at the point where the outward energy flux is most significantly impeded. Not every warming impetus results in a tropospheric hot spot, but hypothesized “greenhouse” warming from CO2 does result in a tropospheric hot spot. If the hot spot is not there, then the warming is not from CO2.
“…but it would mean that modeling of heat transfer through the atmosphere is wrong.”
A.K.A., the hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is wrong. I.e., it is at best incomplete, and it does not provide a sound basis upon which to formulate public policy, allocating trillions of dollars to futile efforts at mitigation, diverting resources from beneficial pursuits, and consigning millions particularly in the Third World to energy poverty and earlier death.
“Its an active area of research.”
That’s just playing for time. If the hot spot were there consistent with the AGW hypothesis, it would not be playing hide and seek. It would be unambiguous and readily observable.
Explain why the stratosphere is cooling — a prediction of aGHG theory.
BTW, RSS shows a hotspot, UAH doesn’t. Conclusion: we need better data.
“Explain why the stratosphere is cooling a prediction of aGHG theory.”
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy you are looking for here. It is not a unique prediction of the aGHG hypothesis.
RSS shows no more a hot spot than UAH. They are virtually identical.
Bart says:
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy you are looking for here. It is not a unique prediction of the aGHG hypothesis.”
What other warming hypotheses predict stratospheric cooling?
Bart says:
“RSS shows no more a hot spot than UAH. They are virtually identical.”
Prove this.
You can’t. You’re allergic to data.
Bart, hotspot isn’t a GHG function. It’s a function of changes in the moist adiabat if the atmosphere warms.
Or as Roy Spencer puts it:
Thus, the lack of a hot spot is evidence for a lack of water vapor feedback. I believe this is the physically proper way of looking at the issue.
Ross McKitrick:
“…it is true that amplification would be observed in response also to increased solar forcing…”
John Christy:
“it [the hot spot] is broader than just the enhanced greenhouse effect because any thermal forcing should elicit a response such as the ‘expected’ hot spot.”
The ‘hotspot’ issue (a term coined by skeptics) came from someone misreading this graph years ago:
http://tinyurl.com/k5bkcj8
Panel (c) shows enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere from GHGs. It has the highest amount of amplified warming for that region. Does this mean that the ‘hotspot’ is a signature purely of GHG warming?
No.
The panels represent observations of various forcings, all except for which CO2, for the period assessed, have minimal warming/cooling influence.
Eg, panel a) is solar forcing, which is assessed to have had a relatively small warming influence on the surface. Thus, the warming estimated in the ‘hotspot’ region is also comparatively smaller. But it’s there. Warming at the surface is amplified in the tropical troposphere due to solar forcing.
For any of the significant forcing panel over the period assessed, there is an amplified response in the tropical troposphere (whether cooling or warming). Thus, the IPCC, like McKitrick, Christy and Spencer, see enhanced warming (or cooling) of the tropical troposphere as a result of changes in the temperature of the whole atmosphere (or, more commonly put, changes at the surface).
The 6 panels represent these forcings:
a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) greenhouse gases, (d) ozone, (e) sulfate aerosols and (f) sum of all forcing
Amplified changes in the tropical troposphere are supposed to occur as a result of changes in surface/atmospheric temps from any cause, due to water vapour amplification. As John Christy, Ross McKitrick and Roy Spencer (all skeptics) attest.
The skeptical blogosphere has always gotten this wrong (except this blog).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html
“Amplified changes in the tropical troposphere are supposed to occur as a result of changes in surface/atmospheric temps from any cause, due to water vapour amplification.”
Then the cause would be water vapor amplification. But, the troposphere isn’t warming. So, what does that tell you about the hypothesis of water vapor amplification?
That’s two strikes:
A) AGW should cause a tropospheric hot spot
B) Water vapor amplification should amplify the tropospheric hot spot
Yet, there is no tropospheric warming. This is the point at which non-pathological science would focus on reconsidering the hypotheses before stepping back up to the plate.
The hypothesis in doubt is of heat transfer in the atmosphere – water vapour amplification. Not GHG warming.
I already linked to that graph (in my last post – look above) and explained it. Skeptics misunderstood it, and the whole hotspot = GHG misconception is based on that misunderstanding.
Roy Spencer, John Christy and Ross McKitrick get it. Skeptic blog ‘scientists’ don’t.
“The hypothesis in doubt is of heat transfer in the atmosphere water vapour amplification. Not GHG warming.”
Au contraire. It really does not matter if, as you erroneously insist, any warming leads to a tropospheric hot spot. There simply is no significant net tropospheric warming in evidence for the past 20 or so years.
Ergo, by your claim, there is no warming, period. Yet, you insist there is surface warming. So, it appears your argument is self-refuting.
It really does not matter if, as you erroneously insist, any warming leads to a tropospheric hot spot
The rest of your post deviates from the point.
I do not insist. I am quoting experts (who are also skeptics), which you are ignoring.
When skeptic experts agree with their opponents, and the alternative view is unsubstantiated, then only the ideologically stubborn would go with unsubstantiated malarkey I’n arguing that the ‘hotspot’ is is or isn’t there in observations. why change the subject? I think the jury is still out (skeptics appear to have no skepticism on that point).
There are several hyptohesised ‘fingerprints’ for greenhouse warming. The hotspot isn’t one of them. Just ask Roy Spencer or John Christy – the expert opinion your are ignoring in favour of who knows what.
“In arguing that the hotspot is is or isnt there”
Typos = Im notarguing that the hotspot is is or isnt there – I’m correcting the misapprehension that it is supposed to be a function purely of GHG warming.
As our host understands.
Well predating the term ‘hotspot’ are model experiments underlying the expectation that the tropical troposphere should more than the surface regardless of the cause of warming.
1997 paper:
In the troposphere, the vertical structure of the temperature
response to solar variability (Fig. 5) resembles the one obtained by the greenhouse gas increase experiment, i.e., a general warming with a maximum in the upper tropical troposphere
That’s very clear. And here is the Fig 5 graph comparing zonal response in the atmosphere from a) solar-forced warming and b) GHG-forced warming.
Solar vs GHG forcing
Solar forcing is based on sunspot count for the period 1889-1995, and GHG forcing is for the same period.
Here’s a graph on sunspot count for that period, in 11-year averages in order to see the signal beneath the 11-year solar cycle.
Thus, for the period with solar-forced warming, models expect enhanced warming of the mid-troposphere (hotspot).
Whether or not this has been observed is an interesting but different question. I just want to set the record straight on causes of the hotspot.
“Im correcting the misapprehension that it is supposed to be a function purely of GHG warming.”
You have misapprehended, and corrupted the syllogism. My syllogism is:
AGW produces a tropospheric hotspot.
There is no tropospheric hotspot.
Therefore, there is no AGW.
That is a valid syllogism. You are arguing:
AGW produces a tropospheric hotspot.
All warming produces a tropospheric hotspot.
Therefore, one cannot tell if there is or is not AGW merely on the basis of there being a tropospheric hotspot.
That is not actually valid, because the minor premise is wrong – not all warming mechanisms produce a tropospheric hotspot. But, even if the minor premise were true, it is beside the point. What we have observed is an absence of a tropospheric hotspot.
You are arguing ad verecundiam that your minor premise is true. I claim it is not. But, in the end, it does not matter. The question is moot, because there is no tropospheric hotspot.
Note well that, when I say there is no tropospheric hotspot, I am speaking in terms of an anomalous hotspot. There is no significant increased warming of the troposphere in the past two decades, at a time when CO2 concentration increased by about 50 ppmv, which is fully 40% of the rise above the purported pre-industrial level.
AGW demands that the troposphere should have heated in response. It has not. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is wrong, in whole or in part, and projections made on the basis of that hypothesis have no basis at all in observable fact.
Your syllogism has two false premises.
1) The hotspot is not a function purely of CO2. It is also expected from solar warming, for example. Or from any cause that warms the surface.
Thus, the lack of a hotspot does not mean AGW isn’t valid. It means that the expectation that warming at the surface should be amplified in the tropical troposphere is invalid. AGW may still cause surface warming, but not cause a hotspot (same with any other cause of warming).
The mistaken assumption is that the hotspot is a unique signature of GHG warming.
2) The jury is out on whether the hotpot is there. Different data sources and methods give different answers.
A true skeptic acknowledges this and doesn’t barrack for a preferred conclusion.
“Explain why the stratosphere is cooling a prediction of aGHG theory.”
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy you are looking for here. It is not a unique prediction of the aGHG hypothesis.
Post hoc? The prediction is 50 years old.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2
“AGW may still cause surface warming, but not cause a hotspot.”
No. AGW must cause a hotspot. You have read the material backwards. If you have a hotspot, it may or may not be due to AGW. But, if you have AGW, you must have a hotspot.
“Different data sources and methods give different answers.”
According to the AGW hypothesis, it should be strong and unambiguous. This is just rationalization to stall an undesired conclusion.
“The prediction is 50 years old.”
But, it is not unique. If AGW, then you must have a cooling stratosphere. But, a cooling stratosphere does not uniquely indicate warming via CO2.
I don’t know why you are having so much trouble here. You are consistently turning logic on its head, arguing that sufficient conditions are necessary, and necessary conditions are sufficient.
If you have a hotspot, it may or may not be due to AGW
Excellent. We have agreement.
But, if you have AGW, you must have a hotspot.
Yes, according to the theory of warming at the surface being amplified in the tropical mid-troposphere. Whether from GHGs or solar or any cause.
So a missing hotspot doesn’t mean that GHG warming is false, it means that modeled changes in the moist adibiat due to surface warming are wrong. No hotspot doesn’t mean no GHG warming the surface (or surface warming from any cause), it just means that there is no enhanced warming in the tropical mid-troposphere.
This is just rationalization to stall an undesired conclusion.
No, your statement there is a rationalization to support a conclusion you’re wedded to.
I’ve provided plenty of references to support my contentions in this sub-thread thread. Even from astrophysicists on team skeptic.
You have provided exactly zero corroboration for your views on this topic. You are a serial committer of Bald Assertion fallacy.
“…it means that modeled changes in the moist adibiat due to surface warming are wrong.”
That’s not a minor thing to have wrong!
I’ve seen a bit of debate on the consequences of a lack of a hotspot. Some argue that it implies lower climate sensitivity because the WV amplification is’t happening in a part of the atmosphere where it is expected to. I’m not sure if WV amplification is meant to be located just in the hotspot region or in the atmosphere generally. I don’t know how a lack would affect the surface where we live any differently from warming that has a hotspot. But yes, lack of a hotspot would mean an emergent property of all atmospheric modeling is significantly flawed.
I expect surface temperatures will show a huge drop from March. Was quite surprised to see UAH up.
Because we base our predictions on local weather or parts of the world whose weather makes the headlines. Very few people are aware of the weather over significant portions of the globe for significant portions of a month.
Bob
“Very few people are aware of the weather over significant portions of the globe for significant portions of a month.”
This is very true, but weather nuts like me are amoung the exceptions. I check out sites like “climatereanalyzer” and “Moyhu” every couple of days for a quick snapshot of global weather and temperature. Very geeky, I know.
NCEP/NCAR was down 0.226 C. in April
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2017/05/may-ncepncar-down-0226.html?m=1
This is OT, but if you’re a weather nut like me, you might be interested in the wacky weather over Hawaii right now.
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/05/record-cold-and-unprecedented-trough.html?m=1
And, the usual suspects tell us the record cold is, of course, indicative of AGW. If it is too hot, it is AGW. If it is too cold, it is AGW. If my Aunt Fanny’s bunions ache, it is AGW. It can do anything, just so long as it is bad.
It is classic unfalsifiable pseudoscience of the sort generally associated with doomsday cults.
Settle down, Bart. Cliff Mass, the guy who posted the blog, doesn’t believe unusual weather is the result of AGW.
Snape,
I believe that the WMO, the IPCC, and most non delusional people believe that climate is the average of weather.
Are you saying that climate causes weather? Or is climate, along with AGW not meant to be taken literally?
Maybe AGW is a metaphor for the apocalypse predicted by delusional doomsayers – death by boiling, roasting, frying, toasting, for unbelievers. I’m not sure, but being able to make things hotter by the judicious use of CO2 seems to be positively beneficial.
No need to burn coal to heat water to operate steam turbines! Just surround boilers withCO2! Need higher temperatures? Just use more CO2.
Or is the GHE a product of fanciful imagining, and not meant to be taken literally?
Not actually anything to do with greenhouses, and of no effect?
Cheers.
Flynn
I think climate describes long term weather trends.
As for your other questions? We’ve been down that road several times before.
Good reply, Snape. MF is just a troll, especially on the GHE.
Bart says:
“And, the usual suspects tell us the record cold is, of course, indicative of AGW.”
Just wondering — do you know the meaning of the word “global?”
Do you think CO2 is the only influence on short-term climate?
That’s a cop out. We were assured at the beginning of the circus that CO2 was THE dominant driving force, and it would henceforward be calling the shots. Now, in the face of uncooperative nature to support that meme, proponents have retreated into, “oh, it’s just one influence among many.”
But, the “pause” at the very least indicates natural variability is at least strong enough to cancel the CO2 effect. And, if natural variability can cancel the CO2 impact now, then it is more than powerful enough to have been responsible for the temperature run-up from 1970-2000, upon which the whole house of cards is founded.
It means, the proponents have got absolutely nothing more than a gut feeling as to what is going on, and gut feelings are not science. Just because you think something should be happening is no basis upon which to conclude that it is.
That is science. That is the scientific method. Your hypothesis must be verified, uniquely and unambiguously. Intuition is not enough, because intuition has proved notoriously unreliable time and again in settling questions of a scientific nature.
CO2 IS calling the shots.
And no one ever said that meant universal, continuous, monthly warming everywhere.
Your misconceptions about the science aren’t reasons against it.
Excuses, excuses…
Your misconceptions about the science arent reasons against it
Possible snowstorm on May 6 in the Great Lakes region.
How is this relevant to the topic of this post?
Meanwhile the World looks to elsewhere… Giant HORNETS…are threatening to all Humankind…it is necessary that the human beings, instead of destroy among them, destroy to those dangerous insects of huge exponential growing…seriously beginning already, at present.
I think I saw one of those in my backyard
When 100 ton lizards roamed the planet atmospheric CO2 exceeded today’s level by multiple times. Who’s to say gigantic mutant hornets are not caused by rising CO2?
Or how about this. In 1982, scientists published research showing that termites produced twice as much CO2 as all the smokestacks in the world. Maybe the termites and the hornets are conspiring to take over the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html
Another author of the report, Patrick R. Zimmerman of the atmospheric center in Boulder, said that plant respiration and decay added 10 to 15 times as much carbon dioxide to the air as termites.
While the contribution of fuel burning is even less, it is superimposed on what, until recently, …
had been a balanced cycle …
“…had been a balanced cycle “
That is an expression of faith. And, completely wrongheaded. Balance in nature does not just happen. It comes about due to the opposition of forcings in equal measure, with each forcing resisting change in its direction. You cannot shift that balance by an amount proportionally greater than the ratio of any added forcing to the existing forcing.
Word salad.
Bart says: “Balance in nature does not just happen.”
It goes without saying that no state of affairs arises without a reason(s). Without necessarily understanding those reasons it has always struck me as remarkable that the Earth’s mean temperature has only fluctuated within a 15 degree K or so range within the last 500 million years. That’s only a 5% band despite many environmental changes affecting the system.
I’m not saying that 15 degrees is not significant in terms of environmental change for human beings – merely that Earth’s climate has been relatively tightly bounded even on long geological scales.
It’s about carbon’s cycle and balance, nothing else.
Where do termite CO2 emissions come from? The CO2 taken up by trees? If so, there is no net creation of CO2.
Are there more termites now than in 1982? IF so, why? If so, it’s probably due to man’s building, but their carbon emissions are still coming from natural sources that themselves too up CO2.
The findings concerning carbon dioxide and methane production by termites do not offer much comfort regarding the long-term trend in atmospheric gases. The output from insects does not appear likely to increase greatly, while combustion of fuel is rising steadily as developing nations industrialize.
Except, with more buildings made of wood, there are more termites.
Still not adding fossil carbon to the cycle though!
All of the above were quoted from the 1982 NYT article by the way.
Are termites creating new carbon, or just recycling it?
The article says: “Termite gas production has become particularly high, the researchers say, because widespread clearing of land has offered them abundant food in the debris of felled forests.”
Wooden buildings could act like a sink if the forest could renew itself.
Termites are not adding fossil carbon to the “balanced cycle”, so you are in agreement with the article.
Wooden buildings would act as a *temporary* sink. They are eventually torn down and, usually, burned or left to rot.
Scott says:
“Or how about this. In 1982, scientists published research showing that termites produced twice as much CO2 as all the smokestacks in the world.”
Are termites creating new carbon, or just changing how it cycles around?
There is really no difference. It is an input. For equilibrium, the input balances with the output. If you add to the input, the new equilibrium point shifts by the ratio of the added input to the existing input. That is how dynamic systems work.
There is a big difference, if input = output.
For that reason, mammalian respiration does not contribute to atmospheric CO2.
Look at atmo CO2 over the Holocene — quite level, up until the industrial era when man began transferring fossil carbon into the atmosphere.
“There is a big difference, if input = output.”
Not in a dynamic system in which outputs self-adjust based on inputs.
“…quite level, up until the industrial era when man began transferring fossil carbon into the atmosphere.”
Only according to unverifiable interpretations of ice core analysis. They will be proved wrong in time.
Bart says:
“Only according to unverifiable interpretations of ice core analysis.”
There have been many ice cores drilled. All give the same results.
“They will be proved wrong in time.”
Why?
Bart, the first ice core was drilled in the 1960s.
How much more time do you need to prove it wrong? Say, to the nearest century?
“There have been many ice cores drilled. All give the same results.”
That only proves they are consistent. It does not prove they are consistently right.
“Why?”
Because they are inconsistent with the changes we have observed in direct readings in the past 60 years, and they are inconsistent with the hypothesis that CO2 levels are extraordinarily sensitive to our puny inputs.
For CO2 to have remained so stable for such a very long period of time requires high bandwidth regulation. But, high sensitivity to outside perturbations requires low bandwidth regulation. The system cannot be both high and low bandwidth at the same time, ergo there is a contradiction.
Inconsistent in what way?
“…and they are inconsistent with the hypothesis that CO2 levels are extraordinarily sensitive to our puny inputs.”
Inconsistent in what way?
I explained the inconsistency. That you do not understand the explanation says volumes. Why are you engaged in this debate, when you really don’t have the technical chops to engage in it knowledgeably?
‘They will be proved wrong in time’
Well ok Bart, then you have much undiscovered brilliance, or just much hubris.
Why not submit your ideas for publication and proper vetting by the professional scientists? It would obviously turn climate science on its head, and prove many of the experts wrong.
I know why, because your ideas can’t pass the vetting of professionals, because they are inconsistent with many established facts.
Because I am an outsider, and the odds of my getting something published in a field related to, but not coincident, with my area of expertise are vanishingly small.
It will take a lot more than a lone voice, or a few isolated voices (there are others, some directly engaged in the field, who agree with me), to break down the entrenched dogma of the climate establishment. Reputations and billions, even trillions, of $$$ are at stake.
It is going to require a stark change in the evolution of temperatures, that cannot be denied or swept under the rug, to erode the foundation of smug ignorance that has been laid down. Fortunately, nature may have just that outcome in store for us in the near future. The temperatures are falling fast, coming off the still lingering monster El Nino. We are already back to the “pause” level, and are likely to start sinking below it in the near future.
Stay tuned, and make sure you’ve got plenty of popcorn at hand. We’re getting to the good part.
Outsiders can get published if they present useful ideas that are supported by data. Your ideas are not consistent with the data. You cant just say, trust me, you’ll see, im going to be right, all of the experts will be wrong. Prognostication is not science. Its religion.
What would it take to change your mind?
If temps kept rising to 2030, would that be long enough? To 2040? How long?
Or would you always find something to maintain your belief?
“Outsiders can get published if they present useful ideas that are supported by data.”
Dream on! So, so innocent and naive.
“If temps kept rising to 2030, would that be long enough? To 2040? How long?”
I expect temperatures to keep rising for some time, Barry. The pattern was laid in over 100 years ago. I do not yet see any indication that it is changing. This is my prediction going forward:
https://tinyurl.com/ltb3n9v
But, the pattern was laid in well before CO2 rose appreciably, and CO2 cannot have a significant impact on temperatures in the present climate state. It’s just a natural phenomenon.
A ‘pattern’ seen once in the past is not a good basis for predicting the future, and is certainly not science.
Going back further, in the available long term records, such as CET, and central European temp, it is clear that the ‘pattern’ does not repeat.
Bart, if your ideas are so easily disproven that they cannot even pass blog review, much less peer review, then they are for you only and are pointless. Mental masterbation.
Bart I notice that your future telling has the temp continuing to rise throughout the century, with oscillation on top. Things dont happen without cause. Science aims to find the causes.
I also noted that you earlier said, ‘The aggregate climate system responds in a manner to resist change.’
Yet you now predict endless change without obvious cause.
Its all just so much nonsense.
“A pattern seen once in the past is not a good basis for predicting the future, and is certainly not science.”
That is insane. That is precisely how scientific discoveries typically are made. It was by the recognition of order and predictable repeatability in nature that science was born.
“Yet you now predict endless change without obvious cause.”
A body in motion tends to stay in motion, though it resists motion via inertial mass.
‘Body in motion tends to stay in motion’
Bad analogies will get you nowhere.
a. Earth is a driven dissipative system.
b. A warming system tends to keep warming? No. Not without cause.
Bart, what is causing the long-term warming in your prediction?
I see your chart predicts slightly cooler temps over in the 2020s than the last decade. If temps were warmer in the 2020s, would you think that interferes with your prediction? Or the 2030s?
I guess I’m asking you to provide a prediction that would falsify your opinion and corroborate AGW. Is there such a thing, or is your model not falsifiable?
“Bart, what is causing the long-term warming in your prediction?”
A long term cycle in storage and release of heat from the oceans would be my expectation. But, I do not have to know for sure what it is to know that it preceded significant growth in atmospheric CO2.
“If temps were warmer in the 2020s, would you think that interferes with your prediction? Or the 2030s?”
Well, obviously it would interfere with my prediction, since my prediction is for cooling through the 20’s. But, would it make me believe that CO2 is controlling the planet’s temperature?
No. That hypothesis has already been falsified. An alternative would have to be sought that was not already contradicted by the available evidence.
‘My prediction’.
Without using a weather model, Bart is predicting it will rain next Tuesday because it rained last Tuesday.
‘My prediction’. I would not dignify it that way. Hunch or premonition, maybe. I suggest focusing your predictive skills on lottery numbers.
A long term cycle in storage and release of heat from the oceans would be my expectation.
Seems unlikely when the oceans have been gaining heat, corroborated by sea level rise.
Seems you don’t understand that “storage and release” covers the entire set of possibilities.
If ocean release is the cause of warming periods in the global surface record, shouldn’t we have seen a corresponding drop in global ocean heat content and sea level? Instead we see the opposite.
No, you have it backwards. As the ocean goes at the surface, so goes the atmosphere. We have been in an era of storage, not release.
There are oscillations going on in the oceans at all times, just like water sloshing in a bowl. The patterns exist in 3-dimensions, latitudinal, longitudinal, and depthwise.
Note, BTW, that the Southern oceans have not been warming. Google “southern oceans cooling” for info.
From 1975 to 2016 the Earth’s averaged surface has warmed.
From 1975 to 2016 the world’s averaged oceans have warmed.
Global sea level has risen throughout that period.
If the oceans are supposed to be responsible for the warming of the globally averaged surface by release of thermal energy, then we should see a corresponding drop in thermal energy in the globally averaged oceans when the surface warms.
We see regional differences (naturally) but globally oceans have warmed. Southern ocean cooling (below 40 lat since 1982) has not been strong enough to offset that. More heat energy has gone into global oceans than out. If it is storing it from the atmosphere, then there should be a corresponding drop in global surface temps.
If some part of the ocean has released more thermal energy than other parts have gained, leading to warmer surface temps, then sea level should drop correspondingly. We should see evidence that matches what you’re saying as net thermal exchange between oceans and atmosphere.
Ocean heat content has been rising fairly steadily since the late 1950s, corroborated by sea level rise for the same period. The surface has definitely warmed in that period, corroborated by numerous observations.
The data we have do not corroborate your perspective.
If some part of the ocean has released more thermal energy than other parts, leading to warmer surface temps, then average global sea level should drop correspondingly.
We have been in an era of storage, not release.
Well that’s vague. Since when? Since about 1998? then you agree with the warmists that the oceans have been taking up atmospheric heat.
Since 1975? No, oceans and atmosphere are both warmer now.
Since 1950? No, oceans and atmosphere are both warmer now.
Since 1900? No, oceans and atmosphere are both warmer now. (Evidence for ocean warming from sea level rise)
Ocean/atmosphere exchanges can explain short-term global fluctuations (ENSO) and regionally at decadal scale (AMO/PDO etc), but none of those can explain the long-term, global warming. If there is an unmonitored part of the ocean releasing more energy than comes in – for any period – that should correspond to a global sea level drop.
We’re not seeing any of this.
NOAA publishes a product called the Oceanic Nino Index. The correlation with the UAH satellite record is amazing. Clearly, the ENSO affects water in the atmosphere. It seems to me that is the primary effect causing the up and down swings in the 13-month average as I stated in my previous comment.
Tim S says:
May 2, 2017 at 10:27 AM
The correlation with the UAH satellite record is amazing.
ONI doesn’t have the precision of their other product called MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index) which is much more complex and elaborated.
Here is a comparison of UAH6.0 and MEI:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170502/ttqdskcb.jpg
with a little mistake (I forgot to change from OLS to running means).
The interesting question is: if ENSO is the climate driver you suppose, why were then the 2016 anomalies in comparison so much higher than those of 1998, though the 1998 El Nino was quite a bit stronger than the 2016 edition?
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170502/i9csreut.png
Bin, if the atmosphere can “trap heat”, then where is the heat from the 1998 El Nino?
(Laughing in advance at your answer.)
g*e*r*a*n
If my sleeping bag can “trap heat”, where is the heat from the time I slept in it in 1998?
Exactly.
Where did that heat go?
The heat is long gone. So what’s your point?
I understand you and Bin have no knowledge of thermodynamics. But all energy has to be accounted for.
Where did the heat energy go?
Bin can explain the heat loss from 1998 El Nino, and you can explain the heat loss from your sleeping bag in the same year.
What a team!
☺:
By “long gone” I meant it has left the earth’s atmosphere – assumed that was understood. Do you have a point or not?
I was laughing too hard to check for typos….
☺
Snape: By long gone I meant it has left the earths atmosphere…
So heat energy leaves Earth’s atmosphere, huh?
The atmosphere does not “trap heat”, huh?
Welcome to reality.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“So heat energy leaves Earths atmosphere, huh?”
Some does, some doesn’t.
Is that too complicated for you to deal with?
Yeah, there was another pseudoscientist that explained it as “Energy leaves the system, but energy does not leave the system”.
He was really hilarious, too!
Bindidon,
Can you tell me how to use CO2 to trap some heat? Can I trap some heat here in the tropics, and sell it to someone in a cold place later on? Every time I heat CO2, it cools down again – paricularly at night!
Or is this CO2 heat trapping only available to certified climate scientists?
Is there a special knob you have to turn to get the heat out when you want to release it? I recall Gavin Schmidt referring to a CO2 control knob in a pseudo scientific paper, but I can’t seem to find one anywhere.
All in all, most unsatisfactory. I hope you can help – maybe I need something “. . . much more complicated and elaborated.”
Cheers.
Mike Flynn asks: “I hope you can help – maybe I need something”
Ok, I’ll help Mike. The something Mike needs is to become informed in this field.
“Can you tell me how to use CO2 to trap some heat?”
You follow Prof. Tyndall’s design. One can trap all the heat allowed by nature using his published test methods.
“Can I trap some heat here in the tropics, and sell it to someone in a cold place later on?”
Of course, your price will need to be lower than the local utility.
Every time I heat CO2, it also cools down again – “paricularly” at night when the SW input has set or one turns off the Bunsen burner or Prof. Tyndall shuts his gas flame petcocks.
“Or is this CO2 heat trapping only available to certified climate scientists?”
No, available to anyone wants to do the proper lab experiments or observational work in the wild.
“Is there a special knob you have to turn to get the heat out when you want to release it?”
Nothing special about the knobs, Prof. Tyndall simply closed certain valves.
Ball4 believes cabbages emit visible light.
No one compete with that pseudoscience.
Ball4,
I’ve read Tyndall quite extensively. He warmed CO2 and other gases. When he removed the heat source, the gas cooled. Is this how you define climatological heat trapping? Seems common heating and cooling to me.
How much does it cost to trap 1 kilowatt/hour of energy using CO2? How long will it remain trapped? Tyndall doesn’t seem to provide the answer. Why are you refusing to divulge the information you imply you have?
I was already aware that CO2 cools down when you remove the source of heat involved in raising its temperature. Does this mean that CO2 loses all its trapped heat when it stops being heated above ambient environmental temperature?
Are you aware that any gas at all can be heated by the simple expedient of compressing it? No particular SW, LW, or other wavelengths involved. On the other hand, CO2 obviously traps cold. Releasing the contents of a CO2 filled fire extinguisher creates frozen CO2 – really cold!
Maybe you could tell me where I could buy the special CO2 knob that would let me trap and store some heat, rather than cold, in a CO2 cylinder. Just telling me that everyone knows how to do it isn’t much help.
Maybe you’re confusing CO2 with propane or butane. They trap a lot of heat, and when you use the knob on the gas cylinder, you can release it when you want. All you need is a spark.
CO2 is relatively inert, and provides no heat at all, unlike CO, which burns, and definitely does produce heat.
Sorry – no GHE. Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer any hotter at all!
Cheers.
“Is this how you define climatological heat trapping?”
Yes, just as Mike writes: “(Tyndall) warmed CO2 and other gases”.
“How much does it cost to trap 1 kilowatt/hour of energy using CO2?”
Prof. Tyndall paid his lab nat. gas bills, Mike can figure at today’s rates.
“How long will it remain trapped?”
Until the power source is extinguished.
“Why are you refusing to divulge the information you imply you have?”
My info. is all contained in the extensive reading of Tyndall’s experiments Mike performed.
“Does this mean that CO2 loses all its trapped heat when it stops being heated above ambient environmental temperature?”
Yes.
“Are you aware that any gas at all can be heated by the simple expedient of compressing it?”
Yes.
“Maybe you could tell me where I could buy the special CO2 knob that would let me trap and store some heat, rather than cold, in a CO2 cylinder.”
At your local hardware store like Prof. Tyndall.
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer wont make the thermometer any hotter at all!”
It did for Prof. Tyndall!
“Sorry no GHE. Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer wont make the thermometer any hotter at all!”
As it happens, high schools these days have a standard physics experiment that shows exactly this taking place.
Mike Flynn obviously doesn’t understand heat transfer. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is like adding insulation to your house. The extra insulation will slow the flow of thermal energy from inside the house to the outside in winter and similarly will slow the flow from outside to inside in the heat of summer if you use A/C. In winter, the result would be a warmer house with the same rate of input of heating energy or, by setting the thermostat at a fixed point, less heating energy would be needed with the extra insulation.
In the atmosphere, the heat source is the SW energy which continually flows from the Sun thru the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface. Adding CO2 to the blanket of air surounding the Earth will slow the outward flow from the surface to deep space, warming the surface. It’s more complex than that, but one should get the basics of the physics from the analogy.
“..but one should get the basics of the physics from the analogy.”
Mike Flynn won’t “get” even the basic physics as found from tests as he has repeatedly demonstrated. He’s just an amusing poster that likes to sow discord with the intent of provoking emotional responses. Fun to play with & that’s about all.
When folks believe the atmosphere is a “blanket”, there is not need to try to discuss physics with them. They are lost in pseudoscience.
Actually, I would rather call the atmosphere the “shell of our space craft”, but most people can’t comprehend that the Earth is surrounded by deep space with an effective temperature just above absolute zero (-273 C). That “shell” insulates the surface from the cold of deep space and absorbs the high energy photons from the Sun, as well as stopping most small asteroids and comets from impacting on the surface. Obviously, my point was that the CO2 isn’t the source of the energy, but one component in the complex interactions as the solar energy flows thru the climate system.
ES: deep space with a brightness temperature (CMB) just above absolute zero.
E. Swanson, from above: “Adding CO2 to the blanket of air surounding the Earth will slow the outward flow from the surface to deep space, warming the surface.”
Then, E. Swanson states: “Obviously, my point was that the CO2 isnt the source of the energy, but one component in the complex interactions as the solar energy flows thru the climate system.”
So, the atmosphere is NOT a “blanket”, but it is a “complex interaction”.
When prodded, E. Swanson rapidly abandons his/her pseudoscience.
Welcome to reality E. Swanson.
g*e*r*a*n, the atmosphere still insulates the surface from the surrounding near vacuum of deep space. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere increases the effectiveness of that insulation, i.e., it slows the outgoing flow of energy from the surface to deep space. Flynn’s argument is based on his supposition that the CO2 is the source of the energy, which is incorrect.
What is g*e*r*a*n’s explanation for the fact that the surface of the Earth is warmer than the surface of the moon, which lacks an atmosphere?
E. Swanson—It you want to understand then you first must give up your “blanket”.
Earth’s atmosphere is NOT a blanket. That poor analogy has been used for decades (centuries?), but is highly inaccurate. Warmists cling to it because it helps to foster their pseudoscience.
The atmosphere is a “heat transfer regulator”. It enables excess heat to move to space. It can adjust the rate of heat transfer (regulate), as needed.
Hydrostatic Equilibrium Demonstration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkg1p173TAc
g*e*r*a*n, you had an opportunity to prove that you actually could “discuss physics”, but instead you chose to waffle away with no real reply. Here’s another chance for you to show your vast understanding of atmospheric physics. What’s the physics which explains the fact that the temperature in the stratosphere increases as altitude increases?
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Earths atmosphere is NOT a blanket.”
How profound.
“That poor analogy has been used for decades (centuries?), but is highly inaccurate.”
Look up the definition of “analogy.”
E. Swanson queries: “Whats the physics which explains the fact that the temperature in the stratosphere increases as altitude increases?”
E., look up UV and oxygen/ozone in the stratosphere.
(Nice attempt to distract for your “blanket analogy”, BTW.)
Davie whines: “Look up the definition of ‘analogy.'”
Davie, I have enough trouble explaining physics to you. I’m not going to help you with vocabulary.
The best for you, Mike Flynn, is to become informed by people who are not known as warmistas, e.g. Dr Sherwood B. Idso, president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
Google will have a pleasure to direct you to a so called “CO2Science” page, e.g.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/questions/1998/greenhouse.php
whenever you ask for things like ‘Can carbon dioxide trap heat ?’.
It is exactly what many people tried to explain you here since years.
Of course CO2 does not really ‘trap’ heat, nor does H2O; that’s nonsense, it must be understood as metapher like ‘green house’.
Trace gases like CO2, H2O, CH4 and some other crazy little boyz simply absorb IR radiation coming from Earth’s surface, and reemit it in all directions.
A little amount moves back to surface; more of it is absorbed and reemitted again by trace gas molecules.
The result is that less IR radiation is emitted to space, and that subsequently a bit more heat is kept in the atmosphere.
C’est tout…
Bin, you were doing fine until you got to the end—-
“The result is that less IR radiation is emitted to space, and that subsequently a bit more heat is kept in the atmosphere.”
Then, you had to run back to your pseudoscience. Heat is NOT “kept” in the atmosphere.
g*e*r*a*n says:
May 3, 2017 at 12:25 PM
I quote Idso’s CO2Science here:
Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere’s CO2 molecules back toward earth’s surface, providing an additional source of heat energy.
You won’t think Idso be a warmista, huh?
This is what NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory has discovered with the SURFRAD ; but this backradiation directly down to Earth is only a part of what trace gases reemit.
Maybe you think all these photons manage to come around all molecules and pretty good escape to space?
It doesn’t matter how you write your pseudonym: the messages’ contents don’t change.
“…providing an additional source of heat energy.”
“Bzzzzzzz”! (Buzzer sound.)
Violation of 1st Law of Thermodynamics. CO2 is NOT a “heat source”.
angry does comment something decent here (in its own way) and makes a good point I have to admit: the link by Bindidon to CO2Science needs to be corrected. Perhaps angry or Bindidon will contact the Center at the email they provide redacting the unneeded heat term:
“Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere’s CO2 molecules back toward earth’s surface, providing additional amount of **** energy.”
Odd — Roy won’t allow a 1-sentence scientific reply from here here.
I wonder what the problem is.
I don’t expect him to reply.
g, no one thinks carbon dioxide is a “heat source.”
If you’re going to try to criticize an idea, you should at least, as a first step, understand it.
Davie, there are constant references to CO2 as a heat source by pseudoscience types. You have to have a closed mind not to see them.
Oh….
Quote a scientist or scientific textbook saying so.
Davie, no scientist would advocate pseudoscience!
I didn’t think you could cite any science.
And I was right.
As the amount of solar energy increases, the troposphere expands.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2016.png
The warm air rises and the temperature drops depending on the pressure drop down to the tropopause. The average temperature of tropopause is constant.
Troposphere has no “roof”.
So why is heat being added to the atmosphere (and ocean, and land)?
If 5 degrees cooler than now produces an ice sheet across North America and we’ve had a degree or two of warming… shouldn’t there be a natural climate variability margin of 3 to 4 degrees? Meaning we still need more CO2 to stop the next ice age?
“Meaning we still need more CO2 to stop the next ice age?”
Probably. But we’re getting more CO2, aren’t we?
Darwin: when was the next glacial period due to arrive?
Why the 13 Month Moving Average on Satellite Data?
While doing some research I stumbled upon an article on Think Progress that appeared to be mocking Dr. Spencer at the UAH regarding his usage of a 13-month moving average.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/why-the-13-month-moving-average-on-satellite-data/
as a result of questions like this, I’ve started adding a caption to the monthly plot. Read it. It’s a non-issue.
Roy, like your “entertaining” third-order polynomial, it’s better to just leave off anything but the simple presentation of your data.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/roy-spencers-entertaining-polynomial.html
The polynomial is gone. Other institutes give smoothed profiles for their temp records. Why flog dead horses?
(Eg, UK Met Office time series and GISS)
They don’t give projections.
And they don’t try to fit ridiculous functions that are so easily and laughably debunked.
This point has nothing to do with projections.
Different institutes smooth in different ways. There’s nothing inherently wrong with using a 13-month average. It’s just a smoothing choice and doesn’t suggest anything about the future. A 12-month average gives almost exactly the same result. UK Met Office use a 21 point binomial filter. GISS uses a 5-year lowess smooth (annual values) at the home page, which you can adjust if you like. NOAA have used a 13-term Gaussian filter. There’s no standard way to do it, and any specific choice would depend on the question being asked.
Why not use a 12 month centered moving average? That would also solve the problem — and in a way that should make everyone happy.
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section4/pmc422.htm
Why not use a lowess smooth? Or a 5-year running mean? Or a 21-point binomial filter? Or a 13-term Gaussian filter?
They’re all fine. So is a 13-month smooth.
If anyone wants to complain about a smoothing choice, they need to explain what it is trying to be achieved, and why a certain choice is appropriate/inappropriate.
This banging on about a 13-month average is a non-starter. Every institute uses a different filter for their smooths. None give reasons. It’s a subjective choice to smooth out the noise and look for the signal, and there is no standard or ‘correct’ way to do it.
The 4 different smoothing methods I listed at the top of this post have all been used by the major institutes presenting global surface temps. They all do it differently. And that just doesn’t matter.
Using a 13 month moving average is only another subjective choice about what to use for relative measurements. The time series, 1979 to 2010 is another. But, unfortunately, we don’t have measurements from the satellite era going back into the 1700’s or whenever so we are limited.
To make light of those, in view of the limitations we are faced with seems a bit hysterical.
On a bit of a different note.
From the graph, without being extraordinarily accurate:
there are about 28 points on the graph below -.3 and about 36 points above +.3. Combined that is about 14% of, what I will subjectively consider, outliers. Leaving those aside, the measured 38 years has us staying within a .6C variance. Except for the accuracy of the measurements, how would anyone notice?
Hopefully we will stay on the positive side of this and be without too much snow and ice, despite the best efforts of the AGW religious March Saturday (see previous Dr. Roy blog) to cause more.
The long-term trend is statistically significant.
In a science like climate, you rarely get the data you want, so you have to make the most of the data you have.
Snape,
Here’s what the IPCC states –
“Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather,” or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands of years. The classical period is 3 decades, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).”
Is it your contention that “months” is a “long term weather trend”? How would you distinguish months from thousands of years? Are the months of winter a different “long term weather trend” compared with the months of summer?
This is supposed to be science, after all. Definitions need to be rigorous – not subject to an individual’s erratic whims.
Is the IPCC to be taken literally, do you think?
As to the heating properties of CO2 (commonly referred to as the GHE, I believe), I sympathise with your desire to avoid any involvement with such a ridiculous notion!
Having dismissed CO2 as a causative agent of AGW, what might you suggest as an alternative?
You could always toss out a patronising and dismissive ad hom insult, if you can’t find anything scientific and testable to back up your arguments. I generally decline to feel insulted or offended, but try anyway, if it makes you feel better.
Cheers.
Flynn
My description of climate was off the top of my head. Far from perfect. Did you want me to google the definition and send you the link?
Is “off the top of my head” better than ‘pseudoscience”?
Snape,
Why would I want you to provide another off your head definition? You have admittedly facto that you are sloppy, imprecise, and imperfect, and anything you say should not be taken literally.
I’ve provided you with the IPCC definition, which in turn refers to the WMO definition. Why do you refuse to accept the IPCC definition? Afraid someone might take it literally?
Wriggle, wriggle, Warmist worm! Maybe you’ve inadvertently hooked yourself.
Let me know if you ever find a testable GHE hypothesis, involving CO2. I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting.
Cheers.
“Let me know if you ever find a testable GHE hypothesis, involving CO2.”
Ok, a testable GHE hypothesis involving CO2 has now been found in the lab and in the wild.
And UAH work indicated the GHE fails in the “wild”.
Incorrect anger, the GHE due CO2 has been measured in the wild. UAH v6.0 includes those affects in its total LT measurements.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“And UAH work indicated the GHE fails in the wild.”
How so? Provide details.
🙂
Davie,
1) Look at the chart above.
2) Note the two big El Ninos (1998 and 2016).
3) Note the drops after the peaks.
Pseudoscience tells us the atmosphere can “trap heat”. The UAH values indicate the atmosphere cannot “trap heat”.
It’s no wonder pseudoscience types do not like UAH results, huh?
anger, UAH v.6.0 is measuring LT temperature changes from all ~9+ radiative forcings changing not just the changing GHGs.
And those measurements indicate the GHE fails, in the “wild”.
Incorrect anger, the GHE due CO2 has been measured in the wild. UAH v6.0 includes those affects in its total LT measurements.
NOPE!
As always, you confuse DWIR with the GHE.
But, then what do you NOT confuse?
No confusion angry. The case is clear if competent enough to read the relevant published papers.
That’s probably one of your problems. You’ve read too much pseudoscience.
No problems either, anger, the published papers are based on proper measured data from well calibrated instrumentation. I have now learned why you are so angry.
Are these “papers” where you learned that cabbages emit visible light?
Are these “papers” filled with pseudoscience like Davie’s favorite one that states the Sun can raise Earth to 800,000K?
Climate clowns are so hilarious.
“Are these “papers” where you learned that cabbages emit visible light?”
No.
“Are these “papers” filled with pseudoscience like Davie’s favorite one that states the Sun can raise Earth to 800,000K?”
No, anger. Some day the sun will do so.
You are even confused by your own pseudoscience.
That just adds to the hilarity.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Are these papers filled with pseudoscience like Davies favorite one that states the Sun can raise Earth to 800,000K?”
You constantly and purposely misinterpret for the sake of snark.
You aren’t an honest debater, you insult others, and you can’t conduct a scientific discussion. There’s no more reason to try with you.
Davie, here is the exact quote, for your reading enjoyment:
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
You don’t know enough physics to figure out why that is wrong, so you try to claim I’m “misinterpreting”!
You clowns are hilarious.
(What’s even funnier here, is his wording, “if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.” I’m sure that is lost on you also!)
Did you see the word “if?”
Well, as I surmised, you do not get it.
PH is admitting that Earth can cool itself.
It went right over your head.
Snape: Try to ignore “Mike Flynn.” He is a troll who isn’t interested in a scientific discussion. He won’t discuss his claims, or answer questions about them. He never has.
MF. You argue like my teenager. Lots of snark, not much logic, ridiculous strawmen.
Try reading and arguing with what is actually being said. No one is saying co2 is a heat source. Let it go.
The global temperatures are not responding to increasing co2 concentrations as the data shows.
EL NINO was 100% responsible for last years warmth.
Now with low solar in play as I have said for years AGW theory will be proven wrong before year 2020.
Prolonged solar will result in a higher earth albedo even 1/2 of 1% will be significant, while also causing sea surface temperatures to cool overall. The result will be a decline in global temperatures as we move forward.
“I have said for years AGW theory will be proven wrong before year 2020.”
Since there are around 9 radiative global near surface radiative T forcings (RF) identified from observations with some arguably reasonable error bars, the UAH v.6.0 LT chart anomaly declining before year 2020 could be the result of change in any one or a combination of the RFs. Any long term global temperature decline will have no effect on AGW theory, Salvatore, as the theory is developed from lab tests and observed in the wild.
Don’t you just love it?
Ball4 states “Any long term global temperature decline will have no effect on AGW theory.”
In his mind, AGW can never be disproved!
Correct anger, the AGW theory rests on confirming tests starting prior to 150 years ago. The tests have never been disproved, rather the testing has been improved with even better equipment and more observations.
QED
Thank you.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Ball4 states Any long term global temperature decline will have no effect on AGW theory.
“In his mind, AGW can never be disproved!”
AGW has already been proved.
CO2 warms climates. That’s as solid as any scientific finding out there.
It won’t be disproved any more than will Euclid’s theorems.
Davie,
CO2 does not “warm climates”.
“Beliefs” are not “proofs”, except in pseudoscience.
Not sure why you would deny science that is over 100 years old.
Why?
It’s NOT science, so easy to “deny”.
Why it is not science?
The Arrhenius CO2 equation is bogus. There is NO mathematical proof for the equation. It is a “belief system”, not science.
You think AGW is based on Arrhenius 1896?
Then you are a fool.
So are you now in “denial” of the equation?
David Appell,
You can’t even define what AGW is supposed to be.
You say silly things such as “CO2 warms climates”. Climate is defined as the average of weather. Saying “CO2 warms the averages of weather” sounds about as silly as it is. Totally meaningless.
To warm something, ie. to make it hotter, requires heat in excess of that which is lost. CO2 provides no heat, in and of itself.
Why you continue to deny reality is obvious – you are afflicted with a mental aberration similar to that of Gavin Schmidt, who seems to believe he is a scientist, rather than an undistinguished mathematician. Or possibly Michael Mann, who seemed to be convinced he was a Nobel Laureate – possibly even after the Nobel Committee wrote to him to inform he wasn’t.
You may continue to demand that others bend to your will. I can’t think of any reason anybody would bother, but I suppose there are people even less capable of rational thought than yourself.
Maybe you could make your demands even more strident! Have you considered marching, or resisting? Refusing to write about AGW might bring people to their senses (or maybe not).
If all else fails, a good old tantrum, accompanied by the threat of holding your breath until you turn blue, might work!
Give us all a laugh, if nothing else. I’m not aware of any peer reviewed research showing that laughter shortens life at all. Give it your best shot – I’ll have a little chuckle while I wait, if you don’t mind too much.
Cheers.
Davie is in denial. He is trying to distance himself from the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation.
The equation is the basis of the IPCC/CO2/AGW nonsense. The equation has NO mathematical proof. It was conjured up by Arrhenius. The equation violates the laws of thermodynamics.
It’s hilarious to see Davie run from his own pseudoscience.
Mike Flynn, you’re clearly a troll. You’re done here, as far as I’m concerned.
g says:
“The Arrhenius CO2 equation is bogus.”
Which specific equation are you referring to?
Davie, why do I have to explain your pseudoscience to you? Don’t you even know what tripe you have been swallowing?
This is the equation that calculates a “forcing” from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Forcing = 5.35ln(C/Co)
C = Current CO2 ppm = 405
Co = CO2 ppm from late 1800s = 280
Forcing is in units of Watts/sq. meter
Why is it “bogus?”
You don’t know enough physics to figure it out?
Hint 1: Where is the mathematical proof?
Hint 2: 1st Law of Thermo VIOLATION!
See if you can figure it out with those hints, before the pizza arrives.
☺
Just more snark.
I knew you couldn’t prove it.
You lose again.
How many times is that now?
Again, why is it bogus?
A straight answer, please.
Oh, you didn’t flee. You just were gone for a day.
Okay, you can’t figure it out from my hints, so here it is.
1) The equation has NO mathematical proof. It is an equation conjured up by Arrhenius. The method, these days, is known as curve fitting!
2) The equation creates energy out of thin air. That violates the 1st Law of Thermo. The equation basically “says” that if you had CO2 to the atmosphere, you get Watts/sq meter.
Curve fitting, violating the laws of physics–PSEUDOSCIENCE!
2. The eqn doesnt speak, without context. It doesnt create energy either. In the context of incoming solar flux, it says that co2 impedes outgoing flux. Surface temp rises to bring outgoing up to match incoming.
Nate, the equation “speaks” when the derived value has units of “Watts/sq.m.”
THAT is creating energy out of thin air!
You might want to look up the mathematical proof for the [bogus] equation.
(Hint: There is NO proof. It’s as someone once said, it’s BOGUS!)
if i add another blanket on top of me, i get warmer. You would argue the blanket created heat out of thin air? Just as dumb.
Nate, trying to use blankets to cover your lack of science just means you have a bunch of blankets over your head.
once again no science answers. So just insults
Nate, you probably missed the “science”, because you had your eyes closed.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246145
I already adressed your false assertion of 1st law violation. Once again, there is a source of energy known as the sun, which you seem to willfully ignore. No energy created, as you state, from nowhere.
The eqn of Arrhenius is approximate, has more modern derivations that are well argued, and in any case it has been experimentally tested.
Salvatore del Prete wrote:
“EL NINO was 100% responsible for last years warmth.”
Prove this, Salvatore.
David I can’t prove it but if it were not responsible how come the global temperatures declined after this EL NINO ended and rose when it started?
Do you think it was coincidental? I do not.
Salvatore, if you can’t prove it, why claim it?
It detracts from your (already tiny) credibility….
Salvatore, asking again: if you can’t prove something, why claim it?
Salvatore del Prete wrote:
“The result will be a decline in global temperatures as we move forward.”
Salvatore, how about explaining why your similar prediction of 7 years ago was wrong?
Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way).
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“EL NINO was 100% responsible for last years warmth.”
Prove this.
Hey Dr spencer. Why does your graph only show a brief recovery spike when I got information that the earths temperature dropped 0.5 C for the month of April? Which one can I rely on for the most accurate information?
Doesn’t that require Dr. Roy knowing what your other source is?
Good point. Here it is:
http://www.thegwpf.com/global-temperatures-plunge-0-5-celsius-in-april/
I can make a hazard at answering that myself, based on that source: By-and-large, when asking “Which one can I rely on for the most accurate information?”, if the GWPF is the source then the answer will be “the other one”. But they’re actually providing an interpretation of someone else’s data, so I can be slightly more concrete: Dr. Roy’s figure is the MONTHLY anomaly. The 0.5C figure quoted on that site clearly refers to the daily variation DURING the month of April. The two statements could both be perfectly accurate while referring to the exact same data.
So you can take either, just so long as you are clear about what either is saying.
I would think the one I provided would be the more accurate one because it doesn’t average out the temperatures over a whole month like Spencer’s does but actually takes measurements for each day through the end of the month. It is a more specific measurement since it measures daily not monthly temperature trends like the UAH or RSS do. am I right or wrong?
The Univ Maine Climate Reanalyzer already does a fine job of this:
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/
Define “the Earth’s temperature.”
Surface? Troposphere? Ocean?
Hilariously, the data used by GWPF is from a forecast model. They just hunt around for any data that makes things look cooler. It’s a propaganda unit, not a serious resource.
This is their data source:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2_body.html
How would you estimate the chance of an El Nino in coming months, without a model?
David
By looking at a wind anolomy chart I can predict ENSO 3 or 4 months out.
If it was that easy, why isn’t everyone doing that?
Can you back up your claim with historical data?
David
That came across as sounding boastful – it’s actually very easy. Just scroll down to the “zonal, low-level wind anomalies chart. Look to the left of the screen. Deep red (westerly wind burst) and we’re headed for, or strengthening, an el nino . Deep blue, a la nina. Right now it looks warm/neutral.
I know this is very unscientific, but for the past several years, I’ve had close to 100% accuracy (looking about 3 months out). I’ve found that model forecasts (scroll lower on page) have often lagged this simple “eyeball”
test.http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
David
I don’t know why this hasn’t been talked about much…. maybe 3 months out isn’t very helpful?
I think I could provide evidence but it would be a lot of work. I have caveman computer skills.
Better, in the coming months/years, the data will either prove me right, or a babbling fool. lol!!
Simple explanation? A “westerly wind burst” initiates the eastward movement (kelvin wave) of warm water towards the ENSO region. Strong easterlies and warm surface water gets driven down into the ocean depths. Near normal winds and you can expect “ENSO neutral”in the next few months.
To clarify, strong “easterlies” drive warm surface waters west towards Indonesia, where it has nowhere to go and so is driven downwards.
The key driver of all this is, as far as I can tell, the near constant, east-to-west trade winds. They blow sun- warmed surface water towards Indonesia, where a huge “warm pool” hangs out. The eastern tropical pacific, it follows, is much cooler.
Westerly wind bursts, I should point out, are the infrequent exception to the trade winds. Also, a westerly wind burst near the central or eastern tropical pacific doesn’t do much because that’s not where the warm water is located. That’s the reason for looking at the left side (western pacific) of the chart.
Snape says:
“Simple explanation? A westerly wind burst initiates the eastward movement (kelvin wave) of warm water towards the ENSO region.”
Oh please.
Sounds super goofy, I know.
The “simple explanation” is just a hypothesis for explaining real world observations – it’s my best guess.
I think the problem with ENSO climate models is they can’t predict anomalous wind events, which would be described as “weather”.
I will alert y’all when something interesting happens in the western tropical pacific and provide a link to the chart.
An update is released every Monday morning. Takes about 10 seconds to check out the wind anomalies.
Well in that case. I am never relying on them for accurate information
This may have got CC4R’s attention:
As the record 2015/16 El Nino levels off, the global warming hiatus is back with a vengeance
Except it isn’t. Trends for all global surface/satellite lower trop trends are still positive since 1998.
I see that they created their first chart by linking to… twitter. Naturally, it goes all the way back to October 2016, and from this they claim the ‘pause’ from 1998 is back.
(Facepalm)
CC4R, definitely do not trust the GWPF. It’s snake oil.
If you talk about a slowdown, then the slowdown is back. The zero-trend isn’t, but then, who should be picky.
http://www.thegwpf.com/global-temperatures-plunge-0-5-celsius-in-april/
I’m not in for the snake oil, because they don’t sell anything. This is just ordinary goofy stuff. Given the general goofiness, I think this is not from the worst end, just mediocry (spell check complains) goofy.
who should be picky
Anyone interested in accuracy.
I realize that might not be important for talking points…
I was slightly sarcastic on who should be picky.
But still yes, I think this is just ordinary goofy stuff discrediting a bit its author.
I understand that there is a more-than-evens chance of ENSO turning positive again this year. That would be consistent with the slow tailing off after the recent peak shown on Dr. Roy’s graph. One month’s fluctuation doesn’t mean anything useful, and even a double el Nino doesn’t say anything about trends. But there’s nothing surprising about a sustained rising trend over the whole dataset either, is there?
The Temperature 10-Day Departure image shows areas where temperatures are expected to be above, below, or near normal for the next 10 days.
http://images.intellicast.com/WxImages/CustomGraphic/wg10t.gif
Northern Hemisphere Minimum Temperature 5-day Forecast.
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/5-day/GFS-025deg_ARC-LEA_T2_min_5-day.png
North Sierra Precipitation: 8-Station Index, May 03, 2017
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/products/PLOT_ESI.pdf
Salvatore, how about explaining why your similar prediction of 7 years ago was wrong
David ask and the answer is solar activity never reached my parameters 7 years ago. Now finally solar activity is reaching my parameters which I had said would be needed to produce global cooling.
So this time David we will know because the sun is going to be very quiet going forward and how the global temperatures react will tell us if I may or not be correct.
Again my argument is if solar activity is low enough it will result in increasing the earth’s albedo and lowering overall sea surface temperatures the former due to an increase in volcanic activity ,global cloud/snow coverage the lower sea surface temp due to a decline in UV light.
A simple concise argument.
Salvatore, you have made definite claims, that did not depend on anything else. For example:
Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
Why did THIS prediction fail, Salvatore?
sun did not cooperate
“Cooperate?” That’s an odd choice of words.
Is the Sun supposed to agree with your claims, Salvatore?
Or were you wrong — WRONG — about the Sun??
Salvatore, if the sun did not cooperate, why did you claim it had?
Have you learned ANYTHING from your many, many failures, Salvatore?
Do you personally believe you have any credibility left?
I was wrong on the solar activity it was way higher then I thought it was going to be back then. 2011 – mid 2016
“I intend to make sure everyone will know who forecasted the climate correctly, and who forecasted it wrong.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 7/8/15
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/revised-uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2015-0-33-deg-c/#comment-194674
Salvatore, it is refreshing to hear someone say, “I was wrong, and here is where I was wrong.”
That increases your credibility.
As opposed to the CAGW activists who deny that they have been wrong . . .
Yes, Salvatore salvaged some credibility.
that simple David but guess what the sun is now cooperating
Salvatore, you said in the past that “all the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
That would include the Sun.
Now you’re admitting you were wrong then.
Why are you’re just as wrong now, Salvatore?
DA
its very easy for your side to say sorry I was wrong because they have to do it so often where as the other side is not used to it so its a bit harder. Maybe it comes naturally to warmers incorperated
HC
The sun did not cooperate the values were to high now this has changed.
If the temp do not decline from now going forward I will admit to being wrong.
Salvatore, you’re just making excuses.
“I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of the solar cycle maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 7/13/2013
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/07/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-june-2013-0-30-deg-c/#comment-84963
Salvatore, now that conditions are right, what is your prediction to 2020 and to 2025? That’s a short enough time frame where we will probably still be here to discover the results together.
temp will be below the 30 year avg means
Salvatore, not a single one of your many predictions has ever come true. Not one.
“2016 will not be s warm as 2015….”
– Salvatore del Prete, 12/3/15
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203097
Thanks. Just to be clear – which 30-year average? The most recent to 2016? Or the baseline (which is different for every data set)?
David Appell wrote –
“Define the Earths temperature.
Surface? Troposphere? Ocean?”
An excellent question, which no one has yet managed to answer with any scientific rigour.
Nobody has even managed to come up with a precise definition of the Earth’s surface, in relation to climatology. Maybe David Appell might like to take a stab.
Cheers.
What rigor is missing, specifically?
In your expert opinion?
How can he know when he doesn’t research his own questions? Of course there is a definition for surface temps. But he’s not interested in discovering it, he just wants to be argumentative.
You should take your own advice and quit trying to help him. That’s not what he really wants.
barry, Flynn is a troll that has never answered a single question when asked.
I know you’re trying to the “honest broker,” but you’re learning far too much towards the denier side.
Then stop feeding the troll.
Mike Flynn says:
“Nobody has even managed to come up with a precise definition of the Earths surface, in relation to climatology.”
The average of any scalar function is easily defined over any continuous manifold.
Look it up.
David Appell,
Hard to say, when you can’t even provide any definition. Something like asking me to comment on the verification protocols for the non-existent untestable GHE hypothesis.
Some climatologists apparently claim that something is getting hotter, due to the presence of some gases in the atmosphere, due to some unspecified and unknown mechanism which supposedly depends on a non-testable hypothesis which has never existed in written form.
Quite obviously, the molten blob we call the Earth must cool, if its internal temperature exceeds 255 K or so, which is the maximum which can be sustained by the Sun – at least according to climatologists.
Day is generally hotter than night, summer generally hotter than winter, and so on.
However, these are extremely vague terms, if intended to be applied to a specific part of the Earth. The influence of the Sun is imperceptible at relatively shallow depths into the crust. Should a virtual surface be defined at this level?
So what’s your definition of the surface? Just cut and paste something if you wish – hopefully it will even define what the surface is, for a start. Climatologists certainly appear rather confused, and refer to different parts of the system as the surface, complaining furiously if someone tries to pin them down.
I await your definition with bated breath – although I am not hopeful that you can provide anything at all, let alone alone anything useful. Don’t be discouraged – give it your best shot.
Cheers.
Let me know when you’re ready to answer questions about your claims.
David Appell,
What claims might those be? If you don’t how how to quote what I wrote by copying and pasting, I’m sure some other GHE supporter might be able to help.
If you are asking a question in an effort to seek knowledge, I’ll endeavour to assist.
If I form the opinion that you are just trying for a “gotcha” or otherwise acting in bad faith, why should I waste my time?
Just let me know what you need help with, and I’ll do my best to present relevant facts, if you can’t find them yourself.
In the meantime, if you quote exactly what it is with which you disagree, not only I, but other readers, will have the faintest inkling what you’re complaining about!
Cheers.
MF, you have always skipped out on relevant questions.
That’s your calling card.
Davie, Mike Flynn just asked you to state your specific question.
And YOU “skipped out”!
Hilarious.
It’s been done many times. Always ignored.
MF says: “If you are asking a question in an effort to seek knowledge, Ill endeavour to assist.
If I form the opinion that you are just trying for a gotcha or otherwise acting in bad faith, why should I waste my time?
… and that is exactly how we feel when you start in with
“I had a similar experience trying to sell CO2 house heaters….”
I’m really not sure if you are 1) trying for a “gotcha” with your CO2 house heater, or 2) so willfully ignorant that you think your example has anything to do with the warming of the earth due to CO2, or 3) simply acting in bad faith to annoy people.
Given how often you repost similar ideas, I don’t see much chance that you have any intention of learning — but you could always prove me wrong about those intentions.
barry,
Just for fun –
From RSS (which Dr Spencer no doubt knows about) –
“Sea surface temperature is a key climate and weather measurement obtained by satellite microwave radiometers, infrared (IR) radiometers, in situ moored and drifting buoys, and ships of opportunity. Different instruments measure the temperature at different depths. For instance, most buoys have sensors located at about 1 meter depth, or placed at regular intervals along a tether line. Sea surface temperatures, when measured from space, represent a depth that is related to the frequency of the satellite instrument. For example, IR instruments measure a depth of about 20 micrometers, while microwave radiometers measure a depth of a few millimeters.”
I know I’ve provided the following before, but some GHE enthusiasts have a short retention ability, so –
“Land surface temperature is how hot the surface of the Earth would feel to the touch in a particular location. From a satellites point of view, the surface is whatever it sees when it looks through the atmosphere to the ground. It could be snow and ice, the grass on a lawn, the roof of a building, or the leaves in the canopy of a forest. Thus, land surface temperature is not the same as the air temperature that is included in the daily weather report.” – NASA (which Dr Spencer also knows about, I suspect).
Of course, climatologists ignore both, and substitute some nonsense claiming air temperatures are actually surface temperatures – which leads some GHE supporters to claim that the term “surface” is not meant to be taken literally.
To complicate the issue, the Australian Bureau of Meteorolgy scientists decided that air temperatures recorded prior to 1910 were unreliable. Any definition of the surface prior to 1910 is obviously irrelevant in relation to Australia and its Territories, parts of Antarctica, and so on. Oh well.
David Appell may well be able to provide the secret climatological definition of the Earth’s surface, and the temperature thereof, but it seems that even so called climate scientists have difficulty.
Only the truly gullible or mentally afflicted would be silly enough to believe that increasing the concentration of CO2 in an atmosphere causes a rise in temperature. Which category do you fall into?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn 8:45pm, then you fall into the truly gullible category.
The sizes of various CERES radiometers mean it can resolve the snow and ice of say winter in a region of Canada (spatial resolution 1 degree lat. by 1 degree of long.); CERES does not have the spatial resolution to resolve grass on a lawn (or even a lawn!), the roof of a building and especially not the leaves in the canopy of a forest though it can resolve certain forest regions. You will want to double check the expertise at whatever link you used for your -NASA clip label.
And yes, follow the NASA rec. for checking the daily weather reports for your surface thermometer temperatures.
Ball4,
If you don’t believe nasa.gov to be reliable, maybe you should demand that the US Govt cut their funding. Have you any facts to contradict the NASA information?
May I point out, yet again, that daily weather reports, from NASA or anybody else, do not provide temperatures of the surface. GHE supporters have to attempt to deny, divert, and confuse, in an attempt to avoid appearing even more unscientific than they obviously are!
If you don’t accept definitions provided by RSS, the WMO, the IPCC, or NASA, you’re likely to look a bit silly to readers of the comments here.
Maybe you could get together with David Appell, and provide your own definitions. Don’t be too surprised if the response doesn’t include people bowing down in awe of your effulgent intellects.
Have NASA or RSS approached you or David to take up positions as bosses of those organisations? If not, I can’t say I’m surprised!
Cheers.
Air in the troposphere is compressed only by gravity. Therefore, an increase in air temperature must cause its expansion, as pressure increases.
Mike appears not to have the ability to check facts on his own, asks others: “Have you any facts to contradict the NASA information?”
The facts are on NASA dot gov CERES resolution expertise site. Ought to be easy to find for such a gullible commenter as yourself.
No funding cuts needed, CERES et. al. data is why you are here. Again, follow your own link for the NASA recommendation “the air temperature that is included in the daily weather report.” At least I accept definitions provided by RSS, the WMO, the IPCC, and NASA even if Mike does not.
“Have NASA or RSS approached you or David to take up positions as bosses of those organisations?”
No, Mike Flynn is even more gullible than I recently found out and I see now joins the category mentally afflicted.
MF wrote:
“David Appell may well be able to provide the secret climatological definition of the Earths surface”
If you don’t know what the surface of a planet is — or any manifold — you are beyond my help.
Currently increasing the surface temperature of the eastern Pacific, which causes an increase in evaporation of the ocean.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif
At the same time very slowly increasing the amount of heat accumulated by the ocean.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Water vapor, unlike CO2, is mainly concentrated in equatorial regions.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
The North Pacific is very cold.
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/DailySummary/GFS-025deg_NH-SAT4_SST.png
But you told me earlier co2 is a well mixed gas and drives the climate by trapping heat like a blanket. Now you say it only does this sometimes in random places around the globe……
By the way I started a new company selling thermos flasks insulated with co2 so as to keep peoples coffee hot. Have sold hundreds but am now gone broke because everyone wanted a refund, turns the co2 could not trap the heat after all 🙂
Crakar
The atmosphere and a blanket both trap heat, but the atmosphere is way more complicated. Don’t expect too much from a simple analogy.
For example, the atmosphere also has a strong cooling effect. A summer afternoon in Sydney would be HUNDREDS of degrees hotter if there was no atmosphere.
It’s a wickedly complicated subject.
It’s not that complicated, unless a person is wicked.
The atmosphere cannot “trap heat”, or warm the planet. It only cools the planet.
Nice and simple, not complicated.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“The atmosphere cannot trap heat, or warm the planet. It only cools the planet.”
So your hypothesis is that planets with atmospheres are cooler than planets without atmospheres?
You have proof of this hypothesis?
Planet Earth, Davie. Planet Earth.
Try to grasp the systems on this planet before blasting off to other planets.
Sorry, I need to retract my last statement:
Not HUNDREDS of degrees hotter…. I misremembered something. Still think a lot hotter but need to do a little research.
Snape, with no albedo, and peak Australian summer, Sydney would receive about 1400 W/m^2. That would correspond to about 400K, 127C, 261F.
I don’t want you to have to do any “research”, you might learn something….
Test
Rude. Irrelevant.
Trade winds (easterlies) are still strong in western to central Pacific. Neutral/la nina continue to be more likely by late summer
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Snape, with no albedo, and peak Australian summer, Sydney would receive about 1400 W/m^2. That would correspond to about 400K, 127C, 261F.
I dont want you to have to do any research, you might learn something.”
It is painfully obvious that he will not learn anything from your troll posts. You are not very good at reason or rational thought, excellent at annoying fellow posters for no real reason except you enjoy doing it.
Here is why your logic and reason are poor quality.
Moon surface:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/diviner_moon_temperatures.png
The graph is in lunar hours which each hour being equivalent to 1.14 days. If you had even a bit of thought process you would see how little you understand science.
Look at the linked graph and in 54.6 hours of continuous Sunlight the temperature has risen to 27 C.
One hour of peak sunlight in the Australian summer would not raise the temperature to this degree. There is an effect of heat capacity of the real world.
Also with any atmosphere present the surface could not get so hot as convection would remove a vast amount of energy from the surface and spread it to cooler areas.
g*e*r*a*n
In your poor reasoning ability you only consider the hottest temperature to be significant as with the moon. For unknown reasons you do not think the colder part of the moon surface matters.
Here is something for you to consider (which is beyond your ability since consideration does not annoy anyone and it is unlikely you are able to do anything else but annoy and troll).
The Moon high is 116 C, the low is -180 C. The average between the two is a cold -32 C
Look at this graph.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_590bfa8d3e1f3.png
In the hot desert on Earth you have a high of 37 C and a low of 25 C
with an average of 31 C.
Now with simple math which number is the greater of the two? Is minus 32 C warmer than plus 31 C??
Max 32 min 25????? Never been to Alice springs have you norman
Norman spouts off: “Also with any atmosphere present the surface could not get so hot as convection would remove a vast amount of energy from the surface and spread it to cooler areas.”
Norm, my poor lost puppy, the context involved Sydney, Australia, not the Moon. And, the scenario was with NO atmosphere. Translation–NO convection.
You just can’t get anything right!
Sydney would receive 1/4th of that, because the Earth is spherical and because it is rotating.
Davie, i’m not averaging energy, I’m talking peak solar intensity.
Sheesh, do you know anything?
g: Your assumption is unrealistic. And Sydney’s peak solar energy would still be lower, because of its latitude.
Davie, the solar flux drops off sinusoidally. Sydney is only about 10 degrees from max solar for Southern Hemisphere. That works out to be 98% of peak. I said “about”.
You are soooo desperate.
Now solar is low going lower so if temperatures do not decline from this point going forward I will be wrong this time. I will not be able to say this time that the sun did not cooperate.
Game on.
Crakar24,
I had a similar experience trying to sell CO2 house heaters. As I told my customers, the world’s finest climate scientists vouched for the heating properties of CO2. Even filling a house with 100% CO2 raised the temperature of a house not at all – not to mention the resultant inconvenience of the occupants having to wear external air supplies when in the house!
I feel quite let down. Maybe the whole GHE industry is a complete scam – the result of seriously deluded pseudo scientists being taken seriously!
Is it possible CO2 only heats up in the presence of sunlight (or another heat source)? All these climatologists, with their peer reviewed papers, 97% consensus, and super computers couldn’t possibly be wrong, could they?
Cheers.
What did you think? Of course a ‘greenhouse’ needs some sunlight to warm up.
The Sun is the number one driver. If it wasn’t there, our CO2 would be solid and around 3K.
The question was: given what the Sun does, does adding up CO2 have an effect. Well, it has an effect. Does it have a catachlysmic anthropogenic global warming effect, or just partly beneficial, partly negative, and mostly indifferent effects?
I see beneficial effects for far, if any. And I’m not just saying it is plant food, because its effects on plant growth are positive and undeniable. Really. People who deny the positive effects are just wind and solar power funded lobbyists.
It remains to be seen how much negative effects are in the queue. In any case, I don’t see a realistical cure that would fix CO2 emissions without being worse for us than the expected negative CO2 effects are.
Like, yes, if you give me 100% nuclear, I go for it, but at the moment, we have NO IDEA WHAT SO EVER how to stop CO2 emissions. The emissions are not only continuing, they are still growing. They are in China already as large as in the dreaded Western countries. They will be in India.
Stop being silly. CO2 emissions will not stop, because we need food, we need transportation, we need factories, we need steel, aluminium, plastic, science, recreation. THERE IS NO WAY stopping what is going on without killing the patient. So don’t even think about that. Some suggest that, killing the patient to save her!
Think about how to adapt. That’s cheap and comes in handy should the temps go up in Canadian Arctic. And stop pestering about non-problems like Maldives sinking before some year in the past.
“Does it have a catachlysmic anthropogenic global warming effect, or just partly beneficial, partly negative, and mostly indifferent effects?”
More to the point, does its effect set in motion a train of compensating effects that tend to reduce the aggregate impact to negligible levels?
It is a complex, nonlinear feedback system. It does not necessarily behave the same way in every climate state. So, there is no reason that CO2 cannot help warm the surface to its present state, but have diminishing returns as that state is reached. I.e., there is no contradiction inherent in saying that the GHE is real, and CO2 contributes to it, but it has very little additional impact in the current climate state.
It is said, and I agree, that all things being equal, a decrease in atmospheric emissivity due to accumulation of CO2 should produce an increase in average surface temperatures. But, all things are decidedly not equal. There are hydrological, biological, and mineralogical reactions, just to name a few of the obvious ones. There is no guarantee whatsoever that increasing CO2 today on average has even a non-zero aggregate impact.
More word salad.
Do you have any *science*? I’ve never seen an iota of science from you.
Again with the “word salad” meme. I suppose it does appear as such to you. But, if you do not understand technical arguments, why are you engaged in this debate?
You *never* offer technical explanations — just a bunch of hand waving word salad.
Did you ever take a college course in physics? (Seriously?)
Let’s see some real science, Bart.
So far, you’re demonstrated that you can’t provide anything like it………..
I do, you just do not understand them. I can’t dumb it down for you. You would need the necessary background, which you obviously do not have.
“What did you think? Of course a greenhouse needs some sunlight to warm up””
Not according to AGW pseudo-scientists. Backradiation shines at night too and provides warming! LMAO. According to the pseudo-scientists 1 W/m2 of backradiation is the same as 1 W/m2 of solar insolation.
Your tag is right. More wild than skeptical.
99.999% of Earth’s surface and atmospheric energy comes from the sun. The heat of the day takes a long time to dissipate at night. In fact, it never fully dissipates. Hence backradiation occurs night and day.
In order to get slower night cooling you need (a) daytime sunlight (check) and (b) more CO2 (check). Calling slowed and prematurely ending nighttime cooling as “warming” is an error from your side. The actual warming happens when sun shines the next day.
Waiting for you to pick up your ass you laughed off.
You’ll find an excuse, Salvatore. You always do.
“Also, here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling, DUE TO THE SUN, soi oscillation, volcanic activity, nao,ao oscillations ,pdo/amo ocean
DAVID I said due to the sun. Seems clear to me.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 7/5/15
– http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-216470
Dave if temperature rise despite low solar from this point on you will be right.
Temperature has been rising for decades, despite a decrease in solar irradiance since the 1960s:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
I’m already right.
To sum up my climate argument in one sentence.
It is a solar induced increased albedo ,lower sea surface temperatures which should translate to lower global temperatures as we move forward due to very weak solar activity.
Salvatore,
When people are too attached to a theory it can be hard for them to look at evidence without bias.
So Salvatore albedo decides.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/as19_prd.gif
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gld19_prd.gif
I think so Ren .
How to increase albedo?
I say major volcanic activity , increase in global cloud coverage and global snow/sea ice coverage.
I say very low solar will promote the above.
Not to mention less UV light should lower sea surface temperatures overall.
Salvatore: volcanic influence on climate is temporary.
Not that you can predict when eruptions will happen.
BUT MAJOR VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY IS HIGHER DURING SOLAR MINIMUMS.
That is part of the equation for cooling.
Really? Prove that.
Then explain the causal connection.
Salvatore, what was wrong with this prediction?
“Dont you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,lets take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
The spacing is wrong. Apostrophes. The prediction is wrong. Among others.
and it has ended
When did the warming end, Salvatore?
You’ve said that before, and were wrong every time. Why should anyone believe you now?
“Dont you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,lets take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
The jet stream will continue to cause flooding in the US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/05/0000Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-95.61,30.85,786
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/comp/ceus/flash-wv.html
Once again, the ideal gas law must be satisfied and until you lot can understand that there’s no point talking theory about GHGs warming the surface.
PV = nRT
Keep V and n constant because they are essentially constant in the atmosphere. That means P = T and we all know that to be true. Near the surface, the attraction of gravitational force is greatest and air pressure near the surface is greatest in an ideal environment. We know temperature is generally greatest near the surface.
Now, let’s talk partial pressures. There are 4 main gases in the atmosphere, N2, O2, Ar, and CO2. Water vapour should be included.
The contribution of warming in the atmosphere per gas is related to its partial pressure hence its mass. It doesn’t take a degree in rocket science to see that N2 and O2 account for nearly 99% of the mass of the universe and nearly 99% of the partial pressure.
N2 and O2 contribute close to 99% of the warming and CO2 at 0.04% could contribute no more than 1/100ths C.
QED. CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric warming or surface warming.
“It doesnt take a degree in rocket science to see that N2 and O2 account for nearly 99% of the mass of the universe…”
Brain lock…I obviously meant atmosphere, not universe.
“That means P = T and we all know that to be true.”
Except for nature which doesn’t cooperate with Gordon’s assertions for an atm. A quick glance at Vancouver Airport weather last 24hr.s shows times when pressure goes up and temperature goes down. Thus P .NE. T at times in nature.
As Dr. Feynman would say, so much for that pet theory.
https://weather.gc.ca/past_conditions/index_e.html?station=yvr
GR wrote:
“CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric warming or surface warming.”
Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?
Davie, if all CO2 did was absorb IR, it would be a “heat sink”. It it both absorbed and emitted, it would be a “heat conductor”.
CO2 is NOT a “heat source”. You must get that worm out of your brain.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “CO2 is NOT a heat source. You must get that worm out of your brain.”
Or you must rethink your unscientific assertion. You are making a declarative statement with no context and hence demonstrate your poor reasoning skills.
CO2 can be a “heat source”, it depends upon external conditions. If the CO2 gas is hot and the surroundings are cool it will definitely be a “heat source”
Currently the atmosphere has temperature so CO2 is an energy source. It is emitting IR energy in all directions based upon the atmospheric temperature where it resides. So CO2 is an energy source. The Downwelling IR given off by CO2 in the atmosphere will be absorbed by the Earth’s surface and hence require less internal kinetic energy to be used in maintaining the upward energy flux (which is only based upon the Earth’s surface temperature). The overall result of this returning energy will keep the Earth’s surface warmer than if the CO2 were not present.
If the Sun was gone, the Earth’s surface cooling would be slower than the Moon. The poles go 6 months a year with no Sun (far longer than the Moon’s 27+ day night).
If you dare to care you can look at CERES graphs and look at The South Polar area (-65 North, -90 South).
You will find that the DWIR in the cold dark winter is around of Antartica is about 165 W/m^2.
The Upwelling IR is 185 W/m^2.
So during the dark long night of the Antarctica Winter, because of GHE the region is only losing 20 W/m^2 instead of 185 W/m^2. So in your logical thought process which rate of energy loss is greater? This would clearly mean GHG is warming the Antarctic considerably as it would be much colder without the presence of these gases. Warming is a relative and not an absolute term when comparing two potential states.
Norm, with your lack of understanding of physics, you just can’t get anything right.
A thermodynamic “heat source” brings NEW heat energy into a system. A mass warmed from within a system is NOT a heat source.
You’ve never had any course close to thermo, so quit trying to fake it.
“A thermodynamic heat source brings NEW heat energy into a system”
New energy huh? Now anger resorts to creating energy. Next anger will resort to destroying some energy. Hilarious.
All in a days comments from anger. Actually find energy can only be transformed, anger, once you get some lab work accomplished.
Now don’t be angry, just calmly study nature in action.
Ball4, your lack of science knowledge puts you in the same category as Norm.
Strike a match in your apartment. You are converting chemical energy into heat energy. The match is now a “heat source” within the apartment (system). You are adding “new” heat energy to the system.
Your lack of understanding is hilarious.
Sorry anger, the energy was always in the match, the energy is not newly created as you write. Hilarious.
anger thinks if I extinguish the match flame I’ve destroyed its energy.
PS Ball4, if you plan to do any “lab” experiments with matches, make sure you have some adult supervision. Matches are NOT toys. You can burn yourself!
This is just a boring word game.
And yes, I have actually studied physics to extent I know what I talking about.
“CO2 is NOT a heat source.”
Nobody thinks it is.
Stop with the red herrings.
Davie, ever hear of “climate forcing”. It’s a common term used by Warmists/pseudoscientists. The units are “Watts/m^2”.
If you continue with your pseudoscience, you must believe CO2 is a “heat source”. You don’t want to get kicked out of the AGW cult, do you?
W/m is the unit of energy flow density over surface. Nothing to do with heat sources but with energy flow. And components of energy flow are summed up to get the total flow.
wert is in denial that CO2 warms the planet!
Welcome to reality wert!
GR wrote:
“The contribution of warming in the atmosphere per gas is related to its partial pressure hence its mass.”
Prove this.
Oh that’s just oversimplified BS. And once you see such stuff, usually the people parroting that are not really going to learn something.
But anyhow, Jupiter is very hot at the bottom, so the size of the gas ball does have an effect on its temperature.
There is more CO2 in Mars (0.6 mb) than here (0.041 percent). I think Mars needed a thick atmosphere to be warm, thicker than the Earth if the composition was similar. I’m not sure exactly how warm Mars would be with a 1013 mb CO2 gasosphere, perhaps you can provide with a scientific approach? But be very careful, some people would calculate the temperature and want it to be high or low result based on their beliefs, so they’d do a mistake in one direction only. Mars is also described by being a dry planet, so its temperature swing and latitude-specific temperature gradient would be different. As also the thick atmosphere would have a tremendous storm capacity.
The hard part here is of course the ceteris paribus, which is never applicable. Warm Mars would be wetter with water and gas leaking from the ground, with no polar ice, albedo changed, dust in air, etc.
Mass of Martian atmosphere is 200 times less than Earth’s, and surface pressure is 0.6% that of Earth’s. Though CO2 is 95% of the Martian atmosphere, and it is more abundant in the atmosphere (mass) than on Earth, the extremely low density of the gasosphere lets upwelling IR escape to space far more rapidly than through Earth’s atmos. Mass of all GHGs in Earth’s atmos (incl water vapour) is 4 times greater in Earth’s atmos. Water vapour is a stronger absorber of IR than CO2, to, so the ‘greenhouse’ effect on Earth is much stronger than on Mars in several ways.
Gordon Robertson
The only thing going with your poorly thought out assertion is reality. Empirical evidence. The thing the non-scientists on this thread (g*e*r*a*n and Mike Flynn) will never consider or ignore. It suits there troll behavior and they have no interest in reality or truth, just how much dwarf beard they can pull to get a cheap thrill for the day. Pathetic waste of keyboard time but each to his own.
Gordon I hope you are not like the trolls who have little interest in the truth.
Here look at the graph. This is empirical evidence (unless your name is Kristian as he is unable to think what this evidence relates).
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_590bf4ca0c802.png
The Downwelling IR is a real and measured value. If you want to be a nonscientist you can ignore the reality. The DWIR comes from pointing an instrument up in the sky so the only radiant energy to hit the sensing material is IR radiation coming from the sky which hits the instrument and also the Earth’s surface.
I would not try to convince the resident trolls since they really do not care and their agenda is to annoy someone with whatever method they can find.
I try to convince you since I think you might be a person who really wants to know the truth. I can only hope you are such a person.
Gosh Norm, I just can’t get enough of your mindless rambling, attempted insults, and hilarious pseudoscience.
More, please!
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Gosh Norm, I just cant get enough of your mindless rambling, attempted insults, and hilarious pseudoscience.
More, please!”
Yes I know how to make you happy. I have taken care of your needs. When will you actually read a science textbook? It might be even more fun than reading my posts.
Sarcasm, like science, flies right over your head.
Norman says, May 4, 2017 at 9:47 PM:
Yeah, that sure didn’t take long, did it? Here he is again, pontificating – on repeat – from his tiny veranda up on his exceedingly snug little bubble mansion about things he evidently doesn’t understand in the least. Well, to each his own.
I know of course – from a seemingly endless string of empirical observations – that the back of this particular duck is perfectly resistant to all perspectives different from that of its owner. But here goes, for the umpteenth time:
No. This is NOT empirical evidence of the atmosphere irradiating the surface with a separate incoming macroscopic (thermodynamic) flux of energy, right next to and just like the solar heat flux, directly raising the surface temperature in the process. Plotting things on a piece of paper doesn’t magically turn them into real, detected phenomena. These values are ALL simply CALCULATED!
Of course there are PHOTONS being exchanged at the surface all the time. But this process is a single and fully integrated one; the exchange happens instantaneously, continuously, simultaneously. There are NO separate macroscopic fluxes of energy (W/m^2) coming in or going out. That is – still – just a mental construct, a highly simplifed mathematical model of reality, and nothing else. There is always a LOSS – and a loss ONLY – in “internal energy” [U] for the surface in its radiative thermal exchange with the atmosphere above. Empirical evidence: It cools during the night.
Kristian
Have you done any actual testing yet? I didn’t think so. I have done actual tests and you are just wrong. No textbook supports your view, no evidence support your view. You think everyone else is wrong but will do not tests one way or the other.
Yes there are macroscopic flows of energy toward and away from the surface. Photons are moving away and toward the surface. Photons are bosons and do not exchange energy with each other. They move right on through. They can interfere but do not exchange any energy with each other. The photons moving down from the atmosphere do not exchange energy with those moving upward. You can integrate the energy of all the downwelling photons that strike an area of surface in a given amount of time and that becomes a MACROSCOPIC flow of ENERGY into the surface. Please do some experiments and when you do then tell me what I don’t know. Or read a textbook. I have linked you to several and they ALL say what I do and NOT one says what you do. Why is that? And yet for some reason you think you understand physics correctly.
The actual physics, which you never seem to read but keep up the posts of your unfounded physics based on nothing but your own opinion. All surfaces emit energy away from their surface based upon their temperature. It is an actual macroscopic flux of real energy. If you have more than one surface each surface radiates away (which can easily be tested with an FLIR that you will never use) energy based only upon its temperature with a macroscopic flow of energy away (integrate the photons leaving, none are returning to the surface that emitted them). The IR from another surface will have a macroscopic flow of energy away from its surface. This energy will move to and be absorbed by the emitting surface, real energy, real macroscopic flow.
Kristian: “There are NO separate macroscopic fluxes of energy (W/m^2) coming in or going out. That is still just a mental construct.”
Not according to nature Kristian, your mental constructs are heat and insulation. Nature’s construct is every object radiates at every other object in its view creating two real macro streams made of incoherent photons (EMR).
No matter what Kristian calls heat or insulation, nature demonstrates both added solar energy flux and added atm. energy flux result in a higher near surface L&O temperature than without the energy flux.
Kristian needs to hit the lab. Study lotsa’ results from nature not just read wordsmiting blog sites using heat and insulation mental constructs.
According to Kristian’s clip above, someone has found an object that does not radiate if there are NOT two separate fluxes. That would need a replicable lab test and Kristian hasn’t gone anywhere near a lab in quite awhile according to his comments.
Ball4
I like your post. You are the one who has demonstrated that I should use energy flows and leave the calculated heat flux out of the posts.
I would like Kristian to explain something.
If you have a plate at a certain temp in a vacuum (to eliminated conduction or convection) you can measure the rate temperature change on a graph.
Get the plate back to the same initial temperature and now put another plate (less temperature than your original plate) facing it and relatively close (to minimize field of view considerations). You can see your original plate temperature is not going down as much. Why? What is the other plate doing that lowers the rate of temperature change? If the second plate is not sending a macroscopic energy flux to the original plate why does the rate of temperature drop go down with the other plate. And you could try many various temperatures of the second plate and see how they all affect the rate of temperature drop of the original. Since the plates are not in contact and there is no air between them to conduct energy, what exactly is the second plate doing to the first to slow its cooling rate? If it is not adding energy to the first what exactly is it doing? Does the IR from the second plate have the ability to suppress the rate of emission from the original plate? Describe exactly how this process might work.
Kristian you call Ball4 the troll. You are just a loud salesman pitching your ego version of reality and the scientists are not buying it. Go sell you wares in your own market (your blog) and see how many scientists come to you for your brilliant revelation that all of them have somehow missed.
Norman, your thought experiment reads a lot like Dr. Spencer’s actual plate experiment at 1bar with convection minimized (except for a slight demo) where some of the usual suspects showed up except for Kristian being on vacation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Kristian says:
“This is NOT empirical evidence of the atmosphere irradiating the surface with a separate incoming macroscopic (thermodynamic) flux of energy, right next to and just like the solar heat flux, directly raising the surface temperature in the process.”
It’s been measured, by many. As in Norman’s graph, as in the Philipova and Feldman papers I’ve often cited, and in many more.
Instead of pontificating in bold text, tell us what is the error with these measurements.
David Appell says, May 5, 2017 at 4:35 PM:
First, David: Rolf Philipona is not a woman, he’s a man, and she’s not Russian, he’s Swiss.
Secondly, I have no problem with the “measurements” themselves, only with how people like you (and Norman) INTERPRET them.
Kristian, what is wrong with our interpretations of the measurements of the downward infrared radiation?
Kristian,
is it because DWLWIR is sort of a reflection that you only want to talk about the net balance here?
You say that only the difference can be measured, but that does not matter because you acknowledge that there are incoming and outgoing photons (“from all directions” – e.g. from above onto a flat surface).
Just to clarify, how do you think of the radiation balance with a distant star, which might be gone by the time our photons get there?
Is it not more reasonable to assume that earth radiates similarly in all directions, instead of calculating a net towards every spot in the sky?
Errol says, May 6, 2017 at 3:17 AM:
No, it’s because the net balance is all there is. The idea of two separate macroscopic fluxes (in/out) to the surface is but a mental construct, a simplified, geometrically constrained model of reality.
Why exactly doesn’t it matter? Acknowledging that there are photons flying in all directions doesn’t mean that one is thereby “admitting” that there are two separate, opposing macroscopic fluxes (W/m^2) occupying the exact same radiation field, like two straight arrows on a piece of paper.
You should read up on “statistical mechanics”, to get a grasp of the fundamental distinction between quantum (MICRO) realm phenomena and thermodynamic (MACRO) realm phenomena. Should be enlightening …
Don’t worry. There’s no need to calculate “a net towards every spot in the sky”, Errol. You can easily consider the Earth to be a “pure radiator” in space:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html
The Sun is basically the only celestial body that you need to account for radiatively when considering Planet Earth’s thermal exchange with its surroundings (space).
Kristian,
It doesn’t matter that you think separate fluxes can’t be measured, because you understand and accept all the physics involved, for example that there are photons flying in all directions.
It is only when you add all incoming photons from above that you get a straight line, so you are right that this arrow is not “real”.
In your example with the Sun, is it not so much more reasonable to first determine the spectrum of each than to always bundle them up?
Errol says, May 6, 2017 at 10:59 AM:
I’m sorry, but I’m still not sure what you’re getting at, Errol.
I don’t THINK separate fluxes can’t be measured. Two opposing macroscopic fluxes occupying the exact same thermal radiation field CAN’T be measured separately. That’s a physical fact. You will HAVE TO somehow manipulate the set-up to make it SEEM that you’re “measuring” two separate macroscopic fluxes of energy inside the one. What you do is EITHER, 1) calculate two opposing fluxes from actually detected physical inputs like “net LW exchange” (radiative heat flux) at sensor and sensor temperature, OR 2) cool your detector to such a low temperature that the incoming radiation itself comes close to a perfect radiative heat flux.
You CANNOT physically detect the sfc UWLWIR (-398 W/m^2) and the atm DWLWIR (+345 W/m^2) separately. You can ONLY EVER detect the NET exchange of photons, which equals the sfc radiative heat flux. MATHEMATICALLY, the sfc radiative heat flux is the UWLWIR minus the DWLWIR, [-398+345=] -53 W/m^2, a negative value, which means that there is always a LOSS in sfc U (“internal energy”), and thus a drop in sfc T, resulting from the radiative thermal exchange between the warmer sfc and the cooler atm above.
So the UWLWIR and DWLWIR “component fluxes” are merely conceptual entities, potential radiative heat fluxes. Mathematically, they’re simply the radiative expressions of opposing system temperatures.
You can’t “add” all incoming photons without also “subtracting” all outgoing photons at the same time. The IN/OUT-exchange happens simultaneously. It is one single, fully integrated process. The separate “incoming flux” vs. “outgoing flux” concept is just a highly simplified model of reality, all conjured up inside the human mind. In reality, there’s a “photon gas/cloud” filling the entire radiation field, and an instantaneous, continuous exchange of energy throughout. Through this “photon gas/cloud” there’s a probabilistic potential gradient of radiative intensity, from high at the surface (higher T) to progressively lower up through the tropospheric column (lower T). The net (macroscopic) movement of radiant energy, the radiative flux, moves DOWN this gradient and ONLY down. From surface up towards space.
No. Why would you think that?
Kristian, I’m trying to understand.
So you can only detect net exchange of photons.
Exchange would imply incoming and outgoing photons.
Photons carry energy.
In other words you say it is hard to measure the separate flows, but you believe they exist.
You say you can measure them separately if you cool the sensor.
Errol says, May 7, 2017 at 4:17 PM:
No. They DON’T exist. Not as separate macroscopic entities. The photons exist. But they aren’t separate macroscopic entities. They’re MICROscopic entities.
No. That way you can make it SEEM you’re “measuring” them separately. But you’re still only detecting a net exchange of photons. Quantum detectors aren’t really built to detect (let alone quantify) macroscopic fluxes of radiation. They’re built to detect specific photons, normally within rather narrow wavelength ranges. The radiometric instruments most commonly used when “measuring” the atm DWLWIR and the sfc UWLWIR are called pyrgeometers and use sensors of the “thermal” kind – they sense the radiative heat transfer directly at their surface, whether it’s coming in OR going out.
Kristian,
If there was a photon counter that could produce an incoming spectrum, do you think it would look different to the measurements we already have? In what way?
Would it look different to the spectrum from a cooled sensor like you proposed, i.e. one with a negligible amount of outgoing photons?
David,
Things always have a tendency to go round in circles with you. It’s just upthread, on this very string that you’re posting on right here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245700
Gordon, you’re ignoring quantum effects, which are responsible for the greenhouse effect.
Davie, what are you babbling about now?
Quantum effects are part of the reason the GHE is bogus!
gordon. Why do you think that the different properties of the gases can be ignored?
David says we can control C02. But only 1 percent of the 4 percent.its a bit like steering your car with a piece of string. Also David if you want a no atmosphere model. ,Their is one not to far away.its called the moon.NASA may have temperature records
We are controlling CO2 right now — that’s why it’s increasing in the atmosphere.
Someday, I think, we’ll control it on Mars and begin to terraform the planet.
The Moon’s temperature is easily explained by standard radiative physics, as I showed here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
Has anyone considered cloud cover as a factor in global temperatures.the CERN biosphere experiment suggested that their was much more cloud cover before the industrial revalution .They found that trees can seed clouds by giving off biogenic vapours.and it may be case of a simple lack of trees in our modern world
Everyone has considered cloud cover. It’s in every IPCC report, for example.
Though CERN have not published anything on pre-industrial cloud cover, an article from CERN stated:
Therefore, the cloudiness in pre-industrial times was more similar to the present situation than previously thought
https://cds.cern.ch/record/2155296
sorry Barry ,both papers published in nature,state that pre-industrial times may have been much cloudier than first thought,by itself it proves nothing,just another pointer to how little we actually know about what is happening in the atmosphere
Ian, would you please give links to these papers? Thanks.
David best I can do at the minute is http://www.nature.com CERN cloud experiment. There is a link to Jasper Kirby one of the scientists who ran the chamberi can’t give the links .My useless broadband speed won’t let me running less than 2 my.its nothing conclusive. Just interesting
Could you link to the papers? I might be looking at different ones.
by itself it proves nothing,just another pointer to how little we actually know about what is happening in the atmosphere
Does it not indicate how little we know about pre-industrial atmosphere? We have a much more comprehensive monitoring system of the atmosphere now.
I’d love to see those papers.
I assume Ian couldn’t find such papers, if he looked. I couldn’t. but I did find a paper or two from CERN on which the pre-industrial claim is based. The papers don’t discuss pre-industrial cloudiness at all. The CERN article I linked above mentions pre-industrial cloudiness, but the paper it references does not.
Hi Barry. Did you try Jasper Kirby.its interesting but not final.much more to be done.they may run it again if directed to
Ok, so I found the 2 papers from a WUWT article. The pre-industrial condition was mentioned in one of them.
This could raise the baseline aerosol state of the pristine pre-industrial atmosphere and so could reduce the estimated anthropogenic radiative forcing from increased aerosol-cloud albedo over the industrial period.
In the CERN article I noted above, it is hypothesised from CERN experiments that pre-industrial cloudiness is similar to post-industrial, whereas before it was thought pre-industrial times were less cloudy owing to fewer anthropogenic aerosols.
The consequence for attribution of forcings on climate is that the historical cloud forcing component is reduced.
Here are both papers. The first contains the quote.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17953.html
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature18271.html
Hello Barry yes that’s what I found.i think the problem they have it’s all to controlled .But the real world is not.ill have a go at Brian Cox see if he has any !NFO.its a while since he worked at CERN.but may have contacts
Nope.
2010 is a whole year.
The closest comparable data point we have for ‘now’ is 2016.
Test
My posts keep getting lost
my short “test posts” go through. Longer ones get lost?
It’s a site glitch. Everyone has the same problem from time to time.
Usually it’s a particular collection of letters. For instance, these won’t let you post:
N.S.I.D.C
H.a.d.C.R.U.t.4
A.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.v.e
(if you remove the punctuation)
If a link is responsible, convert it to a tinyurl.com link and it always gets through.
Barry
I didn’t have any problems until very recently.
Well, that worked fine. I will try a longer post.
Several knuckleheads on this blog believe the atmosphere only cools the planet. Simple logic to the contrary is labeled “pseudoscience”, with no explanation. Their main tactic when discussing this subject is: insult/evade. They will avoid honest debate.
Snape, you might want to debate this “knucklehead”. He believes the atmosphere has a “strong cooling effect”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245599
What would the temperature be in Sydney, on a clear summer’s day, if there were no atmosphere and thus no convection?
The albedo from clouds, made possible by our atmosphere, does indeed have a strong cooling effect. On the other hand, cloud cover at night does the opposite. It acts as insulation and traps heat that would otherwise be lost to space.
The atmosphere is complicated place
The average temperature on earth, which has an atmosphere, is much warmer the the average temperature of the moon, which does not.*
* (Recent discoveries reveal the moon does have an atmosphere, but it’s so thin as to be insignificant when compared to earth’s)
It has both warming and cooling properties, it’s not one or the other. (but as mentioned above, it turns out the warming wins.)
Snape, you asked above, “What would the temperature be in Sydney, on a clear summers day, if there were no atmosphere and thus no convection?”
My S/B calculations are good estimates for maximum values. To get any closer wold require so many assumptions that the effort would become guesswork.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245608
Your calculation was irrelevant to the discussion. Atmosphere and albedo are not interchangeable.
Snape opines “The albedo from clouds, made possible by our atmosphere, does indeed have a strong cooling effect. On the other hand, cloud cover at night does the opposite. It acts as insulation and traps heat that would otherwise be lost to space.”
Snape, you are confused. When I said the atmosphere only cools, I was talking about the atmosphere as a whole. I am not talking about localized weather. I am not talking about a mass of warm air that moves into your ghetto. I am talking about the trillions of Joules being lost to space every second, of every day, of every year. THAT is some serious cooling!
Localized cloud cover is NOT the entire atmosphere.
If GHG’s were not increasing, rate of heating and cooling would be equal. This does not mean the atmosphere does not trap heat.
When a person is in a sleeping bag, heat produced by their body and lost to the outside air are equal. Otherwise the person would get too hot (which, yes, is sometimes the case). Does this mean the sleeping bag does not trap heat?
My advice is to leave the Moon out of the discussion until you learn how Earth’s atmosphere works.
Keep your feet on the ground, so to speak….
The moon is pertinent to our discussion because it demonstrates the value of our atmosphere by way of contrast. The laws of physics do not apply to the earth alone.
You just want to keep the moon out of the debate because it destroys your argument.
If your afraid to consider the moon, then consider this:
On a calm, clear night we can observe the effects of radiative cooling – it gets colder. But where is this cooling most pronounced? At high altitudes and arid deserts – places where the atmosphere is thin. At locations where the atmosphere is more dense, like the tropics, there is also much less radiative cooling.
“Your calculation was irrelevant to the discussion. Atmosphere and albedo are not interchangeable.”
(I feel like I’m talking to Norman!)
Snape, in your wildest imagination, how did I interchange atmosphere and albedo?
Ok, I misunderstood you. I see you were referring to the albedo from clouds alone, and not from Sydney’s total albedo. There’s a difference.
In my “wildest imagination” I believed you were knucklehead enough to calculate Sydney as a blackbody (no albedo).
“Ok, I misunderstood you. I see you were referring to the albedo from clouds alone, and not from Sydneys total albedo.”
Your scenario did not involve an atmosphere. So, there was NO atmospheric albedo. How could you misunderstand your own scenario?
Then, you bring out your sleeping bag! Do you not understand the difference between conductive and radiative heat transfer?
I’m guessing, like Norman, you’ve never has a college-level physics course.
It was understood albedo had nothing to do with the discussion, so why did you bring it up in your calculation?
“Snape, with no albedo, and peak Australian summer, Sydney would receive about 1400 W/m^2. That would correspond to about 400K, 127C, 261F.
I dont want you to have to do any research, you might learn something.”
The sleeping bag analogy is not intended to illustrate the difference between radiation and conduction. It’s a familiar example of insulation.
Besides having no physics background, Snape must be a blond.
I specify that there is NO albedo in my calculation, and Snape thinks I am bringing it into the calculation!
(You just can’t make this stuff up!)
There is no grapefruit in your calculation either… thankfully you didn’t point that.
This would have been clear:
Snape, with no atmosphere , and peak Australian summer, Sydney would receive about ….”
Instead you wrote,
Snape, with no albedo, and peak Australian summer, Sydney would receive about…..”
The city of Sydney does indeed have albedo. Your wording is makes it sound like you are trying to calculate it’s temperature as if it were instead a “blackbody” (no albedo).
Ger* why the need to belittle? Reflects some deep insecurity, usually..
“The sleeping bag analogy is not intended to illustrate the difference between radiation and conduction. Its a familiar example of insulation.”
Oh, I thought you wanted to learn how the atmosphere cools the planet. But now you want to talk about insulation.
Hilarious.
I guess you prefer one thing at a time.
In my mind, the two topics are essential to understanding the atmosphere – they combine to create an equilibrium of incoming and outgoing energy in our atmosphere and thus relatively stable temperatures.
As to CO2 heat trapping, heating, or other mystical concepts.
Everything in the known universe can be heated. Everything in the known universe can cool – all the way to 0 K, at the limit.
Nothing in the known universe is transparent to radiation – except the absence of anything, which is a vacuum.
Any gas can be heated to, say, 500 C, by the simple expedient of compressing it quickly and sufficiently. Even keeping it at this pressure, it cools. So, compressed gas is no hotter than uncompressed gas, after a period.
As a test, ask someone of the GHE persuasion to explain the heating of air by compression in a lightless cylinder, to 500 C or so – as in a compression ignition engine (Diesel), for example.
The description can be expressed using nothing more than the interaction between photons and electrons, but GHE supporters will be unable to give any coherent explanation, able to withstand even the most cursory and elementary queries.
GHE? A folly foisted by fools upon the gullible!
Cheers.
Read this book, it will help you to grasp some fundamentals:
https://books.google.de/books?id=J2KZq0e4lCIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=michael+modest+%22radiative+heat+transfer%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwji-OjW5JzTAhUlJMAKHedZDroQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=michael%20modest%20%22radiative%20heat%20transfer%22&f=false
Bindidon,
I generally don’t respond to demands from GHE supporters to do this or that, without good reason.
I’m not sure what you are disagreeing about. Maybe you could quote my exact words, and provide a direct quote from your reference supporting your contention that I am mistaken.
If you are unable to achieve this seemingly trivial task, others might assume that you are only following the “deny, divert, and confuse” paradigm, used by those who have great faith, but little fact.
In any case, after you have read and comprehended chapter 10 of your linked reference, you might have a change of heart – or maybe not! Cut and paste is probably not that difficult – at least it will show you are prepared to make a minimal effort.
Or you could just attempt the usual deny, divert, and confuse tactics. They don’t seem to work too well, theses days.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
My question for Dave is where is the global warming? It seems to be stalled and related to ENSO when it does occur.
See the graph at the top of this post? That’s your global warming. It’s recently reached record levels, and is anything but “stalled.”
It is *SO* amusing to see Dr. Spencer et al post a number here, then see 380 comments ensue. It’s truly amazing.
(With liberties: “Lyings and Tryings and Trolls, OH MY!”)
Glad to participate for your entertainment. I trust you didn’t read any of them.
@barry: I avoid only yours.
Yes, you’ve demonstrated that with your reply.
I notice you’re helping bump the post count higher. Thank you for your donations.
Wiz Geek says, with liberties tryings and trolls oh my, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit
Wiz Geek – ever tried poking an ants’ nest with a stick?
You see a similar effect here.
The usual suspects appear and get all excited, running around in circles, at least once a month.
@DrNo: Excellent observation! I guess it’s fun for some to argue with conjecture. Maybe it’s cathartic or even therapeutic to do so. I’ll continue to scan these “tomes” hoping science will triumph over conjecture. Until then: Poke with reverence, earnest aplomb, and keen objectivity.
Wiz: Are you a Jack Vance fan?
No, Lewis. I’m not familiar with Vance’s work. What is the relevance?
Dr. No: Yes, sometimes even no poking is required, the usual suspect roundup ants just jump right out at you. I’m shocked, shocked! to find that science is going on in here!
I’m sorry. I see very little science going on.
Apart from my good self and a few other brave souls who attempt to educate them, most of the ants are non-scientists.
That’s why I am so shocked. Of all the blog joints, in all the towns, in all the world, the ants walk into this one. I came here for the science in comments. I was misinformed.
I’ve done a lot of thinking since then, and it all adds up to one thing: can’t educate the ants.
Sadly, you may be correct.
@UK-Ian-Brown: My butchered quote was neither sarcasm nor wit–it was accurate. 😉
No WizGeek it was pointless.you obviously have nothing intelligent to say on the subject
No cites to your Nature papers, above, huh?
Can’t be bothered?
Too many theories to contend with?
Where the jet stream takes its energy?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/06/1800Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-129.48,87.35,342
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00898/lqx6e41yliet.png
Where? Yes, where. Where. Where? — Where!!?
That’s where.
The troposphere on Venus contains 99% of the atmosphere by mass. Ninety percent of the atmosphere of Venus is within 28 km of the surface; by comparison, 90% of the atmosphere of Earth is within 10 km of the surface. At a height of 50 km the atmospheric pressure is approximately equal to that at the surface of Earth.[19] On the night side of Venus clouds can still be found at 80 km above the surface.[20]
The altitude of the troposphere most similar to Earth is near the tropopausethe boundary between troposphere and mesosphere. It is located slightly above 50 km.[17] According to measurements by the Magellan and Venus Express probes, the altitude from 52.5 to 54 km has a temperature between 293 K (20 C) and 310 K (37 C), and the altitude at 49.5 km above the surface is where the pressure becomes the same as Earth at sea level.[17][21] As manned ships sent to Venus would be able to compensate for differences in temperature to a certain extent, anywhere from about 50 to 54 km or so above the surface would be the easiest altitude in which to base an exploration or colony, where the temperature would be in the crucial “liquid water” range of 273 K (0 C) to 323 K (50 C) and the air pressure the same as habitable regions of Earth.[10][22] As CO2 is heavier than air, the colony’s air (nitrogen and oxygen) could keep the structure floating at that altitude like a dirigible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Venusatmosphere.svg/1024px-Venusatmosphere.svg.png
Tropopause Venus, just like the Earth, is at about 100 hPa (0.1 bar).
At the same pressure, the temperature in the troposphere is similar to that of Earth, although Venus is closer to the Sun.
Yes, the sulphur clouds have a very high albedo, so the greenhouse warming is what gives such high temperatures nearer the surface.
Another interesting factoid – the average surface temperature of Venus is higher than that of Mercury, which is much closer to the sun and has no atmosphere.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU from somewhere above: “Snape, you are confused. When I said the atmosphere only cools, I was talking about the atmosphere as a whole. I am not talking about localized weather. I am not talking about a mass of warm air that moves into your ghetto. I am talking about the trillions of Joules being lost to space every second, of every day, of every year. THAT is some serious cooling!
Localized cloud cover is NOT the entire atmosphere.”
I suppose in your logic that 203 quadrillion is a smaller sum than 123 quadrillion. I know you get your math backwards often.
Take the Earth’s surface at 510 trillion m^2 and then TOA area of 511 trillion m^2. Now you have the total emitting surface temperatures of Earth surface and TOA. Average emission from the Earth’s surface is given as 398 W/m^2 (derived from CERES) and the TOA average is derived at 240 W/m^2.
If you multiply the area of Earth’s surface you get around 203 quadrillion joules/sec leaving the entire surface. At the TOA you get around 123 quadrillion joules/sec.
If you had no atmosphere at current conditions for the surface it would lose considerably more energy than with an atmosphere.
Not that I expect you to follow this post, you have demonstrated you are completely unable to follow any type of logic or reason. Maybe luck will be with me and you won’t respond to the post, it is not for you anyway but always hope to educated anyone who wants to learn.
Always remember your math. 123 is a larger value than 203 and the Sun is 120 C and Turkey’s can cook ice.
Well, very good Norman. You were able to understand my comment and do the very basic calculations I hinted at.
But, you should have stopped there.
Instead, you ventured off into your pseudoscience, following those worms in your head. Cooling became warming, because you compared the atmosphere to NO atmosphere, tossing out any relevance to the scientific method.
So, what should have been a “gold star” for you, turned into a rusty pull tab.
But, I always find your ramblings hilarious, if I bother to read them.
g*e*r*a*n
Not sure what point you are trying to make with your post. You have the scientific method with the no or very little atmosphere Moon that receives an equivalent amount of solar input flux as the Earth.
You have actual bodies to compare.
The Moon’s average temperature (with no atmosphere) is much colder than the Earth’s average temperature.
Will you accept this statement as fact or do you dispute it?
Norman,
I don’t know about g* . . . , but you haven’t the faintest idea of the average temperature of the Moon’s surface, otherwise you’d no doubt say what it is.
You may be interested in this –
“The moon has an iron-rich core with a radius of about 205 miles (330 km). The temperature in the core is probably about 2,420 to 2,600 F (1,327 to 1,427 C). The core heats an inner layer of molten mantle, but it’s not hot enough to warm the surface of the moon.”
On the other hand, the Earth’s molten interior actually breaks through the surface continuously, at the mid ocean ridges. The heating effect of the Sun is imperceptible (even on an annual basis) just a few metres below the surface, as the surface is heated from below.
The temperature increases at about 25 C per kilometre of depth, depending on location.
So your valiant attempt to compare non existent average temperatures in order to justify a non existent GHE, gets another rusty pull tab from me, as well.
Don’t squander it!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
A human that posts on a science blog and can’t comprehend the simple concept of averages or why scientists use them does not deserve a response.
I think nearly all posters understand that when you talk about average temperature it is for the surface of the planets. Only an unthinking and truly dense person would require an explicit explanation for every time one said Earth’s global average temperature.
g*e*r*a*n is already too dense to discuss ideas with, since he seems to have this mental blindness and only has limited understanding and will intentionally pick out something he believes he understands with purpose to annoy (a troll).
Since you post on a science blog and can’t understand the averages I consider you to be a troll who posts only to annoy someone and hope for a response to justify your existence.
(When the pseudoscience types blast off to the Moon, that tells us they know they have lost the debate.)
You can NOT compare Earth’s climate to the Moon. The Moon doesn’t have water over 70% of its surface.
Clueless.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “You can NOT compare Earths climate to the Moon. The Moon doesnt have water over 70% of its surface.”
Wow you really are demonstrating your lack on reason. Who is comparing the Moon and Earth’s Climate??? Climate is what takes place in the atmosphere and effects the Earth. When did I make a claim about “climate” in my post? Climate is average weather over a period of time, Moon has no weather!
You can compare radiant energy exchange between the two. Energy in vs energy out and surface temperature.
You ignore the question so I will ask again.
ME: “The Moons average temperature (with no atmosphere) is much colder than the Earths average temperature.”
Do you dispute this?
Note do you see me comparing climate in this question?
Or in your world temperature=climate?
Norm, my comment referred to “pseudoscience types”. So, obviously you knew to respond!
And, as to your asking me if I dispute your sentence:
The Moons average temperature (with no atmosphere) is much colder than the Earths average temperature.
I just have to fix it for you:
The Moons average temperature (with no atmosphere, and no oceans) is much colder than the Earths average temperature.
There, all nice and fixed….
g*e*r*a*n says, May 6, 2017 at 7:16 AM:
g*e*r*a*n,
What is it that holds Earth’s oceans in place? What is it that prevents them from simply boiling off into space?
It is of course the atmospheric pressure, the weight of the atmosphere on top of them.
Would there be any oceans on Earth if there were no atmosphere?
Water vapor and ice measured spewing from Enceladus shows an ocean exists there with no or minuscule atmosphere. Those that write Earth’s oceans would boil off without an atm. need to catch up on modern science achievements.
Oh, and there are two way photon fluxes to Enceladus not just a net macro flux as radio communications are possible between Earth and a receiver/transmitter nearby Enceladus.
Incoherent photons in the radio EMR beams do not interact to make just a net macro flux; just like the diffuse EMR between Earth surface and atm. do not interact to cancel to just a net macro flux.
Ball4
The ocean on Enceladus is not on the surface. It lies beneath a thick crust of ice.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/cassini-finds-global-ocean-in-saturns-moon-enceladus
Ball4
It’s interesting to speculate about earth’s ocean if there were no atmosphere. Temperatures would be similar to the moon, so my guess is water vapor during the day, turning to ice crystals at night.
As for no atmospheric pressure? I think the water vapor/ice crystals would float freely above the planet. Essentially creating a new atmosphere of non-liquid H20.
Exactly, Kristian.
That’s why the pseudoscience types can NOT compare the Moon to Earth. The conditions are too different.
Sure, similar to the ice floating in Earth’s arctic regions. The point is that an ocean is found to exist without atm. pressure.
Without that 1bar pressure, Earth global surface temperature on avg. would be lower (as Kristian points out demonstrated elsewhere found by the measured moon brightness T), and the oceans could still exist as also demonstrated elsewhere.
Ball
“The point is that an ocean is found to exist without atm. pressure.”
I see your point, but to be fair to Kristian, he was talking about a surface ocean and you’re talking about a subterranean ocean.
“Would there be any oceans on Earth if there were no atmosphere?”
My point was the usual answer of no (they’d boil off) has been recently demonstrated less than accurate by the discovery of oceans existing elsewhere w/o atm. pressure, the better thought experiment answer to Kristian’s question is now yes.
Ball
Now that I’ve thought about it a little more, I think you’re right.
I first imagined ice crystals floating above earth’s surface but then realized they may not “float”. With no atmosphere to hold them aloft, gravity would pull them to the surface, possibly creating a giant ice sheet.
Norman says, May 5, 2017 at 9:06 PM:
There are certainly quite a few things we can agree on, Norman.
We clearly disagree on exactly HOW the atmosphere manages to force Earth’s average global surface temperature up, but we DO agree that it’s a fact that it – somehow – DOES.
Like you point out, the simplest way for anyone to verify this fact for oneself is by comparing the average global surface temperature of Earth with that of the Moon; both bodies at 1AU, only with the former WITH an atmosphere and the latter WITHOUT one.
The global surface of the Moon absorbs about 296 W/m^2 of solar heat (“net SW”) on average. That’s almost 80% more solar heat than what the global surface of the Earth absorbs on average (about 165 W/m^2). This huge difference derives from a much lower lunar global albedo (no clouds, no ice) plus the lack of an absorbing intervening atmosphere.
So the lunar surface on average gets a LOT more heat in from the Sun than what the Earth’s surface does.
And STILL the average global surface temperature of Earth is about 92K higher than the average global surface temperature of the Moon: 289 vs. 197K (estimated from LRO data).
So the evidence of an atmospheric “thermal enhancement effect” on a planetary surface is almost ridiculously obvious. Our atmosphere simply INSULATES our solar-heated surface, reducing its heat LOSS at any given surface T. It evidently reduces its heat GAIN as well (Moon vs. Earth), but this appears to have less of an impact all in all.
Remember now that we’re only talking about “global averages” here … The global average solar heat input and the global average surface temperature. It both gets much hotter AND much colder on the Moon than on Earth.
Kristian
That was a great argument. Made me realize how little I know about the moon.
Norman, an excellent response which, judging by the reply, is again wasted on an ant-brain.
g*e*r*a*n gets his kicks from insulting people. I don’t think he even cares about the science.
Just one example of your hypocrisy, Snape:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245754
We all take an occasional swipe at one another. For you it seems like a pastime.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245754
Snape, in your pseudoscience, I think you just got promoted to “Snake”.
Somebody seems to under the mistaken impression that sunlit surface temperatures fall as altitude increases. Complete nonsense, of course.
According to the estimable Professor Tyndall (and verified by myself in the Himalayas), –
“At 10,000 feet, in December, at 9 a.m., I saw the mercury mount to 132, while the temperature of shaded snow hard by was 22. At 13,100 feet, in January, at 9 a.m., it has stood at 98, with a difference of 68.2, and at 10 a.m. at 114, with a difference of 81.4, whilst the radiating thermometer on the snow had fallen at sunrise to 0.7.'”
You may read the rest of the book’s chapter at your leisure. No correlation between adjacent surface temperatures, let alone the supposed air temperature above both!
As Prof Tyndall points out, the less impediment between the Sun and the thermometer, the higher the sunlit temperature. GHE supporters confuse themselves by not making the distinction between surface and air temperatures.
Combined with an inabilty to understand the differences and relationships between heat, energy, temperature, and power, it is no wonder that even supposedly well educated people dupe themselves into believing the impossible – even possibly believing that sunlit surface temperatures decrease with altitude!
Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Unsurprising, given the impossibility of raising a thermometer’s temperature by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun.
Cheers.
Sunlit surface? You need to read more carefully!
” On a calm, clear night we can observe the effects of radiative cooling it gets colder. But where is this cooling most pronounced? At high altitudes and arid deserts places where the atmosphere is thin.
In locations where the atmosphere is more dense, like the tropics, there is much less nighttime cooling.”
Allow me edit the grammar errors:
“On a calm, clear night we can observe the effects of radiative cooling. It gets colder. Where is this cooling most pronounced? At high altitudes and arid deserts. Places where the atmosphere is thin.
At locations where the atmosphere is more dense, like the tropics, there is much less nighttime cooling.
Snape,
A calm clear night at 9 am? Or 10 am? A clam clear night is usually a fair indication that the Sun is absent. That’s what distinguishes night from day, in general.
In an case, as you point out, at night the cooling is more pronounced in, for example, arid deserts where the atmosphere contains minimal amounts of that most important so-called GHG – H2O!
And of course, these places have the highest temperatures during sunlit hours, due to less blocking of sunlight – less GHGs to lower the temperature.
However, you haven’t managed to contradict the observations of Professor Tyndall. He also pointed out that the Earth would be as inhospitable as the Moon, if it lacked atmosphere to the same extent. Surface temperatures on Earth range from around 90 C (properly designed solar heat collector) to around -90 C.
The Moon gets both hotter and colder. Furious pretend averaging doesn’t make this inconvenient fact go away.
Of course, foolish organisations, like NASA, still publish brightly coloured diagrams showing the Earth as flat, with all the continents sunlit at the same time. No night at all – too inconvenient! Just search for “trenberth budget” images, if you don’t believe me.
Still no GHE. Not even a tiny bit.
Cheers.
Whoops. Of course I meant “calm” rather than “clam”, and “any” instead of “an” . . .
It might not matter to a Warmist – anything can really mean anything else, and none of it is to be taken literally, anyway!
Great science, this climatology! Very flexible – a perfect refuge for the incompetent, the delusional, and the dim. Competent scientists are slowly exiting the field, as the inconsistencies become ever more visible.
Cheers.
Yes, Flynn, in a desert like the Sahara, there is very little water vapor (an important GHG), and almost constant high pressure. These conditions combine to inhibit convection during the day, so less hot air is carried away from the sun baked ground.
At night, no clouds and very ltitle water vapor means there’s not much to get in the way of radiant cooling.
This produces a huge drop in temperature.
In places where it’s very humid, pretty much the opposite is true.
Snape,
Pressure has precious little to do with it. Nor has convection. The surface heats by absorbing radiative energy. It cools by emitting energy.
Less GHGs – less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
Taken to extremes, as on the Moon, much higher temperatures during daylight, much lower temperatures at night. I can’t see why basic radiative theory, backed up by experiment and observation, is denied in favour of a bizarre GHE, which is not even expressed as a testable hypothesis. The GHE supporters cannot even clearly express what this obviously mis-named so-called effect is supposed to do!
As you point out, less GHG results in higher temperatures during the day, and lower temperatures at night.
So far, you haven’t managed to contradict anything I’ve written – flying off at a tangent in an effort to avoid addressing the obvious deficiencies in the supposed GHE won’t win more recruits to the Cult.
Can you bring any new facts to support your fantasy?
Cheers.
Flynn
I can only comment on your first two paragraphs because I don’t have the patience to read more.
Atmospheric pressure influences convection. Less convection means less of the surface warmed air is lifted to higher levels of the atmosphere.
GHG’s are mostly transparent to solar radiation.
“Less GHGs – less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
Thus Mike Flynn concedes Earth GHE does exist.
😊
Air over Sahara does not accumulate heat. This clearly shows the satellite.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gd19_prd.gif
Product shows the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) and High Resolution Infrared Sounder (HIRS). The AVHRR and HIRS OLR products are divided into day and night (ascending and descending) products.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/swar19_prd.gif
Product shows the average solar radiation absorbed (W/m2) in the earth-atmosphere system. It is derived from AVHRR Channels 1 and 2. The mean is displayed on a one degree equal area map on a seasonal basis. This product is also referred to as Shortwave Absorbed Radiation (SWAR). Absorbed solar radiation is the difference between the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and the outgoing reflected flux at the top of the atmosphere.
Interesting, thanks for that ren.
Good catch, Ball4.
Game over.
Mike Flynn admits there is a greenhouse effect:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Is stronger ocean evaporation during El Nino increasing the mass of gases in the troposphere?
Is the increase in total gas mass in the troposphere can increase the temperature of the air at the surface?
Ren
I think that’s a tough question to answer, probably being studied.
Yes water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but unlike the others, it produces clouds (and thus albedo) and has a tremendous influence on weather.
More importantly, the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere only changes when the temperature first changes. (See the Clausius-Claperyon equation.)
This is why climate scientists say “water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.”
“Still no testable GHE hypothesis.”
Proof of the GHE hypothesis:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
David,
That’s a graph, not an hypothesis! (And a fairly pointless attempt at implying some sort of correlation between assumption and reality. Would you like me to tell you why this is so?)
And you don’t “prove” an hypothesis to be correct. On the other hand, it may take only one experiment to prove the most seductive and elegant hypothesis wrong.
You still can’t find a GHE hypothesis capable of even being tested, can you?
You might need to try harder.
Cheers.
Sorry you don’t understand that graph. It only requires freshman physics.
Mike Flynn admits the GHE:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Hypothesis: If there is no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s outgoing spectrum should approximate that of a blackbody.
Fact: False
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
The average height of the troposphere over the equator is constant. What happens with excess water vapor during El Nino?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2016.png
Sorry.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2017.png
Ren
Generally speaking, more humidity means more convection and therefore more or stronger thunderstorms.
Then as the air cools following an el nino, it would suddenly hold less water and so I would expect a big uptick in global precipitation.
This is all just speculation though. Not sure what the science actually says.
Ball4 wrote –
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
Thus Mike Flynn concedes Earth GHE does exist.”
Ball4 obviously needs to upgrade both his logic and mind reading skills.
Ball4 apparently believes in something that has no testable hypothesis, that cannot be defined or demonstrated, but which can produce contradictory miracles, which defy rational explanation.
Sounds more like religion than science, to me. Faith is faith. Facts are facts.
Sorry, but GHE is faith. Not fact.
Cheers.
No use denying it Mike, it is recorded for all to read, you’ve shown us you now agree Earth GHE does exist no matter your protestations, the cat will not go back in the bag. The internet does not forget.
Mike Flynn concedes: “Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
Ball4 is not exactly the best monitor of reality.
He believes cabbages glow in the dark.
Ad hom attacks are rarely effective.
Was Ball4 wrong when he quoted Mike saying Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
Was he wrong concluding that this statement does, indeed,describe how the greenhouse effect works?
If he was not wrong, then what is the purpose of your comment?
Tim Folkerts,
He wasn’t wrong quoting me. An example is the Moon, with virtually no GHGs – the surface heats rapidly, and cools rapidly, as I pointed out. Its maximum temperature exceeds that of the Earth’s surface due to a lack of GHGs. The low temperature is likewise lower, due to a lack of GHGs.
If this is supposed to demonstrate the action of the non-existent GHE on the Earth, then no wonder you can’t actually state what the GHE is!
I assume you are not saying that conditions on the Moon are responsible for some 30% of the Sun’s incident radiation not even reaching the surface of the Earth? Are you really implying that a thermometer’s temperature can be raised by placing CO2 between it and a heat source?
Anyone who believes this is quite simply deluded. CO2 doesn’t provide heat, nor does it somehow multiply heat through some arcane but unspecified feedback mechanism!
As to glowing cabbages, I asked Ball4 whether he really believed in such a thing. I can’t see where he has denied it, but maybe I missed it.
Cheers.
Tim, I’m glad to see you have given up trying to fake physics, and have started your own ministry.
Where can folks send donations?
Mike Flynn admits there is a greenhouse effect:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Mike says: “An example is the Moon, with virtually no GHGs the surface heats rapidly, and cools rapidly, as I pointed out. Its maximum temperature exceeds that of the Earths surface due to a lack of GHGs. The low temperature is likewise lower, due to a lack of GHGs.”
No. These effects you state are due to no *ATMOSPHERE* at all, not to no *GHGs* specifically. Also, the looooong lunar day plays a role. If you put a pure nitrogen atmosphere on the moon, the temperature swings on the moon would be smaller than they are now. And if you also made the moon rotate every 24 hr, the temperature swings would be quite similar to earth. Well, except that the surface would be MUCH colder than the earth.
Basically, you are attributing the interesting effects on the moon to the WRONG CAUSES.
g*e*r*a*n
From reading the various posts I would conclude that Ball4 is much more knowledgeable than you in the field of science. That does not mean you could not gain more knowledge but currently you seem to posses a lack in many areas which I have not found so lacking in Ball4’s comments.
When you make statements at least you should learn to tell the truth. Your post: “He believes cabbages glow in the dark.”
That is a complete dishonest comment. The claim made by Ball4 was that a cabbage at room temperature would emit a tiny amount of EMR in the visible range (since some surface molecules would have enough energy to move electrons to higher orbitals) that could be detected by a sensitive spectrometer.
The “glow in the dark” is your own misunderstanding of what someone else posted. It seems you do this a lot, have you considered going to a specialist to find out why you have such a lack of ability at understanding other people? It might help your posting ability if you properly understood what someone actually posts and not your strange and delusional twisting of someone else’s content.
Norm, accusing me of dishonesty is pretty low. It’s an act of desperation.
I can spend the 10 minutes to find the relevant comments, but you would squirm out of any apology. That’s what you do.
{smile}
+1 Ball4. Good catch.
Ball4,
Do you really believe cabbages glow in the dark? Is that also part of the non-existent GHE hypothesis?
As to your “Earth GHE”, if you could actually specify what you are talking about, it might help. Just stringing letters together in an attempt to sound sciency doesn’t impart much information, other than to emphasise the depth of your delusion.
Maybe you don’t believe the Earth no longer has a molten crust, due to cooling, rather than the heating which occurs only in your febrile imagination, but your beliefs are irrelevant to those of us who manage to walk on the cooled surface.
Nature doesn’t seem to care what I think. Do you think that Nature is more likely to bend to your will?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn admits the GHE:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Yes, Mike, Ball4 really believes cabbages glow in the dark. (I can find his comments, if necessary.)
If you think about it, all GHE believers MUST believe that. They have to have some way to convince other folks that a cold atmospheric gas can boil the oceans!
Ball4 says:
“Mike Flynn concedes: Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
Mike Flynn just admitted there is a greenhouse effect.
Game over.
Good going, Ball4.
The course of the jet stream determines the temperature distribution in the middle and high latitudes. As shown in the temperature of the North Pacific winter jet stream pattern is very durable.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tlt/medium/n_pole/ch_tlt_2017_04_anom_v03_3.png
Heavy weather in eastern Canada. After spring floods will return frost.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r10_Hudson_Bay_ts_4km.png
What holds the atmosphere and oceans in place ?.Any chance it could be something simple like gravity.or is that another myth . Although Tesla was convinced it was magnetism. Newton Tesla.and maybe Tyndall in the same room.now that would be some discussion.
I doubt Tesla thought the ocean was held in by magnetism.
How is it possible we even have an atmosphere? Nitrogen , oxygen, etc, are somehow able to rise above the surface. This seems to defy gravity.
Winds.
Winds? How is there wind without an atmosphere?
20 minutes on google and still can’t find the answer. Here is another way to pose my question:
Imagine earth with no atmosphere (no air). Hold a nitrogen or oxygen molecule, say, 100 feet off the ground and let go. They each have mass and are affected by gravity, so why don’t they fall to the ground?
Why are these molecules dispersed above earth’s surface as air instead of lying in a big pile on the ground?
There *IS* an atmosphere.
Hence, winds.
David
I posed my question a different way (directly above your last comment).
Atmospheric turbulence keeps gases aloft.
Barry
I wrote, “Imagine earth with no atmosphere (no air).”
You did, but I’m not sure why. The Earth has had an atmosphere of various kinds since it was born. You may want to look up planetary formation and then the geologic history of Earth’s atmosphere. Volcanic outgassing was the initiator of Earth-formed atmosphere when this planet was in the crib.
If there were no atmosphere there would be no gases to be affected by gravity. I’m not sure where you’re going with this?
Snape
YOU ASK: “Imagine earth with no atmosphere (no air). Hold a nitrogen or oxygen molecule, say, 100 feet off the ground and let go. They each have mass and are affected by gravity, so why dont they fall to the ground?
Why are these molecules dispersed above earths surface as air instead of lying in a big pile on the ground?”
The answer would be perfectly elastic collisions. The nitrogen molecule would be pulled down by gravity bu convert it potential energy to kinetic energy. When it hits the surface it bounces back up with no loss of internal energy to the surface so it goes back to its original height.
In our atmosphere the molecules all have considerable kinetic energy and when they collide with other molecules all the collisions are perfectly elastic. The molecules can exchange energy (some get faster, others slower) but the total energy is not lost as with larger groupings of molecules (such as a bouncing ball, it does not have a perfectly elastic collision, some of the energy of deformation turns into internal energy).
Does that help?
Thank you, Norman!
I read a more complicated description of this and didn’t quite get it. Your’s was much easier to understand.
I guess this “bouncing” also explains why the moleculules in our atmosphere are all mixed up instead of in layers according to density. Barry used the term, “atmospheric turbulence”.
Snape,
At absolute zero, all the gas will lie on a big heap on the ground.
Look up Brownian motion for an explanation of why CO2, for example, doesn’t settle out – nor do small particles of pollen or dust.
You might care to read Feynman – The strange theory of light and matter. This will set you straight on so called perfectly elastic collisions (nonsense), total atmospheric kinetic energy being conserved (also nonsense), and a few other things.
If you think Feynmans grip on physics and QED is rubbish, fair enough. If you choose to heap abuse on me, I’ll ignore it unless you can convince me that you at least have made some effort to understand the ohysics involved.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I am reading some of the Feynman book you talk about. If the link works this should lead to the book.
http://www.academia.edu/8507721/QED_The_strange_theory_of_light_and_matter_by_Richard_Feynman
It is a most interesting book to read. I have not read through the whole thing but would like you to inform me what part of this book rejects the notion of perfectly elastic collisions?
Snape
Maybe this helps.
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/41544/are-the-collisions-between-the-real-gas-particles-perfectly-elastic
Norman,
I’m pleased you are taking the trouble to read Feynman’s little book.
As to your question – the whole of the book? Photons interact with electrons. The notion of atoms colliding is an old one, and not correct.
For a start, you might care to look up “collisions” or “atoms” or “elastic”, and take it from there. I could always be wrong, you know. If you find I am incorrect, please let me know.
You might even find that many things parroted by scientists about photons and their interaction with matter are wrong (at least according to Feynman). I’m happy to believe Feynman, until something better comes along.
Cheers.
David. Tesla stated he believed magnetism and not gravity held the universe together.my point was it is easy to be blinded by theories at the expense of everything else no matter how unlikely it may be.its textbook detective work.you look at all possibilities disregard what it can’t be.and what is left no matter how unlikely must be the answer.i was just trying to broaden the debate.
Ian
No gravity and everything goes flying into space. Still, the atmosphere exerts tremendous pressure on the oceans. What would happen if that pressure was suddenly gone?
Dr. Spencer,
Warmists admit that anthropogenically generated CO2 does not directly cause sufficient warming for mankind to be alarmed (even if it doubled or even tripled in concentration). However, they claim a positive feedback mechanism is at work where the additional heat “trapped” by the anthropogenic CO2 causes just a little more H2O to evaporate from earth’s surface, and because H2O absorbs a much broader range of IR wavelengths, it causes the added warming that we should all be alarmed about. If I have this wrong, please tell me so.
Question 1: Assuming we accept such an arguement, and if the concentration of atmospheric H20 is already a magnitude or 2 greater than that of CO2, and because it absorbs IR energy at more and broader ranges of IR wavelengths, then why doesn’t any warming at all (be it for whatever reason) cause an unending (like a perpetual motion machine) evaporation of more water from the oceans, a resultant higher concentration of atmospheric H2O, a resultant entrapment of yet more IR energy, resulting in a higher global temperature, and repeat, repeat, repeat? How do the warmist explain this? What am I missing?
Question 2: Rain is always mildly acidic because upon condensation into liquid droplets, and while falling through the atmosphere, it dissolves CO2 in accordance with Henry’s Law, returning CO2 to earth’s surface. So how is it possible for the nominal retention time of a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere to be measured in decades? The portion of the continuous flux of the natural CO2 cycle returning CO2 to the surface of the earth (photosynthesis, precipitation) should result in a much shorter retention period than decades shouldn’t it? Where does this decades-long nominal rentention period come from?
Any one is more than welcome to answer my questions, so long as the answer is science-based, not political in nature, nor a personal assault on my character for asking the dumb questions.
Russ
El ninos release a lot of extra water vapor into the atmosphere and we don’t get this runaway warming you’re talking about. It’s a good question though. Maybe a meteorologist could explain why.
Good point Snape.
“So how is it possible for the nominal retention time of a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere to be measured in decades?”
A particular, individual CO2 molecules doesn’t last in the atmosphere for decades.
But it is (almost always) replaced by a different individual CO2 molecular, via the climate cycle seeking equilibrium.
This is a very long cycle, and it takes 10s of thousands of years for all the “added CO2” to decline back to its baseline level. (see the work of David Archer, U Chicago). Perhaps as long as a million years.
Davie believes every pseudoscience paper he reads. His favorite pseudoscience paper indicates the the Sun can radiatively warm the Earth to 800,000K!
(If you’ve studied quantum physics, thermo, and heat transfer, try reading that last sentence again, without laughing.)
Dishonest Troll.
Davie didn’t get his welfare check last week, so he’s a little miffed.
{smile}
Dave,
Do you even have a clue as to what I’m asking? Anyway, I specified only scientifically based answers. Yours doesn’t qualify. No need for you to respond to this comment either. Thanks.
Russ, your very first sentence isn’t serious, so I don’t see any need to take *YOU* seriously.
Until then, get lost.
As to question 1:
Positive feedback doesn’t necessarily mean runaway of the phenomenon in question as you seem to believe. It depends on the amplitude of the feedback. If in your reasoning first step results in an effect A which in turn adds a further amount rA (r times A) where r is a factor that measures the magnitude of the feedback, which in turn adds a further amount rrA (r times r times A)..etc, repeating the process one gets eventually a total effect T = A + rA + rrA + rrrA +
This is mathematically the sum the well known geometric series namely T= a / ( 1- r) which is a finite number provided r < 1. Runaway only takes place when r is approaches 1 or becomes larger than 1 i.e. at large enough feedbacks.
No trouble with the AGW theory at this level.
I’m happy to hear that AGW is not reliant upon the creation of a perpetual motion machine. Maybe we should be spending a lot more time and energy on determining what the value of “r” is then, instead of picking a number out of the air and flying with it to make the case…… AGW should concern us, or AGW should not concern us. I appreciate your mathematical explanation Alphagruis.
Thanks.
Russ, you indeed point precisely to the main trouble with AGW theory, namely it’s inability to provide a quantitatively accurate and reliable enough estimation of the effect. Uncertainty is huge.
There are in fact other feedbacks besides the water vapor one you mentioned above. So there are various “r” values to consider and it’s the overall effect of them that matters of course. As pointed out elsewhere by Dr. Spencer there is always the strong “Planck feedback” that is definitely negative and prevents in principle runaway.
Good questions, Russ.
In answer to question 1,
The theory states if you add co2 you raise the height of the co2 column thus cooling the emission layer causing the surface to raise its temp in order to emit the same amount of ir lost at the top of the co2 emission layer
This increase in surface temp increases wv, wv then generates the catastrophic temps rises predicted.
Ergo yes you are right it should be a perpetual warming but in reality the ir simply leaves via another emission layer whether it be h2o, methane cloud tops.
Problem is people still believe co2 traps “heat’
1) If there are limiters on the gain the amplification is stable. Limiting factos include logarithmic effect of CO2 and some other negative feedbacks (lapse rate changes provide negative feedback). Supposedly the sum of all feedbacks is positive, but not enough to make the gain unstable.
2) Where does this decades-long nominal rentention period come from?
Not from the lifetime of a single CO2 molecule. It’s an estimate of the time it takes for the system to re-absorb CO2 from a large pulse of that increases the level from the background.
It’s based on the question – how long would it take the added CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere if anthro emissions stopped completely?
Analogy: imagine a large tank of water half filled with a small hole at the water level. The water is constantly mixed by some device. Now start filling it at a rate that exceeds the rate at which water pours out through the hole. When the water reaches the top, stop filling it, and then…
Calculate the time it takes for the water to get back to its original level. That is the analogy for the ‘residence time’ of CO2 that you refer to.
Mixing spreads the water (CO2) around, so that in a given mass in the tank (atmosphere) going through the hole (carbon sink), some of the water molecules will be the ones from the hose. Thus, average residence time for a single water molecule from the hose is much shorter than the time it takes for all the excess water to drain.
When you read about residence time WRT CO2 emissions, this is what they’re talking about. Whereas the average residence time of an individual CO2 molecule in the atmos is about 5 years, I’ve read.
Excellent analogy Barry. Thanks for that. I still have a problem though with the very long retention time that the warmists claim. Let’s call it “mean” retention time, since that’s probably a better description. It seems to me that the “hole” in your tank is likely bigger than we are imagining. The size of the hole is analagous to the flux of CO2 returning to earth’s surface, which is due mainly to photosynthesis and precipitation. These are relatively big numbers in the natural CO2 cycle are they not? I further suggest that your hole is significantly below the surface of the tank contents, since both photosythesis and precipitation still occur at high rates when the atmosphere contains much less CO2 than it does now.
I’d like you to consider that the rising atmospheric CO2 level in the atmosphere we’re currently seeing is at least partly due to currently warming ocean surfaces and Henry’s Law. I suggest “largely due to”. When the ocean surfaces begin cooling, we should expect to see atmospheric CO2 concentrations start to fall. The net flux of CO2 will reverse in direction. Wish I could be around to see this, but I doubt that I will. Apparently this cycle is about 800 years in duration.
Barry
Really interesting. I had never heard the term “resIdense time” but
Barry
Really interesting. I had never heard that analogy before.
I was actually really confused by your last paragraph. The term “residence time” is used for two very different things:
1. The time is takes “a certain quantity of extra Co2” to leave the atmosphere.
2. the time it takes an individual molecule to leave the atmosphere.
It took me a while to figure out what was going on.
Russ,
Before the industrial revolution average concentration atmospheric CO2 was about 280ppm. It is now about 404 ppm. The increase is thus about 124 ppm.
Human activities have released roughly twice as much as the increase. It’s then a mater of arithmetic. If anthro emissions account for twice the increase, then the increase is definitely from anthro. If anthro emissions were half the increase, then we would have to other sources for the rest.
Because the increase is only half what we pumped out, there is then a ‘fast’ hole that operates to absorb half emissions. It is reckoned the oceans’ capacity for extra CO2 absorbs most of that. There’s been a bit of greening of the planet recently, so that would absorb some, but there’s also been a lot of foliage clearing since the industrial revolution, meaning slightly less of a sink for CO2.
But we know the oceans are absorbing about the excess (above background levels) because we measure CO2 in seawater and find it has increased over time (hence interest in the de-alkanization of the oceans).
It’s also how we know that the oceans are not responsible for the long-term rise of CO2.
We have many other lines of evidence that converge on anthropogenic contribution to virtually all the rise since the indstrial revolution. But we don’t even have to rely on them, because the emissions/atmospheric increase arithmetic makes it very straightforward.
At short time scales atmospheric CO2 responds to global temp fluctuations, particularly ENSO events. CO2 goes up a wee bit with el Ninos and down a little bit with la Ninas. This is reckoned to be because of the short-term influence of ENSO on plants.
But these factors in no way can explain the long-term rise.
Consider – when the globe warmed out of the last ice age, the temperature change was 5 – 6C over 5 thousand years. The change in CO2 concentration was from 180 – 280 ppm over 4000 years. But in the space of 250 years the concentration of atmos CO2 has risen even more than out of the last ice age, much more quickly, and when the globe has warmed by about 1C at most.
Where is the 5 – 6C warming preceding the >100 ppm CO2 rise in the modern age? How has it happened 200 times faster than the last time the planet warmed significantly?
Because human activity is digging up carbon stored in the ground and pumping it into the air at a rate of nearly 3 ppm per year (currently).
“….
Where is the 5 6C warming preceding the >100 ppm CO2 rise in the modern age? How has it happened 200 times faster than the last time the planet warmed significantly?
Because human activity is digging up carbon stored in the ground and pumping it into the air at a rate of nearly 3 ppm per year (currently).”
For millions of years, earth has had low global levels of CO2. Or for last 500 million years, Earth has had dips in CO2 levels but most of the time the CO2 levels have been higher than compared to the present.
Cf:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
From goggle search; “geology last millions of year CO2 levels” and above is one link I picked- because it roughly matched what had read about [elsewhere].
Or one could say we in a geological age in which “there should be” low levels of CO2. And all the new mountain building, could give you this clue.
So I would say/guess that over the time frame of +10,000 years of your interglacial period, the entire ocean has warmed by 1 or 2 degree and has outgased a lot of CO2 but it’s had a large amount of time for weathering and other processes which remove the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
The Ocean is vast and will always take more than 1 thousand years to warm or cool it by 1 C, but this not to say that upper levels of the ocean or other portions of the ocean can’t warm or cool at faster rates. So picking something like the top 700 meter of the ocean, it may warm or cool at faster rate. Or say pick the ocean near Antarctic or top levels of Arctic Ocean.
Now I would say that we know very little about Earth’s carbon cycle, but what we know, is that this natural cycle dwarfs the amount of human CO2 emission [on yearly basis]- eg some claim +100 billion ton emitted and absorbed. Also once upon time human activity in general was thought to cause more CO2 emission than merely the burning of fossil fuels. And would add that because fossil fuel burning can be account for, that it’s sort of like a drunk looking for his keys under the street lamp- because that is where the light is.
But one explanation or at least one factor of explanation is that the fast rate in which CO2 is added to atmosphere by human activity explains the bump up in CO2 levels.
But in been fashionable to talk about how nature would rapidly disappear our cities, if humans weren’t around. Likewise, I believe our geological age would disappear the added CO2 if humans disappeared. Also were we to return to glacial period, likewise the CO2 would also lower. Though neither of these seem likely any time soon.
‘
The time it would take for the excess CO2 be completely absorbed is reckoned in hundreds to thousands of years because the ‘fast’ hole (sink) becomes less efficient when a new, higher equilibrium is reached (differently to the tank analogy). CO2 *a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n is then done by rock weathering (rocks absorb CO2 through erosion over very long time scales) and ocean turnover, which takes about a thousand years for a full turnover cycle.
An active area of research is concerned with whether the ocean uptake of excess CO2 will diminish in the future. Colder sea water holds more CO2 – the CO2 rise during the last transition out of the ice age caused outgassing of CO2 from warmer oceans. The oceans are warming now, but still able to offset some of the anthro emissions due to changing partial pressure at sea surface and wind cycling of ocean waters taking CO2 down to depths. That may change in the future as the ocean buffer becomes more ‘filled’ and less efficient.
In the carbon budget there are multiple factors at play, and feedbacks, too, mostly negative for now.
(* Had to put full stops in that word because this site rejects posts with that word in it)
Russ,
It seems to me that the “hole” in your tank is likely bigger than we are imagining. The size of the hole is analagous to the flux of CO2 returning to earths surface, which is due mainly to photosynthesis and precipitation. These are relatively big numbers in the natural CO2 cycle are they not? I further suggest that your hole is significantly below the surface of the tank contents, since both photosythesis and precipitation still occur at high rates when the atmosphere contains much less CO2 than it does now.
That is one side of the ledger, and it is an annual cycle.
The other side of the ledger is plant die-off in the Autumn/Winter months, when trees shed their leaves. As the leaves decay they release CO2. This is evident globally in the CO2 record from many locations around the world. The Northern Hemisphere contains the vast majority of the world’s foliage (much more land surface). So the annual cycle we see in the global record matches the seasonal cycle in the NH.
This cycle had been in equilibrium for the last few thousand years, then came the CO2 spike from anthro emissions (abetted by land clearing).
So the ‘hole’ in the tank (of the atmosphere) for excesses CO2 is not plants. Otherwise atmos CO2 should have been on a significant downward trajectory prior to the industrial revolution. Instead, it was always replenished seasonally.
The hole in the tank is the longer term processes, like rock weathering. These slow processes are what will mainly take up excess CO2, reckoned to occur over hundreds to tens of thousands of years.
The ocean won’t absorb CO2 at the same rate should we cease emitting, as the oceans are trying to stay in equilibrium with atmos CO2. They shouldn’t be absorbing now, as you note, because a warmer ocean should outgas CO2. Even if they did immediately start absorbing, it takes a thousand years for complete hydrological turnover of the oceans. That’s the soonest possible we could expect excess CO2 levels to drop and the system return to equilibrium. But it will take longer than that.
Horse racing fans will know that today’s Kentucky Derby was held in very cold temperatures.
Pseudoscientists believe the atmosphere is “trapping heat”.
Today, they have to also believe Churchill Downs is “trapping cold”!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-derby-churchill-downs-begins-cold-wet-conditions/
And you wonder why people are rejecting you as a clown.
Davie, you have demonstrated you have no knowledge of physics. Your personal life indicates you have no work ethic. Now you are revealing you have no originality.
But, please continue….
🙂
{smile….}
Davie, a “smiley” is made, on this site, with “&-#-9786;”
Just leave out the two “-“s.
And, don’t forget to include the “;”
Above info courtesy of Gordon Robertson, who also tries to help you to understand physics.
{smile}
If Earth had no global ocean, it would have a lower average global temperature.
The atmosphere can retain some heat and it can also ‘trap cold”.
What does “trap cold” mean?
I think he’s talking about a temperature inversion. Warm air aloft trapping colder surface air.
This description is inaccurate though. The cold air isn’t really trapped. It’s heavier than the air above and won’t budge.
Snape,
Seriously –
“A large-scale katabatic wind that descends too rapidly to warm up is called a fall wind. In areas where fall winds occur, homes and orchards are situated on hillslopes above the lowlands where the cold air accumulates.”
Additionally, low level inversions form typically at night, under clear skies. In a depression or concavity, the air will tend to sit there. This could be referred to as “trapping cold”, I suppose.
I prefer the use of normal physical or meteorological terms. Heat and cold are fairly imprecise terms. Somebody will probably tell you they prefer to slip their feet into their warm slippers, rather than stand on the cold stone floor, when arising. In fact, both the slippers and the stone are the same temperature.
Personal preference, of course.
Cheers.
Flynn
That’s why I explained (referring to an inversion):
“The cold air isnt really trapped. Its heavier than the air above and wont budge.”
Weird. Somehow the apostrophes disappeared from my quote.
If you copy and paste apostrophes and quotation marks, they turn into a different font when you paste them and this site doesn’t recognize them. If you want them there, you have to delete and rekey them, and then this site recognizes the font.
Just of one of quite a few glitches on this site.
Further evidence that no one is deleting posts or trying to kill certain words deliberately.
Although, Roy has made a few words spam words, particularly to do with a certain (skeptic) poster who spammed this board with CO2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas rubbish.
David Appell wrote –
“But it is (almost always) replaced by a different individual CO2 molecular, via the climate cycle seeking equilibrium.”
Climate is the average of weather. An average “seeks” nothing.
Maybe you would care to rephrase your confusing and incorrect assertion, and try to express what you are trying to say? Are you trying to claim that CO2 levels do not change? Or does “almost always” really mean “almost never”?
Very confusing. Sad.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn admits there is a greenhouse effect:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
David,
Your mind reading abilities are on par with your scientific knowledge.
What is this wondrous “greenhouse effect” to which you refer?
It seems to be preying on your mind to an unhealthy degree. Maybe if you could write down what you think this “greenhouse effect” represents, you might be able to communicate more clearly.
Or you could just tell anybody asking inconvenient questions to “get lost”. I’m sure people will appreciate your lucid and logical explanation.
Cheers.
Solar activity very low. No coronal holes.
Solar minimum to about 2 years?
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20170505_hres.png
Does anyone think that in California it will stop raining?
http://www.intellicast.com/National/Radar/Current.aspx?location=USCA0062&animate=true
According to Michael Mann 2015 –
“That study similarly concludes that there is growing risk of unprecedented drought in the western United States driven primarily by rising temperatures, regardless of whether or not there is a clear trend in precipitation.”
Unprecedented drought . . . whether or not there is . . . precipitation.
Interesting. Where I live, the Dry season is characterised by lower temperatures. Temperatures are higher during the Wet.
Maybe things are different in Mannland.
Cheers.
BACA COUNTY, Colo.
Thousands of cattle died or wandered off earlier this week when more than two feet of snow blanketed Southeastern Colorado.
http://www.ajc.com/news/national/thousands-cattle-killed-colorado-spring-snowstorm/NUrVl1w7m0CPglinx8r7FL/
“Part of the reason the precipitation levels have been so high is due to the meandering nature of the jet stream, a path of air in the upper atmosphere. Often storm systems are influenced by it. It’s normally somewhat smooth, but recently it’s had more “kinks” in it, resulting in wetter systems and sometimes allowing storms to linger where they’d normally just pass through. While it’s too early to definitively link this weather system with climate change, recent studies have suggested it could be a sign of things to come.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/flood-quebec-ontario-1.4098915
https://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/snow_model/images/full/National/nsm_depth/201704/nsm_depth_2017042005_National.jpg
Index AO sharply down.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
Russ
Regarding Question 1.
The positive feedback to which you refer has a different meaning for an engineer and a scientist.
An engineer thinks of positive feedback as a self-amplifying change which continues to the limit of the system. The classic example is the feedback squeal a sound system can produce if the microphone picks up too much noise from the loudspeakers.
In science positive feedback usually continues until limiting factors kick in to slow and eventually stop further change.
With respect to increasing water vapour leads there are two limiting factors.
Increased water vapour leads to increased precipitation. Increased evaporation from the surface is balanced by increased rainfall removing extra water vapour.
Increased water vapour also leads to increased cloud cover. More energy is reflected back to space. This partially cancels out the increased H2O greenhouse effect.
Eventually a brighter Sun may trigger the runaway H2O greenhouse effect you describe, but this is not expected for another billion years.
Regarding Question 2
Retention time is a bit misleading. Rather than thinking of an indvidual molecule staying in the atmosphere longer, think of the change in concentration persisting longer.
Our CO2 emissions have upset the dynamic balance between the atmosphere and the existing carbon sinks. The further the system gets out of balance, the longer it will take to stabilise.
Entropic Man,
Great answer to my question 1. I guess I like it because it’s what makes sense to me too. But it sure doesn’t support an ever increasing positive feedback that will result in catastrophic global warming. Refer to the exchange between Alphagruis and me. Alphagruis pointed out some useful math that offers a sensible explanation of the positive feedback that warmists hang their hats on too. I found it quite meaningful, and you might too.
As for your answer to my question 2, thanks but I see the concentration of CO2 being in a constant state of flux (always tending towards stability, but rarely being there), and although mankind is partly responsible for the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 we’re currently seeing, another source is the warming oceans. Because of Henry’s Law, I suggest that the warming oceans have the bigger impact of the two. If it was just anthropogenic CO2 that was adding to the atmosphere, I expect that natural flux forces (like photosynthesis, rain, even cooling oceans in the future) would cause the net flux to change directions more more quickly and at at a greater rate than the warmists tell us it has to be.
I suggest that if man was to suddenly stop burning hydrocarbons, the atmospheric level of CO2 would not suddenly start dropping at a high rate, and might even keep on rising. NOT because of the very long mean retention time that warmists warn us about, but because the warming ocean surfaces will continue to release CO2 as per Henry’s Law, maintaining a net flux in the same direction.
Appreciate your response. Thanks.
Russ
Regrettably the equilibrium between CO2 in the air and in the ocean is complicated.
Henry’s Law identifies two relevant variables.
All else being equal, as the water temperature rises less CO2 can be dissolved . Thus global warming would cause CO2 to come out of solution and move from the oceans to the atmosphere.
All else being equal, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the ocean increases with the concentration of CO2 in the air above it. Thus our CO2 emissions would cause more CO2 to move from the air into the ocean.
At present the second effect is the larger, so the oceans are taking up CO2, though as the oceans warm they will take up less.
There is an extra effect. CO2 does not spend long in solution.
It reacts with water to form carbonic acid.
CO2 + H2O H2CO3
This then dissociates to hydrogen ions and bicarbonate ions.
H2CO3 H+ + HCO3-
The H+ ions reduce pH. This makes the oceans less alkaline/more acid.(Doesn’t matter which term you use, they mean the same)
This chain is reversible. Higher temperatures, lower pH and lower atmospheric CO2 favour turning HCO3- into CO2. Lower temperatures, higher pH and higher atmospheric CO2 favour HCO3- formation.
In the short term the news is good, The oceans continue to take up CO2. In the long term the news is bad. As the ocean pH drops,(known in the trade as ocean acidification) their capacity for CO2 decreases. Eventually they will stop absorbing. Atmospheric CO2 and it’s warming effect will increase more rapidly.
Sorry. The second equation should be H2CO3 H+ + HCO3-
Hate to Say I Told You So, But I Told You So
Here on CO2isLife weve been making a couple of predictions. The first was that the record high temperatures that the climate alarmists were celebrating as proof of their theory, were, in fact, an anomaly caused by a natural phenomenon called an El Nino, and that once that natural event ended, temperatures would plummet. That is in fact what has been happening.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/hate-to-say-i-told-you-so-but-i-told-you-so/
What amusing arrogance. Everybody knows that el Ninos increase average global surface temps while in effect. And everyone acknowledged that el Nino contributed to warmer temps in 2015/16.
What’s a good term for a particularly shabby straw man? A scarecrow?
So I read one of your links – oh my goodness.
The climate alarmists simply seem to start with the conclusion that CO2 is the cause, and never bother to look for any natural causes.
This kind of guff is so obviously, demonstrably, wildly wrong it’s hard to believe someone is still saying it.
IPCC have entire sections on paleoclimate, for example. Climate studies (which support IPCC reports) include the sun, volcanism, ENSO effects (which you’ve just mentioned), ocean/atmosphere oscillations, monsoons, tropical storms, clouds, and a host of other natural factors. The climate literature is jam-packed with this stuff.
I’m going to take a wild guess that you have not even looked at the chapters of IPCC reports to see if maybe you’re wrong. Even the laziest skeptic should do that little.
IPCC 2007 – Ch 6 – Paleoclimate
For example.
…never bother to look for any natural causes.
Good grief.
Barry
the whole point of IPCC is prove/confirm man made global warming (note not climate change) and its dangers so can one really expect a fair call.
HC
That’s pretty much irrelevant to the point. CO2isLife says that climate scientists never look at natural causes. That is patently, gob-smackingly wrong. How else do they do attribution studies?
This point is irrelevant to whatever is concluded by looking at such studies. The fact is natural causes are a major feature of climate science. That’s why we have large numbers of researchers examining paleoclimate, solar fluctuations, ocean/atmosphere oscillations, volcanism, clouds etc, whose work is relied on by climate science, including the IPCC. I can literally cite thousands of papers that examine natural causes of climate change that have nothing to do with AGW. The first few thousand would come from papers examining climate change before the birth of humankind. No AGW there.
barry,
You wrote –
“Everybody knows that el Ninos increase average global surface temps while in effect.”
Oh well, that’s settled then. Hopefully, it’s a little more reliable than everybody knowing that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Do you think everybody knows that the greenhouse has precisely nothing to do with greenhouses?
Cheers.
As you don’t give any credence to me, why not talk with a fellow skeptic who ‘believes’ in the GHE and the enhanced GHE effect.
Mike Flynn, meet CO2isLife.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246045
When you understand this:
1) Essentially all absorbed outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) energy is thermalized.
2) Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.
3) Emission from a gas is quantized and depends on the energy of individual molecules.
4) This energy is determined probabilistically according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
5) The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution favors lower energy (longer wavelength) photons.
6) Water vapor exhibits many (170+) of these longer wavelength bands.
7) The Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution in atmospheric gas molecules effectively shifts the OLR energy absorbed by CO2 molecules to the lower energy absorb/emit bands of water vapor.
8) As altitude increases (to about 10 km) the temperature declines, magnifying the effect.
You should realize why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.
Further discussion of this with graphs and links to source data are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com which also identifies the factors which do cause climate change (98% match 1895-2016).
Dan Pangburn
I am reading your material but I do have one question. Why would not reverse thermalization work on CO2 as well as H2O.
If you look at this link:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
You can put in water vapor and carbon dioxide and plot a graph based upon the abundance of each gas in the atmosphere over any wavelength you want to examine. The plot show that carbon dioxide intensity is in the range of H2O. Try your own and see what you think.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest854685413.png
Dan Pangburn
This graph shows the emissivity of each gas based upon partial pressure and path length.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
The next link is an article that shows how much each gas contributes to atmospheric emission.
http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
Nor – That 1971 paper appears to perceive that radiation from a gas is in accordance with Planck spectrum and Stephan-Boltzmann (T^4) law. Gas molecules radiate according to their absorb/emit bands and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energy of individual molecules.
Dan Pangburn
This graph might be a good one to show the contribution of CO2 and H2O
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest269923029.png
H2O does emit considerably more than CO2 but CO2 is not rendered insignificant. The AGW may not be that great. But it certainly would look more than insignificant.
It can be swamped by other effects.
Nor – That link did not work for me.
I intentionally us the weasel word ‘insignificant’ because I cannot be certain that it is zero. Whatever it is, I am certain that it does no harm and there is substantial evidence that it is doing a lot of good (more food). The planet is still impoverished for CO2 as shown graphically in Fig 7 of my analysis.
So why has average global temperature (AGT) been increasing? The top-down approach as used in my analysis (strongly influenced by Dr. Roy and Lord M although Im not so sure they like the idea) identifies the three factors that matter and matches reported measurements 98% 1895-2016.
Water vapor molecules have more than 170 absorb/emit bands at lower energy levels than the single OLR band for CO2 and there are about 35 times as many WV molecules as CO2 molecules.
NASA/RSS has been measuring & reporting WV content of the atmosphere (Total Precipitable Water, TPW) since about 1987. It is increasing at about 1.5% per decade. With my extrapolation, that amounts to about 8% increase since the more rapid increase began, about 1960 (Fig. 3). This is more than 2.5 times what it would be based on temperature increase alone (feedback). This WV increase is countering the temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring. Declining net effect of ocean cycles since 2005, declining solar activity dropping below ‘breakeven’ in early 2016.
Preventing the temperature decline is a good thing but the added WV is certainly exacerbating the risk of flooding. IMO all rainwater retaining systems (dams, dykes, etc.) should be upgraded from 100 yr floods to 10,000 yr floods.
My analysis has Links to this stuff.
These charts represent forecasts of Mean Sea Level Pressure (MSLP) and Wind speed at 850 hPa all from the ECMWF high resolution forecast (HRES).
http://stream.ecmwf.int/data/atls12/data/data03/scratch/render-atls12-98f536083ae965b31b0d04811be6f4c6-xGO7dE.png
Congress Should Investigate the Peer Review and Publication Process
It is almost unfathomable to believe that a survey performed through a simple search of journal article performed by a researcher with an Anti-Trump book in the works can be justification for spending TRILLIONS of US taxpayers dollars.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/congress-should-investigate-the-peer-review-and-publication-process/
It is almost unfathomable to believe that a survey performed through a simple search of journal article performed by a researcher with an Anti-Trump book in the works can be justification for spending TRILLIONS of US taxpayers dollars.
So unfathomable it’s not even true.
Points 2 and 3 in your article are simply not true. There are a few skeptics around who don’t believe in the enhanced GHG effect. They are concentrated in but hardly limited to the Principia Scientific website.
“When it comes to temperatures or CO2, the future research should be to treat the two as a completely different and not connected topics.”
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-DARKO-Virtual_vs_Reality.pdf
barry,
I believe most scientists believed in the luminiferous ether. It didn’t make any difference. The luminiferous ether still doesn’t exist.
Many climatologists (and their supporters) believe in the GHE. Whether the percentage is 1% or 100% is irrelevant. Just as the luminiferous ether, the GHE doesn’t exist. No amount of religious fervour can make the non-existent become real.
Just look at comments here. It seems that the claim is that increasing the amount of CO2 between a surface thermometer and the Sun, will cause the temperature of the thermometer to rise. Nonsensical, I know, but nobody seems to be able to express precisely what the GHE hypothesis is – in testable terms.
I understand why GHE believers attack so-called skeptics, in ways ranging – from implying opponents are racist, politically incorrect, and part of some conspiracy funded by invisible manipulators, to calls for imprisonment or even perhaps discharging firearms in their direction.
Surely a reproducible scientific experiment would be more effective in silencing non believers?
Claiming that the GHE hypothesis cannot be experimentally supported merely shows that the GHE hypothesis is poorly framed – if indeed it can be framed in any way that does not appear completely nonsensical.
Many people believe Uri Geller can bend spoons with the power of his mind, but I don’t.
I don’t believe in unicorns either.
Cheers.
“I believe most scientists believed in the luminiferous ether.”
Ah but there is a difference. Many things have been believed at various times (like ether, stationary continents, flat earth …). But they were ‘believed’ because they were a simple answer that fit with the available data of the time (or ‘lack of data’ as the case may be).
The basic physics of the greenhouse effect can be stated easily. For example, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246083
This is ‘believed’ not due to any lack of data or lack of better hypothesis. It is ‘believed’ because it is 100% compatible with all of the accepted laws of thermodynamics.
Well there you go, CO2isLife. You have a skeptic that doesn’t believe in the enhanced GHE right above this post.
They are numerous.
So the point on your website:
Strawman #4: Skeptics deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas effect and its ability to cause global warming. No one, not even the most skeptical skeptic denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can cause some warming.
Needs amending.
Will you please talk to Mike Flynn? He might listen to you.
He doesn’t even believe in the GHE effect. Any chance you’ll correct him CO2isLife?
barry,
It’s not a matter of who agrees with whom. There is no GHE. There is not even a GHE effect, let alone an enhanced GHE effect.
It doesn’t matter whether you believe that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or even if Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate. Facts are facts.
Facts are not determined by vote. Science is not a matter of consensus. Either you can make a thermometer hotter by putting CO2 between it and the Sun, or you can’t. And of course you can’t!
Telling people that fantasy is a satisfactory substitute for fact appeals to the gullible, the deluded, and the mentally deficient. Keep trying. Even former supporters are starting to question the reason that nobody can even produce a testable GHE hypothesis!
Cheers.
To turn the tables, Mike, you are now definitely claiming there is NOT greenhouse effect. To make such a claim, you must have tested some hypothesis and found it to be incorrect.
So what is the hypothesis that you considered, and what convinced you that it is wrong?
TIm, the GHE “hypothesis” is debunked by the UAH graph above of global anomalies. And, by the “unadjusted” surface temps.
No, you can’t see it. That’s why you need to get those worms out of your head.
(Didn’t the ministry work out for you? Back so soon?)
For what its worth, here is my (approximate, non-mathematical) statement of “the greenhouse effect”.
Suppose you have a surface (like the earth) that is exposed to EM radiation from a hot source (like the sun). That surface in turn can radiate EM radiation to cool surroundings (like space). Further suppose you have a material that is (relatively) transparent to the incoming EM radiation and is (relatively) opaque to the outgoing EM radiation (like H2O & CO2).
If such a material were placed between the surface and the surroundings (like the atmosphere), then the equilibrium surface temperature would be higher than it would be without the material.
PS g*e*r*a*n, you are describing a much more complex issue of how the greenhouse effect COMBINES with OTHER effects to produce the actual climate on earth. No one claims the greenhouse effect is the ONLY factor affecting global climate. But no one should claim it is not a factor at all!
Tim, you “arrange” your scenario to fit your belief system. You build a simple model that approximates the Earth/atmosphere system, but you neglect the realities. You are correct about the warming effect of the Sun in this model, but you seem to confuse “transient” with “equilibrium”. Of course the Sun can warm the Earth system. And, of course heat transfer occurs in the atmosphere.
But, such a weak model can easily promote pseudoscience. It is important that people understand:
“cold” does not warm “hot”;
ice can not bake a turkey;
the atmosphere does not “trap heat”;
a hand held IR thermometer reading sky temperatures does not prove the sky is heating the planet;
photons of differing wavelengths do not add;
the atmosphere is not a “blanket”;
the Sun’s irradiance can not raise Earth’s temperature to 800,000K;
etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.
G*, I am proposing a simple bit of physics. A rather undeniable bit of physics. Greenhouse gases warm the earth. I suppose that means “physics” is my “belief system” for understanding global warming.
Yes, simplified models can cause misunderstanding. But denying the physics of simple models leads to even greater misunderstanding.
Yes, reality is more complicated. But none of your “clarifications” are about reality. They are about semantics. they are about the twisted misunderstandings of pseudoscientists.
* cool can *help* warm hot (when it replaces something even colder)
* only deluded anti-scientists make claims about ice cooking turkeys.
* the atmosphere DOES absorb IR from the ground that would otherwise escape to space. “Trapping” is not the ideal word, but it s not actually that bad.
* the IR thermometer DOES show the air helps keep the planet warm.
Etc.
Your objections sometimes are reasonable when narrowly interpreted. But (IMHO) your list of objections are much more confusing and misleading than my simplified greenhouse effect model.
“But (IMHO) your list of objections are much more confusing and misleading than my simplified greenhouse effect model.’
Exactly Tim, it is your opinion. And, in pseudoscience, opinions outweigh facts every time.
“And, in pseudoscience, opinions outweigh facts every time.”
Again, you miss the mark badly. In discussions, opinions are interesting. In discussions, you learn by considering the opinions of others and seeing what you can learn. You seem to be arguing that YOUR opinions should outweigh MY opinions. That my opinions are pseudoscience, but your opinions are science — illogical and inconsistent!
When I consider your ‘opinions’ as presented in your list, I find it interesting mostly because it is misleading in a very specific way. Your whole list encourages the idea that the atmosphere does not help warm the ground. This is simply false.
In fact, it seems that you agree with the basic physics of my “greenhouse effect hypothesis” — that in the simple scenario adding the ‘cool material’ above the ‘warm surface’ can and does lead to the surface becoming warmer than before.
Or “cool warms warm”. There are lots of more technical ways to say this and lots of details that could be added, but there is absolutely nothing incorrect or misleading about this statement with regards to the impact of the cool atmosphere on the warm earth. This is not pseudoscience.
Tim states: Your whole list encourages the idea that the atmosphere does not help warm the ground. This is simply false.
No, it’s true. The atmosphere does NOT warm the planet. Consider the atmosphere as a thermodynamic control volume (CVA). Consider the planet itself as a thermodynamic control volume (CVE). If you believe CVA can warm CVE, then you do not understand physics.
Tim states: In fact, it seems that you agree with the basic physics of my greenhouse effect hypothesis that in the simple scenario adding the cool material above the warm surface can and does lead to the surface becoming warmer than before.
No, that is your “rewrite” of what I wrote. It is your “confirmation bias” speaking for you. The “worm” in your head. You read what you want to read.
Tim states: Or cool warms warm. There are lots of more technical ways to say this and lots of details that could be added, but there is absolutely nothing incorrect or misleading about this statement with regards to the impact of the cool atmosphere on the warm earth. This is not pseudoscience.
No Tim, sadly it is pseudoscience. It is absolutely incorrect and misleading to claim that a cool atmosphere can warm the Earth.
“No Tim, sadly it is pseudoscience. It is absolutely incorrect and misleading to claim that a cool atmosphere can warm the Earth.”
Only if the tests presented by Dr. Spencer are ignored or not well understood, as in your case anger.
If not, show us a test supporting your opinion anger, not just assertion.
The brightness T of the planet is observed as ~255K from orbit, the planet surface T is observed as ~288K by thermometer. The only thing in between is the atm.
The physics demonstrated for this in the actual tests Dr. Spencer performed.
Ball4, you talk in circles.
The “test” Dr. Roy presents is revealed in the graph at the start of his post here. If you had any appreciation for the scientific method, you could study the graph and find some significant flaws in the AGW hoax.
It seems the hypothesis to consider is the idea that the existence or addition of greenhouse house gases to an atmosphere will cause the average temperature of a planet which is warmed by a star to have a higher average temperature.
Or the removal of greenhouse gases from such a planet would cause a lower global average temperature.
To make such a claim, you must be able to measure the average temperature of a planet so as to be able to determine if it’s temperature has increased or decreased.
One must also have some means of isolating the effects of any warming or cooling influences which not due to greenhouse gases. Though some believers might consider that all warming and cooling of Earth average temperature is caused by greenhouse gases. Or it’s known to me that a small group claim that without CO2, Earth would have average temperature of -18 C.
And it seems to me that a simple greenhouse which could not have any greenhouse gases involved with it, can be used to disprove this idea. Not by measurably warm the planet, but rather measurably warm the air within the greenhouse.
And I should note in passing that greenhouse effect {GHE or enhanced GHE] is not the same as the effect of an actual greenhouse.
And there other factor which can cause warming or cooling.
For instance glacial ice building up in region is considered to be a cooling effect- and ice is not a gas. Erupted volcanic dust is also considered to have a global cooling effect- also not a gas.
But Tim I don’t want to put words in your mouth, since you appear to advocate this rather old idea, why don’t you provide the exact and modern hypothesis which in your opinion must be proven or disproven.
[[Or the person known to have began the idea had hypothesis regarding what caused the geologically recent glacial and interracial periods- ie, he thought it had to do with the trace gas, CO2, and also expressed the idea that a warming world would obviously be a better world. [I guess he knew something about history. And not fan of living under a mile if ice] ]]
anger asserts: “you could study the graph and find some significant flaws in the AGW hoax.”
Well, then fill us in anger. Cite testing. Cite numbers from top post.
Ball4, you want numbers? You want numbers when you adhere, without questioning, to the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation?
Okay, here’s some numbers for you to play with, in your pseudoscience:
7.2 degrees
92.734 Watts/sq.m.
2 ppm
134.225 qt
107 Sieverts
Want more?
“You want numbers when you adhere, without questioning, to the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation?”
No, I want your numbers that you could study the graph and find. The ones that show significant flaws in the AGW hoax. Like anger wrote. Numbers from testing that anger can cite showing us nature’s results.
When we all know anger really has nothing or would lay out the case.
Should be pretty simple for such an accomplished commenter as anger. And there is no bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation either, anger just makes that up, asserts without cite, a common useless anger practice.
I tried to get Davie to own up to the bogus CO2 equation, but he fled.
Are you a believer in the equation?
(That question is formatted for a straight-forward “yes or no” answer. Let’s see how much spin you can add.)
I’m a believer in proper test and observation of nature anger, show me those. What eqn. are you trying to discuss?
(BTW, if Davie is watching, I just checked and he did not really flee. He was just a day late answering. But, his “answer” was just another “red herring” questions.
Ball4, well, that’s not as much spin as usual.
The equation is the same one Entropic Man has presented down thread.
∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co)
So, I will ask again. Do you believe that equation is correct?
You are misinformed anger, as usual, that eqn. is not from Arrhenius time, that eqn, is correctly from Myhre 1998 from Earth atm. test data Table 3, only for CO2 not the other well mixed gases which are also listed.
Well, you’re somewhat correct, but largely uninformed.
The form of the equation was introduced by Arrhenius.
∆f = Kln(C/Co)
He used the constant instead of the current 5.35. He knew the equation had no scientific value, so he put in the “fudge factor”. To get to the next step, the temperature increase, another fudge factor is introduced.
With all the fudge factors, you can make the equation work for any temperature!
It’s called “pseudoscience”.
anger, what you write means nothing, useless unless you cite what Arrhenius actually wrote. Myhre 1998 is developed from atm. test data existing at the time, does not even directly cite Arrhenius.
I just wanted you to admit how confused and uninformed you really are Ball4.
I mean, anyone that believes cabbages glow in the dark…sheeesh!
Go to the link and scroll down to find the equation. (I think you just got promoted to Pseudoscientist of the Month!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
Sorry, anger, you are just another victim of a wiki page.
Don’t feel bad though, this happens all the time. Even in text books. You always have to check the original author writings. Sometimes a trip to the local college library is necessary.
Arrhenius did not write that formula in his work (you know, go read the original Arrhenius paper on the subject), ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co) originated from atm. test data of the time as I cited below from Myhre et. al. 1998. At which the ref. link on your wiki page points.
Ball4, do you really believe you are fooling anyone but yourself?
As I explained, the original equation, with the constant, was from Arrhenius. The equation with the value “5.35” was from Myhre.
You’re wrong again. And now you have to find some way to spin yourself out of your own mess.
Hilarious!
“..the original equation, with the constant, was from Arrhenius.”
Again, those are angry words not those of Arrhenius. Show us Arrhenius words, angry words are useless.
Ball4, can’t you do anything for yourself?
I gave you the link. I told you to scroll down. Now, I have to copy/paste for the little puppy?
In its original form, Arrhenius’ rule reads as follows:
if the quantity of carbonic acid [ CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 (carbonic acid) ] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Wrong again, pup!
No mention of ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co) anger, you will have to do better and actually find Arrhenius first writing the formula.
Well, as usual with the pseudoscience types, Ball4 cannot answer a simple “yes or no” question. He has to resort to “red herrings”, obfuscation, and innuendos to mask his ignorance.
Hilarious!
anger asks 4:17pm about: the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation.
When asked which eqn. 5:27pm, anger claims Arrhenius wrote eqn: ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co)
When correctly shown that really is a Myhre et. al. eqn. from 1998 atm. test data published about 100 years after Arrhenius, anger obfuscates, dodges to a wiki page that actually correctly references the Myhre 1998 eqn. origination which shows anger actually didnt bother to check his red herring.
anger flees tossing off innuendo.
Hilarious, but sad. Turned red by his smoke (& mirrors). Try hand waving too next time anger maybe some other magic will work.
Talking colloquially for a moment, suppose I have a little shed with a heater. On a cold winter night (-30 C air temperature), the heater can only manage to keep the interior of the shed at 5C. A “warm front” move through (-10 C air) and the interior of the shed increase to 15 C. The only change was the exterior air temperature. It is not at all inappropriate to say the warm front ’caused’ the rise from 5C to 15C. Or to say that the changing exterior conditions caused the changing interior temperatures.
Or I could leave the air @ -30 C and add some insulation. It would be perfectly understandable to say that adding the insulation was the cause of the warmer interior temperatures.
Sure, the shed would be even colder without the heater. Sure, the shed would not warm from 5C to 15 C without the heater. But the heater is a given. A steady input of heat from the electric heating elements is part of the assumed conditions. In such a situation, the factors affecting the heat OUTflow ’cause’ the temperature to change.
Similarly, I have no problem saying the atmosphere causes the earth’s surface to be warmer than it would be otherwise. Of course, a continued input from the sun is required.
[I do have a bit of a problem saying the atmosphere “heated” the ground, because “heat” (“Q”) has a specific technical meaning in thermodynamics. The air is part of ‘warming’ the ground, but it does not technically ‘heat’ the ground — it restricts the heat that is leaving.]
Ball4, aka “Trick”, tries to trick us again.
The comments are here for everyone to see.
Ball4 cannot answer a simple question, but hides behind word tricks.
Hilarious.
Tim, you are still hung up on “insulation”. You believe that the atmosphere is a “blanket”. You have been deceived.
To correct your scenario, the shed walls are “active”. They maintain the interior temperature. If the interior temp rises, the walls do whatever it takes to release more heat.
You need to study how the atmosphere handles heat.
Hint: The atmosphere does NOT trap heat.
“To correct your scenario, the shed walls are active. They maintain the interior temperature. If the interior temp rises, the walls do whatever it takes to release more heat.”
So G*, what temperature does the atmosphere try to maintain? 20C? 30C? 0C? 255 K?
Tim inquires: “So G*, what temperature does the atmosphere try to maintain? 20C? 30C? 0C? 255 K?”
Tim, don’t try to act like Davie with a bunch of questions that are easily available online.
Move away from pseudoscience. The atmosphere is NOT a blanket. People that try to foist that concept only reveal that they do not understand quantum physics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, and the gas laws.
The atmosphere is an amazing system that displays many laws of physics. You should learn to appreciate it.
Mike Flynn
You ask for evidence of a GHE. Have you looked at Hottel’s empirical study of H2O and CO2 and found there emissivity based upon path length and partial pressure of the gas involved?
Fossil fuel power plants use his empirical data to calculate heat exchange in boiler furnaces.
You can deny science but it is only your opinion. I think you have one strong supporter g*e*r*a*n but he is not very logical and twists what people say and reaches false conclusions all the time about science and what posters post so I would think he is a very poor supporter.
Not sure why you hate science so much Mike. The evidence is all around but you ignore and deny it. Why? You have actual empirical measurements of downwelling IR. You have empirical measurements of IR emitted from the surface that is much larger value than what is leaving the atmosphere above (what is happening to this energy with your understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics).
You can find all the information you want if you go to the CERES web site and look at their many graphs of radiant energy. I can not make you look but if you like science at all you will and you will open your mind to a reality you seem to deny no matter what evidence is presented to you.
Why are you so obsessed with denying reality and empirical data? I know g*e*r*a*n will always deny reality because he is just a troll that gains pleasure from annoying posters. I am hoping you are a little different, not sure if you are yet or not. I hope you are not like the troll g*e*r*a*n.
Nice ramble, Norm.
I’m glad you never had a course in physics. Your pseudoscience is much more hilarious that way.
Norm’s pseudoscience: “The energy leaves the system, but the energy does not leave the system”.
g*e*r*a*n
As always and predictably you are wrong and clueless with only purpose in life to annoy.
I did take college physics for one semester and also was top student in High School physics. What led you to a false conclusion that I never took a physics course?? Oh I forgot it is you and you always twist and distort reality to try an annoy. I guess you figure if you make up an untrue statement it will annoy me.
Like I said in another post, I think there are Specialists that can help resolve your issues that make you want to annoy people. I do not have enough training to help you, sorry. I did take a Semester of Psychology and Sociology but I don’t have enough knowledge to help you overcome your inner demons.
Like I stated in my post to Mike Flynn. I hope he does not suffer from your delusions of grandeur and your uncontrollable need to twist and distort what people post.
g*e*r*a*n
I think I spent about 20 useless posts explaining how you got what I stated wrong and then correcting what I was saying.
YOU: “Norms pseudoscience: The energy leaves the system, but the energy does not leave the system.
Kind of pointless to spend another 30 posts explaining this to you when you really do not care and have these mental issues that thankfully not many other posters suffer. I think you might be about the only one that is such an intentionally annoying poster. I see how you respond to others and it is all the same. You provide no information, just twist and distort someone’s posts and try and annoy them.
Norm, was that “college” physics course at the same school you got a chemistry degree from that does not offer a chemistry degree?
Did you take a physics course from a school that does not offer a physics course?
That might explain your addition to pseudoscience.
☺
Norm, maybe this will trigger those 30 posts. I can’t wait…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203812
g*e*r*a*n
You never did check on Midland Lutheran College in the 1980’s with what degrees they offered. I don’t need to convince you of anything. If you want to lie and deceive, fine, that is your nature. If you want the truth spend some time, do some real research, email them and ask if they offered a BA in Chemistry in the 1980’s. You can also ask them if they had a Chemistry Professor at that time that went by the name Dr. Bunck. Believe what you need to, it is what you do with science.
In your fantasy world that you dwell in pseudo-science is empirical data. Things that are actually measured are not real to you.
Norm, as usual, you entirely miss the point. How many people have a “meaningful” degree from an institution that no longer offers that degree?
g*e*r*a*n
No I do not understand your point. Can you elaborate?
YOU: “How many people have a meaningful degree from an institution that no longer offers that degree?”
I don’t follow your point at all. But you do accuse me of making up phony information about myself. Not sure why you make such accusations.
Here is a picture of the Chemistry Instructor I had.
http://fremonttribune.com/fremont-area-united-way-kick-off/image_a78fbe8c-03f0-11e2-92df-0019bb2963f4.html
Steve Bunck
And here is an article that confirms for you he was an instructor at Midland Lutheran College (the name it had when I attended).
http://fremonttribune.com/midland-college-to-observe-th-anniversary-of-man-s-first/article_bf0811d0-8e3a-5c87-8df2-be372d75b34a.html
From article: “Three other Midland instructors, Steve Bunck, Greg Clements and Ronald Johnson will be on campus Tuesday to help with the viewing.”
Norm asks: “Can you elaborate?”
Hint–A person with a weak academic background should not be quick to judge the qualifications of others.
So Mike Flynn does not believe in GHE effect or the enhanced GHE effect. And is there any way to encourage him in having such a faith?
Is the GHE effect equal in all places on Earth?
For example is there more GHE effect in the tropics as compared to Temperate zones.
And related to above, does enhanced GHE effect and/or GHE effect make the ground surface or water surface warmer. Or Does *more* GHE effect or more enhanced GHE effect make the surface [not “air surface”] hotter.
Different question, does more GHE effect or enhanced GHE effect make surface air temperature hotter than compared when there is less GHE effect or enhanced GHE effect?
Or if there were places with more enhanced GHE effect are they also typically the hottest places on Earth?
The total solar irradiance, a measure of the power produced by the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation, varies by only about 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. Climate scientists have understood this effect for some time and it is already built into the computer models that are used to try and forecast our climate.
But there are still some uncertainties. Changes in the ultraviolet portion of the Sun’s output over a solar cycle can be much greater and can deposit energy in the stratosphere – at altitudes above 10km. How this energy influences our weather and climate in the lower atmosphere is still not clear, but there is growing evidence that during periods of low solar activity, atmospheric “blocking” events are more prevalent. These blocking episodes comprise extensive and almost stationary anti-cyclones in the eastern Atlantic that can last for several weeks, hindering the flow of the jet stream and leading to colder winters in the UK and Europe.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-iceage.html#jCp
Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.
“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.
Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called ‘principal component analysis’ of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.
Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html#jCp
“Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.”
Hmm, loosely or metaphorically, the Sun’s dynamo is the Sun and one call a second dynamo it’s moon.
Of course moons don’t travel within an atmosphere or ocean and it might be [metaphorically] like drops of water on hot frying pan- skittering across frying pan in what appear a friction less movement. And how fast does the second dynamo travel within the sun’s atmosphere/ocean/mantel.
I guess I look at the link and see what they claim.
Reminds of wild idea of the sun [or stars] spitting out planets, but anyhow, I personally, have “always wondered” what happen when the larger [largest] space rocks hit the Sun.
Blocking the jet stream.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00898/w7b13th9fnv9.gif
The situation in Canada will be very difficult. Low persists.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00899/0uanqcithyg4.png
Average/moderate trade winds in western pacific continue. Accordingly, model enso predictions continue cooler toward neutral/la nina.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
To clarify: Look to left side of zonal, low – level anomaly chart to find western pacific trade wind activity.
As I mentioned up thread, model forecasts parallel/react to observed conditions in this area.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/anim_2mw.html
The global cooling is now starting to take place as solar values continue to weaken.
Look for a more -AO especially this next winter ,look for sea surface temperatures to fall overall, look for an increase in major volcanic activity, and an increase in global cloud coverage, snow coverage ,and sea ice coverage.
Upshot higher albedo ,cooler global temperatures coming on.
Finally the moment of truth is upon us.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/611671/ice-age-britain-freeze-climate-change-weather
GHE is real but I maintain it is the result of the climate in contrast to mainstream saying the climate is the result of the GHE.
We will soon find out.
Salvatore
We will no nothing because, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. This is what your doing.
SNAPE -if the temp. fall to below the 30 year means at the very least do you not think that would prove AGW is false?
Forget about if I am correct or not.
Salvatore
There is natural variation in global temperatures. If a monthly anomaly value is -0.08 , how do we know it would not have been -0.48 in the absence of rising GHG’s?
This is why we look at *long term trends*!!! When the long term trend becomes nearly flat or negative, I will trade in my Prius for a Suburban.
If my cat kept predicting a cool down, eventually he would be right.
I say let’s see what happens and go from there.
according to AGW theory temperatures are suppose to keep rising, no cool downs.
Salvatore
Nonsense!
AGW theory predicts a LONG TERM WARMING TREND of the surface/lower troposphere. We will always have periods of ups, downs and sideways.
This is expected. It is predicted. It is inevitable. The planet could warm 5 deg.C and there would still be short term cooling trends.
Salvatore
When you say, “let’s see what happens?” Do you mean, “let’s see what happens to the long term trend”?
If that’s the case, I totally agree.
“AGW theory predicts a LONG TERM WARMING TREND of the surface/lower troposphere.”
Due to one component CO2 ppm with the 8+ others held ~steady. For that one RF component, results decline logarithmically with +ppm.
Overall TLT could show long term cooling attributed to any one or combination of 8+ other radiative forcings. AGW theory & test not shown wrong in any way if that happens.
Salvatore’s long history is to just write he hadn’t counted on the other _____ factor (fill in the blank) and/or _____ natural cycle (fill in the blank). Undoubtedly he will ignore any other factor changing the trend down. As do many.
Oops. Know not no
Its not a matter of who agrees with whom.
That’s right, it;s a matter of disagreement between skeptics and thei true motivations.
As CO2isLife believes in the GHE and you don’t, I know it is good as a fact that that CO2isLife won’t debate the point with you, because their take is based on politics, not truth.
So CO2isLife will say nothing because your view helps the political cause.
Skeptics rarely argue with each other because they are not interested in the truth, only in winning the politics.
I like to test whether ‘skeptics’ will debate their disagreements, and they never disappoint. Ever. Truth doesn’t matter to them.
Barry
If liberals were skeptical of climate change, Rush Limbaugh would be a “warmist”.
Hahaha. Rush does seem to have a jerky knee.
Warmists rarely argue with each other because they are not interested in the truth, only in winning the politics.
I like to test whether Warmists will debate their disagreements, and they never disappoint. Ever. Truth doesnt matter to them.
There barry, I fixed it for you.
People rarely argue with people who agree with them.
There … fixed it for everyone.
Indeed!
☺
Not only do I argue with people who agree with me on other stuff, I also sometimes argue for the opposite of my own perspective, because that is what a skeptic does – challenges their own opinions by fully understanding counter arguments. If you can’t accurately articulate the converse, then you do not understand it.
In a dialog where comprehension and truth is the driving force rather than ‘winning,’ intellectually rigorous and honest participants should be able to fearlessly and accurately argue the opposite case. What usually happens in the semi-popular climate debates is that the counter-proposition is caricatured and otherwise misrepresented by opponents. Because winning is more important than truth.
Extracting a logical signal from all the fallacious noise takes a fair bit of discipline. Disciplining oneself to contribute more of the former takes even more discipline, it seems.
barry, your “discipline” ain’t there yet.
You are consumed with your pseudoscience. You cannot even imagine Earth where CO2 from mankind is not about to boil the planet.
First paragraph.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246003
Barry,
I’m not sure if you saw this but Norman was able to help with my question.
I asked:
“Why are these molecules (nitrogen/oxygen) dispersed above earths surface as air instead of lying in a big pile on the ground?
Norman replied:
“The answer would be perfectly elastic collisions. The nitrogen molecule would be pulled down by gravity bu convert it potential energy to kinetic energy. When it hits the surface it bounces back up with no loss of internal energy to the surface so it goes back to its original height.
In our atmosphere the molecules all have considerable kinetic energy and when they collide with other molecules all the collisions are perfectly elastic. The molecules can exchange energy (some get faster, others slower) but the total energy is not lost as with larger groupings of molecules (such as a bouncing ball, it does not have a perfectly elastic collision, some of the energy of deformation turns into internal energy).”
Reply
Yes, I saw that. I’ve read in many places that atmospheric turbulence is what keeps gases aloft. Our different points of view may not be mutually exclusive. Norman knows more about physics than I.
Right. There was lots of information about how a nitrogen molecule behaves in the atmosphere, but almost nothing about how it would behave in the absence of an atmosphere. David replied, “wind”. You replied, “turbulence”. It was very annoying! Lol!
I find this confusing. The atmosphere is gases. In the absence of an atmosphere there are no gases. Your question appears to me to be straightly self-contradictory.
Do you mean, for example – what would a single nitrogen atom do on the moon?
Barry
Yes. That’s what I meant. You wouldn’t call just one or two molecules an “atmosphere”.
– In my thought experiment, I didn’t want the individual molecule to bump into other molecules on the way to the ground.
– the question I originally asked myself was, “if air keeps a balloon aloft, what keeps air aloft?”
– your answer, “atmospheric turbulence” didn’t make sense because it seemed to defy gravity. After all, would a trillion tennis balls remain aloft just because they were bouncing against each other?
-The clue I was missing was “perfect elasticity”. If, in a vacuum, you let go a nitrogen molecule, it would fall to the ground and bounce all the way back up to where it started. It would never come to rest.
*in our atmosphere, nitrogen atoms are bound together in pairs (Na). That’s why I used the term “nitrogen molecule”.
Not to overly complicate things, but a better model would have the molecules rebounding from the ground with varying energies as they collided with the “thermal reservoir” of the ground. The N2 molecules would leave a distribution of energies — the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
This extra detail is important for more detailed calculations with kinetic theory.
Tim
Thanks. Unfortunately my understanding of physics and chemistry could be described as “science for kids”. I couldn’t do a detailed calculation if my life depended on it.
— Tim Folkerts says:
May 9, 2017 at 10:37 AM
Not to overly complicate things,…–
That is what I am thinking.
On Earth the average velocity of air molecules is a bit faster
than the speed of sound. One could say the average velocity of air molecules controls the speed of sound.
The temperature of the air affects/controls the speed of sound- cooler air slower speed of sound, warmer air temperature, the faster speed of sound.
And the average velocity of air molecules is the temperature of the air. Or the kinetic energy of gas molecule is the temperature of the air. Or Kinetic energy = 1/2 Mass x velocity squared.
Air molecules are perfectly elastic collisions- unless they doing things which use/need energy- such as chemical reactions or changing from gas to liquid or solid [or plasma].
Or water vapor does change from gas to liquid or solid in our atmosphere and can’t be said the always involved in perfectly elastic collisions.
Or one can say according to Idea Gas Law air molecules are perfectly elastic collisions. And according the Idea Gas Law
water gas molecules can be sticky- the kinetic energy of water vapor can added to or removed. But gas molecules of Nitrogen or Oxygen don’t condense within normal temperature and pressure of Earth’s atmosphere- or in Earth atmosphere they are Ideal gases and water vapor isn’t.
All atoms/molecules have perfectly elastic collisions but with gases the atoms/molecule are moving, whereas in comparison with solids and liquid atoms/molecules are held together by molecular structures. If gas molecule hits a brick, it has a perfectly elastic collision.
Now at sea level elevation [or in entire troposphere of earth] one has a lot of molecules within 1 centimeter cube volume of air- roughly ^19 [billions of billions] and they have average velocity of about 500 m/s [faster than speed of sound]. And a or any molecule can’t go anywhere- because billion of billions of other molecule have a chance to hit it.
If there was a lot less gas molecules in a cube cm, or if a gas molecule was travel a lot faster, it could have a chance of moving say 1 cm distance, before being hit by another gas molecule. And hitting another gas molecule will change the direction it is traveling.
So, a or any gas molecule at sea level elevation is changing the direction it’s traveling, somewhere around billion times per second, on average. Or it do not travel someplace, though it does travel someplace if a crowd of molecules are going somewhere.
Now all these collisions have an average velocity AND they average the velocity of the molecule in terms of their kinetic energy. Or less massive molecule “needs” to travel at higher velocity than a more massive molecule to have same average kinetic energy. So H2 is less massive as compared to N2, so Nitrogen gas has lower average velocity and Hydrogen gas has higher average velocity.
Gbaikie
Interesting. I’m not sure how much of that relates to the question, “if air keeps a balloon aloft, what keeps air aloft? , but interesting nonetheless.
I’m wrong, it’s not wind — it’s pressure, counterbalancing gravity, at least hydrostatically.
“Why Doesn’t the Atmosphere Fall to the Ground?”
http://www.pdas.com/nofall.html
David
I read your link about air molecules and hydrostatic pressure, but am not sure how that relates to what I wrote:
“The clue I was missing was perfect elasticity. If, in a vacuum, you let go a nitrogen molecule, it would fall to the ground and bounce all the way back up to where it started. It would never come to rest.”
*(This was based on an earlier explanation by Norman.)
No need to reply, I think I’ll let it go.
“.. Im not sure how much of that relates to the question, if air keeps a balloon aloft, what keeps air aloft? , but interesting nonetheless.”
Same way a boat floats- buoyancy.
A boat made from steel can float if it displaces the same amount of weight of water as the boat [and cargo].
Gas can resemble a liquid. One pour cooler pure CO2 gas. You can pour it into say a cup and it would “fill” the cup.
Eventually, it mixes with the air but it could take a while.
In order for a balloon to float it needs to displace enough air so it’s gross weight equals the weight of volume of the surrounding air.
Air at sea level and say 20 C weighs about 1.2 kg per cubic
meter. Trapped [by the balloom] warm air is less dense than cooler surrounding air. It could be say, .9 kg per cubic meter. So if had 1000 cubic meter displaced by balloon, it can lift 300 Kg.
And as said before with hydrogen [or helium] molecules travel faster than N2. Or the kinetic energy of surrounding air of balloon [mostly N2] atmosphere in order to equaled it term of kinetic must “make up for it” by having higher velocity- or takes up same volume but is much lighter.
Or a vacuum balloon doesn’t work because the pressure of atmosphere would crush it,
And you can also heat up the helium or hydrogen so it displaces more air- or need less of the gas to displace same amount of atmosphere.
Oh, what keeps the air up is same as what keeps surface of ocean up- the water below it- and earth crust below the water keep ocean “up”.
one could say the molecular structure of the water keeps water “up” likewise with air, heat [or the massive amount of kinetic energy] keeps it up. [cool the entire atmosphere and it will drop, like a rock]
Gbaikie
I thought I had asked a simple question, but the answers I’ve received have included: atmospheric turbulence, kinetic energy, thermal reservoir, perfect elasticity, and hydrostatic pressure.
Now my head hurts.
Ball4
“Due to one component CO2 ppm with the 8+ others held ~steady. For that one RF component, results decline logarithmically with +ppm.”
I have noticed a tendency for sceptics to overestimate the reduction in rate due to the logarithmic effect.
When you run the numbers you find that each doubling of CO2 concentration produces 15% less warming than the one before.
Thus the doubling from 280ppm to 560ppm is expected to produce 3C warming. A second doubling to 1120ppm would produce a further 2.55C, a total change for two doubling a of 5.55C.
Courtesy of WFTT you can see the long term trend of GISTEMP from 1970 on (the red line).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2018/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2018/every/trend/offset:0.09/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2018/every/trend/offset:-0.09/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2018/every
The blue and green lines show the uncertainty in the long term trend, +/-0.1C
Looking at the monthly values (the purple line) you can see that on a timescale of a few months or a year individual measurements can be up to 0.4C above or below the warming trend, but they are temporary and always return to the trend.
These temporary variations cannot be used to infer that the trend has accelerated or slowed without a longer baseline.
I think the numbers may be wrong – 3C is the estimated warming from doubled CO2 plus feedbacks. I’m not sure that the logarithmic effect applies to the feedback effect so neatly.
Doubled CO2 with no feedbacks leads to about 1C warming.
Good.
Double the CO2
Thoughtless.
We’re aware you are, Davie.
But we hold out hope.
“Thus the doubling from 280ppm to 560ppm is expected to produce 3C warming.”
Due only to CO2 RF component. Other RF components and natural cycles could make that 0 in overall T (“the pause”) or even negative acting together.
This sort of est. is all over the place, imo think some predictive value but not at all thoroughly. The Myhre 1998 paper is concise first read on the subject going over the reasons for your numbers and the other IR active gas contributions. The Feldman 2015 paper puts some observed atm. numbers on the CO2 RF component over a decade at 2 observation sites.
Ball4
The direct impact of doubling CO2 to 560ppm is a forcing equivalent to about 1C. To reach 3C you include another 2C from secondary forcings such as increased water vapour.
My own calculation for the effect of doubling CO2 to 560ppm uses the Myhre et all 1998 forcing equation ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co).
I converted this to a temperature change using the IPCC mid-range climate sensitivity of 3.0 and their estimate that 3.7W of forcing produces 1C warming. The direct warming contribution of CO2, ignoring climate sensitivity, is thus
5.35ln(560/280)/3.7 = 1.002C
Including climate sensitivity the temperature change for the first doubling is thus
5.35ln(560/280)3/3.7 = 3.006C
For two doubling to 1120ppm
5.35ln(1120/280)3/3.7 = 6.01C
Still, you leave out the other 8+ forcings as did Myhre et. al. (“Only the direct forcing from (well mixed greenhouse gas) concentration is considered here.”).
Not too many (none?) discuss the predictive effects those other 8 or so along with natural cycles will have on global T at the same time. As Snape implies, a cooling trend forced from those others will generate lotsa’ discussion that forgets CO2/wv is not the only game in town.
Ball4
Excluding CO2 and its secondary forcings there are about eight other natural drivers of climate. These include variations in solar insolation, volcanoes, orbital cycles and ENSO.
When you add up their combined effect, they almost cancel out, leaving a very slow cooking tendency.
This leaves increasing CO2 as the only significant current driver of temperature change.
For a summary graph of the data go to
http://globalwarmingindex.org
The blue line is the temperature effect of the combined natural forcings.Orange is the effect of human activity, mostly CO2, and the red line is the combined total for all forcings.The black line is the observed temperature.
“We note that the monthly index uncertainty range is +/-0.0013K (95% confidence level).”
Well, your link must have nailed all of them, I was misinformed.
Actually, if you want to read up on an author mentioned in the ref. to that index, P. Forster, he was lead author for AR4 discussion of all the RF factors not just CO2 of Myhre, from some 700+ ref.s. To become knowledgeable about the sum total not just Myhre’s focus on one RF, there is a lot of reading ahead:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
Commenters here like to forgo the work involved in what they comment on, and not just the work went into developing the top post graph
Ball4
Regrettably the suggestion that natural forcings have been ignored is a straw man.
You can get more detailed values for individual natural and human forcings from Bloomberg here.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
The other radiative forcings are not ignored in the literature EM, my point is they are ignored by certain commenters here including you in quoting just the limited Myhre formula.
It is just too much work to read all the literature for overall global T forcings before commenting. One look at the top post and anyone should be able to see there is way more to the global TLT story than your 5.35ln(560/280)3/3.7 = 3.006C.
Unfortunately, process of elimination only works if you have a closed set of known alternatives from which to choose. Obviously, they haven’t neglected some natural forcings. The question is, what have they neglected?
Appears they left off some knowns 1) substantial warming bias from halocarbons and 2) black carbon on snow. Not clear if aerosols included the 3) substantial cooling bias on cloud albedo or just the direct affect, and 4) slight warming of linear contrails.
As you write, certainly left off the unknown unknowns (Rumsfeld term).
“The question is, what have they neglected?”
Ah, yes, the science of unicorns.
Even if there are overlooked natural forcings (unlikely), CO2 is still a greenhouse gas and it still traps heat and it still warms the atmosphere. That science is rock solid. So any additional forcing has to be evaluated in that climate system.
Even if there are overlooked natural forcings (unlikely), CO2 is still a greenhouse gas and it still traps heat and it still warms the atmosphere. That is rock solid PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Fixed it fer ya, Davie!
40 Years Ago: Massachusetts Snags a Memorable Snowfall in May Storm.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/08/40-years-ago-massachusetts-snags-a-memorable-snowfall-in-may-storm/
http://www.intellicast.com/National/Radar/Current.aspx?location=USNY0124&animate=true
richard varney,
David Appell believes that CO2 produced by humans dominates “Climate Change”. If that were true the temperature would be rising like Mike Mann’s fraudulent “Hockey Stick.
Reality is quite different given that global temperature has flatlined for almost 20 years while CO2 has soared. David Appell can’t explain the “Pause” so he quotes fraudulent papers authored by acolytes of Trofim Lysenko. Even the Lame Stream Media could not apply enough lipstick to make this ugly pig attractive:
http://www.powermag.com/blog/pausebuster-did-noaas-tom-karl-cook-climate-data/
Camel
The oceans are a giant heat sink. Far more so than the atmosphere. A 20 year uptake in OCH is all that’s needed to explain the pause in atmospheric warming. Do we have a comprehensive (the entire ocean, top to bottom), reliable, monthly, 40 year record for OCH like we do for the lower troposphere?
Nevertheless, do you understand that this long, “unexplainable” pause is included in the long term trend? And that the long term trend shows significant warming?
Here are the data on ocean heat content.
http://tinyurl.com/jbf2xco
Some go back to the late ’50s.
Snape, the ocean can cool the atmosphere [by a lot] and the ocean can warm the atmosphere [by a lot].
The average temperature of the ocean is about 3 C. If mixed the ocean so it has uniform temperature, the surface of the ocean would be 3 C.
Merely because the ocean covers 70% of the surface area of Earth, if the ocean surface was 3 C, the average global temperature would be about 3 C.
But that would be the simple version and Earth would [or could] be colder than an average temperature of 3 C.
For simple reason that the warmth of world’s ocean surface, warms the entire world.
One might find people [experts”] saying the tropics warms the rest of the world, but it more precise to say the tropical ocean warms the rest of the world. Or deserts in tropics, don’t. Nor do other tropical land masses. And 80% of the tropics is ocean area.
So if cause the surface of world’s ocean to have uniform temperature of 3 C, than ocean are inhibited in terms warming land area.
Other factors include inhibting global generation of water evaporation. Though there would be a lot strange stuff happen- or you made the polar waters warmer, and it matter what season it was. A polar winter ocean water would be significantly warmer.
One could make less complicated if instead of mixing the entire ocean, one had only the tropical ocean mixed- again it’s surface waters would still be around 3 C. And one still would have average global temperature being around 3 C – though perhaps, 4 C. And it still would have very dramatic affects on global weather.
And if the average temperature of the entire ocean was warmer, than global temperature would be higher. Or world would be more tropical. And Earth in the past has had much higher average ocean temperature than we have now- and had much higher average temperature {and more of the world had tropical conditions]
Gbaikie
You may have misunderstood me. It’s my opinion that the “hiatus” can be explained by the oceans releasing less heat that usual into the atmosphere. Less heat released means more heat retained, thus greater OHC.
I thought scientists lacked evidence for this idea because the data on OHC was inadequate. David Appell’s link makes me think I might be wrong about this.
— Snape says:
May 9, 2017 at 10:18 PM
Gbaikie
You may have misunderstood me. Its my opinion that the hiatus can be explained by the oceans releasing less heat that usual into the atmosphere. Less heat released means more heat retained, thus greater OHC. —
Definitely- in the long term. And I mean many centuries.
Or it would require the ocean to retain more heat for centuries in order to warm the entire ocean [by a small amount].
But if you are referring retaining more ocean heat in the top 100 meter layer of surface waters- this by itself is something with much shorter term effects [years, decades]
There is no reason not to expect that Earth’s ocean with not warm in next few thousands years- that is, if the interglacial period continues. Or in the interglacial before this one [Eemian**], the average ocean temperature was a few degrees warmer [and sea level was about 5 meters higher]
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
Gbaikie
Very helpful. Let me make sure I understand you.
– during a la nina, for example, the Pacific Ocean releases less heat into the atmosphere and the planet cools a little. This produces a noticeable warming in the top 100 meters of the ocean ( more heat is being retained), but the amount is too small to show up in the ocean as a whole (OHC). Is that right?
“…but the amount is too small to show up in the ocean as a whole (OHC). Is that right?”
Correct.
Adding say, a couple of degrees temperature to top 100 meters is too small- or more precisely, not measurable, yet, to show up in the entire ocean.
[ There is an ongoing effort to measure the oceanic temperature more accurately- called, Argo.
“Argo is an international program that uses profiling floats to observe temperature, salinity, currents, and, recently, bio-optical properties in the Earth’s oceans; it has been operational since the early 2000s.” wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography) ]
The average depth of ocean is ‘3,688 meters” [wiki, Ocean]
100 meter is about 1/36th- if entire surface water of earth were warmed.
And limited to the surface ocean in the tropics- it’s about 1/2 of the area [or say, 1/70th of the ocean waters].
I would say if you mix the ocean, you are increasing global temperature- long term.
Global climate is a long term process and so in terms of global climate, mixing the entire ocean would be a warming mechanism.
Though if you are expecting the Earth to warm up a lot in next few centuries, it could be viewed as a massive cooling mechanism.
One thing I have considered is that volcanic heat added to the ocean [and there is a lot of volcanic activity under the ocean] may be insignificant, but one can also view as another factor involved with mixing the ocean.
And similar to our lack data on global ocean temperature, we have not enough data regarding the volcanic activity on the Ocean floor.
Like they used to say, we know more about the moon than our own oceans.
I’ve always thought that adding GHG’s to the atmosphere is a giant science experiment. Wish I could live to 2100 if only to see what happens.
As you say, the oceans are a great heat sink and that accounts for the the fact that [CO2] lags temperature by 500 to 1,000 years. There is “Hard Science” to back this up but the EPICA researchers (e.g.Thomas F. Stocker) dare not admit it!
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/
It takes hundreds of years to distribute heat throughout the oceans so over shorter periods only the upper layers are warming or cooling and this is being tracked by the ARGO buoys.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/study-finds-argo-buoys-show-no-evidence-of-missing-heat/
My advice is read the scientific papers yourself, stop listening to people who tell you what to think and then make up your own mind.
The public has lost interest in climate catastrophes. You can’t keep crying “Wolf” while nothing shows up but puppies or kittens.
The temperature is increasing. Ice is melting. Sea level is rising. The ocean is gaining heat fast.
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature, Lacis et al, Science (15 October 2010) Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
“The temperature is increasing. Ice is melting. Sea level is rising. The ocean is gaining heat fast.”
Don’t stop there, Davie.
Birds are dying
Planes are falling out of the sky
Coral reefs are ablaze
The last whale just ate the last polar bear
The oceans are boiling
Mountains are melting
The canary-in-the-coal-mine has just filed a worker’s comp lawsuit
The atmospheric temperatures have exceeded 800,000K
Just wait until the “feedback” kicks in….
In the meantime, it has just been reported:
“Dutch officials have opened what is being billed as one of the worlds largest offshore wind farms, with 150 turbines spinning far out in the North Sea.
Over the next 15 years the Gemini windpark, which lies some 85km (53 miles) off the northern coast of the Netherlands, will meet the energy needs of about 1.5 million people.
Gemini would contribute about 13% of the countrys total renewable energy supply and about 25% of its wind power, he added.
It would help reduce emissions of carbon-dioxide emissions, among the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, by 1.25m tonnes, the company says.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/09/full-tilt-giant-offshore-wind-farm-opens-in-north-sea
DR NO that should get rid of a few seagulls,
And, in another bit of good news, I have just read that:
“India ..has unveiled the world’s largest-ever solar farm at Kamuthi, in Tamil Nadu.
It stretches across 2,500 acres, and its 2.5 million solar modules are cleaned each day by a team of robots, themselves solar-powered.
.. India and China are ramping up their installations.
India quadrupled its capacity in the last three years to 12GW (gigawatts) – 1GW can power about 725,000 homes.
This will almost double again this year, with India adding 10GW in 2017; another 20GW is in the pipeline.
China is installing solar panels at a similar clip; its capacity leapt to 77GW last year, up from 43GW.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39844446
Bye bye coal.
On the other hand (same source) –
“Even with costs of solar cells dropping, there are pretty large leaps forward in efficiency needed before solar energy can broadly supplant fossil sources, says Dr Ross Hatton, an associate professor of physical chemistry at Warwick University.”
Like everything else to do with renewables, all that is needed is another 10 years, and just a little more research and ongoing Government subsidies!
Cheers
Wind and solar may be a way to go. Solar, especially, is nice around the house and, if you want to tie up farmland, it is nice in large arrays – very PC.
For long term industrial applications, which are still necessary to our economy, nuclear seems the best option.
In the meantime, fossil fuels will be necessary for years. What will be interesting is if some young chemist can figure out how to convert cellulose to liquid fuel, without exorbitant costs.
Hopefully, with enough CO2 in the atmosphere, the climate will stay warmer and we won’t need to use too much energy on keeping us warm.
It’s UFO that have caused “global warming”. As Dr. Roy’s research indicates, as UFO sightings rose last century, global temperatures rose. The last 20 years, UFO sightings are down, and we have a “pause” in “global warming”.
Hi g*e*r*a*n
You are great!
Massimo
Hi Massimo—
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/do-aliens-cause-global-warming-the-data-say-yes/
Hi g*e*r*a*n,
I missed that thread, I’m not sure what I was doing that time because I usually read this blog on a daily basis.
Anyways, that’s a very nice example of how correlation not always means causation.
These days I’m a little busy, so I can’t intervene in the discussions, but I still read here and there.
I’m very interested in how Tyndall’s experiment should have demonstrated the GHGe.
I also read above that someone finally asked hisself how could the atmosphere stay up there, and I read the idiocy of an answer like “winds”.
Hey, does somebody admit that the atmosphere without the ground temperature does’t exist at all?
Any gas molecule at 0K collapse aiming the single point at the gravitational barycentre of the system.
Have a grat day.
Massimo
Ok, I missed the “e” of “great”.
It’s around midnight and I’m tired this night.
Sorry.
Lewis wrote:
“Hopefully, with enough CO2 in the atmosphere, the climate will stay warmer and we wont need to use too much energy on keeping us warm.”
You’ve written this before. Again you seem not to care about anyone but yourself. What about the 3B people who live in the tropics. For example, Lagos, at 6 degrees N latitude. Do you think people there want or need more warming? Or Ethiopia? Chad? Mexico? India?
Davie, did you send all your savings to Lagos this year? Can you provide the proof?
Are you only thinking of yourself?
I think the pizza delivery guy is at your door….
You’re just trying to divert attention from your lack of concern for how anyone else might be affected by climate change.
Wishing for warming because (you seem to think) it’s good for you is selfish.
Davie, deep breaths!
It’s okay.
I know you don’t understand the science, so let’s try some humor:
“AGW is a hoax, started by the Chinese!”
Feel better now?
Mike Flynn says:
“Like everything else to do with renewables, all that is needed is another 10 years, and just a little more research and ongoing Government subsidies!”
In developing countries, solar is now the cheapest way to add capacity:
World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar Thats Cheaper Than Wind:
Emerging markets are leapfrogging the developed world thanks to cheap panels.
Bloomberg News, 12/14/16
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind
PS: How do you feel about the huge subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry?
at least it will still be in the ground for use when the oil and gas runs out,it will be like CHRISTMAS for the next generation
Yes the long term trend
Ball4
The present overall forcing is 0.7W/M2. It can be derived from direct measurement from orbit, from the rate of change in ocean heat content or from sea level rise. With three independent lines of evidence it is quite a reliable measure of energy uptake by the earth system.
O.7W is producing a long term warming trend of 0.18C/decade.
Both are close to the values projected for the observed change in CO2.
Show me numbers. Your hypothesis is that non-CO2 natural forcings are sufficient to explain the observed energy imbalance and the observed temperature change. You should be able to produce a forcing budget from the available data.
10:22 am EM: “Your hypothesis is that non-CO2 natural forcings are sufficient to explain the observed energy imbalance”
I don’t understand how you got that impression, if you clip my actual words I might see how I could have been clearer. My point is that there are more forcings to consider on the top post TLT graph than just CO2 after your discussion 4:35pm of only CO2.
“Show me numbers.”
The magnitude with current confidence intervals of the 9 or so radiative forcings chart is available from many sources on the internet, choose the one you like.
Your 0.7 W/m^2 imbalance is not given a cite, a time period, nor error bars, it implies much too precise a number.
Stephens 2012 indicates don’t have enough precision in all the energy budget numbers to know with any confidence whether it is even net cooling or net warming over the decade of satellite observations 2000-2010, they report 0.6 W/m^2 +/- 17 !! Fig. B1.
L’Ecuyer 2015, a great survey paper, uses the same time period and seeks to improve on Stephens et. al. energy balance using improved methods to come up with much more precise net absorbed 0.45 W/m^2 +/-0.4 in Fig. 4. So at least that shows confidence in a warming signal and if you eyeball top post chart there was arguably bias to the warm side in that decade around ~0.1C global T departure from 1981 to 2010 avg.
The analysis of Gregory Johnson et al significantly reduced the error bar:
“Here, we update our calculations and find…heat uptake of 0.71 0.10 W m2 from 2005 to 2015….”
Nature (2016)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html
That should be 0.71 +/- 0.10 W/m2.
The Pastafarians explain that piracy causes global temperature change. There is a strong inverse correlation between them. More piracy produces cooler temperatures.
https://www.venganza.org/2008/04/pirates-temperature/
The question then arises what controls cloud cover? This is an area of intense research at the moment, but the available evidence thus far indicates that the global cloud cover is affected by the Suns magnetic activity high solar activity creates conditions for fewer clouds (causing warming), while a low activity promotes more clouds (causing cooling). According to the above figure, the appreciable slowdown of global warming after year 2000 is likely the result of increased low-level clouds. The Suns influence on Earths cloud cover and albedo, although small in absolute terms, is sufficient to cause global temperature variations in the order of 0.7 C, which is the size of climatic change we have observed since 1850. The good news is that solar induced changes in cloud cover are buffered by negative feedbacks within the Earths climate system making it impossible for the global temperature to deviate more than 0.7 C around a central mean.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/ned-nikolov-in-science-new-messages-mean-more-than-the-messengers-names/comment-page-1/
We started our quest by asking What controls the long-term average surface temperature of a planet?. Instead of looking at theoretical explanations, we decided to answer this question by analyzing data from a broad range of planetary environments in the Solar System. Our initial premise was that factors controlling Earths mean global temperature must also be responsible for determining the temperature on other planetary bodies. After an extensive query of the peer-reviewed literature we selected 6 bodies for analysis: Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn) and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Our selection was based on 3 criteria: a) presence of a solid surface; b) availability of high-quality data on near-surface temperature, atmospheric composition, and total air pressure/density preferably from direct observations; and c) representation of a wide range of physical environments defined in terms of solar irradiance and atmospheric properties. Using vetted NASA measurements from numerous published sources, we assembled a dataset of incoming solar radiation, surface temperature, near-surface atmospheric composition, pressure, density, and a few other parameters for the selected planetary bodies. We then applied DA to group the available data into fewer non-dimensional variables (ratios) forming 12 prospective models that describe the average planetary surface temperature as a function of solar radiation reaching the orbit of a planet, atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations, greenhouse-gas partial pressures, total atmospheric pressure and total atmospheric density. Next, we performed a series of regression analyses to find the best mathematical model capable of describing the non-dimensional data. One non-linear model outperformed the rest by a wide margin. This model describes the atmospheric greenhouse effect only as a function of total atmospheric pressure. In our study, we call the Greenhouse Effect an Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) quantified as a ratio of the planets actual surface temperature (Ts) to a temperature that the planet would have in the absence of atmosphere (Tna). ATE = Ts/Tna. The no-atmosphere temperature, Tna, depends on solar irradiance and is computed from the physical model of Volokin and ReLlez (2014). The figure below illustrates the final pressure-temperature relationship emerging from the data and its success in reproducing the relative atmospheric thermal effects of the 6 planetary bodies.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/ate-v-p.png?w=614
Those models can’t right, because they can’t explain this observation:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Which observation are your referring too? In the article it states…
This is more of a “thought experiment” than an observable state
If we assume no change in albedo from changes in cloud cover does it reflect reality? Just curious, when I have visited these places (just south of equator), it was always a bit cooler on cloudy days.
The observations represented by the big graph near the top of the page…. This same graph appears throughout the scientific literature.
The term “thought experiment” does not refer to these data or the graph, but to a theoretical measurement of the GHE’s warming of 33 C.
Thanks David, could you explain how that graph would invalidate the models that Ren is referring to? If cloud cover reduces sunlight to the earth surface and also reduces infrared leaving the earth it still would be possible that the result is a lower surface temperature even with less infrared leaving. Thus on days with partial cloud cover, it is cooler for me when the sun is blocked by clouds versus in direct sunlight. I am really just trying to understand the dynamic of that graph that would be invalidated by Ren’s comment. In my experience, clouds in day meant for a cooler day and in the evening slightly warmer, but what is the overall net affect?
Arctic Sea Ice Extent
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_monthly-05_en.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
Ren , I think the decline has finally started in global temperatures. What do you think?
You’ve said this many times before. For instance
Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way).
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
See what is happening on the east side of Greenland. Large cooling in Europe.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r07_Greenland_Sea_ts_4km.png
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r03_East_Siberian_Sea_ts_4km.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_toz_nh_f00.png
Norman,
You wrote –
Mike Flynn
“You ask for evidence of a GHE. Have you looked at Hottels empirical study of H2O and CO2 and found there emissivity based upon path length and partial pressure of the gas involved?”
You’re just making stuff up now,
I don’t bother asking for evidence of something that doesn’t exist. You cannot even provide a GHE hypothesis which refers to CO2.
The reason you cannot find anybody silly enough to propose a GHE hypothesis in testable scientific terms, is that it would have to include something to the effect that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the Earth’s surface causes the thermometer to become hotter!
If a testable GHE hypothesis existed, don’t you think some GHE supporter might have triumphantly waved it in my face by now? I’m hardly the most popular commenter with the GHE believers, am I?
Raising the temperature of a thermometer requires an increase in heat, however defined. Go for it. Multiply some heat by using CO2. Record your reproducible results, along with your experimental setup. Tyndall demonstrated precisely the opposite, but don’t let that stop you. Tyndall was wrong about the meteoric origin of the Sun’s heat, wasn’t he?
Cheers.
“he reason you cannot find anybody silly enough to propose a GHE hypothesis in testable scientific terms, is that it would have to include something to the effect that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the Earths surface causes the thermometer to become hotter!”
ok,ok,ok, I will take the bait (for the umpteenth time mind you):
(1) put yourself and your thermometer on the far side of the moon.
(2) pretty cold yes?
(3) imagine that we now flood the moon with a co2 atmosphere
(4) do you get colder, stay the same, or get warmer?
Alternatively,
go outside on a clear calm dry night here on Earth
getting cold yes?
What happens if you could inject more co2 into the atmosphere above your head?
Would the rate of cooling drop, stay the same or reverse?
What would happen if we injected a non radiative active gas instead of co2?
In both situations, it would depend on the temperature of the CO2 added to the system. Bringing enough heat energy into a system would raise temperatures. Bringing CO2 that is colder than ambient would tend to lower temperatures.
IOW, your “tests” are inconclusive and meaningless, just like the AGW hoax.
The test above implicitly includes rough balance or waiting long enough that the balance is reached.
And, as I explicitly stated, the tests are inconclusive and meaningless.
You just asserted.
Dr No,
For the umpteenth time, rather than ask silly questions, can you produce a testable GHE hypothesis?
In this respect, climatology bears a close resemblance to parapsychology, also called a science by its supporters. Claims, supposed evidence – and just like climatology, never ending excuses and justifications to avoid the scientific scrutiny that accompanies experimental results.
As Feynman famously said of ESP “experiments” –
“And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?”
But to answer your Foolish questions (yes, I know, you’re not seeking knowledge, just a “gotcha”) –
The far side of the Moon is colder than -150 C. Unless you are using imaginary climatological CO2, any CO2 will freeze. No heating at all. Temperature will remain what it was.
Second question, just as silly.
As you point out, at night the surface cools. No heating to be found. Slowing the rate of cooling still leads to – cooling! Throwing a blanket over the thermometer at night will still result in – cooling!
Your furious and febrile attempts to avoid providing an essential part of the scientific process – an hypothesis – demonstrate the intellectual paucity of your ideas.
No GHE. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun, and a thermometer on the Earth’s surface, does not cause the thermometer to get hotter.
The Earth has cooled. It continues to do so. Ask any competent geophysicist to explain why – I’m assuming you have a grasp of basic high school physics, and the laws of thermodynamics.
Cheers.
This is a red herring from your side. The molten core cools down at some speed, although Lord Kelvin was wrong on the timetable because he didn’t know about radioactivity. This is not related to our topic.
This internal cooling has nothing to do with weather and climate, which are 99.9% ran by the sun.
When I say “ran by the sun”, I don’t mean the surface of the Earth had no effect – the oceans, atmosphere and life all have an effect on climate.
What you claim is that CO2 does not have an effect called GHE, and of course you are right that the effect of CO2 is not similar to what happens in a greenhouse. As youngster, I was mislead as many others in thinking that CO2 causes something similar to what glass walls do. I was wrong. But that has little to do with how so called greenhouse gases work in atmosphere. Don’t play a word game.
Barry already mentioned equilibrium. No answer from you.
Wert,
As you rightly say, the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with greenhouses.
As a matter of fact, nobody can actually state what it is, in any consistent form.
The confusion is compounded by referring to greenhouse gases. Once again, no relation to greenhouses.
Maybe you can produce a testable hypothesis, specifying the the mechanism by which CO2 causes thermometers to become hotter? At least you realise that neither greenhouse gases nor the greenhouse effect have anything to do with greenhouses.
I’m not sure why you think I need to answer questions which nobody has asked me. Barry may, indeed, have mentioned equilibrium. GHE positively refuse to acknowledge that the Earth’s surface has cooled, because this demonstrates that the surface has emitted more energy than it has received from all sources. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have cooled, would it? No equilibrium to be seen!
Still no GHE, even if you can think of something different to call it. The CO2 thermometer heating effect, possibly?
Cheers.
wert, MikeF is just toying with you. He showed the other day that he grasps the GHE quite well:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Add time to the equation and answer what the temperature is at equilibrium.
Add CO2 (of any temperature) to an atmosphere and the atmosphere warms, which is why the surface of the Earth is warmer after 4 hours of night than the surface of the moon 4 hours after total darkness (lunar surface temperature drops by about 200C during an eclipse). The Earth’s atmosphere slows the rate at which infrared radiation escapes.
“Add CO2 (of any temperature) to an atmosphere and the atmosphere warms…”
See, Warmists believe CO2 is a “heat source”.
(They just won’t admit it!)
Add a blanket to your body and the skin warms. Is the blanket a heat source?
No, the chemical processes in your body is the heat source. The blanket merely slows down the rate at which heat escapes the air adjacent to your skin.
I don’t consider CO2 a heat source. It is part of the radiative properties of the atmosphere that slows the rate at which infrared radiation escapes from the surface to space. But one could, semantically, describe it as a source of heat. Just a few posts above you yourself gave it a thermal property (of coldness). Atmospheric CO2 is not at absolute zero, so it is a thermally emitting gas. But it is not the heat engine – that’s the sun.
barry rambles: “I dont consider CO2 a heat source.”
barry contradicts his own rambling: “But one could, semantically, describe it as a source of heat.”
barry rambles: Just a few posts above you yourself gave it a thermal property (of coldness). Atmospheric CO2 is not at absolute zero, so it is a thermally emitting gas. But it is not the heat engine thats the sun.
barry, a “thermodynamic heat source” brings new heat energy into a system. A mass warmed by heat energy already in the system is NOT a “heat source”.
Thermodynamics is hard for many folks to understand.
– Dr No says:
May 9, 2017 at 7:16 PM
he reason you cannot find anybody silly enough to propose a GHE hypothesis in testable scientific terms, is that it would have to include something to the effect that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the Earths surface causes the thermometer to become hotter!
ok,ok,ok, I will take the bait (for the umpteenth time mind you):
(1) put yourself and your thermometer on the far side of the moon.
(2) pretty cold yes?-
No.
It not any colder [or hotter] than near side of the Moon.
Or the rotates relative to the sun, and does not rotate relative to Earth [it’s tidally locked with Earth].
-(3) imagine that we now flood the moon with a co2 atmosphere
(4) do you get colder, stay the same, or get warmer?-
If flood the Moon with CO2, the CO2 will freeze out at the lunar polar region [where surface temperature can be 50 K].
But how many trillions of tonnes of CO2 do you want to use?
Also if use say few billion tonnes of nitrogen, it will not freeze out at the poles- because at a low pressure, N2 is still a gas at 50 K. Same is true of O2 gas.
A few billion tonnes of O2 or N2 would have slight warming effect- it will warm the night and polar region a bit. A one might detectable wind on the Moon. And more N2 or O2 will definitely cause there to be wind and cause atmosphere to have dust in it. One probably need somewhere around trillion tonnes to get the kind of dusty conditions, one gets on Mars. [Some have determined that the Mars dust can cause some warming. And immediate result of CO2 gas becoming CO2 ice will add heat- just as it does on Mars.]
Mike Flynn
No I am not making stuff up.
Here is a link for you.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
I do think you are wrong when you state “The reason you cannot find anybody silly enough to propose a GHE hypothesis in testable scientific terms, is that it would have to include something to the effect that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the Earths surface causes the thermometer to become hotter!”
Since you do not do well with the concept of average and seem to be totally focused on peak temperatures you would have to run your idea on a planet that only had one side continuously facing the Sun (like the Moon has the same side facing Earth).
Norman,
You said that I asked for evidence of the GHE. I have never asked for evidence of the GHE – the GHE does not exist. Your claim is based on nothing at all except your imagining. Providing a link to a graph relating to emittance of gases is just nonsensical. Completely irrelevant.
You might like to indicate how your link relates to the ability of CO2 to make thermometers hotter, given a constant heat source. GHE supporters go to all sorts of lengths to avoid admitting that a testable GHE hypothesis does not exist!
If you claim that the GHE hypothesis relates to average temperature rise, it would help if you could provide a copy of the GHE hypothesis, so that others may establish this for themselves.
I’m not running any idea. I’m just saying that no GHE supporter can actually provide a copy of the GHE hypothesis, which obviously supports my contention that a testable GHE hypothesis does not exist.
Maybe you could just admit that you have never actually seen a testable GHE hypothesis, and just had faith that it must exist. Or not, and keep believing in the non-existent!
Cheers.
Cheers.
Evidence of the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
4 times!
Pseudoscience is addicting.
‘Im just saying that no GHE supporter can actually provide a copy of the GHE hypothesis’
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
Done. Any more questions?
I assume you mean ‘explained to my satisfaction’. The theory has been explained many times successfully to many people: such as here.
I think the problem lies not with the theory, but with you.
The problem lies with the fact that the “theory” has long been debunked.
But, no one expects you to understand that, Nate.
Lame insults. The last refuge of someone with no answers.
Exactly.
Sorry Mike Flynn
I am unable to get my post to go through. Not sure what is offending the site I do not have any links in it.
If you have two planets at the same distance from the Sun and both have a day the same length as their year. One with a CO2 atmosphere and one without, the thermometer on the planet with the CO2 would be at a higher temperature. The surface would warm the CO2 via a*b*s*o*b*t*i*o*n.
Norman,
And if the surface warms the atmosphere, it has to provide heat. It loses energy. The surface cools as a result.
Precisely what happens on Earth at night!
Maybe you have an alternative explanation – cold rays from outer space, perhaps? Or a negative greenhouse effect of some sort?
Cheers.
This we agree on. The surface cools at night, if the day-time temperature has been locally high enough and the atmosphere is clear enough. If not, the cooling is minimal. Examples of non-cooling can be found a lot in the Arctic night, where temperatures depend heavily on water vapour and water droplets in air. Air reaches dew point and refuses to cool down. Or clouds shield from the cold background sky.
Now you add CO2 to the atmosphere, and the surface then radiates little less to space and warms more the CO2, which then thermalizes the energy.
Now when you seem to deny that this can result in warmer air temperature at 2 meters, I just wonder how your logic goes. I mean, Spencer says there is some warming, but it appears you call it fairy tales. Am I right?
I’m just wondering what on earth makes you so certain you understand the processes of energy transfer so well when there is no expert knowledge in your comments. More insults instead.
Wert,
Still no testable GHE hypothesis.
Minimal cooling is still cooling – otherwise it would be called heating.
I’m not sure what you mean about warmer temperatures at 2 meters – warmer than what? Low level inversions result in warmer air at 2m than at the surface. This has precisely nothing to do with the non-existent GHE hypothesis, by definition.
No you’re not right. Heat increases the temperature of thermometers – CO2 neither provides, enhances, or multiplies heat. In the absence of a testable GHE hypothesis, maybe another reason for historically recent higher recorded temperatures needs to be sought.
I can think of at least three reasons which don’t involve a GHE.
If you feel insulted by inconvenient facts, you have my condolences. No sympathy, however. It’s your choice to feel insulted.
Cheers.
Evidence of the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Sheeesh Davie, I count three times you’ve thrown out this link.
And, you believe it is evidence of the GHE.
Of course, in your pseudoscience, EVERYTHING is evidence of the GHE!
mike, want a testable hypothesis? Ok heres one. Put an earth size planet with only a nitrogen atmosphere, in Earths orbit. What will its temperature be?
Hypothesis: that you, mike flynn, will not be able to demonstrate that the surface temp of said planet will be > 260 K.
In other words, without ghe, said planet will have no way to warm beyond a simple stephan boltzmann calc.
Roy has discussed calc here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/
“In other words, without ghe, said planet will have no way to warm beyond a simple stephan boltzmann calc.”
But, Nate believes that CO2 can warm above the S/B temp!
Welcome to pseudoscience.
Again no science in your answer. Just repetitive insults. You remind me of middle school playground bullies….
Playground bullies are often quite advanced, while this one is just assertive…
It is past 1300 comments here and reloading the page is too slow. I’m not complaining though, I’ll just note that there is no point explaining greenhouse ‘theory’ to people who assert with stressfully CO2 is not a ‘heat source’. This is pre-school stuff.
I maintain my rather lukewarmist approach: there is not case for mitigation, but there must be a small initial CO2 warming effect. What the feedbacks make of it is rather difficult to say if you ask me. No need to ask me, if you don’t want.
That the GHE was named GHE is unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that the backradiation was taken as a central concept when you could well talk about just outgoing long-wave IR and how it reaches atmospheric window or not.
Mike Flynn
I have already posted evidence that the surface does not have to cool at night. I think you ignore evidence that does not fit with you view of reality. So why do you ask for it?
On really cloudy nights the night temperature may not drop at all (which I have provided you with links on other threads). I think your hero Feynman would accept empirical data as evidence. You do not.
Why does not the surface temperature drop some cloudy nights? What are the clouds doing? Why can instruments measure an increase in downwelling IR that matches upwelling IR on cloudy nights and the temperature does not drop. What is going on here to cause this observed effect. A GHE explains it quite well, how do you explain this observed reality?
Norman, you are trying to use localized evidence (cloudy nights) to apply to the atmosphere as a whole. “Pseudoscience” allows such nonsense. “Science” does not.
The atmosphere, considered as a system, moves heat energy to space. It does NOT “trap heat”. It does NOT heat the surface.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “The atmosphere, considered as a system, moves heat energy to space. It does NOT trap heat. It does NOT heat the surface”
On another post you asked me how much energy the surface of the Earth emits total vs the atmosphere.
If you just go by the meter^2 value (a little smaller number).
The Earth’s surface averages an emission of 398 W/m^2. Over the same meter at the TOA the measured value of energy leaving the Earth is 240 W/m^2.
It is not possible for the atmosphere to be moving more energy to space than the surface is emitting. So what is happening to this energy? First Law says it does not just vanish it is somewhere, it is being directed back to the surface making the surface considerably warmer than it would be with no atmosphere.
The warmer is a relative state, a comparison between different conditions. If the Earth had no atmosphere its average temperature would be much lower. Do you agree with this statement? That means the atmosphere warms the surface since the surface is at a higher temperature with and atmosphere than without. Now the question is why does the atmosphere cause a warmer surface? Kristian has ideas I disagree with but he still accepts an atmosphere creates a warmer surface than in a condition without.
Too much purposeless rambling here, Norm.
Maybe if you could get it down to just one question, with 50 words or less?
Condensin Norman:
“The Earths surface averages an emission of 398 W/m^2. Over the same meter at the TOA the measured value of energy leaving the Earth is 240 W/m^2….So what is happening to this energy”
There would appear to be something amiss with how the “measurements” are taken, huh Davie?
wert states: “Now you add CO2 to the atmosphere, and the surface then radiates little less to space and warms more the CO2, which then thermalizes the energy.”
wert, you left out the next step—“and the CO2 then radiates more heat energy to space”.
CO2 does NOT “trap heat”. It re-emits as it absorbs.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “wert, you left out the next stepand the CO2 then radiates more heat energy to space.”
No it does not. Do you accept empirical data or is that pseudoscience to you? The TOA emission is much less than the surface emission. CO2 radiates less heat space than the surface would if no CO2 were present.
YOU: “CO2 does NOT trap heat. It re-emits as it absorbs.”
Yes but in what direction? wert is also correct, it also thermalizes surrounding N2 and O2 which in turn collide with CO2 causing it to emit. But the question is what direction does the energy re-emit?
Norm, you are a pseudoscience addict. You refuse to see “truth”. This is just one more example.
You quote me, but then you (purposely) mis-interpret my words. Your “less” is comparing surface to TOA. My “more” is comparing “warmed” CO2 to “cooler” CO2. You are trying to confuse my words, as always.
You, like all pseudoscience addicts, do not seek truth. If you did, you would be curious about the UAH global chart at the very top of this thread. You would notice the two big El Nino events. You would see the global anomalies rise quickly, then fall quickly. The rise was caused by all the heat energy being released form the Pacific Ocean.
But, what caused the rapid fall, after the peak? No pseudoscience addict wants to talk about the rapid drop. The rapid drop shows that the atmosphere does NOT “trap heat”.
Oh, I know you have some amusing spin to explain the rapid drop. That’s what you do.
g*e*r*a*n
The graph above states nothing about the GHE. If you were talking about an enhanced GHE caused by mankind’s emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel burning you might have a point.
Are you claiming there is NO GHE keeping the Earth’s surface warmer than its effective temperature?
g*e*r*a*n
It is most obvious why you are scientifically illiterate. You must have ADD as you can’t read a post longer than 50 words. Since you have extreme problems paying attention to anything but a quick bite it is obvious you lack the ability to read a science textbook and become educated.
Well Norm, I see you chose to dodge the question: “But, what caused the rapid fall, after the peak?”
I was hoping for some of your rambling, hilarious pseudoscience trying to explain why the atmosphere cannot “trap” the El Nino heat energy.
But, you proved me right again.
“No pseudoscience addict wants to talk about the rapid drop.”
Well it can re-emit, but how soon, at to what direction and at what wavelength? This is going nowhere, it is like alt.religion.creationism without an FAQ.
Mike, ok you agree that the atmosphere warms. If so then the surface, will see a warm atmosphere rather than the cold of space, and must lose less heat by radiation. Correct?
Okay for all posters, the blog does not like the word
a-b-s-o-r-p-t-i-o-n
Also it does not like
H-a-d-C-R-U-t-4
N-S-I-D-C
NOAA?
NOAA seems OK…. noaa.gov ?
OK…. Yet links to noaa.ov often require translation to tinyurl.com….
And to other websites. Dunno what the issue is with links, but at least we have a workaround for them.
The thermometer temperature would keep going up with more CO2 until a saturation point was reached.
Round and round and round we go, and still no testable GHE hypothesis to be found.
Just like ESP and parapsychology!
Not to mention astrology. Anyone for climatology?
Cheers.
Here’s your testable hypothesis, Mike:
– The Earth and the Moon are equidistant from the Sun, at 1AU, which means they receive equal amounts of solar radiation each year.
– However, the Earth has a massive atmosphere resting on top of its global surface, while the Moon does not.
The claim is then, based on the two facts above:
# The (global, annual) AVERAGE T_sfc of the Earth will be significantly HIGHER than the (global, annual) average T_sfc of the Moon.
And guess what, Mike? This hypothesis has been tested. And what was found? The average T_sfc of the Earth IS significantly higher than the average T_sfc of the Moon. In fact, it is 92 Kelvin higher! 289K (Earth) vs. 197K (Moon).
And this is in spite of the fact that Earth’s atmosphere actually deprives our planet’s solid/liquid surface of almost 80% of its potential solar heat input as compared to the Moon.*
*
Global/annual average solar heat input (net SW) to the surface of the Earth:
340 W/m^2 – 100 W/m^2 – 75 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
Global/annual average solar heat input (net SW) to the surface of the Moon:
340 W/m^2 – 44 W/m^2 = 296 W/m^2
Excellent Kristian.
But guess what? It is like “casting pearls before swine”.
You and I are wasting our time trying to educate neanderthals.
Kristian, you omit the fact that 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by water. And much of the 70% is deep ocean.
You might want to look up “heat capacity”.
g*e*r*a*n says, May 10, 2017 at 6:35 AM:
And?
“Heat capacity”. Yes. OK. Then what?
Then, revise your attempt to explain Earth’s temp warmer than Moon as caused by the atmosphere. Earth being warmer is caused by the amazing “heat trapping” capability of WATER.
g*e*r*a*n says, May 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM:
So WATER traps heat, but not AIR?
The ocean, whatever its heat capacity, can only rid itself of its energy through its surface. So you think that, if there were no atmosphere resting on top of the ocean surface, the Earth’s average global T_sfc would STILL be 289K? That is, with a liquid global ocean surface? Because of water’s “amazing “heat trapping” capability”?
I think YOU’RE the one who needs to revise your thought process here, g*e*r*a*n.
Kristian–I thought you would like my phraseology—“heat trapping” capability of WATER”.
☺
Kristian,
I’m not sure what your supposed hypothesis is.
What is the hypothesis you claim to be testing?
Are you trying to say that the Earth’s atmosphere is causing the Earth hotter each year?
This appears to be the claim of the GHE supporters, but they cannot provide a testable GHE hypothesis.
There are a couple of problems with your assumptions. The first is that nobody at all has any idea how much heat escapes from the core into the lithosphere, aquasphere and atmosphere. Another is that the Moon has lost far more internal heat than the Earth proportionally, given its greater surface/volume ratio.
As to your pointless power calculations, nobody has yet managed to measure the total radiation intercepted by the Earth at any point in time. Nor the total emitted at a similar point in time.
Just as a matter of interest, ice emits a minimum of 300 W/m^2. One might think that 10 m^2 of ice, emitting some 3000 watts, would be sufficient to warm at least a thimble full of water. Unfortunately, no.
You still haven’t managed to state a testable GHE hypothesis. You can’t even say what this supposed GHE is supposed to do, let alone propose a non-magical method by which this unstated state might be presumed to come about.
It’s complete nonsense, if in some fashion you are trying to implicitly claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface, raises the temperature of the thermometer. If you are making some other claim, it needs to be specified, and supplied in scientific testable form.
And this you cannot do.
Cheers.
It’s amazing how much tosh the ignorant can generate.
Mike Flynn says, May 10, 2017 at 7:00 AM:
Uhm, it’s right there for you to read. You want it repeated? Here goes:
– The Earth and the Moon are equidistant from the Sun, at 1AU, which means they receive equal amounts of solar radiation each year.
– However, the Earth has a massive atmosphere resting on top of its global surface, while the Moon does not.
The claim is then, based on the two facts above:
# The (global, annual) AVERAGE T_sfc of the Earth will be significantly HIGHER than the (global, annual) average T_sfc of the Moon.
I’m not trying to say anything. I’m POINTING OUT to you that the Moon – WITHOUT an atmosphere, but with MORE heat in from the Sun – has an average T_sfc that is 92K LOWER than the average T_sfc of the Earth – WITH an atmosphere, but with LESS heat in from the Sun.
Are you saying geothermal heat is what makes Earth’s global surface so much warmer on average than the Moon’s? If so, any empirical evidence to back it up?
Yes, I have. It’s stated just above (for the second time). And it’s tested.
Yes, I can. And I have. Twice. It is supposed to make Earth’s T_sfc higher on average than the lunar T_sfc.
I haven’t mentioned CO2 at all. You have.
The claim is made (above), specified, and tested scientifically (through observation).
Would not Mars and Phobos be a better test since Mars does not have an ocean? It would remove the water argument as a heat sink for the Earth/moon comparison. Does anyone know the average temperatures for these?
–The claim is then, based on the two facts above:
# The (global, annual) AVERAGE T_sfc of the Earth will be significantly HIGHER than the (global, annual) average T_sfc of the Moon.–
But there are more differences between the Moon and Earth then the Earth has atmosphere and Moon doesn’t.
I would say a large difference is the rotational rate of the Moon as compared to the Earth.
And this difference is “amplified” by the nature of the lunar surface.
That is that the Moon is completely covered by a fine powdery layer of dust. And this fluffy dust in a vacuum make the lunar surface have a very high insulative property.
Or if the the Moon were bare rock, it would have a higher average temperature, even if the rotational rate remained the same.
Plus the Earth is mostly covered by a substance which absorbs the energy of sunlight very well- ocean water.
I propose one could mimic the effect of ocean water on the Moon.
It’s not practical [or vaguely cheap].
But can describe it very quickly. Cover the Moon with solid spheres of copper. Say, zillions of 2 meter diameter spheres.
Silver sphere or diamond spheres might also work, but copper should be cheaper and might work better.
Any metal conducts heat pretty good [unlike rock] and copper per volume has high heat capacity. It’s 0.39 kJ/(kg K)
And is quite dense: 8.96 g per cubic cm.
Water heat capacity is 4.184 kJ/(kg K) but has comparatively low mass: 1 g per cubic cm.
Or in terms of volume, copper heat capacity vs water is
8.96 times 0.39, which is 3.49 per cubic cm.
Copper doesn’t have as much per volume heat capacity as water, but it’s close enough.
But main thing is it’s simple to describe.
Evidence of the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Evidence Davie does not understand the pseudoscience he advocates:
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Lets be more clear what is happening. The thermometer is normally not in the sunshine. Put Co2 between sun and earth surface. I claim the air temp will be raised. Now put the thermometer in contact with the air to measure.
‘No one knows how much heat escapes from corr to lithosphere yada yada’
Total BS. That is well measured. And it is tiny, < < 1 w/m^2
To bad the GHE is the result of the environment /climate which makes your argument of little use.
Evidence of the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Davie, such a graph is NOT evidence of the GHE!
It’s like saying because someone in Peru turns on a blue light, you can receive music on your AM radio!
Sweden returned to winter.
https://twitter.com/svenskakyrkan/status/861872235178586113/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftonbladet.se%2Fnyheter%2Fa%2FGW8OB%2Ftokvadret-tromb-sno-och-rekordkall-natt
In Poland frost destroyed 90% cherries.
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/5-day/GFS-025deg_EURO-LC_T2_min_5-day.png
Another low from the north is approaching the Great Lakes.
Mike, you seem to have presented your own testable hypothesis for the “greenhouse effect” numerous times in this thread. It comes in various slightly different forms like:
“… that a thermometers temperature can be raised by placing CO2 between it and a heat source?”
or
“… the ability of CO2 to make thermometers hotter, given a constant heat source.”
1). Since you categorically state this is impossible, you have already told yourself there can be no answer. This is quite unscientific.
2) No matter how many experiments you may have seen where CO2 did not warm a thermometer, it only takes 1 experiment where CO2 *does* make the thermometer warmer to invalidate your conclusion. That is how science works.
3) There was an example given — the earth. You ignored it.
4) there are numerous other examples of a material that absorbs IR causing a heated object to get warmer than without the IR blocking material. You choose to ignore these.
5) There are clear theoretical derivations consistent with all the laws of thermodynamics that show that the GHE should work. You ignore these.
************************************
Until you abandon your a priori assumption that the GHE is impossible, there is really no chance that you will consider the massive evidence that, yes, CO2 can and does cause thermometers on the earths surface to be warmer than they would be with no CO2.
Tim’s “a priori assumption”: “CO2 can and does cause thermometers on the earths surface to be warmer than they would be with no CO2.”
Evidence:
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
But Davie, upthread you implied that no Warmists believed CO2 was a “heat source”. Now, you present your “evidence” that CO2 is a “heat source”.
See what pseudoscience does to your mind?
So true, g*e*r*a*n. This is exactly the point that they cannot seem to understand and/or get themselves to admit to …
They ferociously maintain that they absolutely do NOT in any way claim the atmosphere (or, really, the atmospheric “back radiation”) causes the gl avg T_sfc to rise by directly heating the surface, when this is in fact EXACTLY what they do; for the most part implicitly (like Appell just above), but at times even explicitly. Which is rather astonishing to behold, how they just REFUSE to see it themselves …
Even Folkerts here, who understands perfectly well why this simply physically cannot be, pretends that this is merely some kind of semantic issue.
Kristian, why do you ferociously maintain “when this is in fact EXACTLY what they do”?
You know perfectly well that no one [who understand thermodynamics and who is speaking carefully] says that the atmosphere is directly heating (supplying net thermal energy = Q) the surface? Yet you continue to beat this dead horse.
So … please show even one example of someone [who understand thermodynamics and who is speaking carefully] who “claim[s] the atmosphere (or, really, the atmospheric back radiation) causes the gl avg T_sfc to rise by directly heating the surface.”
Or admit that this is NOT ‘exactly what we do’.
Kristian – yes, the surface is directed heated by the energy of downwelling infrared radiation.
Tim demands: “So please show even one example of someone [who understand thermodynamics and who is speaking carefully] who claim[s] the atmosphere (or, really, the atmospheric back radiation) causes the gl avg T_sfc to rise by directly heating the surface.
Tim, there are NOT ANY pseudoscientists that “understand thermodynamics”.
Case in point, you keep claiming that you are not really claiming that CO2 is not a “heat source”. But, the “climate forcing” you keep claiming is in units of…wait for it…WATTS/m^2!!!
David says : “the surface is directed heated by the energy of downwelling infrared radiation”
David! Don’t say that!
The surface is directly ‘receiving’ energy from downwelling infrared radiation (ie it absorbs photon from the atmosphere).
The surface is even directly ‘warmed’ by downwelling infrared radiation (ie it is warmer due to the presence of the atmospheric radiation).
But the atmosphere is not directly ‘heated’ by downwelling infrared radiation (ie there is not a net Q of thermal IR from the atmosphere to the surface).
********************************
I know this might sound pedantic, but it such situations it is important. There is no reason to be sloppy when the whole discussion hinges on careful communication. In some cases I would let something like this slide in an informal discussion. But not when we are specifically discussing the words.
Alas — you are proving Kristian right!
Tim Folkerts says, May 10, 2017 at 11:18 AM:
Because it is, Tim. You will of course CLAIM it’s not really heat. But you still TREAT it as an additional incoming heat flux and expect it to produce a direct effect as if it were. Completely equivalent to the incoming solar heat flux. It doesn’t work that way.
It’s not enough to just NOT call it “heat” and then you’re somehow off the hook.
I’ve asked you this question several times, Tim:
How does the Earth gl surface get from an avg T of 232K (max at solar equilibrium) to the ‘observed’ 289K according to your “back radiation” explanation? What is it specifically that lifts Earth’s T_sfc those final 57K? Directly and all by itself? What macroscopic flux (W/m^2) of incoming energy – thermodynamically independent and effective – is it that increases the sfc U and thus its T in absolute terms?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
“Tim, there are NOT ANY pseudoscientists that understand thermodynamics.”
That is true pretty much by definition. Pseudoscientists are defined as people who don’t understand and/or accept standard science. But there are plenty of *scientist* (including plenty of climate scientists) who DO understand thermodynamics.
“you keep claiming that you are not really claiming that CO2 is not a heat source. But, the climate forcing you keep claiming is in units ofwait for itWATTS/m^2!!!”
And … ?
Surely you know that just because two things have the same units does not mean they are the same thing. Kinetic energy, potential energy, work, heat, and even TORQUE all have the units of N*m. But they are not remotely the same thing. Heck, I could measure a bulldozer pushing a pile of dirt in W/m^2, but that doesn’t make it heat.
Tim tries to back away from AGW nonsense: “Heck, I could measure a bulldozer pushing a pile of dirt in W/m^2, but that doesnt make it heat.”
Okay Tim, you need to explain that to the Warmists. They believe that their “climate forcing” nonsense will heat the planet.
“Tim tries to back away from AGW nonsense … ”
Yes! I try to stay back from ALL nonsense!
There is certainly all sorts of nonsense promoted by by all sorts people on all sorts of topics related to global warming. (Hence 100’s of posts on threads like this!)
My experience has been that the worst (and loudest) thermodynamic nonsense comes from people questioning the “greenhouse effect” (eg that materials that allow sunlight in but don’t allow IR out can impact the temperature of a surface). So this is where I tend to focus.
“They believe that their climate forcing nonsense will heat the planet.”
No. They believe that their climate forcing nonsense will ‘warm’ the planet (if they are being careful about the definition of ‘heat’ = Q = net thermal energy transfer).
Tim continues to back away: “No. They believe that their climate forcing nonsense will warm the planet…”
Tim, they say “heat the planet”, you say “warm the planet”. When does “warming” not become “heating”.
Tim is lost in his pseudoscience again.
“What … is it that increases the sfc U and thus its T in absolute terms?
You know the answer, Kristian. And you know there are two (both perfectly acceptable) ways to look at this.
1) You prefer a classical, macroscopic, 19th century model for thermodynamics. In this model, there is one inward net flow to the surface from the sun, Q_in, and one net outward flow from the surface, Q_out. In this view Q_out gets reduced by the presence of the warm atmosphere, leading to a net gain in energy and a rise in temperature.
2) Others prefer a quantum, microscopic, 20th century model for thermodynamics (also called statistical mechanics). In this model, there is inward net flow to the surface from the sun, E_in, and one net outward flow from the surface, E_out. There is also a possible second E_in_2 from the atmosphere (ie photons emitted by the atmosphere and absorbed by the surface).
Both views lead to exactly the same equations and exactly the same answers. Its fine to PREFER one over the other, but it is not fine to call the other one incorrect. (If anything, the modern view is preferable. Classical 19th century thermodynamics can be derived from 20th century statistical mechanics, but statistical mechanics cannot be derived from classical thermodynamics.)
Tim, I didn’t say the atmosphere is directly heated, I wrote the surface is.
I don’t buy this forced distinction between “heating” and “warming” — I see it as a semantic argument.
That would be hilarious!
Davie and Tim debate when “warming” becomes “heating”.
Pseudoscience at its best.
David,
Informally I have no problem just trying to understand what people intend when they say “heat” or “warm” or “heat flow” or any number of similar words in discussions like this. It is usually pretty easy to figure out what people mean.
But in formal discussions of classical thermodynamics, “heat” has a very specific meaning and is associated with the letter Q. For example, when a piston is compressed, the gas inside warms (T increases) but it was definitely not heated (Q=0). Rather work (W) was done to change the internal energy (U). In classical thermodynamics, Q always and only goes from from warmer objects to cooler objects. In this formalism, there can be no heat (no Q) from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.
Tim,
I’ll respond by replying to a recent comment of yours from upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246194
Tim Folkerts says, May 9, 2017 at 9:43 AM:
Yes, but HOW did it “cause” it? That is the question.
Yes, but HOW did it “cause” it? That is the question.
Lets start a drinking game, take a shot every time ger*an says ‘pseudoscience’
I’m always ready for a drinking game.
G*,
At this point, you basically have two choices.
1) Learn the science well enough to decide for yourself what the theories conclude and what the experiments show. (In particular regarding CO2 gas, IR light, and heat).
2) Lacking that, you must decide whom you trust. On the one hand are (all modern engineering and physics textbooks on thermodynamics + climate scientist + astrophysicists + many people in this discussion). On the other hand are (several people in this discussion + a few others around the internet).
If your position is “I don’t understand the physics, but I trust the few random people around the internet who say CO2 can’t warm the planet” — well, that is your choice. But be upfront about your position. Be upfront that you haven’t studied any advanced physics and that you are just espousing your own opinions.
(This is further evidenced by your next comment where you demonstrate a terribly jumbled understanding of “heat” and of the paper that was linked.)
Tim, lost in your pseudoscience, you have resorted to Norm-like rambling.
Maybe, if you have only one question, in 50 words or less, I can help you.
The atmospheric center of mass assumption in step 2 above also appears to be applicable to Titan, the closest Earth analog with a thick atmosphere in our solar system. For Titan, the surface temperature is 94K, equilibrium temperature with the Sun is 82K, and surface pressure is 1.47 bar.
Thus, the center of mass of the atmosphere is located at ~1.47/2 = ~0.74 bar, which observations show is where Titan’s atmospheric temperature is ~82K, the same as the equilibrium temperature with the Sun. I have added the notations in red to Robinson and Catling’s graph below:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html
Roy –
I really appreciate the graph of the anomilies for the last 38 years. And this tells us the variations from the average. BUT what is the actual average temperature of the globe in C and F? Also, WHO knows what the “ideal” average should be?
Thanks –
Greg Rowe
UAH and RSS don’t measure temperature directly — they measure microwaves emitted by oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, and use a computer model to convert those to temperatures. Anomalies can be calculated with much lower uncertainties than can the absolute temperatures.
GISS has more on this question here, at least for surface temperatures:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
There is no “ideal” temperature for the planet — only, from the point of view of life, the temperature a species has adapted to. Change — especially at the large rate we’re now causing — stresses their well-being and survival.
Davie panics: “Change especially at the large rate were now causing stresses their well-being and survival.”
Davie, a pair of birds made a nest on my patio about 3 weeks ago. The offspring have now hatched. The parents are bringing in insects every 2-3 minutes. (Hope that doesn’t shatter your other pseudoscience of “survival of the fittest”).
You have so many things to be afraid of tonight, but I will sleep well.
g,
Coincidentally, I have the same thing. Two hatchlings, mouths agape!
At present, nighttime temperatures drop to 22 C, day is around 32 C. The birds cope nicely with this 10 C range.
I see temperatures are forecast to increase by a couple of degrees C over the next week. More than temperature increases over the last century, I believe, I predict the birds will survive nicely, on the basis they have managed to do so for quite a long time.
I slept well last night. I predict that I will sleep just as well tonight.
Like you, I leave David to his fears and phantasms. It must be uncomfortable to exist in such a self induced stressful environment.
Cheers.
Address the evidence, for once.
Mike, Ger*
How do weather models work? I mean predictions out to a week! Much better than when I was a lad.
How do they work so well if the atmospheric physics they are using is all wrong?
Nate, why have the IPCC\GHE\CO2 models been so wrong?
Did they predict warming that has not happened?
you never actually have an answer do you?
Since you dont seem to have an answer, I’ll tell you the answer. Weather models dont work at all without GHE. No weather models, no predictions, nada.
So you guys who are denying GHE: you are denying the validity of weather prediction.
Actually you are denying the physics behind weather, as Roy pointed has pointed out.
Tim Folkerts –
You wrote –
“Mike, you seem to have presented your own testable hypothesis for the greenhouse effect numerous times in this thread. It comes in various slightly different forms like:
that a thermometers temperature can be raised by placing CO2 between it and a heat source?
or
the ability of CO2 to make thermometers hotter, given a constant heat source.”
As I say, I cannot find anywhere a testable hypothesis relating to the GHE. Neither can you, I surmise, otherwise you would no doubt have produced it by now.
You go on to say –
“2) No matter how many experiments you may have seen where CO2 did not warm a thermometer, it only takes 1 experiment where CO2 *does* make the thermometer warmer to invalidate your conclusion. That is how science works.”
No it doesn’t. Albert Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” I choose to agree with Einstein, rather than you.
In any case, I have produced no testable GHE hypothesis because it would appear to impossible on the face of it. This probably explains why no GHE supporter has ever managed to write down any scientific explanation of the non-existent greenhouse effect.
Finally, you wrote –
“Until you abandon your a priori assumption that the GHE is impossible, there is really no chance that you will consider the massive evidence that, yes, CO2 can and does cause thermometers on the earths surface to be warmer than they would be with no CO2.”
You have no hypothesis, just a poorly stated and meaningless claim that ” . .
CO2 can and does . . . ” Your claim is not testable by any reproducible experiment, and does not even propose a mechanism to explain how your claim might be true.
Heat makes thermometers hotter. CO2 does not produce, multiply, or otherwise increase heat. Your non-existent GHE hypothesis remains non-existent for good reason – it would have to invoke magic in its statement!
Cheers.
“Heat makes thermometers hotter. CO2 does not produce, multiply, or otherwise increase heat. Your non-existent GHE hypothesis remains non-existent for good reason it would have to invoke magic in its statement!”
The addition of a blanket increases the warmth of my bed at night.
It gets even warmer with the addition of more blankets, yet they do not produce any heat! How strange! How magic! Tell this to your children!
Dr No,
Put a blanket over a thermometer. No change at all. Put a blanket on your bed at night. Your bed is no hotter than it was before.
Put 50 blankets on your bed – still no heating!
Put a heat source in your bed – a live human body, a hot rock, a heated water bottle – temperature rises!
Your defective and misleading analogies might appeal to the gullible, the slow, or the ignorant, but they don’t stand up to examination, do they?
Deny, divert, confuse – and still no testable GHE hypothesis. Sad.
Cheers.
Go Mike!
Mike, Mike, poor old Mike – you are totally confused.
You forgot that the earth’s surface is a heat source!
It radiates like a black body!
– like a hot rock even !!
– even like a hot water bottle !!!
Dr No,
So?
Your bed is radiating furiously. At 0 C, its radiating more than 300 W/m2.
If the Earth’s surface is radiating so much heat, why do you bother with blankets?
What has any of this got to do with the non-existent GHE?
Can you even describe the magical GHE in any way that stands up to scientific examination? If you truly believe the atmosphere acts as an insulator (according to Pierrehumbert, equivalent to one seventh of an inch of polystyrene), why all the mystery?
Or is it really a magic insulator – letting more energy one way, than the other! Perpetual motion – free energy for all!
Sign me up for one. I’ll pay when you get it working. How hard can it be?
Cheers.
Get lost, Flynn. You’re not willing to answer basic questions. You’re nothing but lame excuses. You’re just trolling. Enough of you.
Norman,
You wrote –
Mike Flynn
“I have already posted evidence that the surface does not have to cool at night. I think you ignore evidence that does not fit with you view of reality. So why do you ask for it?”
Unless you can quote me asking for evidence of anything except a testable GHE hypothesis, others might think you are just making things up, and deeply ensconced in your fantasy.
What you think or don’t think is irrelevant to me, and almost certainly irrelevant to Nature.
No testable GHE hypothesis exists. No unicorns exist.
If you can produce a genuine example of either, I will smartly change my mind. Mere claims of existence do not count.
As the supposed GHE apparently has nothing to do with the operation of greenhouses, and greenhouse gases likewise are unrelated, maybe you need to look for another hypothesis?
Or you could just give up, and take solace in your religious fervour. Not much difference either way, as far as Nature is concerned. The Earth continues to cool. Seven billion or so humans manage to generate far more heat than one billion did, over a century ago. It seems strange that thermometers don’t record any temperature increases as a result, doesn’t it?
Here’s your cue to deny, divert and confuse. Go for it!
Cheers.
Evidence for the GHE:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Is that it, Davie? Is that all you’ve got?
5-6 times with the same link?
You’re that pathetic?
Norm is not even so devoid (but close).
I guess that is the end result of pseudoscience.
David Appell,
You can’t even define the GHE, except to say it has nothing to do with greenhouses.
What is this wondrous GHE? If it doesn’t work in an room at night, how does it affect a meteorological observation thermometer purposely situated in a room (Stevenson Screen), at night? Of course if doesn’t! It’s nonsense!
CO2 does not increase the amount of heat available to a thermometer when placed between the thermometer and a heat source. Mad assertions that it does, in some unexplained fashion, does no credit to the Warmist cause.
How about producing a GHE hypothesis for examination? How hard can it be?
Cheers,
How about addressing the evidence?
David Appell,
Evidence of what? You can’t even say what the mythical GHE is!
Maybe if you could state what the GHE does, and how it does it, in some scientifically testable way. It might further your cause.
Otherwise, you’re just another rambling Warmist, uttering ever more ridiculous unsubstantiated assertions.
Cheers.
Davie, the evidence suggests that you are a troll.
MF, anything to avoid confronting the evidence, huh?
The GHE effect is easily defined. If you don’t what that is, you are woefully unprepared to comment on it existence.
CO2 Cant Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does
In conclusion, if you break the data down to isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, there simply isnt a strong case to be made that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Yes the oceans are warming, yes temperatures have been warming, but that doesnt mean CO2 is the cause of that warming. If you isolate the impact of CO2 by removing the impact of the oceans, the urban heat island effect, and atmospheric water vapor, the result is that those areas show no warming what so ever. CO2 increased from 335 ppm to 405 ppm in Antarctica, and it had no impact at all, none, nada, zip.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/co2-cant-cause-the-warming-alarmists-claim-it-does/
Adiabatic addition of CO2 to a system does NOT “produce warming”.
Very few people understand thermodynamics. Most could not spell it without the help of spellcheck.
(But, we love climate comedy.)
A planet’s climate system is not adiabatic.
Oops.
You might want to look up the definition of “adiabatic”.
Roy
Could you possibly reverse the comments so that the most recent come first? I like to open posts and scan the most recent comments, but scrolling through 950 of them each time is a P.I.T.A..
Agreed. And/or send email notifications of new comments.
Dear Bored,
It’s really not that difficult. Use your slide bar, it’s on the right of the screen, click and hold the part that slides, take it to the bottom and then come up a bit to where you want to be.
Dear David,
I realize the above is probably a bit difficult for you to comprehend, but give it a go. – So far as emails. I don’t see why Dr. S would want to do anything to assist you in your meanderings considering how rude you are to most everyone, including him, that you disagree with.
Lewis
I’m direct, Lewis. People like you take umbrage when someone bluntly refuses to accept your BS.
I”d still like a decent commenting system like most blogs have — some temporal order, and email notifications.
Tim Folkerts wrote –
“For example, when a piston is compressed, the gas inside warms (T increases) but it was definitely not heated (Q=0).”
This seems odd, as usually an increase in the temperature of a thermometer results from the application of heat. Are you claiming that air compressed in a Diesel engine, reaching a measured temperature in excess of 500 C, has not been heated?
Even Wikipedia states –
“Adiabatic heating occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased from work done on it by its surroundings, e.g., a piston compressing a gas contained within an adiabatic cylinder. This finds practical application in diesel engines which rely on the lack of quick heat dissipation during their compression stroke to elevate the fuel vapor temperature sufficiently to ignite it.”
A bit rough, but more or less correct.
Maybe you consider the high temperatures experienced by a space shuttle on re entry – 1650 C, or higher, as not resulting from heat generated by compression or friction. Just warming, perhaps?
Or Gavin Schmidt’s breathless declaration of “Hottest year EVAH!” as being due to warmth, rather than heat.
Still no GHE. Not even a description of what the GHE is, or how it’s supposed to work, let alone a testable GHE hypothesis!
How hard can it be?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Roy Spencer has already done the work for you and explained the GHE in detail, showed easy to follow graphics and built and actual model you can play with to demonstrate the effect.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/
So please quit with the posts such as this: “Still no GHE. Not even a description of what the GHE is, or how its supposed to work, let alone a testable GHE hypothesis!”
It is right in the link LOOK!
I fell for the phony messed up physics of PSI but thankfully Roy Spencer helped get me out of that garbage dump of horrible physics. You and g*e*r*a*n are deep in the crap fest of horrible physics and so far you show little desire to learn or study.
Get over yourself and read from a textbook! That is what I
started to do. g*e*r*a*n cannot read a textbook, he can’t read text that has more than 50 words and he considers such posts as rambles. Poor fellow, medication is available to help the condition. If you do not suffer ADD then start to read some real physics and don’t get your information from PSI.
Mike Flynn
I do not know if you will look at Roy Spencer link or even spend 10 seconds thinking about what he is saying.
I will try to explain the process of GHE since you claim no one has given a description.
Solar energy hits the Earth’s surface and warms it. The temperature goes up and it emits more IR towards a GHG containing atmosphere. The GHG will absorb a large amount of the Upwelling IR from the Earth surface. Only about 40 W/m^2 of 398 W/m^2 will directly leave the surface and go directly to space (atmospheric window).
So far so good?
The GHG that absorb the upwelling IR can transfer some of this energy to surrounding nonGHG molecules (mostly N2 and O2) raising their kinetic energy and temperature and the GHG can also re-emit the energy as IR in any random direction including back down to the surface.
Nothing will stop the surface from absorbing the downwelling IR. It is measured and averages globally at 340 W/m^2 (more in some places, less in others). The IR reaching the surface from the GHG above will add energy to the surface that would not have been there if the GHG were not present. It alone will not heat or warm the surface. The surface is doing two things at the same time with radiant energy (it is described as such in all textbooks I have read on the subject, if you want textbook links I will gladly link you up). The surface emits IR away from it and it absorbs energy hitting it. The energy it emits is 398 W/m^2 the energy it receives from the atmosphere is 340 W/m^2. The energy received is less than what is emitted but the difference between having GHG atmosphere and not having one is 340 W/m^2 of energy that would not be absorbed by the surface, it would radiate away at 398 W/m^2 and be much cooler.
So if the surface of Earth would average 255 K without GHG present would you not admit correctly that the having GHG present caused a warming effect to sustain a surface at 288 K? Isn’t 288 K warmer than 255 K so does not that logically follow GHG warm the surface??
Norman,
I’ll start with the simple things.
No solar energy hits the surface at night, so I assume your GHE only operates while the Sun is shining. I already know about the difference between night and day.
You say the surface emits IR. True. Unfortunately, it’s also true that the surface temperature drops as a consequence of emitting energy. If less than 100% of this emitted energy returns to the emitting surface, the temperature drops. This why the temperature drops at night, or even after local solar noon, or when cloudy, or hazy, and so on. No miraculous GHE to be seen.
The rest of your comment demonstrates the same type of misunderstanding, so I’ll let you rephrase your comment to acknowledge that all matter emits energy continuously, and except in circumstances such as a phase change, this will result in a lowering of temperature. In the absence of an external,heat source, all matter will cool to absolute zero. Even CO2!
Your last para is just completely nonsensical. I might just as easily say that when the Earth’s surface was molten, it was hotter than 288 K. Does it not follow logically that GHGs cool the surface?
As to your link – not helpful, I’m afraid.
For instance –
“1) make the Earths surface warmer than it would otherwise be, and . . . ”
No it doesn’t, not in the presence of sunlight. The arid tropical deserts, for example, have the least amounts of that most important greenhouse gas, H2O, above them. Also the hottest places on Earth.
Or ascend. As Tyndall observed, the less atmosphere of any sort between a thermometer and the Sun, the more energy it can absorb, and the hotter it gets,
Or look at the Moon – no atmosphere to speak of, and far hotter surface temperatures after equivalent exposure time. LRO Diviner data is there, if you want to verify for your self.
So still no testable GHE hypothesis. Just continuing attempts to deny, divert, and confuse. Maybe you can figure out a way to make a thermometer hotter using CO2. Nobody else has managed so far.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Please answer one question. What do you think the GHE is?
I really cannot discuss with you points that are not being made about GHE.
I think your false and incorrect understanding of GHE is that the atmosphere alone will warm the surface.
That is nothing I have claimed. Kristian disagrees with me but the way the GHE works is that you have two incoming energy fluxes (I will not call them heat fluxes). Solar IN and DWIR In. The two combined add energy to the surface.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1280px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
The solar input adds 163.3 joules/sec-m^2 and the Downwelling IR adds 340.3 joules/sec-m^2. That means the Earth is gaining 503.6 joules/sec-m^2.
The surface emits away 398.2 joules/sec-m^2. The surface would warm considerably but there are two other processes that carry energy away from the surface and move it to the atmosphere where they become part of the GHE in DWIR.
Do you yet see how it works?
The DWIR alone will not warm the surface. Alone it is only slows cooling. Solar energy alone will warm the Earth to a certain temperature but that is all it will do. The GHE is a combination of energy inputs.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Please answer one question. What do you think the GHE is?”
The GHE is non-existent, obviously, I have tried for some time to obtain a copy of a testable hypothesis relating to the GHE, but all I get are evasions and irrelevant links.
You obviously don’t know what the GHE is, or if you do, you are unable to clearly state what it is. I believe it has nothing to do with greenhouses, but I am not even sure about that.
You write –
“The GHE is a combination of energy inputs.”, which is completely pointless on the face of it. Sounds sciency, but imparts no useful information whatsoever! How does it increase thermometer temperatures more than direct sunlight?
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. This fact alone makes a mockery of your claims.
Cheers.
MF: Evidence for the GHE:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
MF wrote:
“The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.”
Prove this. Cite the source or data.
Norm, here is your chance to redeem yourself.
Go to the link you mentioned above. See if you can find the flaw.
If you need a hint, get back to me.
Best of luck.
Mike says: “This seems odd …”
Then clearly you don’t understand thermodynamics. There is nothing odd about it.
“Are you claiming that air compressed in a Diesel engine, reaching a measured temperature in excess of 500 C, has not been heated?”
Yes. Go ask any physics prof or read any thermodynamics text or ask any engineer who designs engines.
“Adiabatic heating occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased from work done“.
From work done, W. not from heat, Q. It’s right there in the very lines you quoted!
“Still no GHE. Not even a description of what the GHE is”
Really? You accurately described the GHE. I quoted your statements. I re-stated your statement. Twice. And yet you STILL can’t find it?
Tim Folkerts,
Ah well, Tim. We might have to disagree about whether a gas being heated to a temperature of 500 C has been heated. The gas cares not, and you can’t tell tell how it was heated, by examining the gas.
You may be aware that according to Feynman, all physics, with the exception of nuclear processes and gravity, can be explained in the following terms –
– An electron moves from place to place.
– A photon moves from place to place.
– An electron absorbs and emits a photon.
Just because you are unable to describe heat (or indeed work) in terms of the above, doesn’t mean Feynman was wrong. I apologise if I have confused you by trying to use imprecise terms such as heat, or heated. My mistake.
If that’s a big modern for you, a chap named John Tyndall wrote a book titled “Heat – a mode of motion” over a century ago. Energy is energy. Tricky concepts. E = mc2, but photons have no rest mass! And yet Einstein is still right! Photons have momentum. If momentum = mass x velocity, and photons have no mass, do they have momentum, or even energy, for that matter?
Only playing with you. Sorry.
But all this is beside the point.
You are now saying I have accurately described the GHE. Excellent! Now you have accepted my description of the GHE, you can now use it to propose a testable GHE hypothesis.
I freely admit that I cannot perform such a miracle. Neither can you.
Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Even the name “greenhouse effect” is pointless. Nothing to do with greenhouses, apparently. No wonder nobody can propose a testable hypothesis for such a bizarrely named nothing,
At least I’m pleased that you accept my assumption as to what might be contained in the supposed GHE. It’s a bit surprising that nobody in the climatological field seems to be as clever as me! I might even be cleverer than you – you can’t come up with a better explanation of the magical GHE than I can, it might seem.
No GHE. CO2 neither warms nor heats anything. It doesn’t do any work, either. No “Hottest year EVAH!” due to CO2 in the atmosphere. Complete nonsense.
Cheers.
Mike says: “I apologise if I have confused you by trying to use imprecise terms such as heat, or heated. My mistake.”
No. You are confusing everyone by trying to use PRECISE terms in an imprecise way. And more specifically, by using precise terms in an imprecise way AND acting as if you have used them in a precise way.
In a casual conversation, I don’t get concerned about phrases like “We might have to disagree about whether a gas being heated to a temperature of 500 C has been heated.” But this is not a casual conversation. You want to discuss details about thermodynamics and the GHE, but this will continue to be impossible if you can’t use the basic vocabulary of thermodynamics correctly.
“Now you have accepted my description of the GHE, you can now use it to propose a testable GHE hypothesis.
I freely admit that I cannot perform such a miracle. “
Again you have confused yourself. “Testable” simply means capable of being tested. Checking a thermometer with and without CO2 is certainly testable. The experiment might be difficult or expensive or time-consuming. It might even provide evidence against the hypothesis, but it is most certainly able to be tested. No miracle required!
“Its a bit surprising that nobody in the climatological field seems to be as clever as me!”
You are STILL confusing yourself. Explanations of the basic physic of the greenhouse effect are all over the internet. Some are better than others. But it is easy to find.
Now, being able to accurately APPLY the greenhouse effect to the earths actual atmosphere is tough. There are LOTS of factors involved with global temperatures that must be included IN ADDITION TO the GHE.
Tim Folkerts,
I am sorry that you cannot bring yourself to copy and paste a copy of the testable GHE hypothesis which you claim is easily found.
If there are more than one – competing hypotheses, that is – I can understand why you cannot find the time. You are obviously too busy telling me that I’m too stupid to find details of a testable GHE hypothesis for myself.
If you don’t know how to copy and paste, I’ll try to help.
Here’s what Dr Spencer wrote a few years ago –
“The 5th possibility (increasing GHGs dont really cause warming) is total anathema to the IPCC. Without GHG warming, the whole AGW movement collapses. This kind of scientific finding would normally be Nobel Prize territoryexcept that the Nobel Prize has become more of a socio-political award in recent years, with only politically correct recipients. The self-flagellating elites dont like the idea humans might not be destroying the Earth.
The longer we go without significant warming, the more obvious it will become that there is something seriously wrong with current AGW theory. I dont think there is a certain number of years 5, 10, 20, etc. which will disprove the science of AGW.unless the climate system cools for the next 10 years. Eek! But I personally doubt that will happen.”
Obviously no hypothesis here. Otherwise it could have been tested, and the results of the experiments recorded. The IPCC dispensed with the normal scientific process, and proclaimed a “theory” which doesn’t seem to be working. Of course GHE and AGW supporters claim that their assertions cannot be tested by experiment! Just like astrology or parapsychology!
Maybe you could provide the name of the scientist who proposed the testable GHE hypothesis (not
Including the speculations of people like Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius et al., who had no knowledge of modern physics, brilliant though they were), and where it might be found. I really can’t understand why it’s so well hidden.
I’m sure you can be helpful, if you try really hard! Or you can be evasive and obstructive, if that makes you happier.
Cheers.
Mike, much of the reason these discussion go round and round is that that there are related but distinct issues about which we could make hypotheses.
At the one extreme — the pure physics extreme — is a very generic greenhouse effect hypothesis like this.
THERMODYNAMIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT HYPOTHESIS: Everything else being equal, a layer of IR absorbing material added between an actively heated surface and the cooler surroundings will lead to an increased temperature of the actively heated surface.
This is testable.
This has been tested.
This conforms with the laws of thermodynamics.
This is not at all controversial.
This is about physics, not about climate per se.
This is what I try to focus on (mostly because a few very vocal people disagree with even this very basic idea).
This is what I mean when I say “the greenhouse effect”.
I *think* this is what most scientists would mean by “the greenhouse effect” (but I haven’t done such a poll).
At another extreme — a social/political/economic extreme — is a very different greenhouse effect hypothesis like this.
CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC SOCIO-ECONOMIC GLOBAL WARMING GREENHOUSE EFFECT HYPOTHESIS: The IR absorbing gases added to the atmosphere by human activity will lead to increased temperature which will cause large increases in temperature that will have catastrophic effects on the world ecologically, economically, and/or politically.
This is not really testable.
This involves all sorts of science in addition to the basic thermodynamic GHE.
This involves all sort of non-science, such as social and economic impacts.
I tend to avoid this side of the issue.
******************************************
If you truly want a discussion about the Thermodynamic-GHE, great. The T-GHE is an important *part* of climate. It is a *step* toward being able to discuss climate.
If you want to discuss possible geopolitical ramifications, that cool too. It is important and interesting.
If you want to talk about houses filled with CO2 or thermos bottles filled with CO2 — well — those are red herrings that no one (who understand the basic thermodynamics) would equate to the T-GHE. Every time you bring up something like this, it mere shows you don’t know the core thermodynamic issues involved.
Nice attempt at spin, Tim.
Your first scenario is NOT the Earth system. So, it has no bearing here, except to confuse folks.
You wisely back away from the second scenario, but you fail to clearly label it a “pseudoscience”.
That makes your whole comment an attempt to spin.
Why do you do that to yourself?
“The T-GHE is an important *part* of climate.”
T = thermodynamic?
If so, the GHE isn’t a consequence of thermodynamics — it arises from quantum, nonclassical, radiative properties of the system.
It comes from radiative physics, not classical physics.
When are you going to address the evidence for the GHE:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Mike wonders: “How hard can it be?”
Apparently its harder than you realize.
“This seems odd, as usually an increase in the temperature of a thermometer results from the application of heat.”
Usually, but not always. Both heat (Q) and work (W) can change the temperature and the internal energy (U). That’s the First law of Thermodynamics — and it should not seem odd to anyone discussing thermodynamics.
“Are you claiming that air compressed in a Diesel engine, reaching a measured temperature in excess of 500 C, has not been heated?”
Yep. Ask any physic prof. Read any thermodynamics textbook.
“Even Wikipedia states Adiabatic heating occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased from work done on it by its surroundings, e.g., a piston” ”
Its right there — W, not Q. Heck, the very word “adiabatic” means “no Q”. The gas in the piston increases in temperature due to work done.
David Appell’s complete post –
“Address the evidence, for once.”
The evidence clearly points to David Appell making the usual pointless Warmist demands, in an effort to avoid admitting that they cannot even describe what the GHE is – in words – or how it’s supposed to work – in words.
I prefer to address facts, however David Appell’s definition of a fact seems to be as rigorous as his definition of the GHE.
Cue another pointless Warmist demand from David Appell!
Cheers.
MF, I knew you would find some excuse to try to avoid confronting the evidence, even though you say “I prefer to address facts….”
But not all the facts, clearly.
GHE = (a planet’s actual mean global surface temperature) – (the planet’s brightness temperature.)
Happy now?
Mike Flynn and g*e*r*a*n
This seems to be the source of your material. The most illogical Joe Postma. I do not know why you salivate over this twisted unscientific goofball and act like he knows something. I have read through a lot of his material and it is really bad physics not supported by anything but the strength of his personality. Cult of Personality. He can sway people who have limited physics backgrounds.
http://principia-scientific.org/tag/roy-spencer/
Postma is like a cultist leader and the two of you hold tight to every word he writes as if it unquestionable truth.
Mike Flynn you should really read your posts you seem like a cult minded follower of this moron. If you read him okay, but look at a textbook from time to time and you will see how phony he is even if he has a little pet word he uses “sophistry”
If anyone wants to know the personality of Postma you can read this link. A foul mouthed idiot with very poor reasoning.
http://principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-gas-theory-defender-roy-spencer-asle-language-warning/
I agree with you, Norman, except I think Postma is being genuine. I think Flynn and g* are not — just jokers trying to trolling everyone.
Norm, you really get “imaginative” when you get desperate.
Your pseudoscience is falling in on your head. You remind me of a wounded animal, writhing in pain and fear.
Hilarious.
Norm vomits again: “g*e*r*a*n cannot read a textbook, he cant read text that has more than 50 words and he considers such posts as rambles.”
Norm, care to put your money where your mouth is?
It could be arranged, all legal, attorneys, signed documents. Interested?
$10,000, winner take all?
You don’t want to be just another Internet phony, do you?
g*e*r*a*n
No I am not the least bit interested in your challenge. You are the one who can’t read posts longer than 50 words and your lack of knowledge of physics is obvious in everyone of your posts.
Here is a link for you.
http://dl1.ponato.com/eb1/1149__64dd22f.pdf
Reading through this material will do you a lot more good than some $10,000 dollar bet of some nature.
Help yourself and save the blog from your unscientific posts.
Norm is unable to stand by his own words.
No surprise.
g*e*r*a*n
They never were my own words. They are the words that come out of textbooks on the subject which I was thoughtful and kind enough to link you too. Will you take the time to read through it? It will help you for sure!
Norm lies again.
“They never were my own words.”
“g*e*r*a*n cannot read a textbook, he cant read text that has more than 50 words and he considers such posts as rambles.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246388
g*e*r*a*n
Here is one of yours: “Tim, lost in your pseudoscience, you have resorted to Norm-like rambling.
Maybe, if you have only one question, in 50 words or less, I can help you.”
And This one: “Too much purposeless rambling here, Norm.
Maybe if you could get it down to just one question, with 50 words or less?”
I am sure there are more but I am not that interested in making you feel bad so I will leave it with these two examples of your limited attention span and lack of concentration.
Norm, you can’t stand by your words, so why should anyone read your rambling nonsense?
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, you cant stand by your words, so why should anyone read your rambling nonsense”
Then don’t read them, wonderful. I will be most glad not to have you interject your babble troll garbage on a science blog.
Norm, folks that appreciate and understand science don’t say things like “The energy does not leave the system, but the energy leaves the system.”
You are about as far from actual science, as you are from having a degree from a college that still offers that degree!
But, I never tire of your hilarious pseudoscience.
Mike Flynn
Here is another GHE model by Roy Spencer. Before you reject it think about what he is saying and what it means. Think of the physics involved. Reason it through your mind.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/
Norman,
More links. More demands.
Might it not be easier to just cut and paste the consensus testable GHE hypothesis for scientific examination? Why are you hiding it? Does it blind anybody who looks at it?
Only joking of course. The GHE doesn’t exist. Fooled a lot of people, though.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
So basically you are saying that “thinking” and “reasoning” are demands? Yup you are a cult-minded broken record.
Mike Flynn
You have your cult mantra “There is not GHE, there is not GHE, there is not GHE, there is no GHE” The more you repeat it I guess the more real it becomes to you. Really sad. I guess you are on this blog to try and recruit fellow believers.
I think you have been explained exactly how the GHE works by many posters then you go on and say nobody can explain the GHE or how it works. Roy Spencer has provided examples of testable GHE but you will not accept the links.
There is one obvious fact. Thinking will not be a problem for you since you consider it a “demand” and it might upset the cult programming you are into.
Either you are in a cult or just a troll out to annoy people and you put “cheers” in your posts to pretend you are not one.
Norman,
Maybe be if you could provide a copy of a testable GHE hypothesis, it might save the time you spend in fruitless attempts to avoid admitting that no such thing exists.
You wrote –
“I think you have been explained exactly how the GHE works by many posters then you go on and say nobody can explain the GHE or how it works. Roy Spencer has provided examples of testable GHE but you will not accept the links.”
Quite apart from your execrable grammar and your unsubstantiated assertions, you fail to even pay the courtesy of quoting my words, preferring instead to refer to the figments of your own imagination!
Maybe you are simply too incompetent to copy and paste – let me know if you suffer from a mental impediment, and I’ll type more slowly for you. Only joking. I know you can’t prove you are not a gullible Warmist of limited intelligence. That’s fine, neither can David Appell.
Maybe I’m wrong, but wouldn’t it be easier to provide a copy of the testable GHE hypothesis, if you have one? What do you hope to achieve by refusing to let me look at it? The most effective way to convince me (and maybe others) that a testable GHE hypothesis exists, might be to produce it for interested parties to examine.
Just in case you really don’t know what a hypothesis is, I’ll help you out –
“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.”
Please let me know if Warmists have a different definition – they often have flexible definitions which change minute to minute.
I’m happy with the definition I have provided. I’m sure you will reject it. I’d be interested in your reasoning, more for the humour content than any particular insight into the convoluted pathways of your fantasies.
Alas, still no testable GHE hypothesis. Just more time wasted trying to deny, divert, and confuse. Keep trying. It might work one day.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
It is impossible to comprehend what you ask. I read your definition of a hypothesis. It has been given to you many times by many posters.
YOU: “A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.”
That has been done several times by several posters. Above g*e*r*a*n sent a link to Dave Appell covering the hypothesis in detail, scroll up an look.
The proposed explanation. Carbon Dioxide absorbs and emits IR at certain wavelengths of IR (primarily 4 and 15 microns). The atmosphere has temperature therefore Carbon Dioxide is emitting IR energy in all directions. Some of this energy reaches the Earth’s surface adding energy to it based upon the amount of downwelling IR.
So that is the explanation satisfying your definition of hypothesis.
The test is to put an IR sensor pointing up to the sky and measuring the Downwelling IR. You measure it exists and the hypothesis is scientific and established. I am not sure what more you are asking. What exactly are you wanting when you ask for a “testable GHE hypothesis” when many people have given you exactly that in many words in many ways and many have provided you direct links to the hypothesis yet you continue to claim no one has provided it for you. Are you dense beyond a neutron star core??? Wow it is almost unreal to keep trying to reason with you!
Cherries! And Peaches.
Another example of Norm’s pseudoscience: “The test is to put an IR sensor pointing up to the sky and measuring the Downwelling IR.”
Norm believes because something has a temperature, it is a “heat source”. Norm believe ice can bake a turkey.
Norm believes the Earth is flat because the horizon appears flat.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Norm believes because something has a temperature, it is a heat source.”
Ever heard of the Planck Law?
MF, when are you going to address the evidence?
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
or, simply, explain T(GMST)-T(brightness) appx equal 33 C, for the Earth.
David Appell,
So the undistinguished mathematician and wannabe scientist Gavin Schmidt can use an image manipulating program to amalgamate two unrelated images into one.
If this is your version of intellectual brilliance, good for you!
I’m not sure why you think image manipulation is evidence of anything except itself, but I’m sure you’ll try and browbeat me into something! Go for it!
Cheers
Wow, you’re really afraid of that data, aren’t you.
Mike Flynn
Roy Spencer has also done experiments showing the GHE in action, not sure exactly where they are in his blog but your claim that no tests have been done are shown incorrect as Roy has done actual tests.
In other words, the net radiation flow is proportional to the difference between the fourth powers of the absolute temperatures of the two objects and to the area of the cooler object that is exposed to sight from the hotter object.
Infrared thermometers produce no intrusion error. A hot object target is radiating its infrared radiation in all directions whether or not the infrared thermometer is there taking its temperature. The objects radiation characteristics, and hence its temperature, are not disturbed by the presence of the infrared thermometer.
Assume that the instrument is the cooler of the two objects and that its front end optical telescope is the area that is exposed to sight from the hotter object being measured.
The optics then collect this sample of infrared radiation from the hot object being measured and focus it on the tiny infrared detector. The detector, in turn, converts it to a proportional electrical signal, which is the exact electrical analog of the incoming infrared radiation, and hence the hot objects temperature.
This minute electrical signal is then amplified in the preamplifier as shown in Figure 4, converted to a digital signal, and digitally linearized (to change the T4 radiation characteristics to a perfectly linear voltage-temperature relationship). After linearization and further conditioning, the resultant temperature number is shown on the display of the instrument.
http://www.everestinterscience.com/info/irtheory.htm
Here are some helpful tips:
Avoid degrading measurement accuracy by environmental elements, such as dirt, dust, smoke, steam, other vapors, extremely high or low ambient temperatures, and electromagnetic interference from other devices.
http://www.sensortips.com/temperature/understanding-infrared-thermometry/
Meanwhile,
“Its now inevitable that the contiguous United States will lose all of its glaciers within a matter of decades, according to scientists who have revealed the precipitous shrinkage of dozens of glaciers in Montana.
Warming temperatures have rapidly reduced the size of 39 named glaciers in Montana since 1966, according to comparisons released by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and Portland State University. Some have lost as much as 85% of their expanse over the past 50 years, with Glacier national park, site of 37 of the surveyed glaciers, set to lose all of its eponymous ice formations within the next few decades. Of the 150 glaciers that existed in the park in the late 19th century, only 26 remain.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/11/us-glacier-national-park-is-losing-its-glaciers-with-just-26-of-150-left
Apparently there is no global warming taking place, so give us your best alternative explanations (And, please, please, don’t say it is the sun).
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2017/03/15/record-february-snowfall-shores-montana-water-supply/99235398/
Even more disturbing is this report:
“Perhaps the darlings of the denialist community are two researchers out of Alabama (John Christy and Roy Spencer). They rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming.”
According to a newly published paper:
“The author compared the Christy/Spencer data (UAH data) with another group (the RSS group) and found that the results diverged during the 1986-1988 time period. This shift could arise from a step change or bias in either series. When the author compared UAH with the third group (NOAA), the difference was still evident. However, when he compared RSS to NOAA, there was hardly a difference.
The author also noted that the timing of this divergence coincided with the merging of a new satellite NOAA-9, and this satellite has previously been identified as a source of error in the UAH results. But the author continued the analysis to more recent times and found another anomaly in 2005 which has since been corrected in NOAA.”
“It is relevant to be reminded of these (upward revisions by the Spencer/Christy team); had we believed there results from the 1990s, wed still think the world was cooling, and wed still be wrong.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates
Dr No,
The end of a period of glaciation is generally indicated by the progressive loss of ice – as happened after the last Ice Age. Alternatively, when a previously ice free area, such as Antarctica, becomes cold (amongst other things) ice may cover a whole continent.
These occurrences have been known to happen before the appearance of Man on the planet. I know this must come as a surprise to you, but an interglacial period is defined by the reduction of ice bound areas.
Isostatic rebound in the US interior is occurring due to the loss of ice from the last glaciation. I see that you are predicting the interglacial period will persist for at least a few decades, and a jolly good thing too! Unless you seek a return to another Ice Age, of course.
Isostatic rebound is also responsible for observed sea level rises on parts of the Eastern US seaboard (according to the USGS), as rebound in the interior causes depressions on the coast.
The crust is in constant three dimensional motion, and is only a thin veneer over the 99% plus molten interior. These facts are a source of amazement and disbelief to many climatologists – everything is ascribed to the magical operation of a non-existent GHE. Go figure!
Carry on believing that climatologists can escry the future better than a twelve year old child making a naive persistence forecast, if it gives you solace.
My care factor is zero, and I know you don’t care what I think, because I share your view.
Cheers.
DR NO you can not be serious quoting an article from The Guardian news paper. The Guardian is the most warmist publication in the UK.some of their stories make Guy McPherson seam luke warm.in the Words of one of our past Prime ministers.you can,t believe a word they say
Ian: What parts of the science do you think The Guardian got wrong?
DAVID have you ever read the Guardian. their science page has been pouring out doom and gloom for the last 20 years.most of it garbage for the gullible.their forte is entrapment
and trolling for essays mostly by bored students.they sometimes print decent articles, but most of it is highly politically motivated.they dont just debunk they get very personal stopping just short of liable,if i was to believe what they have said over the years, i should be living on a mountain in the far north, and making a fire rubbing two sticks together, nothing personal David, i quite like your arguments,but i stopped reading comics in 1959
Ian, again: What parts of the science do you think The Guardian got wrong?
David. The first article Dr No quoted from the Guardian failed to answer the only two relevant questions. 1 when were the glaciers formed. 2 when will they melt.North America has been ice free many times in the past.here in the UK during the Jurassic period the UK was a collection of small islands surrounded by a tropical sea.during the last ice age my house would have been under a mile of ice. The second article is nothing more than a disagreement between scientists.i once asked during a discussion on climate. What climate do you want .I am still waiting for an answer
Short sighted is how I view those who do not think global cooling is now happening. This is the beginning and the temperature trends are starting to confirm this. As the sun slides into deeper minimum conditions it will result in overall lower sea surface temperatures and cause the albedo of the earth to increase. Even a .5% increase in albedo will have major climatic impacts.
Sea surface temperatures should fall due to lower UV light while albedo should increase due to increase in major volcanic activity , increase in global cloud coverage and snow coverage.
The climate models are useless and do not know what they are doing because they do not consider solar impacts/geo magnetic impacts and mainstream cant get themselves to think out of the box , they are stuck on old fashion thinking when it comes to the climate.
Salvatore, you said the beginning was 15 years ago….
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way).”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Dave let’s see where we go from here. If the temp. do not drop this time (now – next few years)I will admit to being wrong on everything.
I think that is fair.
If the temperatures do drop what will you say Dave?
I’d say it’s natural variability. But over the decades AGW will dominate.
The question for your, Salvatore, is why do you keep saying the same thing when your predictions have been so wrong in the past.
Does it make you reevaluate your analysis?
Dave I have never changed my stance. The sun did not cooperate until now ,so now if temperatures do not drop I will admit to being wrong.
Again if temperatures drop below the 30 year means and stay there what will you say?
Salvatore, you can’t blame your failures on the sun.
It is YOU who claims to know or predict what the Sun is doing or going to do.
Your predictions have failed at every turn.
Yet you make the same one again and again and again…..
You keep making predictions of cooling, yet it keeps warming.
Why does it keep warming, Salvatore?
Why does it keep warming, Salvatore?
Davie, why are you so opposed to Sal’s “global cooling” ideas?
You need some global cooling to explain why you global warming isn’t working!
The same storm was stalled over the Southwest and sparked multiple rounds of hail and strong wind gusts in Colorado and New Mexico. It will pick up forward speed for the rest of the week.
Many of the same characteristics will accompany the storms as they erupt and advance across the lower elevations in the Central and Eastern states. And in Europe.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/12/1500Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-52.39,54.44,596
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/5-day/GFS-025deg_NA-LC2_T2_min_5-day.png
https://www.iceagenow.info/headed-little-ice-age/
The source is suspect — can you link to their publications in the peer reviewed literature?
Peer reviewed literature is also quite suspect, largely favoring the currently accepted paradigm, thereby slowing the progress of science. It certainly does NOT insure scientific validity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Open review is the more efficient way to advance science. There is no logic in dismissing an argument because it is not ‘peer reviewed’ and accepting an argument because it is ‘peer reviewed’. The old argument that the piss-poor process of ‘peer review’ is the best that we have, is no longer valid.
Mike Flynn
You have been asking after a testable greenhouse effect hypothesis.One simple formulation of the hypothesis would be:-
“The greenhouse effect reduces the outward longwave radiation from a planetary atmosphere at wavelengths absorbed by greenhouse gases”
This is testable inthe usual way by comparing a prediction from the hypothesis against observation.
The spectrum of outward longwave radiation in the absence of the greenhouse effect can be calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. This is called the black body radiation.
The greenhouse effect hypothesis predicts that the measured flux should be less than the black body radiation.
If you measure the outward longwave radiation flux from orbit you get this.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
David Appell has posted this graph twice and you rejected it out of hand.You should look at it properly.
The graph shows the calculated black body radiation (red line) and the observed spectrum (black line).
If there were no greenhouse effect the two graphs would coincide.
If the greenhouse effect exists the observed flux would be less than the black body radiation.
Since the observed flux is less than the black body radiation the greenhouse effect exists.
Steady on EM.
Too much science will confuse poor Mike.
Dr No
Consider it a test.
Right, but a more convincing proof of the GHE requires however the demonstration that the earth surface on average emits really almost like a blackbody at T = 294 K. While this is indeed true it is not obvious. The red curve is just a calculated Planck curve, not the measured emission “without greenhouse gases”.
http://www.ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/large/radiation_transmitted.jpg
http://www.ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/scrp/pnga000.htm
Got anything from the peer reviewed literature, not cartoons thrown up by a well known denier organization?
Alphagruis
You can get a 294K black body spectrum by calculation and by laboratory measurement. Hard to measure the black body spectrum of a planet which does not exist!
For an equivalent planetary black body spectrum you could measure the temperature and emission spectrum of the Moon’s surface through its daily cycle.
You’ll get a 294K black body spectrum twice a month.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has an IR spectrometer aboard. Might be worth a look at its data.
The emission spectrum is NOT proof of a GHE!
It’s equivalent to saying the Earth is flat because you see the horizon as flat!
You would have to have the emission spectrum for different Earth temperatures to prove anything, and, of course that would show the GHE as pseudoscience.
But, many people still believe the Earth is flat…
Enough of you, too. You’re just a troll, and a not very smart one at that.
You have a very weird hobby.
David Appell
I have to agree with you! g*e*r*a*n acts like some kid from High School that tries to get some response from someone. It does get old. Not a bright fellow. No science and I linked him to an actual textbook. Won’t read it though.
Yeah Norm, I had to agree with Davie once. It was the time he called you a “dick”!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-242921
Hilarious!
g*e*r*a*n
You think I am a dick even after I linked you to an actual textbook on heat transfer that could educate you tremendously? That is all the thanks I get from you?
I thank Dave Appell for some of his good links that helps my ongoing education. I would have thought you might feel the same toward me.
Norm, your lack of academic background has left you unprepared for concepts like heat transfer, textbooks, and education.
Be cautious how you approach such concepts, lest you look like you a clueless, babbling idiot.
Glad to help.
Yes Norman. Both him and Flynn are childish, and should be ignored and banned from the site. They have no interest in discussing science, just being disruptive. It’s a pretty strange hobby….
g* . . .,
You wrote of Norm –
“Be cautious how you approach such concepts, lest you look like you a clueless, babbling idiot.”
Have you considered that Norm might actually be a clueless, babbling idiot?
If he is truly and certifiably mentally impaired or defective, surely he deserves our compassion rather than our condemnation.
We should make allowances for the less fortunate – up to a point. Irrational tantrums, uncontrollable handwaving, delusional outbursts, and so on, should be treated firmly and fairly, of course.
Maybe the dim and the slow were created to make us appreciate how fortunate we normal people are!
Cheers.
MF: Norman is certainly not clueless.
Your insulting him is just trying to distract from the science he’s presenting. That you can’t answer.
g*: My opinion of Norman has changed since then — he’s clearly honestly interested in learning and in discourse.
No, Davie, you finally realized that Norm wants to be your sycophant. You are willingly accepting, since you have so few….
Entropic Man,
Your definition of the greenhous effect hypothesis is complete nonsense, of course.
A scientific effect must be capable of being reproduced. Your statement is a meaningless jumble of sciency words. What is your definition of the greenhous effect that you claim your hypothesis explains?
What are you defining longwave radiation as?
I notice there is no mention of temperature in your definition. Does the greenhouse effect have nothing to do with temperatures, as well as nothing to do with greenhouses?
You might care to look up the definition of “greenhouse effect” on the Internet. I cannot find one which fits the normal scientific definition of a reproducible effect – say the Tyndall effect, or the Seebeck effect.
All supposed definitions of the “greenhouse effect” can simplified to “objects warm in sunlight”.
Unfortunately, the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years shows that objects also cool in the absence of sunlight.
Keep at it. If you succeed, you will no doubt be recognised as the discoverer of the Entropic Man effect.
Cheers.
GHE = (a planets actual global average surface temperature) (the planets brightness temperature).
THere should be a minus sign between the two terms above, which this dumb site did not reproduce.
Another “definition” of the GHE!
How many does that make now?
If you don’t know what the GHE is, you don’t know enough to argue against it.
Davie, the GHE argues against itself!
You just don’t know enough physics to comprehend its arguments.
(Hint: Note the rapid drop on UAH graph after each El Nino peak. There’s not much “heat trapping” going on!)
MF writes:
“…the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years shows that objects also cool in the absence of sunlight.”
Where is the data showing this?
David Appell,
Probably in the same place as the data showing that you’re not barking mad! Have a look, and let me know if you find either. If not there, it might be with Trenberth’s missing heat, or the book of Great Advances In Climatology by a Nobel Prize winning author.
Any more witless gotcha attempts, or are you as dim as you pretend to be?
Cheers.
I didn’t think you had any data or evidence. You never do.
– If you measure the outward longwave radiation flux from orbit you get this.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
David Appell has posted this graph twice and you rejected it out of hand.You should look at it properly.-
One should look at it properly.
That graph is not a clear sky, nor global- Earth average temperature is 288 K not 294 K.
And author Schmidt guesses about 25% of it is due to clouds.
Clouds are greenhouse gases and in accordance to GHE hypothesis clouds are thought to cool earth average temperature.
Clouds would block the outward longwave radiation flux as obviously as they block Sunlight.
The Greenhouse effect states that the atmosphere and clouds cool earth from 5 C to -18 C and that greenhouse gases warm Earth by 33 C. Or in the absence of greenhouse gases would have average temperature of about -18 C. And water droplet and ice particles of clouds are not gases [nor greenhouse gases].
Now the tropical zone is about 300 K, so the graph must be largely of the tropics- or outside of the tropics the average temperature is below 294 K. Or region of planet during a time period near it summer time.
And it doesn’t appear to me that Schmidt trying to prove a theory which he believes in by providing this graph. {else he probably provide more details about this graph}
I would also note the graph is using wavenumber and a blackbody Planck curves always seem to me to use wavelength.
Another thing I will note. But first I will correct a typo.
I wrote:
“Clouds are greenhouse gases and in accordance…”. I meant:
“Clouds are not greenhouse gases and in accordance…”
Anyways, the idea that Earth would have average temperature of -18 C without greenhouse gases, seems to lead people to a false impression of what Earth would be like. Or they seem to jump to conclusion that Earth would be some completely frozen planet.
Of course Earth at -18 C would be more frozen and one could assume such cold Earth would have runaway affect due to it being a more frozen planet. Or if starts at -18 C, it would become much colder than this- say colder than average temperature of -30 C. I would say that would make some more sense, but I would still not agree.
Mars has average temperature of -50 to -60 C. Or “Differing in situ values have been reported for the average temperature on Mars, with a common value being −55 C (218 K; −67 F). Surface temperatures may reach a high of about 20 C (293 K; 68 F) at noon, at the equator, and a low of about −153 C (120 K; −243 F) at the poles.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars
And/or:
“Theres no doubt that Mars is cold: Planet-wide, the average temperature is about 63C, compared with Earths more hospitable 14C. Even in the martian tropics, nighttime temperatures can drop to near 90C, says Randall Osczevski, an environmental physicist who recently retired from Defence Research and Development Canada in Toronto.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/06/no-wind-chill-mars
As last comment points to, near equator or “the tropics” of Mars or the Moon, has a higher average temperature.
Mars spins and has axis tilt like Earth- but has much more eccentric orbit compared to Earth and has “average” of about 600 watts compared to Earth distance average from the of 1360 watts per square meter. Or Mars varies by less than 500 to more that 700 watts per square over it’s year period. Or Mars has at TOA about 40% of the sunlight as Earth has at TOA [Top Of Atmosphere].
So Mars is a frozen desert world, but it’s soil temperature can warmer than 20 C [summer times and noon]. And earth being closer to Sun, would have much higher soil temperature [at noon near summer or daytime anywhere in tropics] so say around as warm as say, 50 C {whereas earth as we have it, reaches as high as 70 C- or I am allowing for some air convectional heat lose due to very cold air- though not allowing for constant and strong wind conditions.
Anyways, I would say if Earth were -18 C, the tropics would still have average temperature of at least 10 C.
Which brings me to my point, Schmidt and others seem to think CO2 is principle greenhouse gas because it, causes enough warmth to get water vapor [from this imagined -18 C average global temperature. But I would say the tropical zone has more plausible forcing factor.
Or if CO2 magic is it forces, then geographical location of the tropics has even more of this magic.
The test is on we shall see over the coming months. I might be wrong.
I advise to watch for more snowstorms in the western United States.
As you can see Sun’s magnetic field behaves quite unusual.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Ren
Your 11.07AM post linked to two long posts, not all relevant to our discussion.
I take it that you making the point that the greenhouse effect exists, but that water vapour has a greater effect than CO2.
I would agree, with one caveat. Water vapour varies with temperature. CO2 drives a direct increase in temperature of about 1C per doubling.That evaporates more water. The increased water vapour drives a further 2C of warming.
Water vapour has a big amplifying effect on temperature change, but it is an effect, not the primary cause. Your links failed to make that point.
A wavelength range of about 15 microns is not used in infrared heating. Such long waves have low energy.
So?
Ren
Outward longwave radiation currently reradiates almost all of the heat the Earth system absorbs from the Sun.
Not bad for long waves when “Such long waves have low energy.”
Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, (the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible) and gets absorbed or reflected by objects it strikes. Any object with a surface temperature above absolute zero, – 460 F ( -273 C) will emit infrared radiation. The temperature of the object as well as its physical properties will dictate the radiant efficiency and wavelengths emitted. Infrared radiation can be compared to radio waves, visible light, ultraviolet, microwaves, and x-rays. They are all electromagnetic waves that travel through space at the speed of light. The difference between them is the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave. Infrared radiation is measured in microns (mm) and starts at .70 mm and extends to 1000 mm. Although the useful range of wavelengths for infrared heating applications occurs between .70 mm to 10 mm.
https://www.infraredheaters.com/basic.html
You have lost me. Why are you talking about infra-red heaters?
Ren did not write this, he pasted it. There is often no rhyme or reason as to what he pastes.
If the grammar is correct, it was more than likely pasted. Especially true with longer comments.
I don’t mean to criticize his writing skills. Ren’s English is very good for a second language.
Entropic Man,
You wrote –
‘Not bad for long waves when Such long waves have low energy.”
Indeed. The Earth’s surface cools at night, purely by emitting such low energy photons. Lots of them. The whole Earth has managed to cool, and now has a solid crust, by emitting lots and lots of low energy photons.
Got any more foolish attempts at sarcasm? You’re not doing all that well, so far.
Cheers.
When are you going to address this evidence for the GHE:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
ren
I would think that is for short distances of the infrared heaters.
If you look at Hottel’s graphs.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
Partial pressure of water vapor at sea level is given at 2.3 kilopascals if the air is saturated (which most air is not, the efficiency of a infrared heater probably drops off with very humid air).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressure
2.3 kilopascals is equal to 0.0227 atmospheres.
If you go to the Hottel’s chart with this partial pressure and 10 meters the emissivity/absorbitivity of water vapor is around 0.3 so about 70% of the IR will reach a source moving through 10 meters of totally saturated air. Carbon Dioxide is much less.
But the atmosphere depth is much greater, thousands of meters and going to the TOA nearly all IR that can be absorbed by GHG is, only 40 watts of the 398 make it directly to space through the atmospheric window. So GHG will absorb about 90% of the IR passing through it.
Gee. How amazing it is that infrared photographs can be taken from satellites through the complete depth of the atmosphere!
Does this fit in with your interpretation of Hottel!s chart! Maybe the specific wavelengths absorbed by CO2 and H2O (promptly re-emitted at longer wavelengths, of course) are relatively unimportant for taking IR photographs. Or maybe transmit so little energy as a proportion of the total light (EMR) spectrum, that their impact is irrelevant in practice!
What percentage of the total energy absorbed and emitted by the Earth is contained in the IR frequencies to which you refer? Don’t forget the Earth emits quite a lot more energy than it receives from the Sun – I’ll let you work out the energy which results from the conversion of approximately 20 tonnes of mass to energy within the Earth’s interior each year. I admit that the 20 tonnes is only an estimate from real scientists such as geophysicists, nuclear physicists, and so on.
Maybe you need to stick to climatological fantasy. Far more comfortable than having to deal with reality, I guess.
Cheers,
Mike Flynn
You asked about the amount of energy entering and leaving the system.
Solar insolation is 1370W/M2. Subtract albedo and 960W/M2 is absorbed by the Earth system at the visible wavelengths.
The system emits 959W/M2 to space, at infra-red wavelengths.
EM — you forgot about the earth being a sphere. That sunlight you mentioned is spread out over the whole sphere of the earth, and that IR is emitted by the whole sphere. So if you want to talk averages, the system absorbs ON AVERAGE receives about 960/4 W/m^2 and emits that same 240 W/m^2 back to space. And slight imbalance is the cause of warming/cooling of the system.
Mike asks “What percentage of the total energy absorbed and emitted by the Earth is contained in the IR frequencies to which you refer? “
An excellent question! Why don’t you tell us your answer, showing the calculations you use?
Easy to do by integration.
But probably beyond Flynn’s abilities.
Easy to do?
Impossible. Certainly beyond anybody’s current abilities. No assumptions, of course. Or guesses. Specify the insruments used, their bandwidths and precision, and indicate the instant in time they were used to measure the total energy at all wavelengths entering and leaving the Earth system.
Rough estimates are all you can provide.
Prove otherwise, if you feel like it.
Cheers.
“Rough estimates are all you can provide.”
We are waiting …
If you’re waiting on any accurate integration from Davie, you will be waiting a long time.
Norman
This is characteristic of any atmosphere containing greenhouse gases. Energy moves from the surface to the atmosphere, from the atmosphere to the surface and between GHG molecules in path-length steps in random directions.
It is only at TOA that upwards emitted photons have a potentially unlimited path length, reaching space without being reabsorbed. Without the greenhouse gases TOA would be at the surface, not at the tropopause.
If Mike Flynn is reading, there is another testable prediction.With greenhouse gases we have a troposphere. Without GGGs the stratosphere starts at the surface.
Look at the temperature profile of the atmosphere. With GHGs the atmosphere cools with increasing altitude until you reach the tropopause. In the stratosphere temperature increases with altitude.
https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/sage/meteorology/lesson1/profile.htm
Without GHGs there is no tropopause. Atmospheric temperature is lowest at the surface and increases with altitude until you reach the stratopause.
Yes, I’m reading. You’re dreaming. Photographs of the surface are routinely taken from satellites using visible, infrared, untraviolet, and other wavelengths. This shows that radiation emitted from the surface travels to space in sufficiently straight lines to accurately represent the surface.
Likewise, the Sun, GHE a Moon, the planets, satellites, comets, and other bodies can be perceived from the surface. The light from these objects reaching the surface proceeds straight through the atmosphere, following normal laws of optics.
If you prefer to deal with different wavelengths of light, x-rays from sources deep in the universe can be accurately located from detectors on the surface. Radio communication from spacecraft on Mars or further, can travel through the atmosphere in straight lines.
Any wavelengths absorbed by the atmosphere are reradiated at longer wavelengths, and reduced energy photons. The difference in energy levels between absorbed and emitted photons is often observed as a change in temperature, as photons transfer energy to matter in the form of momentum.
And so on.
Your so-called prediction is an assumption, and a pretty silly one at that. I’m assuming you meant GHGs rather than GGGs, so correct me if I’m wrong.
The troposphere is defined as the lowest region of the atmosphere. No mention of composition. I’m not sure how you intend to test your bizarre assertion.
Can you provide an actual fact or two to leaven your fantasies?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Here is a video of the Earth in Infrared. You can only see surface images briefly. The surface IR does not make it to space.
Watch and learn something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7QttjGu628
Or you could just look up infrared satellite images on Google.
I suppose this is a lie, according to you –
“By directing infrared light, visible light, microwave and thermal imaging devices at the Earth and capturing resultant data with a range of high resolution cameras and other receptors, (themselves often deriving from military intelligence technology development), buried sites, not visible on the surface, come to life for archaeologists to study, governments to administer and security guards to protect. ”
Is this company telling lies, by claiming –
“MSI covering 13 spectral bands (4432190 nm), with a swath width of 290 km and a spatial resolution of 10 m (four visible and near-infrared bands), 20 m (six red edge and shortwave infrared bands) and 60 m (three atmospheric correction bands).”?
Of course, you can always go out of your way, and pretend try to obtain clear images, but instead use completely inappropriate techniques. This would be about as stupid as trying to take a picture using visible light using a Se based glass IR lens –
“Consequently most of the Se based glasses have a black colour since they absorb visible light.”
The properties of light vary with frequency. Your video shows use of an appropriate wavelength to highlight water vapour movement. Not even a good try.
Maybe you could try and contradict something I actually wrote, for a change. Continuing to deny, divert, and confuse, might make you appear foolish to some. Keep it up, if that’s what you want.
Cheers.
Evidence for the GHE:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Mike Flynn
Your research is limited. If you looked at my post I already stated there is an atmospheric IR window that allows 40 W/m^2 to travel from the surface directly to space.
Here look at this.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/p_atmospheric_window.html
Now read the words in your own link. You are a dense one for sure, I saw how one of the more knowledgeable posters, Tim Folkerts, was explaining the meaning of adiabatic. Seems you challenged him but did not have a clue what you were talking about. Same as with your latest post demonstrating your poor science understanding and your even worse research abilities and your overall comprehension seems weak.
Your POST: “MSI covering 13 spectral bands (4432190 nm), with a swath width of 290 km and a spatial resolution of 10 m (four visible and near-infrared bands), 20 m (six red edge and shortwave infrared bands) and 60 m (three atmospheric correction bands).?
Look at the link, there is a window in the red edge IR and another larger one around 10 microns.
I never said there was not a window and some could not go through.
About 90% of the IR emitted from Earth does not make it directly to space, some returns to Earth’s surface and the rest is re-emitted light that carries no information about the surface.
Not sure why you think you know so much about science when you demonstrate a clear lack of science comprehension with many of your posts.
Mike Flynn says:
“Photographs of the surface are routinely taken from satellites using visible, infrared, untraviolet, and other wavelengths. This shows that radiation emitted from the surface travels to space in sufficiently straight lines to accurately represent the surface.”
No — what you’re seeing is mostly reflected sunlight, not emitted light.
The ocean isn’t blue because it emits blue light, it’s blue because waters absorbs in the red.
David Appell,
Mostly? Still trying to deny, divert, and confuse?
Or just trying to split hairs?
Have you really never seen a nighttime picture taken from space?
Do you believe the atmosphere changes its composition at night in significant relevant ways? You’re trying to be a tricky little devil, aren’t you? Now just which sort of “visible, infrared, ultraviolet and other wavelengths . . . ” do not travel through the atmosphere during the day?
Even worse, if you reflect light from the surface, the total path length is multiplied by two – once down, once up.
In AppellWorld, doubling optical thickness must increase transparency – or don’t you agree?
So sorry, David. Unless you’re worried about sunstroke, stand in the direct Sun. The IR from the Sun (more than 50% of total insolation) should make you warmer quite quickly (unless you have an overcoat on, which will reduce the amount of IR reaching your body). Now step into the shade cast by a structure. You’ll notice that the shadow delineation demonstrates the straight line propagation of infrared through the atmosphere, allowing for the shadow penumbra, which will vary in extent depending on light source, of course.
The straight line propagation of visible light is demonstrated by the same shadow. You might care to examine a sun dial, which shows the Sun’s rays travel in predictable ways through the entire thickness of the atmosphere.
It might be more difficult to get you to accept that water is wet, but I’ll give it a try if you don’t believe it. Let me know.
Cheers.
MF, you’re wrong — The ocean is not blue because it emits blue light.
David Appell,
May I gently point out that the sensor doesn’t know whether a photon has been emitted or reflected. Even you have no way of knowing whether you are looking at a reflection or emission if your view is restricted to a particular image.
Looking through prismatic binoculars, the resultant image has gone through a number of translations, reflections, and other optical phenomena, not the last of which is the inversion of the image projected on to your retina, by the lens in your eye.
You’ve been looking at the world upside down, all your life! Literally.
What was your point about IR transmission through the atmosphere again?
Cheers.
Water absorbs red, but not blue.
This is a simple high school chemistry experiment.
Are you going to try to deny high school chemistry?
—
You’re just flat-out wrong.
Entropic…”Energy moves from the surface to the atmosphere, from the atmosphere to the surface and between GHG molecules in path-length steps in random directions”.
And what are the 99% of the gases that make up the atmosphere doing, nitrogen and oxygen, while the 0.04% of the atmosphere made up of anthropogenic CO2 are allegedly absorbing all the radiative flux from the surface?
The theory is horse bleep.
Gordon, what determines whether a molecule absorbs infrared radiation?
Davie, what determines why a molecule does not absorb IR?
ON a more lighthearted note, I am thinking that next month Dr Spencer should just add a couple extra lines at the end of his report. Something like …
I figure that covers about 97% of the posts here and would save us all a lot of time! (Now if only I could remember who it is that told us how to post smileys … )
Tim Folkerts
I liked your post. Normally I would consider these long involved and meandering threads a massive waste of time but I do continue to learn so I can’t say it is all bad. Everyone has their beliefs and opinions and they seem most strong.
I am in it for the sake of science. Not sure about the other motivations. I can clearly see your posts are as one who wishes to educate the Public on the scientific issues.
Well said.
But not near so entertaining as the originals.
Norman says: “You skeptics are not making sense.”
Norman says: “Energy does NOT leave the system, but energy leaves the system.”
(Tim and Norman both believe they are making sense!)
Norman never wrote what you have in quotes.
Why are you distorting what he said?
Davie, explain that to Tim!
Tim Folkerts,
Here’s what NCSU Climate Education K-12 states –
“Latent and sensible heat are types of energy released or absorbed in the atmosphere. Latent heat is related to changes in phase between liquids, gases, and solids. Sensible heat is related to changes in temperature of a gas or object with no change in phase.”
Pretty easy to understand. Or do you think the given definition is useless?
How about the Oxford Dictionary definition –
“1The quality of being hot; high temperature.”
No?
Climatologically, the IPCC doesn’t define heat. However, they seem to use the Oxford Dictionary definition when the IPCC defines heat waves –
“Heat wave (also referred to as extreme heat event)
A period of abnormally hot weather. Heat waves and warm spells have various and in some cases overlapping definitions.”
I have no doubt you have your own peculiar definition of heat, which you will quickly change when somebody points out it doesn’t apply in a particular instance.
So tell us, what’s the meaning of “heat'” that people need to understand?
Cheers.
When are you going to explain this graph?
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
David Appell,
What needs explaining? Are you really to dim to work it out for yourself?
So the undistinguished mathematician and wannabe scientist Gavin Schmidt can use an image manipulating program to amalgamate two unrelated images into one completely nonsensical picture.
If this is your version of intellectual brilliance, good for you!
Do you think there is a secret message hidden somewhere?
Im not sure why you think image manipulation is evidence of anything except itself, but Im sure youll try and browbeat me into something! Go for it!
Cheers
Good grief! Laughter is the enemy of correct apostrophisation!
My apologies, David. I’ll type more slowly, so you can comprehend better.
Cheers.
Mike,
David has no capacity for comprehension – he is a true believer.
MF: Why are you afraid to look at that graph and analyze it?
Why are you afraid to explain the difference in energy between what the Earth’s surface emits, and how much leaves the TOA?
MF: Like Trump, you are an easy read.
You’re afraid to talk about that graph. It shows your game is up.
Tim Folkerts,
It seems that when you say –
“People need to understand what heat means.”, you are just making the usual unsubstantiated assertion, presumably appealing to your own authority. As you cannot even explain what “heat” means, I’m not sure why anybody else should take any more notice of such a pointless and fatuous statement than I do – that is, none at all.
But in answer to the questions you posed – even though they appear to be Woeful Wayward Wandering Warmist attempts at “gotchas”, falling well below the abysmal standard set by David Appell – here you are –
How many definitions of latent heat would satisfy you? Which type of latent heat are you talking about? Would you prefer a classical definition or a more complete one involving quantum theory? Maybe you could form your question differently, if you want a reasonably definite answer.
Write an equation for what, precisely? If you’re talking about what I think you are talking about, sure. Trivial.
A numerical value for “latent heat”? I assume you’re joking. I hope you’re joking. Your question is about as silly as giving a numerical value for “heat”!
Yes, depending on how you define the terms. However, ocean heat content is unknown. “Heat wave” is meaningless, being dependent on local definition. Could I explain all of these to a university physics class? Of course, why would you think otherwise?
As to asking you to give others some idea of what you think they need to understand, you pointedly refuse to supply any answer. You then claim that could supply a list of a dozen things that people need to know, but still refuse to name what is on your invisible list!
Is one of them the “numerical value of latent heat”, perhaps? Which type of latent heat are you talking about?
Maybe you need to work a little harder on scientific question definition. Following climatological precepts of deny, divert, and confuse, aren’t working too well these days.
Even the average slack-jawed gullible bumbler is starting to ask questions. Maybe providing your list of a dozen things people need to know about heat, might be a good starting point. I’m guessing that you’re not going to because people might laugh at your ignorance. A little like Phil Jones being terrified that people might try to find fault with his data.
This is science? No, it’s climatology!
Cheers.
The evidence Mike Flynn is scared to look at:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
“Could I explain all of these to a university physics class? Of course, why would you think otherwise?”
The short answer is that you have been utterly befuddled that a diesel engine gets the gases in the cylinder hot without any “heating” — demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of “heat”.
I don’t doubt that you have some knowledge of physics. I don’t doubt that this medium of communication makes it difficult for people to communicate scientific information (both sending and receiving). So at this point, without some sort of real-time communication with some sort of ‘interactive whiteboard”, I suspect we are going to be left with no resolution. People can enjoy the interactions and perhaps learn something — or at least be inspired to seek knowledge from sources more suited to the task than Dr Spencer’s monthly temperature announcement.
Mike says: ” … Climate Education K-12 … Oxford Dictionary definition … your own peculiar definition … ”
Science really *is* more difficult that reading a dictionary definition or mastering elementary school. You seem to think that memorizing “your definition” or “the IPCC definition” or “my definition” “a dictionary’s definition” is sufficient.
Science requires mastery of concepts and mathematics and relationships. There are many inter-related ideas in thermodynamics, and you really can’t master one without a strong understanding of the others.
A quote from one of the great minds in thermodynamics — Lord Kelvin — comes to mind. “I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.”
When you can CONNECT the definitions to concepts and CONNECT the concepts to experiments and CONNECT the experiments to equations — then you begin to understand. So for instance, you quoted something about “latent heat” above. Off the top of your head could you define latent heat? Could you write an equation for it? Could you give a numerical value for it? Could you mathematically and verbally relate this to “sensible heat” or “heat flow” or “heat wave” or “ocean heat content” or “specific heat”? Could you explain all of these to a university physics class?
“whats the meaning of heat’ that people need to understand?”
The fact you ask this suggests you are not even close to the sort of deep understanding that is needed for a topic like this. I could list a dozen things that people “need to know” about heat to be ready to *begin* a serious discussion of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere.
For example, Kristian knows these things. I disagree a bit with some points he emphasizes, but it is clear that he has a solid foundation in thermodynamics. Providing you one particular elementary school definition of “heat” is not magically going to give you mastery of “heat”. You are going to have to actually *work* for it.
Profuse apologies. Previously posted in the wrong place. No excuses.
Tim Folkerts,
It seems that when you say
People need to understand what heat means., you are just making the usual unsubstantiated assertion, presumably appealing to your own authority. As you cannot even explain what heat means, Im not sure why anybody else should take any more notice of such a pointless and fatuous statement than I do that is, none at all.
But in answer to the questions you posed even though they appear to be Woeful Wayward Wandering Warmist attempts at gotchas, falling well below the abysmal standard set by David Appell here you are
How many definitions of latent heat would satisfy you? Which type of latent heat are you talking about? Would you prefer a classical definition or a more complete one involving quantum theory? Maybe you could form your question differently, if you want a reasonably definite answer.
Write an equation for what, precisely? If youre talking about what I think you are talking about, sure. Trivial.
A numerical value for latent heat? I assume youre joking. I hope youre joking. Your question is about as silly as giving a numerical value for heat!
Yes, depending on how you define the terms. However, ocean heat content is unknown. Heat wave is meaningless, being dependent on local definition. Could I explain all of these to a university physics class? Of course, why would you think otherwise?
As to asking you to give others some idea of what you think they need to understand, you pointedly refuse to supply any answer. You then claim that could supply a list of a dozen things that people need to know, but still refuse to name what is on your invisible list!
Is one of them the numerical value of latent heat, perhaps? Which type of latent heat are you talking about?
Maybe you need to work a little harder on scientific question definition. Following climatological precepts of deny, divert, and confuse, arent working too well these days.
Even the average slack-jawed gullible bumbler is starting to ask questions. Maybe providing your list of a dozen things people need to know about heat, might be a good starting point. Im guessing that youre not going to because people might laugh at your ignorance. A little like Phil Jones being terrified that people might try to find fault with his data.
This is science? No, its climatology!
Cheers.
Tim…” Providing you one particular elementary school definition of heat is not magically going to give you mastery of heat”.
You are making far too much of a big deal of this. Heat is simple, it’s the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules. Clausius said so and the definition makes absolute sense. What else could you call the energy associated with atoms as they vibrate in lattices, connected by bonds, or in gases and liquids as the atoms/molecules are free to collide.
If you heat atoms in a lattice, they vibrate harder. Their mean vibrational path length increases and that represents an increase in work AND thermal energy, aka heat.
The definitions offered by you and Kristian are highly generalized to the macroscopic transfer of heat. Clausius addressed that and claimed at the macroscopic level we need not bother ourselves with heat as an atomic phenomenon. Nevertheless, that’s what it is, just as electrical current is a phenomenon of atomic charge in electrons.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You are making far too much of a big deal of this. Heat is simple, its the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules.”
Only classically.
You are ignoring all of quantum mechanics.
David Appell,
Thanks for pointng out that Tim Folkerts is ignoring all of quantum mechanics, when he talks about heat without actually managing to say what it is he’s talking about.
Maybe you could help Tim out with his list of a dozen things he considers people need to know before he’ll deign to talk with them.
If Tim just wants to deny, divert, and confuse, you could, of course, suggest that he tell everybody that heat is just a metaphor, and of course you can’t define a metaphor.
Do you think my suggestions are any good? Of course, I know you promised not to answer, but you can adopt my suggestions anyway, if you wish. My pleasure.
Cheers.
“Maybe you could help Tim out with his list of a dozen things he considers people need to know before hell deign to talk with them.”
No, that was a list of things (as a good start) that someone must know know before I will consider them well-versed in thermodynamics. I love talking to all sorts of people about science.
Your befuddled discussion that diesel engines ‘heat’ gases during compression shows you are not well-versed in thermodynamics. Rather then blustering, you could just admit you were wrong and move ahead.
GR: “You are making far too much of a big deal of this. Heat is simple, its the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules. ”
DA: “Only classically.”
1) GR’s use of “heat” refers to what is now universally called “internal energy”, and denoted “U”. Colloquially, many people use “heat” in this way — this is fine as long as it is clear that people are talking about “U” and not “Q”. For example, the term “ocean heat content” is actually “U” and should — in modern parlance — be called “ocean internal energy content”. But by history and by tradition in different fields, words are not always used consistently.
2) The internal energy (which GR likes to call “heat”) includes energy of vibration in addition to kinetic energy itself. Without extensive digging into history, I suspect that classical mechanics would also include this vibrational energy. What QM does is quantize the vibrations that classical physics would already include.
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“Your befuddled discussion that diesel engines heat gases during compression shows you are not well-versed in thermodynamics. ”
Well, they certainly don’t cool the gases during compression, do they?
Play with words all you like –
“Adiabatic heating occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased from work done on it by its surroundings, e.g., a piston compressing a gas contained within an adiabatic cylinder. This finds practical application in diesel engines which rely on the lack of quick heat dissipation during their compression stroke to elevate the fuel vapor temperature sufficiently to ignite it.”
I know you do not like being pinned down by definitions, but –
‘What is ADIABATIC HEATING?
A change in the temperature of a material without addition of heat that happens when the pressure of a gas is increased.
ADIABATIC HEATING: “Adiabatic heating occurs due to changes in pressure of a gas.” ”
So, to a foolish Warmist, gases are not heated by compression, but rather “warmed”. This accords with the foolish Warmist belief that a reduction in the observed rate of cooling, is actually heating.
It seems I might know more about thermodynamics than you. It appears that I certainly know more about English – the raising of temperature is generally referred to as “heating”, as is in “heating system”, “adiabatic heating”, and so on. Likewise, a heated discussion is generally accepted as having a fairly well defined meaning. You might refer to a “warmed discussion”, but your audience might appear befuddled.
I suppose you could tell your mechanic that your engine “overwarmed”. After looking at your engine, he might ask you if you meant “overheated”. If you continue to argue that your engine has “overwarmed”, the mechanic may become overwarmed himself, and suggest you take you and your overwarmed engine to a Warmist establishment.
Keep it up Tim. I’m sure you consider yourself a legend in your own lunchbox, so you might as well keep appealing to your own authority. I prefer facts.
Cheers.
Mike, about all I can say at this point is read a thermodynamics textbook; talk to a physics professor. I am not using “warmist” definitions or “my personal” definitions or “flexible” defintions. I am using textbook thermodynamics definitions.
Tim offers “scholarly” advice: “Mike, about all I can say at this point is read a thermodynamics textbook; talk to a physics professor.”
Mike, just make sure the thermo book does not teach that “cold” can warm “hot”.
Also, make sure the “physics professor” does not have worms in his/her head.
Tim…”The internal energy (which GR likes to call heat) includes energy of vibration in addition to kinetic energy itself”.
You are getting close, don’t stop now. That vibrational energy IS the heat. Clausius described it as such claiming the vibrations of atoms in a solid represents work and work and heat are interchangeable.
As far as U is concerned, Clausius created that relationship. You are using the word internal energy generically, the real name for it is heat.
In his 1875 treatise on heat he claimed: “We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of this motion”.
Vis Viva was a Latin term (living force) used for kinetic energy in those days. Of course, the term ether was disputed by Einstein who claimed it does not exist. Clausius thought radiative energy was transmitted through space by the ether. He may have been close since it has been found recently that so-called empty space is teeming with neutrinos.
Then he went on to establish the relationship between KE and work and described heat in terms of both.
Tim…Clausius first established the relationship:
dQ = dH + dL
Where Q = heat in or out of a body, H = total heat content of body and L = work done by atoms in the body.
Then, “The forces against which the work is done may be divided into two classes: (1) those which the molecules of the body exert among-‘ themselves, and which are therefore dependent on the nature of the body itself and (2) those which arise from external influences, to the body is subjected. According to these two classes of forces, which have to be overcome, the work done is divided into internal and external work. If we denote these two quantities by dJ and dW, we may put
dL = dJ +dW
then, dQ = dH + dJ + dW
He then established that U = H + J
and dQ = dU + dW
Clausius was first to introduce U and everyone else followed his precedent. He defined U as the energy of the body.
Winter in the southern hemisphere will begin with powerful snowstorms in the mountainous regions of Argentina and Chile.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/14/1800Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-76.22,-52.66,903
If anyone wants to see a collection of sciency words contains precisely nothing of value, based on supposition, assertion, and wishful thinking, look up “greenhouse effect” in Wikipedia.
I particularly like this –
“However, the mechanism by which the atmosphere retains heatthe “greenhouse effect”is different; a greenhouse is not primarily warmed by the “greenhouse effect”.”
It’s a pity both cool down after the Sun sets. They appear to share the same cooling mechanism.
Contrast the “greenhouse effect” with a real scientific effect – try the thermometer-electric effect. Broken into Seebeck, Pelter, and Thompson effects, these are reproducible, can be quantified and rigorously described. Not only that, it turns out they are useful, and can be explained using physics.
The Warmists can’t even manage to come up with a rigorous scientific description of their non-existent, so-called effect! It can’t even be demonstrated or measured in the lab – just like ESP, or parapsychology.
As Feynman said – “This is science?”
Cheers.
The evidence Mike Flynn is afraid to confront:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
MF wrote: “The Warmists cant even manage to come up with a rigorous scientific description of their non-existent, so-called effect!”
GHE = (a planets actual global average surface temperature) – (the planets brightness temperature).
Mike Flynn…”Contrast the greenhouse effect with a real scientific effect…”
You can’t, the greenhouse effect is strictly a metaphor. A real greenhouse does not work by trapping infrared, which is usually mistaken for thermal energy, it operates by preventing convection from cooling the greenhouse.
Glass in a real greenhouse traps molecules of air. Hot air molecules rise naturally and the glass prevents that action. Without the glass, hot air rises and cooler air flows in to replace it. The glass prevents that. Therefore, the heat accumulates as highly energetic gas molecules.
There is nothing whatsoever in the atmosphere to replicate that action. The term greenhouse effect is a misnomer and they are still filling the heads of kids with that nonsense in schools.
Gordon
This may be a first. You and I actually agree on something! The atmosphere and a greenhouse both trap heat, but do so in very different ways.
We agree it’s a poor metaphor, but have you considered there may not be a better alternative?
Snape…”The atmosphere and a greenhouse both trap heat, but do so in very different ways”.
Our agreement may be somewhat premature. A real greenhouse traps heat because it traps actual molecules of air. There is no mechanism in the atmosphere to trap molecules of air.
People talking about the atmosphere trapping heat are really talking about it absorbing a tiny amount of IR compared to the immense IR flux generated by the surface. I seriously doubt if that absorbed IR makes a difference since the atmospheric temperature has already been established by the 99% of the mass represented by N2 and O2.
The planetary “greenhouse effect” is a metaphor, Gordon.
Everyone knows this except, apparently, you.
David Appell,
I know you’ve promised to provide no answers, so I won’t bother asking you what sort of metaphor the greenhouse effect is. Maybe a metaphor for the boundless gullibility of people who believe that the greenhouse effect is a real scientific effect?
Even Snape agrees it’s a poor metaphor – for what, he’s not quite sure.
Maybe an actual scientist could propose a reproducible and measurable effect, rather than a poor metaphor. Possibly something involving CO2 and temperature might be a good starting place?
Here’s your chance David. You wouldn’t want billions of taxpayers’ dollars wasted pursuing an undefined and poor metaphor, would you? Or maybe you do.
Sorry for thinking you might be able to explain the metaphor, as I know you promised never to provide any answers to me, ever again.
Cheers.
In what way is the greenhouse effect a good metaphor? Both a greenhouse and the atmosphere (on a clear day) allow solar radiation to pass mostly unobstructed. Both then trap (think residence time instead of permanently) a portion of outgoing heat.
Maybe a “permanent slowdown” of heat transfer would be more accurate than “trapped”. Think of an area of congestion on a freeway. Cars might be traveling 75 MPH before and after the traffic jam, but stop and go, bumper to bumper wothin it. If the length of the slowdown is constant, the cars are entering and leaving at the same rate.
Within the atmosphere or a greenhouse, there is a traffic jam of heat. This does not mean the two slowdowns are caused by the same thing.
Snape,
I agree with you. The greenhouse effect is a poor metaphor. The problem is, nobody knows what it’s a poor metaphor for, if you know what I mean.
Is it a metaphor for a freeway? Or maybe for a greenhouse? Or maybe for a traffic jam of heat? That will no doubt have Tim Folkert’s head exploding! That’s a metaphor as well.
Rather than seek metaphors, if CO2 raises the temperature of thermometers by some means, just give the effect a name – often the name of the discoverer, or the person who first figured out how to describe it clearly and reproducibly – describe it, measure it, and so on.
Complete nonsense, I know. It can’t be done, because it’s impossible!
And you think this is science? Metaphorical science, perhaps. Climatology doesn’t even seem to be a metaphor for science. Oh well.
Cheers.
Flynn
Maybe I wasn’t clear, but you’re not understanding me. The greenhouse metaphor explains that our atmosphere doesn’t impede incoming heat, but only outgoing heat. In that way it’s a good analogy.
The problem is a greenhouse and the atmosphere slow down outgoing heat in different ways. (A greenhouse through convection, whereas in the atmosphere air flows freely). This is sort of nitpicking, though.
My reference to a traffic jam was mainly to demonstrate how a slowdown and an equilibrium can coexist. It also demonstrates how the word “slowdown” might be better than trapped. Notice how we use the word “stuck” when we’re in a traffic jam, even though we eventually get through? This is similar to saying heat is “trapped”, even though it eventually reaches space.
Snape,
The atmosphere does indeed impede incoming energy. Around 30% doesn’t get the ground.
As you say, radiation from the surface proceeds to space. When radiation leaves the surface, the surface temperature falls. Night, for example, or afternoon.
End of story – no increases in temperature – as in “Hottest year EVAH!”
No GHE. No metaphor necessary. No heating due to the atmosphere. In the absence of sunlight, the surface cools. Its temperature does not increase.
Sad but true!
Cheers.
Flynn
Yes, a lot of solar radiation is reflected back into space by our atmosphere – mostly from clouds and particulates.
How much of the 30% you claim is from Co2, methane, water vapor etc.?
These are the elements of the atmosphere that have a greenhouse effect, which was what our conversation was about?
“As you say, radiation from the surface proceeds to space. When radiation leaves the surface, the surface temperature falls.
End of story no increases in temperature”
But when radiation arrives at the normal rate (ie during the day) but leaves at a reduced rate (eg due to higher GHG concentrations), then the incoming radiation has a larger effect, making that day warmer than it would have been if the radiation had left at a greater rate. And when it cools down over night from this higher temperature, it is a higher temperature the next morning than it would have been without the GHGs. The entire 24 hr period is warmer than it would have been with less GHG.
In other words, the reduced OUTFLOW with constant INFLOW leads to warmer temperature. For the life of me, I can never figure out why this should be difficult to understand!
“The atmosphere does indeed impede incoming energy. Around 30% doesnt get the ground.”
Based on Trenberth’s numbers:
341 come in and 184 gets to the ground = 46% doesn’t get to the ground.
341 come in and 161 gets absorbed by the ground = 53% doesn’t absorbed by the ground.
Where does “30% doesnt get the ground” come from?
“The entire 24 hr period is warmer than it would have been with less GHG.”
Tim, you get it wrong again. You keep believing GHG are warming the planet. You cannot get away from that pseudoscience–that worm in your head.
Try some “worm medicine”:
“The entire 24 hour period is COOLER than it would have been with less GHG.”
MF, why won’t you address the evidence?
It’s a simple question.
DA…”The planetary greenhouse effect is a metaphor, Gordon”.
So why are we talking about it as if it means something? A metaphor is a non-reality, science is not about metaphors.
Influence of Pressure and Density on Temperature: The Demijohn experiment:
The relationship between density and pressure can be demonstrated in a corked demijohn combined with a bicycle pump. As air is pumped into the demijohn, the temperature (measured by a thermistor probe) increases. The increase in temperature is due to an increase in density (more air is pumped into the jar, increasing its mass compared to an equivalent volume of air in the surrounding room), and an associated increase in pressure. When the jar is depressurised, the temperature falls to its initial value.
This is described by the equation p = R r T in the following way:
Rearranging the equation to examine the effect of variations of pressure and density on temperature, we write: p/(r R) = T
This says that pressure divided by (density multiplied by a constant) equals temperature
In the demijohn experiment, we increase the air pressure and the density. As it turns out, the % increase in pressure is greater than the % increase in density, so the term p/rR increases. Hence, temperature increases.
This explains the general reduction in temperature with altitude (a reduction in temperature due to decreasing pressure).
Vertical changes in pressure and density
As noted above, air pressure reduces with altitude due to the reduction in the mass of overlying air. This reduction in pressure is associated with a reduction in air density. We can use the equation of state to explore why this is so. First, we can rearrange the equation to isolate air density:
r = p / R T
This simply says that the air density is given by the pressure divided by (temperature x a constant). Therefore, for any given temperature, as pressure decreases, so does the air density. We have seen, however, that temperature decreases with reductions in pressure. A decrease in temperature will actually have the opposite effect on density, since density and temperature are inversely related in this equation. However, it turns out that this effect is outweighed by the pressure-density relationship, and as pressure decreases with height, so does air density.
We can see this effect with a worked example.
(1) The air pressure at sea-level is c. 1000 mbar, or 100,000 Pascals. If the air is at 25o C (298o K), then:
r = 100,000 / (287 x 298) (recall that the gas constant for dry air is 287)
= 1.17 kg m-3 (this figure is very close to the mean figure for sea-level density quoted above)
(2) For 500 mbar (the air pressure at around 5,500 metres above sea-level), the air temperature is typically -30o C (243o K)
thus:
r = 50,000 / (287 x 243)
= 0.72 kg m-3
This is a little over half of the value for sea-level, showing that the pressure is the overwhelming influence on the change in density.
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/pressure.html
“Disturbing the Hydrostatic Equilibrium: The effect of heating on a small mass of air
The relationship between pressure, density and temperature explains what happens when a small mass of air is heated above the temperature of its surroundings. When air is heated (and this may be due to the transfer of sensible heat, radiative energy, or latent heat), the molecules in the air move more rapidly. They therefore exert a greater push on the surrounding, cooler air. In other words, they exert a slightly greater pressure on the surrounding air than the surrounding air exerts on the heated air. On small spatial scales, there this little to resist this excess pressure, with the result that the heated air expands to locally restore the pressure balance. That is, the heated air attains a lower density as the result of the initial heating.
This is described by the equation p = R r T in the following way:
The rapid equalisiation of pressure means that we can regard the pressure as constant.
Since the term R is also a constant for any gas, we can write: r x T = constant
In turn, this means that for higher temperatures, the density is lower.
The lower density of a heated mass of air means that the downward force – r g (the mass of air accelerated by the downward force of gravity) is reduced, relative to that exerted by the vertical pressure gradient. As a result, there is a net upward force on the air mass, and it rises. Thus, the increase in temperature and reduction in density disturbs the local hydrostatic equilibrium and the air mass rises. The opposite happens when an air mass is chilled relative to the surrounding air. The reduction of temperature reduces the average velocity of the consitituent molecules, reducing the force they exert on the surrounding air. As a result, the chilled air mass contracts, increasing its density. The consequent increase in downward force upsets the local hydrostatic balance, and the air mass sinks.
The magnitude of the buoyant force is given by a minor modification to the right-hand side of the hydrostatic equation:
buoyant force = -((r0 – rf)/r0)g
where r0 is the density of the air parcel, and rf is the density of the surrounding air. Thus if r0 = rf the air is neutrally buoyant, if r0 > rf the buoyant force is more negative and the air sinks, and if r0 < rf the buoyant force increases and the air rises."
Dave being wrong about the sun does not mean I am wrong about the climate since I based my climate prediction on the strength or lack of strength of solar activity.
Solar activity if you would look Dave was way above the parameters I had called for in order to result in a global cool down from 2010- mid 2016, now this has changed
SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED TO PRODUCE GLOBAL COOLING
Solar Flux 90 or less
Cosmic Ray Counts in excess of 6500 units
EUV light less then 100 units
Solar Irradiance off by .15% or more
Solar Wind 350or less
AP index 5 or less
IMF – 4.2 nt or less
All of these values until recently were not present therefore no global cooling should have occurred from 2010-2016 which was the case, now however David the solar parameters are reaching my criteria and therefore I am calling for global cooling.
Now David if the solar parameters stay within my criteria which I expect going forward from here and no global cooling occurs I will admit to being wrong on everything.
I can not be any clearer then that.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/
Sorry.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/
I can’t post a reply here with scientific content.
HDH has no albedoe.s in that post….
He ignores albedoe.s, meaning his conclusion is crap.
Naturally, ren, you feel for it.
You fell for it.
Davie complains: “I cant post a reply here with scientific content.”
Davie, you can post here, but you don’t have any “scientific content”.
Sorry, you have made definitive announcements that all your criteria are in place for cooling — yet those, too, were wrong:
Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
Dave it does not matter how you view it.
The only thing that will matter is what the global temperatures do from here in response to the very low solar conditions that should be present.
Salvatore, what matters is that you have been consistently wrong for at least 7 years.
So there’s no reason to take any of your current “predictions” seriously — you’ve been wrong too any times, and you can’t explain the warming that’s happened when you’ve been wrong.
And, ultimately, you are wrong about AGW via aGHGs.
And you seem to have learned nothing in this 7 years of wrongness.
David Appell
I explained the science of your graph to Mike Flynns, making clear how it is evidence for the greenhouse effect.
He replied with a sarcastic diatribe.
Time to stop wasting time on him.
I agree. He can’t address any of the data and evidence. Time to call his bluff.
Entropic Man,
Promises, promises!
David promised to provide no more answers – at least he’s proved he can do what he promised!
Maybe he thinks someone might take notice of Gavin Schmidt’s pointless computer graphic.
David can’t understand it, obviously. That’s why he keeps demanding that I tell him what it means. Why should I tell him it’s meaningless? Would he be any happier, or less dim?
Ahhh! So many questions, so few answers!
Cheers.
When are you going to address the evidence?
Who do you think you’re fooling by avoiding it?
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
David Appell,
So the undistinguished mathematician and wannabe scientist Gavin Schmidt can use an image manipulating program to amalgamate two unrelated images into one.
If this is your version of intellectual brilliance, good for you!
Im not sure why you think image manipulation is evidence of anything except itself, but Im sure youll try and browbeat me into something! Go for it!
You said the GHE is really a metaphor [for something else].
Is the computer graphic which seems to be preying on your mind also a metaphor?
What is that you can’t understand? Are you really concerned that Gavin Schmidt’s graphic is evidence of his ignorance? Have you asked him to explain why he produced such a silly graphic?
No point asking me. I might just say it looks like a metaphor – and everyone knows it, except you, apparently.
Cheers.
Cheers
MF, you’re clearly afraid to confront the evidence. Everyone here sees how you avoid it.
4 Graphs That Demonstrate Why The IPCC Climate Models Will NEVER Be Accurate
If I am correct in properly identifying the motives and intent of the fraud, the divergence between the ground measurements and satellite data will continue to widen with time. In 10 years, an understanding of the crime detailed above and an update of the following chart is all Congress should need to present an open and shut case against the climate alarmists that have defrauded the American taxpayers, corrupted real science, and destroyed the credibility of our media and educational system.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/4-graphs-that-demonstrate-why-the-ipcc-climate-models-will-never-be-accurate/
Your aren’t correct. Period. And your blog posts are trash.
In the next few days in the snowfall in the Andes can fall to two meters of snow.
AP
Prove it
HC
When “Trashy” Davie calls your work trash, then you know you’ve got it right!
Will there be a record of ice in May?
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r00_Northern_Hemisphere_ts_4km.png
Dave if the temperatures drop going forward(say next 5 years on balance ) you may not want to admit I might be correct but how are you gong to reconcile AGW is correct?
Answer that question. I am curious what would it take to make you say AGW is not correct? There must be some set of circumstances that would make you come to that conclusion.
I have told you I would admit to being wrong on everything if global temperatures fail to fall in the face of expected very weak solar conditions going forward.
Salvatore, when you are ready to admit your many past mistakes, we can start talking about your present misconceptions.
Deal?
Dave let’s see what happens gong forward that is all I am going to say.
You may be proven right if temperatures do not fall during this prolonged solar minimum you will probably be correct.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Answer that question. I am curious what would it take to make you say AGW is not correct?”
Nothing.
AGW has already been proven.
So nothing can unprove it.
OK. I am surprised with the answer however.
Snape says, May 12, 2017 at 9:14 PM:
Snape says, May 12, 2017 at 10:02 PM:
Maybe a “permanent slowdown” of heat transfer would be more accurate than “trapped”. Think of an area of congestion on a freeway. Cars might be traveling 75 MPH before and after the traffic jam, but stop and go, bumper to bumper wothin it. If the length of the slowdown is constant, the cars are entering and leaving at the same rate.
Snape says, May 12, 2017 at 10:09 PM:
This is an all-too-common misconception.
There appears to be two differing views on how to attain a thermal equilibrium – one realistic one, and one deeply confused one, what I would call “the radiationer’s view”; ‘the radiationer’ being a person who thinks that the atmospheric thermal effect on a planetary surface – a very real effect – is somehow caused simply by internal radiation (more specifically, by internal radiative FLUXES), that is, one who believes in the “radiative greenhouse effect (rGHE)”.
The imagined ‘internal amplifying radiative transfer loop’ (see link below) of the rGHE hypothesis is in fact nothing but a misconstrued version of the real-world situation.
There simply is no continuous radiative transfer of energy going on inside the atmosphere (and down to the surface), looping up and down and back and forth, warming in all directions, getting bigger with each cycle, during the energy buildup towards a steady state. This is but a misguided radiationer’s interpretation of a very basic fact: The temperatures are rising.
The question is: What causes the temperatures to rise? They don’t rise because of a gradual intensification of instantaneous radiative fluxes back and forth. They rise because of a gradual storing up of ‘internal energy’ [+U]. As in any real-world, warming thermodynamic system. Leading to +T. In turn naturally leading to a gradual intensification of the apparent radiative expressions of temperature. No radiative fluxes. Just apparent radiative expressions of temperature. Interpreted as actual, independent fluxes of energy by the radiationer.
In other words, he’s got his idea of cause and effect all backwards.
This is the key to understanding: There’s a distinct difference between energy being statically accumulated inside a warming thermodynamic system and energy being dynamically transferred between thermodynamic systems. Energy can’t do both at the same time. It’s either accumulated or it’s transferred.
If you don’t get this distinction, you won’t understand what’s going on.
There are only radiative fluxes moving INTO and OUT OF the atmosphere. They enter via the surface (or directly from the Sun), and exit to space. The entering flux helps warm the atmosphere, while the exiting flux cools it. (When the combined flux transferred TO the atmosphere is larger than the flux transferred FROM it, the difference between them accumulates inside the atmosphere in the form of internal energy, making it warmer. It doesn’t transfer back down to the surface …)
In the steady state, the solar flux is finally given a free pass through the Earth system. On average, at each point in time, as much goes OUT as what comes IN. Balance has finally been attained.
Here’s, however, how this steady-state situation is portrayed through the rGHE hypothesis:
Conceptually (on a simplified Earth), 240 W/m^2 come in to the surface from the Sun, warming it; those same 240 W/m^2 then move out from the surface, cooling it back, and is absorbed by the atmosphere, in turn warming it; the 240 W/m^2 then finally move out from the atmosphere, cooling it back, and ends up in space, where it originally came from. The overall (average) temperature at this stage will thus not change. It simply rises as the Sun shines, and drops back down – as much as it rose – when the Sun’s away. Fine.
The point, though, is that, in addition to this lossless ride of the solar heat through the Earth system, there is now a continuously (and constant) cycling loop of radiative energy transfer up and down between the surface and the atmosphere, absolutely necessary to maintain the steady-state temperatures enabling this equilibrated situation to last. This transfer loop, in the steady state, is really a zero-sum game*, but that doesnt mean it can be removed in any way. If it’s removed, then the entire Earth system will freeze cold.
*480 W/m^2 up from the sfc, of which 240 go straight to space (the ‘solar flux’ part) and 240 to the atm, after which the atm returns those 240 back to the sfc, adding it to its 240 W/m^2 in from the Sun and enabling it to emit 480 W/m^2 up to space and the atmosphere in combination. In this way, 240 W/m^2 always moves up and down between the sfc and the atm, while at the same time an equal flux always escapes to space:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/rghe-loop.png
The thing is, the orange internal atmospheric radiation loop in the figure above doesn’t really exist. It’s purely a figment of the radiationer’s imagination. What exists is rather the statically stored internal energy [U] held within the thermal mass of the atmosphere system, giving it its steady-state temperature (and temperature distribution). There is no continuous thermodynamic zero-sum transfer game of radiative energy back and forth between the surface and atmosphere, keeping the temperatures up.
What the radiationer perceives as the cause of the steady-state temperatures (the necessary, eternally cycling radiative transfer loop), is really just an apparent effect of those steady-state temperatures (actually caused simply by the storing up of internal energy, U). ‘Thermal radiation’ is called thermal radiation because it is the result of ‘warmth’, of temperature, not because it causes that ‘warmth’ or temperature.
To conclude:
In the steady state, no heat is “trapped” or “slowed down” anywhere. During the buildup towards the steady state, however, surface heat (originally in from the Sun) is indeed “trapped” on its way out, by the MASS of the atmosphere. A portion of this trapped heat accumulates inside the atmosphere as internal energy, making its temperature go up in the process. And as the atmosphere’s temperature goes up, the release of heat from the surface will be slowed down, because of a reduction in the temperature difference between the surface and its immediate thermal surroundings, forcing the surface temperature up as well. This process will go on all the way to the steady state, where balance between the heat in (from the Sun) and the heat out (from Earth to space) has finally been attained.
THIS is what happens. The atmosphere acts as – no, it IS – an insulating layer on top of the solar-heated surface; yes, a metaphorical “blanket”.
Kristian
I suspect we are closer on this than you think. For instance, I agree with everything in your closing statement.
But why do you think I believe this, “looping up and down and back and forth, warming in all directions, getting bigger with each cycle, during the energy buildup towards a steady state.”?
How do you get “looping up and down and back and forth” from my traffic jam analogy?
(This is different than what we’re talking about, but the atmosphere does indeed heat parts of the surface every day – when warmer air masses move over colder ground).
Kristian
Are you claiming there is no transfer of heat from surface to space?
If so, explain how the top of the atmosphere can continually release heat into space without also acquiring an equal amount?
Kristian
I reread your comment and almost totally agree. Here is what can cause confusion. An individual molecule of GHG emits energy in all directions, including back towards the ground. This is not the big picture, though. The atmosphere as a whole has only an upward flow of heat because space is much colder than the earth.
I think you’re mistaken about one point but I’ll get to it later.
Snape says, May 13, 2017 at 8:12 AM:
I don’t necessarily believe that YOU think this, Snape. Don’t worry. My comment is more of a general statement. Your post simply prompted me to put down some thoughts.
Snape says, May 13, 2017 at 8:52 AM:
Absolutely not. Again, my comment is a generalised (and thus highly simplified) view on reality.
Snape says, May 13, 2017 at 10:18 AM:
Exactly. I’ve never said anything to the effect that individual photons aren’t and/or can’t be radiated from the atmosphere to the surface.
However, this doesn’t constitute a separate FLUX of energy to the surface equivalent to the solar flux. This is an ESSENTIAL fact that people need to start taking to heart.
I look forward to it.
Kristian wrote:
“Ive never said anything to the effect that individual photons arent and/or cant be radiated from the atmosphere to the surface.However, this doesnt constitute a separate FLUX of energy to the surface equivalent to the solar flux.”
Then, ipso facto, you are denying that photons have energy.
Like Snape, I agree with most of what you say, Kristian. Maybe we can iron out a few details. Start with a simple one.
“Conceptually (on a simplified Earth), 240 W/m^2 come in to the surface from the Sun, warming it; those same 240 W/m^2 then move out from the surface … “
I would say “an equal 240 W/m^2 then move out …”. The point is that once the original 240 is absorbed, it is thermalized and becomes part of the surface’s energy. At steadystate, an equal amount of energy is leaving — but that is the surface’s energy at this point.
one more …
“surface heat (originally in from the Sun) is indeed trapped on its way out, by the MASS of the atmosphere. “
1) I suggest it is immaterial (and even a bit misleading) to mention where the energy originally came from. The energy had been thermalized and is now an indistinguishable bit of the *surface’s* energy.
2) The energy is “stopped by” GHGs and “thermalized into” the bulk of the atmosphere. Both are part of the process and singling out just one of the two seems odd. And yes, that would apply to people who just credit the GHGs and don’t mention the bulk. (But an atmosphere of pure GHG would still “trap”, while an atmosphere of pure N2 would not. This would make is seem like the GHG is the critical factor –> the “cause”.)
Tim, Kristian
Here are some random thoughts on the subject, one at a time.
– I think heat enters and leaves the atmosphere at a much faster rate than it travels THROUGH the atmosphere. I would like to explain myself, but first would like to know if you agree?
Warning: I have read almost nothing about this subject (zero background in physics), just enjoy trying to work it out in my head.
Kristian, here’s what I have a problem with.
You wrote,
“And as the atmospheres temperature goes up, the release of heat from the surface will be slowed down, because of a reduction in the temperature difference between the surface and its immediate thermal surroundings, forcing the surface temperature up as well. This process will go on all the way to the steady state, where balance between the heat in (from the Sun) and the heat out (from Earth to space) has finally been attained.”
The earth’s surface is heated at a constant rate which means the atmosphere is heated at a constant rate. Thus any changes in the atmosphere’s temperature would be the result of changes in OUTFLOW.
If a finite amount of Co2 were added to the atmosphere we would see warming. But as the atmosphere warmed the difference in temperature between the top of the atmosphere and space would increase. This would result in faster rate of heat loss and lead to a new equilibrium.
Note that if less heat were released from surface to atmosphere (because the atmosphere has warmed) the surface temperature would increase due to accumulated input from the sun. This increase in surface temperature would then cause a faster rate of heat to be released into the atmosphere.
It’s a circular argument. The net flow of heat from surface to atmosphere would remain constant.
Please realize this concept seems counterintuitive and impossible. It drove me crazy for a long time. Then one day…….😊
Whoops. This comment is talking about:
” I think heat enters and leaves the atmosphere at a much faster rate than it travels THROUGH the atmosphere. “
This is a fun brainteaser. Don’t look it up!
Once I figured it out the answer seemed painfully obvious. It makes clear how the atmosphere “traps” heat (figuratively) and “transfers” heat at the same time.
I think it also explains the fundamental principle behind insulation
Tim Folkerts says, May 13, 2017 at 11:53 AM:
Sure.
Tim Folkerts says, May 13, 2017 at 12:02 PM:
Tim, people here are confused as to what actually “heats” the surface of the Earth. Sometimes you seem a bit confused about it yourself, seeing how you keep insisting the atmosphere somehow “adds” energy to the surface. It’s this whole thing once again, the one you keep evading every time I bring it up:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
So that extra piece of information about how it’s the Sun – and ONLY the Sun – that heats (that is, adds energy to) the surface of the Earth, was simply included to underline this particular point, for the benefit of those people in particular.
Tim, we’ve had this EXACT same discussion before. On this very blog. So why do you act as though you’re completely oblivious to this fact?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-225175
—
Radiation contributes to the warming of the atmosphere. In the form of heat inputs (from the surface and directly from the Sun). But it’s not a necessary contributor. The atmosphere would warm perfectly well even without absorbing LW from the surface and SW from the Sun. From simply having a MASS. However, it wouldn’t be able to COOL perfectly well without being able to emit IR to space.
—
The “radiative properties” of the atmosphere are basically what connects it thermodynamically with the surface. However, atmospheric radiation isn’t what warms the surface. The atmospheric TEMPERATURE is. When the temp difference/gradient between thermodynamic systems or regions decreases, it causes ALL heat transfers between those systems/regions to slow, not just the radiant part. And slowing down the total heat loss rate from a surface will force energy to accumulate at/below this surface and thus make its temperature rise, IF the rate of heat INPUT to the surface stays the same. But just somehow reducing the radiant heat loss from a surface surrounded by a fluid subjected to gravity doesn’t mean you’ve reduced the temperature difference/gradient between that surface and the fluid surrounding it, to cause the surface to become warmer. Simply reducing the surface radiant heat loss doesn’t mean you automatically reduce the TOTAL surface heat loss to cause surface net warming.
—
No, the radiative properties of an atmosphere simply enable (as in ‘make it possible for’) the atmospheric temperature (crucially higher than that of space) to thermodynamically AFFECT the surface temperature by reducing the temperature DIFFERENCE between that surface and its effective thermal surroundings. Without atmospheric radiative properties, those surroundings would still be (cold) space. With atmospheric radiative properties in place, however, space is all of a sudden replaced by the (much warmer) atmosphere itself.
—
Yes. Radiative properties DO matter. But only in allowing the warm atmosphere to replace cold space as the effective thermal surroundings of the surface. Once that happens, however, it is the rising temperature of the atmosphere that actually FORCES the surface T_avg up. And from the point where the surface and the atmosphere are thermodynamically connected, atmospheric circulation becomes operative and stable, effectively rendering any changes in internal radiation powerless in raising the surface T_avg. As shown in the empirical data.
—
IR radiation is part of the surface energy balance, but it doesn’t thereby DETERMINE the surface energy balance. Not AFTER the radiative properties of the massive, warm atmosphere have made it the effective thermal surroundings of the surface. If they weren’t around to do that, then yes, the surface would end up much colder in the steady state, while the bulk atmosphere would end up much warmer. Because in this situation, the surface wouldn’t “see” the atmosphere, and its effective thermal surroundings would be space, as if the atmosphere weren’t even there. The atmosphere would – upon reaching the steady state, but not before – effectively be thermodynamically isolated from the rest of the universe, and so, even being substantially warmer on average than our current one, it might just as well have drifted away to the far side of the Moon. As far as the surface is concerned.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/#comment-219125
“I see no physics that would explain mass itself raising T_s ABOVE T_e.”
Just as the radiative properties of gaseous molecules are also not able – all by themselves – to raise a planet’s T_s above its T_e. No, both mass and radiative properties are needed.
“To get above T_e we need something to change the outgoing thermal radiation, eg GHGs at a high enough altitude to be significantly cooler than the surface.”
Yes, but then we also need an air column above the solar-heated surface that can have such a “high enough altitude” in the first place. We also need that altitude to be cooler on average than the surface. IOW, we need mass. A certain gas density/pressure (molecular interaction). And we need fluid dynamics.
“So the key factor is ALTITUDE here (with some definite dependence of the concentrations of the GHGs as well).”
No. There is no dependence on the CONCENTRATION/CONTENT of IR-active constituents in an atmosphere. An atmosphere definitely needs to be IR active (although it’s evidently not enough [look at Mars]) for a planet’s T_s to become higher than its T_e. It also needs to be IR active to be able to adequately rid itself of its absorbed energy from the surface (radiatively AND non-radiatively transferred) and directly from the Sun. But once it’s IR active, there is no dependence on the degree of activity. Because then the atmosphere has become stably convectively operative. And all that matters from then on is atmospheric MASS and SOLAR INPUT (TSI and global albedo).
“You say that atmospheric mass seems to force. Do you think that mass alone without GHGs could force temperatures higher than T_e?”
No. Just like “GHGs” alone could also not force T_s higher than T_e. You need both.
Kristian
I may need to retract my criticism yesterday. I didn’t quite understand your point. It suddenly clicked when you wrote,
” However, atmospheric radiation isnt what warms the surface. The atmospheric TEMPERATURE is.”
Thanks, gotta go. More on this later.
Kristian
This concept is very similar to how the atmosphere keeps a human being warm:
When the room temperature is 70 degrees, a person is very comfortable. How is this possible…..that’s almost 30 degrees colder than the persons body temperature? The answer is the person’s body is generating heat at the same rate as it’s losing heat to the room.
Drop the temp. to, say, 40 degrees, and the temperature gradient between the body and room would increase, causing a faster rate of heat loss. This would exceed the body’s rate of heat production, and hypothermia would soon set in.
OTOH, if room were 95 degrees, the temperature gradient would be very small, thus rate of cooling would be very small. The human would need to produce much less heat to avoid heatstroke.
*This is like the atmosphere. It regulates the rate of surface heat lost to space by virtue of it’s temperature, not by special radiative properties.*
Disclaimer: the above statement may not be true at all. Just sounds good.
Comments welcome.
Snape,
Now take a corpse. No regulation of temperature?
“Ah,” you say “the Earth’s surface is heated by the Sun, so it’s warm.”
Okey dokey. Put your corpse in the sun. It warms up. Put it in the shade. It cools down.
Temperature regulation? Surround it with 100% CO2. Has it heated up? No. Put a blanket on it. Or 50 blankets. Still no heating. Put it back in the sunlight. Gee, it’s heating up more slowly with 50 blankets on it. Here’s an idea – maybe you could keep beverages colder, even in sunlight, by wrapping them inside 50 blankets. A well made insulated container might be more convenient, but foolish Warmists tend to be fixated on blankets and overcoats.
I wouldn’t blame you if you followed David Appell’s command to stop replying to me. You might avoid looking silly. What do you think?
Cheers.
Mike, aside from the part about blankets and overcoats, all your observations looked correct. I suspect that’s because you didn’t seem to have a point. (That’s when things get wacky)
Also kind of you not to mention Tyndall and his thermometer. Thanks for taking pity on me.
MF,
Correct about the blankets keeping the corpse from warming, quickly, in sunshine. Fine. But CO2 is not precisely analogous to an average blanket.
CO2 is transparent to visible and most IR light in sunshine. This allows the corpse to warm up in the sun. Yes? No?
Tim…”The energy is stopped by GHGs and thermalized into the bulk of the atmosphere”.
All GHGs make up 1% of atmospheric gases on a good day. The gas in question, ACO2 makes up less than 4/100ths of 1%.
You are trying to tell me the atmosphere is warmed in such a manner? If so, you do not understand the implications of the ideal gas equation where it is totally apparent that the atmosphere is warmed in proportion to the mass of individual gas components.
With the tremendous flux of IR generated by the surface how can such minor gases possibly collect it all and block it? It’s obvious GHGs cannot do that. Where does the rest of the IR flux go? And remember, IR is not heat.
Watt tried to tell us circa 1909 that radiated IR becomes so dissipated after a few feet due to the inverse square law that it is ineffective. Lindzen tells us that IR is radiated from high in the atmosphere after heated air molecules have been transported there by convection.
You have gotten this radiative transfer credo, based on horrible science, stuck so far into your mind that you have become oblivious to basic laws of thermodynamics and physics.
I am not claiming you know nothing but it never hurts when your mind becomes stuffed with fact to back off and act as if you know nothing. An empty mind is far more receptive to change than one stuffed with knowledge.
Time to back up, Tim, claim you know nothing, and start afresh with the basics.
Ocean Warming Dominates The Increase In Energy Stored In the Climate System
The IPCC claims that the oceans are by far the largest heat sink in the climate system. The IPCC claims that the oceans are warming. Data proves the oceans drive atmospheric temperatures, not vice verse. The problem is, the IPCC cant explain how CO2 warms the oceans. If the IPCC cant explain how CO2 is warming the oceans, it cant explain how/why the atmosphere is warming.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/ocean-warming-dominates-the-increase-in-energy-stored-in-the-climate-system/
Naff said,
hihi, IPCC have not to explain, because its simple physics, if you not understand such simple thing, please stop to talk^^ In other words, the warming is, the less cooling but i think you wont understand this phrase
CO2
Did the IPCC say they are unable to explain how increase in CO2 can warm the oceans or are you just making that up? I’m guessing the latter.
(Please note that even though the oceans are a very deep heat sink, only the surface interacts with the atmosphere.)
Snape,
The IPCC don’t offer any rational explanation of how CO2 makes either thermometers or water hotter. Even if they could, there is the physical fact that it is literally impossible to induce less dense water to displace denser water below it.
Heating water makes it less dense. It expands when heated. It doesn’t sink. This only happens in brightly coloured diagrams created by Warmists.
It doesn’t matter how much hot water you pile on top of the denser water, the colder denser water stubbornly winds up on the bottom.
You’ll see all sorts of brightly coloured diagrams from NASA, NOAA, and many others, depicting all sorts of physically impossible situations presented as fact. Many otherwise rational people believe much of this nonsense.
For example, how many of these diagrams show the oceans sitting 5kms or so above the molten mantle? Or even try to estimate the heat flowing into the oceans from the molten magma injected continuously at the mid ocean ridges? How about the uncounted geothermal vents on the sea floors? Continuous hot water at over 400 C tends to heat things a bit.
Climatologists seem unaware of such things. A permanently illuminated Earth, with an internal temperature of 0 K, surface temperature completely dependent on the Sun, where warm water sinks, cold water floats, and sunlight warms water 700 m below the surface.
Heat that travels from colder to hotter, CO2 heats thermometers, and science is settled.
A truly magical place! Pity it’s all nonsense!
Cheers.
The GHE evidence Mike Flynn is afraid to address:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Davie, do the UAH global temps drop after the El Nino peaks?
Does that mean the atmosphere does not “trap heat”?
Maybe you are afraid to address that evidence….
mf,
I dont understand several things you said. Do you deny ocean currents? Some these send surface waters to the depths, eg the gulf stream ultimately decends to the deep atlantic.
Deep ocean volcanoes. What about them? Is their activity increasing? You have any numbers on how much heat they deliver, or is that just a notion?
Syracuse, N.Y. — Lake Ontario is higher than it has been in mid-May in at least 157 years, and could soon break the month’s all-time record.
The lake level is now at 248.46 feet above sea level, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The previous record for this time of year was 248.20 feet, in 1973.
Records date back to 1860.
The lake is likely to keep rising, too, and could set another record for the highest average level for the month of May.
http://www.newyorkupstate.com/weather/2017/05/lake_ontario_levels_break_record_and_water_levels_are_still_rising.html
David Appell
I was looking at the NASA flux graph.
Since the x axis is showing wavenumber, not wavelength, equal areas on the graph have equal energy. I can use the graph to do an independent check on some of the energy budget figures.
Courtesy of Trenberth I already know that the area under the curve for spectral flux corresponds to 239W/M2.
I can now measure the area under the black body curve and calculate the expected aamount of outward radiation without greenhouse gases.
The difference between the two areas is the amount of energy retained by greenhouse gases.
Using the notch at wavenumber 650 I can also estimate the amount absorbed by CO2, and hence the amount absorbed by water vapour.
I’m off to find some graph paper.
I love that graph!
Entropic Man,
Sounds like a cheap hobby.
Maybe you can figure out why winter is generally cooler than summer, why the temperature drops at night, why the hottest places on Earth have the least greenhouse gases, and why six months of continuous sunlight in the Land of the Midnight Sun at both polar regions doesn’t seem to raise temperatures much!
You’ll probably need lots of graph paper. Brightly coloured crayons seem to impress people. Climatologists use lots of bright colours for their diagrams. Must be scientific.
By the way, you might want to take the following into account –
” . . . in moderate or low-resolution spectroradiometry, the argument of proportionality to photon energy is spurious.” I tend to agree.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Oh NO! You didn’t just post this? Did you mean it?
Wow you really are a very poor researcher and very poor scientific thinker.
YOU: “and why six months of continuous sunlight in the Land of the Midnight Sun at both polar regions doesnt seem to raise temperatures much!”
Here:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/polar/weather_arctic.html
“winter months?!? That’s pretty cold! Now it’s not that cold all the time all over the Arctic. The average Arctic winter temperature is -30 F (-34C), while the average Arctic summer temperature is 37-54 F (3-12 C).”
Up to 84 F change is not much of a temperature change?? Really?
Also the Summer Sun melts around 10 million square kilometers of ice each season. Do you know how much energy that takes?
Wow you should really stop posting. You make fun of people who are far far more intelligent than you (like Tim Folkerts) and you do not realize how really uninformed and lacking you are in the field of science. Maybe you should post about a topic you know something about.
Norman,
What is it that you disagree with?
Thanks for you request that I stop posting. I hope you don’t mind if I ignore it. Actually, I don’t care one way or the other.
Maybe you could be clever enough to actually quote me, and provide facts to back up your assertions, if you claim I am in error.
Intelligence doesn’t stop people believing incorrect things.
Tyndall believed in the existence of the ether. I don’t.
Lord Kelvin believed the Earth to be no more than 20 million years old. I don’t.
Does that make me more intelligent than Tyndall or Lord Kelvin? Or make me more intelligent than Tim Folkerts?
It’s my view that Nature doesn’t care how smart you are. Facts are facts, regardless.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I did quote you and I provided actual facts to prove your assertion an incorrect one.
I will try again since you did not see your own quote.
YOU SAID (this it your own words) and why six months of continuous sunlight in the Land of the Midnight Sun at both polar regions doesnt seem to raise temperatures much!
Norman,
I meant what I said.
Maximum temperatures in Antarctica, say, do not steadily increase over the approximately six months where regions close to the South Pole are continuously exposed to the Sun. During this period, there is no night, as the Sun never dips below the horizon. No heat accumulation at all, in spite of no night!
Not much of a temperature change during the day, at all. Even less during the six months of night.
You may not be aware that Antarctica is the driest continent on Earth – very little of the most important GHG H2O. As to the Arctic –
“Overall, humidity in the Arctic atmosphere is low. In some places, Arctic air is as dry as air in the Sahara desert.”
Just as the arid tropical deserts, extremes of temperature occur when GHGs are least.
At the South Pole (truly 6 months of daylight sun), the highest temperature record is around -12 C. If you think this is hot, after 6 months of continuous sunlight, good for you. I don’t.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Your absurd conclusions are one thing that makes communication with you difficult.
YOU: “At the South Pole (truly 6 months of daylight sun), the highest temperature record is around -12 C. If you think this is hot, after 6 months of continuous sunlight, good for you. I dont.”
Your point: “If you think this is hot”
What a ridiculous conclusion that has nothing to do with what I stated or what I objected to in your post.
YOUR CLAIM: “and why six months of continuous sunlight in the Land of the Midnight Sun at both polar regions doesnt seem to raise temperatures much!
Look:
http://polardiscovery.whoi.edu/poles/weather.html
South Pole Winter -76 F Summer at the South Pole is -18 F. That is a temperature rise of 58 F.
Contrast that to Omaha Nebraska
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/omaha/climate
Summer average peak of 77 F Winter peak cold of 26 F, a temperature difference of 51 F.
The South Pole summer vs Winter is greater than in the center of the US so how do you conclude the rise of temperature is not that much? Or that I think -18 F is hot??? You are not as smart or intelligent as you believe yourself to be and rather poor at research.
Norman,
I’ll type more slowly, so you can understand better.
6 months of continuous sunlight at the South Pole can’t even raise the temperature more than 24 hours of that same sunlight. No accumulation or storage. None. No GHE. Just common, ordinary physical principles at work.
As to negative comments about my supposed intelligence (or lack thereof) –
I don’t have to be terribly intelligent or smart, do I?
I’d challenge any foolish Warmist to a battle of wits, but my father always impressed upon me that duelling with an unarmed opponent was bad from.
If you agree that the GHE is a poor metaphor for something that can’t be described, then I wish you all the best with your continuing belief.
Obey David Appell. Don’t respond.
Cheers.
Damn and blast!
Bad “form”, of course!
Sorry.
OK Mike but why isnt the temp of antarctica close to 3K the temp of space after 6 months of darkness?
Tim Folkerts seems to disbelieve physics when it suits him.
I mentioned that the atmosphere (and of course, what it supports – clouds, aerosols etc), prevents around 30% of insolation even reaching the ground.
Tim goes for the Warmist “gotcha” –
“Based on Trenberths numbers:
341 come in and 184 gets to the ground = 46% doesnt get to the ground.
341 come in and 161 gets absorbed by the ground = 53% doesnt absorbed by the ground.
Where does 30% doesnt get the ground come from?”
Oh well.
“Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.” – NASA
“If the extraterrestrial solar radiation is 1367 watts per square meter (the value when the EarthSun distance is 1 astronomical unit), then the direct sunlight at Earth’s surface when the Sun is at the zenith is about 1050 W/m2”
“In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth’s surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).[6] At the top of the atmosphere, sunlight is about 30% more intense, having about 8% ultraviolet (UV),[7] with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically damaging short-wave ultraviolet.[8]” – Wikipedia
The point is that the atmosphere is an insulator with respect to external radiation heating the surface. Insulators are widely used to prevent things heating up – cool rooms obviously, firefighters’ protective clothing maybe not so obviously, liquid nitrogen Dewar flasks, and so on. Even your domestic refrigerator is pretty useless without insulation, and your air conditioned house benefits from more insulation to keep it cool.
The GHE position is just silly. A GHE supporter is in the awkward position of believing that standing under a tin roof (obviously hot to the touch) will make the surface beneath it hotter than the direct sun. They’ll claim that the heat being radiated by the under surface of the tin roof is added to the direct sunlight, creating higher temperatures!
Complete nonsense, as a surface temperature thermometer will show. Even climatologists use thermometer readings taken with thermometers shielded from the direct rays of the sun.
Insulators work in both directions – the magical climatological insulator, which lets out less energy than it lets in, doesn’t exist.
The GHE is a figment of the imagination. These harbingers of doom expect their gullible followers to believe the world is getting hotter – day by day, month by month, year by year – until we all boil, fry, toast, or roast! Complete piffle, of course.
The big molten blob we know as the Earth, quietly sits in space, slowly cooling. It’s a good thing we’re so far away from the Sun – many places on Earth even have permanent ice.
Foolish Warmists, (as distinct from warmists who acknowledge that an increase in temperature is indeed an indication of warming, as a matter of fact, regardless of the energy source), cannot accept that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter.
I apologise to real warmists, when I sometimes refer to foolish Warmists as one word Warmists.
Even the amazing Kevin Trenberth admitted that it was a travesty that his crew of GHE enthusiasts couldn’t find the missing heat (or the missing unicorns, I wouldn’t wonder). It’s not easy to find what doesn’t exist.
So more deluded sciency nonsense – replete with averages, forcings, SWIR, LWDWIR, TOA, TCR, ECS, greenhouse gases, hot spots, and all the rest.
Meanwhile, life goes on, and no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Cheers.
Flynn
You pasted, Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system. NASA
And then commented,
“The point is that the atmosphere is an insulator with respect to external radiation heating the surface.”
Mike, you need to google the word “albedo”.
Snape,
I quoted NASA. If you are claiming their figure is wrong, and if you have better data, I’ll change my mind.
If you disagree the atmosphere is an insulator, as I said, please provide your reasons.
According to an APS paper –
The r value of the atmosphere –
” ~ (287 K 255 K) / (239 W/m2) ~ 0.13 m2K/W. (5)
In English units this corresponds to R ~ 0.76 ft2 hr oF/BTU. The atmosphere is not a terribly good insulator, equivalent to only about one-seventh of an inch of polystyrene!”
Here are a couple of references quoted by the paper –
“[1] R. Pierrehumbert, Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature, Physics Today 64, January 2011, p. 33-38, and Physics of Sustainable Energy, AIP Conference Proceedings 1401 , 232-243 (2011), ed. by D. Hafemeister, D. Kammen, B. Levi and P. Schwartz.
[2] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Fourth Assessment Review, http://www.ipcc.ch.
[3] D. Hafemeister, Physics of Societal Issues (Springer, New York, 2007), 282.”
I’m not sure why you think I might need to google GHE word “albedo”. What do you think is happening to the 29% of incoming solar energy not absorbed by the Earth system? Does it vanish? Possibly reflected?
I don’t think I need to google the word albedo, so take as much offence as you like when I tell you that your mind reading abilities are sadly lacking.
Cheers.
Typo. Spell checker snuck GHE in place of “the”!
Obviously, a Warmist spellchecker.
Cheers.
I read your words, Mike, not your mind, and they seemed to confuse albedo with insulation. You may think I’m nitpicking, but it’s very basic stuff. Very useful for understanding climate science.
Snape,
Quote my exact words, if you feel like it. Maybe you have confused something with something else. For example you may have confused the “greenhouse effect” with a greenhouse, or an effect, or both.
Or maybe a metaphor with an analogy?
If you have any facts to support your assertions, I’d be happy to hear them. I’d be extremely surprised if you can provide any relevant facts that I don’t already know, or can’t find out for myself in a couple of minutes.
Here’s your chance to surprise me, if you choose. Care to try?
Cheers,
Facts:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Davie is so desperate.
Mike said the other day that if there are less GHGs there is less impeding of outgoing radiation. Now, unless he reckons that GHGs emit radiation in only one direction, he has basically described Earth’s atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect accurately.
I think his issue may be with semantics – use of the word ‘Greenhouse’. Otherwise, his position is quite incoherent.
barry,
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Maybe you’re confused. Less GHGs – less impediment to radiation. Hence higher daytime surface temperatures, lower nighttime temperatures, for equivalent insolation.
Tropical arid deserts are an Earthly example – extreme temperature variations. The Moon, with no GHGs at all (and no atmospheric insulation, either) shows the extremes of temperature from sunlight to lack thereof – same distance, same exposure time. Look at the LRO Diviner data, if you don’t believe me.
No GHE. You can’t even describe the GHE, but you’re sure it exists, and heats the Earth year by year, century by century!
Maybe you even believe “the science is settled”! Good luck with that.
Cheers.
Im not sure what youre trying to say.
Then let your own words clarify.
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
Radiation emitted from the surface to outer space is less impeded with fewer GHGs.
Thus, more with more GHGs. And of course atmospheric gases also impede incoming sunlight at various wavelengths.
Did you make a mistake? You’ve just described the atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect.
barry,
Your comprehension is possibly a little lacking.
More GHGs, more impediment. No magical one way insulating effect. No magical accumulation of heat resulting in higher temperatures.
You’ll notice that temperatures fall at night – all the way to -90 C or so in Antarctica. No heat trapping at all. Not a particularly low temperature for the outside of a large blob of molten rock suspended in space.
You wouldn’t have a clue how to calculate the surface temperature of a ball of molten rock with a core temperature of say, 5500K, and an environment of say, 4K, would you? It will be between 5500K and 4K – but where?
At one time, it was over 2000K everywhere – the surface was molten. Now, it varies between the temperature of magma coming through the surface, and 170K or so in Antarctica. I can’t help much, the crust varies in thickness and composition, and the inner and outer cores move erratically, as does the mantle.
By the way, you need to calculate the average temperature to 0.01 C, and provide enough data that others can verify your calculations. Just standard science. Maybe you could ask one of the other posters for help. I couldn’t do it – insufficient data. Sorry.
Here’s your chance to show how clever you are!
Cheers.
Here’s the evidence Mike Flynn avoids confronting:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Davie is soooooooooo desperate.
More GHGs, more impediment. No magical one way insulating effect
You realize that CO2 is virtually transparent to sunlight and opaque to infrared, right? The main action when there is more is to impede more upwelling infrared radiation.
Are you trying to argue that increasing GHGs impede an equal amount of radiation from the sun as from the ground?
Barry…”You realize that CO2 is virtually transparent to sunlight and opaque to infrared, right?”
52% of sunlight is in the IR region.
Ah, this might be where your mistake is. The following graph shows the a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n profiles of various gases to wavelengths that the sun and Earth emits (got it from a skeptical website).
http://tinyurl.com/mykc3gl
Water vapour absorbs some of the incoming solar radiation but is a stronger absorber of infrared at Earth’s radiating spectrum. CO2 absorbs almost no solar radiation, and mostly absorbs infrared at Earth’s radiating spectrum.
This asymmetry is why they are called greenhouse gases. They impeded more radiation from the ground than from the sun.
So if you increase CO2 or water vapour, they impede more upwelling infrared than downwelling solar radiation.
barry,
No magical one way insulator exists.
It doesn’t matter, does it? The surface cools every night. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. It seems that Nature is ignoring your clever ideas!
Sorry about that. No GHE. No CO2 making thermometers hotter.
You still can’t find anyone who calculate what the temperature of the Earth’s surface should be at present. I’m guessing it’s something between 30 C and 0 C, but that’s only a guess. Maybe you could use Gavin Schmidt’s pretty picture to work it out.
What do you think?
Cheers,
I see you aretrying to argue that GHGs are equally opaque to incoming solar radiation and therefore their impedance of upwelling radiation is nullified by equal impedance of solar radiation.
This is completely wrong. But I see also that you are going to stubbornly cling to this basic error and there’s no point arguing on about it with you.
You’re right, Barry; Mike Flynn admitted there is a greenhouse effect:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Mike, the point is that — once again — your understanding is shallow. No numbers or critical thinking. Even when you suspect this is a “gotcha”, you STILL get it wrong.
MF>>> The atmosphere does indeed impede incoming energy. Around 30% doesnt get the ground.
TF>> Based on Trenberths numbers: … Where does 30% that doesnt get the ground come from?
MF> [Quoting NASA] Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.
Your defense is to quote someone else — even when the numbers are right there. Even when you could have simply written x/y = 70% with the appropriate numbers.
But instead you quote something that DOESN’T EVEN SUPPORT YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT. Your claim was about “the ground”. Your NASA quote is about the “the system”. You don’t even seen to recognize that issue even when it is the focus of a specific question.
You could have fixed it by saying “I meant 30% doesn’t get into the (ground+atmosphere) combination.”
You could have fixed it by saying “I meant over 50% doesn’t get into the ground.”
Instead you bluster and claim you were right all along. But you weren’t.
Tim Folkerts,
Absorbed presumably means absorbed. Not reflected – absorbed. According to NASA, all the absorbed energy makes it to the surface.. If you want to say even more than 30% doesn’t reach the ground, be my guest. I’m trying to be conservative, but feel free to shoot yourself in the foot you just put in your mouth.
According to the rather strange Trenberth graphic, around 341 in (nonsense, but Warmists seem to like nonsense) of which 161 reaches the ground. Gee. 161/341 gives around 47% reaching the surface. Unfortunately, the atmosphere is just not that good an insulator.
Sorry if I tried to go easy, but I’m a generous chap.
So how much of the available energy doesn’t reach a thermometer on the ground, and how does this reduction in energy make the thermometer hotter?
Now’s your cue to deny, divert and confuse. Insulators prevent heat getting in, as well out. Keep things cooler, as well as warmer.
Cheers.
Mike says:
“According to NASA, all the absorbed energy makes it to the surface.. “
NASA *actually* says:
Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.
The “earth system” included both the ground and the atmosphere.
This is the SECOND time you have clung to an obviously wrong interpretation in the face of a clear explanation of the correct answer. If you can’t even get these basics correct, there is no reason to try to explain more advanced ideas until you have learned quite a bit more thermodynamics.
Tim, what is it about the word “absorbed” you do not understand?
Tim Folkerts,
OK.
Here’s another NASA statement –
“About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earths climate system. About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.”
NASA starts by saying –
“The numbers in this article rely most heavily on direct satellite observations of reflected sunlight and thermal infrared energy radiated by the atmosphere and the surface.”
I’ll let you establish for yourself what NASA says what happens to the solar energy which is absorbed by the atmosphere.
I’m extremely happy for you to believe as little energy from the Sun as possible reaches the ground. Your proposal seems to be that lessening the energy absorbed by a thermometer causes the temperature to rise.
The limit of this process would be that by reducing incoming solar energy to zero, the thermometer would show the highest possible temperature. What nonsense!
Maybe you’re as delusional as the NASA staff responsible for promotion of the non-existent GHE.
As to your implie offer not to teach me anything, many thanks. If you ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun, I’ll be all ears.
Until then – hasty la vista, baby.
Cheers.
Evidence for the GHE:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
No, Davie, that is evidence you do not understand both “science” and “evidence”.
But, please continue.
Mike…”About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds…”
Is NASA claiming that the water and vapour in clouds cannot absorb infrared in solar energy???
Gordon,
NASA is apparently confused about almost everything – arithmetic included.
“This net upward flux results from two large but opposing fluxes: heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%). (These competing fluxes are part of the greenhouse effect, described on page 6.)”
Well worth a look, if you want to see wishful thinking in all its glory!
You’ll be pleased to know –
“Like coals from a fire that are warm but not glowing, greenhouse gases then radiate an increased amount of thermal infrared energy in all directions.”
A few years ago, NASA showed the little buggers glowing brightly in the air!
Maybe they were a metaphor which has cooled down slightly – no longer glowing. Maybe like the GHE fervour – not glowing as brightly as it used to.
Sack the lot of them, and use the money for something useful. Silly idea, I know.
Cheers.
G, what is it about the word “ground” that you don’t understand?
Tim, you’re making my point for me. You just want to play word games–semantics.
(You just got caught again.)
Tim, the physics of Earth’s energy balance has you confused, again.
Regarding the Earth’s energy balance diagram, how do photons emitted by the atmosphere know to send 333 Wm-2 down, but only 169 Wm-2 up? I thought the atmosphere emitted half up and half down?
No wonder the Energy Balance Diagram is in “cartoon” format.
SkepticGoneWild
It is based upon the temperature of the atmosphere. The IR directed back at Earth is coming form warmer air. Near the surface all the emitted IR would be in the 333 W/m^2 range (Up and Down and sideways). The atmosphere cools as you go up and the emitting temperature at TOA is much lower. Hence less IR at TOA down and up.
Norm tries to make sense out of the IPCC energy balance diagram.
Norm knows his energy balance: “The energy does not leave the system. The energy leaves the system.”
Norm is the champion of hilarious pseudoscience.
☺
I don’t see anywhere the quote that you are attributing to Norman. Where is it?
Davie, you should have stopped with “I don’t see…”
That is all we need to know.
Skeptic,
The Trenberth photons might be magical climatological photons. Just like climatologists, their photons have perfect knowledge. The science is settled. Yeah. Right!
Cheers.
Norm,
What the hell are you talking about? At each point in temperature, say -40 degrees C, half of the emitted photons go up, and half go down. You make no sense whatsoever. At -41 degrees C, half goes up and half goes down. The end result is that half go up and half go down.
And according to you guys, photons don’t “know” anything about the object they strike. IR photons from the earth could care less about the temperature of the CO2 molecules they strike.
SkepticGoneWild says, May 14, 2017 at 2:08 PM:
Norman is quite right about one thing, when he points out: “It is based upon the temperature of the atmosphere.”
Yes, the atmospheric TEMPERATURE is what determines the magnitude of the apparent radiative flux that you “measure”. When you stand on the surface and point your instrument up, the apparent radiative flux that it calculates will be a large one, because the air layers down low are warm. When a satellite in space points its instrument down, however, then the radiative flux that it receives will be much smaller, because the air layers higher up the tropospheric column are colder. So, yeah, when Norman says the following: “The IR directed back at Earth is coming form warmer air. Near the surface all the emitted IR would be in the 333 W/m^2 range (Up and Down and sideways). The atmosphere cools as you go up and the emitting temperature at TOA is much lower. Hence less IR at TOA down and up.” he is in fact spot on. Except one thing: There is no actual separate 333 W/m^2 radiative flux “sent” down to the surface from the atmosphere. It is merely an APPARENT RADIATIVE EXPRESSION OF TEMPERATURE, only interpreted as a discrete macroscopic flux of radiation. In reality, it’s not.
SkepticGoneWild
YOU: “What the hell are you talking about? At each point in temperature, say -40 degrees C, half of the emitted photons go up, and half go down. You make no sense whatsoever. At -41 degrees C, half goes up and half goes down. The end result is that half go up and half go down.”
The IR photons emitted by the warmer air close to the surface that go up are then absorbed by layers of GHG above them and do not go straight to space until the atmosphere gets thin enough.
GHG at 10 or so C will emit a lot more IR than GHG at -40 C.
Not sure what you do not understand. The GHG near the surface that is emitting 333 W/m^2 in all directions is not emitting this amount to space. It is being absorbed by the atmosphere above which cools as you go up so as you move upward the IR emission from the GHG at that level is going down. Based upon the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. When it is very cold you get the much lower up/down emission from the GHG.
Norman says, May 15, 2017 at 9:03 AM:
SkepticGoneWild and Norman,
I will have to post my response to this elsewhere, since this site for some reason does not allow my comment to go through:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/why-atmospheric-mass-not-radiation-p2/comment-page-1/#comment-943
Tim…”Mike, the point is that once again your understanding is shallow. No numbers or critical thinking. Even when you suspect this is a gotcha, you STILL get it wrong”.
You sermonize about gotchas as if you have an insight lacking in others then you quote Trenberth who admitted in the Climategate emails that the warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that no one knows why. Furthermore, he and Kiehle have admitted they synthesized the data behind their energy balance theories. None of it comes from measured data.
GR,
1) I *do* have insights about heat that MF lacks. This is clear from many statements he made about eg diesel engines.
2) *Some* of the data is ‘synthesized’ as you call it, but much of it does indeed come from satellite measurements, rainfall measurements, etc.
3) Whether or not warming of the earth has stopped (or even reversed) does not change the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. The IR properties of the atmosphere STILL help keep the surface warm, even if OTHER causes ALSO impact the temperatures.
(Tim, you “belief system” is showing.)
“The IR properties of the atmosphere STILL help keep the surface warm…”
Mike Flynn
Your own words show you do not understand how the GHE works but have some distorted view of it that you argue against.
HERE YOU SAY “No GHE. You cant even describe the GHE, but youre sure it exists, and heats the Earth year by year, century by century!”
Many posters have described the GHE to you in specific and detailed fashion. It does not heat the Earth year by year and century by century. It allows the global system to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than with no GHE present. You are so stuck on extreme high temperatures. In other posts above you point out the atmosphere absorbs incoming solar IR so it is actually a cooling effect. That is only half of the facts. The energy is retained by the atmosphere which is warmer by absorbing this incoming solar and it becomes part of the Downwelling IR that keeps the surface warmer when the Sun is not shining so your overall average (between day and night) is warmer than without the GHE. Does not say anything about peak temperatures. Just overall temperature.
Norman,
Nonsense. There is no equilibrium temperature. The Earth has cooled. It emitted more energy than it received.
Winter is colder than summer, in general. No equilibrium there. Put a thermometer on the ground, it gets hotter, it gets colder. No equilibrium there.
Sorry, no GHE. Try and even find a consistent definition of the GHE on the internet – you can’t. Just vague nonsense.
Warmists seem to be stuck on high temperatures – breathlessly proclaiming “Hottest year EVAH!”
Maybe you believe more CO2 also caused the lowest temperature ever recorded recently in Antarctica, or did it balance out a high temperature somewhere else, so the average didn’t change. I haven’t seen the version of the GHE which causes temperatures to fall as CO2 goes up. Maybe you could paste one for me.
Pseudo scientific rubbish.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
A huge problem with your posts is you combine and compare different concepts.
You pick out regional areas in an attempt to “disprove” GHE but you do not examine all the information. Desert areas have almost no water and do not have evaporative cooling which can be considerable.
Water is a complex climate player and unless you spend a little time understanding all its properties affecting climate you will always draw incorrect and limited conclusions.
Water vapor is a GHG and will contribute downwelling IR to the surface, in tropical areas it is fairly high amount. It also will rise and condense into clouds which cut off solar input so you lose incoming energy. It also cools the surface considerably (in wet areas like ocean surface) by evaporative cooling. But overall it will keep the Earth’s surface at a higher temperature than if the water vapor was not present. Not that you will ever be able to comprehend it. A good scientist will see their mistakes and learn and grow. You are a very poor scientific minded person. You are a cult minded person who is never wrong, can’t learn anything and repeats the same thing over and over thinking it makes it more true with each repetition. You show zero learning ability and even less desire to learn.
Norm preaches: “A good scientist will see their mistakes and learn and grow.”
Hey Norm, tell us about how “Energy does not leave the system, but energy leaves the system”.
Hilarious!
Norman,
I’m not trying to disprove anything. The GHE doesn’t exist. The best your lot can apparently do is say that it’s a poor metaphor for something else.
But anyway. Arid tropical deserts get sol cold at night precisely because they lack water in the atmosphere.
Water vapour heats nothing. The hottest places on Earth are characterised by a distinct lack of water vapour. So are the coldest places on Earth. Basic physics.
Flying off in all directions cannot make a reality of something which does not exist – namely the poor metaphor you call the GHE.
Cheers.
The evidence Mike Flynn is afraid to address:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Davie, that’s it? That’s all you got?
An E/M spectrum proves the Earth is warming?
I have some diet pills. They work. Google “skinny girls”.
How many diet pills do you want to buy?
Norman…”Water vapor is a GHG and will contribute downwelling IR to the surface, in tropical areas it is fairly high amount. It also will rise and condense into clouds which cut off solar input so you lose incoming energy”.
Water vapour is particularly good at the convection of heat, especially in the tropics. Since it makes up possibly 3% of atmospheric gases in humid locations it is still a minor player.
The rising substance you claim is water vapour is 99% oxygen and nitrogen. Water vapour, as such a minor player in the atmosphere, cannot possibly account for atmospheric warming. N2 and O2 must play a major role due to their sheer mass and they distribute heat through conduction and convection.
In a real greenhouse the rising of hot air and it’s replacement by cooler air is cut off by the glass. There is no such barrier in the atmosphere where air masses are free to move.
I’m afraid far too much has been made of radiative heat transfer via GHGs.
Gordon Robertson
You have your strong opinions (which you consider facts) not sure why you do this. You make strong declarative statements with zero evidence to support them.
YOU: “Im afraid far too much has been made of radiative heat transfer via GHGs.”
Empirical evidence does exist (you can choose to disbelieve it) that clearly shows radiative energy transfer via GHG’s is quite significant to the Earth surface equilibrium temperature.
Here is a link for you to view. They are measured values.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59191448bfe2e.png
Norm, as your link shows, the atmosphere cools the surface. The atmosphere does NOT heat the surface, it cools it.
Your link is just one more piece of “empirical evidence” that debunks your GHE nonsense.
(But, don’t stop. Your futile efforts to prove your pseudoscience are hilarious.)
And the atmosphere of Venus cools it as well? To only the temp of molten lead. Yet Mercury, closer to the sun, with no atmosphere, much lower albedo, is quite a bit cooler on ave, and even its sun side is slightly cooler. How do you explain this?
g*e*r*a*n* says, May 15, 2017 at 8:08 PM:
Indeed. The atmosphere constantly cools the constantly solar-heated global surface. However, it cools it less efficiently than space would – at the same global average T_sfc. It’s called “insulation”.
Norman says, May 14, 2017 at 8:37 PM:
No. There is no discrete “radiative energy transfer” from the atmosphere down to the surface. The atmosphere adds no energy to the surface like the solar flux does. What you perceive as a separate downward macroscopic “flux” is merely an apparent radiative expression of atmospheric temperature. The actual radiative flux between sfc and atm goes UP and up only. It is the spontaneous net movement of radiative energy through the radiation field, at the actual surface, the continuous net exchange of photons.
No, Norman. They are CALCULATED values. Educate yourself on how these instruments work.
Kristian
You do not have to keep posting to me your opinions. Your opinions go against textbook information. I have done my own testing to prove your ideas incorrect. There are macroscopic flows of energy into the surface from the atmosphere.
What you write is gooblygook to me. Nothing in textbooks on heat transfer states this. I have looked at numerous books and not found anything that resembles your words.
YOU: “It is the spontaneous net movement of radiative energy through the radiation field, at the actual surface, the continuous net exchange of photon”
Find this in any textbook explanation of radiative heat transfer and link me to it. As it stands it is your unfounded and untested opinion and numerous repetitions do not make it any more true or real.
You also might want to brush up on what a measurement really is.
“Measurement is the assignment of a number to a characteristic of an object or event, which can be compared with other objects or events”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement
The IR detector compares a voltage change with the energy it is receiving from some source. It is technically a measured value. As the incoming IR changes (like at night) there is a change in voltage within the detector that has been calibrated to a determined amount of IR.
If you want me to accept your view as valid don’t just keep repeating it hoping I will someday accept it. Give me some valid links to read that agrees with your view. So far it stands at zero. Tim Folkerts might agree with your view at times but so far no textbook explanation has suggested you are correct.
Norman,
I’ll provide a more relevant Wikipedia link for you (one which I’ve posted several times before, but to no avail):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation
This is not a matter of opinion, nor of discussion, Norman. This IS how these instruments “measure” the DWLWIR. They CALCULATE it! What they actually physically DETECT is the net exchange!
Kristian
The detection is between the instrument temperature (which can be anything, it can be cooled and then most the change in voltage will come from the DWIR). It is a net between instrument temp and DWIR, it has nothing at all to do with surface temperature. Yes it is calculated but it is also a measured value. Do you measure speed of a vehicle with a radar gun? It is the same concept. Speed cannot be directly measured as it has two variables and needs to be calculated. Rate of change in position in length over time. You need both measured values to calculate the speed but people do say you measure the speed of the car with a radar gun. So you are very correct if rigid technical language and I will not argue that point. The point I argue is that there is a macroscopic real energy flow from the atmosphere to the surface and you can calculate it and give it a specific value.
Norman says, May 16, 2017 at 8:32 AM:
Thank you. That wasn’t so hard, now was it? This is all you need to focus on regarding this particular issue:
The radiant HEAT transfer/flux, Q, the net LW, the continuous net radiation exchange at the surface (of a thermopile or of Earth itself) is what is directly PHYSICALLY DETECTED (net radiation exchange => voltage output). The DWLWIR and UWLWIR are NOT similarly detected phenomena. They couldn’t possibly be, since they are both equally integrated parts of the instantaneous exchange. They could only ever be CALCULATED quantities, derived from theoretical considerations rather than from direct detection.
The obvious distinction here is this:
In order to derive the UWLWIR and DWLWIR, we’re dependent on knowing OTHER quantities first. These quantities are the ones that are actually, directly physically detected. We use these empirical (primary) quantities as INPUTS to the computation of the theoretical (secondary) quantities that we – for some reason or other – are after.
This means, we could not possibly quantify the DWLWIR and UWLWIR – even if we wanted to – without FIRST knowing the surface temperature (input 1) AND the radiant heat transfer/flux (positive or negative) at the surface (input 2).
So we first need to DETECT the T_sfc and the Q_sfc. And then, FROM these empirical inputs, we can compute the theoretical UWLWIR and DWLWIR quantities, based on certain a priori assumptions.
Mike Flynn
You clearly lack an understanding of equilibrium conditions. The radiative equilibrium exists on the global scale. When you go to the regional scale the equilibrium no longer exists. That is because localized regions are not in radiative equilibrium states. Energy can move to around to different locations and change the balance of a region but the global energy does not change based upon the local fluctuations. The global energy is based upon the total Energy in minus the total energy out. Things that effect the balance on the global scale are what can move the planet to a new equilibrium.
If the Energy IN minus the Energy Out changes you get either a warming or cooling of the planet. Localized regions do not matter to this balance. They are like the equilibrium fluctuations that take place on a microscopic scale, the macroscopic equilibrium is not affected but the fluctuations are real and can create noise in sensitive equipment.
Your partner g*e*r*a*n also lacks any understanding of equilibrium. He uses Roy’s graph to disprove GHE because of the El Nino peaks and the cooling after the events. He misses the concept of equilibrium. The planet can be momentarily perturbed (huge volcanic eruption can cool the Earth surface for a few years). It will move back to an equilibrium state once the effects of the disturbance from equilibrium are gone. The global surface temperature will adjust to whatever temperature it takes to maintain an energy equilibrium. The same amount of energy entering the Earth’s system will equal the amount leaving. That is what an equilibrium state is. That is why the Earth can cool after an El Nino since the equilibrium state exists at a lower temperature.
Open your mind and learn something!
Norm, you don’t even know your own pseudoscience. One of the tenets of AGW is the atmosphere “traps heat”. But, the UAH graph clearly demonstrates that the atmosphere does NOT “trap heat”.
Your invalid and ineffective attempts to rewrite science are hilarious.
You are willfully trying to misunderstand. It should be clear that, ‘trap’, is meant to mean temporarily hold.
TRILLIONS of PUBLIC Dollars Spent on Conclusions Reached Based Upon Made Up Data.
It turns out that the expert scientists literally make up the data (see introductory graphic). Taxpayers are literally being asked to spend trillions of dollars based upon models that use made up data. Unfortunately, that isnt a joke. The total cost including direct, indirect and opportunity costs is simply staggering.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/trillions-of-public-dollars-spent-on-conclusions-reached-based-upon-made-up-data/
All,
Sunday’s Dilbert explains climate change for the layman very well.
Enjoy.
lewis
I read that cartoon as well. Very good.
Scott Adams is a climate change denier who has shown again and again that he doesn’t understand the science.
Davie is a science denier who has shown again and again that he does not understand science.
Norman, Tim, Snape, Entropic Man and others:
By now it’s very clear that “Mike Flynn” and “g*eran” are trolls, who won’t address legitimate questions or confront data.
For some weird reason they get a little thrill out of stringing people along.
I say we ignore them, here and in the future. I know it’s not easy, but you and I both know we can never convince them of anything, because they aren’t playing by rules of science. They simply are not interested in the science at all.
If you must reply, just call their bluff. They’ll get tired of that real quick.
David Appell, Norman, Tim, Snape, Entropic Man and others,
Please ignore me. Don’t respond to anything I write. Ignore it all. Don’t reply, as the only thing that changes my mind is fact.
Even mainstream cartoonists such as Scott Adams are having a laugh at the expense of bearded balding buffoons wearing white coats.
If any of you subscribe to any of the 2000 or so papers who carry Dilbert cartoons, I suggest you immediately cancel your subscriptions. That’ll show ’em!
Or you could adopt Appell’s tactic of repeatedly posting a meaningless computer graphic (apparently concocted by that undistinguished mathematician and wannabe scientist Gavin Schmidt).
Just post it 22 times, with demands that someone explain it to you, because you cant understand it yourself! The explanation is simple, and so is the poster, who obviously suffers from a form of OCD, or some other obsessive behaviour disorder. Schmidt is quite possibly mistaken, delusional or both. He seems to believe in a non existent metaphor!
This graphic supposedly terrifies all unbelievers who gaze upon it. It didn’t work for me. Maybe David needs to post another 22 copies, accompanied by strange incantations.
I’ll keep ignoring nonsense. If any chooses to take offence at my cavalier attitude, feel free. Take as much offence as you like – I think I have an unlimited supply. I’ll let you know if it looks like I’m running out.
Yep. I agree. Ignoring unbelievers is the best policy. Don’t post, in case they respond. Don’t respond, in case they throw facts at you. Go for it!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
YOU: “Yep. I agree. Ignoring unbelievers is the best policy. Dont post, in case they respond. Dont respond, in case they throw facts at you. Go for it!”
You have been presented lots of facts but you just ignore them.
You are like the people of the “Flat Earth Society”
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
You twist some reality around, ignore all information that contradicts your religious belief, believe you are far smarter than any scientist who has ever lived. Refuse to even try to understand the idea GHE you so disbelieve. You are in the same mind set as flat-earth people. The unscientific and ignorant will believe the ideas (as they make them sound plausible), the rational truth seekers will know the difference.
I think that is why most posters want to ignore you. Most try with patience to discuss the ideas with you. After a while they can see you are not an open mind and actually quite ignorant of any science but no one can convince you how much information you lack even if they clearly present it to you.
At least you have one follower and a true fan, g*e*r*a*n. You should both join up with the flat-earthers today. Tomorrow you will be convinced that the Earth is not a spheroid and you have been lied to by scientists for centuries.
If you looked at evidence and thought about things I think you might be add to the conversation. But when you mindlessly, with no supporting evidence, just repeat “There is no GHE”
You are a troll who only wants to annoy. You have no natural scientific curiosity or an inquisitive mind and you do not want to learn anything. You visit this blog to annoy people and get reactions.
Norman,
If you can’t bring any facts to to the GHE party, why bother coming?
Didn’t you notice David Appell ordering you not to respond? Are you like other foolish Warmists – lacking in self control, and the ability to do as you’re told?
Tut, tut Norman.
It’s part of the scientific process that you must at least define your claim in some useful fashion, if you expect any rational person to take any notice of you at all.There’s not much point in just saying that the GHE is a poor metaphor for something else, but you’re not sure what.
Sorry Norman, but if your your claim is that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the Earth’s surface causes a rise in the temperature of the thermometer doesn’t seem to be able to be replicated.
Maybe the poor GHE metaphor is about something else entirely. What do you think?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are a flat earther for sure.
YOU: “If you cant bring any facts to to the GHE party, why bother coming?,
Facts have been abundant but you ignore them.
OR THIS ONE: “Its part of the scientific process that you must at least define your claim in some useful fashion, if you expect any rational person to take any notice of you at all.”
It has been defined and explained to you many times but you ignore it. Rational people would take notice of it. You are not rational so you can’t seem to comprehend it.
YOU: “Sorry Norman, but if your your claim is that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the Earths surface causes a rise in the temperature of the thermometer doesnt seem to be able to be replicated.”
NOT WHAT is being claimed by me. CO2, which barry above linked to a graph to show that CO2 is transparent to solar IR but opaque to Earth emitted IR will cause a group of thermometers spread out across the globe to read higher temperatures when averaged together (YOUR case again is a regional focused measurement and not valid for what is happening to the globe at an equilibrium state).
You should join the Flat-Earth society. You would make an excellent member.
Hey Norm, how’s that non-existent academic background working for you?
Do you still believe “Energy does not leave the system, but energy leaves the system”?
You’re hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
So have you put in your application to join the Flat-Earth Society?
You would be a great member and could go after all the globeists who think the Earth is a sphere.
Norman,
You assert that the GHE has been defined and explained many times. You just forgot to make a copy, or you are refusing to actually provide it for scrutiny. The amazing invisible metaphor!
Are you now saying that your missing GHE claim now only causes a group of thermometers across the globe to read higher temperatures when averaged together? Would this not mean that at least some of the thermometers are made hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between them and the Sun?
Or are you claiming that placing CO2 between the thermometers and the Sun actually causes some of them to get colder, hence the need for averaging?
How many thermometers (at a minimum) must be involved? 3, 11, 1024? How are they selected? What happens if you accidentally pick the thermometers which are actually cooled by the presence of CO2?
Where must these thermometers to be placed to demonstrate the GHE? How are you selecting the locations?
People might get the impression that you have gone out of your way to make sure that the GHE metaphor is now completely impossible to reproduce.
Not very satisfactory is it? An unknown number of thermometers, placed in unspecified locations, may become colder or hotter when more or less CO2 is placed between them and the Sun at different times of the day (unless accurately aligned on the same longitude, of course)!
What about the most important supposed greenhouse gas – H2O? Will the same number of thermometers, place in in the same locations, produce the same results? Apparently not in arid tropical deserts, or Antarctica, or any number of places.
Maybe thermometers are not to be placed in such locations, but you need to state what locations are acceptable, and which are not.
Demanding ever increasing but undefined numbers of thermometers in as yet unspecified locations won’t fix the problem that you can’t even say how the effect is supposed to be observed with one heat source, one thermometer, and a controlled concentration of CO2!
Ever increasing complication and obfuscation. It looks like a not-very-good attempt to deny, divert, and confuse.
Cheers
Norm, you just can’t get anything right.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245695
Mike Flynn
I think the placement of the thermometers can be resolved by statistical analysis to determine how many and how much coverage to determine valid study of temperature equilibrium of the global surface condition (generally the air temperature a few feet above the surface).
I really do not think you understand the GHE. I do not know who or what would be able to explain the concept to you. If you don’t want to learn no amount of posts will be able to change you.
You could read textbooks on heat exchange and understand how it works but that is really an unlikely event to happen. I can link you to a good textbook but will you read it?? I think not.
Here is the link just in case. I already wasted my time with g*e*r*a*n. I posted the link and all he gave me was an insult. I hope you are not as feeble minded as that troll but only time will tell.
Here is the link.
Happy reading.
http://dl1.ponato.com/eb1/1149__64dd22f.pdf
Mike Flynn
How come you ignore the facts? barry gave you a good link to look at that explains what you do not understand and seem unable to comprehend, yet you think you are proving some point or showing some brilliance that really is only in your own mind.
https://tinyurl.com/mykc3gl
Look at the graph (you always claim you deal in facts so adhere to your own words).
You can see that the solar IR is in the higher energy IR which is in the H2O a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n bands NOT the CO2 bands. Adding more CO2 will not interfere with any solar IR. Solar IR does is not significant in the CO2 a*b*s*o*r*b*i*n*g bands. Do you see this? It is fairly obvious.
g*e*r*a*n
Here is the website made just for you.
Hope you like it enough that you quit your mindless taunts on this blog and find your new happy home for the rest of your life.
https://www.facebook.com/FlatEarthToday/
Maybe you should become a member. You could then argue with all the globeists who fell for NASA lies about the spherical Earth.
Norm complains: “I already wasted my time with g*e*r*a*n. I posted the link and all he gave me was an insult.”
Norm, I don’t have to insult you. Your insult yourself.
Davie, I’m calling your bluff:
1) Provide copies of your tax return for the last five years (CPA named, of course).
2) Provide your proof of the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation.
3) Provide your proof that “cold” heating a “hot” is not a violation of 2LoT.
4) Provide your proof of your academic background.
5) Provide your proof that C02 is a thermodynamic “heat source”.
(“Folding” is an option.)
Why do you insist on having people prove stuff they dont agree with?
That is rather pointless. Only proving that you are oe want to be a troll.
No-one is saying ‘cold is heating hot’
No one is saying ‘CO2 is a heat source’. Get over it, move on to what people are actually arguing.
Cold doesnt heat hot, but putting warm between hot and cold will reduce heat loss from hot. Yes? No?
Nate, if I take the time to produce quotes, that you state do not exist, will you then admit you are an unknowing bubble-head, with no understanding of facts and logic?
Love to see your quotes, but sorry to burst your bubble, not gonna make your weird fantasy of me come true.
Nate folds his tent.
Just another vagabond, wondering the desert of pseudoscience.
And, yes, I meant “wondering”, not wandering.
again, no science or even facts in your answer. Proof that you are only aiming for comic relief (but missing badly). Dont quit your day job just yet.
Nate, maybe you did not understand the first time…
“Nate, if I take the time to produce quotes, that you state do not exist, will you then admit you are an unknowing bubble-head, with no understanding of facts and logic?”
I agree.
They are sooooooooo boring.
Dr No,
Awwww! And here’s me thinking that somebody might actually comply with David Appell’s commands!
He realises you might not be able to help yourself replying (foolish Warmists are well known for their lack of self control, apparently), so you are commanded to “just call their bluff.”
You best follow David’s orders, otherwise he’ll throw a tantrum. If that doesn’t work, he’ll hold his breath until he turns blue! Not a pretty sight, I would imagine.
Which bluff do you intend to call, and what do you intend to call it? The world wonders.
Cheers.
Did you say something intelligent?.
Thought not…
you bunch of cry babies, face the facts Mike Flynn is simply to smart, to well informed for you to handle. Maybe he makes you realise you are simply wrong
The correct spelling is
“..is simply too smart, too well informed..”.
Also, please note, unless you are outside North America
Realise and realize are different spellings of the same word, and both are used to varying degrees throughout the English-speaking world. Realize is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and realise is preferred outside North America.
DA…”Realize is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and realise is preferred outside North America”.
Speaking of which, Canadians are just as much Americans as US citizens since America is a continent containing both. If you are going to correct people on spelling could you take a look at your perspective on geography?
Just asking.
h r:
Mike Flynn does not think a coat can keep you warm.
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
The problem is that these sorts of unmoderated on-line discussions are ‘won’ by the side that is loudest & most persistent, not the side that is most eloquent & most well-informed. Unfortunately, the most persistent are often the least well-informed.
It can be fun to discuss science in this setting, but you have to know that very few people will learn and/or change their minds based on a discussion like this.
Tim expounds: “Unfortunately, the most persistent are often the least well-informed.”
Yes Tim, and I would add that the “least well-informed” are the most desperate.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246756
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246794
Tim…”The problem is that these sorts of unmoderated on-line discussions are won by the side that is loudest & most persistent…”
Tim…why does it have to be about winning and losing? To me, it’s an on-going debate that is not aimed at winning or losing.
Even if I don’t agree with POVs, they force me to review, research, and clarify my own stance. There can be a positive in this if you want to look for it. Of course, if you are convinced you are absolutely right and everyone else absolutely wrong you won’t have an interest in my approach.
I never consider myself absolutely right on anything. I have been in electronics for decades and I am still learning more about things in the field I thought I understood completely. Sometimes I begin to see concepts in electronics from an entirely different slant.
Gordon,
Electronics – indeed.
Some years ago, I designed and built a solid state power supply – variable voltage, variable current limiter – very clever I thought.
I learnt what happens if you drop 20v at 5A through a solid state device. A practical lesson involving temperature gradients, heat, junction failure temperatures, emissivity, specific heat of air, and that you can’t tell how hot alumium is by looking at it, amongst other things.
Smoke coming out of a component is generally an indication you’ve made a mistake. Ah well, lesson learnt, with any luck. Now to try and figure out what I did wrong. And so it goes!
Cheers.
Ah … a couple of old electronics experts. In that case I might suggest modeling all this with circuits — like the old analog computers. Where voltage is a proxy for various other quantities. Not a perfect analogy, but one that would work pretty well.
In this case …
* the sun is a constant high voltage source — say 5700 V
* space is ‘ground’ = 0 V
* the earth could be some metal ball (or just a point in the circuit)
* a collection resistors (and perhaps capacitors, potentiometers, etc) would connect the earth to the sun and space.
* if there is an atmosphere, then there would be a shell around the earth, with more connections.
* the voltage (temperature) of earth would settle into some value determined by the various connections to the sun and space. and of course changing any of those connections (eg different albedo, or different GHG levels) would cause ‘voltage transients’ until the system settled at a new ‘voltage’.
Its not worth going all the way off on this tangent, but it might give people something to contemplate.
Tim proposes another “model”.
Tim, this comparison to an electrical circuit has been tried before. It was a bust also.
Dang, all that rambling (hand-waving) and you ended up back in your pseudoscience. Norm would be proud of you!
The water level in Great Lakes can beat records.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/18/0300Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-87.79,46.32,684
“The level of flooding that has hit Montreal and other parts of Quebec — brought on by the annual snow melt and unusually high amounts of rainfall — has been described as a once-in-a-century event.”
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-floods-in-photos-crisis-despair-and-resilience
“Schukov: Rethinking flooding preparedness in face of global warming” ???
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/west-island-gazette/schukov-rethinking-flooding-preparedness-in-face-of-global-warming
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_zoom_4km.png
“Our recent survey of 2,300 Canadians living in high flood risk areas showed 94 per cent do not know their property has such a designation. Governments cant expect Canadians to protect their properties if they dont know they are at risk.
The government of Canada should fund the development of flood risk maps. The last major effort was in the 1970s.”
http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-four-steps-governments-should-take-on-flood-management
Year of lowest recorded monthly mean
SUPERIOR
MICH-HURON
ST. CLAIR
ERIE
ONTARIO
1926
1964
1934
1934
1935
The temperature of the South Pacific drops.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/cb/hotspots/anim_2mg.html
“The new Version 6 files should also be updated soon, and are located here: …”
The V5.6 files were updated on the 4th of May.
It is now the 15th and the (vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/*) V6.0 files are STILL dated the 5th of … APRIL (data to March only) !
As your intern keeps “forgetting” to update this location in a timely manner, do you have an alternative URL directly to the “source” summary files ?
TEST TIME- NOW – NEXT FEW YEARS WILL BE TELLING. IS IT LOW SOLAR OR AGW THAT GOVERNS THE CLIMATE.
From this morning’s ENSO update, “Recently, easterly wind anomalies have returned to the west-central Pacific.”
This is bad news for el nino hopes.
Models are responding accordingly.
In fact, if strong trades (easterlies) persist in west pacific, a la nina will develop by fall.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Scroll down to “low-level zonal wind anomalies” Look at bottom, left hand corner. Think of winds in this area as Earth’s thermostat, with about a 3 month delay.
Make that a roughly 6 month delay. 3 months to move ENSO, another 3 to move global temperatures.
Of course, many factors affect global temperature. The “thermostat” I’m talking about only relates to the influence of ENSO.
Salvatore (the broken clock) Del Prete will soon be victorious!
below 30 year means.
“2016 will not be s warm as 2015, and 2017 will not be as warm as 2016 etc”
– Salvatore del Prete, 12/3/15
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203097
“below 30 year means”
Do you mean the last 30 year average, Salvatore, or the baseline?
30 year avg latest 30 year avg 1980-2010
Salvatore, you thought that 15 years ago…..
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Salvatore…”IS IT LOW SOLAR OR AGW THAT GOVERNS THE CLIMATE”.
Or neither.
I think solar can have an effect. I think the Maunder Minimum was associated with the Little Ice Age which covered 400 years in two major episodes.
It appears, however, the oceans govern climate. The paper by Tsonis et al discovered a relationship between the phases of ocean oscillations and warming/cooling over a century.
“TEST TIME- NOW NEXT FEW YEARS WILL BE TELLING. IS IT LOW SOLAR OR AGW THAT GOVERNS THE CLIMATE.”
I am not sure what causes global cooling.
I tend to think that the Little Ice Age was related to solar output and volcanic activity {plus maybe something else- in addition to “merely” some cyclic global circulation].
If solar governs climate in “next few years”, why would it do this? Is it mostly due to increased amount a GCR [Galactic Cosmic Radiation] hitting earth’s atmosphere [and causing more clouds to form]? Or is some other solar effect?
Some believe in 60 year cycle or 30 years warming and 30 years of cooling. And I believe we already in this cooling part of cycle [or it’s explaining the pause]. So perhaps this cycle plus solar min- but again is related to higher GCR or more to do with other solar activity.
If amount GCR were a control knob, it seems possible we could have more GCR without having anything to do with solar Min or Max.
Anyways I think it would important to know what caused the Little Ice Age [rather than waste time/money busy denying that LIA even occurred]. Or what caused the cooling?
Now I suppose that since we are in a thousands of years of slight cooling “period”, it could be, what is inhibting it from cooling **more** than it might otherwise. Or cooling triggers something which counteracts this cooling. And one gets the LIA because something stopped this warming from counteracting against cooling.
But anyhow, way I read it, is we are still recovering from the LIA and we will probably continue this pattern for centuries. And I see no accelerated warming that has occurred in the last 2 centuries and don’t expect it in the next couple centuries. Or I expect sea levels to continue to rise as they have been doing.
Dr Spencer: I notice that the final April update is not in yet, e.g. http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0.txt Is there a problem somewhere?
I’m also curious. Why does it generally take so long or the full data to appear?
Probably quality control. But it normally comes out within a few days after the 1st of the month.
Mapping the world’s dry forests
The extent of forest area in dryland habitats, which occupy more than 40% of Earth’s land surface, is uncertain compared with that in other biomes. Bastin et al. provide a global estimate of forest extent in drylands, calculated from high-resolution satellite images covering more than 200,000 plots. Forests in drylands are much more extensive than previously reported and cover a total area similar to that of tropical rainforests or boreal forests. This increases estimates of global forest cover by at least 9%, a finding that will be important in estimating the terrestrial carbon sink.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6338/635
Has anyone living in North America or maybe northern Europe noticed it seems to be damper and colder this spring?
We’ve had extensive flooding right across Canada and is that not often associated with a La Nina?
Just wondering.
Higher precipitation across California often accompanies la Nina, but not exclusively.
Gordon Robertson
It is the result of cool air through the cold fronts associated with the meandering jet stream.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/17/0600Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-34.45,43.30,519
Look at the stream current and current rainfall over the Great Lakes.
http://www.intellicast.com/National/Radar/OneKM.aspx?location=USMI0637&animate=true
In addition, in April, snow cover in eastern Canada exceeded 0.5 meters.
https://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/snow_model/images/full/National/nsm_depth/201704/nsm_depth_2017041005_National.jpg
Snape,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn does not think a coat can keep you warm.”
Or in the case of a firefighter, keep you cool, do you think?
Or in the case of a corpse, delay the rated of rise or fall of temperature, depending on a variety of factors?
You might find Newtons Law of Cooling instructive. You can even work out the approximate time of death of a person, depending on the cooling rate, even if they died in bed under many blankets (or no blankets at all), or even if they were wearing an assortment of clothes – including overcoats or insulated wear.
Putting words in my mouth doesn’t help you much. Still no GHE.
Maybe you should have obeyed David Appell. What do you think have gained, with your witless and unsupported assertion? Are you any more intelligent for it, or do you think you have found out something new?
It might sound like the blubbings of a frustrated crybaby to some. So tell me, how many overcoats do you need to heat a snowman? Or a scarecrow in winter? Have you measured the heating effect, or are you just plucking thoughts from the bizarre depths of your delusional fantasies?
I don’t care at all, but it might be important to you, I suppose.
Cheers.
Mike:
Are you suggesting a coat can’t keep a person warm because it can’t keep a snowman warm?
(My apologies to David Appell, this is just too much fun)
Mike
And don’t you dare start talking about Tyndall, I already have a bad case of the giggles.
Snape,
What part of what I wrote are you disputing? Are you truly dim enough to think that firefighters’ protective clothing is designed to make them hotter?
I’m happy enough to defend what I write with fact, where appropriate. Maybe you suffer from a mental defect which prevents you from comprehending the English language. For all I know, you may suffer from a form of receptive aphasia. You have my sympathy if this is the case.
Alternatively, can you provide evidence that you do not suffer from delusional psychosis, or another mental condition which prevents you from accepting reality?
You may well believe that the Earth has increased its temperature since its creation in a molten state, but unless you can provide some evidence to this effect, you might be regarded as delusional.
Maybe you can produce peer reviewed research which shows the Earth was created in a non molten state, possibly solid right through, but I am not aware of such research.
Or you can just keep trying to deny, divert, and confuse. If that doesn’t work, aim for a “gotcha”!
Still no GHE. CO2 heats nothing. Never has, never will.
Cheers.
Mike
I’m not disputing anything you just wrote. I absolutely do believe a fireman’s clothing protects him from intense heat. I don’t think any amount of overcoats will heat a snowman or a scarecrow in winter.
But how come you’re asking all these questions? Are you trying to show a coat won’t keep a person warm?
Snape,
If you ask me a question, aiming for a “gotcha”, my response is likely to disappoint you. The fact is, you haven’t provided anywhere near enough information to make a cogent response. For example, you haven’t defined warm, or even keep. What is the ambient temperature? Is the air moving, and at what speed? What is the r value of the coat, and what is the r value of any other clothing? I can keep going, but you get my drift.
That’s the difference between science and climatology. You’re asking a climatological question. If I tell you a coat won’t keep a person warm in outer space, in a frozen lake, in a sub-zero blizzard, or a vat of liquid nitrogen, you’ll possibly complain that I took you literally.
Maybe you’ll redefine “coat” to include boots, gloves, socks, hats, scarves, space suits, neoprene wet and dry suits, and all the rest.
I assumed you were only pretending to be silly, but I may have been wrong.
Cheers.
mf,
‘Putting words in my mouth’. This is a talent and specialty of yours.
Constantly insisting people are saying ‘co2 is a heat source’, and no one ever ‘states the agw hypothesis’.
Nate,
If you can’t quote me constantly writing ” . . .people are saying co2 is a heat source'”, then I can only assume you are making things up, ie., lying, or intentionally uttering falsehoods.
I don’t believe the GHE exists.
If you can’t quote what you allege, you are merely making an unsubstantiated allegation knowing it to be false. This is also called lying.
Fairly simple, Nate. Quote the direct words you falsely accuse me of saying, or be branded a liar by others.
Typical foolish Warmist behaviour – confusing fantasy with fact.
I’m not sure why foolish Warmists resort to unnecessary fabrication, but maybe they don’t understand the difference between reality and fantasy. Sad.
Cheers.
Dont know why I bother, but you asked:
May 2, 10:35 PM
CO2 is relatively inert, and provides no heat at all
May 4, 6:21 am
I had a similar experience trying to sell CO2 house heaters. As I told my customers, the worlds finest climate scientists vouched for the heating properties of CO2.
May 6, 6:35 PM
CO2 doesnt provide heat
May 5, 5:42 AM
As to CO2 heat trapping, heating, or other mystical concepts.
May 14, 3:24 pm
Water vapour heats nothing.
Granted most of the time its your toadie, Ger*an, saying it, so I may get you two mixed up.
But aside from the heating properties of CO2, you insist that no one can provide a GHE ‘hypothesis’. Many people, including me, have provided you with one. The internet can certainly provide you one.
Your insistence that we havent, IMHO, is just a tactic for avoidance of debating actual science arguments that people are making. Such as this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246579
Mike Flynn
Information is available for you to research. I can’t make graphs and link them to you as the site does not allow it but you can make your own graphs to look at.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp
If you do a plot of the equator region (5 N, -5 S, 0 W, 360 E) you will clearly see that the total radiant flux (solar IN, reflected, longwave out, downwelling GHE IR) reaching the surface is much greater for the this area than the hot dry deserts of Australia (-15 N, -35 S, 115 W, 135 E)
Each graph will produce a sine wave that will confuse you but it covers many years and you can clearly see averages (or calculate them from high and low points).
Total radiant flux of equator avearges at 162 W/m^2
Total radiant flux of Australian Desert region averages at 106 W/m^2
This shows the GHE in action.
Equator Downwelling IR averages around 410 W/m^2
Australian Desert Downwelling IR averages 358 W/m^2
But the equator is cooler than the desert why? It receives less total energy by a considerable amount of 56 W/m^2. The difference is evaporation. The water evaporating keeps the tropical areas cooler but they receive more radiant energy than the dry desert.
Mike Flynn
Also in Antarctica in the summer (using the same tool of CERES and plotting graphs) it receives more downwelling solar energy than the equator (no night) Equator downwelling solar at the peak is 305 W/m^2 in clear sky conditions. Antarctic surface will receive 400 W/m^2 in summer.
But the amount downwelling solar is only part of the equation. 300 W/m^2 are reflected upward by the ice so only 100 is absorbed and it is only that high in the peak of summer.
But even with all the reflection of sunlight by ice, the South Pole warms considerably from winter to summer.
Norman,
careful, you will further confuse poor Mike with facts.
Norman,
According to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation – 1 square meter, with an emissivity of 1, at a temperature of 0 C, emits 315.63697918226694 Watts per square meter.
Your figures of less than this indicate you have invented a “cold ray”!
Your equatorial solar energy figure seems less that that emitted by a block of ice. Not much GHE there!
As to summer generally being warme than winter, this has been recognised for some millions of years by migrating animals. No human GHE at the time, as far as I know.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I will try to explain it to you and hope I am not wasting time. You do not read or comprehend so good so I think I might have to post this same point more than once. Now g*e*r*a*n is beyond reason or hope for learning. He might be funny or amusing with his endless taunting but he is not even remotely scientific.
First you should visit the CERES site yourself and make your own plots and graphs. Best way to learn.
Your biggest flaw seems to be you have no interest in learning anything and are set in your delusional thought process. I can’t break you out of that mental prison.
YOU: “Your equatorial solar energy figure seems less that that emitted by a block of ice. Not much GHE there!”
ME: “Total radiant flux of equator avearges at 162 W/m^2”
Do you know what total radiant flux means? It is not solar energy and you need to understand that the CERES data covers both day and night and gives an average solar input which would be much lower than the peak solar input. The peak is only 1000 W/m^2 a few hours a day. Then for 12 hours it is 0 W/m^2. If you average up the total flux in a 24 hour period it is in the 300+ W/m^2 but you will have to look at CERES yourself if you want to get the information.
Now you understand the GHE, the incoming solar flux is colder than 0C ice and the Earth surface would be colder than this without a GHE. About -18 C, that is colder than your 0 C.
I defined what a total radiant flux means in my post.
Since you don’t really read my posts I will provide it again so you do not misunderstand what a total radiant flux means.
ME: “you will clearly see that the total radiant flux (solar IN, reflected, longwave out, downwelling GHE IR)”
It is all the radiant energy at the surface. Now do you understand? I always hope but with you hope is a dim candle in the darkness of your unscientific mind.
Norm teaches the only science he knows: “But even with all the reflection of sunlight by ice, the South Pole warms considerably from winter to summer.”
Norm, what about “from summer to winter”? Does the GHE no longer work? The GHE no longer works, and the Pole re-freezes? You omitted that for some reason!
Norm is hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
The GHE works all the time 24/7. If you go to CERES and look at winter Net IR it is much less loss in winter than summer. This GHE at the South Pole keeps it warmer than it would be if the GHG were not present. If you make a CERES graph of Antarctica you can clearly see the GHE in action. I think the number in winter was around a cooling rate of 10 W/m^2 but the surface was emitting over 100 W/m^2. The DWIR kept the loss to a mere 10 W/m^2 average over the 16 or 17 years of CERES data. Look yourself and you will see how hilarious I am.
Norm, the only sentence you got correct was the last one.
All the other sentences reflect your “belief system”, not science.
Yes indeed, you are hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Are you admitting with your post that you are not interested in science but are a troll with intent to taunt and annoy other posters. You could be on any topic you just picked Climate science to troll.
You state: “All the other sentences reflect your belief system, not science.”
Which would those be? Did you go to CERES web page and prove they are not science? Or are you just trolling again because it is what you do.
Look at the information troll.
Norm, as I have implied numerous times, your juvenile name-calling only makes you look like a reprobate.
As I have implied numerous times, finding IR at the South Pole is NOT proof of the GHE. In your belief system, everything you see is “proof” of the GHE. IR is everywhere! To you, chocolate chip cookies are probably proof of the GHE. That’s what pseudoscience does to a person. (It also makes them hilarious.)
g*e*r*a*n
So did you look at the CERES tool and make some graphs to view?
Calling you a troll and your behavior that of a troll is not a juvenile name-calling. It is a correct and accurate description of what you are doing on this blog.
You are a troll and that is why you are here to provoke and annoy and get some kind of response.
Can you link me to one scientific or thoughtful post you have written in all your years on this blog? Or any blog?
I have seen you on other blogs and it is the same, taunt, annoy, get your fix for the day with a response like I am doing right now.
Maybe you do not know what a troll is and just think of it as a hairy beast that lives under a bridge. The internet version is a poster who really has noting of value to say but likes to provoke and annoy people to get a response from them. Fits you perfectly.
https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-internet-trolling-3485891
YOU fit this definition: “Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Norm, you have no science. You have no credibility. You have stated claims, but you have refused to stand by your claims.
You can call me all the names you want, but the evidence is clear.
You are a phony, and your belief system is pseudoscience.
(But, you remain hilarious.)
g*e*r*a*n
I really do not care what your opinion of me is troll. If you think I have no credibility than stop responding to my posts. I would love that!
I have stated claims and linked to numerous sources that confirm the claims.
So go troll someone else’s posts. It is what you do, taunt, annoy and try your best to get a response.
ger*
Norman is right that the ratio of ad-homs/science in your posts is very high. And you seem unable to refute it.
Nate, I respond to personal insults. I do not start them.
I criticize/ridicule their pseudoscience, and they take that personally.
repetitively saying ‘pseudoscience’ transmits information content approaching 0.
Ridicule doesnt persuade anyone to agree with you. Try explaining and genuinely discussing.
Norman,
You wrote –
“I really do not think you understand the GHE. I do not know who or what would be able to explain the concept to you.
What you think is irrelevant. Maybe a scientific statement of the impossible GHE might help. Possibly explaining, in writing, the phenomenon to which the GHE is supposed to relate, would be a good idea.
You say that the GHE cannot be shown with just one thermometer, but –
“I think the placement of the thermometers can be resolved by statistical analysis to determine how many and how much coverage to determine valid study of temperature equilibrium of the global surface condition . . . ”
And who takes notice of what you think? Not me, that’s for sure. Maybe you can name somebody who allows your fantasy to dictate their actions. Facts are facts, and Nature doesn’t care what you or I think!
No GHE. GHGs heat no thermometers, anywhere at all
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Here you go:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
That is the explanation for you.
This is the evidence to back up the explanation.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_591a81e8b2410.png
YOUR OWN WORDS: “Facts are facts, and Nature doesnt care what you or I think!”
So look at the facts. That is what convinces me.
You claim facts will convince you. Let us see, I give you facts what do they mean to you?
Norman,
Sorry. Complete nonsense –
“. . . longer wavelengths of the infrared re-radiation from the heated objects are unable to pass through that medium. ”
Completely meaningless, besides being nonsensical. Even you shouldn’t be silly enough t believe that! Have you noticed that an object on the surface cools at night? Its temperature drops when the Sun stops shining on it.
I appreciate your faith in bringing fantasy to a fact fight, but you’ll have to do better than parroting nonsense.
The Earth has managed to cool, in spite of being subjected to four and a half billion years of sunlight.
No GHE there. Cooling, not heating.
Cheers.
So just which words and/or phrases do you find meaningless? Do you need help?
“short wavelengths of visible light from the sun”
400 – 700 EM radiation is relatively short wavelength. The sun produces such light (among others)
“pass through a transparent medium”
the atmosphere (a ‘medium’) is mostly transparent to such sunlight.
“and are absorbed”
When the sunlight hits the surface it (mostly) gets absorbed, contributing to the thermal energy of the surface.
“but the longer wavelengths of the infrared”
IR has longer wavelengths than visible light.
“re-radiation from the heated objects”
OK, I would have left off the “re” and simple said “radiated”. Objects at typical surface temperature radiate IR with wavelengths of 4-100 um.
“are unable to pass through that medium”
IR is absorbed (to various degrees) but many materials (‘media’) (like glass and CO2 and H2O) that are transparent to visible light
“The trapping of the long wavelength radiation”
I would have said “blocking”, but since the medium in question absorbs thermal IR, ‘trapping’ is not that tough to understnad.
“leads to more heating and a higher resultant temperature”
As Kristian would point out, it would be a bit more accurate to say “less cooling”. But “more net heating” (ie heat in – heat out) is still an accurate description.
So which step in too challenging for you to understand? Please be specific.
***********************************************
Mike says: “Have you noticed that an object on the surface cools at night? ”
And how does this contradict anything in Norman’s link? Please be specific.
Tim,
The quote I provided is meaningless. I notice you’ve ignored it, and proceeded to write about something else entirely.
However, you’ve pointed out (using ClimateSpeak), that –
“Short wavelengths ” really means “relatively short wavelengths”
“Transparent” really means “mostly transparent”
“Absorbed” really means “mostly absorbed”, and so on.
You then go on to admit that you were wrong about other things, but of course felt no need to correct anything until you realised what silly statements you had tried to pass of as fact.
Not terribly satisfactory Tim. Keep it up, and people might think that anything you say is not meant to be taken literally.
You asked me a strange question about a statement I made. What part of it do you disagree with? Are you just being silly for the sake of it? Has Norman’s link some facts to the contrary?
Still no GHE. Not even a consistent scientific definition of this supposed effect. Maybe you can produce one, but foolish Warmists tend to provide foolish links to irrelevant documents. Maybe the definition of the GHE is that which must not be seen by unbelievers!
Cheers.
Mike, I agree with Tim, You have dodged and weaved and not answered his questions:
‘So just which words and/or phrases do you find meaningless?’
and
‘Mike says: Have you noticed that an object on the surface cools at night?
And how does this contradict anything in Normans link? Please be specific.’
Yes indeed, his link shows a net outflow of IR, consistent with cooling. So what is your point?
These get at the heart of the issues. Be specific. What do you object to?
g*e*r*a*n
Above in a Post this is what you stated.
YOU: “Norm, as your link shows, the atmosphere cools the surface. The atmosphere does NOT heat the surface, it cools it.
Your link is just one more piece of empirical evidence that debunks your GHE nonsense.
(But, dont stop. Your futile efforts to prove your pseudoscience are hilarious.)”
Exactly how is the atmosphere cooling the surface in the example I gave? Sending downwelling IR back to the surface is not a cooling action. What physics would claim that energy added is a cooling process?? Where do you get your silly childlike ideas from and why on Earth do you insist they are correct??
The surface cools with or without an atmosphere via radiative loss. With GHG present the cooling rate is much slower. The Downwelling IR adds energy back to the surface that would not be present without GHG.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_591a7c76bad86.png
Look again. If no GHG were present the surface energy loss would not be 100 joles/sec-m^2 at night but a much greater 350 joule/sec-m^2.
How do you define the concept less cold? If something is less cold than another object is it warmer than the object? If the surface is losing less energy is it in a warmer state than one losing more energy?
Do you think 100 is greater than 350? If the atmosphere is really cooling the surface (I assume you mean just radiatively and not convection) than 100 W/m^2 loss would have to exceed 350 W/m^2 loss.
So you think I am hilarious and use pseudoscientific thought process but you think 100 is greater than 350. Who is the goofier one between the two of us?
I guess we can always remember this one from you. 100 is larger than 350. An atmosphere that only allows a loss of 100 W/m^2 is cooling the surface that would be losing 350 W/m^2 without an atmosphere. You think the Sun’s surface is 120 C and now you believe 100 is larger than 350. What else will you come up before you leave us forever and join with your brothers and sisters at the Flat-Earth Society?
Norman,
You wrote –
“The surface cools with or without an atmosphere via radiative loss. With GHG present the cooling rate is much slower.”
Only a foolish Warmists thinks cooling results in heating. I’m glad to see you pointing out that the surface cools with or without an atmosphere. A slower cooling rate is not heating, ie. a temperature rise.
CO2 causes no heating at all. That’s why nobody at all has ever managed to demonstrate the non-existent GHE. Delusional nonsense. The rest of your post is the usual random collection of sciency words conveying no useful information whatever,.
Maybe if you could clearly state the natural phenomenon which the GHE purports to describe, real scientists (not the average balding bearded bumbling buffoon) might be able to investigate it.
But you won’t, so they can’t. So sad, too bad. Keep trying – if all fails, try resorting to personal abuse. Who knows – it might be easier than coping with inconvenient facts!
Cheers.
mf, you dont seem to be disputing that ghg reduce cooling rate at night. Now go one step further to the next day. We start the day warmer than would be w/o ghg. Yes?
No? Now we have solar heating. How do we not end up with a warmer surface as a result?
Pls explain your logic.
Norman
Heat flows from warm to cold, so I can understand downwelling IR when the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. Like when a warm front moves over an region that had recently been colder. Or, for instance, on a summer day in the artic when the surface is still covered in ice or snow but the air temperature is above freezing.
Is this what you mean by “downwelling IR”, or is there something else I’m missing?
This is called air circulation.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-311.87,101.31,298
Depends on the pressure distribution above the polar circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.png
Snape
I learned from Ball4 to not use the term heat in my discussions of downwelling IR. I do not use the term heat to describe DWIR I use just an energy flux. If you look at the graph the DWIR is generally less than the UPIR so the surface will still cool.
The point I make is the surface cools regardless of if it has an atmosphere or not. It will emit radiant energy upward and lose internal energy. That is why I object to the term the “atmosphere is cooling the surface”.
I asked g*e*r*a*n in a post if less cold is equivalent to warmer.
If the surface is cooling less (which Kristian also states but he uses an insulating effect, I do not believe this point as it would mean that DWIR slows the surface emission somehow, I do not know any physics that shows this to be the case and I am willing to accept it if sufficient evidence is presented to prove it is the actual mechanism at play). If the surface is cooling less than it would with no atmosphere the the logical conclusion would be that the atmosphere is not cooling the surface but in reality warming it in a relative way (less cool is equivalent to warming when comparing the two distinct conditions). The term is a relative use just based on comparing two potential conditions.
The Downwelling IR is energy that the surface absorbs. The surface has dual ability, it will absorb IR based upon its absorbitivity/ emissivity characteristics. It will emit IR based solely on its temperature and emissivity. It will absorb energy based upon how much energy it is receiving. It is the basis of the radiatiative heat transfer equation.
Q (heat, net energy flux)/Area (term now in W/m*2) = (emissivity)(stefan-Boltzmann Constant)(Temperature of surface^4 Kelvin minus temperature of surroundings^4 Kelvin)
Sometimes the equation does not go through when I paste it on this blog so I wrote it out. The surrounding energy is the Downwelling IR and it does exactly what Kristian says, it slows the rate of cooling which leads to a warmer state when you have a constant incoming energy source relative to a state with no Downwelling IR.
Norman,
A block of ice radiates up to 300 W/m2.
How much of this radiation is accepted by a thermometer with a temperature of 20 C?
How much hotter will the thermometer become?
Maybe you could ask Tim Folkerts? He can no doubt find an analogy to prove that a thermometer with a temperature of 20 C undergoes a rise in temperature when exposed to an additional 300 W/m2.
Or even better, if you have 10 m2 of ice, emitting about 3000 W, and an electric kettle only uses 2000 W or so, then you should be able to boil water continuously by concentrating the energy radiated by the ice! Free ice-powered boilers for all!
Of course, only a foolish Warmist would believe such a thing, and they prove it with their never ending fairy tales about the temperature raising properties of their “back radiation”.
Just something for you to take into account when you’re looking at all the upwards/downwards/sideways long wave/shortwave/mid range infrared/ultraviolet/visible/RF/HF/VHF/UHF/SHF and all the other energy levels of light.
If it’s all too much, talk about overcoats of fruit salad.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“A block of ice radiates up to 300 W/m2.
“How much of this radiation is accepted by a thermometer with a temperature of 20 C?”
Depends what’s between them.
Depends on what the thermometer is made of.
David Appell,
Air.
Made of glass and mercury, to BS691.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
The problem you give has too little information to solve anything.
Your problem: “A block of ice radiates up to 300 W/m2.
How much of this radiation is accepted by a thermometer with a temperature of 20 C?
How much hotter will the thermometer become?”
First point is a block of ice will not continue to radiate 300 W/m^2 without a continuous supply of energy to maintain its temperature.
Without added energy the ice will cool and the energy it radiates will drop as well.
Now what is keeping your thermometer at 20 C? Does it have an internal supply of energy to maintain this temperature?
The rest of the problem would involve complex equations that deal with field of view, how much of the ice radiation does the thermometer “see”, some of the equations to solve this become daunting. A Tim Folkerts level of challenge but it would need explicit values to solve even for his intellect.
Mike Flynn
If you might take some time to read some of the physics textbook I linked you to you could see several problems that address your concerns. Don’t read it because I tell you to and you feel it is a demand. Read it to learn the science you do not understand and find absurd.
YOUR POINT: “Maybe you could ask Tim Folkerts? He can no doubt find an analogy to prove that a thermometer with a temperature of 20 C undergoes a rise in temperature when exposed to an additional 300 W/m2.”
I would say Tim has more knowledge than me on the subject of thermodynamics but I will answer this one for you.
You are unable to understand but I will explain it anyway. If you do not understand it, that will be strong evidence to yourself that you really lack knowledge and it would benefit you to gain some so when you debate with types like Tim Folkerts you do not end up looking like an idiot.
Now what environment is this 20 C thermometer?
If you have it alone in space with no other source of radiant energy then to maintain a temperature of 20 C it needs a source of energy input. To find out how much energy you would have to give me the surface area of your thermometer.
To make it easier use a 1 m^2 ball at 20 C. In order to maintain a temperature of 20 C the ball must have a source of energy that adds continuously 418.7 joules/second.
If you put an ice sphere around this ball in which the ice continuously emits 300 W/m^2 all the 300 joules/second will reach the ball and be absorbed by it. The ball now has an internal source adding 418.7 joules/second and it is receiving 300 joules/second from the ice. The temperature of the ball will raise until it is emitting the same amount of energy it is receiving (which would be 718.7 joules/second). The final equilibrium temperature of the ball would be 62.35 C.
In free space with no surrounding the ball is at 20 C. Surrounding it with ice will raise its temperature to 62.35.
The ice alone does not warm the ball. The internal energy source can only raise it to 20 C. The internal energy and ice will raise the new temperature to 62.35 C.
It is not much different than enclosing a heating element in an oven. The heating element increases the surrounding wall temperature which radiate at higher levels cooking the food faster.
Or in free space with a heating element at the same temperature, you will cook a turkey much faster if you surround the heating element and turkey in a sphere of ice than no sphere at all.
Norman,
The thermometer shows its temperature to be 20 C. That’s a marking between 19 and 21. That’s what a thermometer is for. No internal heat source.
It doesn’t matter where it is. It’s a temperature measuring instrument. Even climatologists claim thermometers measure temperature. I agree.
You claim that surrounding a thermometer with ice at a maximum temperature of 0 C (otherwise it wouldn’t be ice anymore, unless it’s climatological modelled ice which remains frozen at temperatures above freezing), will raise the temperature of a thermometer showing 20 C to 62.35 C.
Are you quite mad?
You sound like you would believe it is possible to raise the temperature of a thermometer by surrounding it with CO2!
Sad. Very sad.
Cheers.
“First point is a block of ice will not continue to radiate 300 W/m^2 without a continuous supply of energy to maintain its temperature.
Without added energy the ice will cool and the energy it radiates will drop as well.”
Put 1 km cube of ice in a dark lunar crater. Have about 1/2 km long tunnel to it’s center which has a 10 meter cube room.
Start 1 km cube temperature at 0 C. The outside of cube will evaporate until it’s surface is about -100 C, but if the tunnel is sealed with a door, 10 meter cube room should remain at near 0 C for quite a while [months-years].
Put any 20 C thermometer in the 10 meter cube room. The 20 C thermometer will not warm, instead it will heat the room up a bit, until it’s 0 C.
Norman,
‘If you put an ice sphere around this ball in which the ice continuously emits 300 W/m^2 all the 300 joules/second will reach the ball and be absorbed by it. The ball now has an internal source adding 418.7 joules/second and it is receiving 300 joules/second from the ice. The temperature of the ball will raise until it is emitting the same amount of energy it is receiving (which would be 718.7 joules/second). The final equilibrium temperature of the ball would be 62.35 C.’
That doesnt sound correct.
The ball should reach ice temp. It will emit = what ice emits.
Norman, ok if the original surroundings o thermometer is empty space, and it was maintained at 20c by heat source, then ok, i agree with you.
If surroundings were originally 20c, as I thought made sense for a thermometer on earth, then no.
Nate
YOU: “That doesnt sound correct.
The ball should reach ice temp. It will emit = what ice emits.”
It will emit as the ice emits if it has no internal energy warming it.
This might help. Start with just the ball surrounded by ice held at 0 C. The ball inside will reach a temperature of 0 C and stay at that temperature.
Now in my example the ball has its own source of internal energy that would allow it to maintain a temperature of 20 C say the dark side of the Moon. For the ball size this would be 418.7 joules/second (W/m^2 with a 1 m^2 surface area). It has this much energy continuously added to it if ice is there or not. The ice will not cool it, the ice does not take energy away, heat exchange is just based upon how much NET energy a body is gaining or losing. With the ice surrounding the ball it will still absorb the same 300 W/m^2 flux as it did before any energy was added. That will be a constant. Now it is getting 418.7 added to this 300 so it will keep rising in temperature until it radiates 718.7 W/m^2 away. Does that make sense to you?
Norm does it again! (And, he claims he is learning!)
He is using ice to raise the 20C ball to a new temp of 62.35C!!!
He’s the King of pseudoscience!
Hilarious.
Norman, you wrote,
“surface is cooling less (which Kristian also states but he uses an insulating effect, I do not believe this point as it would mean that DWIR slows the surface emission somehow, I do not know any physics that shows this to be the case….”
What’s your problem? You explained to me that DWIR is like apples being “put back” into the basket. Thus reducing the net upwelling IR. Net upwelling IR is expressed as a “rate”, and reducing a rate is called “slowing”.
Mike,
‘A block of ice radiates up to 300 W/m2.
How much of this radiation is accepted by a thermometer with a temperature of 20 C?
How much hotter will the thermometer become?’
If thermometer surrounded by ice, it will reach ice temp. Period. iT WILL
If thermometer on dark side of moon
At this point thermometer will accept 300W/m2 from ice and emit 300W/m2 to ice.
Place thermometer in space in shadow of moon. It will receive much less radiation than from ice. It will cool much lower approaching 3K.
going back to MFs intended example. I think he meant a thrmometer here on earth in a 20c surroundings.
Now bring an ice block near it. The ice is emitting 300W/m2. But this will NOT heat the thermometer. The thermometer will of course cool.
Why? Because the ice REPLACED original view thermometer had of 20C surfaces, radiating @ 390 W/m2.
In GHE, sky @ 0C, radiating 300w/m2, has replaced space @ -270 C radiating < 1W/m2. So of course the earth surface is warmer as a result.
“Place thermometer in space in shadow of moon. It will receive much less radiation than from ice. It will cool much lower approaching 3K.”
There are permanent shadowed regions of the Moon- shadowed craters in the lunar polar region [so has been in permanent shadow for millions of years. And the surface temperature reaches 30 to 50 K. It’s one of coolest spots in the inner solar system- though Mercury also has permanent shadows and no atmosphere to speak of- so likewise it would cold enough to keep ice frozen. It has long been theorized that Mercury’s polar caps have frozen ice in them, but it’s only since 1998 that evidence indicates that the Moon also could have frozen ice in it’s polar regions.
So temperature on the Moon would not approach 3 K, but could cold enough to store pressurized liquid Hydrogen and liquid oxygen without any refrigeration.
In space things can cool down to 3K, but due to conduction and convection of heat, things on Earth can cool faster than things in space. Or the moon could have advantage of cooling components of rocket fuel [Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid oxygen] as compared to doing it in open space, because one use the cold surface temperature of moon to dump heat into via conduction of heat. So use less electrical power to make LH2 and LOX from hydrogen and oxygen gas.
Or on Earth LOX is cheap because one can use earth atmosphere and evaporation of water to cool the oxygen from the atmosphere- it requires less electrical power to refrigerate.
Ok interesting, i could believe that, temps 50k in craters. I was thinking of thermomer far beyond moon, but in its shadow, so that it is primarily ‘seeing’ space.
“Nate says:
May 17, 2017 at 8:12 PM
Ok interesting, i could believe that, temps 50k in craters. I was thinking of thermomer far beyond moon, but in its shadow, so that it is primarily seeing space.”
L-points are highest stable orbit.
A single planet in orbit around the sun has 5 l-point: 1,2,3,4,and 5. L-point 1 is point/place directly between the planet and the sun. L-point 3 is on opposite side of sun. L-point 2 is line with sun and planet on far side of planet [lines up with L-1]. L-4 and 5 60 degrees ahead or leading the Planet’s position in it’s orbit around the sun.
Earth moon system [Earth and Moon “could be” called dual planets] has 10 L-points. 5 Earth/Sun L-points and 5 earth/moon l-points.
The Earth/Moon L- 1 [EML-1] is nearest L-point to Earth and nearest to Moon. It’s about 70,000 km from the Moon or it’s about 70,000 km closer to Earth as compared to the Moon’s distance.
Sun/Earth L-1 is where all sun observing satellites are put and is about 1.5 million km closer to Sun compared to the Earth. “Goresat” [also known as DSCOVR]:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-20/nasa-s-goresat-mission-just-released-its-first-image-of-earth
Is also in Sun/Earth L-1, if looking back to Earth, it always sees the sunlit side of Earth.
[One could dispute calling L-points orbits because they don’t circle the planet- though they circle the Sun [in a constant relationship to a planet [or Moon].]
Anyways, though one could have object travel from Earth/Moon L-1 and L-2 and keep it in shadow of Moon, one doesn’t have lunar orbit in the Moon’s shadow, but Sun/Earth L-2 can be in the Earth’s shadow. Sun/Earth L-2 is about 1.6 milliom km further from the sun than Earth is. Or when Moon if full, Sun/Earth L-2 is about 1.3 million km behind/beyond the Moon. The James Webb Space Telescope will put in Sun/Earth L-2:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/webb-l2.html
“”A huge advantage of deep space (like L2) when compared to Earth orbit is that we can radiate the heat away,” said Jonathan P. Gardner, the Deputy Senior Project Scientist on the Webb Telescope mission and Chief of the Observational Cosmology Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “Webb works in the infrared, which is heat radiation. To see the infrared light from distant stars and galaxies, the telescope has to be cold. Webb’s large sunshield will protect it from both Sunlight and Earthlight, allowing it to cool to 225 degrees below zero Celsius (minus 370 Fahrenheit).” For the sunshield to be effective, Webb will need to be an orbit where the sun and Earth are in about the same direction. ”
One should note that generally getting rid of heat is fairly hard thing to do in space- particularly if want it powered to do something useful [like, communicate to Earth]. The article doesn’t seem to mention that the telescope can be in shadow, but it could be-would be. L-2 is actually huge volume of space- or “the point” is where the middle of it, is. Or it is optional not to be in the Earth’s shadow- one could have orbit in L-2 which isn’t in the shadow [at all] but the L-2 “point” is in always in shadow.
Norman says, May 15, 2017 at 10:24 PM:
Are you saying the solar-heated surface DOESN’T cool to the atmosphere!?
Exactly. That’s why the atmosphere ISN’T “sending downwelling IR back to the surface”.
None. Which is what I’ve been trying to tell you since the beginning. “Adding” energy to the heated object ISN’T the way insulation makes that object warmer.
You keep ‘forgetting’ one crucial factor. WHY is the cooling rate so much slower (at the same T_sfc)? Because the atmosphere is … WARM, Norman. It has a TEMPERATURE close to that of the surface itself. Unlike space. And it has a temperature because its MASS is able to warm from being heated by the surface. Through radiative AND non-radiative heat transfer mechanisms.
If the atmosphere had a temperature of 2.7K, it wouldn’t matter how much of the IR emitted from the surface it absorbed. It couldn’t radiatively make it any warmer than what space can.
— Kristian says:
May 16, 2017 at 3:32 AM
Norman says, May 15, 2017 at 10:24 PM:
Exactly how is the atmosphere cooling the surface in the example I gave?
Are you saying the solar-heated surface DOESNT cool to the atmosphere!?–
Norman does not seem to answer. So I will.
The solar heated surface does cool to atmosphere. Generally a dry land surface does this when surface of the land is warmer than air temperature.
But most of Earth heated surface is ocean area, and doesn’t require a difference of temperature of ocean surface and air temperature. The Ocean surface cools to the atmosphere largely by evaporation.
Or have square meter of sand, and it could warm to 70 C. With same solar conditions with an square meter of ocean water, and it’s temperature will not rise above 35 C- because evaporation will prevent higher temperature. So air temperature could 35 C and ocean temperature 35 C and the ocean surface would cooling to the atmosphere via evaporation.
One could also just pour water on sand, and the wet sand will also be prevented from reaching a high surface temperature [and the wet sand would absorb more energy from the sunlight as compared to the dry sand which gets hotter surface temperature].
— Sending downwelling IR back to the surface is not a cooling action.
Exactly. Thats why the atmosphere ISNT sending downwelling IR back to the surface.–
I wonder if Norman realizes he has asserted that downwelling can’t heat the surface.
Radiating energy is a cooling process. Or that star in the sky is cooling by radiating a massive amount of energy created from fusion [which converts matter into energy].
“If the atmosphere had a temperature of 2.7K, it wouldnt matter how much of the IR emitted from the surface it absorbed. It couldnt radiatively make it any warmer than what space can.”
An atmosphere of 2.7 K, is an interesting idea. We have never seen one [as far as I am aware of].
Nitrogen gas can be that cold- if it has a low pressure [or compared to 1 atm- a reasonably good vacuum]. Or Mars is also a reasonably good vacuum. Or simply having Mars being beyond Pluto, the CO2 freezes out and it’s left with it’s 2.7% nitrogen atmospheric component- and having even better vacuum. So there are dwarf planets out in outer part of solar system, which might have an atmosphere at around 2.7 K.
A possibly problem with it, would be the solar wind [at that distance]. Not sure if sun’s solar wind [or solar wind from other stars would prevent it from “happening”.
Now could instead have planet with helium atmosphere- and so be able to have thicker denser atmosphere.
Norm: Exactly how is the atmosphere cooling the surface in the example I gave? Sending downwelling IR back to the surface is not a cooling action. What physics would claim that energy added is a cooling process?? Where do you get your silly childlike ideas from and why on Earth do you insist they are correct??
g: Upwelling IR originates from the surface. Emitting IR is a cooling process.
Norm: The surface cools with or without an atmosphere via radiative loss. With GHG present the cooling rate is much slower. The Downwelling IR adds energy back to the surface that would not be present without GHG.
g: No, that is a worm in your head. DWIR warming the surface is pseudoscience. The false concept is part of the GHE, which is part of the bogus AGW nonsense. You have so many worms in your head.
Norm: Look again. If no GHG were present the surface energy loss would not be 100 joles/sec-m^2 at night but a much greater 350 joule/sec-m^2.
g: That statement tells me you do not understand the link you provided.
Norm: How do you define the concept less cold? If something is less cold than another object is it warmer than the object? If the surface is losing less energy is it in a warmer state than one losing more energy? Do you think 100 is greater than 350? If the atmosphere is really cooling the surface (I assume you mean just radiatively and not convection) than 100 W/m^2 loss would have to exceed 350 W/m^2 loss.
g: Incomprehensible rambling.
Norm: So you think I am hilarious and use pseudoscientific thought process but you think 100 is greater than 350. Who is the goofier one between the two of us?
g: Norm, you are the goofier one.
Norm: I guess we can always remember this one from you. 100 is larger than 350. An atmosphere that only allows a loss of 100 W/m^2 is cooling the surface that would be losing 350 W/m^2 without an atmosphere. You think the Suns surface is 120 C and now you believe 100 is larger than 350. What else will you come up before you leave us forever and join with your brothers and sisters at the Flat-Earth Society?
g: An entire paragraph of strawmen and false accusations means Norm has exhausted all rational thought.
g*e*r*a*n
I asked you this question above.
If you have two objects, one is less cool than the other, does that mean it is warmer than the other object? Yes, No or Maybe?
If you have an object at 20 C it is less cool than an object at 10 C. Is this less cool object warmer than the other one? Yes, No, or Maybe?
If the GHG makes the surface less cool than a similar surface with no GHG does that make the surface warmer than the other one? Yes, No or Maybe?
How can the atmosphere cool the surface it the temperature of the surface is cooler with no atmosphere?
(Norm, I like the “less cool”—classic pseudoscience!)
All of your questions can be quickly answered by the simple application of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
But, you don’t want to go there….
g*e*r*a*n
Sure I want to go there. Which Laws of Thermodynamics do you refer to?
You did not answer one of the questions though. I guess that is what troll do, they post annoying comments and taunt posters with no answers. Trolls do what trolls need to do. Do you ever tire of trolling? Yes, No, Maybe?
Norm, you do not get subtle hints.
Here are some non-subtle hints. See if you can comprehend.
HINT: Ask me a nonsensical question, and I will give you a nonsensical answer.
HINT: Ask me a meaningful question, and I will give you a meaningful answer.
Best of luck.
g*e*r*a*n
It is unlikely you will answer anyone’s question. You are a troll that likes to taunt and annoy. There is no value in meaningful debate with a troll like yourself.
Did you read the textbook I linked to you yet or even look at it?
Now will you answer this question?
Did you look at the CERES tool I linked to and make your own graphs of Antarctica to see the radiant fluxes of that Continent?
Two good questions. Let us see if you will answer them.
g*e*r*a*n,
I note that foolish Warmists continually demand that you bend to their will.
They’ll provide a link to a paywalled article, or 1000 page textbook, incessantly demanding that you read it.
An odd lot, they can never bring themselves to actually cut and paste the relevant information, much less provide a specific reference to the page number in the linked reference.
Smoke and mirrors, misdirection – it has worked well with journalists and politicians, not so well with real scientists. Time will tell.
Cheers.
HINT: Ask me a meaningful question, and I will give you a meaningful answer.
(Norm, you have no credibility with me. You won’t standby your own words. It’s like you don’t even trust yourself.)
Mike Flynn
You are an annoying troll just like g*e*r*a*n
YOU SAY: “I note that foolish Warmists continually demand that you bend to their will.
Theyll provide a link to a paywalled article, or 1000 page textbook, incessantly demanding that you read it.”
Requesting one read or even look at a textbook on heat transfer is considered a demand by you? It should be something you would gladly want to do and be more than thankful someone found an online available book.
Where am I incessantly demanding you read a textbook on the topic you spend hours posting over?
Like I say, Flynn you are not a smart person and you are a true example of someone who Dunning-Kruger effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
This describes you very well.
“The DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein persons of low-ability suffer from illusory superiority, by mistakenly assessing their ability as greater than their actual capability. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability people to recognize their ineptitude. Without that, they cannot accurately evaluate their actual competence”
g*e*r*a*n
Ok troll here is a question I will see if you answer.
Provide a link to even one post you have made on a climate blog that contains useful scientific information?
You have thousands of posts over the years, certainly you can provide one with some actual science. 99% of your posts are taunts and twisted versions of what posters wrote. I have not seen any scientific statements or information from you to this date, maybe I missed one of your several thousand posts. If I saw even one that would be something nice to see. I doubt you will do this though but it is a request, we can see how you respond to it. I am not making a demand as Flynn the other troll thinks. It is a request.
Normie, you wouldn’t know science if it hit you in the face.
You have no academic background. You believe CO2 can warm the planet. You believe “energy does not leave the system, but energy leaves the system”. You believe your words are “gospel”, yet you run from your own words.
You’re a “climate clown”. hilarious, but useless.
g*e*r*a*n
I did not see a link to my request in you mindless rambling rant.
Did you miss the request, need I repeat it or do you just shrug it off.
Now I am happy to hear you words that I am useless. I really hope that means I can get the troll off my posts. It would be real nice if you find me so useless you quit responding to my posts. Wonderful. Let me know what I can post to you that will speed up the process. Thanks for any help. Insulting you does not stop you from responding. Informative science does not stop you. Posting countless links to science material does not stop you.
Help me out. What can I post that will make you stop responding? The sooner I know the quicker I will post it. The less I hear from you the better. Maybe you can haunt Tony Heller’s blog again.
Quote from above:
“Ok troll here is a question I will see if you answer.
Provide a link to even one post you have made on a climate blog that contains useful scientific information?”
Norm, you poor uneducated, rambling pseudoscientist! That is NOT a question.
You don’t even know how to phrase a question!
Hilarious.
Strong thunderstorms over the Great Lakes.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/16/0900Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-93.87,44.91,903
In the mountains on the west side of the jet stream will be snowstorms.
There are numerous papers on observations of increase in downwelling infrared radiation obver time, many of which are either conducted using only clearsky (no cloud) data, or including cloudy days but isolating different frequencies to obtain a GHG signature. Here are some of those papers.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
They complement measurements from satellites of upwelling IR, finding occlusion over time in the spectral bands associated with GHGs.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
These are some of the observationally based evidence for the enhanced greenhouse effect.
barry says: These are some of the observationally based evidence for the enhanced greenhouse effect.
barry, I’m guessing you’ve never studied quantum physics.
do you have scintific point? I thought not.
barry says, May 16, 2017 at 4:22 AM:
Yes, DWLWIR tends to go up when tropospheric temps go up, since it is after all simply an apparent radiative expression of atmospheric temperature. And tropospheric temps have – as you might be aware of – gone up since the late 70s.
However, the natural increase in DWLWIR with the tropospheric temps over isn’t the CAUSE of the parallel (though slightly preceding) rise in surface temps. It’s an EFFECT of temperature, not a CAUSE of it.
Which is completely useless, unless these measurements are accompanied by measurements of the TOTAL spectrum, the FULL All-Sky outgoing LW radiation flux at the ToA, showing the SAME pattern. Guess what? Such measurements do not exist. The satellite measurements show NO similar reduction in the total OLR at the ToA. In fact, the opposite is true. It simply follows tropospheric temps over time:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbsceres-vs-uah1.png
The SUN is behind the warming, barry. That is clearly evident from the relevant observational data from the real Earth system.
Kristian wrote:
“The SUN is behind the warming, barry.”
Then why is the stratosphere cooling — above what ozone loss implies?
The Sun is behind the WARMING, not the cooling, David. Tricky?
If Kristian thinks the cause of surface warming is an increase in solar intensity, then the fact that the stratosphere as cooled in the long-term flaws this assertion.
If he is arguing that it is changes in cloud cover (less cloud = more insolation at the surface), then he should be clearer and say that clouds are behind the warming.
If that is so, GHGs also play a part – evidence from DLR spectral analysis for clear-sky observations only over time. No clouds affecting that data.
Barry
Norman never really answered my question about DWIR, maybe you can? Here it is again with a few changes:
Heat flows from warm to cold, so I totally understand downwelling IR in circumstances where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. Like when a warm air mass moves over a colder ocean. Or, for instance, on a summer day in the artic when the surface is still covered in ice or snow but the air temperature is above freezing.
Is this what you mean by downwelling IR, or is there something I’m not understanding?
Snape
Maybe an analogy will help. Heat flows from warm to cold. Heat is defined as NET energy of a surface. Energy flows in both directions. Toward and Away. The surface does no stop emitting energy and the neither does the atmosphere.
There is a large tote of apples. New apples get added at 100 apples an hour (solar input in climate systems).
Now you have people come take 100 apples and hour and you have an equilibrium state. The number of apples in the tote remains the same (internal energy, temperature).
With Downwelling IR it would be like the 10 people of the 100 decide they do not want the apple they took and bring it back and put it in the tote. This will increase the number of apples in the tote even though people keep taking them. The downwelling IR returns energy to the surface that would not return to the surface without GHG present. Normally the return is less than the emission rate so there is NOT a HEAT FLUX from the atmosphere to the surface. There is an energy flux (part of the NET). The Net is all the radiant energy added together. Does that help? Sorry to confuse you with my post.
A few other ideas that could be added to this analogy.
1) Even though the apples “came from the tote originally”, there is no violations of the laws of physics if some of the apples return. We have not violated a “conservation of apples” law.
2) Even though there are only 100 new apples being added each hour, it is perfectly possible for 400 people to take apples and for 300 people to return apples. This also does not violate any conservation laws. The number being taken and returned can exceed the number being added from the ‘sun’ without violating ‘conservation of apples’.
3) in the second example, there really are 400 apples moving one way and 300 moving the other. The NET flux of apples is 100 (analogous with heat), but that is different from the individual fluxes.
The clowns are making apple juice!
Hey Norm and Tim, the actual science is NOT that hard to understand. Why add confusion? Stick with reality, unless you want to lead people into pseudoscience….
Foolish Warmists also have analogy fixation. Not content with merely accepting a pointless analogy, other foolish Warmists come up with ideas to gild the analogy and buff it to a glittering polish – a highly polished gilded pile of dung remains a pile of dung, unfortunately.
Maybe yet another foolish Warmist could dress the whole analogy in the finest of imaginary overcoats, and pile fantasy blankets on top.
The GHE remains a steaming pile of dung – no matter how seductively it is presented.
No science involved.
Cheers.
Mike, did you notice you used an analogy to criticize people for using analogies? I don’t care what anybody else says, your comments are priceless!
“Foolish Warmists also have analogy fixation.”
And then,
“a highly polished gilded pile of dung remains a pile of dung, unfortunately.”
“No science involved.”
What a f*ing joke. You’re afraid to look at the evidence.
Snape,
Your knowledge of English usage is obviously inferior to mine.
I used a metaphor. I appreciate that foolish Warmists are equally proficient in most areas of knowledge. You have my sympathy.
How are you proceeding with your search for a scientific definition of the GHE? Apart from the facts that it has nothing to do with greenhouses, and no reproducible effect can be observed, you should have something by now.
Would you mind providing a copy of the scientific definition of the GHE here, in all its wondrous glory?
It doesn’t matter if it’s expressed in semi-coherent terms. No doubt facts can be teased out, and tested.
Cheers.
Mike
How much are you offerin
Whoops
How much are you offering? Lol.
I ask you questions and you refuse to answer without a cash offer. Now you expect me to work for free? Outrageous!!
Tim, Norman
Thanks, that all makes sense. Now I’m not sure why you guys don’t agree with Kristian, or the other way around. I’m guessing it’s just a problem with semantics.
Mike Flynn says:
“How are you proceeding with your search for a scientific definition of the GHE?”
Why do you keep ignoring this?
GHE = (a planets actual global average surface temperature) (the planets brightness temperature).
Snape says:
“Heat flows from warm to cold”
*ENERGY* flows from every body in the form of radiation.
This radiation carries energy. It will impact anything that is in its path, regardless of that object’s temperature, or the temperature of the emitter.
Heat is the net transfer of energy.
IMO, it’s easier to think in terms of energy fluxes than in terms of heat transfer, especially if you want to understand the basic physics.
David
One thing still confuses me. If energy fluxes from the earth’s surface are expressed as a “rate”, shouldn’t the net energy flux also be expressed as a rate?
Thus heat flux, not heat?
Snape: Fluxes are always a rate: energy per unit time per unit area.
David
Ok, so there is a heat flux between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, and the direction and rate of this flux is determined by the difference in temperature between the two. Is that right?
Snape: Now quite. There are energy fluxes up from the surface and down from the atmosphere, with each dependent on the 4th power of the radiating object’s temperature.
Snape – While net flow of energy goes from hot to cold, at the microspcopic level electromagnetic radiation goes in all all directions, including Earthward. The ground-based instruments measure an increase in the amount of radiation in the spectral bands associated with CO2 over time. That’s a smoking gun for CO2 being a cause of this increase.
Kristian thinks it’s the sun. However, the sun’s long-wave radiation spectra isn’t the same as the atmosphere’s (they are very different temperatures). And in any case, most of the observations are clear-sky: no clouds affecting solar radiation at the surface.
Check the first 3 papers in the list I linked.
barry says, May 17, 2017 at 7:28 AM:
No, barry. The data TELLS us it’s the Sun.
And when did I ever say that it’s somehow the Sun that has caused the “increase in the amount of radiation in the spectral bands associated with CO2 over time”!?
The Sun’s behind the WARMING, barry.
But you simply don’t WANT to get this, do you?
Barry, you wrote:
“While net flow of energy goes from hot to cold, at the microspcopic level electromagnetic radiation goes in all all directions, including Earthward.”
I’m in total agreement. I was told “heat flux” was the net flow of the energy flux you’re talking about.
The Suns behind the WARMING, barry.
When you’ve said this before you’ve said it was changes in clouds and the amount of insolation reaching the surface that causes warming.
This is why I pointed out that the CO2 spectral observations are done with clear-sky observations. Clouds are not a feature in the data.
Are you now arguing that solar intensity has increased for the periods of observations?
Because that is also not the case.
You seem to believe that the researchers measuring changes in DLR make no effort to account for other factors. Clearly you have not read the papers.
A common misunderstanding in this section of the debate is about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – heat flows from hot to cold. While this is the case, a cold object can make a warmer one even warmer, as evidenced by putting on a jumper. The jumper is not a source of energy, but it slows down the rate at which heat leaves your skin (in this case by convection). In the Earth system the heat leaving the surface is slowed down by greenhouse gases – in this case by radiative transfer (also by convection – ‘skeptics’ seem only to focus on convection for some reason).
The colder air can make the surface warmer if it becomes more opaque to upwelling infrared. More a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n of upwelling infrared leads to more infrared being emitted downward (and every other direction). While the net flow remains hot to cold, the rate at which the surface cools is slowed down, and thus becomes warmer.
The same reason a car is more likely to overheat on a hot day than a cool one. The engine is always hotter than the ambient air. But if the ambient air is warmer, then the rate at which the engine cools is less efficient and it consequently gets warmer.
The same reason my old computer is more likely to overheat and go into hibernation on a hot day than a cold one.
Examples abound. And this applies to convection, radiative transfer and conduction. If the colder object changes so as to make the warmer object lose heat less effectively, the hotter object will warm up. All the while the net flow remains from hot to cold. All that is needed for this to work is a heat/energy source external to the two bodies transferring heat/energy. That is the sun. Or the chemicals in your body keeping you alive (jumper). Or the power to your computer.
barry says, May 17, 2017 at 7:29 AM:
Nope, it’s slowed down by the TEMPERATURE of the atmosphere, which is much higher than that of space. It is also significantly slowed down by the WEIGHT of the atmosphere on the surface, slowing the average evaporation rate at any given surface temperature.
Yes, theoretically this could and would happen, if the surface heat budget was purely radiative. However, it isn’t, and so this ISN’T happening in the real Earth system. (‘CO2 warmists’ seem only to focus on radiation for some reason.)
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/
barry, you are so confused with thermodynamics and heat transfer, I don’t even know where to start!
You are mixing “old computers overheating” with heat transfer in the atmosphere. You are grasping at straws, trying to grab things to match your preconceived opinions.
That is how pseudoscience works.
You are mixing old computers overheating with heat transfer in the atmosphere.
I’m providing everyday examples of how a colder body can make a warm one even warmer, and I noted the difference between convention and radiative transfer (computers also have a conductive heat sink).
The analogies work for the point being made. You seem to have misunderstood the point.
barry, a colder body can NOT warm a warmer body.
Trying to “prove” such nonsense just indicates you do not understand thermodynamics.
So, your analogies do NOT work for the point being made.
Ger*. It is very simple concept that he is illustrating with real examples. Yet you cannot seem to grasp it. You seem to have fundamental issue, independent of the situation. What is that issue?
you will say your fund issue is 2nd law, but that is not violated, so non issue.
His point is heat flow is proportinal to Th -Tc. Making Tc higher reduces heat flow. Agree?
Nate, here is the exact quote from barry above: “Im providing everyday examples of how a colder body can make a warm one even warmer…”
If you don’t understand the violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics, that’s fine. Very few people do. But, just don’t claim you know that CO2 is “producing warming”, or “heats climates”. That’s when you become a “pseudoscientist” like Norm, Davie, and others.
barry, a colder body can NOT warm a warmer body.
Right there you twist what I said into something different.
The colder body does not provide warmth of its own. That’s your twist.
The colder body may reduce the rate at which the warmer body cools.
THAT is what I said.
This is completely evident to anyone who has ever put on a jumper.
In that case convection is impeded by the jumper, and the skin gets warmer as a result.
If you can’t get that colder bodies can impede heat loss from warmer bodies, thereby making them warmer, then any conversation with you on the topic is a lost cause. Because if you think differently you’re an idiot.
ger*an,
‘Nate, here is the exact quote from barry above: Im providing everyday examples of how a colder body can make a warm one even warmer
If you dont understand the violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics, thats fine.’
Dont get hung on words, pay attention to what is happening, and comment upon it.
In the examples he gave, heat flow is proportional to Th -Tc. Making Tc higher reduces heat flow.
Agree or not?
If not then why not? What fundamental law is violated?
Yes, theoretically this could and would happen, if the surface heat budget was purely radiative.
As I said in my post:
In the Earth system the heat leaving the surface is slowed down by greenhouse gases in this case by radiative transfer (also by convection skeptics seem only to focus on convection for some reason).
So I don’t claim the action is purely radiative. While you claim that it is “theoretical.”
You seek to wave away radiative transfer in the atmosphere. That is what unkeptical ‘skeptics’ do. Good to see that demonstrated to buttress my point.
barry says, May 17, 2017 at 7:41 PM:
No, barry. HERE’S what you said (and which is what I responded to):
Didn’t you bother to read the very comment you responded to before responding to it!?
You claimed that by slowing down the rate at which the surface cools, by letting the atmosphere emit more IR down to it, the surface will become WARMER.
And to this I responded: “Yes, theoretically this could and would happen, if the surface heat budget was purely radiative. However, it isn’t, and so this ISN’T happening in the real Earth system.”
Senseless post. You’ve repeated yourself only.
This is your “argument.”
“Yes, theoretically this could and would happen, if the surface heat budget was purely radiative. However, it isnt, and so this ISNT happening in the real Earth system.”
What atrocious logic.
If only X then not X
False premise:
I clearly said convection is also part of the process. Twice in the most recent posts. Can you not read?
False logic:
The existence of other types of heat/energy in the atmosphere do not exclude radiative transfer.
Fallacies:
Straw man
Pure assertion
Hopefully your next reply will be more coherent.
Bah, crappy edit.
If only X then X.
That’s what you think I think. Wrongly.
If not only X then not X.
That’s your argument. Nonsense on its face.
Don’t you think the data will determine which thoughts are correct?
I do and yet it seems those who embrace AGW theory do not.
That I do not understand.
Already the warming is much less then predicted by this theory and if temperatures drop over the coming years I would think at the very least AGW theory should come into serious questioning.
However ,I do not get that sense for those who believe in this theory.
It’s extraordinary, isn’t it Salvatore, that people can be so intransigent.
Yes , as I have said if the data goes against me I will admit to being wrong.
“I will never spin and if I am wrong I will admit it.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
I might be wrong I do not know but should know in the near future one way or the other.
Salvatore, you’ve been saying for a long time that we should know soon.
Your study, the CO2 man made global warming hoax, don’t mean anything because in the next few years we will know ,who is right and who is wrong.”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
You’ll keep saying it forever, I”m sure.
“Intransigence” is a requirement of pseudoscience.
saying pseudoscience is a requirement of an annoying troll.
Norm, you may want to look up the word “intransigence”.
I think Salvatore is sincere when he says he will change his mind if the data give cause to do so.
I’m slightly (but only slightly) less convinced that Salvatore will one day be satisfied that the various conditions he requires have been met.
Salvatore thinks AGW is a “hoax.” There is no evidence that will convince him — he’s made this clear for years by putting forth the same old excuses.
You always have to look at real data. CO2 is closely related to the growing season . CO2 is no blanket, only the individual particles in the atmosphere.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular
CO2sc Carbon Dioxide Surface Concentration
the fraction of carbon dioxide present in air at the earth’s surface.
Click on the map.
It operates quite differently water vapor.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/global2/mimictpw_global2_latest.gif
A lower compaction ratio during the melting season indicates a higher melt rate. During the freezing season a low compaction ratio indicates lots of new thin ice.
The Antarctic sea ice is generally more dispersed than the Arctic sea ice because it is not restrained by landmasses. The storms in the southern ocean prevent the formation of a static ice pack.
https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5JYfcI0wFH6MUV5V0h2aWg4dlU&export=download
Predicted for snowfall tomorrow in the western United States.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00901/0u953pk6mgfx.gif
“Are you suggesting a coat cant keep a person warm because it cant keep a snowman warm?”
Mike, is this the “gotcha” question you are refusing to answer? Lol!
Snape,
Are you suggesting you’re not trying to deny, divert, confuse, and generally avoiding any scientific discussion of the non-existent GHE?
Foolish Warmists suffer from delusional overcoat fixations.
Foolish Warmists get bent out of shape when rational people decline to participate in their infantile games.
But the answer to your question is yes – unless you nominate how much you are prepared to pay me for my opinion. If you are a foolish Warmist, you won’t be prepared to spend any of your own money, I don’t think any body will be silly enough to pay on your behalf. I hope I’m wrong.
Cheers.
Flynn
Ok if I pay you in Monopoly money?
I admire your business savvy. Why answer questions for free when you could make some serious cash!
Snape,
There you go again. Foolishly indefinite, Imparing no useful information. How many kilos of Monopoly money are you offering? How do you intend to deliver it? Are you prepared to ensure that your offer of payment will not involve any expenditure on my part?
Foolish Warmists are tricky buggers, on occasion. They’re likely to try to weasel out of their ridiculous undertakings by claiming they didn’t think you’d take them literally, they didn’t really mean what they wrote, they mis-spoke, and so on.
So yes, Monpoly money is fine. How many kilos?
Or are you just trolling, asking questions in bad faith? The world wonders!
Cheers.
Why are you ignoring the evidence?
Mike
You called my bluff. My kids would be really mad if I actually sent you our Monopoly money.
Snape,
Typical foolish Warmist. All mouth and no trousers. Your excuse is that you were only bluffing. Just like your GHE claims, I suppose?
Cheers.
Why are you always avoiding the evidence?
Irony. Mike has spouted a thread full of nothing and complains about the same.
“Pay me?”
How empty.
Oh my dayz. More than 300 occurrences of one David Appell on this post. I counted them individually up to about 120. Most were entirely due to him, not people replying to him.
Three hundred.
Draw your own conclusions.
So what?
PS: You know, you can easily count them exactly via the “Find” feature of your browser.
At least one scientist of the climatological persuasion tried to inject a bit of reality –
“. . . but that we honestly know f*ck-all about what the … variability was like on timescales greater than a century with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f*ck-all).”
– Cook, from the ClimateGate emails.
The letter “u” has been replaced with asterisks, where appropriate.
The series makes interesting reading.
Cheers.
When will you be finally willing to confront the evidence?
David Appell asks
“Why do you keep ignoring this?
GHE = (a planets actual global average surface temperature) (the planets brightness temperature).”
Because it makes no sense at all, even if you had included a minus sign which you sloppily forgot.
This just a statement, not even an observation of a natural phenomenon.
Aside from that, nobody has yet managed to measure the Earths actual global average surface temperature. You can’t even state the period over which this non-existent average is supposed to measured, how, or when.
Additionally, here’s a definition for you –
“Brightness temperature is the temperature a black body in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings would have to be to duplicate the observed intensity of a grey body object at a frequency . This concept is extensively used in radio astronomy and planetary science.”
What observed intensity are you talking about? What frequency? Have you the faintest idea what you are talking about?
The statement you make appears to be saying the GHE is the observed average temperature minus the observed average temperature, which is obviously zero, under all conditions.
I haven’t ignored it, I was just too polite to point out how silly it is.
Make some more pointless demands if you wish.
I thought you were going to ignore me, but I see you are just like others of your ilk – incapable of exercising self control, or actually carrying through with your mad intentions.
How about his – you stop spouting rubbish, and I’ll stop pointing out that you’re spouting rubbish. Sound fair?
Cheers.
That’s the definition of the temperature change due to the GHE. It does not depend on any frequencies.
You’re going to ignore this simple, universal definition?
David Appell,
I thought that infrarared was distinguished from non infrared by frequency. Do you have even the faintest idea of what you’re blathering about?
Oh well, the GHE doesn’t exist anyway. Unaffected by frequencies or anything else, so you’re half right, even it is unintentional.
Do you find that tinfoil is superior to aluminium foil for hat making? Maybe you need a different shield against aliens taking over your brain – your present protection doesn’t seem to be working all that well, does it?
Cheers.
You’re yet again wrong — a planet’s brightness temperature does not depend on any frequencies.
It’s simply
emmissivity*sigma*(brightness temperature)^4 = (1-albedo)*TSI/4
David Appell,
Others use the following definition –
“Brightness temperature is the temperature a black body in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings would have to be to duplicate the observed intensity of a grey body object at a frequency . This concept is extensively used in radio astronomy and planetary science.”
Observed intensity at a frequency, you’ll note.
Or you might choose the definition given at Wolfram. Maybe you even want to use the definition from the American Meteorological Society?
You can create your own definition, of course.
Maybe a climatologist would listen.
Cheers.
Or, you could simply explain why Earth’s global mean surface temperature is significantly higher than can be accounted for by the Sun.
David Appell,
I know you refuse to accept that the Earth’s surface was once molten.
I don’t blame you. You would not be able to explain why the surface temperature was significantly higher than could be accounted for by the Sun.
It’s not molten now – the surface has cooled. The remaining 99% + of the volume is still molten.I know you don’t believe this, either.
In any case, you haven’t provided a single cogent reason why I should provide any explanations to a foolish Warmist such as yourself.
No “gotchas” for you today. Try another 200 – 300 times, and I might reconsider. Or I might not. You might even try posting the same silly computer graphic another 24 times. It won’t make it any more useful.
Can you convince me your mental state is not unravelling? Maybe you suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder, combined with the inability to control your actions, and demands that others do what you are incapable of doing yourself. For example, you have now reverted to noting and responding to me – what do you think this might achieve?
Sad.Very sad.
Cheers.
Norman, I reposted this comment so it would be easier to find. You wrote,
surface is cooling less (which Kristian also states but he uses an insulating effect, I do not believe this point as it would mean that DWIR slows the surface emission somehow, I do not know any physics that shows this to be the case.
Whats your problem? You explained to me that DWIR is like apples being put back into the basket, thus reducing the net upwelling IR. Net upwelling IR is expressed as a rate, and reducing a rate is called slowing.
Reply
Snape,
Two points.
Cooling less is not heating. Whether the cooling is less, or more, the temperature is falling – otherwise it would be heating – rising temperatures, wouldn’t it.
Second point. Maybe a foolish Warmist said “apples”, but, upon reflection, decided he really meant to say “pineapples” or even “bananas”. Nothing at all to with physics, or science, which foolish Warmists cannot understand.
Have you decided whether the indescribable GHE is due to DWIR, insulation, or possibly fruit?
Cheers.
Flynn
I did not say cooling less is heating. That would be nonsense. It is very possible, on the hand, for cooling less to PRODUCE warming. It’s a super simple concept, not the least bit contradictory. You can’t figure it out?
Now that I better understand DWIR (hat tip to Tim, Norman and David), it seems to be an integral part of the atmosphere’s insulating properties.
As for the fruit? That would be you.
Put more simply, less cooling can have the same effect as more warming. More warming can have the same effect as less cooling.
They are still the exact opposite actions.
Snape,
I don’t understand, obviously.
Cooling less possibly produces warming, you say. I suppose you’re going to tell me that that producing warming is actually heating. Or is producing warming just an interesting way of defining a reduction in temperature, normally called cooling?
For example, at night, clouds may reduce the rate of cooling, that is, less cooling than clear sky conditions. You seem to be saying that this possibly produces warming, as the temperature continues to drop, although more slowly.
Warming is not cooling. Heating is not cooling. Hotter is an increase in temperature. Colder is a decrease in temperature.
No GHE. No increase in thermometer temperatures due to the magical properties of CO2.
As an insulator it seems to have couple of drawbacks, to say the least. It doesn’t seem to stop cooling down to – 90 C in the Antarctic, and it doesn’t work too well at night, indoors, in the shade, when it’s cloudy, foggy, raining or snowy, or when a cold wind is blowing.
It doesn’t seem to have worked too well for four and a half billion years, as the Earth has managed to cool a few thousand Kelvins.
Maybe CO2 has transmuted itself into a climatological post-normal one way insulator, letting more energy in, than it lets out. I haven’t actually seen any reproducible experiments demonstrating this amazing effect. Could it be a virtual fantasy effect? Do you have to close your eyes tightly, and concentrate really, really, hard to believe It?
Or is GHE something else? You’re right. It’s obviously beyond any real scientist. Too hard!
Complete nonsense. No GHE at all.
Cheers.
Mike,
You can save more money by either earning more or spending less. You can raise the level of a dam by either increasing inflow or decreasing outflow. Let’s apply this simple idea to temperature:
warming at 5 deg./second minus cooling at 3 deg./second = warming at 2 deg./second
Now with less cooling:
warming at 5 deg./second minus cooling at 2deg./second = warming at 3 deg./second
Look, less cooling has produced more warming, it’s a miracle!
MF. Without a ghe how is the Earth surface reaching 288k? At this temp, it is radiating MORE than it absorbs from sunlight. How is this happening in your view?
mike, you create strawmen and can knock em down. Wow. But pointless.
Antarctica cools, indeed, but that proves nothing unless you compare ghe and no ghe.
Etc
Look, Mike, this is veeery simple.
An object will maintain a steady temperature if its heat OUTPUT (to its surroundings) equals its heat INPUT (from some heat source, be it internal or external):
Q_in = Q_out
The Q_in is what we call “heating”. It constantly and dynamically ADDS energy to the object, increasing its total energy content [+U].
The Q_out is what we call “cooling”. It constantly and dynamically REMOVES energy from the object, reducing its total energy content [-U].
As long as the two Qs are in balance, the NET HEAT is 0, and the U therefore remains unchanged. The U of the object is in turn directly associated with the object’s temperature T. A change in the U is proportional to a change in the T. If U goes up, then T goes up too, and if U goes down, then T goes down too. Unless there’s a phase change going on.
OK. So how can we make this the object warmer? How can we increase its U and thus its T?
There are basically two different routes:
#1 We increase the heating rate [+Q_in], or
#2 we reduce the cooling rate [-Q_out].
If, in #1, we keep the cooling rate [Q_out] constant, then increasing the heating rate [Q_in] will create a positive imbalance between the heats, and the net heat will rise ABOVE 0:
Q_net = Q_in – Q_out
Let’s say at t0, Q_in and Q_out are both 5. This gives:
5 – 5 = 0
Balance. No change in U, no change in T.
Then we keep Q_out the same, but increase Q_in, so that at t1, Q_out is still 5, while Q_in is now 7. This gives:
7 – 5 = 2
A positive imbalance has been produced. U and T will accordingly both go up.
Well, let’s say that instead of increasing the heating rate [Q_in] from the original value of 5, we reduce the cooling rate [Q_out] from the original value of 5 to 3, so that at t1 we get:
5 – 3 = 2
The resulting imbalance becomes exactly as positive as in the opposite situation. U and T will accordingly go up by the exact same amount.
In the first case, we produced the rise in T by directly increasing the HEATING rate of the object, that is, by ADDING MORE ENERGY per unit time.
In the second case, however, we produced the exact same rise in T, but the method we used to get there was completely different, in fact, it was opposite to the first one. We reduced the COOLING rate of the object, that is, by REMOVING LESS ENERGY per unit time.
The second method is what we call … INSULATION. It goes both ways. It works simply by reducing the heat transfer (ANY heat transfer) from hot to cold.
Snape
My problem is not with the concept of insulating effect. The process works the same as Tim Folkerts has pointed out. But I am trying to get the science valid not the concept.
Kristian’s view works but he calls the other ones wrong. The textbooks support the position I take so I go with this one unless Kristian can prove the textbooks wrong. My complaint with Kristian is he says the established view is wrong and he is right with no supporting evidence.
The textbooks (all I have read on the topic) clearly state a surface acts simultaneously emitting and absorbing energy. Not one states that the surrounding energy is actually suppressing the emission of energy by the surface.
Kristian claims there are not two macroscopic flows of energy (away and toward a surface). At work I point a FLIR at a hot pipe (300 F) and it is warming a hand rail in front of it. I put the FLIR instrument between the two and point it to the hot pipe, it gives a reading of 300 F. I turn it 180 degrees to face the rail and the rail reads 90 F. Two separate macroscopic energy fluxes that the FLIR detects and converts to a readable image and temperature.
Norman says, May 17, 2017 at 4:56 AM:
Yes, and if you pointed your FLIR in any other direction than just these two, chosen by you, it would apparently detect “separate macroscopic fluxes” in those directions too. So in this case there isn’t just TWO opposing fluxes, is there? There’s as many “separate” fluxes around as you would WANT it to be. You still don’t get it? It is YOU alone, in imposing certain geometrical constraints on the radiation field in question, that allow yourself to PERCEIVE a situation where there are two (and only two) macroscopic fluxes inside one and the same field. Based on the “two-stream approximation”, a simplified mathematical model viewing the radiation field as split into two conceptual (directional) hemispheres. The actual ‘radiative flux’ through the field, though, is still unidirectional. There is only one net (macroscopic) movement of photons. It is only found when integrating over the whole sphere (4π):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/radiation-sfc-atm.png
I’m just curious Kristian. Suppose I shine two flashlights at two different angles through some opening. Would you still insist that “the actual radiative flux through the field, though, is still unidirectional. There is only one net (macroscopic) movement of photons.”
Kristian
No I am not saying what you are saying I am saying. There is only two macroscopic flows to any surface in any place, this is a simple fact and it is all I have stated. With any surface you have energy moving away from it (that is the energy it is emitting) and you have energy moving toward it (can be from any source or any angle). No other flows matter to this surface or its energy balance. That is all I have stated not sure what you are trying to say.
Energy moving sideways to the surface is not “seen” by the surface and has no effect on its energy balance.
With respect to a given surface there are two macroscopic measureable energy flows. There is energy moving away from the surface and there is energy moving into the surface that is all there is with respect to the surface.
Norman says, May 17, 2017 at 8:38 AM:
You shouldn’t pick exactly “sideways” (90 degrees), Norman. You should pick any angle between 0 (straight down) and 90 (exactly sideways). You should then perform this very exercise in a forward direction from you, a backward direction from you, to the right of you, to the left of you, and in every 2D direction in between. Your instrument will “detect” apparently separate fluxes in ALL these different directions, ALL “flowing” at different angles to one another, seemingly completely independent of one another. Apparently into your instrument. Only the number of directions that you care to point your instrument restricts the number of apparent separate fluxes “detected”.
Furthermore, ALL of these “separate fluxes” will be “seen” by the surface. Because they’re all contained within the DOWNWARD hemisphere of the radiation field.
STILL on the “measurable energy flows”!?
No, Norman. You first point your instrument in one direction, then in another (the opposite). And THAT’S how you get two – apparently separate – fluxes.
Seen from the outside, there is only ONE net movement of photons inside the radiation field.
I really don’t get why this is so incredibly hard to understand. It is so basic, so logical.
Tim Folkerts says, May 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM:
And how precisely does this relate to the radiative heat transfer between Earth’s surface and atmosphere?
Kristian says, May 17, 2017 at 9:54 AM:
Why do you think that is, Norman?
Kristian
You still do not comprehend my point.
If you have just a heated sphere in space and a detector. You only have one macroscopic energy flux. It is away from the sphere, no energy is moving to the sphere, there is only one flux and it is uniform and isotropic. Your instrument will only pick up a fraction of the total flux because of its design but there is only a flux away from the sphere. If you take the total area of your sphere you can calculate the total energy leaving the sphere, none is moving to the sphere.
If you have another heated object you get two fluxes. Each sphere produces its own flux away from its surface. The part of the surface in view of the other surface will then have a second flux toward it from the object. There is no unidirectional flow of energy. Heat, yes (which is NET energy flow) there is not infinite directions of energy flow. There is only flow away or toward, that is all.
Here is where your understanding is lame and incorrect.
If you have two plates facing each other each at 100 C there is no temperature change between them. NO heat flow but if you have two detectors they facing in opposite directions from each other and place this device between the plates it will show a lot of energy flux in each detector. Now here is the point to prove you wrong.
Now you raise the two plates to 300 C. Still zero heat flux or flow but insert the detector and it will read considerably more energy given off by each plate. Each plate produces its own flux and if you point the detector toward a surface, it will pick up IR energy moving away from that surface.
Norman says, May 17, 2017 at 12:02 PM:
Yes, I do. I have always understood your “point”. It’s just that, it’s wrong. Or confused, rather.
I wonder, though, do you understand MY point? It sure doesn’t seem that way …
There’s no point in me discussing this any further with you. You are confused and you insist on staying that way, sorry.
Norman says, May 17, 2017 at 12:02 PM:
Sorry about the language here, Roy, but for F**K’s sake, Norman! When will you start listening to what I say????? You have this COMPLETE mental block when it comes to this subject!
I am not saying there aren’t photons flying around in every direction inside the radiation field, also from cold to hot!!!!!!
I am saying there isn’t actually TWO SEPARATE MACROSCOPIC FLOWS OF ENERGY inside the same radiation field!!! It is but a mathematical concept!
Because a macroscopic flow of energy through a radiation field is the STATISTICAL AVERAGE OF ALL PHOTON MOVEMENTS (all directions, all intensities, through all points in 3D space) inside that radiation field!!! And there aren’t TWO such statistical averages to be found! There is but ONE!
Norman, you have to be the most pigheaded person I have ever discussed anything with in my entire life …!
Kristian
YOU: “Yes, I do. I have always understood your point. Its just that, its wrong. Or confused, rather.”
Where do is your evidence to support your claim? My point comes straight from various textbooks. I also know photons are bosons and do not exchange energy when interacting (they can constructively or destructively interfere but they do not exchange energy).
So you have two macroscopic fluxes of energy. Away from surface and toward surface. The energy has direction, toward or away.
If you have the heated sphere in space with your detecting instrument. If it is pointed away (any angle away or parallel with) it will detect zero energy flux. The photons from the surface are only moving away from the surface (all directions away, none toward). You have a one-way energy flux away, none toward.
Kristian
There are two statistical flows of photons.
YOU: “Because a macroscopic flow of energy through a radiation field is the STATISTICAL AVERAGE OF ALL PHOTON MOVEMENTS (all directions, all intensities, through all points in 3D space) inside that radiation field!!! And there arent TWO such statistical averages to be found! There is but ONE”
Yes there are two such statistical averages of all photon movements. The movements away from the surface and the movement of those photons toward the surface. The photon do not exchange energy with each other but move right on through. That is how you have the two separate fluxes. Not possible with matter (electric currents or wind since matter does not move though itself).
Norman says, May 17, 2017 at 1:53 PM:
Hahaha! Er, no, Norman. Start in the quantum realm. What do you see? At each point within the radiation field. You see chaos. Utter randomness. Photons of different intensities flying by in ALL directions imaginable. There is no order whatsoever. No overarching pattern. Then you slowly start zooming out. Until you eventually cross the thermodynamic limit. At this point, you can no longer see any individual photons, no individual photon paths. They all gradually average out. Into one fuzzy cloud. This is what you’ll see. Simply the radiant energy filling the radiation field. But in it you discern a certain pattern. A difference in the ‘density’ of the cloud, simply the gradient in the average radiative intensity from the ‘hotter’ side to the ‘colder’ side of the field. There is only one such gradient. Not two opposing ones. And there’s a macroscopic flow (net movement) of radiant energy, the average of all individual quantum movements, moving down this gradient, from high ‘density’ to low. There is no TWO such macroscopic movements in one, Norman. It follows the gradient. In the microscopic (quantum) realm there are a gazillion different movements, in ALL directions. In the macroscopic realm, however, they’ve all merged into (averaged out to) one. The net of them all.
That’s YOU specifically choosing two directions (out of all of them) in which to view the photons filling the radiation field, actually flying around in all directions imaginable. You have thus effectively chosen the “two-stream approximation”. That is, you have geometrically split the radiation field into two hemispheres in order to simplify a mathematical analysis of it. Which is fine. Conceptually. It makes things easier. But IT IS NOT REALITY! It is not how the radiation field actually IS.
The branch of physics connecting the quantum and the thermo realms is called “statistical mechanics”. There are no individual photons to be seen in a probabilistic average. We know the photons are THERE, but we cannot possibly (and we don’t need to) know the whereabouts of each any every one of them. That’s precisely WHY a statistical approach is necessary in this case.*
* http://materias.df.uba.ar/ft3a2014c2/files/2014/10/Styer-What-good-is-the-thermodynamic-limit-2004.pdf
“Statistical mechanics is the study of matter in bulk. Whereas undergraduate courses in subjects like classical or quantum mechanics are loath to approach the three-body problem, statistical mechanics courses routinely deal with the 6.02 x 10^23-body problem. How can one subject be so generous with particle number while others are so parsimonious?
The answer has two facets: First, statistical mechanics asks different questions from, say, classical mechanics. Instead of trying to trace all the particle trajectories for all time, statistical mechanics is content to ask, for example, how the mean energy varies with temperature and pressure. Second, statistical mechanics turns the difficulty of bigness into a blessing by insisting on treating only very large systems, in which many of the details of system size fade into insignificance. The formal, mathematical term for this bigness condition is “the thermodynamic limit.””
***
Regarding the surface itself, I will have to present you with the same analogy as I did with Tim:
Imagine you have your hand stretched out with the open palm facing up. In your palm lies, say, two dimes. Two people are standing on either side of your hand, one holding a single dime, the other one nothing at all. (The two people are really just one; they simply represent the dual nature of the exchange at hand. You’re the surface, the two people are the atmosphere, and the dimes are photons.)
Here’s what happens: The person holding the single dime places it in your hand, at the very same moment as the other one grabs the two that were there already, removing them from your hand. That is, these two actions/operations happen simultaneously.
The question then becomes: Did you ever have THREE dimes in your hand during this exchange?
The answer is of course “No”. First you had TWO. Then you had ONE. And that’s it. The first of the original two was simply exchanged with another one, while the second was lost.
People have a tendency to look at and interpret ONE event at a time. Theoretically. Mathematically. And that’s where they get confused. They analyse its effect IN ISOLATION from everything else. They estimate its effect AS IF the other (opposing) one didn’t happen at the exact same time. They only look at the photon absorp tion and “forget” or “ignore” the simultaneous (and larger) photon emission. Such a narrow scope doesn’t work if you want to discuss THERMODYNAMIC effects. Then you will only fool yourself into thinking that there are (two) SEPARATE thermodynamic effects (an actual change in U and T) being caused by (two) SEPARATE thermodynamic processes. There aren’t. There is just the one.
The NET effect the THERMODYNAMIC effect of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm is that the atmosphere doesn’t give the surface ANY energy at all (zero dimes), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime), but LESS energy than it would’ve handed to space in the same situation (two dimes).
Kristian …”[if you zoom out]…you can no longer see any individual photons, no individual photon paths. They all gradually average out”.
If you zoom in you cannot see them either. Neither can you see electrons, protons, neutrons, or any of the sub-atomic particles. No one has ever identified individual particles other than through x-ray crystallography where atomic nucleii have been identified for simple atoms through the shadows they cast on a background.
Photons are imaginary particles of EM created purely to help visualize EM as particles. Einstein once claimed that some people claim they ‘know’ one way or another that EM consists of waves and/or particles and he claimed both are wrong…that no one knows for sure.
Based on slit experiments some have claimed EM or electrons show a duality, being both wavelike and particle-like. However, no one has ever witnessed a single electron or wave of EM shot at a diffraction grating or slots. The slits and grating are bombarded with a massive amount of electrons/EM.
A photon is a definition of a particle of EM that has momentum but no mass. That creates a problem with the popular equation p = mv, where p is momentum and m is mass. However, momentum is a real phenomenon, not a mathematical definition, and it’s possible that such a particle could exist.
I agree with you entirely that no one can examine a single photon or electron. That lead to the averaging of which you speak in quantum mechanics and the associated probabilities of finding an electron in a certain portion of space. People must realize, however, that quantum theory is sheer mathematical speculation in which results may be obtained but which cannot explain the physical reality.
Just finished re-reading an article on Linus Pauling in which he developed the theory of the covalent bond. He had studied quantum theory in Europe, especially Schrodinger, and he had failed to apply the theory to anything beyond simple hydrogen. It was not till he applied his immense knowledge on chemistry and abandoned part of the math that he made in-roads.
For us to sit here and talk about atomic particles as if they are clearly defined objects is sheer speculation.
Kristian…”Simply the radiant energy filling the radiation field. But in it you discern a certain pattern. A difference in the density of the cloud, simply the gradient in the average radiative intensity from the hotter side to the colder side of the field”.
If you are talking about an EM field with a gradient there is no hotter side and cooler side. EM does not have heat as a property, it is defined purely by it’s intensity and wavelength and by an electrical and a magnetic field perpendicular to each other.
EM is radiated by electrons in atoms as the electrons drop from a higher energy orbital to a lower energy orbital. You cannot have heat without mass. EM traveling through space has no heat associated with it. You would not expect EM radiated from a distant star to warm anything here on Earth.
The only reason we are warmed here on Earth by solar radiation is that our star is in close proximity with a temperature exceeding a million degrees C. The EM from that star has sufficient intensity to be absorbed by atoms here on Earth, including the carbon in human skin, in such a manner as to raise the electrons in their orbitals to higher energy levels, causing them to warm.
EM is nothing but the messenger. It carries no heat of its own but it has the ability upon being absorbed to cause heating in atoms.
Norman…”There is no unidirectional flow of energy. Heat, yes (which is NET energy flow)…”
No it’s not…heat is NOT net energy flow. The energy to which you refer is electromagnetic energy. Infrared energy is a subset of the EM spectrum and EM is defined purely by its wavelength, intensity and by the fact it is made up of an electrical and magnetic field perpendicular to each other.
What you are suggesting is that calculating the net energy of EM radiated between two radio station antennas can derive the heat transfer between them. EM has nothing to do with heat per se, it is associated but not heat.
Thermal energy does not have those properties. Thermal energy is the vibration of atoms in their lattices in solids and is related to the work done by those atoms as they vibrate. In a gas, heat is a product of the average kinetic energy of atoms/molecules as they rush around colliding with each other.
If you halve the volume of a container with a certain mass of gas, the temperature rises. What does that have to do with net energy flow? The temperature rises because more molecules collide in the reduced space.
Some are confusing that internal energy as a different energy than thermal energy. However, if a body has a certain temperature, it can transfer heat to another body by conduction, convection or radiation. What it is transferring is the kinetic energy associated with the vibrating atoms.
If you heat a metal with a torch, the molecules in the torch gas flame are highly energetic and when they contact the metal they transfer that thermal energy to atoms in the metal. The metal’s atoms begin to vibrate furiously and if they vibrate enough the metal will melt due to bonds breaking.
The heat will be transferred to cooler parts of the metal and to anything in contact with the metal. Some of it will be radiated into space and that’s the EM energy to which you refer. However, that EM energy contains no heat and heat is restricted to being transferred from the hotter body to the cooler body. EM has no such restriction.
I agree it is possible to calculate the energy of the heat source by the intensity and wavelength of the IR it radiates but you cannot calculate heat transfer by summing the IR energies from two bodies of different temperatures.
The only way to calculate heat transfer is to measure the LOCAL temperatures of the radiating bodies. Temperature is a relative indication of how excited the atoms are in their respective bodies.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“In a gas, heat is a product of the average kinetic energy of atoms/molecules as they rush around colliding with each other.”
You’re still ignoring quantum mechanics.
In a classical-only world, there is no greenhouse effect. The GHE arises out of quantum physics.
It’s like you refuse to consider any science discovered after about 1880…. So no wonder you get the wrong answers.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Photons are imaginary particles of EM created purely to help visualize EM as particles.”
Photons are real, not imaginary.
They can be measured. Experiments are done on them.
“Triggered single photons from a quantum dot,”
C Santori, M Pelton, G Solomon, Y Dale, Y Yamamoto
Physical Review Letters 86 (8), 1502, 2001.
Kristian wrote:
“The NET effect the THERMODYNAMIC effect of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm is that the atmosphere doesnt give the surface ANY energy at all (zero dimes), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime), but LESS energy than it wouldve handed to space in the same situation (two dimes).”
By insisting on a thermodynamic-only view, you are ignoring all of 20th century physics. That limits your physical view and hence your understanding.
Photons from the atmosphere *do* strike the ground. As I’ve showed many times, these can be measured and have been measured. They are real, their energy is real, and no amount of semantics is going to make them go away.
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Gordon Robertson says:
“Infrared energy is a subset of the EM spectrum and EM is defined purely by its wavelength, intensity….”
Also, phase.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“I agree with you entirely that no one can examine a single photon or electron.”
Very wrong!
Measuring the properties of single electrons is trivial and is done all the time — ever heard of Millikan’s oil drop experiment of 1909?
Single photons, too, can be generated and analyzed. As just one example:
“Electrically Driven Single-Photon Source,” Zhiliang Yuan et al, Science 04 Jan 2002:
Vol. 295, Issue 5552, pp. 102-105
DOI: 10.1126/science.1066790
Kristian…from your quote: “statistical mechanics asks different questions from, say, classical mechanics…”
It has to. Classical mechanics is hampered by the limitations of measuring equipment. Literally, if you tried to measure the properties of an electron directly, the measuring device would draw energy from the electron and change its parameters.
I feel strongly that we are going to have to find a way to measure at the atomic level since fields like statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics seriously obfuscate the reality. There is no way to visualize the math used in either field and that was acknowledged by Planck in his book on heat that you referenced a while back.
Personally, I think the concept of averaging is ingenious and even the math is not that bad. What disturbs me is the lack of ability to visualize the math.
David Bohm, a physicist highly regarded by Einstein, claimed in a book that classical mechanics and quantum mechanics have reached the ends of their respective roads. Bohm was an expert in QM. He claimed we will have to find a better way to approach the problems of our physical reality and faintly suggested we rely far too much on derived parameters like time.
Planck acknowledged in his book on heat how much we humans have introduced our inventions into science. He pointed out how we invented time based on the rotational period of the Earth, how we calculated the metre based on a fraction of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.
Guess what? We have taken two human inventions, time and 3-D space, measured in metres, and made a make-believe 4th dimension with time so we can speak of space-time. Only lunatics like humans with their propensity for illusion and delusion could create such a concept of non-reality.
The other day, I watched a TV program with astonishment, as an astronomer blatantly claimed gravity is not a force but a warp in space-time.
I have worked in the field of electronics for decades and have gone deeply into the theory of atomic structure at a university level while studying electrical engineering. In the beginning, as I began my studies, I accepted the Bohr model verbatim, believing that a atom existed as a dense nucleus with electrons orbiting it. It’s a good model to learn the theory but the more I regard it the less likely it seems as being real.
Pauling was asking the same questions in chemistry circa 1925 regarding electrons and atoms and we are still no closer to a realistic model of the atom. All statistical mechanics can offer is an obfuscated mathematical vision of atomic theory. As Feynman claimed, such hypotheses work but no one knows why. Until we find why all we can do is speak in thought experiments.
DA…”Measuring the properties of single electrons is trivial and is done all the time ever heard of Millikans oil drop experiment of 1909?”
Do you think Millikan observed one electron on an oil drop? No one has ever measured the charge of one electron, it was done by averaging and inference.
They determined the charge on an oil drop by using an electric field to counter the effect of gravity. Do you know how many electrons it would take to create a detectable charge on an oil drop. In the bazillions.
As far as observing one photon, that’s a neat trick since the photon is a definition. Of course, you could consult a medium and see if you can discuss that with Einstein in the great beyond. He seemed to think no one know such answers.
Kristian
I can agree with your NET effect.
YOU: “The NET effect the THERMODYNAMIC effect of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm is that the atmosphere doesnt give the surface ANY energy at all (zero dimes), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime), but LESS energy than it wouldve handed to space in the same situation (two dimes).”
I am not disagreeing with this statement. Yes in the NET effect the atmosphere does not give it energy. NET energy is heat.
I disagree that it does not give it energy though.
If you went to the quantum level with one heated surface you would not see photons flying in all directions. You would never see even one photon moving from above down. The whole upper hemisphere would have zero photons moving toward you. The only photon direction you would be able to “see” are ones moving up. Some might be at nearly horizontal paths but they will still be moving up. Every last one, there will not be photons moving in all directions toward you. Only one direction.
If you add another heated body above you you will see two directions. Now you will have photons in the upper sphere moving down. If the heated object below is warmer you will count more photons moving up than down.
The two fluxes of energy: From surface up and from atmosphere down are separate and distinct and do not interact with each other. They are not affected by each other. If the surface gets hotter the upwelling flux goes up but this will not affect the downwelling flux. It will only change if it warms or cools on its own. What you describe is your own opinion.
I think I have asked you several times already. Link me to any radiant heat exchange source of information that gives you description of radiant heat transfer. I have not seen any but your own opinion of how it works. Link me to a textbook that supports your claim of only one macroscopic flux. Heat flux does not really exist, you are opposite in thought. Energy fluxes exist in reality. Photons moving in directions is a reality. Heat is an abstract calculation you derive after adding up all the known energy fluxes and getting a NET value from the individual energy flows.
DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
Infrared energy is a subset of the EM spectrum and EM is defined purely by its wavelength, intensity.
Also, phase”.
Holy mackerel, DA, I think we can actually agree on this.
If you have a harmonic representation of one frequency of EM, if one exists, say in a sine wave representation, then another representation of EM at a different frequency could have a different starting point in time. The difference between peaks of intensity, time-wise, of the sine wave peaks would be a phase difference.
Also, there could be a difference in phase between the peaks of the magnetic field riding perpendicular to the electric field.
I guess you could define a spectra of EM based on it’s phase difference. How about polarization?
I have to admit, DA, I don’t know a whole lot about EM other than what I have studied as an adjunct to electronics in communications systems. Sure would like to know a whole lot more. If only I’d paid more attention in math classes in calculus and complex number theory. And in physics, to harmonic motion theory.
I was just reading that EM is due to vibrating electrical charges. At first, my mind rejected that notion but when I think about it EM has an electric field in it and an electric field is about charges. In fact, an electric field produces a magnetic field.
I think it would be absolutely amazing if an electron in a distant star could transmit charges of different frequencies in a broad spectrum that could be conveyed to our planet through space. Not only that, the radiated charges can be absorbed by the retinas in our eyes and converted into visual energy, including colour.
Or is it that the variable spectrum is produced by bazillions of electrons in a star at very high energy levels? It is known that electrons give off EM as they drop to lower energy levels.
Think about it, all that light from the heavens is due to bazillions of tiny electrons transmitting electrical charges.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have to admit, DA, I dont know a whole lot about EM other than what I have studied as an adjunct to electronics in communications systems.”
Wow.
THen please stop making pronouncements about EM like you know what you’re talking about.
You know, there is no harm in simply saying, “I don’t know, but I’d like to,” or couching your thoughts and suspicions in the form of questions and asking for more understanding or clarification.
It’s not always a big deal, but when you write that single photons and electrons are “imaginary” you are wildly wrong and risk misleading people.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Do you think Millikan observed one electron on an oil drop? No one has ever measured the charge of one electron, it was done by averaging and inference.”
No it wasn’t.
Averaging and inference can’t give you the charge on an oil drop containing a charge of -1, i.e. one extra electron (compared to protons).
In any case, there is absolutely doubt whatsoever that electrons exist. Calling them “imaginary” is, as the British say, mental.
Gordon Robertson says:
“As far as observing one photon, thats a neat trick since the photon is a definition.”
No it isn’t — it’s an object defined by its properties.
Did you see the papers I gave you where physicists create and do measurements on single photons?
—
Beyond that, this is what I’m really interested in: how is it you think you know more about photons and electrons, given your admitted small knowledge about them, than over a century of the best minds determining there are such things, and describing them in great detail.
Where do you get such chutzpah?
Gordon Robertson says:
“As far as observing one photon, thats a neat trick since the photon is a definition. Of course, you could consult a medium and see if you can discuss that with Einstein in the great beyond.”
Every hear of the photoelectric effect?
Einstein explained it using light quanta — photons.
It was cited in his Nobel Prize award.
But I’m sure you know lots more than Einstein, right Gordon?
Kristian says:
Tim Folkerts says, May 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM:
“Im just curious Kristian. Suppose I shine two flashlights at two different angles through some opening. Would you still insist that the actual radiative flux through the field, though, is still unidirectional. There is only one net (macroscopic) movement of photons.”
“And how precisely does this relate to the radiative heat transfer between Earths surface and atmosphere?”
It’s obvious, Kristian, how it applies — both are flows of photons — energy fluxes.
Now, what is your response?
Mike Flynn says:
“I know you refuse to accept that the Earths surface was once molten.”
Liar.
“Mike Flynn” says:
“In any case, you havent provided a single cogent reason why I should provide any explanations to a foolish Warmist such as yourself.”
Discussing science would violate your dumb little game, which is only about your juvenile insults.
Why CO2 does not work on the North Pole?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
Kristian,
calm down.
I have found over the years that most people neither listen nor read for comprehension. My best example was the publisher of The Charlotte Observer who would respond to my letters, but not to what I had said.
You would think someone who does that for a living would be more careful. If not him then who?
Part of the problem IMHO, is lengthy posts, where the reader begins to skip. Be that as it may, if someone is going to respond, they should be sure what they are responding to. Usually, they don’t.
Probably all Democrats.
And just like that we’re all American.
Norman,
You burble on about CERES from time to time.
A quote from NASA –
“Because this is incoming solar flux, its magnitude only depends on the position of the sun, and, because the orbit is synchronized with the sun, the orbit crosses the equator in the daylight at about 1:30 PM local time on every orbit. This data is not actually measured from CERES, but is calculated to compare with the outgoing radiation that CERES does measure.”
You may have missed “This data is not actually measured from CERES, but is calculated . . . ”
Gee. Who’d have thought – solar flux is not actually measured by NASA. Just another calculation, made to agree with something else, which by definition doesn’t exist – Trenberth’s “missing heat”. If it existed, it wouldn’t be missing. A bit like the missing unicorns, I suppose.
Of course, this is passed off as fact, and willingly accepted by the uncritical climatological sycophants.
Anybody who believes this nonsense is likely to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, or that Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate.
Ain’t life grand!
Cheers.
Mike says: “Gee. Whod have thought solar flux is not actually measured by NASA. “
Wow, Mike! You sure misinterpreted *that* badly!
NASA *does* actually measure solar flux — its just not actually measured with the CERES satellite. Several other satellites have instruments pointed at the sun to measure the incoming sunlight. CERES specifically has instruments pointed downward, to measure the outgoing IR & reflected sunlight.
So, yes, the data measured by the other satellites is “passed off as fact”.
Tim Folkertd,
I was talking about CERES. Are you trying to deny, divert, and confuse?
What part of the NASA quote are you complaining about? The part I quoted – “The data is not actually measured from CERES, but is calculated . . . “, or something I didn’t quote?
So “. . . not actually measured from CERES. . .” really means “is actually measured” in ClimateSpeak.
I see it all. NASA written information cannot be taken literally, because it’s not really factual, but you have to be a GHE believer to uncover the hidden meaning! That’s a gentle bit of sarcasm, of course.
Maybe you should tell NASA not to say “The data is not actually measured . . .” If it’s not true. It might tend to mislead anybody who can read English. “Calculated to compare . . . ” might mean something completely different, to a climatologist, do you think?
So, tell me again, what part of a direct quote did I misinterpret badly?
Or are you confusing fact with the recesses of your fantasy, as foolish Warmists are wont to do?
Cheers.
“Gee. Whod have thought solar flux is not actually measured by NASA. ”
That is exactly what you wrote. You were NOT taking about this satellite. Your own words clearly state you were talking about NASA in general.
“Just another calculation, made to agree with something else … “
That is ALSO exactly what you wrote. But it is not just another calculation. It is data. The numbers are not made to agree with something else. The numbers are collected to know what the sun is doing.
“I see it all. “
No, clearly you do not. You read things into the statement from NASA that are not there, and you miss things that are perfectly obvious from context.
Tim,
Here’s what you are complaining about from NASA –
“This data is not actually measured from CERES, but is calculated to compare with the outgoing radiation that CERES does measure.”
Maybe I have taken this literally, as it was written. Maybe others do, as well.
You may fire up your d*nial engine now. When it is emitting a loud and steady “But, but , but, but” noise, you’ll know it’s working well.
So the data which NASA say is not actually measured, but instead calculated to compare, is really measured and not calculated at all!
Reluctantly, I agree with NASA’s written words as representing what NASA wrote, rather than your opinion that they didn’t actually mean what they wrote. Others can make their own rescission, of course.
“Gee. Whod have thought solar flux is not actually measured by NASA. Just another calculation, made to agree with something else, which by definition doesnt exist Trenberths missing heat. . “
The energy from the sun is know — the Total Solar Irradiance. This is measured by NASA, but not with the CERES satellite.
The angle of the earths surface relative to the is known at any give location — that is simple geometry.
The solar flux is simply the TSI times the cosine of the angle of the earth’s surface. The “just another calculation” you find so offensive is “finding the vector components” of TSI relative to the ground. It is “made to agree” with geometry and trigonometry.
So either 1) you think geometry and trigonometry don’t exist, or 2) you don’t understand what NASA was saying.
All data is “calculated.” All of it.
“Without models, there are no data.”
– Paul N. Edwards, “A Vast Machine”
http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/Edwards_2009_A_Vast_Machine_Introduction.pdf
Norman,
You ask –
“Requesting one read or even look at a textbook on heat transfer is considered a demand by you?”
Yes. You didn’t even bother to extend the courtesy of enquiring whether or not I might have read a book that you obviously haven’t.
Your childlike faith in the all encompassing truth of a particular textbook is touching, but not particularly reassuring.
Are you sure that the errata provided subsequent to publication are complete and accurate? Are there any other errors? If you were ware of such, why did you conceal them?
Moving on. Have you read “Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, 6th Edition by John R. Howell, M. Pinar Menguc”?
Which areas are not covered in sufficient detail? What errors did you notice?
I assume you haven’t a clue, but I’ll apologise if my assumption is wrong.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Have you stopped pretending you are not a troll?
YOU: “Your childlike faith in the all encompassing truth of a particular textbook is touching, but not particularly reassuring. ”
A troll comment if ever there was one. Unfounded, unintelligent, designed to provoke a reaction.
Asking someone to look at or read a textbook is not a demand. It is a request and why do I care if you have read or not read any textbooks. Your posts clearly show you have learned nothing of the subject of energy transfer. You are unable to understand the process. Maybe you can read 1000 textbooks on the topic and it still will not help you.
That’s the most absurd part of Flynn’s responses; he thinks people can’t see through his very obvious game….
Salvatore
Regarding your prediction: you’ve said that your hypothesis would be corroborated if, under the right conditions, surface temperatures were lower than the 30-year average.
Two questions:
1) Which 30-year average do you mean? The most recent at the time of the event? Or a different 30-year period?
2) How long would the event have to last? A day? Weeks? Years?
I’m wondering if there are similar or the same parameters for falsifying the hypothesis.
The latest 30 year means for now and last for years.
Thank you.
thanks
Mike Flynn
FROM ABOVE:
YOU: “Norman,
The thermometer shows its temperature to be 20 C. Thats a marking between 19 and 21. Thats what a thermometer is for. No internal heat source.
ME: A thermometer will not remain at 20 C without a constant source of input energy keeping it there. A 20 C thermometer is itself emitting energy and cooling with no input energy.
It doesnt matter where it is. Its a temperature measuring instrument. Even climatologists claim thermometers measure temperature. I agree.
ME: It certainly would matter where the thermometer is. If it is surrounded by 20 C environment it will stay at that temperature. If in free space away from an energy source it will rapidly cool.
You claim that surrounding a thermometer with ice at a maximum temperature of 0 C (otherwise it wouldnt be ice anymore, unless its climatological modelled ice which remains frozen at temperatures above freezing), will raise the temperature of a thermometer showing 20 C to 62.35 C.
ME: Idiot! Lame brain! I did not make such a claim. You don’t read what I post and then say I made a claim I never did. Read you moron! Normally I do not like to use such language but when you are so intentionally stupid I am calling you out. Read what I wrote or don’t make up your own version and say it was my claim!
Are you quite mad?
ME: No you are intentionally being stupid and not even attempting to understand a post. Just trolling like you like to do.
You sound like you would believe it is possible to raise the temperature of a thermometer by surrounding it with CO2!
Sad. Very sad.
Cheers.
Norman,
You cannot see into the future. I said that the thermometer indicates 20 C. Nothing more nothing less. It may go up, it may go down. But for now, its showing 20 C, whether you like it or not.
Neither you nor I have information as to its location. It shows 20 C, whether you liket or not.
If you didn’t mention that the thermometer would raise its temperature when surrounded by frozen water, I’ll apologise. I can’t be bothered looking for your post. I also believe that surrounding a thermometer showing 20 C, with ice, won’t cause the thermometer to get hotter.
I don’t believe the GHE exists. No amount of CO2 placed between a thermometer on the surface, and the Sun, will cause the thermometer to become hotter.
Foolish Warmists can’t actually bring themselves to say what is supposed to occur to thermometers when atmospheric CO2 levels are raised.
Maybe you could take a stab.
Cheers.
The very obvious GHE evidence you refuse to consider:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Mike Flynn
If you took a thermometer and surrounded it with ice at 0 C on the dark side of the moon (no radiant energy), it would read 0 C and stay at that temperature as long as you kept the ice at 0 C (by adding energy).
Now if you remove the ice the thermometer will cool down to read -243 F.
Now the tough question for you. Is 0 C warmer than minus 243 F? Take some time to think about it before you answer.
If you answer Yes to the question it means the ice is warming the thermometer.
GHE. barry showed you a graph. You didn’t look at it. I also posted the same graph and you ignored it.
Solar energy in transparent to Carbon Dioxide (including the solar IR), there is insignificant amount of solar IR at the 15 micron range. If the Earth has a thick clear Carbon dioxide atmosphere none of the solar energy would be absorbed by this atmosphere and the temperature of a thermometer on this surface would get as hot as one on a planet with no atmosphere. Convection may cool it though but I would not know by how much. All the solar energy would reach the surface but the Carbon Dioxide would absorb around 20% of the Upwelling IR, warming up and then emitting its own downwelling radiation leading to a warmer overall surface. GHE, energy in less energy out.
Kristian, I noticed you don’t think increased Co2 will lead to warming. This surprises me. Barry wrote, “In the Earth system the heat leaving the surface is slowed down by greenhouse gases ()”
You replied, “Nope, its slowed down by the TEMPERATURE of the atmosphere, which is much higher than that of space……”
Greenhouse gasses have a temperature, right?
And wouldn’t an increase in greenhouse gasses mean more heat is being stored in the atmosphere?
** Snape says:
May 17, 2017 at 2:36 PM
Kristian, I noticed you dont think increased Co2 will lead to warming. This surprises me. Barry wrote, In the Earth system the heat leaving the surface is slowed down by greenhouse gases ()
You replied, Nope, its slowed down by the TEMPERATURE of the atmosphere, which is much higher than that of space
Greenhouse gasses have a temperature, right? **
You probably think the only sane answer, would be, yes.
But, no.
Co2 gas can have some temperature, but Co2 as a portion of our atmosphere doesn’t have a temperature.
The sum of all gases and their average velocity within some volume area has a temperature. Or any or all sub group of individuals within the “collective’, don’t have a temperature.
As to question of whether Kristian thinks an increase of CO2 will lead to warming. I can’t remember.
I think an increase of Co2, could lead to warming, but it might not be a measurable amount of warming. And would add there has been no measurable increase in temperature from the increase in global Co2 levels, so far.
I used to think a doubling of CO2 could add as much as 3 C to global temperatures {and that would place me in category of a lukewarmer [along with other qualities, such as I think this would be much of a problem, and other lukewarmer views]}. But that was over decade ago, later I decided it might be as much a 2 C. And currently I think it’s possible it could as much as 1 C [though still possible of being near zero- or I don’t think a doubling of CO2 would cause global cooling]. Now, opinion may vary, I still would count myself as a lukewarmer. Of course lukewarmers don’t agree on everything, but I have observed we agree on more things than the believers. And, oh, not being skeptical, regarding all aspects related to science, is just being dim witted.
Gbaikie
Sorry, I lost your response because this thread is so long.
I feel no need to try and change your position on global warming. For me, a doubling of CO2 is like a giant science experiment. It’s a fascinating topic for someone who’s interested in weather and science.
I’m not interested in the “politics”. I do get bothered, though, when people are intentionally deceptive.
Snape says, May 17, 2017 at 2:36 PM:
So you think that absorp tion of IR is equal to storage of energy in the atmosphere? It’s not. Not in the steady state.
Putting more IR-active gases into the atmosphere, once the atmosphere has already become radiatively active, and thus convectively operative, won’t do anything to make that atmosphere (and thus the surface below it) any warmer. There is a ton of consistent empirical evidence from the real Earth system (and other planets/moons in the solar system) supporting this view:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/
Norman,
You’re talking nonsense.
Nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of a thermometer by utilising any known property of CO2.
Filling an enclose space with CO2 raises the temperature not one bit.
This might happen in the imagination of a foolish Warmist, but reality is different.
No GHE. No CO2 warming.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“Nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of a thermometer by utilising any known property of CO2.”
False. It’s happening on Earth’s surface, each and every day now, with each and every thermometer reading.
Eastern Canada is again in danger of flooding. Poor solar wind causes inhibition of circulation.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/21/1800Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-82.54,43.19,1192
Norman wrote,
“The textbooks (all I have read on the topic) clearly state a surface acts simultaneously emitting and absorbing energy. Not one states that the surrounding energy is actually suppressing the emission of energy by the surface.”
Ok. I’m getting a better feel for your viewpoint. You need a better analogy, though.
You need two baskets of apples. One to represents the surface and one to represent the atmosphere. The apples would be continually moving from one basket to the other.
Norman,
Maybe you haven’t reading Feynman’s little book. The answer is there, but I’ll let you find it for yourself.
You will find that you’re making a couple of unfounded assumptions (at least according to Feynman). Many textbook writers perpetuate mistakes, errors, and information that was accepted at the time they were taught various things.
I pick up most as I read. The errata are often interesting, if you’ve believed the author, and find out what he wrote was actually incorrect. Lve and learn.
I’ll read what I choose. I treat your unsolicited advice with disdain, in general. Feel free to treat any unsolicited advice me in like manner. My care factor will remain precisely zero, unless you can convince me why it should be otherwise.
Cheers.
Norman, “Mike Flynn” will look at your source, but when he sees what it’s evidence of, he won’t mention it and insult you instead. Just like he did here.
David Appell
Yes he is a tough troll. I still have hope. I think he is just stuck in a rut of the Postma, Claes Johnson garbage. It may have been his first exposure to climate science and he can’t shake these ideas of and will not look at textbooks but consider them filled with errors.
In my humble opinion, the errors in textbooks are small and have no effect on the conceptual material that is usually valid and based upon lots of empirical science. It is what cults do, destroy anything that will upset their cult program.
I have also fell for the Postma view until I started actually reading real textbooks and actual science articles not opinions on blogs. I do not mind new ideas of Postma or Johnson but they do not present them as ideas to consider, they viciously attack anyone who does not accept their distorted view of physics.
If Mike keeps posting I will try to respond with valid and correct physics.
Keep going, Norman. I admire your persistence and your pointing to real-world measurements.
Kristian,
You wrote –
“Look, Mike, this is veeery simple.
An object will maintain a steady temperature if its heat OUTPUT (to its surroundings) equals its heat INPUT (from some heat source, be it internal or external):”
I agree. If an object progressively lowers its temperature, obviously the OUPUT has exceeded the INPUT.
The Earth is an example of such an object. It has cooled in reality, if not not in the febrile imaginations of some foolish Warmists.
Simple indeed. No GHE.
Cheers.
The evidence you refuse to consider:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Mike Flynn says:
“The Earth is an example of such an object. It has cooled in reality….”
Not in the last century — now it’s warming.
And not in many eras in the past, like the PETM or after either of two snowball Earths, or after any of the glacial periods in the Pleistocene. Warming.
Explain.
David Appell,
I take the long term – no cherry picking. Four and a half billion years – cooling. No GHE. If you want to cherry pick, you’ll have to explain the long term average first.
Oh dear – that might be difficult, eh?
Maybe you could figure out how to make a thermometer hotter using CO2! Delusional psychotics are not necessarily stupid, just insane. Others are just dumb. Can you prove you’re neither?
Please explain. Show your evidence!
Cheers.
Somebody mentioned that the two slit experiment couldn’t be carried out using single photons.
Actually, it’s been routinely done for some time –
“TWO-SLIT INTERFERENCE, ONE PHOTON AT A TIME” provides commercial equipment necessary to perform the experiment.
Wikipedia carries a reasonable coverage of single particle two slit theory and practice.
Just in case anyone is interested.
Cheers.
David Appell has posted the same silly computer graphic 26 times so far.
I’ve looked at it once. David gets annoyed, I guess, because I’m not bothering to look at it again every time he posts it.
It’s evidence of David’s mental aberration, obviously.
Why he wants me to keep telling him this, I haven’t any idea. Maybe he’s secretly infatuated with me, and needs some acknowledgement. Sorry, David, your love must remain unrequited!
Maybe you could buy a cat, who might return your affection. I wish you all the best.
Cheers.
I’m going to keep pointing out that you’re a fake and a phony, whose only game consists of insulting people while refusing to confront any and all scientific evidence.
Barry wrote, In the Earth system the heat leaving the surface is slowed down by greenhouse gases”
IMO, this is perfect. Has anyone noticed, though, that GHG’s don’t slow the rate at which the surface emits heat? Or for that matter, the rate at which the atmosphere loses heat to space?
*I’m not talking about a steady-state of GHG’s, which is not actually the case.
The surface heat isn’t slowed down, it’s partially redirected.
In this case I don’t like using “heat,” but energy in form of emissions. The GHE means less of the energy emitted by the surface and atmosphere escapes to space (it’s important to consider the atmosphere too); some is absorbed along the way, and some of the re-emission is downwards. That re-emissions carries energy, and it heats the surface.
David
IMO, energy IS slowed as it moves through the atmosphere, and ALL of it is lost to space. Energy leaves the earth system at the same rate with or without an atmosphere, but it leaves the surface much slower with one than without.
Snape,
What you say in your first sentence accords with theory and observed fact, more or less.
You won’t get a lot of argument from me. You may not care at all, but I thought I’d let you know anyway.
Cheers.
Thanks, Mike
I used to think the atmosphere “traps” energy, but I’ve come to realize this isn’t exactly true. It really just slows the rate at which energy moves.
Snape: No, energy isn’t slowed.
If it was, the same amount would still be exiting out the TOA.
Energy out = energy in only after the surface has heated up in an effort to restore thermal equilibrium.
GHG molecules really do redirect some upwelling IR.
David
I was talking about the atmosphere in general terms. Not the warming from increased GHG’s.
The downwelling IR makes perfect sense. It’s part of a net slowing process. The atmosphere causes warmth to move from surface to space at a much slower rate than with no atmosphere – thus heat is not really trapped.
Maybe I’m just stating the obvious?
David Appell
I agree with you on that point. The surface emits energy based only upon its temperature. The rate of emission does not slow down because of an atmosphere.
The equilibrium temperature of the surface rises with GHG because it is emitting energy back to the surface that is absorbed and decreases the NET loss of energy from the surface. The returning flux is less than the emission but the addition of the DWIR and the DWSW (solar input) cause the surface temperature to rise until the outgoing energy equals the incoming energy.
Snape says, May 17, 2017 at 7:51 PM:
No, it doesn’t. Not once a steady state (dynamic equilibrium) has been reached. That’s the whole point. Heat transfer away from the surface is only slowed on the way TOWARDS a steady state. That’s when energy accumulates inside the atmosphere (and at/below the surface itself) to raise its temperature.
In the steady state, where we are now, energy has been stored up and distributed within the atmosphere to such an extent and in such a way that, on average, it is ~288K at the surface and ~210K at the tropopause, 12 km higher up.
This means that its photon cloud, occupying the very same volume as its mass, and thermally equilibrated with it, is similarly dense down low and thinning gradually up the column, just like the air itself. If we were able to see in infrared, we would discern a faint, fuzzy haze of radiant energy statically filling the atmosphere, the only emission into space.
If we were to measure the radiative temperature of the atmosphere at the surface, we would observe the photon cloud at its thickest and get a large APPARENT flux. If we were to do the same up high, say from an airplane near the tropopause, we would see rather more tenuous (higher) layers of the photon cloud, and the resulting apparent flux would be much smaller. But what we do in both cases is really just measuring the radiative TEMPERATURE of the atmosphere at each level, the ‘density’ of its photon cloud. The actual TRANSFER (net movement) of radiant energy from the surface to space only happens from sfc to atm and from atm to space (or directly from sfc to space). INSIDE the atmosphere there is only the static photon cloud. The radiant energy is just THERE, distributed like the atmospheric mass and according to its temperature gradient. The energy moves internally via air movement.
People tend to be confused about this. They think they see real macroscopic fluxes of radiant energy everywhere, when what they really see is just radiative expressions of atmospheric temperature at different levels.
You should read this comment (with a link to an explanation of the ‘photon cloud’ phenomenon). It might be enlightening:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246814
Kristian
I should have been more clear. I WAS talking about a steady-state. When I said the atmosphere slows the movement of energy from surface to space, I meant in relation to NO atmosphere. Energy has accumulated in our atmosphere by virtue of it’s slow movement. GHG’s are part of what cause this slowing. It’s been this way since the atmosphere was first formed.
Snape says, May 18, 2017 at 12:33 AM:
But it DOESN’T slow the movement of energy from surface to space, Snape. Not in the steady state. Only BEFORE this state is reached. This is because the surface – in the steady state – has finally warmed to a temperature high enough for it maintain a balance between its heat input and its heat output.
Yes. During the buildup phase towards the steady state. Once the steady state is reached, no more energy accumulates, because at that point, heat OUT finally equals heat IN. Not before.
Sure. But so are the N2, O2 and Ar molecules, which make up 99-99.5% of our atmosphere’s bulk mass.
Kristian wrote,
“but it DOESNT slow the movement of energy from surface to space, Snape.”
I’m not sure why, but you and Appell are seriously confused about this!
Steady-state or not, energy moves away from the earth’s surface at a MUCH slower rate than if there was no atmosphere. Remember what happens on the moon?
–Steady-state or not, energy moves away from the earths surface at a MUCH slower rate than if there was no atmosphere. Remember what happens on the moon?–
The Moon is quite an alien world [that why we should be allowed to live there, btw]
Suppose earth simply had less nitrogen gas. It’s 80%, say it was 30%.
Or each square meter of earth has 10 tons of atmosphere above it, or about 8 tons of nitrogen, so make 3 tons, and still have 2 tons of oxygen and other gases.
So half the mass of our atmosphere.
This would mean we would get more direct sunlight when sun was at or near zenith on a clear day. Lower our troposphere by couple km, and lower our air density. So like living at sea level in half atmosphere world would like living in Denver [or maybe a bit higher].
Or not really very alien.
So we get about 1000 watts when sun near zenith and we get say 1100 + watts at noon. A perhaps more significant change is we get much solar energy in morning and late afternoon and in winter.
And we get about 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight [at noon and clear] and 1/2 atm world would get less than 1200 direct and indirect. But we get much more direct sunlight when sun is lower on horizon as compared to earth.
Or at say 5 pm, could have close to 1000 watts per square meter of direct sunlight.
So with 1/2 atm world, solar energy might even be economical. And we get a longer warmer day. But we also get longer colder nite. Or it’s significantly closer to the Moon- of course the 1/2 atm world could have 24 hour day like Earth has [so not similar to Moon in that regard].
Now 1/2 atm world would have lower pressure- 14.7 / 2 = 7.35 psi. Which would mean ocean with evaporate more at same temperature as Earth- or Ocean’s would have a lower surface temperature, but they are getting a lot more sunlight.
So we have higher average ocean temperature and lower tropical surface temperature.
Now the mountains if the same would be higher relative to troposphere height. Or more atmosphere doesn’t make mountain higher, it might make than slight lower- less erosion, generally.
Airplanes fly lower, clouds are lower, hmm.
Ohm I guess we have double the ppm of CO2 as we would twice the ppm of oxygen [same amount of either].
But does the air cool faster. Well one thing is cold air would feel less cold- there would less convectional losses for everything. And we could have hotter land surface and the same or less air temperature.
Or double our atmosphere and ground and air is closer in temperature. So in summer on earth one could walk on a 70 C sidewalk and air could be 30 C.
So with 1/2 atm world the sidewalk cool faster from their 80 to 90 C temperature. But we wear shoes and not too concerned about sidewalk temperature- particularly if we ride bikes or drive cars. And with the Moon one only has “the sidewalk” rather than any air temperature.
Hmm, hard to say, but one probably get used to it- humans are tropical creature, and unless you live in the tropics you living in a cold world.
Gbaikie
Lots of interesting observations.
My point was that on the moon there is a rapid and massive cooling between day and night. Often more than 200 deg. C. The earth cools at a much slower rate.
That’s why I wrote, “Steady-state or not, energy moves away from the earth’s surface at a MUCH slower rate than if there was no atmosphere.”
Snape says, May 18, 2017 at 12:02 PM:
You admit to knowing very little in terms of physics, and still you’re convinced I’m somehow “seriously confused” when it comes to the physical (thermodynamical) point that you’re trying to make. That’s kind of ironic, wouldn’t you say so?
Yes, heat loss is indeed a “rate”. It’s joules per second (per square metre). So when you claim that heat “moves away from the earth’s surface at a MUCH slower rate than if there was no atmosphere”, then you should really make an effort to try and understand what you’re actually talking about.
In our current steady state, our global planetary surface on average rids itself of 165 W/m^2 worth of total heat. That is, 165 joules escape (move away from) every square metre of surface each second. On average. Globally, annually.
You know what? This rate is EXACTLY high (‘fast’) enough to balance the average INCOMING heat to our global planetary surface, which, after all, ALSO happens to be 165 W/m^2. That is WHY we’re in a steady state. The surface U and T stay basically unchanged.
Yes, the global lunar surface sheds an average 296 W/m^2 worth of heat, which is a higher rate than that of Earth’s surface. But this is only the result of ONE thing: The global lunar surface ABSORBS an average 296 W/m^2 worth of heat also! Again we have balance.
If we simply raised the Moon’s global albedo from the actual ~0.13 to a hypothetical 0.515, then in the steady state, the lunar surface heat balance would be equal to Earth’s: 165 IN, 165 OUT.
So, Snape, I’m afraid YOU’RE the confused one … The atmospheric slowing of surface heat loss occurs BEFORE (up to) the point where a steady state is reached only.
Kristian
Believe me, the irony is not lost. Lol!
I understand and mostly agree with what you just you wrote. Infact, until recently, I would have agreed with EVERYTHING.
I am still working on a reply that will explain my hypothesis, but it might not be ready until the next thread.
Thanks for your responses. I’m learning a lot.
Kristian, David
Let me at least clarify this point:
In the steady-state, the atmosphere does not slow down the rate at which the surface “sheds” heat. It slows down the overall “velocity” at which heat is transported from surface to TOA. (In comparison to surface-to-space, which would be the situation if the earth had no atmosphere)
Kristian, you wrote,
“In our current steady state, our global planetary surface on average rids itself of 165 W/m^2 worth of total heat. That is, 165 joules escape (move away from) every square metre of surface each second. On average. Globally, annually.”
Now compare those numbers with the TOA. They will be different, and I think you will get my point.
Clue: TOA will not lose heat at 165 W/m^2.
(This number will be significantly lower)
Kristian,
I should mention this nuance about the TOA is important for “understanding” my hypothesis, but is only a part of the big picture.
Sorry for so many short comments
Actually, I’m not sure if this math stuff is getting me anywhere… my apologies!
One more….I have a friend who was a math major. Maybe he can help explain my idea using numbers instead of words.
Kristian says:
“If we were to measure the radiative temperature of the atmosphere at the surface, we would observe the photon cloud at its thickest and get a large APPARENT flux.”
For crying out loud, Kristian — THERE IS NOTHING APPARENT ABOUT THIS FLUX.
It can be measured, and has.
ADDRESS THAT FACT, for once. Without preaching.
Snape,
I’ll add another to your list.
Many people have noticed that the surface cools at night. Slowly down the rate of cooling isn’t resulting in surface temperature increasing.
Do you agree?
Cheers.
“Many people have noticed that the surface cools at night. Slowly down the rate of cooling isnt resulting in surface temperature increasing.”
When the external source of heat is removed the surface loses that input and cools. But GHGs slow the rate of cooling, leaving the atmosphere and surface warmer at night than the system would be without GHGs. The Moon is a good example of virtually no GHGs in the atmosphere, where night time temperatures can plummet by 200 C in a few hours.
The reason that doesn’t happen on Earth is because of our atmosphere. It slows the rate of cooling.
It’s interesting that skeptics have to remove the external heat/energy source to try and make a point. The same silliness as talking about jumpers on dead bodies. Well of course, a dead body is not a heat source. The analogy pertains to live bodies, which are heat sources.
barry,
And in the absence of GHGs, the surface of the Moon reaches temperatures in excess of anything on Earth, after the same exposure time.
I’m talking about reality. I’ll leave the imaginary to you.
Still no GHE. The Earth has cooled, at least in fact. Maybe not, in your fantasy.
Cheers.
Clear evidence for the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
And in the absence of GHGs, the surface of the Moon reaches temperatures in excess of anything on Earth, after the same exposure time.
Quite right. The moon lacks the gases that impede solar radiation to the surface, like ozone, oxygen and nitrogen. Of course the lunar surface heats faster and more than on Earth when the sun comes up.
And the moon lacks ‘greenhouse’ gases like water vapour, CO2 and methane, that strongly absorb upwelling infrared radiation. So the surface cools faster and more than on Earth when the sun goes down.
GHGs impede far more upwelling surface radiation than downwelling solar radiation. So if you increase GHGs in the atmosphere, it absorbs more upwelling radiation than solar. It’s not symmetrical. I think you don’t get that. You seem to think that CO2, for example, absorbs the same amount of solar radiation as Earth-temperature infrared.
That is simply wrong.
Mike
I think Barry’s response is spot on. What you’re missing is that at night, the surface is losing heat, and there is no warmth from the sun to replace it. Going back to the analogy of a dam: the inflow has stopped, while the outflow has not.
At night, WRT the surface, there is no warming, just different rates of cooling.
Snape,
No heating at night. Temperatures go down. Temperatures go up in sunlight.
No GHE needed or evident.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Cheers.
The best evidence for the GHE, which Flynn is afraid to even look at:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
“When the external source of heat is removed the surface loses that input and cools. But GHGs slow the rate of cooling, leaving the atmosphere and surface warmer at night than the system would be without GHGs. The Moon is a good example of virtually no GHGs in the atmosphere, where night time temperatures can plummet by 200 C in a few hours.”
There isn’t a lunar atmosphere for greenhouse gases to be in.
And temperatures on the Moon do not “plummet by 200 C in a few hours”
When Earth blocks the sunlight from reaching the Moon [during a Lunar eclipse] lunar surface temperature can lower by about 100 K within 2 hours, but this starting from hot surface which has a low heat capacity.
The Moon has quite a long day, roughly as Sun moves across the sky within 1 hour on Earth, the same movement of the Sun on the Moon require a bit more than a day [24 hour].
On Earth the atmosphere blocks the sunlight so the highest temperature that it’s surface reaches, which is about 70 C whereas the Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere and get a brighter sunlight which can heat the surface to 120 C.
On earth if heat something to 120 C, it will cool to air temperature as quickly.
And temperatures on the Moon do not plummet by 200 C in a few hours
They do. Temperature instruments on the surface of the moon have recorded temp swings of more than 200C during eclipse. This is extremely rapid temperature change.
This temperature drop was first measured at the Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 landing sites during a total lunar eclipse in 1971. Before and after the eclipse, both sites hovered around 150 degrees Fahrenheit, but during the occultation, surface temperatures dropped to about minus 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Since then, temperatures oscillations of over 500 degrees have been recorded on the Moon during eclipses.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/what-would-a-supermoon-eclipse-be-like-on-the-moon
The moon rotates slowly, and so temperatures drop slowly moving into twilight. But once the sun goes down completely the drop is very rapid.
” barry says:
May 18, 2017 at 12:25 PM
And temperatures on the Moon do not plummet by 200 C in a few hours
They do. Temperature instruments on the surface of the moon have recorded temp swings of more than 200C during eclipse. This is extremely rapid temperature change.”
Well lunar surface temperature can go down 100 C and warm up again very rapidly [hours]
“During the June 15, 2011, lunar eclipse, the Diviner instrument onboard the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter observed the temperature of the lunar surface drop more than 100′
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/features/eclipse/041014/
So if count the cooling temperature and then the temperature rising back up to it’s original temperature, but I seen no evidence of it plummeting by 200 C [or 200 K]. To get back to original temperature the earth can’t back partially blocking the Sun.
So say compare before Earth blocking the sun, then as more sun is blocked, the surface cools until such time as sun begins emerge from the earth.
Or wiki “The moon’s speed through the shadow is about one kilometer per second (2,300 mph), and totality may last up to nearly 107 minutes. Nevertheless, the total time between the moon’s first and last contact with the shadow is much longer and could last up to four hours.”
So in period of 4 hours, the surface can cool by more than 100 K and then warm up by 100 K.
Or at equator with sun at zenith the surface could be 120 C [or more], if earth moves in front of the Sun so that the lunar surface only gets about 1000 watts [rather than around 1360 watts] 1000 watts per square meter can only warm the surface to about 80 C. And when Earth is blocking more than 1/2 of the sun- so that one has about 600 watts of solar flux then sunlight could only warm surface to about 40 C.
And as we know if sunlight is about 240 watts per square meter a blackbody is -18 C.
So in hour or so before totality begins, a 120 C lunar surface will cool, a fair amount.
Now take a frying pan [a black iron one if got it] put on the stove and heat it higher the 120 C [a drop of water will sizzle and evaporate/boil quickly if pan higher than 100 C].
Let cool to 120 C [turn off element and leave on the heating element] and it should cool by 80 to 90 K in less than 30 mins.
And then after the 1 1/2 hours of totality it will cool even more. So NASA says drop more than 100 C. So I can believe say 110 or 120 K lowering in 2 or more hours [the partial into and to end of totality, but I don’t assume more than 100 C is close to 200 C of cooling.
Of course after totality, it’s a bit time before the sunlight is 240 watts per square meter [-18 C], so from around 120 to around 0 C in few hours seem plausable, as compared to 120 C to -80 C in few hours.
As for your reference of;
“This temperature drop was first measured at the Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 landing sites during a total lunar eclipse in 1971. Before and after the eclipse, both sites hovered around 150 degrees Fahrenheit, but during the occultation, surface temperatures dropped to about minus 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Since then, temperatures oscillations of over 500 degrees have been recorded on the Moon during eclipses.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/what-would-a-supermoon-eclipse-be-like-on-the-moon
There are number glaring things this reporter claims, as in:
“2) Thermal shock wave!
When the Earth’s shadow sweeps across the lunar landscape, the temperature drops radically. In fact, the resulting “thermal shock” may cause lunar rocks to crumble and gas to escape from within the moon. ”
http://www.space.com/30669-10-surprising-lunar-eclipse-facts.html
I think he thinks it’s good dramatizes things to make them exciting. And I would guess his hero is Bill Nye.
A final note, it would be interesting if had a “large moon” which block our sun as much as we block the sun on the Moon.
On Earth a total solar eclipse only blocks a small portion of sunlight on Earth surface. Or cuts a thin trail across Earth surface.
Now what would happen to earth temperatures if whole earth had totality for 107 mins?
Total eclipse [temperature]:
–Typically, how big a temperature drop do you get during a total solar eclipse?
It would probably be equal to the typical daytime minus nighttime temperature difference at that time of year and location on the Earth. It would be modified a bit by the fact that it only lasts a few minutes, which means the environment would not have had much time to thermally respond to its lowest temperature, so it would probably only be 3/4 or 1/2 the maximum day-night temperature difference…”
https://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2006/faq.php
Let’s get other comments from google searches:
” A solar eclipse in March 2015 produced a slight but noticeable drop in temperature in the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, a new paper shows and the team’s getting ready to observe another eclipse tomorrow.
A thermometer hanging from a camera tripod recording the eclipse observed the temperature drop 15 degrees Fahrenheit, from 8 F to -7 F (-13 to -22 degrees Celsius). Automatic temperature and pressure sensors showed only slight effects, however.
“Svalbard was central in the path of totality, and had completely clear skies,”…”
http://www.space.com/33916-total-solar-eclipse-causes-temperature-drop.html
So 4 hours and within it 107 mins of totality, how cold?
Well I think it would matter if there were clouds and how close you were to ocean. And I think it would tend to be windy [as totality approached and resided], And I think it would equal or exceed nite time temperatures. If not more than night time temperature, the mere suddenness of it would be worthy of TV dramatizations.
gbakie, you could have followed the links to the original NASA page.
http://www.space.com/30664-moon-s-500f-temperature-swing-monitored-during-lunar-eclipse-video.html
(500F change is more than 200C)
But whether it’s 100C change in a matter of hours or 200C the point remains:
It’s our atmosphere that prevents these huge changes when the sun goes up and comes down.
Here’s a study of lunar surface temperature changes during eclipses.
We found that the lunar surface temperature decreased by about 147 K and 220 K during the partial and total eclipse phases, respectively, in comparison with the lunar temperature before the eclipse.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117716302629
Eclipse timings more closely resemble (thought not perfectly) Earth’s diurnal phases. The lunar diurnal phase is much longer than earth’s.
Point remains – lack of atmosphere means the surface of the moon cools much more rapidly than Earth’s in the absence of sunlight.
Mike
I think the atmosphere “moderates” both warming and cooling. Nights aren’t as cold, days aren’t as hot as would be the case with no atmosphere. The GHE produces an increase in global average.
Snape,
Two things.
Objects radiate energy in proportion to the fourth power of their absolute temperature. You can work out whether things heat faster or cool faster if the same amount of energy is involved. No increase in average temperature due to integrating effect of insulation.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. No GHE. Cooling, whatever you calculate.
Cheers.
Mike
I think we agree the earth radiates energy towards space. So explain to me what happens as this energy passes through several miles of gases?
“The surface heat isnt slowed down, its partially redirected.”
“Slowed down” describes the net effect on warmth leaving the Earth system. “Redirected” describes the discrete action at the molecular level, which I also described in my post.
A lot of the argument above, I think, is mainly semantics.
Barry: No, it’s not “slowed down,” even as a net effect.
Energy is redirected.
If energy was only “slowed down,” it would eventually, after some delay period, reach the TOA with the same emissions and retain equilibrium.
But, with our GHG emissions, the planet isn’t in equilibrium — it has an energy imbalance. The surface is warming up to try to overcome that imbalance and reestablish equilibrium, by emitting yet more radiation upward.
David
All energy does reach the TOA. If it takes even longer to get there because of increased GHG’s, this will produce warming. Why? Because energy from sun is constant.
Energy in the atmosphere is not trapped, it has accumulated because it’s moving very slowly (in comparison to no atmosphere).
This is just my opinion
No, not because it’s moving “very slowly.”
Energy — sunlight or infrared photons — move extremely fast in the atmosphere, at a speed of c/n, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum (3e8 m/s) and n is the refractive index of air (it’s a function of temperature; at standard temperature and pressure it’s 1.000277).
Energy is REDIRECTED, not slowed down.
Sorry, I was talking about the “net flow of energy” not individual photons.
I believe you about energy being redirected. But is this “permanent” or just part of the overall slowing process I mentioned?
Snape says:
“All energy does reach the TOA.”
No, it doesn’t.
It does above about 3 km in altitude.
Below that, much does not. It is absorbed and re-emitted, some of which goes downward.
David
So you think energy emitted 3 weeks ago is still bouncing up and down between surface and lower atmosphere? How about 3 years ago?
And what about energy being emitted right now? Is it careful to avoid this “permanent” energy?
Snape says:
“This is just my opinion”
Science isn’t about opinions.
David, next time I’ll use the word “hypothesis”. Is that better?
“a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”
“a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.”
Barry: No, its not slowed down, even as a net effect.
Energy is redirected.
David, you are talking about radiation.
I specifically used the word “heat” in my remark you quoted.
There are numerous ways to describe the greenhouse effect, and rarely can they be conflated.
Radiation is redirected by the atmosphere.
The rate at which ‘heat’ leaves the surface to space is slowed down by the atmosphere.
Both these things are true, but the properties used to describe each are not exactly the same and should not be treated as such.
Here’s a physicist describing it as I do.
From a physics perspective, global warming is a matter of heat balance: the earth’s temperature naturally rises until the heat flowing out of the earth balances the heat flowing into it. If the earth can’t get rid of heat as fast as new heat arrives, the earth will get hotter, which means that anything that slows the earth’s ability to eliminate heat causes its temperature to rise.
http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20080506025435
Conceptual descriptions of such complex topics will always invite hair-splitting. Perhaps mathematics is the only language that could truly capture the essence of the phenomena we’re describing. But few here would understand it (I wouldn’t).
So we’re left with the poor shadow puppets that everyday language provides.
And this is where most of the argy bargy on this topic resides on this site. Trenchant opposition taking advantage (unconsciously, I believe) of any defect in the imperfect language we use to describe a system of some complexity at the atomic level.
Most of the biffo here is pure semantics. It’s why I don’t weigh in much any more. It’s not a real conversation.
Barry
Thanks for that.
Not having a background in physics, it can be hard for me to correctly express my ideas. I’ve been learning a lot from my mistakes, though.
Along similar lines, I have a serious problem with the notion that the atmosphere “traps heat”. I think it’s only meant to be used figuratively. If taken literally (I think Appell, and many others on this blog do so), it can be VERY misleading. It can lead to the strange notion, among others, that some warmth is trapped, and some is not.
I have a very convincing argument for this “hypothesis” (….Lol), if you’re interested.
Barry
So were left with the poor shadow puppets that everyday language provides.
This addresses the problem of using the word “trapped” to describe heat in the atmosphere.
It accurately describes an “effect” but in doing so distorts and confuses the big picture.
Sure, “traps” is a clumsy word. You see all sorts of descriptions on the net, which are all aimed at lay audiences. All of them are shadows of the truth.
In nearly every case words are a dim reflection of reality. But that notion is centuries old. Reasonable people who are aware of this allow for that and try to understand better. Trenchant opponents exploit it.
Being picky is good at this level of discussion. But hair-splitting and semantical gotchas are just gamesmanship.
Barry
Here’s an example of the misunderstanding I’m talking about:
If you fill up a bathtub with water (with the drain at the bottom closed) and then turn off the faucet, you could claim the water is trapped, and that would be accurate.
On the other hand, you could unplug the drain and turn on the faucet, adjusting the inflow to match the outflow. The water level in the bathtub would remain the same, right? But now if you claimed the water was “trapped” (after all, nothing appears to have changed), it would be very inaccurate. The water is no longer trapped, it’s actively “flowing” from faucet to drain.
The problem is now much more than semantics, although semantics caused the problem.
Part of my hypothesis is that the net energy in our atmosphere is slowly flowing from surface to space…. not at all trapped.
Snape, I already said “trapped” is a clumsy word. Your explanation for why that is so is fair enough. The word comes from some people describing the first effect of EMR hitting a molecule. The molecule absorbs it. Or “traps” it.
This ignores the fact that the molecule re-emits the energy it has received in the form of radiation.
It’s nothing to get hung up on. Most people here get it. Mostly the people bringing up the word “trapped” are the people who oppose the greenhouse effect, as a snarky way of straw man-ing their opponents view.
……
I just then searched for every use of the word “trap” in this thread. Most usage came from ‘skeptics’, and indeed, it was first mentioned in this thread by a skeptic (establishing the straw man). One person took it at face value and argued that ‘trapping’ occurs. But the rest of the people defending the greenhouse effect said it was not the best word to use, or explained how it tends to get used as I did above.
I wouldn’t spend much more time thinking about it. It’s a distraction introduced by way of snark.
” barry says:
May 20, 2017 at 7:32 AM
Snape, I already said trapped is a clumsy word. Your explanation for why that is so is fair enough. The word comes from some people describing the first effect of EMR hitting a molecule. The molecule absorbs it. Or traps it.
This ignores the fact that the molecule re-emits the energy it has received in the form of radiation.”
Air molecules would re-radiate it. And a surface which could not transfer the energy via conduction or convectional processes would also re-radiate it.
Most of the sunlight energy reaching the surface is not re-radiated.
Most of earth surface is covered by ocean, and ocean is transparent to sunlight. Or most of sunlight energy passes thru the surface, and once it’s absorbed, it can not re-radiate the energy. It’s trapped.
And can be trapped for thousands of years before the energy can be radiated [not re-emitted/re-radiated at the same wavelengths as it was when it was absorbed. But actually re-radiate energy isn’t really adsorbed, absorbed suggest one has warmed something- a molecule of gas is speeding bullet and warmed object has molecular structure vibrating. A warmed air molecule is traveling at higher velocity relative to other molecules traveling at higher velocities- or zero velocity molecule within cloud of high velocity molecules is as warm as the higher velocity molecules- or at any instant in time a warm gas can have a molecule at zero velocity- and just as likely if gas were hotter- or it’s the crowd’s average velocity not an individual’s velocity that determine warmth].
We were talking about atmospheric processes, gbaikie. And why “trapped” is not a good word to use when describing radiative transfer via molecules in the atmosphere. Atmospheric molecules definitely re-emit energy they have absorbed, and in short order.
Of course, other processes go on as well, but we were discussing atmospheric radiative transfer.
Kristian
I do not know what more evidence you need to convince you there are two distinct energy fluxes that are separate from each other than if you look at this link.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_591ce3fc13622.png
If your opinion was correct you should see the same pattern mirroring each other. You do not see this.
You see a surface upwelling flux rise dramatically during the day when solar energy is reaching the surface and warming it. It seems to have little effect on the downwelling flux which is unique and separate and based only upon the amount of GHG present and the atmosphere effective emission temperature.
It is really clear to see. These are reasons I really reject your view. I consider it your opinion. You never have once validated it and get upset if people don’t blindly accept it as fact. Evidence is really against your view.
Kristian
Here is another way of looking at it. Put a sensor facing Earth’s surface to derive the Upwelling flux.
Say you get an average of 450 W/m^2 UPIR.
Now an angry god comes along and does not like the Earth’s atmosphere so she waves her arms and the Earth atmosphere is gone, no DWIR at all. Your sensor will still read 450 W/^2 there is no NET heat flux it is detecting.
If another god comes along and restores the atmosphere but is also angry and wants to fry life he heats the air up to 300 C so the DWIR is now over 5600 W/m^2.
Your UPIR sensor still reads 450 W/m^2. The only thing that will affect the reading is the Earth surface temperature. The surrounding energy flows do not change this reading until they change the surface temperature.
Norman,
It doesn’t what you think you’re measuring. It’s totally irrelevant.
When the Sun shines on it, an object on the surface heats up. At night, in the absence of sunlight, the object cools down.
Depending on the angle presented to the Sun, and the Earth’s position as it meanders around the Sun, parts of the surface get a lot hotter and colder than others at different times of the year. Do you not agree?
Overall, the surface has cooled, in spite of your theoretical considerations.
Still no GHE. It’s not even relevant for greenhouses, let alone anything else. It’s of no effect whatever.
Use your calculations to figure out what the surface temperature is on the nearest road surface. Now place a thermometer on that surface. If your calculations differ from the observed value, by all means feel free to believe that observed fact is irrelevant. When I worked with such things, we reported observed temperatures. They tend to be of more use to pilots and others who might need real, than imaginary measurements.
Your imaginary calculations are of use only in your imagination. The GHE is supposed to result in factually hotter thermometers. So far, it only seems to result in imaginary thermometers becoming hotter in a fantasy world of make-believe physics.
if you can demonstrate making a thermometer on the surface hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun, I will change my mind.
But you can’t, so I won’t.
Cheers.
Another instance where the fake and phony “Mike Flynn” refuses even to look at evidence.
Red herrings and insults provided as usual.
Mike Flynn
Whereas this would be daunting and expensive it is something that can be measured in reality and not an abstract.
If you put a digital thermometer in the middle of every square meter of Earth’s surface (measuring the actual surface temperature not air above, usually a little warmer than the air above), all connected to a super computer you get a very precise measurement of Earth’s average surface temperature when the computer adds all the numbers together and divides this number by the total number of thermometers (around 510 trillion of them).
You do the same thing on the Moon’s surface.
Which average temperature do you think will be warmer? Earth or the Moon? And why do you believe this to be true.
Also how many real thermometers do you think you would need to get an average close to the 510 trillion thermometers?
The Moon will have a higher peak temperature and a colder low temperature than the Earth.
So far all analysists thing the Earth’s average temperature is much warmer than the Moon’s. What do you think and why do you think this?
So now you have 3 choices for comparing the Earth’s average surface temperature and the Moon’s average surface temperature.
1) Do you believe they are the same? If so why?
2) The Earth is warmer than the Moon? If so why?
3) The Moon is warmer than the Earth? If so why?
Maybe if you can supply some answers to these questions we can work to find how we think so differently about Greenhouse effect and it warming effect on a planet’s surface.
Norman,
You’re not talking about reality. Millions of imaginary thermometers don’t measure a single real temperature.
Nobody can even define what the “average temperature” of either the Earth or the Moon is – just more imaginary calculations. Analysts thoughts are not fact.
Any talk of averages is pointless, as nobody can say what they are.
The Earth is a giant blob of molten rock. It is reasonable to expect the surface to be a little hotter than the Moon’s – which is not nearly as much of a molten blob. Greater surface to volume ratio, so has cooled more over the same period.
I have another choice, which you didn’t mention – the questions are completely irrelevant. If you can provide accurate measured figures, and one is larger than the other, then it is.
So tell me – how warm is the Earth? How warm is the Moon? Which warm is bigger? Why do you need me to tell you which number is the larger of the two? Models don’t count as fact, obviously.
Deny, divert, confuse.
Still no GHE. No warming due to CO2. If there was, you wouldn’t need to propose imaginary and impossible situations, would you?
Cheers.
MF: I’ve told you before — if you don’t know the definition of the average of a scalar field (like temperature) over a manifold (like the Earth’s surface), you don’t belong here, but in a 12-grade math class.
avg of temperature T =
(1/area_of_surface)*integral_over_surface {(T(x,y,z)dx dy dz}.
You going to ignore this too?
Mike Flynn says:
“The Earth is a giant blob of molten rock. It is reasonable to expect the surface to be a little hotter than the Moons which is not nearly as much of a molten blob. Greater surface to volume ratio, so has cooled more over the same period.”
Wrong — the Earth has a LOWER surface-to-volume ratio than the Moon.
A/V = 3/r for a sphere.
David Appell,
Exactly as I said. The Moon has cooled more – greater surface to volume ratio.
Cheers.
Do you think maybe the presence of an atmosphere has something to do with it????
—
And, no, the ocean isn’t blue because it emits blue light. Jeesh.
David Appell,
Of course not!
Cheers.
I’m trying to understand what sad kind of man spends his time denying basic science in order to issue an endless stream of insults.
Can you help me on that?
David Appell,
You appear to be asking yourself for help.
I hope you get the answer you want.
Cheers.
Why are you so afraid of
confronting the scientific evidence?
Mike Flynn says:
“Still no GHE. No warming due to CO2.”
The evidence this Flynn phony won’t dare discuss:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
David, Barry, Norman etc etc
When you base your whole theory of global warming on constantly changing models, very selective data or fantasies that will never happen to prove a point things tend to come unstuck. Don’t blame Mike Flynn for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
But I would suggest you better get used to it
HC
Why do you think the models are “constantly changing?”
No reply Harry??
Harry,
Might I suggest you arm yourself with a small wet noodle to fight off the attacks of the tinfoil hat brigade!
I wish you all the best.
Cheers.
More insults from “Mike Flynn,” absent any science whatsoever.
Fake.
David, Barry, Norman etc etc
When you base your whole theory of global warming on constantly changing models, very selective data or fantasies that will never happen…
I don’t.
Harry Cummings
I also wonder what are the fantasies we bring up?
Mike Flynn
Here is a calculated average Moon temperature.
-60 C is what they determine.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/diviner_moon_temperatures.png
And here is the Earth’s
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now
About 14 C
They do agree with you it is hard to get averages but the averages would not be off by 74 C so you can clearly see the Earth is very highly the warmer of the two. You do not have to accept it, up to you. I give you the available data.
Basically that proves the GHE and you are wrong. The Earth’s average is considerably warmer than the Moon and the reason is because of difference in rotation rate (Moon would be warmer if it rotated faster) and the GHG in Earth’s atmosphere. This is real evidence. You won’t accept it. You will accept no evidence, even if Feynman returned from the grave and told you Greenhouse effect is quite real and why the Earth is warmer than the Moon you would not accept it. So what is the point of you posting. You are not interested in facts, truth, reality, textbooks, calculations, math or science.
Are you an evangelist seeking followers to your cult? That is the most obvious conclusion. It seems you have one follower so far. Harry Cummings. Maybe with a persistent nature you will be able to indoctrinate more people, only the nonscientists though. Scientists are immune to your thoughtless and unscientific and irrational posts.
Take care and may the cult be with you. I hear the Flat-Earth Society wants new members. Hope you join!
Stratospheric and mesospheric hazes in all planetary atmospheres of the Solar System are
essentially transparent to thermal infrared radiation, which is an important condition for
inversions and tropopause minima in our proposed rule. Here we demonstrate why this is
likely a generality. In short, haze particles need to be ~1 μm size (or larger) to interact
with thermal radiation. Gravitational settling and coagulation of such large particles
generally limit the thermal infrared optical depth of very high altitude hazes to << 1.
To show this limitation, we developed a simple model of haze microphysics. The model
assumes a bi-modal distribution of aerosolssmall particles that are generated high in the
stratosphere, and large particles that form from the small particles and which, due to their larger size, can provide infrared opacity. Both modes evolve due to gravitational settling
and coagulation.
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/extref/ngeo2020-s1.pdf
Irrelevant, Ren. Butt out.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/full/ngeo2020.html#access
Here I calculated the average temperature of the Moon along its equator, using standard radiative physics. It matches the observations exactly:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
The Temperature Departure image shows the next day forecast temperature departures from normal.
http://www.intellicast.com/National/Temperature/Departure.aspx
Irrelevant to the discussion, ren.
Buzz off — you’re just getting in the way with irrelevant comments.
The moon does not have a dense atmosphere. There is no troposphere. You can not compare to Earth. Irrelevant.
David Appell,
I’m assuming you have a point. I just can’t see what you think it is.
Is this supposed to show that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the Earth”s surface and the Sun raises the temperature of the thermometer?
Or maybe that it increase temperatures on the Moon?
Or that the GHE exists in your mind?
Maybe you should complain that I ignore irrelevancies.
Cheers.
Yes, atmospheric CO2 raises the temperature of Earth’s surface. This is happening every day, across the globe, all the time.
Why won’t you address that simple, observable fact?
David Appell,
Doesn’t seem to work too well across the globe all the time where the Sun isn’t shining, indoors, when it’s cloudy, foggy, rainy, or anywhere else where the temperature is not rising.
The observable fact is that it gets hot standing in the sun, on occasion.
There. Addressed. Care to dispute the indisputable fact that the Sun emits quite lot of heat? Or that some actually reaches objects on the surface of the Earth?
How about the fact that nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of a thermometer on the surface by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and the Sun? Am I allowed to address that as well?
Carry on, David. Time for a tantrum, perhaps?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“How about the fact that nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of a thermometer on the surface by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and the Sun?”
Where is your proof of this?
David Appell,
Eh?
I’m sure that if I’m wrong, you’ll produce proof to the contrary. But you can’t, so you’ll just have to try for another stupid “gotcha”. Maybe you could fire up your denial machine, and try to deafen everyone in the vicinity.
It’s not my fault that you haven’t got a clue, and can’t even define your silly non existent GHE.
Here’s a thought – you could call it the Global Heating Effect! There is a minor problem – the Earth seems to have cooled for four and a half billion years. Maybe you could rename the Global Heating Efffect to the Global Cooling Effect.
Climatology cultists claim that heating is a reduction in cooling, so a Global Cooling Effect would be the same as a Global Heating Effect to a climatologist!
Don’t bother to thank me David, my pleasure. Pleased to be able to help you out.
Cheers.
And do these data matter?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2016.png
I knew Mike Flynn had no proof of his claim.
And I was right.
Mike Flynn says:
“There is a minor problem the Earth seems to have cooled for four and a half billion years.”
Has it?
Where are those data?
It has been warming for about 100 years now, so clearly your claim can’t be correct.
Oops.
David Appell,
Pity you chose PierreHumbert’s textbook, when you could have chosen something else. I suppose you might have read “The global surface temperatures of the Moon as measured by the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment”, but then you wouldn’t have written the nonsense you did.
Oh well, you can’t win them all, can you?
Cheers.
Standard radiative physics perfectly describes the Moon’s average temperature — as measured by Diviner.
Calculation here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
Norman,
You like a good calculation.
Calculate the total heat content of the molten Earth.
Calculate the total heat content of the very much less than molten Moon.
Calculate the surface area of both.
Calculate the average surface temperature.
Surprise, surprise!
No GHE. No CO2 needed. Gee.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Others have already done extensive studies of the Earth’s inner heat flux to the surface with actual measuring devices. Here is an article discussing the research.
The heat flow from the inner Earth to the surface is considerably less than the energy from the Sun. It is measured in miliwatts not watts. Even in hot areas it does not reach 1W/m^2.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ggge.20271/full
Norman,
Deny, divert, confuse.
Just calculate the average surface temperatures of the Earth and the Moon. How hard can it be?
I know you don’t like the result, but ignoring it won’t make it go away.
It seems that all of a sudden, you’re not interested in the results of the very same calculations that you’re inclined to be so dismissive about. The usual provision of an irrelevant link, hoping people will think it supports you. It doesn’t, of course, just another attempt to appear sciency.
Maybe you are silly enough to believe that the geothermal hot areas studied are due to CO2.
No GHE. CO2 does not make thermometers hotter. It doesn’t even keep the interior of the Earth molten!
Cheers.
The data Mike Flynn refuses to look at:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Mike Flynn
Maybe if you hear it enough times it will someday stick. Maybe not this year or next but some day the light might go off inside your head and you go “I get it now!”
YOU: “Its not my fault that you havent got a clue, and cant even define your silly non existent GHE.”
GHE: Downwelling solar energy is transparent to Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. The IR in solar energy is not absorbed by CO2.
The IR emitted by the warm Earth’s surface will be absorbed to some extent by CO2 (David Appell has linked you several times to how much is absorbed based upon Satellite spectrographic data).
The CO2 absorbs the IR and will then emit IR at around 15 microns in all directions including Down.
The DWIR is part of the energy budget of the surface. It will allow the Earth’s surface to reach a higher average surface temperature than if the CO2 was not there.
In many of your posts you attempt to disprove GHE with local and regional conditions. The GHE can be temporarily swamped by a local condition (cold mass of air moving from colder location to a warmer one driving down temperature several degrees for a few days). This does not disprove the concept. The overall warmer surface average does not change much from year to year or even much longer time frames. A few C, It is not changing by the 33 C the surface is warmed by GHE.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/as19_prd.gif
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
A general feature is a grey infrared optical depth, τ0, of ~ 29 at a pressure, p0, of 1 bar. There is a radiativeconvective boundary at a scaled infrared optical depth, Dτrc, of about unity or greater. A tropopause temperature minimum occurs at a pressure, ptp, of about 0.1 bar and a scaled infrared optical depth, Dτtp, of about 0.1. The diffusivity factor D for the optical depth is ~ 1.66 (see text). The thickened portion of the profile indicates the convective part of the troposphere.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/fig_tab/ngeo2020_F2.html
Sorry.
“A general feature is a grey infrared optical depth, τ0, of ~ 2 9 at a pressure, p0, of 1 bar.”
More of Norm’s continuing pseudoscience:
“The DWIR is part of the energy budget of the surface. It will allow the Earths surface to reach a higher average surface temperature than if the CO2 was not there.”
Norm believes a cold sky can heat a warm earth.
Norm believes ice can warm an object already at 20C.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm believes a cold sky can heat a warm earth.”
No that is not what I believe or state in my posts. It is how you twist what I say for your amusement but not the actual content.
The radiation from Ice does not cool anything but actually adds energy to whatever absorbs it. Ice does not radiatively cool anything. Objects cool on there own by emission. Ice does not send the Mike Flynn “cold ray” to a surface. It actually sends positive energy to the surface.
Ice will add some energy to objects but less than warmer surroundings.
A 20 C thermometer in ice will cool faster than in 15 C surroundings but it will never-the-less cool in both situations. The ice will keep it warmer than it would remain if on the dark side of the Moon.
Norman says, May 18, 2017 at 8:15 AM:
I don’t know why I bother, but here goes …
Norman, NOTHING in nature adds energy to anything WARMER than itself.
Anything warmer than the ice will cool TO the ice, yes.
Not if their surroundings are warmer than they are themselves.
Ice will NOT add any energy to anywhere warmer than itself.
YEEES! NOW we’re talking. Your first correct description of how insulation works. Stick to this, Norman, and you’ll be fine!
Norm believes ice can warm an object, already at 20C, to over 60C!
Norm if you believe that, it follows that you must believe a cold sky can warm a hot earth.
Or, are you in denial of your own words, again?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246990
Indeed. Here are his exact words:
The clincher is to be found in those last two sentences. Take careful note of what he says:
“The internal energy source can only raise it to 20 C.”
However, the temperature of the ball rises BEYOND 20C. It rises all the way to 62.35C. In other words, it is NOT the internal energy source that raises the ball’s temperature from 20 to 62.35 degrees Celsius. So what is?
“The internal energy and ice will raise the new temperature to 62.35 C.”
OK. But as Norman pointed out in the previous sentence, the internal energy source can only raise the temperature of the ball to 20C. So then we have our answer, according to Norman himself:
The ice alone warms (by directly adding energy to) the ball from 20 to 62.35 degrees Celsius.
That is, the cold ice makes the already warmer ball even warmer by DIRECT HEATING.
Kristian
Your conclusive statement about my post is your own twisting of what I wrote.
I did emphasize the 20 C is based upon free-space conditions no other energy around, radiating at the maximum for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (418.7 W/m^2 for a blackbody, just use BB for simplicity, you can have materials very close to this emissivity).
YOU: “The ice alone warms (by directly adding energy to) the ball from 20 to 62.35 degrees Celsius.”
NOPE not what I am saying at all. I did clearly write.
ME: “The internal energy and ice will raise the new temperature to 62.35 C.”
The combination of energy input is what raises the temperature. The internal energy in free space can only raise the temperature to 20 C. With the surrounding Ice adding continuous energy to the ball the combination of the energy inputs will add and together the output energy will need to match the input (which is at 718.7 W/m^2). The ball will raise in temperature until it is emitting the same amount of energy that it is receiving.
If I was too loose with my wording, I corrected it for you now. The internal energy source is a constant, it is 418.7 joules/sec. In free space that energy input can only raise the ball temperature to 20 C. Once it is surrounded by any object with temperature the surface of the ball will increase in temperature. Hope that helps.
Norman says, May 18, 2017 at 10:33 AM:
Hehe. No, Norman. You will not slither your way out of this. I’ve quoted your exact words. They’re there for anyone to read. If you MEAN something else than what you did in fact write, then WRITE it differently!
Yes, and then you emphasized that the internal energy source could only warm the ball as far as 20C, but that it ended up warming to 62.35C either way, because of the extra energy input from the ice. This is what you’re saying, Norman.
Hahaha! Then you’re not reading your own words, Norman. And you’re apparently blind to what I point out.
I’m not claiming you’re saying the ice alone warms the ball all the way from -270.45C to 62.35C. I’m pointing out to you what you ARE in fact saying, and that is 1) the internal energy source can only provide the energy to raise the temperature of the ball (from -270.45C) to 20C, and 2) if you place the ice around the ball, it will provide more energy to the ball, thus raising its temperature further, from 20 to 62.35C. This FINAL rise in temperature is the direct work of the energy IN from the ice ALONE. There is no other way of interpreting what you’re saying, Norman.
Again, if you MEAN something else, then WRITE something else!
Exactly! You’re doing it again. You’re verifying what I’m pointing out. You’re saying the same thing all over. Just what I told you you said. It is the addition of extra energy IN from the ice alone that directly causes the temperature of the ball to rise that last stretch, from 20 to 62.35C. Because the energy in from the internal energy source couldn’t raise it beyond the 20C.
Congrats!
Hehe, no. You won’t get away this easily, Norman. Now you’re trying to obfuscate the issue. Listen to this: “In free space that energy input can only raise the ball temperature to 20 C. Once it is surrounded by any object with temperature the surface of the ball will increase in temperature.”
Yes, but HOW? THAT is the question, Norman.
And according to you, this does NOT happen because the cooling of the heated ball is reduced. It distinctly happens because there is more energy ADDED to the heated object, from a SECOND energy source. The ice.
Well, such a warming mechanism is the OPPOSITE of insulation. And what is the opposite warming mechanism of insulation?
You guessed it: DIRECT HEATING.
Sorry, Norman, but I’m afraid you will just HAVE TO change the way you explain this effect. And I have already explained how it works FOR you, upthread. Remember the dime analogy? The cold ice adds no energy to the warmer ball. Just as the cool atmosphere does not add any energy to the warmer surface.
I recall a link that you posted on this blog some time ago. I will quote from that link of yours to show you what is REALLY going on (and bear in mind, this link does so even within the theoretical framework of a two-way transfer model):
https://plstrento.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/pnlstdmeccanismi.pdf
“If the rate of radiation absorp tion is greater than the rate of radiation emission, the surface is said to be GAINING energy by radiation. Otherwise, the surface is said to be LOSING energy by radiation.”
It’s really that straightforward, Norman …
You can verify for yourself how the atmosphere doesn’t add any energy to the surface, and how there is therefore no energy gain, only loss, to be had for the surface from its thermal exchange with the atmosphere, by watching how the surface temperature drop during the night.
Kristian
YOU: “Yes, and then you emphasized that the internal energy source could only warm the ball as far as 20C,”
Yes, that is correct without the ice surrounding it that is all the more the 418.7 joules/sec internal heat source will get the ball to.
I will repost my entire point so you can see what is actually being said:
ME: “If you have it alone in space with no other source of radiant energy then to maintain a temperature of 20 C it needs a source of energy input. To find out how much energy you would have to give me the surface area of your thermometer.
To make it easier use a 1 m^2 ball at 20 C. In order to maintain a temperature of 20 C the ball must have a source of energy that adds continuously 418.7 joules/second.
If you put an ice sphere around this ball in which the ice continuously emits 300 W/m^2 all the 300 joules/second will reach the ball and be absorbed by it. The ball now has an internal source adding 418.7 joules/second and it is receiving 300 joules/second from the ice. The temperature of the ball will raise until it is emitting the same amount of energy it is receiving (which would be 718.7 joules/second). The final equilibrium temperature of the ball would be 62.35 C.
In free space with no surrounding the ball is at 20 C. Surrounding it with ice will raise its temperature to 62.35.
The ice alone does not warm the ball. The internal energy source can only raise it to 20 C. The internal energy and ice will raise the new temperature to 62.35 C.
It is not much different than enclosing a heating element in an oven. The heating element increases the surrounding wall temperature which radiate at higher levels cooking the food faster.
Or in free space with a heating element at the same temperature, you will cook a turkey much faster if you surround the heating element and turkey in a sphere of ice than no sphere at all.
Kristian wrote:
“You can verify for yourself how the atmosphere doesnt add any energy to the surface”
Let’s see your measurement, Kristian.
Because these people did do that measurement, and they found energy impinging on the surface:
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Kristian
YOU STATE: “You can verify for yourself how the atmosphere doesnt add any energy to the surface, and how there is therefore no energy gain, only loss, to be had for the surface from its thermal exchange with the atmosphere, by watching how the surface temperature drop during the night.”
You can certainly tell that the atmosphere is adding energy to the surface by watching how the surface temperature drops during the night.
Without an atmosphere zero energy is added to the surface, all is radiated away at the maximum rate. The rate of cooling will be much greater than with an atmosphere present. It clearly shows that the atmosphere is adding energy to the surface, that is why the temperature drops far slower and almost not at all with heavy cloud cover. The surface emits continuously at the rate determined by its temperature and emissivity that is all. The slowing rate of cooling is exactly because the atmosphere is adding energy to the surface.
Norman says, May 18, 2017 at 8:03 PM:
Wow! You’re even more confused than I thought, Norman. A 1st-grader would get this!
The surface COOLS. In both cases. That means its temperature DROPS. In both cases. That means its total content of “internal energy” [U] goes DOWN. In both cases. Which means:
… NO ENERGY IS ADDED! ENERGY IS REMOVED! LOST! In both cases.
There is no GAIN in energy for the surface in either case, Norman. There is only energy LOSS.
Whether the surface loss is larger or smaller depends on the temperature gradient/difference between the surface and its effective thermal surroundings.
This is how insulation works, Norman: By reducing the LOSS. Not by increasing the GAIN.
Repeat until it sinks in …
Kristian
You can bother but you are wrong based upon all current heat transfer.
YOU: “Norman, NOTHING in nature adds energy to anything WARMER than itself.”
That is your opinion and your declaration and by repeating it you think that makes it more true.
Yes a cold object will add energy to a hot one. It will not add heat which is NET energy. You have energy emitted and absorbed. Any heated object will send energy to a warmer one that will absorb it. Sorry you need to prove your statement true and you have not done it yet and will probably never do it.
Norm believes “Yes a cold object will add energy to a hot one.”
So, there you are folks. What Norm lacks in understanding of science, he makes up for in fervent devotion to his false belief system.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm believes Yes a cold object will add energy to a hot one.
So, there you are folks. What Norm lacks in understanding of science, he makes up for in fervent devotion to his false belief system.”
Not what I believe g*e*r*a*n, it is what the textbooks state.
The cold object will not add heat (which is net energy) but it will add energy to a hot one. But the hot one will simultaneously be losing energy at a more rapid rate. Two processes occur at the surface. One, it absorbs energy that reaches it based upon its absorbitivity. Two it emits energy based upon its temperature and emissivity.
They happen at the same time. The cold object is adding energy to the hot one, read the textbook I linked you to and prove it wrong.
Norm, endless rambling is NOT science. It is an attempt to fake science.
You state things, but then contradict yourself in the same paragraph. You are lost in your pseudoscience, again.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n* says:
“Norm believes Yes a cold object will add energy to a hot one.”
Norman is absolutely right.
A cold object radiates energy.
That energy travels through space.
When that energy impacts another object, the energy is absorbed by the object (a total or partial blackbody).
Energy raises its temperature from what it would be without the first object.
Davie now has proof that ice can bake a turkey!
Notice the cult arriving to “defend” the pseudoscience. I’ve tried to explain, to both Davie and Norm, how surfaces either absorb or reflect photons. But, it’s like talking to two rocks!
g*e*r*a*n* says:
“Davie now has proof that ice can bake a turkey!”
A nice illustration of how your misunderstandings and simplistic thinking leads you to the wrong conclusion.
g*e*r*a*n
Your foundation of your “scientific thought” would come from this mathematician. He may be very good with math but it does not make him a physics expert. He is going against accepted physics but he does not experiments himself and we are just supposed to believe him.
Claes Johnson. I have read some of his material. I do not think it is sound logic. I will post you to one of his articles in which a couple physics experts devour his points. He is not so brilliant as you suppose. If you go against the established order you must be willing to prove it with valid experiments.
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/radiative-heat-transfer-phlogistons-and.html
It does not mean his speculations are wrong but I am not going to jump on his wagon without him providing some evidence for his claims otherwise I will continue to use textbook knowledge.
That’s another useless ramble, Norm.
I have no idea what point you’re struggling to make, and neither do you.
Kristian
I can link you to textbooks that say exactly what I am saying. None say what you claim. How many textbooks are wrong in your mind? All of them I would suppose.
I have FLIR instrument proving energy is moving toward a hotter object. You have not tests, no experiments, no links to science pages showing you are correct yet you call me wrong? Why do you insist on this with zero evidence to support your claims. I mean zero as in NONE!
Norm, “proving energy is moving toward a hotter object” does not prove the object will be warmed by the energy, or even “accept” the energy.
You have so much to learn, but there is no way to get info into a closed mind.
That’s sad, but your continued attempt to determine what is and what isn’t science, is hilarious!
Don’t go away!
g*e*r*a*n* says:
“Norm, proving energy is moving toward a hotter object does not prove the object will be warmed by the energy, or even accept the energy.”
It does for a blackbody, or a grey body, which is what all these arguments assume.
No Davie, you “assume” that. It’s one of your tricks, because such “bodies” do not exist in nature. The Earth is NOT a black body. But, you keep thinking it is. That’s why you never get anything right.
Norman says, May 18, 2017 at 10:41 AM:
Hahaha! What BS! You don’t understand what those textbooks are actually saying, Norman, THAT’S the problem here. That’s why we have this discussion at all. g*e*r*a*n is absolutely correct when he says:
“Norm, you don’t have a clue about science. Your entire AGW “background” is based on “links”. I have seen times when you didn’t even understand the link that you thought proved your pseudoscience.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247368
You obviously haven’t taken the time to personally acquire the basic knowledge needed to get a full grasp of this subject, so you rely completely on “links”, on specific descriptions of simplified mathematical models that everyone who actually KNOWS the subject matter immediately and tacitly understands are just that, conceptual descriptions of entities or phenomena posited as ‘real’ within a particular, generally agreed-upon (conventional) theoretical framework (like the “two-stream (Schuster-Schwarzschild; Eddington) approximation”), but which will almost invariably be interpreted as “literal reality” (like many Christian fundamentalists interpret the Bible) by those who have no prior contextual understanding of what is being described. That’s YOU, Norman …
All textbooks, tests and experiments agree with what I’m saying, Norman, NOT with what you’re claiming. I’m just stating it in a slightly different way. In an attempt to avoid confusion about – for instance – cause and effect. If you were only a bit more interested in finding out what I’m ACTUALLY saying, and a little bit less focused on what you THINK I’m saying (your string of straw men), you might perhaps have gained some wider understanding …
g*e*r*a*n* says:
“Norm believes a cold sky can heat a warm earth.”
It can and it does. Without violating the 2nd law.
We’re going to have to call you Dense Davie.
It sure fits.
An international team of authors led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., used more than a century of weather observations and three powerful computer models to tackle one of the more difficult questions in meteorology: if the total energy that reaches Earth from the Sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the approximately 11-year solar cycle, how can it drive major changes in weather patterns on Earth?
The answer, according to the study, has to do with the Sun’s impact on two seemingly unrelated regions.
Chemicals in the stratosphere and sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean respond during solar maximum in a way that amplifies the Sun’s influence on some aspects of air movement.
This can intensify winds and rainfall, change sea surface temperatures and cloud cover over certain tropical and subtropical regions, and ultimately influence global weather.
“The Sun, the stratosphere, and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence events such as winter rainfall in North America,” says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the lead author of the paper. “Understanding the role of the solar cycle can provide added insight as scientists work over the next decade or two toward predicting regional weather patterns.”
The results builds on recent papers by Meehl and colleagues exploring the link between the peaks in the solar cycle and events on Earth that resemble aspects of La Nia events, but are distinct from those larger patterns associated with changes in pressure and known as the Southern Oscillation.
The connection between peaks in solar energy and cooler water in the equatorial Pacific was first discovered by Harry Van Loon of NCAR and Colorado Research Associates, a co-author of the paper.
The contribution by Meehl and his colleagues is to document that two mechanisms that had been previously theorized in fact work together to amplify the response in the tropical Pacific.
The team first confirmed a theory that the slight increase in solar energy during the peak production of sunspots is absorbed by stratospheric ozone.
The energy warms the air in the stratosphere over the tropics where the sunlight is most intense, while also stimulating the production of additional ozone there that absorbs even more solar energy.
Since the stratosphere warms unevenly, with the most pronounced warming occurring at lower latitudes, stratospheric winds are altered and, through a chain of interconnected processes, end up strengthening tropical storms and precipitation.
At the same time, the increased sunlight at solar maximum causes a slight warming of ocean surface waters, especially across the subtropical Pacific, where Sun-blocking clouds are normally scarce.
That small amount of extra heat leads to more evaporation, producing additional water vapor.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115485&org=NSF&from=news
Good grief.
“if the total energy that reaches Earth from the Sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the approximately 11-year solar cycle, how can it drive major changes in weather patterns on Earth?”
Has Edward Lorenz’s work been consigned to oblivion so quickly?
His paper “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterflys Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas? is meant to be taken literally, according to the author.
I know chaos theory throws a spanner in the works, reflecting Nature as it does, but pretending it doesn’t exist won’t make the future any more predictable. I’m guessing there are grants to be had, by ignoring chaos, but I could be wrong.
Cheers.
The largest amount of ozone is in the zone of about 10 hPA. That is why waves are so important in the winter at this altitude.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_10_nh_f00.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_NH_2017.png
Mike Flynn says:
“Good grief.
if the total energy that reaches Earth from the Sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the approximately 11-year solar cycle, how can it drive major changes in weather patterns on Earth?
“Has Edward Lorenzs work been consigned to oblivion so quickly?”
Good grief.
That conclusion about solar energy delivery has absolutely nothing to do with chaos or the work of Edward Lorenz. It’s a straightforward energy balance calculation.
The Earth’s surface receives an average of 239 W/m2 from the Sun.
0.1% of that is 0.24 W/m2. That’s roughly equivalent to CO2’s change in forcing over a decade.
The climate isn’t very sensitive to changes in solar intensity.
Also, the ocean is not blue because it emits blue light.
“Thats roughly equivalent to CO2s change in forcing over a decade.”
No Davie, CO2’s “change in forcing”, over any time span, is ZERO! Sorry, but you can’t create energy out of thin air. (
You see, “Watts/m^2”, over time is ENERGY. So, adding CO2 can NOT produce Watts/m^2, no matter what your pseudoscience papers say.
Sorry.
Too dumb to reply to.
Too much for your closed mind to handle.
‘if the total energy that reaches Earth from the Sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the approximately 11-year solar cycle, how can it drive major changes in weather patterns on Earth?”
It should kept in mind that earth each year travels closer and then further away from the Sun, and thereby giving a range of solar flux reaching Earth of about 1,413 when earth is 0.9833
AU from sun and 1,321 watts per square meter when at 1.017 AU
And the variant refers to from distance of 1 AU [or the solar constant]. Or .1 percent of 1,413 is 14.13 watts and of 1,321
it’s 13.21 watts per square meter.
When at perihelion it the solar flux could be 1,413 +/- 14.13
or about 1427 or 1399 watts per square meter, and likewise with the aphelion distance.
oh crap that would be 1 percent [so move decimal point over one] anyhow from chart at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
and it includes all major planets
Norman wrote, as part of a bizarre attempt to define the non existent GHE –
“Downwelling solar energy is transparent to Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. The IR in solar energy is not absorbed by CO2.”
This is supposed to be science? I didn’t keep going.
The first sentence is just nonsensical – solar energy cannot be transparent to anything. It’s energy – not matter. The second sentence is just scientific nonsense – GHE enthusiasts make great play of the IR absorbing properties of CO2!
No GHE. Norman may be confused, or functionally illiterate in either English or physics. Or maybe suggestible or gullible – he certainly believes in something which cannot even be defined by its supporters. A figment of someone’s imagination, not real.
Cheers.
C’mon now Mike. I’m sure Norman meant that ‘Carbon Dioxide is transparent to the downwelling solar energy’, but not so transparent to the upwelling, lower frequency, infra-red from the earth’s surface.
Isn’t that the basic principle of the so-called greenhouse effect?
Though this graph tells a different story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
Gbaikie – 1% of the power of solar radiation is above 4um wavelength. Even if GHGs absorbed all of that, it would have a maximum 1% impact on downwelling radiation. GHGs absorb upwelling radiation far more effectively, particularly in the 15um band, but also around 10um.
There is a sicentific shorthand for distinguishing solar radiation and terrestrial radiation. Solar is ‘shortwave’, and terrestrial is ‘longwave.’ There is some overlap but not much, and the overlap is at extremely low intensity. GHGs are more effective at absorbing longwave radiation. Oxygen and ozone are more powerful absorbers in the shortwave range.
It is this optical asymmetry that gives us the greenhouse effect.
Here’s another graph showing solar and terrestrial radiation profiles, where peak intensity is a the top of the parabola, and where in the spectrum various gases absorb most strongly.
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg
The asymmetry is pretty clear.
The GHE evidence “Mike Flynn” is afraid to admit exists:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
(broken record)
I’ll keep posting it — it shows what a fake “Mike Flynn” is, and you too — both afraid to even look at the evidence.
Davie, the only thing that is “evidence” of is that you do not understand electromagnetic radiation and radiative heat transfer. Because a molecule absorbs a photon, does not magically make that molecule a “heat source”. There is NO new energy!
You have so much to learn, but your mind is closed.
Mike Flynn
Thanks for pointing out my error. Should have read Carbon Dioxide is transparent to Downwelling solar energy. I did mess up the content. I have now corrected it.
Carbon Dioxide is transparent to downwelling solar energy including the solar IR. Carbon Dioxide is opaque to Upwelling IR from the surface in the 15 micron range.
Does that clear it up for you. Just and error on my part.
Norman,
Don’t be silly Norman.
The atmosphere is not transparent to downwelling solar energy. Even foolish Warmists at NASA admit this –
“About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, . . .”
Of course they can’t admit that CO2 also absorbs incoming solar energy in the 15 um band – that would be admitting they are frauds.
I suppose you could claim that the Sun does not emit radiation in the 15 um band, but you would be either incredibly stupid, delusional, or intentionally lying.
As far back as 1969, NASA was using 15 um remote sensing from satellites pointed at the Earth. The atmosphere cools at night. The atmosphere is obviously not opaque to energy leaving the surface. Otherwise, it wouldn’t cool would it?
But all this is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether the atmosphere absorbs energy. The energy doesn’t vanish. Foolish Warmists who believe that CO2 can only absorb or emit photons of specific energy levels are completely deluded. Do you believe air at 20 C is not emitting IR?
Do you believe that air at 30 C, or 500 C, is not emitting IR? Do you not believe that adiabatic heating (as occurs in a bicycle pump or Diesel engine) exists? Tim Folkerts doesn’t, which shows how attached to reality he is. Things get hotter, things cool down. The atmosphere is no exception, is it? Neither is CO2!
You just keep repeating demonstrable and illogical nonsense – whether due to delusional psychosis, gullibility, or stupidity is moot.
Obviously, you may be of there same ilk as the likes of Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann. They would obviously have difficulty even reaching the level of second raters in any real scientific field. If you want to feel insulted, I can’t prevent you. Not my problem, is it?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Of course they cant admit that CO2 also absorbs incoming solar energy in the 15 um band”
So you do admit that CO2 absorbs in the 15 micron band. Useful to know.
Now, tell us how much sunlight there is in that band.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“I suppose you could claim that the Sun does not emit radiation in the 15 um band, but you would be either incredibly stupid, delusional, or intentionally lying.”
More insults from Mike Flynn.
Tell us, what percentage of the Sun’s energy is in the 15 micron band?
“As far back as 1969, NASA was using 15 um remote sensing from satellites pointed at the Earth.”
Those satellites are measuring the radiation from the Earth, Einstein, not radiation from Sun!
Oh boy…..
David Appell,
Foolish Warmist. You wrote –
“Those satellites are measuring the radiation from the Earth, Einstein, . . . “, precisely my point, David of small brain – through that same atmosphere which foolish Warmists claim is opaque.
In your small foolish Warmist brain, opaque means transparent, I know.
Keep trying. You’ll never be as smart as me.
Cheers.
More insults.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Does the atmosphere look opaque at 15 microns?
Does it look totally transparent at 15 microns?
Mike Flynn says:
“As far back as 1969, NASA was using 15 um remote sensing from satellites pointed at the Earth. The atmosphere cools at night. The atmosphere is obviously not opaque to energy leaving the surface.”
Here’s where someone truly interested in the science would consult the data I’ve been challenging you with all along:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Does the atmosphere look opaque at 15 microns?
Does it look totally transparent at 15 microns?
Mike Flynn wrote:
“Foolish Warmists who believe that CO2 can only absorb or emit photons of specific energy levels are completely deluded.”
Did you take high school chemistry?
Have you ever heard of molecular quantum energy levels?????
Or are you an engineer by training?
David Appell,
You’re a foolish Warmist, with but a tenuous grip on reality. I’m not sure whether you aspire to be a bearded balding bumbling buffoon, or whether you are one.
Feel free to debate quantum electrodynamics with me, if you wish.
I will use a real Nobel Prize Physicist’s work to support. You may use as many fake Nobel Laureates as you wish. Maybe you could appeal to a consensus of foolish Warmists who believe in the power of CO2 to cause thermometers to get hotter.
You’re either a fool, a fraud, or quite delusional. I have not met you, and I cannot examine your mind worms, so I am assuming, of course. if you have facts which disprove my assumptions, I presume you will produce them. Or maybe you could cry, throw a tantrum, and claim you feel insulted.
I really don’t care, one way or the other.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn:
“….if you have facts which disprove my assumptions, I presume you will produce them.”
Ha! You run in the opposite direction of data.
You’re such a phony.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“I really dont care, one way or the other.”
Of course you do — or you wouldn’t keep responding.
Mike Flynn says:
“I will use a real Nobel Prize Physicists work to support”
Like Arrhenius?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Mike Flynn
I would love to see your evidence of Carbon Dioxide emitting at significant IR at all wavelengths of IR. Your really do not have any grip on science. I have a Chemistry background any we used IR spectroscopy to help identify unknown compounds since certain groups of atoms emit unique IR fingerprints. You have a super shallow science background.
Here:
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm
Do you research anything or do you disbelieve all except what you have internally divined as truth though sacred belief in your own superior intelligence??
“I have a Chemistry background…”
I love it when Norm brags about his “credentials”! He has NONE! His weak degree (BA) in chemistry is from a college that no longer offers that degree. He washes beakers for a living!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
And how does your pointless taunt about me do anything to advance science?
Troll.
What have you offered? Have you found any posts of yours that have a shred of science?
What is your purpose in posting on a science blog?
Norm, I am opposed to pseudoscience, and the phonies that promote it.
So you haven’t heard of molecular quantum energy levels.
Figures.
You need to study high school chemistry, son.
David Appell
I agree reading some science would help Mike Flynn enormously, he has a lot of gaps in his knowledge.
He suffers strongly from Dunning-Kruger effect.
Norman, I can’t agree with that.
Mike Flynn, and g*eran, are just pretending to be dense. You can tell because they never ever reply to questions and never confront the evidence — they avoid it at all costs.
They get their jollies by winding people up. It’s a very strange and sad hobby, but there it is.
David Appell
I know this for sure about g*e*r*a*n. He is a complete troll and that is all he is and he gets perverted pleasure from trying to annoy people, don’t feel bad he even attacks one of the strongest skeptics Tony Heller.
I have some hopes that Mike Flynn is not of the same stock, just maybe really limited in his knowledge but with a huge ego that does not let him realize his limitations and lack of understanding. I am sad if he is a troll also. What a waste of potential intellect.
Norman, to me MF is even worse. He made one wrong claim after another, and will never correct himself or even try to defend himself.
There’s a lot of great science here to understand. Denying even 1+1=2 is a strange affliction.
I’m so glad Norm and Davie are best buds now. Davie is no longer calling Norm a “dick”. They both thrive on pseudoscience.
It’s amazing to watch….
THis is exactly how g*eran avoids answering questions put to him.
Davie, there was no question. But, here’s one for you: Are you delusional?
Are you a child?
g*e*r*a*n
Not “best buds” but the GHE is a topic we both agree upon. There would be no point is disagreeing with his points where they seem perfectly valid based upon the textbook information I have studied.
Something you should try you might actually enjoy reading the material and get over you addiction of annoying and taunting people.
Wouldn’t that be more beneficial? Not sure what your taunts really accomplish. I keep hoping reason may change your ways. There is always hope you know.
Norm, you don’t have a clue about science. Your entire AGW “background” is based on “links”. I have seen times when you didn’t even understand the link that you thought proved your pseudoscience. You are a clown.
You’re always trying to rate everyone else’s knowledge of science, yet you are at the bottom of the stack. The fact that you don’t realize how silly you are, just adds to the comedy.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Your post confirms all I state about you. Your are a troll that offers no science but just like to taunt and annoy.
YOU: “Norm, you dont have a clue about science. Your entire AGW background is based on links. I have seen times when you didnt even understand the link that you thought proved your pseudoscience. You are a clown.
Youre always trying to rate everyone elses knowledge of science, yet you are at the bottom of the stack. The fact that you dont realize how silly you are, just adds to the comedy.”
Just a rambling taunt. Designed to annoy and generate a response
You could try and look at textbooks and point out how you think i am getting the context wrong. You do not do this, however.
You claim I don’t understand my links so demonstrate which ones.
g: “I have seen times when you didnt even understand the link that you thought proved your pseudoscience.”
Norm: “You claim I dont understand my links so demonstrate which ones.”
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm
(It’s so easy to prove you wrong because you very seldom get anything right!)
David of exceptionally small brain and even smaller mind reading abilities,
Einstein said “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
I believe you may have posted the same irrelevant computer computer graphic some 33 times, seeking explanation of one sort or another.
You persist in demanding I do this or that, telling me what I think, what I need to do, and so on. You appear to have some delusional belief that this repetitive behaviour will somehow achieve a different result to those you have already achieved.
Maybe the high school you went to, taught nonsense – even consensus nonsense, for all I know, and you really don’t know any better – you are merely repeating what some person thought they knew.
Just like Gavin Schmidt declaring “Hottest year EVAH!”, with people believing that a 38% calculated probability is about the same as certainty. What a Wally! some fools repeated his nonsense as fact, or even evidence of a non-existent GHE!
Keep up the demands, David. Maybe Einstein was wrong. Maybe you’ll be right one day.
Cheers.
The London Climate Change Conference 2016. Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller.
21 paź 2016
Anew planetary temperature-model and its implication for the Greenhouse theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L82YMAuhjvw
“If the global temperature is independent of atmospheric composition as suggested by our inter-planetary analysis, then there is no mechanism for human-induced carbon dioxide emissions to impact Earths climate.
The progress of science is not driven by consensus! If you study the history of scientific discoveries, you will find that theoretical breakthroughs, i.e. the introduction of fundamental new concepts, have always been carried out by individuals or small groups of researchers outside the mainstream consensus. For example, there was a unanimous consensus once that the Earth was at the center of the Universe and all celestial bodies revolved around us. Likewise, 120 years ago, there was a consensus among physicists and engineers that heavier-than-air machines cannot fly. The truth about physical phenomena can only be uncovered through careful observations, proper experimentation, and unbiased sound reasoning. A blind adherence to the consensus of the day oftentimes hinders the advancement of knowledge.”
ren says:
“The progress of science is not driven by consensus!”
Baloney.
There is a consensus about the laws of thermodynamics — or do you worry that your car won’t start in the morning because the 2nd law of thermodynamics was found to be in error overnight.
Do you think you computer will stop working tomorrow because today the quantum principles of semiconductors was overthrown?
Might satellites fall to the Earth tomorrow because someone found that gravity really isn’t proportional to the inverse second power of the distance from the Earth’s center of mass?
All straw men examples, Davie. “Consensus” has a poor track record in the history of science. Ever heard of the “Dark Ages”?
“Consensus has a poor track record in the history of science.”
Such as?
“Ever heard of the Dark Ages?”
Study some history — they occurred before the scientific era.
Davie, you are so desperate. Science started well before the Dark Ages.
Do you know anything?
Modern science started with Galileo. 1564-1642.
Hilarious!
Just throw away anything before some arbitrary “start date”!
Archimedes is probably getting a huge laugh at that. They didn’t have “climate comedy” back in his day.
Archimedes thought men had more teeth than women. It never occurred to him to actually look and count them.
You don’t know how many teeth he counted.
But, we know his physics can “float boats”!
Lame.
Aristotle was so wrong about so many things, and dogmatic at that, that he set science back almost 2000 years. Galileo thought he was a fool. And Aristotle was, completely without the methodology we now take for granted — like counting teeth to determine their number.
So, you think, if Aristotle were alive today, he would believe in AGW?
(It is often fun to just let Davie run on. He has the ability to hang himself, given enough rope. Above, he confuses Aristotle with Archimedes! And, he obviously didn’t catch my hint “float boats”. His response was “lame”!
The guy is clueless.)
No wonder your science is so screwed up. The progress of science is driven by the scientific method, of which consensus is NOT a tenet. The steps of the scientific method do not include consensus.
Consensus occurs once the scientific method has been followed, fulfilled and proven something.
What do you think the endgame of the scientific method is, anyway?
Davie, the scientific method has NOT been followed in the AGW hoax. It started with fear tactics to get more funding, and it hasn’t stopped since. Fewer and fewer people trust institutionalized science, because of the hoax.
What papers are the scientific basis for AGW?
Davie, there is NO scientific basis for AGW.
Which of these papers, in your expert opinion, are wrong, and why?
“The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation for the Climate Change Forecast,” 1st Edition
by David Archer (Editor), Raymond Pierrehumbert (Editor)
2011.
https://www.amazon.com/Warming-Papers-Scientific-Foundation-Forecast/dp/1405196165
Davie, if a “science paper” violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, or any other proven Law, then it is NOT science. It is pseudoscience.
Any such paper that, even remotely, hints CO2 is a “heat source” can be tossed.
Which of those papers, in your expert opinion, are wrong, and why?
Any such paper that, even remotely, hints CO2 is a heat source can be tossed.
Can’t cite even one paper, huh.
Any such paper that, even remotely, hints CO2 is a heat source can be tossed.
Take your pick.
I knew you didn’t have any such paper, but thanks for confirming.
Davie, if you must have a specific one, use your hero’s. You know, the paper where he says the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K.
Hilarious!
Every time you lie about that paper, your credibility is divided by 2.
And it’s already scrapping the x-axis…….
Davie, you’ve already been busted on this one. Do you just want to keep getting shot down, or do you want to try to learn something?
David Appell,
Deny, divert, and confuse, seem to be your watchwords.
You overlook the word “progress”, in your usual sloppy self-serving fashion.
Progress comes when someone challenges the consensus, or discovers something completely unknown to the existing comfortable consensus.
Examples might include the discovery that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe, that phlogiston does not exist, nor does the luminiferous ether.
The discovery of radiogenic heat destroyed consensus as to the likely age of the Earth, based on measurements of heat loss, and assumptions about composition. The work for which Einstein received a Nobel Prize went against the consensus.
He received his Nobel Prize for “his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”, as far as I know.
So it would appear that you are just spouting delusional rubbish, unless you can support it with fact. The non-existent Greenhouse Effect is more rubbish. No Nobel Prize to be had, in spite of Michael Mann’s claims to the contrary (since withdrawn by Mann, after the Nobel Committee had to issue a written statement pointing out that Mann’s belief was delusional).
Keep it up David. Some might need a butt for their jokes – I’m assuming yours is large enough to accommodate a sufficient quantity! Let me know if I’m wrong, or just take as much offence as you can cope with.
Cheers.
More insults.
All while hiding from the data.
The ocean is not blue because it emits blue light.
Atomic and molecular energy levels are quantized.
The Sun emits extremely little radiation in the 15 micron band.
The evidence for the greenhouse effect is starkly obvious:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Mike Flynn says:
“The work for which Einstein received a Nobel Prize went against the consensus. He received his Nobel Prize for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, as far as I know.”
As usual, you know wrong.
“The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein “for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”.”
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/
Before Einstein there was no consensus about the photoelectric effect. After Einstein there was a consensus.
If you think scientists are suddenly going to find that they were wrong all along and CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and does not increase surface temperatures, you are wrong and indeed a fool.
Davie, “scientists” have long known that CO2 can not heat the planet. It’s the “pseudoscientists” that will find out they are wrong. (But, few will admit it.)
g*e*r*a*n* says:
“Davie, scientists have long known that CO2 can not heat the planet.”
Since when?
Who discovered that? Citation?
Davie, seriously, can’t you do anything for yourself?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
You claimed that CO2 doesn’t heat planets.
Who discovered that, and where can I read their paper?
Davie, now you’re backing away, again!
You asked for scientists who “deny” AGW. I gave a brief list–first one from a brief search.
Now you’re off on other planets.
See how you “bob and weave”? That means you don’t have the facts and logic to support your belief system. All you have is debate tricks.
Hilarious.
You claimed that CO2 doesnt heat planets.
Now you can’t offer any papers that say that.
g*e*r*a*n
I looked at your link and I do not think it reflects at all your conclusion: “Davie, scientists have long known that CO2 can not heat the planet.”
I do not see anything in this link that would support your claim.
Norm, you can NOT see again?
It’s not really your eyesight, it’s your ability to take in any facts that are contrary to your belief system.
g*e*r*a*n
Which of the headers prove that scientists do not believe CO2 causes wamring? From your link.
First one: “These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.”
Nothing about CO2 not warming in this one.
Second One: “These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.”
Still nothing here says CO2 does not cause warming
Third One: “These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural”
Nothing confirming your conclusion yet
Fourth One: “These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.”
Still nothing to verify your claim
Fifth One: “These scientists have published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.”
That does not support your claim either.
It just goes to show that is why you troll and attempt to annoy and taunt. You really do not have any ability to research or form any type of rational or logical thought process.
I guess you should just do what you are good at, trolling. Since science, logic or rational thought process to form valid conclusions are not within your skill set.
Norm, I think you are missing the point. It seems you do that a lot.
I was just showing Davie how quickly a search could be done. He believes, as you, that the “science is settled”. He believes that there are no scientists that oppose the AGW “theory”. My link was one of the first, when I searched on “scientists who oppose AGW”.
You’re welcome to do all such searches yourself. Knock yourself out.
You claimed that CO2 doesn’t heat planets.
And now cant offer any papers that say that.
🙂
Davie, CO2 does not “heat” anything. It is not a thermodynamic heat source.
You’ve just got to get that worm out of your head. (Along with a few others, too.)
Not interested in answering dumb questions.
Nikolov & Zeller have been wrong since they first peeped above the horizon. Very wrong. They are scientific charlatans.
Standard radiative physics very easily accounts for the average temperature of the moon — a calculation they have never acknowledged.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
Davie, I bet N&Z didn’t say the Sun could radiatively heat the Earth to 800,000K, like your pseudoscience hero.
He didn’t, liar.
He did.
His exact words:
In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.
“…if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
Davie, you don’t have enough physics background to see the fallacy.
The “if” is a hypothetical case. So, assume that hypothetical case. The Earth has no way to get rid of the solar heat.
Your hero says the Earth would then heat to 800,000K!
That is pseudoscience. Do you know why?
if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.
Yeah, you don’t know why.
Most 2nd year physics students could tell you why. But, you haven’t a clue.
Hilarious.
This is a very dumb line of discussion.
Everyone knows what Pierrehumbert wrote and what he meant.
This is really the best you can do?
-That is pseudoscience. Do you know why?-
Non-magnified sunlight at earth distance does not have a temperature of 800,000K.
Of course in low orbit of sun the temperature also isn’t 800,000 K.
Sun’s surface temperature is 5,778 K which means the sun’s surface can’t warm anything over 5776 K and that includes magnifying the sunlight. Of course that is average temperature- lightning or say something impacting the sun can generate higher temperatures.
So sun at it’s surface is not hot enough and at longer distance [if not magnified] the amount it can heat up something is reduced.
And guess it also pseudoscience because it’s a very stupid thing to say. {and the “peer review” sucks].
gbaikie gets the gold star!
Clearly, yes, you are a child. Or, at least, childish.
Waste of time.
Translation: Davie is busted, AGAIN!
You can have the last word. Go for it.
Interesting presentation. I like the suggestion to move away from the term GHE to ATE. I wonder if it would eliminate 60% of the conversation here though. 🙂
ATE?
Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement
It’s not “thermal” in the traditional use of the word, it’s radiative.
Everyone understands that the “greenhouse effect” is a metaphor. And it’s a good one. No need to change it.
Dave and those who agree could be correct. It is just to early still to know but I do think now-through next year or two will shed more light.
As I have said many times this period of time in the climate is a test.
Dave knows much I respect that, even though I do not agree that much but he knows his stuff and represent the AGW point of view as good as I have seen.
Very dedicated to his point of view . We shall see. He holds me to the fire.
Right now no points of view on the climate can be 100% ignored. To many unknowns questions and data coming up.
I would say as of today the climate is not cooperating with any point of view to any extent. It is stuck in neutral we have to wait.
Mike Flynn
YOU SAY “As far back as 1969, NASA was using 15 um remote sensing from satellites pointed at the Earth. The atmosphere cools at night. The atmosphere is obviously not opaque to energy leaving the surface. Otherwise, it wouldnt cool would it?”
Not sure what you are getting at here since it has not context but I did look into it.
From this paper:
https://tinyurl.com/l4jrd83
Norman,
Are you saying that what I said is untrue? If you aren’t, why mention my comment?
If you are calling me a liar, will you provide me with a grovelling unreserved apology for your false accusation, if I can provide NASA’s documentation in support of what I said?
Of course you won’t, you’ll just continue to deny, divert, and confuse.
You can call me anything you like. The ramblings of a delusional psychotic are of little import to me. Have you any proof you are not delusional?
I thought not.
Cheers.
The mistakes of Mike Flynn (so far):
The ocean is not blue because it emits blue light.
Atomic and molecular energy levels are, in fact, quantized.
The Sun emits extremely little radiation in the 15 micron band.
Does the atmosphere look opaque at 15 microns? He won’t say.
Does it look totally transparent at 15 microns? He doesn’t know.
The evidence for the greenhouse effect is starkly obvious, but he’s afraid to even look at it:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Mike Flynn
I was pointing out that the atmosphere is opaque at 15 microns since the satellite was reading the IR at the tropopause being emitted by cooler CO2 at that level of atmosphere, it was not reading the 15 micron emission at the surface. Is that better explanation?
Also the atmosphere is not cooling the surface radiatively (it does directly cool the surface via convection).
The surface cools radiatively by emitting its own IR. If nothing returns to the surface it cools rapidly. With an atmosphere with GHG, some upwelling IR is abosorbed by the GHG which then emit IR back to the surface that is absorbed slowing cooling rate, not cooling the surface.
How does an IR emitting atmosphere cool the surface? It is not taking energy away from the surface (which is a cooling porcess), the surface is emitting it on its own with or without an atmosphere.
The rate of emission is only based upon the surface temperature and its emissivity, it will not change emitting at that rate with our without and atmosphere so I am wondering at your word choice that the atmosphere is what is cooling the surface.
Norman,
The surface emits radiation. The surface cools. It doesn’t matter whether there is atmosphere or not. This is how the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, I suppose.
I didn’t say the atmosphere cools the surface.
Matter cools by emitting photons – nothing more, nothing less.
All the way to absolute zero, if no photons are available from an outside source.
It’s as simple as that.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Yes you are finally understanding the Greenhouse effect!
The atmosphere does provide the photons that makes the Earth reach a much warmer equilibrium temperature than without the atmosphere.
Good job and good post! I thought it might take several more years before the light went off in your head.
At least my time spent responding to all your posts was not wasted.
Norm, I like your mis-understanding of what Mike wrote!
And, you even managed to work in your pseudoscience:
“The atmosphere does provide the photons that makes the Earth reach a much warmer equilibrium temperature than without the atmosphere.”
Confusion, pseudoscience, all in one!
Hilarious.
Norman,
You managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
What happened to all the photons from the sun, and their energy, which don’t reach the surface due to the atmosphere?
You GHE fantasists believe that allowing less energy to reach a thermometer causes the thermometer to get hotter! All due to the magic of CO2, which apparently is a metaphor for something else, whose name must never be said!
You still haven’t managed to define your non-existent GHE. You seem to claim that CO2 has the miraculous property of making some thermometers hotter, and some colder, simultaneously. Apparently, this means that an unknown number of thermometers in unspecified places must have their temperatures averaged. It is necessary to keep doing this until you get the answer you want.
Complete arrant nonsense, of course.
No GHE, no luminiferous ether, no unicorns. Maybe if you pray harder, you can make a thermometer hotter with the brilliance of your mind – CO2 certainly won’t work.
Cheers.
Norman…”The atmosphere does provide the photons that makes the Earth reach a much warmer equilibrium temperature than without the atmosphere”.
Norman…why are you so focused on photons and radiation theory? The only reason the theory has become popular is it’s usage by climate modelers. Radiation theory comes stock with differential equations that can be easily programmed into climate models.
The differential equations required to describe conduction and convection are far too complex to be used in climate models so the modelers invented a bizarre theory in which the planet cools primarily via radiation.
They must have missed the announcement of Woods in 1909 when he claimed infrared radiated by the surface would drop off due to the inverse square law at 1/d^2.
Power drops off according to the inverse square law. I have tried to point out to anyone who has ears and can listen that a 1500 watt electric stove ring glowing cherry red will seriously damage your finger with radiation if you hold it close enough without contacting the ring. Yet, if you move your finger 5 feet away you won’t even feel the heat.
How is a radiation of 250 w/m^2 surface temp going to be any different? By the time that radiation reaches 10 metres it is almost all gone.
Gordon Robertson
I have already discussed this point with you on another thread. I pointed out the error of your thinking. You have not changed so it is a waste of time to go over it again. You are content with your beliefs and opinions and that is good enough.
Just don’t waste my time asking questions I have already addressed and answered for you.
Gordon, convection and conduction can cool a surface but only radiation leaves the Earth system. That is what determines the energy of the whole system (energy in minus energy out, if not balanced the whole earth system will cool or warm).
Mike Flynn
“The IRIS (Infrared I*nterferometer Spectrometer) in 1969 observed surface
temperatures of 320 K in the 11 micron window region of the spectrum and tropopause
e*missions of 210 K in the 15 micron a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n band. As the spectral region moves toward
the centre of the CO2 a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n band, the radiation temperature decreases due to the
decrease of temperature with altitude in the lower atmosphere”
The satellite looking down at Earth could only see the *emission from the tropopause in the 15 micron wavelength but all the way to the surface in the 11 micron band.
What are you trying to say with your statement?
Norman,
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
If you can’t quote exactly what I said, you make it impossible for me to respond. This, of course, is why foolish Warmists refuse to address facts, and continually attempt to deny, divert and confuse.
You might find yourself looking stupid, and have to acknowledge that you couldn’t comprehend English.
Either that, or appear even more stupid for not asking for clarification. Or you could just say that the dog ate your homework, or provide some other pathetic excuse. Go for it.
Cheers.
David Appell’s grand theory of GHE –
“The ocean is not blue because it emits blue light.”
Of course not David, it emits invisible GHE light, which turns blue in the presence of CO2!
Are you completely mad – are you claiming the light is some other colour, or it’s not being emitted from the ocean?
Is your brain infested with Warmist worms?
Nows your opportunity to say you didn’t really mean that the ocean is not blue because it emits blue light. Obviously. You really meant brown overcoats are actually green, unless they’re not, didn’t you?
Or maybe you’re going to say that unicorns, the GHE, and Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot must exist, because nobody can prove they don’t. Wow.
Got any more room in your mouth for another foot? Maybe you could post a picture of your butt – I have a few jokes that need one.
Cheers.
David Appell.
You wrote –
“You claimed that CO2 doesnt heat planets.”
I agree that CO2 doesn’t heat planets, or even unicorns.
I suppose you think that you can demonstrate otherwise? Only joking.
Of course you can’t. You’re either a fraud, gullible, or a delusional psychotic.
Can you prove otherwise? Of course not.
Cheers.
David Appell,
You wrote –
“Everyone understands that the greenhouse effect is a metaphor. And its a good one. No need to change it.”
Well, that’s all right then! Something like $70,000,000,000 spent on a metaphor.
At least you say its a good metaphor. I wonder what a bad one would look like? Maybe you could provide some guidance?
Cheers.
David Appell,
Maybe that’s why Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize was only metaphorical. It was for metaphorical advances in a metaphorical field, awarded to a metaphorical scientist.
I’m not sure why you prefer a metaphorical effect to a real effect. Perhaps Einstein’s real work on a real effect, for which he received a real Nobel Prize.
Maybe you prefer metaphorical intelligence, or metaphorical facts.
You don’t seem to be liberally endowed with real intelligence or real acts. Oh well, maybe you’re only a metaphor for something that doesn’t exist. No point asking you what it is – only a metaphor, you’ll claim!
Cheers.
Bugger. Real facts, rather than real acts are what David doesn’t seem to be liberally endowed with, in addition to a lack of real, as opposed to, metaphorical intelligence.
Sorry.
Cheers.
Kristian
Above somewhere you made the point that after a point adding more GHG to atmosphere would not do anything to the GHE.
The evidence shows your point not be be valid one. Evidence is against this assertion.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_591ed36d40f8f.png
This is a graph of what you claim is the only reality. The one way flux away from the surface. In a wet moist air in summer the Heat loss is much, much smaller than in a drier desert. These two graphs show clearly that the amount of GHG is quite significant and also inform all those who dismiss GHE should do more research and study and correct the flaws in their scientific understanding.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_591ed3ef9d9ae.png
Much more heat loss from the surface in desert air than moist high water vapor content air.
Mike Flynn this would be the prove you have asked for several times. Dispute the graphs g*e*r*a*n
Norm, this is a perfect example of what I wrote upthread. You don’t even understand the links you provide!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247368
g*e*r*a*n
Rather than just making a blanket statement that I do not understand my own links offer an explanation of why you think this is the case.
Linking to your post above is not an explanation. It is trolling.
What do you think the graphs show? Offer an explanation in terms of science.
Norm, the two “esrl” links attempt to show “net” IR. “Net” IR is pretty hokey. It’s okay to use it as a rough tool, as long as you do not get too infatuated with it. In pseudoscience, folks tend to grab anything that they believe fits their belief system, without questioning. In actual science, for “net” IR to be meaningful, wavelengths would have to be accounted for.
But, even if you were cautiously using “net”, the graphs do not show the CO2 is “warming the planet”.
g*e*r*a*n
What?
YOU: “In actual science, for net IR to be meaningful, wavelengths would have to be accounted for.”
Explain what you mean with that statement. Not enough information provided to even guess what you mean. The IR detector is measuring changes caused by the entire spectrum of IR reaching it. It is not tuned to any particular wavelength, it is calculating the energy of all the IR reaching the sensor based upon the changes the IR makes to the sensor. So what is your point about the wavelengths??
Can you explain? Rather than me guessing what you are getting at it would be nice if you gave some details with your statement.
Norm pleads: “Can you explain? Rather than me guessing what you are getting at it would be nice if you gave some details with your statement.”
Norm, that is the problem. You simply don’t have the science background to understand. And, your mind is closed to learning science.
If you were truly interested in learning, you would pay attention to my many examples. You would realize that ice can not bake a turkey. But, instead, you try to figure out ways ice CAN bake a turkey, because that is what fits your pseudoscience.
Hint 1: You will never be able to bake a turkey with ice, just as CO2 will never be able to “heat the planet”.
Hint 2: If you really want to learn why “wavelength” is important in E/M wave propagation, study AM radio channel assigned frequencies. Why can you only receive one radio station on a channel frequency?
But, it’s much easier to bask in your status as a pseudoscientist, rambling endlessly, and hurling insults.
Norman…”This is a graph of what you claim is the only reality. The one way flux away from the surface. In a wet moist air in summer the Heat loss is much, much smaller than in a drier desert”.
The surface is bound to be much cooler in a wet, moist surface area in the northern climates than in the Tropics. You are pretty well comparing apples to oranges.
Deserts are found largely in hot climates near the Equator and they are caused by warm, moist air rising adjacent to them, dumping it’s moisture and descending as dry, warm air that causes the desert climate.
At best the difference in water vapour content is 1%. I think you are focused far too much on radiative cooling as opposed to the 99% of the atmosphere comprised of N2 and O2 carrying off surface heat due to conduction and convection.
Norman,
Pointless graph.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years.
That’s proof that the Earth has cooled.
Pretty graph, though.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
We are not talking about the whole Earth. We are talking about the surface of the planet. The surface has not cooled for 4.5 billion years. It cooled rapidly for a few million years then stopped cooling after that point and remains at a roughly equilibrium temperature somewhat above freezing for the next 4 plus billion years. Really a pointless point you make and has no bearing or purpose to the graphs I posted.
Norman,
When did the surface stop cooling, and what was the temperature when it did?
Given the geophysical properties of the Earth, what is the calculated isothermal surface temperature of the surface, to 0.01 K, in the absence of the Sun?
Rhetorical questions, I know. Neither you nor any climatologist has got the faintest idea. Neither you nor they have any idea of how to respond to anyone who challenges their bizarre fantasies.
I’ve just asked a couple of simple questions. You’ll fly into a perfect lather of deny, divert, and confuse, I suppose.
Obviously, these questions go to the heart of the metaphor you claim the GHE to be!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
YOU ASK: “When did the surface stop cooling, and what was the temperature when it did?”
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg/1500px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png
It looks like the cooling stopped about 1 million years ago with fluctuating cycles. We seem to be in a warmer period now. But from the graph it would indicate the temperature when the surface stopped cooling was around 10 C.
YOU ASK: “Given the geophysical properties of the Earth, what is the calculated isothermal surface temperature of the surface, to 0.01 K, in the absence of the Sun?”
Too precise a value to arrive at (0.01 K) but the article I linked you to said the average geothermal energy from the inner Earth to the surface was about 450 miliwatt/m^2 and that would give you an equilibrium temperature for the surface of about 53 K.
Norman,
Are you really saying the cooling stopped a million years ago, but the Earth is still cooling today, losing about 450 mW/m2?
Can I point out that if an object is losing energy, it’s cooling by definition.
Your calculation is a little more optimistic than mine, but no matter.
Energy from the Sun applied to the Earth with a starting temperature of 0 K is often quoted at 255 K.
If you start at 53 K, that same amount of energy will raise the temperature by the same 255 K, or to 308 K. That’s why I think your calculation is a bit too high.
As an example, to raise the temperature of a gram of water from 0 C to 100 C may take 100 calories.
To raise the temperature from, say, 33 C, using the same 100 calories, results in a temperature of 133 C – or 33 C higher.
Still no GHE. Just raising the temperature of something that is already slightly warm – say 33 K, for example.
No GHE necessary. Just ordinary physics. The 255 K from the Sun may be correct. Foolish Warmists assume the surface is 0 K to start with, which is just stupid. Just ignorant, or intentionally thick, do you think?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are a bonehead! We are talking about the surface is not cooling. It is sustained at an equilibrium temperature by the Sun and GHG, even with no GHG and no atmosphere, the surface would not cool as long as the solar input remained the same.
Your calculations are not valid. You are adding a ground temperature of some 50 K to 255 and thinking that the math works. You really need to study some physics you are way way behind in your knowledge of the subject.
You have zero understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann law and the rate of emission of radiant energy.
You would add the W/m^2 together to get a final temperature not the two temperatures. No wonder you can’t understand the GHE you don’t understand physics or radiant energy at all, zero, nada!!
So with the solar influx of 340 W/m^2 with no atmosphere, you will have 240 absorbed by the surface, the rest is reflected so you have 240 W/m^2 energy to warm the surface to 255 K. Now add the thermal energy of 0.45 W/m^2 to this flux of 240 and you get an additional 240.45 W/m^2. Raising the temperature to a toasty
255.2 K so you gain 0.2 K from the terrestrial heat source.
Wake up and read some textbooks on the subject. Your thoughts are almost as bad as g*e*r*a*n and that would be sad to have two babbling buffoons on one science blog. Learn something please, for your own benefit!
Norman,
What part of your own calculation are you disagreeing with?
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature from its initial temperature at creation. You think 0 K, I assume > 5000 K.
If I’m right, you’re wrong, obviously.
And of course, as usual, I’m right!
The Earth has cooled. If you think this is unfair, talk to Mother Nature, it’s her fault!
Cheers.
‘If you start at 53 K, that same amount of energy will raise the temperature by the same 255 K, or to 308 K. Thats why I think your calculation is a bit too high.’
Ha! Proof positive that Mike doesnt know what he is talking about. And yet he is so critical of others…
Norman says, May 19, 2017 at 5:17 AM:
Not really. I made the point that as long as an atmosphere IS radiatively active, it makes no difference to the average planetary surface temperature HOW radiatively active the atmosphere is. Which by extension means that you cannot raise the average surface temperature by simply increasing the atmospheric concentration of IR-active constituents.
IOW, I did NOT claim that increasing the atmospheric concentration of IR-active constituents wouldn’t affect the mean rate of radiant heat escaping the surface. I simply pointed out that such a change wouldn’t necessarily affect the average surface TEMPERATURE in a positive way.
It seems you have completely ‘forgotten about’ our Sahara-Sahel vs. Congo discussions? Haven’t I specifically pointed out, time and time again, that the mean surface radiant heat loss in the Sahara-Sahel is TWICE that in the Congo, and that the average surface TEMPERATURE in the latter region is STILL considerably LOWER than in the former …?
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/
“So what kind of effect on the average surface temperature would such a striking difference have? If the radiant heat loss of the surface is that much reduced from having an atmosphere on top with a much higher level of IR opacity, then wouldn’t we expect this to somehow result in substantial surface warming? Wouldn’t the surface have to warm in this case so that the other available mechanisms are able to work at a higher level of efficiency, simply forced to by the reduction in the radiative loss?
Isn’t this exactly the idea of how the “enhanced GHE” is supposed to force the surface to warm towards a new and higher equilibrium temperature, to make up for a reduction in radiative heat loss?
So how come the average surface temperature in the Congo is almost 3 degrees LOWER than in the Sahara-Sahel region!? With as much heat coming IN, but with much, much less radiant heat going OUT. Why hasn’t this circumstance forced the average surface temperature in the Congo to be much HIGHER than in the Sahara-Sahel? As per standard AGW ‘logic’.
The Congo, sfc:
– Heat IN, 177.96 W/m^2.
– Heat OUT, [51.08 (net LW) + 126.88 (cond+evap) =] 177.96 W/m^2.
– Heat balance.
– Mean temp: 26.1 C.
Sahara-Sahel, sfc:
– Heat IN, 178.84 W/m^2.
– Heat OUT, [103.13 (net LW) + 75.71 (cond+evap) =] 178.84 W/m^2.
– Heat balance.
– Mean temp: 28.9 C.
Conclusion:
Increasing the IR opacity of an atmospheric column sure reduces the radiant heat loss from the surface underneath. But it most certainly doesn’t thereby necessarily force the average surface temperature to rise. Because there are also factors OTHER than pure radiation involved.
Theory, meet Reality.“
Say what!? The OPPOSITE is obviously true! It is clear evidence that I’m RIGHT!
Kristian…”Increasing the IR opacity of an atmospheric column sure reduces the radiant heat loss from the surface underneath”.
Not when the concentration of CO2 in the column is 0.04%. Even water vapour at 1% is not going to affect the radiation much.
It’s far more likely that N2 + O2, at 99% concentration is going to affect surface radiation.
Kristian,
You wrote –
“Increasing the IR opacity of an atmospheric column sure reduces the radiant heat loss from the surface underneath.”
Firstly, no it doesn’t. Maybe you meant to say it reduces the rate at which the surface cools, or something similar, but you didn’t. The surface will cool all the way to absolute zero, regardless of the IR opacity of any surrounding gas, in the absence of an external renergy source.
Maybe your statement was a metaphor?
Unless you have a magic one way insulator, increasing the IR opacity etc., reduces the amount of energy reaching the surface. No magic “accumulation”, “multiplication” or “storage” of heat due to presence of CO2. Complete nonsense.
The dreams of a delusional gaggle of pretend scientists, who can’t even define their magical GHE.
Maybe you might care to deny, divert, and confuse, rather than face the fact that the GHE can’t even be defined in any way that enables any scientific investigation to occur.
You’ll likely be forced to say something really, really, stupid, such as “Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface of the Earth, and the Sun, makes the thermometer hotter.” I assume you wouldn’t be quite that stupid, so here’s your chance to say what the GHE is, in terms of reproducible observations of a phenomena, in line with every other scientific “effect” that I can readily bring to mind.
Or you could just mindlessly continue to deny, divert, and confuse – avoiding any and all discussion of the very thing on which the pseudoscience of climatology is supposed to depend!
Cheers.
This site is becoming the beat because Dr. Spencer is so reasonable and allows just about all views to be expressed regardless if he agrees or not.
He is fair.
Salvatore Del Prete
I do have to agree. It does make long threads that are generally off-topic of the post.
best not beat
Salvatore
The average temperature at the surface of planets with dense atmosphere depends on the average surface pressure. Can CO2 increase significantly increase average surface pressure? Can the CO2 increase compare to the increase in water vapor during El Nino?
no first question. second question not sure
ren…”The average temperature at the surface of planets with dense atmosphere depends on the average surface pressure. Can CO2 increase significantly increase average surface pressure?”
And the pressure is dependent on the gravitational force exerted on the molecules of whatever gas is in the atmosphere.
Since the atmospheric pressure on our planet is the sum of the partial pressures, which are based on the mass of each gas, it is patently ridiculous to presume the 0.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2 can affect the surface pressure significantly.
Furthermore, since temperature is directly proportional to the pressure, with volume and total mass held constant, it is just as ridiculous to claim that the 0.04% of CO2 can have any significant heating effect on our atmosphere.
g*e*r*a*n
YOUR POST ABOVE:
YOU posted: “g: I have seen times when you didnt even understand the link that you thought proved your pseudoscience.
Norm: You claim I dont understand my links so demonstrate which ones.
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm
(Its so easy to prove you wrong because you very seldom get anything right!)”
ME: So based upon the link what did I get wrong. The link clearly shows CO2 has limted bands where it emits significant IR (look at the exponents on the sides). The first graph covers many microns and the emission from CO2 is significant only around 4 and 15 microns.
If you make a claim you should attempt to explain what is the nature of the claim.
Your claim is I seldom get anything right. From the link what proves my point wrong? Can you answer this question?
Norm, your mind is wrapped around “CO2 is warming the planet”. So, because you cannot think for yourself, and have a very weak science background, you tend to “see” everything as evidence of your belief system.
Let’s try a “thought experiment”.
Suppose you could measure the “net” IR directly above a rain forest. At the same time, suppose you could measure the “net” IR on the ground beneath the rain forest. Your measurements would show that the “rain forest” was “trapping heat”.
Lumber companies would likely pay you a lot for your “study”, so they could cut down all the trees to “save the planet”!
Welcome to pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n
You are having a hard time not trolling.
I was asking about the emission spectrum of Carbon Dioxide which you claim I got wrong.
YOUR Response: “Norm, your mind is wrapped around CO2 is warming the planet. So, because you cannot think for yourself, and have a very weak science background, you tend to see everything as evidence of your belief system.”
First taunt is that I can’t think for myself
Second taunt is that I have a very weak science background
Troll, don’t offer explanation, do not supply evidence.
Taunt, annoy, and illicit a response. Over an over. So far that is all I have seen from you. No science, no information, just taunt, annoy and hope for a response. If no response, taunt more and annoy more. What a useless waste of your skills and knowledge. All wasted taunting and annoying people.
If you don’t agree with my posts then provide information, links or explanation of why you disagree.
You did not explain how I got the CO2 emission spectrum wrong. You just declared I did and then ignored it with some pointless point about rain forests.
Norm, the CO2 spectrum is not wrong. That’s your mind tricking you, again. I never said that.
It’s your interpretation of the CO2 spectrum that is WRONG.
You could not fit the example of rain forests into your “belief system”, so you deemed it “pointless”.
Your addiction to pseudoscience keeps you from thinking for yourself.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Its your interpretation of the CO2 spectrum that is WRONG.”
That does not explain what is wrong with my interpretation. Without details or some type of valid explanation your posts are truly pointless.
You still are addicted to taunt, annoy, illicit response.
YOU: “Your addiction to pseudoscience keeps you from thinking for yourself.”
What addiction to pseudoscience are you talking about. Do you have details or specifics of what I am stating that is pseudoscience? Do you have some evidence that it is such? You have not presented any yet. Does making a declarative statement make your words true? Are you above proving you points with evidence?
Can you explain?
Or will it be more of the same from you: taunt, annoy, illicit response?
Norm pleads: What addiction to pseudoscience are you talking about. Do you have details or specifics of what I am stating that is pseudoscience? Do you have some evidence that it is such? You have not presented any yet. Does making a declarative statement make your words true? Are you above proving you points with evidence?
Oh, some great pseudoscience like this, where you erroneously add IR fluxes:
If you put an ice sphere around this ball in which the ice continuously emits 300 W/m^2 all the 300 joules/second will reach the ball and be absorbed by it. The ball now has an internal source adding 418.7 joules/second and it is receiving 300 joules/second from the ice. The temperature of the ball will raise until it is emitting the same amount of energy it is receiving (which would be 718.7 joules/second). The final equilibrium temperature of the ball would be 62.35 C.
How may examples do you need?
Just don’t ask me for any example where you are NOT immersed in pseudoscience…
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Do you have evidence that my point is not valid and pseudoscience or it just your own belief or speculation that you are correct.
What valid science are you presenting to suggest my calculations are erroneous and the process does not work in such a fashion?
I am asking for proof of your speculations to back them up with a tangible bit of evidence. So far you provide none other than your personal opinions.
Norm, I just gave you an example of your pseudoscience.
Now, you are asking for evidence that the example is pseudoscience!
Hilarious!
You say you love to do experiments. Buy some blocks of ice. Buy a cheap magnifying glass. Buy some more blocks of ice. Buy another 10 magnifying glasses. Buy 1000 blocks of ice. Buy 10000 blocks of ice.
Ice radiates about 300 Watts/m^2, arrange the blocks of ice to focus on a point. Use the magnifying glasses to further focus the IR from the ice. It should be easy for a beaker washer to get over 3000 Watts at the focal point.
Put a turkey at the focal point.
If the turkey is not instantly ablaze, buy some more ice!
You pseudoscience clowns are so hilarious!
Norman,
“Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.”
– Wikipedia.
Feynman used the term “cargo cult science”. Take your pick.
Climatology, parapsychology, and phrenology are but three examples.
Climate is merely the average of weather. Not much science there, is there? Climatologists make up all sorts of sciency terms that are not used in other branches of science. Wild and unsupported claims that CO2 is isomehow involved in making thermometers hotter.
A non-existent and non-reproducible GHE – currently reduced to being a “metaphor”, it appears. “A metaphor for what?” you may well ask. Maybe another metaphor?
This rubbish is promoted by a bumbling fumbling ragtag crew of third rate scientific wannabes apparently sharing a common delusion. If you can find evidence of the slightest shred of science involved in calculating an average from historical numbers, then be prepared for the laughter as people point out that a twelve year old child with a grasp of basic arithmetic can do that for you.
No super computers required.
Maybe you have a different definition for climate? Maybe it’s really a metaphor, but a poor one?
Tell us more, Norman.
Cheers.
g*e*r*a*n
So how do you focus diffuse IR? IR is like light in a fog, can you focus and concentrate diffuse light on a foggy day? Let me know if you find a way and then you can cook your turkeys.
Until then you have just posted a pointless post. Not sure why.
I would think that instead of wasting your time on this blog taunting and annoying, you could be like Kristian and spend some time developing some ideas or doing some studies like he has. I might disagree with him on points but I do like that he spends some time researching and developing ideas. I do not see so much from you.
Norman ,
You wrote –
“So how do you focus diffuse IR? IR is like light in a fog, can you focus and concentrate diffuse light on a foggy day? Let me know if you find a way and then you can cook your turkeys.”
It’s pretty simple. Use a lens, of a parabolic mirror, or similar.
Here’s a quote from an ad, if you can’t figure out how to build your own gear –
“Seeing through fog and rain with a thermal imaging camera . . .
There are two wavebands of importance for thermal imaging cameras: 3.0-5μm (MWIR) and 8-12μm (LWIR).”
Gee. Long wave infrared centred on the 10 um frequency focussed by a lens to look through fog. Only impossible to foolish Warmists, I suppose. Of course, any frequency can be focussed.
If you want any more information, don’t hesitate to ask. I’m always glad to help. As a matter of interest, I’d probably suggest slightly shorter IR to cook your turkey. No need to focus, an electric element heated to a dull red – around 1200 F – should do, if sufficiently powerful.
You could focus the diffuse IR if you want, but it won’t make it any hotter.
Cheers.
Norm asks: “So how do you focus diffuse IR?”
Norm, that is why I allow you to use magnifying glasses. That is one way to focus the IR.
But, I’m glad to see you mention “diffuse”. Just as the IR emitted from ice is diffuse, so is the IR emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere. And, just as it is “really hard” for ice to bake a turkey, it is equally as hard for CO2 to “warm the planet”.
So, congratulations, you have shot yourself down once again.
PS You keep wanting “science” from me, but you still have trouble with basic logic. You don’t understand that the “baking a turkey with ice” unmasks the AGW/CO2 nonsense. When you understand some basics, then I can add more. When you are ready, grasshopper.
Mike,
‘You could focus the diffuse IR if you want, but it wont make it any hotter’
Wow you managed to demonstrate ignorance in two ways in one sentence!
There is no way with lenses or concave mirrors to focus light from an extended, diffuse, source down to a point. Try burning paper with a lens on a day with thin clouds.
Second, if light were focused, it is by definition more intense, and could certainly heat more!
Kristian
YOU: “All textbooks, tests and experiments agree with what Im saying, Norman, NOT with what youre claiming. Im just stating it in a slightly different way. In an attempt to avoid confusion about for instance cause and effect. If you were only a bit more interested in finding out what Im ACTUALLY saying, and a little bit less focused on what you THINK Im saying (your string of straw men), you might perhaps have gained some wider understanding ”
Okay link me to one textbook that agrees with you.
Are you claiming that with two heated surfaces (say a heated ball surrounded by a heated but cooler sphere) that there are not two actual macroscopic flows of energy?
There is only one NET flow of energy heat but there are two macroscopic flows of energy that are detectable and measureable and have not impact on each other. EMR is a boson and it does not exchange energy with other bosons, the energy fluxes move through each other without changing the energy of either flux.
The energy emitted by the cooler sphere (say 300 W/m^2) is moving toward the inner sphere. At the same time the inner sphere (say 400 W/m^2) is emitting energy toward the outer sphere. These two flows of energy do not exchange energy. The energy of the outer sphere reaches the inner sphere and is absorbed by it. The outer sphere is adding energy to the hotter inner sphere. No textbook has stated anything different and I am not misunderstanding what is being said.
You have an opinion that is never stated in a textbook. You can’t link me to your opinion within any textbook and you can’t verify it with any test and yet you call it correct and true and mine wrong. What is this conclusion based upon? How do you think I misunderstand what the textbook is saying when it says the energy from surface A reaches surface B and that from surface A reaches surface B and the heat flow from a surface is the NET between what is emitted by surface A minus what it absorbs from surface B. What am I getting wrong when that is what the textbooks state and I have not seen anyone but you state differently. You are the ODD man out on this topic.
Norman says, May 19, 2017 at 8:06 AM:
They all do. You simply aren’t able to wrap your head around what any of us are actually saying. So you invent your own straw men and imaginary disagreements for you to focus on instead … Clear evidence of your fundamental lack of understanding.
Kristian
They actually do say what I say. Simply saying “They all do” answers nothing.
They describe a two-way energy flux for a given surface (energy emitted and energy absorbed, directions away from surface and energy toward surface being investigated).
They describe it in words. They never state it is a mathematical understanding to make calculations easier. They state that there are real energy fluxes form one surface to the another.
What strawman am I inventing?
Do you accept that there is a real and measurable downwelling flux of energy that is moving from atmosphere to the surface? Do you accept that this energy is absorbed by the surface? Do you accept that increasing GHG will increase this energy flux from atmosphere to the surface (as the graphs I linked to most clearly show)?
If you agree with my points then there is no longer a debate.
EMR is bosons. Downwelling energy moves through the Upwelling energy flux without exchanging energy.
I do not see anyone but yourself saying there is only one energy flux, from hot to cold.
I see everyone saying there are two real and distinct energy flows (if you have just two heated objects…if you have more you have more energy flows, each object produces its own energy flow direction away from its surface). I see then they use these energy flows to calculate a heat flux which is the NET of all the energy flows. The heat flux is the abstract flow of energy, the reality is just energy flows away and toward any emitting surface. That is what they state.
Norma…”Do you accept that there is a real and measurable downwelling flux of energy that is moving from atmosphere to the surface? Do you accept that this energy is absorbed by the surface?”
I don’t accept it is absorbed by the surface. Why should it be? The back-radiated energy is of a lower temperature and intensity than the surface IR which created it. Atoms with electrons at a higher energy level won’t absorb IR that lacks the intensity to move the electrons to a higher energy level.
Gordon Robertson
Sorry I can’t continue responding to your posts when you have the physics clearly wrong and you could correct with some simple reading that you will not do (elementary physics book will inform you, does not have to be advanced).
ONE: IR is not caused by electrons moving to higher energy levels. That is the realm of visible, UV and X-Ray EMR. IR is the result of molecular bends and distortions, that is why it is a lower level of energy emission, the electromagnetic fields being distorted to emit IR are much lower energy than an electron moving up and down the electric energy potential of an atom or molecule.
Also the excitation state is very brief. Sources have found a CO2 atom will only stay in an elevated molecular state for only around a microsecond before emitting an IR photon and moving to a lower molecular bond state.
Consider this point. You can keep heating an object and it does not reach this magic point where it stops emitting. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law shows that emission rates go up considerably based upon temperature.
The Sun at 5800 K is emitting EMR at the rate of 64,000,000 W/m^2.
At least half of the solar energy is in the IR range (mostly the far red, close to visible red light). So the Sun would emit at least 32,000,000 W/m^2 of IR. This point is just to show you that you can excite a surface to far greater extent than a few W/m^2.
I know you get this absurd idea from reading Claes Johnson material but he has never verified his conjectures with any experiments or tests and it is not even rational as it would mean incoming light somehow communicates directly with a surface telling it not to absorb it if it came from a colder source but it is okay to absorb it if it comes from a hotter source. Not rational or logical. You should reconsider the science of Johnson and advise him to stick to what he knows, math.
Norman,
And yet you still can’t use CO2 to make a thermometer hotter.
Just more attempts to deny, divert and confuse.
Before you try to explain the GHE, you first have to describe the phenomenon observed, in reproducible terms. Just like every real scientific effect ever described.
Pseudo scientists would resort to saying “The GHE is really a metaphor, so it’s not possible to describe”, or “Everybody knows what it is”; or even “The science is settled! Go away!”
You can’t bring yourself to utter the ridiculous idea that thermometers get hotter as you increase the amount of CO2 between them and the Sun, but you can’t come up with anything else, can you?
Even astrology uses things that can actually measured – heavenly bodies and their positions!
Climatology – forcing, TOA, EEA, hot-spot, ECS, TCR, GHE, and a host of others!
Here’s an example of a nonsensical pseudo-scientific paper, peer reviewed, and published in a prestigious journal –
‘Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”
Part of the abstract –
“Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.”
Do you really believe this garbage? “Radiative forcing”? “terrestrial greenhouse”? “global climate”?
Typical pseudo science. Stringing sciency sounding words together, and including an implied prediction of doom, which will presumably be averted if we all bow to the dictates of the brilliant and all-seeing authors of this particular piece of nonsense.
Even you are presumably not silly enough to attempt to defend this paper. If you are, first you might supply scientific definitions for the terms used by the dimwits who wrote the paper. They didn’t, of course.
Cheers
Norman…”Are you claiming that with two heated surfaces (say a heated ball surrounded by a heated but cooler sphere) that there are not two actual macroscopic flows of energy?
There is only one NET flow of energy heat but there are two macroscopic flows of energy…”
Norman…you are tripping yourself up by failing to specify the energies involved. It is not energy pers e that is emitted by both bodies, it is electromagnetic energy.
Heat is NOT the net energy flow of EM energies. Heat is related specifically to the energy of motion of atoms/molecules.
Heat does not flow through space, EM radiated by energized electrons in atoms flows through space. The only way heat can flow through space is as a mass, in convection.
The heat is related to the energy level of the electrons in their orbitals therefore heat must remain with the atoms.
If there is an energy transfer via EM it’s because heat decreases in one body and increases in another body that intercepts the transmitted EM. That’s provided it has sufficient energy to move the electrons in the receiving body to a higher orbital energy level.
Gordon —please either stop with this or provide some reference that supports definition of “heat”.
An Introduction to Thermal Physics, Schneider: Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature. … it would be meaningless to talk about how much heat or how much work is in a system.
Heat and Thermodynamics, Zemansky & Dittman: When the flow has ceased, there is no longer any occasion to use the word heat or the symbol Q, because the process is complete. … It is incorrect to speak of the “heat in a body.” ”
Those are from two upper level undergraduate texts I have sitting around. I looked in several other freshman physics texts and they echo this idea. You can google “heat” and find the same definitions.
In modern, formal thermodynamics, heat, Q, is always “in transit” and never “within a body”. What you are describing is “internal energy”, U. Certainly “heat” is sometimes used informally to mean “internal energy”, but it is better to stick to the standard definitions.
“provide some reference that supports definition of “heat”.”
Gordon is right in this case Tim, Clausius: “heat is a measure of kinetic energy”.
All those authors you mention let someone else incorrectly influence their writing, stick with Clausius defn.
KE transfers from object to object sometimes in the form of EMR energy; as you write it is incorrect to speak of the “heat” in a body thus heat cannot transfer from something in which heat does not exist to then not exist in something else.
Ball4,
So where is Trenberth’s missing heat? Maybe Tim’s right, and it doesn’t exist at all!
Maybe the heat accumulation which GHE supporters claim to be happening, doesn’t exist either. It’s OK though, as you point out – “heat cannot transfer from something in which heat does not exist to then not exist in something else.”
This reminds me of a little poem –
“Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasnt there
He wasnt there again today
I wish, I wish hed go away.”
This is surel relevant to the heat that wasn’t there yesterday, and isn’t there again today.
Cheers.
“So where is Trenberth’s missing heat?”
Doesn’t exist. There is however some missing kinetic energy in the balances, they are going after discovering its potential hiding places by installing more and improved ARGO devices.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“There is however some missing kinetic energy in the balances, they are going after discovering its potential hiding places by installing more and improved ARGO devices.”
Are you trying to imply that one balding bearded bumbling buffoon is equally balanced by another balding bearded bumbling buffoon – in equilibrium, so to speak?
Good luck with finding some missing kinetic energy in a potential hiding place!
Maybe it’s hidden away in the Earth’s core. You’d have a hard time finding it there. Maybe it doesn’t exist, have you considered that? Maybe the metaphorical GHE only provides a metaphorical effect, which has mysteriously gone missing!
Nobody seems to know. Are we sure it’s a metaphor? It could be a simile, you know. Or an enigma wrapped in a mystery?
I wish you well with trying to figure it all out. Let me know your results.
Cheers.
I said “modern”. Quoting 150 year old science make you WAY out of date! Are you seriously claiming that ALL current physics books are incorrect?
Do NOT stick with outdated physics!
“Are you seriously claiming that ALL current physics books are incorrect?”
Not all. I will always disagree when text authors write against Clausius et. al. experimental results. No experiment has ever shown heat entity exists; thus it must be the entity that physically transfers is that of KE just as Clausius wrote. More modern text book authors should pay attention, some do get it right. Even in your quotes pay attention to: “It is incorrect to speak of the “heat” in a body.” Gordon is an author that does get this right.
Tim,
I presume you will accept the definition you have provided –
“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature. it would be meaningless to talk about how much heat or how much work is in a system.”
This will do for now. So talk of the Earth accumulating heat, or calculations purporting to show an increase of heat within the Earth system are meaningless.
Climatological sciency words referring to “equilibrium” indicate that heat flow has ceased. Talk of heat being “stored”, “accumulated” or “multiplied” are are quite silly, therefore.
Maybe you can explain how increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface causes a spontaneous flow of energy? This is because thermometers are built to measure the amount of heat to which they have been subjected, and can’t reflect an increase in temperature without some energy flow, one would assume.
Here’s a definition of temperature –
“the degree or intensity of heat present in a substance or object, especially as expressed according to a comparative scale and shown by a thermometer or perceived by touch.”
You don’t accept this, obviously. You state it is meaningless to talk about how much heat is in a system – or by system, do you mean the infinite universe? Another definition of temperature –
‘a measure of the warmth or coldness of an object or substance with reference to some standard value. The temperature of two systems is the same when the systems are in thermal equilibrium.”
This might indicate that a thermometer is a “system”, and that two are in thermal equilibrium when they are showing the same temperature.
How would define the GHE in scientific terms? Has it anything at all to do with temperature or heat or CO2? Or just a poor metaphor for something else that doesn’t exist?
Can you stick to the GHE? Or is some other magic CO2 property that is supposed to be causing thermometers to become hotter as CO2 concentrations increase? If it sounds ridiculous, it’s probably because it is!
Cheers.
Flynn observes: talk of the Earth accumulating heat, or calculations purporting to show an increase of heat within the Earth system are meaningless.
Then Flynn by his own admission writes a meaningless: This is because thermometers are built to measure the amount of heat..
Ball4,
Not even a good try, lad.
Here’s what Tim quoted –
Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature. it would be meaningless to talk about how much heat or how much work is in a system.
Maybe he doesn’t believe it either, but it’s what he quoted.
Are you disagreeing with me saying that thermometers are built to measure the amount of heat..?
Why do you think they are manufactured? To indicate the amount of CO2 in their vicinity? This seems to be the thrust of the GHE, but appears to be the product of a delusional mind, if so.
You might care to define the GHE for us. Stick to the point, if you want to. Here’s your opportunity to deny, divert, and confuse, and run away from the stupid non-existent GHE as fast as you can, if you like.
Cheers.
“Are you disagreeing with me saying that thermometers are built to measure the amount of heat…?”
You disagree with your own writing.
“Why do you think (thermometers) are manufactured?”
As per Clausius, to measure the avg. KE of the object of interest constituent particles.
“To indicate the amount of CO2 in their vicinity?”
Other instruments measure the amount of CO2 in their vicinity.
Ball4,
I asked –
“Are you disagreeing with me saying that thermometers are built to measure the amount of heat..?”
You may attempt to deny, divert, and confuse all you like. You might still appear to be either unwilling or unable to answer. Others will no doubt draw their own conclusions.
Most people seem to think thermometers are made to measure temperature.
Climate cultists disagree, and use sciency words like avg, KE, constituent particles, and so on. How does this benefit someone who wants to know how hot it is? And yet, GHE enthusiasts like Gavin Schmidt say silly things like “Hottest year EVAH!”. He didn’t seem to mention Clausius, avg, KE, or any of the other sciency rubbish!
What have other instruments got to do with anything? Don’t you believe thermometers accurately measure the amount of CO2 between them and the Sun? Of course not, who would be stupid enough to believe that CO2 could increase the temperature of a thermometer!
Keep trying to avoid discussing the non-existent GHE all you like – you’ll only look more foolish if you try to defend something that doesn’t exist. Maybe too much CO2 makes unicorns burst into flame, do you think? Can you disprove the proposition?
It’s in the same boat as claiming CO2 makes thermometers hotter, don’t you think?
Cheers.
Mike, if you can stop long enough to resolve one or issues at a time, we might just get somewhere.
“So talk of the Earth accumulating heat, or calculations purporting to show an increase of heat within the Earth system are meaningless.”
Nothing can ‘accumulate Q’ or ‘have Q within it’ — that is meaningless. Thus the earth cannot “accumulate Q” or “show in increase in Q”.
The earth (or various subsystems) can accumulate U. This, of course, is the big question. How much Q is there to cause how much change in U and consequently cause a change in T.
“Climatological sciency words referring to equilibrium indicate that heat flow has ceased.”
I don’t know which “climatological sciency words” you are thinking of that “refer to equilibrium’.
As for the word “equilibrium” itself, it would be better to use the term “steady-state” rather than “equilibrium”. In a steady-state situation, the heat flowing in from some external sources is equal to the heat flowing out to other external sinks. Heat flows have ‘stabilized’, not ‘stopped”.
Tim,
Well, I’d be happy to stick with one issue, non-existent though it be. The GHE.
However, foolish Warmists tend to avoid any scientific discussion of the greenhouse effect like the plague.
I’m happy to discuss one of your diversions if you like. I presume you would like to discuss what you wrote –
Nothing can accumulate Q or have Q within it that is meaningless. Thus the earth cannot accumulate Q or show in increase in Q.
The earth (or various subsystems) can accumulate U. This, of course, is the big question. How much Q is there to cause how much change in U and consequently cause a change in T.”
Well, I’ve discovered that climatologists can accumulate S, especially if preceded by B. Algebraically, this can be written as BS.
You sound oh-so-sciency, so I wonder if you could define your Q in rigorous terms. I plucked a quick quote –
“The total amount of energy transferred as heat is conventionally written as Q (from Quantity) for algebraic purposes.” This might tend to indicate that your statement “Thus the earth cannot accumulate Q or show in increase in Q.”, probably uses a different definition for Q, as one body can possess more energy than another. I assume energy came from somewhere, if the body is emitting energy – ie., above absolute zero, and was therefore accumulated.
On the other hand –
“Q generally refers to a quantity of heat such as the total heat content of a system or the amount transferred during a process.” You probably don’t like that definition.
As to U, I suppose you mean U, as in the following –
“In Thermodynamics, the total energy E of our system (as described by an empirical force field) is called internal energy U. U is a state function, which means, that the energy of a system depends only on the values of its parameters, e.g. T and V, and not on the path in the parameters space, which led to the actual state.”
This refers to E, U, T, and V, but not Q. Is this U the same as your U? Are U sure?
Apart from all this obfuscation and evasion, how does this relate to the absurd notion that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface, and the Sun, causes the thermometer to increase its temperature?
Heat that is not heat, cooling that is warming, greenhouses which are not greenhouses, effects which are not effects, but either good or poor metaphors for something that either exists or doesn’t – all very confusing to anybody not possessed of your brilliant insights!
Maybe you could explain something – what the hell is the GHE? What observed natural phenomena is it supposed to relate to?
You should have no problem – there’s only a G, an H, and an E!
How hard can it be? This could be a good time to prove you can recite the rest of the alphabet.
I hope you don’t finish with an F.
Cheers.
“Im happy to discuss one of your diversions …”
Not a diversion. Just helping to develop the backgorundin thermodynamics you are missing.
“I assume energy came from somewhere, if the body is emitting energy ie., above absolute zero, and was therefore accumulated.”
Internal energy, U, was accumulated. Heat, Q, is the name given to the process. But heat itself, Q, is not accumulated. Jsut like Work, W, can transfer energy to an object, but the object does not “accumulate work”.
“As to U, I suppose you mean U, as in the following”
Yes, that is what I — and all physicists mean by U.
“This refers to E, U, T, and V, but not Q. Is this U the same as your U? Are U sure?”
Without realizing it, you found something important. U, T, V, etc are “state variables” — variables that describe properties related to the state of a system. Q is missing precisely because it is NOT a state variable. Q is NOT a property of a system. Just like W is not a property of a system. Neither Q nor W are found within a system. If they are not within a system, they also cannot accumulate there!
“all very confusing to anybody not possessed of your brilliant insights!”
Sarcasm aside, yes, thermodynamics can be quite confusing to people who are unwilling to actually study and learn. To actually read textbooks and do problems.
If you want to learn more so that you are ready to even BEGIN a serious discussion of the thermodynamics behind greenhouse effect, you might try MIT’s OpenCourseWare. They have undergrad courses within physics, chemistry and engineering. Maybe one of those will help you.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/
Tim Folkerts,
And yet, you still can’t define the GHE.
Too hard? Don’t want to? Unable or unwilling?
Tut, tut, Tim.
Typical foolish Warmist. Deny, divert, confuse. Avoid any discussion of the non-existent GHE at all costs. I don’t blame you. Foolish Warmists seem to claim that CO2 can cause the Earth’s temperature to increase. Or something. Or maybe not.
No amount of redefining terms, or evasion, can disguise the fact that CO2 does not make thermometers hotter. Never has, never will. No GHE. You can’t even define the GHE – and neither can anyone else, in any way that makes sense.
How hard can it be? Obviously too hard for you. Maybe you could try something a little easier?
Cheers.
Mike, I *have* defined it. Multiple times. It is dalso efined on the internet many times in many places.
Have you considered that maybe — just maybe — you need to understand BASIC thermodynamics like “heat” and “internal energy” BEFORE you are able to understand the slightly more complicated thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect? No matter what the topic — science, law, medicine, economics — you can’t just straight to advanced topics when you have no understanding of the basics.
Flynn writes 10:32pm correctly (for once) as informal experimental polls show: “Most people seem to think thermometers are made to measure temperature.”
Flynn then has the temerity to ask: “How does this benefit someone who wants to know how hot it is?”
They read off the temperature scale as indicated on the thermometer. Also for how cold it is.
“What have other instruments got to do with anything?”
Experiments using other instruments show Flynn authors many comments incorrectly.
“who would be stupid enough to believe that CO2 could increase the temperature of a thermometer!.”
Those that replicate Prof. Tyndall’s experiments showing Flynn is simply wrong in that CO2 physically could increase the temperature of a thermometer & thus is stupid for not learning about science after being shown experimental evidence countering what Flynn authors. Being dumb is fine, Flynn proves to be stupid.
—–
Tim Folkerts 10:50pm et.al.: “Mike (Flynn), if you can stop long enough to resolve one or issues at a time, we might just get somewhere.”
Not going to happen. With authors that are simply dumb on a subject, yes, Tim can get somewhere showing proper experiments. With stupid authors such as Flynn, not so much, they remain dumb even in the face of experimental evidence contrary to what they author.
“Maybe you could try something a little easier?”
I *did* try something easier — Q & U. You failed miserable to understand ‘something much easier’.
Q.E.D.
” Mike Flynn says:
May 20, 2017 at 12:16 AM
Tim,
Well, Id be happy to stick with one issue, non-existent though it be. The GHE.”
According to wiki:
“The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.However, the term “greenhouse” was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901″
So, Svante Arrhenius was trying to figure what caused glacier and interglacial periods. And he thought it was due to increase or decrease of trace gas CO2. And predicted that a doubling of Co2 caused about 5 C of warming.
And at this point in time, we should be able to say that Svante Arrhenius was wrong. Changing levels of Co2 does not cause glacial and interglacial periods. And a doubling of CO2 doesn’t cause about 5 C of warming- or halving of Co2 doesn’t cool by about 5 C.
What is more related to interglacial and glacier periods has to do with changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun.
And there are other factors related to having glacial and interglacial period having to do with geological processes- mountain building and location of land mass in relation to ocean areas [changes cause by plate tectonics – and that idea that continental land mass moved over time- is only a newly accepted theory- later 1/2 of 20th century. Both idea of land masses moving [very slowly] and the Earth’s orbit changing over periods of as little as 10,000 of years, is a fairly new idea which has been accepted as proven.
Anyhow, going back to wiki, and continuing:
Mechanism
“Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared radiation. Of the total amount of solar energy available at the top of the atmosphere, about 26% is reflected to space by the atmosphere and clouds and 19% is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds. Most of the remaining energy is absorbed at the surface of Earth.”
So we have clear sky reflecting and absorbing sunlight and we have cloud reflecting and absorbing sunlight.
So TOA we have 1360 watts. Times 1360 by .26 is 353.6. And
1360 – 353.6 is 1006.4. And when sun is near zenith and you have clear skies, one gets about 1000 watts of direct sunlight at the surface.
Or wiki says it this way: “the direct sunlight at Earth’s surface when the Sun is at the zenith is about 1050 W/m2, but the total amount (direct and indirect from the atmosphere) hitting the ground is around 1120 W/m2.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Or the direct and indirect sunlight of 1120 watts is not being absorbed or reflect by the clear sky when the Sun is at Zenith. 1360 – 1120 is 240 watts and about 17.5% could absorbed or reflected by the clear sky.
In terms of me saying anything or making a point, I would say most of this 240 watts which is absorbed or reflected, that most of it is reflected rather than being absorbed.
And that when the sun is at zenith, one has the least amount of clear sky reflecting the sunlight. But more percentage of the sunlight reflected when at zenith is reflected back into space. Or when the sun is low above the horizon and it’s a clear sky, the sunlight is reflected the most, but higher amount of this larger amount is not reflected back into space [but towards earth surface and other parts of sky].
Anyways, to this part: “and 19% is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds.” It seems clear to me that of the 19%, most of it is absorbed by the clouds. Clouds are black to the near infrared of the sunlight and more 1/2 of sunlight is near infrared light. That being one factor, but also the other portion of sunlight would also be absorbed.
And in terms of total global sunlight of which 19% is absorbed, most of it is absorbed in the tropics and most of it would absorbed by clouds in the tropics.
Clouds are droplets of water, and these small droplets will quickly transfer heat via convective process to the air of the atmosphere. Or you could say all of 19% is absorbed by the atmosphere, but first it’s absorbed by water droplets which transfers kinetic energy to the air.
By anyhow, in terms of GHE, one is generally referring to the greenhouse effect theory or why Earth is warm and what is causing it to be warm. The theory mostly ignores clouds, other than partially blame them for a cooling factor. It also ignores the 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter, and ignores, earth’s geological processes, earth’s orbit, and any changes to solar output or galactic environment. It basically says all factors other than greenhouse gases can be zeroed out [or conforms to old idea of Steady State], and what causes variation of global climate is trace gases, called greenhouse gases. And more modern versions of the theory basically zeros out the main greenhouse gas, water vapor for the reason it response to other trace gases concentration- mainly methane and CO2 and lately stresses CO2 as main factor.
One can say ideas of earth would be 800,000 degrees without cooling and CO2 alone causes 33 C added to Earth average temperature as obvious pseudoscience.
any one interested in historical weather events,i have been looking at old english weather reports for years.the conclusion i have come to is the present climate in the uk is remarkably stable compared to the past.in the past the uk had hot dry summers followed by long cold winters,then the climate changed to wet cool summers,then back to hot and dry,this changed century to century,and decade to decade,
this site has both tentative and accurate records back as far as 4000 BC .there are many other sites if any one cares to look for them, the site is, booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
uk ian…”in the past the uk had hot dry summers followed by long cold winters…”
That depends where you live in the UK. When I visited Scotland, near Glasgow, in the late 60s, the summer mornings were so cold we needed to run a fire for warmth. It got warmer as the day progressed but not nearly as warm as I am used to on the west coast of Canada, near Vancouver.
In fact, when we got here as immigrants, the heat in the summer, which could last for July and August, all but did me in. I was not used to such heat during Scottish summers.
I visited the same region of Scotland a couple of years ago and did not notice much of a change in climate, if any. I went further north this time, to Inverness, and I was told by residents that it is very cold, with snow, in the winter. The summer temps were moderate to me.
I should point out that Vancouver, is not nearly the warmest part of Canada, or BC, since temps are moderated by the oceans. I think the same effect applies to the UK since it is surrounded by ocean.
Gordon yes that is true. but my point was that todays climate in the UK is not as extreme as it was in the past .its there for any body to see if they care to look,what i can not get my head round is the hysterical rubbish we have to put up with,every time we have a storm or a heat wave,that,s usuallY about three days in the UK,even the science guy Bill Nye is at it, i watched him give an an interview where he stated the UK can only now grow grapes because of climate change,complete and utter tosh,the UK has had vineyards since the Romans introduced them,its true they are more widely grown now,but thats because of more tolerant varieties ,more suited to our climate ,
uk ian…”even the science guy Bill Nye is at it, i watched him give an an interview where he stated the UK can only now grow grapes because of climate change…”
Nye is out of his league, he is the clown prince of climate alarm.
I watched Nye engage in a debate with MIT professor of atmospheric science, Richard Lindzen. Lindzen had to keep correcting him on his theories about ocean currents like the Gulf Stream.
NASA GISS leader, Gavin Schmidt participated on a panel with Lindzen with the proviso he would not have to debate Lindzen. That’s the smartest thing I’ve seen Schmidt do.
Gordon luckily for us the real world GOD doesn’t watch TV.
Up to a few feet of snow in snowstorm in Colorado.
https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/96d7b79/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ffb%2F17%2Ff391f1524e979628df75f1dacb1f%2Fstatic-ne-cool-may-20-to-31.jpg
Birkeland currents carry up to 1 TW of electric power to the upper atmosphere about 30 times the energy consumed in New York during a heatwave. They are also responsible for aurora arcs, the familiar, slow-moving green curtains of light that can extend from horizon to horizon. Recent observations by Swarm have revealed that they are associated with large electrical fields and occur where upwards and downwards Birkeland currents connect through the ionosphere. Scientists have also discovered that these strong electric fields drive supersonic plasma jets.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2017/03/Upward_and_downward_current_sheets
Read full story: Supersonic plasma jets discovered
“These currents carry up to 1 TW of electric power to the upper atmosphere about 30 times the energy consumed in New York during a heatwave.
They are also responsible for aurora arcs, the familiar, slow-moving green curtains of light that can extend from horizon to horizon.
While much is known about these current systems, recent observations by Swarm have revealed that they are associated with large electrical fields.
Heated ions travel upward
These fields, which are strongest in the winter, occur where upwards and downwards Birkeland currents connect through the ionosphere.”
ren “Birkeland currents carry up to 1 TW of electric power to the upper atmosphere about 30 times the energy consumed in New York during a heatwave”.
If you check the source of the currents you will likely find it is the solar wind. That was revealed by astronomer, Syun Akasofu, who did pioneer studies on the solar wind.
Akasofu claimed the proton/electron plasma that is the solar wind is diverted by the Earth’s magnetosphere. However, the interaction between an current and a magnetic field is an electric field, which has the capability of generating currents through the atmosphere, then through the surface and the oceans.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that such currents can affect our weather and climate.
g*e*r*a*n
You do not think a shell of ice radiating at 300 W/m^2 will assist in bringing the temperature of a heated object to a higher temperature than if the ice was not there, in free space with no other radiative input.
Then maybe look at it this way.
In free space you have an object near absolute zero. You surround it with warm ice at 0 C so it will warm your object from -270 C to 0 C. The ice is heating the object.
Now that you have the object at 0 C (the radiant energy of the ice will keep it at that temperature) what will happen if you add energy to this ball from an internal source? Will it stay at 0 C because that is the temperature of the ice or will its temperature start to rise? Now what will the temperature rise to and why do you think it will? If you add energy an make it 50 C will adding more energy raise the temperature more?
If you add enough energy to get to 50 C how many joules per second do you need to add to get it to 50 C (say the object has a surface area of 1 m^2)
Once you get it to 50 C with the internal energy source what happens now if you remove the ice shell and expose it to free space? Will it cool or stay the same temperature? If is stays the same temperature what science do you base this upon?
Norman,
Think of it this way.
The Earth’s surface, apparently, was once molten. Now it’s not. Much of it is even covered with liquid water and ice.
I say it has cooled. What say you, your thoughts, and your imaginary ice blocks?
Are you truly delusional, or just irrationally clinging to some cult belief?
Do you really believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, or does this miracle only occur in the absence of unbelievers?
I prescribe a refreshing beverage, and a good lie down. It might help.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I really do not know why you act so stupidly on this blog. I know you are not that dumb but you pretend to be this dolt for some amusement I would suppose.
Okay, Hawaii used to be molten now it is solid rock but is Hawaii continually getting colder year to year century to century? Come on you really can’t be this ignorant! Not funny anymore.
Who has ever said the surface has not cooled from a molten state?
Such a pointless point. The Sun maintains an equilibrium temperature for the surface and GHG rise it above what the Sun alone could do. The surface is not currently cooling but warming slightly.
Norman says, May 20, 2017 at 5:34 AM:
No. The atmosphere’s MASS (its temperature, weight/pressure, density and viscosity) is what forces the average surface temperature to be higher than what the Sun could manage on its own. The radiative properties of the atmosphere simply make sure the surface and the atmosphere stay thermodynamically connected even after a steady state has been reached. They enable heat to flow into, through and out of the atmosphere even in a state of dynamic equilibrium. They enable the atmosphere to thermally affect the surface. But they don’t themselves CAUSE anything with regards to temperature. They’re but a TOOL.
That being said, I fully agree with you on your characterisation of Flynn. Why don’t you just stop answering him?
Kristian 6:14am forcefully writes: “The atmosphere’s MASS (its temperature, weight/pressure, density and viscosity) is what forces the average surface temperature to be higher than what the Sun could manage on its own.”
Easily found measurements show (Lide Physics Handbook),
Atm. Mass: 5.1510^18 kg
Surface pressure (SL): 14.7psi, 1bar
Surface (SL) density: 1.2 kg/m^3
Air Viscosity STP 1.8x 10^-5 Pa-s
Now, Kristian, compute from those the forced ~288K at normal atm. optical depth and 255K at very thin optical depth i.e. the sun on its own. If Kristian cannot do so, then Kristian is wrong.
Beginning atm. radiation text books show how to basically compute the measured ~288K and measured ~255K from ~steady state 1LOT balance of measured input net SW energy at L&O surface, measured atm. emissivity looking up and measured L&O surface LW terrestrial output energy.
“…They enable heat to flow into, through and out of the atmosphere even in a state of dynamic equilibrium. They enable the atmosphere to thermally affect the surface. But they dont themselves CAUSE anything with regards to temperature. Theyre but a TOOL.”
I would say H20 is this tool, and not too useful tool if limited to just radiant aspects of the H20 gas.
Or in terms of heat flows, ocean is dominate factor. Other dominate factor involve evaporated cooling and condensation of H20 gas.
In terms of heating, I think N2 alone plus tropical zone plus rotation of planet, increase the average temperature of Planet.
But ocean water plus tropical zone add most of the warming of Earth. And the tropical ocean is the largest warmed area on Earth. Or in terms of simple addition, the very cold Antarctic zone averaged with tropical ocean doesn’t make the Antarctic plus Tropical ocean much cooler than the tropical Ocean surface by itself. Or if antarctic were 30 K colder in average temperature- it doesn’t effect the global average temperature. Whereas if tropical ocean were 10 K cooler, Earth’s temperature averaged would be affected. But if not limited to mere addition of the average temperatures, if ocean tropics were actually 10 K cooler, the average temperature of Earth would be hugely affected- but I don’t think in all of Earth’s history, that the tropical ocean has been 10 K cooler. Or if had been, it could remain that cool for a short time period- say 100 years or less.
Assuming your sun kept burning and Earth remain at around earth distance [1 AU] around it.
Norman,
I’ll match your Hawaii, and raise you an Antarctica. Used to be ice free, you know.
Only joking, of course. Yes, the Earth is cooling overall. Year to year. Century to century. Losing about 47 TW per year. Continuously.
Sunlight is irrelevant. Anything heated during the day, loses all that energy at night.
GHGs provide no heat, and warm nothing, of course.
So sad.Too bad. You lose, again.
Cheers.
Other than geologists, no one really cares about the cooling of the interior of the earth that has been going on over billions of years. Yes, the interior is cooling and losing thermal energy — so what?
What people care about are the air temperatures near the surface that change on scales of hours, days, years, and centuries. These temperatures can and do go up and down. These changes are (almost) entirely independent of the cooling of the core. Why keep bringing up geological cooling as if it were somehow important to climate change?
“Why keep bringing up geological cooling as if it were somehow important to climate change?”
It has been a factor in global temperature. If interior were too cool via volcanic activity, it affects global temperature.
Or much is made of gases released by past large volcanic events, but volcanic activity on such scale would heat earth without considering the effects of the out gassing. Cf:
PETM
Tim…”Why keep bringing up geological cooling as if it were somehow important to climate change?”
It’s a poorly understood subject because it’s not about cooling per se when internal heat from the Earth’s core reaches the surface and radiates.
It’s known that the exterior of the Earth’s core is generating heat and it’s temperature is close to that of parts of the Sun. It was discovered recently that temperatures in the mantle are far higher than expected.
There are terawatts of power generated from the Earth’s surface due to internal heat. It has never been investigated, to my knowledge, how much internal heat warms the oceans over long periods of time and affects our climates.
Norm, you do not think logically. This is a perfect example. You are trying to (obscurely) make your case that CO2 is warming the planet by talking about ice warming object that are near 0 Kelvin?
Ice will warm an object that is colder than itself, but ice will NOT warm a object that is warmer that itself. Ice will “assist” in warming an object that is warmer than itself.
You remain lost in pseudoscience, but I miss the insults. That’s when you really are hilarious.
Dang, not enough coffee yet!
Should be “Ice will NOT “assist” in warming an object that is warmer than itself”.
Norman…”You do not think a shell of ice radiating at 300 W/m^2 will assist in bringing the temperature of a heated object to a higher temperature than if the ice was not there, in free space with no other radiative input”.
Norman…you are indulging in thought experiments. For one, why would you claim ice radiates at 300 w/m^2? For another, why would you think the relatively weak IR generated by ice could raise the temperature of a nearby object at a higher temperature?
The 2nd law claims heat cannot, of it’s own means, transfer heat from a colder object to a hotter object. It requires external compensation to do that. Climate alarmists have obfuscated the 2nd law to claim a positive Net energy IR exchange can satisfy the 2nd law but that is nonsense.
The 2nd law is about heat not electromagnetic energy. The conservation of EM is covered in the 1st law. Summing IR contradicts the 2nd law because it allows what you claim, the transfer of heat from ice to a warmer body based on the theory that any IR radiation can warm any body.
Should be easy enough to check out. Get a bowl of water at room temperature and drop ice cubes in it. Measure the water temp to see if it rises.
Dear Mike Flynn,
Maybe you can help me out, because it seems there is a problem with physics as I was taught in University. You seem to be someone who thinks outside the box, so maybe you can explain this.
Suppose I drop a brick of polonium encased in ice in your study where you sit and warmly type your posts on your computer. Polonium is nasty radioactive stuff, and all the info I have seen says that it will kill you dead in a short amount of time.
Doesn’t this totally violate all the laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamics? Your body is an incredibly energetic machine operating at 98 degrees F, so how could a block of frozen polonium at 32 F impart the energy needed to cancel your life force? You can’t transfer energy from cold to hot, (Clausius, duh!), but yet somehow the frozen polonium takes your kinetic and thermal energy to zero.
I hope you can explain, cause I asked my physics professor and she just rolled her eyes and didn’t even answer.
M
Jim Donne,
I don’t blame your physics professor for rolling her eyes at such a stupid question. How did you get into a physics class?
In answer to your “gotcha”, no violation of any physical laws.
You obviously failed your physics course, if you are thick enough to confuse alpha particles with photons. Here –
“Alpha particles emitted from polonium-210 can disrupt cell structures, fragment nuclei, damage DNA, and cause cell death.”
The results give rise to what is known as radiation sickness. However, alpha particles are easily stopped. A sheet of paper, or even the thickness of dead skin cells should be enough.
I wouldn’t ingest any. Micrograms will kill you. Your chances of laying your hands on a brick of polonium are somewhere between zero and nothing at all. I’d welcome a brick of it. I’d be rich, and its easily handled.
The temperature of the polonium has precisely nothing to do with its radioactive emissions. Theoretically, matter at absolute zero emits no photons, but still emits nuclear decomposition products resulting from radioactive decay.
I hope I have pointed you in the right direction. Your professor has my sympathy.
Cheers.
Jim Donne…”You cant transfer energy from cold to hot, (Clausius, duh!), but yet somehow the frozen polonium takes your kinetic and thermal energy to zero”.
This is not about heat transfer it is about radioactive decay. It is rays of radioactivity penetrating your cells and interfering with them that would cause ultimate death.
The cells in the body manufacture energy as heat. If you kill the cells you kill their ability to function and your body will cool in death.
Climate alarmists might claim the energy radiation from ice would keep your body warm provided the Net energy flow was favourable. [sarc/off].
Snape,
You said, on May 17, 2017 at 4:37 PM:
Or, to make it even more plain what is actually going on, you could try this analogy:
Imagine you have your hand stretched out with the open palm facing up. In your palm lie two dimes. A person is standing right in front of your outstretched hand, holding a single dime. In this situation, you represent the surface, the person in front of you represents the atmosphere, and the dimes represent photons.
Now here’s what happens: The person standing in front of you places his single dime in your palm with his one hand at the very same moment as he grabs the two dimes that were already there with the other, removing them from your hand. That is, he performs these two separate operations simultaneously.
The question then becomes: Did you ever have THREE dimes in your hand during this exchange?
The answer is of course “No”. First you had TWO. Then you had ONE. And that’s it. The first of the original two was simply exchanged with another one, while the second was lost.
People, however, have this instinctive, almost perverse, monomaniacal tendency – I would almost call it ‘urge’ – to look at and interpret ONE of these operations (‘events’) at a time, and to just adamantly stick to this approach, an approach that is fundamentally mathematical rather than physical in both origin and application. It basically derives from how our human brain works. It always seeks order and simplicity even when and where there are none to be found. And it does so for a very simple reason: To get a grasp of how things really work. You need to pick the clock apart in order to understand what makes it tick. That is, start by breaking things down into their most basic, irreducible constituents and then work your way up from there. And this has of course turned out to be an exceedingly successful method for acquiring knowledge. It has served us well. And still does. However, it CAN also be misapplied. We should be careful not to follow it blindly. Sometimes our mental compartmentalisation process goes too far. We end up “seeing” things (and/or potential connections between things) that aren’t really … real; or meaningful, or relevant to what we’re actually trying to get a grasp of. And so we end up confusing ourselves instead. Mostly regarding “cause and effect”.
In our case, conflating specific phenomena of the MICRO and MACRO realms is the pitfall to beware. Invoking a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL quantity and/or process to justify or explain an inherently THERMODYNAMIC effect is simply profoundly misunderstood … And people just don’t seem to get exactly HOW misunderstood it really is.
Norman does this. In fact, he’s a full-blown master at it. And this is why he’s so confused. He (and a whole bunch of other people; he’s certainly not alone in this) analyses the effect of each operation (‘event’) in the analogy above IN ISOLATION from the other one, in fact from everything else. He estimates its effect AS IF the other (opposing) one didn’t happen at the exact same time. He first only regards the photon absorp tion and “forgets” or “ignores” the simultaneous (and larger) photon emission. Then he only regards the photon emission and “forgets” or “ignores” the simultaneous photon absorp tion. Such a narrow scope doesn’t work if you want to discuss THERMODYNAMIC effects. (And that’s what we’re doing here.) Then you will only fool yourself into thinking that we’re dealing with two SEPARATE thermodynamic processes in one. But we’re not. There arent. There is just the one. The one instantaneous exchange.
Look, there are two distinct ways of seeing this exchange, two ‘perspectives’, so to say:
#1 The MICROscopic (quantum mechanical) perspective, and
#2 the MACROscopic (thermodynamical) perspective.
Both are ‘real’ in their own sense, but they address very different aspects of ‘reality’.
What people tend to do is mix them up, or rather somehow mentally merge them into one and the same perspective. And that’s where the confusion of people like Norman arises.
Norman claims that the atmosphere (the person originally holding the single dime) ADDS energy to the surface (the palm of your outstreched hand). And he is right, IF – and only if – we choose to follow ONE particular photon (dime) through the exchange and ignore the other two; that is, the single photon/dime originally held by the person in front of you, coming IN from ‘the atmosphere’.
THAT individual photon (and the energy it carries) is indeed ADDED to the surface in this exchange. But as I pointed out above, this circumstance isn’t “meaningful, or relevant to what we’re actually trying to get a grasp of”. Which is whether or not ‘energy’ (in the generic sense, not one particular quantum of energy) was added from the atmosphere to the surface during the exchange.
What Norman does is “Invoking a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL quantity and/or process to justify or explain an inherently THERMODYNAMIC effect”.
Did the atmosphere ADD energy equivalent to the energy of a single photon to the surface during the exchange? No. It added one PARTICULAR photon, yes, but it removed two OTHER photons at the exact same time. From the very same surface. Your hand.
So what ACTUALLY happened? The energy associated with one of the two photons/dimes that you held in your hand originally was simply EXCHANGED with the energy associated with the one photon/dime originally held by the ‘atmosphere’ in front of you. The other one was lost (removed by the same ‘atmosphere’), without compensation.
And so the NET effect – the THERMODYNAMIC effect – of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm is that the atmosphere doesn’t add ANY energy at all to the surface (zero dimes), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime), but LESS energy than it would’ve handed to space in the same situation (two dimes).
***
To conclude, there are no ‘radiative fluxes’ between the sfc and the atm except the NET one. Because a radiative flux, by definition, is the net movement of radiant energy through some volume (like a radiation field) or across some (real or imaginary) surface/plane; thermally driven, by gradients in radiative intensity and density. However, there are photons, but macroscopically you cannot see or follow any of their individual paths and you also can’t discern any of their individual frequencies. What you do “see” is only a static cloud of radiant energy, a “photon cloud”, occupying the exact same volume, and holding the exact same temperature, as the thermal mass continuously creating it.
The surface creates and maintains its own “photon cloud”, the atmosphere does the same. Since the surface and the atmopshere above is in direct thermal contact, so are their photon clouds. Their photon clouds effectively merge into one continuous cloud from solid/liquid surface to the top of the atmosphere, thinning out gradually up through the atmospheric column, just like the atmospheric column itself.
At the actual surface – as everywhere else – photon energy is continuously being exchanged inside the sfc-atm photon cloud, so that, at each point in time, some photons from the air moving down will take the place of other photons from the surface moving up. But all these INDIVIDUAL quantum events are integrated into ONE continuous macroscopic process, where the surface always (and ONLY) loses energy (generic term) to the atmosphere and the atmosphere accordingly always (and ONLY) gains energy from the surface. Simply because, at ALL instants, since the sfc is on average warmer than the atm, the probabilistic distribution is such that more photons go OUT than comes IN. There is no lag and no lead here. The exchange happens instantaneously and simultaneously.
The NET exchange is all there is …
Kristian
All that makes sense, but it seems to awfully close to what Norman is saying as well. Not sure what you two have been arguing about so much.
When I wrote the comment you quoted, I had the apple metaphor stuck in my head. I have since thought of a better one, very similar to your “photon cloud”.
Three million mosquitoes are flying upwards from the surface, and at the same time, two million are headed down towards the ground.
So mosquitoes are flying both up and down, but more are flying up.
I also understand that mosquitoes (photons) don’t just move vertically. They also fly horizontally, diagonally – every which way, but in the big picture, more are flying up than down.
Snape says, May 20, 2017 at 6:42 AM:
Simple.
He claims the atmosphere warms the surface by directly ADDING energy to it. Which is how the Sun warms the surface. However, the atmosphere evidently DOESN’T add energy to the surface. If it did, it would be a heat source to the surface just like the Sun. It’s not.
I (and all of physics), on the other hand, say that the atmosphere forces the surface to warm by reducing its overall rate of energy LOSS. Which is how INSULATION works.
The surface ONLY cools (loses energy) from its particular thermal exchange with the atmosphere. Just like it ONLY warms (gains energy) from its particular thermal exchange with the Sun.
That’s it. We agree on the EFFECT itself. We disagree on the MECHANISM, on how to EXPLAIN the effect. He’s wrong. I’m right.
“That is, he performs these two separate operations simultaneously.”
Your whole argument hinges on this one unsupported (and incorrect) claim. The ‘dimes’ come an go randomly. At a given ‘temperature’ there would be an average of 2 dimes in your hand. Quite often there would actually be 2 dimes. There could also be 1 or 3 dimes. There could even be 0 or 4 or 5 dimes on rare occasion.
Or think of it this way. Let the ‘hand’ represent a single CO2 molecule. If the two operations were always simultaneous, it would be impossible to warm CO2 gas with IR light. CO2 would simply be getting rid of any incoming photons the instant they arrived!
Tim Folkerts says, May 20, 2017 at 6:47 AM:
AGAIN with this nonsense, Tim!? Didn’t we JUST discuss this? Three weeks ago, to be exact:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-245064
MICRO vs. MACRO. Single absorp tion and emission events vs. the probabilistic average of a very large number of absorp tion and emission events.
You’re not this stupid, Tim. So why do you pretend to be?
An average is ALWAYS a summary. An average is NEVER ‘all there is’.
When it comes to moving from the micro to the macro realms, it is. Then the statistical average is all there is. Because then, at some point, we lose the individual photons out of sight. All that matters then, all that remains, is the average of ALL of them. Knowing that individual photons exist and fly around independently is interesting, but completely irrelevant when what you want to do is work out THERMODYNAMIC effects.
But … what is the easiest, most logical way to calculate the heat = the net radioactive flux in order to work out the thermodynamic effects?
This simplest model is to calculate the radiation from each surface and add/integrate them all. Ie, to calculate the energy carried away from a surface by its own emitted photons, and to add in the energy carried TO the surface from all the other surfaces.
You are agreeing that “individual photons exist and fly around independently”. You are agreeing (using your dime analogy) that photons from the atmosphere and their energy are absorbed but the surface and that other photons from the surface are emitted.
You may certainly CHOOSE to focus on the NET flow. You may CHOOSE to move from the micro to the macro. But for the life of me, I can’t figure out why you insist that the micro doesn’t even exist. That the steps taken to get to the net flux don’t have meaning or value.
Tim Folkerts says, May 20, 2017 at 1:08 PM:
Yup. As I’ve pointed out all along. THAT’S the simplified mathematical model of reality. Based on a two-stream assumption. And it works. To solve mathematical problems. I use it myself. But it’s a simplified mathematical MODEL of reality, Tim. It’s not reality itself.
The key point when using this model, though, is to remember to always treat the two temperature-derived “component fluxes” as two sides (yes, components) of the same transfer – the NET, the radiant heat, the spontaneous result of a temperature difference.
Huh? Am I insisting that the micro doesn’t even exist? Where did you get that idea from, Tim?
Let me quote myself:
“Look, there are two distinct ways of seeing this exchange, two ‘perspectives’, so to say:
#1 The MICROscopic (quantum mechanical) perspective, and
#2 the MACROscopic (thermodynamical) perspective.
Both are ‘real’ in their own sense, but they address very different aspects of ‘reality’.
What people tend to do is mix them up, or rather somehow mentally merge them into one and the same perspective. And that’s where the confusion of people like Norman arises.”
Tim…”But what is the easiest, most logical way to calculate the heat = the net radioactive flux in order to work out the thermodynamic effects?”
Move into a solid piece of iron rod in which you are heating one end with a propane torch and the other end sits in a tub of water. Measure the temperature at the hot end and have a thermometer in the water. You can calculate the heat transfer via the temperatures over the gradient.
We did that once in a lab when I was studying engineering.
In your example, you cannot calculate the heat because the radiative flux is not heat. You could relate the amount of IR flux to a heat reduction in a body radiating the flux but the heat reduction produces the flux in the first place when electrons in an atomic mass drop from higher energy states to lower energy states, thus cooling the body.
IR flux can be treated as a proxy of heat transfer but it is not heat being transferred. It is electromagnetic energy being transferred, provided there is a cooler mass nearby that can absorb it.
Heat cannot be transferred without masses being involved. Claiming heat is being radiated from a body via IR is plain wrong. Heat transfer by radiation involves a reduction of heat in one body and an increase of heat in another. The heat changes are local, no heat travels through space.
Yet more foolish and irrelevant analogies.
Moving on from overcoats and fruit salad, foolish Warmists continue to avoid addressing the question of the inability to actually state what observed natural phenomena the GHE relates to.
Now we have discussions about hands and dimes, not to say millions of mosquitoes flying up and down elsewhere. Is there no end to this nonsense?
Is there any chance of actually discussing whether increasing CO2 concentrations affect global temperatures? I believe that some deluded people believe that AGW is related to CO2. Complete nonsense of course, but people like Gavin “I wannabe a scientist” Schmidt even believe that CO2 is the thermostat that controls the Earth’s temperature. He even claims it involves some sort of mythical undefined greenhouse effect! Delusional, I suppose.
So what is this greenhouse effect? Is it, as some foolish Warmists suggest, merely a metaphor? Does it involve CO2 or thermometers? When was this effect first noted?
Only joking! CO2 warms nothing. Only a fool would think so, without some reproducible experimental support. Just another example of cargo cult scientism.
Go boys, go!
Cheers.
Kristian
I had several comments that may have been lost in this long thread.
Here is one of them:
“Kristian, David
Let me at least clarify this point:
In the steady-state, the atmosphere does not slow down the rate at which the surface sheds heat. It slows down the overall “velocity” at which heat is transported from surface to TOA. (In comparison to surface-to-space, which would be the situation if the earth had no atmosphere)
Reply
Snape,
A few points.
The atmosphere has no steady state. Temperatures within the Earth system have no steady state.
There is no “velocity” at which heat is transported.
Heat does not get transported from surface to TOA. You can’t even define this mythical TOA, and it would make no difference to anything, even if you could.
The silliness continues. Maybe you could address the relationship between CO2 and global warming (if it’s not too hard, of course). I fully understand if you choose to deny, divert and confuse, instead.
It’s hard to address a relationship which doesn’t seem to exist, I suppose.
Cheers,
Mike
I realize I’m misusing the word heat.
Please refresh me. If you light a fire in a fireplace, and a thermometer is 20 feet away, how is it that the mercury in the thermometer will expand?
snape…”If you light a fire in a fireplace, and a thermometer is 20 feet away, how is it that the mercury in the thermometer will expand?”
Heat is conducted from the flames by nitrogen and oxygen and dispersed through convection to the far wall where the thermometer resides. There, the excited molecules of N2 and O2 warm the glass, causing the mercury to expand.
If you had an evacuated room with 1% GHGs, as in the atmosphere, the fire would extinguish due to lack of oxygen. If you could replace it with an enclosed heat source radiating into the room, I seriously doubt the thermometer would rise.
Room air required the 99% N2 and O2 to warm.
Gordon
You: “Heat is conducted from the flames by nitrogen and oxygen and dispersed through convection to the far wall where the thermometer resides. There, the excited molecules of N2 and O2 warm the glass, causing the mercury to expand.”
Gordon, does the mercury begin to expand at the exact moment the fire is lit?
A large fire in large fireplace at 20 feet distance will radiate heat to a thermometer.
With forest fires if entire tree lights on fire, the heat can be felt from quite a distance [say, 100 feet].
Or bonfire radiates heat a further distance then a camp fire.
Take 1 foot diameter sphere radiating heat, and how much does it radiate 10 feet away from it’s surface?
Surface area of .5 foot radius sphere is 3.14 square feet and surface area of 10.5 foot radius sphere [21 feet diameter] is 1385.44 square feet. The ratio is 1385.44 to 3.14 or about 1/421
Or if 1 foot diameter sphere radiates 421 watts per square foot, then at 10 feet away it’s 1 watt per square foot.
10 foot diameter sphere from 10 feet away.
5 foot radius sphere has surface area of 314.16 square feet.
15 foot radius sphere has 2827.43 square feet
ratio of 2827.43 to 314.16 or about 1/9th or about 47 times more in comparison. If `10 diameter sphere radiate 421 watts per square feet, then at 10 feet away it’s about 47 watts per square foot.
So how do figure out whether fire in fireplace warms thermometer 20 feet away?
The point was the larger the heated area the further it can radiate heat [by any significant amount]. And fireplaces [even ancient/primitive ones] tend to be designed to radiate heat. But if thermometer is not in line if sight of fireplace- it won’t be warm by radiant heat [it’s not going to bounce off walls or something]. Or I would say if you can easily read a bible at 20 feet from the firelight, there a pray that it could warm the thermometer.
Snape,
Maybe you’re as dumb as a box of hair, and trying for a “gotcha” in a peculiar and singularly inept fashion, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Please tell me what you don’t understand, and describe the connection with the GHE, so that I may provide a relevant explanation.
I don’t believe you are asking question in good faith, but others may disagree. Why did you ask this question? Are you genuinely trying to seek knowledge? What other efforts have you made to get answers?
Cheers.
Flynn
Are you worried I’m trying to trick you into saying something extraordinarily stupid? A statement that rises above the run-of-the-mill stupid things we’ve all come to expect from you?
You caught me red handed!
snape…”It slows down the overall velocity at which heat is transported from surface to TOA”.
There is no heat transferred or transported from surface to TOA by radiation. The heat effect is a reduction in heat at the surface as electrons on atoms in the surface drop from higher energy states to lower energy states. As the electrons lose energy they radiate it as EM. At surface temps that EM is IR.
The only way heat can be transferred surface to TOA is through convection, which requires a mass of air molecules, mainly N2 and O2. Heat is associated with atomic mass and IR is not heat.
The IR to which you refer represents a reduction in heat at the surface but that representation of thermal energy does nothing till it encounters another mass that will absorb it. If no such mass exists, it will travel merrily on its way warming nothing.
If you continued to lose heat at the surface because there was no solar input, the Earth would continue to cool till around absolute zero.
Gordon,
I didn’t specify the means of transport. Not sure why you thought I was talking about radiation.
Tim Folkerts,
You claim there are many definitions of the GHE on the Internet. You’re right – and they are all as silly as NASA’s.
From NASA –
“A greenhouse is a house made of glass. It has glass walls and a glass roof. People grow tomatoes and flowers and other plants in them. A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during winter. Sunlight shines in and warms the plants and air inside. But the heat is trapped by the glass and can’t escape. So during the daylight hours, it gets warmer and warmer inside a greenhouse, and stays pretty warm at night too.
How is Earth a greenhouse?
Earth’s atmosphere does the same thing as the greenhouse. Gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide do what the roof of a greenhouse does. During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”
Lots of nonsense, of course. Lying to children is fine, I suppose. They don’t know any better. Neither do foolish Warmists, obviously.
If you actually have a greenhouse, U.K. Garden suppliers since 1855, Thompson and Morgan offer –
“Top ten tips for heating a greenhouse in winter . . . “, or you could believe NASA’s statement that greenhouses stay warm in winter.
Cheers.
The troposphere expands during El Nino and then shrinks. Just look at the temperature of the tropopause, whose trend is 0.01.
This is how the hydrostatic balance works in the troposphere.
Mike, you have proven many times you are ignorant of basic thermodynamics. As with anything in life, mastery takes actual time and effort. Until you put in months (or years!) of honest-to-goodness studying/calculating/pondering, you will stay stuck where you are — a clueless amateur who somehow things he knows more than the experts.
I tried getting you to focus on the basics, but clearly in-depth discussions of the actual science are not your thing.
Tim Folkerts,
You may continue to hide behind your thermodynamic shield in the usual foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and confuse.
Unfortunately, the foolish Warmist assertion that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun makes the thermometer hotter, is nonsense.
Yes, I know better than any self proclaimed expert who makes unfounded assertions, regardless of how many Nobel Prizes they foolishly think they were awarded.
Cheers.
“… hide behind your thermodynamic shield
There is no “shield”. This is all freshman level physics. It is open and available from myriad sources. It has been laid out before you yet you willfully choose not to open your mind. How can I possibly be denying, diverting, or confusing when I am discussing the very thermodynamic basis of The Green House Effect?
The GHE is 100% about heat and internal energy and temperature and thermal IR. I know (and you know) that you don’t understand thermodynamics, but until you do, you have no way to judge anything about the GHE.
Tim Folkerts,
Unfortunately, you still cannot say what the Greenhouse Effect is, far less explain by any means at all how it supposedly operates.
The suggestion that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface somehow causes the thermometer to get hotter is complete nonsense.
Anyone who believes it is possible is delusional – if you are delusional, then that might explain your fervent belief in something which is non-existent.
Waffling on about peculiar concepts such as “thermal IR” does not help. In what way does thermal IR differ from non-thermal IR? You really don’t have clue, do you?
Once you’ve figured out how to raise the temperature of a thermometer by reducing the amount of energy it absorbs, let me know. A reproducible experiment would help, but of course there aren’t any. Just a motley crew of balding bearded bumbling buffoons screeching “The science is settled. I tell you!’
Keep telling me what I do and don’t know. Your knowledge of ESP, parapsychology, and climatology doesn’t seem to be helping you to find the truth.
Foolish Warmist. CO2 heats nothing. The Earth has been exposed to sunlight for four and a half million years, and has produced a fair quantity of radiogenic heat over that period too. No heat storage or accumulation as far as anyone can see.
Go ahead. Use your knowledge of thermodynamics to explain how the Earth heated during this period. Foolish Warmist. I hope you find your lost clue. Maybe it’s hidden with Trenberths’s missing heat, and Gavin Schmidt’s control knob. Let me know when you find it.
Others can assess your delusional belief in the heating powers of CO2 for themselves. Telling them how clever you are, might work. Some might want some evidence, however.
Cheers.
Tim, either,
you do not understand physics, or
you do not understand what the IPCC/AGW/CO2 pseudoscience states, or
you do not understand either.
Which of the 3 best fits?
No .. I still can’t explain it to someone who doesn’t know enough science to understand. See the difference?
G*, certainly understanding the climate require MORE than just understanding the GHE. The thermodynamics of the GHE is only a one step.
I will readily admit I don not know all the details of the atmosphere or all the details of the models used to predict temperatures. I have never pretended I have such expertise. There is plenty of room for uncertainty in the climate models and this is still an area that needs study before scientists can be truly confident.
But none of that changes the fact that GHGs do indeed make the surface warmer. That bit of physics is indisputable (by people who understand thermodynamics).
g*e*r*a*n* says, May 20, 2017 at 8:24 PM:
He APPEARS not to understand what the IPCC/AGW/CO2 pseudoscience states. I’m sure he DOES understand it, but for some reason he is pathologically loath to denounce it, or to even address it properly.
This is what is claimed, after all:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
He simply cannot get himself to admit that this way of explaining the “GHE” makes it seem as if the cool atmosphere warms the already warmer surface some more by directly heating it some more, as if the “DWLWIR” caused “UWLWIR”.
Tim Folkerts says, May 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM:
No. The atmosphere’s MASS (its temperature, weight/pressure, density and viscosity) is what forces the average surface temperature to be higher than what the Sun could manage on its own. The radiative properties of the atmosphere simply make sure the surface and the atmosphere stay thermodynamically connected even after a steady state has been reached. They enable heat to flow into, through and out of the atmosphere even in a state of dynamic equilibrium. They enable the atmosphere to thermally affect the surface. But they don’t themselves CAUSE anything with regards to temperature. They’re but a TOOL.
Kristian: “The atmosphere’s MASS (its temperature, weight/pressure, density and viscosity) is what forces the average surface temperature to be higher..”
Not so. If so, show us your calculation of such effect with only those parameters.
Mike, increased CO2 making a thermometer hotter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
/Errol Flynn
Errol,
Not at all, you foolish person.
A heat source heating a gas. Not even revolutionary. Anything can be heated, anything cools when heat is removed.
Try putting the CO2 between the heat source and the thermometer, as on Earth.
No GHE. Not a bit.
Dim witted amateurs, not a clue. Maybe now you understand why nobody at all has been able to verify the GHE experimentally – it doesn’t exist. Don’t blame me if foolish Warmists are incapable of even scientifically describing their GHE in testable terms.
Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and a heat source makes the thermometer hotter? How about the opposite? Free refrigeration just by removing CO2 from the air! Watch the temperature plummet – not!
Complete and utter rubbish! Anybody who believes it deserves everything they get.
A graphic demonstration of the proposition that nobody went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. As Feynman said, “This is science?”
No, it’s climatology.
Cheers.
Flynn 5:52am: “Try putting the CO2 between the heat source and the thermometer..”
Good idea, do the experiment. Prof. Tyndall had the same idea in 1859 and did so: his thermometers showed an increase in temperature due added CO2, just like Earth troposphere and reduced temperature in the down stream instrument just like Earth stratosphere.
“Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and a heat source makes the thermometer hotter?”
Yep. As shown by experiment. Repeatedly.
“How about the opposite?”
The thermometers indicated decreased temperature when the CO2 was removed, repeatedly.
This is not science to Mike Flynn.
Mike, you must have missed it, skip to 2:24 into the video.
Surrounding a thermometer with CO2 raised temperature!
/Errol Flynn
Mike…”At night, Earths surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Thats what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”
I don’t blame NASA per se for this abject propaganda, I blame the NASA climate division, GISS, run by an egotistical climate modeler.
I have already poked huge holes in the NASA analogy. If a real greenhouse is made up of 100 panes of glass, and all 1% of GHGs, of which water vaour comprises 96%, represent the glass in the greenhouse, then you’d need to remove 99 panes of glass to get the atmospheric equivalent.
Worse still, since all CO2 is 0.04% of atmospheric gases, you’d have to shave the one pane of glass left, down to a sliver to represent the heat trapped by all CO2. In other words, you would not have a greenhouse.
The analogy of GHGs as a heat trapping roof, is as physicist Craig Bohren claimed, a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.
Besides all that, the glass is trapping excited molecules of air, a real mass. GHGs are absorbing IR, which is not heat.
Obviously NASA GISS has not a clue as to the basics of thermodynamics.
Kristian
You wrote,
“heat loss is indeed a rate. Its joules per second (per square metre). So when you claim that heat moves away from the earths surface at a MUCH slower rate than if there was no atmosphere, then you should really make an effort to try and understand what youre actually talking about.”
This situation is so confusing it made me laugh! Notice I was talking about a “rate of movement” (Distance traveled per unit of time).
What you gave me was a rate of energy loss (energy per unit of time), which is different.
But Snape, you’re telling me that the surface loses heat at a much higher rate without an atmosphere than with an atmosphere on top. That’s NOT about “distance travelled per unit of time”. That is simply about “rate of energy loss”.
What seems to be the main stumble block to your understanding here is the apparent idea stuck in your head that the specific energy (heat) escaping the surface at each point in time somehow has to travel to the top of the atmosphere before the Earth system as a whole can finally get rid of it.
That’s not how it works, I’m afraid. The Earth system is much more finely tuned than that.
Think of it this way:
Conceptually, one can view the ‘Sun>surface>atmosphere>space system’ as a grand energy conveyor belt, with solar SW radiation as the heat input (Q_in) to the heating end (sfc), convection as the transporter of Earth’s resulting internal energy (U) from heating end to cooling end, and finally terrestrial LW radiation as the heat output (Q_out) from the cooling end (tropopause).
Imagine an open tank brimful of water. This tank with all its water would represent our steady-state atmosphere and all its stored-up internal energy (providing it with a steady-state temperature and temperature distribution).
If we were to connect a pipe to the bottom of the tank and open the valve to let the pipe supply the tank with, say, 240 new litres of water every minute (4 l/s), this would be equivalent to our Sun supplying our planetary system (conceptually via the solid surface) with an average energy (heat) input of 240 W/m^2.
Where would the water added at the bottom go? It would become part of the total volume of water contained within the tank. However, at the same time, the tank would also necessarily – being, after all, brimful – overflow by the exact same amount of water from the top. The new bottom water would essentially ‘push’ the old top water out. In this way, the total volume would never change, because the outflow would always automatically match the inflow.
This is effectively what goes on in our atmosphere in the steady state as well. As new heat from the Sun is added from the bottom of the atmosphere, the whole convective air column above shifts upward, ‘pushing out’ the exact same amount of heat from the top. In between is only the (rather slow) bulk movement of internal energy. The energy is always there, stored up, but it is never released to space unless there’s an extra ‘heat push’ from below.* Heat IN > gained (‘new’) internal energy at the bottom replacing lost (‘old’) internal energy at the top > heat OUT. A conveyor belt.
*No, energy released during the night is not energy released independently of an extra ‘heat push’ from below. The output simply always lags the input, the response is extended rather than direct (2+0 = 1+1 rather than 2+0 = 2+0), the terrestrial LW intensity can never match the daytime solar heat, but is more consistent, spread out in time, so still manages to expend the original energy gain over a full (diurnal, annual) cycle. IOW, on average, there’s no lag.
Or stumb-LING block, maybe …?
Kristian, you wrote,
” But Snape, youre telling me that the surface loses heat at a much higher rate without an atmosphere than with an atmosphere”
No, I’m not saying that at all. Picture smoke being forcefully pumped out of a smokestack. As the smoke rises, it interacts with the atmosphere and begins to slow. This is what I’m talking about. It doesn’t occur on the moon and is independent of steady-state.
Snape says, May 20, 2017 at 1:35 PM:
You most certainly are. You might not MEAN to say it. But you ARE saying it. Or, how else do you expect people to interpret this statement of yours? I quote you verbatim from upthread, Snape:
“Steady-state or not, energy moves away from the earth’s surface at a MUCH slower rate than if there was no atmosphere.”
So now you claim to be somehow talking about the speed of the atmospheric throughput of energy rather than the actual rate of energy escape from the surface? And you compare this atmospheric throughput of energy to a situation where there IS no atmosphere!?
You make absolutely no sense, Snape!
No, it doesn’t happen on the Moon. BECAUSE THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE ON THE MOON!
So are you talking about the speed at which energy moves up THROUGH the atmosphere, AFTER it’s already escaped the surface (which is only a factor if there IS an atmosphere to begin with)? Or are you comparing the atmo and non-atmo situations directly by looking at the rate at which energy actually does escape the surface?
Kristian
Yes, I’m talking about “the speed at which energy moves up THROUGH the atmosphere, AFTER its already escaped the surface (which is only a factor if there IS an atmosphere to begin with).”
With no atmosphere, the smoke’s velocity after leaving the smokestack
would meet no resistance and wouldn’t slow down.
So I was basically trying to compare these two situations: the upward velocity of smoke (heat) after entering earth’s atmosphere vs. the upward velocity after entering space.
I agree the way I stated it was very confusing.
Kristian
This is what I wrote further down thread:
“Picture a big lake with raging rivers coming in at one end and exiting at the other. These rivers have a fast current. The big lake has a current too, but its so slow you cant even notice it…..”
Snape says, May 20, 2017 at 2:58 PM:
But that’s completely irrelevant. Because the heat escapes the surface itself as fast with as without an atmosphere, in the steady state, which is what matters to the surface temperature. It doesn’t matter how fast it moves up the atmospheric column. Not in the steady state.
So I’m afraid I still don’t understand what you’re getting at, Snape. What is your actual argument here …?
Kristian
Did you see my references to a lake and a bathtub?
Some people think heat is literally “trapped” in our atmosphere. I was trying to point out that it’s actually just flowing very slowly, like water through a large lake.
This lake, of course, would have an inlet and outlet.
Kristian
You: “heat escapes the surface itself as fast with as without an atmosphere”.
Exactly. So in comparing differences between atmosphere and no atmosphere, the only RELEVANT phenomena are those that occur AFTER heat has left the surface.
Snape says, May 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM:
Why? How? What is it relevant FOR?
Kristian
Because, by definition, comparing differences is NOT comparing what is similar.
Kristian
Oh, sorry. You want to know what I’m getting at.
I have a suspicion (as I’ve already hinted at), that the warmth in our atmosphere is similar to water in a lake which has an inlet and outlet. It’s my hypothesis that such a lake was formed by changes in the inlets “velocity” (distance/time), which is different than rate of flow (volume/time).
For example, assuming a constant rate of flow, a river will be narrow where it’s velocity increases, and wide where its velocity decreases. If velocity slows enough, a lake will form.
Let me add this. “Rate of flow” is important to hydrologists because it constantly changes. The rate of energy entering our atmosphere, OTOH, is constant. So what’s of interest are changes in “velocity” of energy flux (Is this stated correctly?).
I guess my claim was misleading:
Snape: “The atmosphere causes turtles to move slower than hares.”
Kristian: “No. As many turtles are coming as going”
Yesterday I was complaining to Barry that people misunderstand the word “trapped” when talking about heat in the atmosphere. My metaphor was very similar to yours.
“If you fill up a bathtub with water (with the drain at the bottom closed) and then turn off the faucet, you could claim the water is trapped, and that would be accurate.
On the other hand, you could unplug the drain and turn on the faucet, adjusting the inflow to match the outflow. The water level in the bathtub would remain the same, right? But now if you claimed the water was trapped (after all, nothing appears to have changed), it would be very inaccurate. The water is no longer trapped, its actively flowing from faucet to drain.
The problem is now much more than semantics, although semantics caused the problem.
Part of my hypothesis is that the net energy in our atmosphere is slowly flowing from surface to space. not at all trapped.”
Kristian’s 9:29am analogy hopefully replacing the coin exchange: “..let the pipe supply the tank..”
“The new bottom water would essentially ‘push’ the old top water out.”
What do you know, a macro flux down the pipe and a separate non-interacting macro flux up the tank. Constituent particle KE conserved.
Kristian’s steady state water tank analogy now has two non-interacting separate macro opposite fluxes with a net of zero.
Now just apply that analogy to separate non-interacting macro photon fluxes, Kristian, ~240 into & ~240 out of the planet’s system and you will make advances in understanding how atm. radiation really works as shown by natural observation and experiment.
Ball4
Kristian’s “water tank” analogy is nice because, like the atmosphere, the inflow is at the bottom and the outflow is out the top. I have a big problem with this part, though:
“The new bottom water would essentially push the old top water out.”
This is true with water in a tank. No more coming in – no more overflowing out the top.
But what would happen if you “turned off the sun” and the surface stopped emitting energy? No more upward push, right?
However, I would think the atmosphere would continue to cool at nearly the same rate as before…..which means the outflow is not dependent on a “forcing” from the inflow.
“But what would happen if you “turned off the sun””
In Kristian’s water tank analogy the sun is always on since there is no shade in space, so if the Earth encounters some space shade, yes, the analogy would reduce to say 230 in and 230 out ~steady state. Not as much thermodynamic internal energy (constituent particle KE) would thus mean a cooler system in that case.
Ball4
Not sure what you’re talking about.
Hypothetically, if there were suddenly no sun, wouldn’t the earth’s atmosphere continue to cool?
Would be like Kristian’s analogy with no water in tank. Not meaningful.
Ball4
Now I get it. Surface and atmosphere would more or less cool in unison.
Sorry Kristian
“Kristians water tank analogy is nice because, like the atmosphere, the inflow is at the bottom and the outflow is out the top.”
Actually, there is a much better analogy using water. (I actually like air pressure better, but we can stick to water).
* The inflowing water is 240 l/min from a very high pressure (5700 PSI corresponding to 5700 K temperature of the sun).
* Without an atmosphere, this water runs into a tall tank of water. This tank has a hole at the BOTTOM, not a brim at the top. The deeper the water in this tank, the faster the water runs out.
* The steady-state condition is when the pressure at the bottom reaches 255 PSI. At the corresponding depth, 240 l/min leaks out. Any deeper and the water runs out faster than 240 l/min; any shallower and the water runs out slower than 240 l/min.
* Adding an atmosphere is like adding a *second* tank (which also has a hole at the bottom, not a brim at the top) around the first tank. The water leaking from the first tank seeps into the second tank. When the second tank fills to some level, it also leaks 240 l/min.
* the critical point is that the inner tank must get deeper because it is now leaking not to atmospheric pressure, but its leaking to the elevated pressure of the outer tank. The water will back up in the first tank and increase the pressure.
You could make this fancier by making holes along the side so the tanks leak even faster as they get full. You could pour some of the incoming 240 l/m straight into the ‘atmosphere’. You could figure a way to include the ‘atmospheric window’.
(The problem with using a brim is that it artificially sets the depth at a fixed level, independent of the inflow rate.)
Kristian’s analogy is fine for what it’s describing. Energy going out must equal energy going in. Doesn’t work for enhanced greenhouse effect. There is no perfect analog based on things we can see and touch for radiative changes within Earth’s atmosphere. All the metaphors we use are limited in some way.
“Doesn’t work for enhanced greenhouse effect.”
It can, just add some industrial age contraption that traps some water at the bottom in proportion to total pressure, optical depth of the water and the 240 in from the pipe remains constant while the outflow over the brim decreases to say 239 for awhile until the contraption fills. Then steady state balance 240 in 240 out over the brim returns with some added trapped water at the bottom.
Yeah, but you have to change the analogy to make it work. Kristian’s analogy is limited to thermal equilibrium.
Atmospheric processes are many a varied. Radiative transfer is one of them. But it seems one or two people believe that because these other processes are happening, radiative transfer could not be happening. I don’t get the logic in that notion.
Radiation exists but energy flow is determined by temperature difference. In an appropriately dense atmosphere, the sum of the energies gives an appropriate gas pressure that strives to maintain a hydrostatic balance.
Well, you agree radiative transfer is happening. Some seem not to.
I need to explain what I mean by “slowing”.
Picture a big lake with raging rivers coming in at one end and exiting at the other. These rivers have a fast current. The big lake has a current too, but it’s so slow you can’t even notice it. That’s what I’m talking about!
The lake is the atmosphere. The rivers represent inflow and outflow (earth’s surface and TOA)
snape…”The lake is the atmosphere. The rivers represent inflow and outflow (earths surface and TOA)”
Please explain the lake, which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
Gordon
Good catch. Thanks!
The lake is the reservoir of warmth in our atmosphere. (is “warmth” ok?)
barry…”But it seems one or two people believe that because these other processes are happening, radiative transfer could not be happening”.
I am not claiming radiative transfer in not happening I think the focus on it is far too narrow and it has been given far too much credit for warming the atmosphere.
I think before the IPCC got carried off on the notion of anthropogenic warming due to GHGs, the atmosphere was in thermal equilibrium with CO2 at 0.04% of atmospheric gases. The amount of GHGs we have contributed as of the 1990s was revealed by the IPCC to be a small fraction of the 0.04%.
Even if we had doubled the 0.04%, I cannot begin to visualize how that could possibly contribute to the kind of warming being suggested. In fact, based on the ideal gas law, with volume and mass held constant, the heat contributed by each gas is proportional to it’s partial pressure, which in turn is proportional to its mass.
I think climate modelers has done science a huge disfavour by focusing atmospheric warming on trace gases in the atmosphere. By doing so they have ignored basic chemistry and physics to enable their interpretation of atmospheric warming.
Gordon, all those processes are considered in climate research, not just radiative transfer. Basic physics and chemistry have not been ignored. There are large sections of the IPCC dedicated to geochemistry and, of course, physics.
By the 1990s human activity had increased the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 by 30%. That’s a significant ‘fraction’.
As to small amounts making a large difference, examples abound in nature. The ozone layer above the South Pole was noticeably reduced because of CFCs, which had increased by an order of magnitude less than CO2. An increase of arsenic by 30% of your blood stream can kill you, as well as a bunch of other stuff in tiny amounts.
based on the ideal gas law, with volume and mass held constant, the heat contributed by each gas is proportional to its partial pressure, which in turn is proportional to its mass.
This is part of the story, and well discussed in the IPCC. As I said, just because there are processes apart from radiative transfer, doesn’t mean that therefore there is no radiative transfer.
Someone here once complained that convection is not included in the models. I referred them to a bunch of papers with models called ‘radiative-convective’ models.
People keep saying that climate scientists “never consider” x, y, or z. But they do, comprehensively.
My entry into discussion online about AGW over 10 years ago began with a commenter at another forum announcing that the IPCC wouldn’t look at water vapour or sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere. This was a few months before the 2007 IPCC report came out, and I bet him that they would.
There were hundreds of hits on SO2 and water vapour, throughout the report, as well as whole sections dedicated to them.
So I checked the 2001 report, wondering if that would have given him cause to think the way he did. There were hundreds of mentions there, too, with sections dedicated to each.
It became apparent he’d never checked the IPCC reports, and got his information from some blogs.
Over the years I would do the same thing whenever a critic said, “why do they never consider x, y, or z?!?!”
Every time, ‘they’ had considered x, y, and z – and in detail.
Every time.
Having a focus on CO2 is not a terrible idea. We have injected and are injecting significant amounts of it into the atmosphere. This is the single largest human footprint on the atmosphere. We’d be daft NOT to work out if that might have consequences. But that focus does not come at the expense of excluding all the other processes while investigating it.
So I googled ‘climate models ideal gas law’.
Guess what?
At a time when a few pokes of one’s finger on a keyboard can answer a question, I cannot figure out why people claiming stuff fail to spend the 5 to 10 seconds checking to see if what they imagine is so.
I just understand can’t what lack of curiosity causes such supreme laziness. In the age of google there is simply no excuse.
Gordon, CO2 at 0.04% can’t possibly influence plant life either.
Nice one. Greening of the planet could not possibly be occurring with such ‘insignificant’ increase of CO2.
Because we are after El Nino, the temperature at the pole has fallen. The troposphere is shrinking.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.5.18.2017.gif
Temperature in tropopause varies according to El Nino. Trend 0.01.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00902/7j42f9u63cbo.png
I wasn’t going to. The Devil made me do it!
“2.2. Climate change and the conceptual penis
Nowhere are the consequences of hypermasculine machismo braggadocio isomorphic identi cation with the conceptual penis more problematic than concerning the issue of climate change. Climate change is driven by nothing more than it is by certain damaging themes in hypermasculinity that can be best understood via the dominant rapacious approach to climate ecology identi able with the con- ceptual penis. Our planet is rapidly approaching the much-warned-about 2C climate change thresh- old, and due to patriarchal power dynamics that maintain present capitalist structures, especially with regard to the fossil fuel industry, the connection between hypermasculine dominance of scienti c, political, and economic discourses and the irreparable damage to our ecosystem is made clear.”
Peer reviewed. Editorially reviewed. Published. Must be true, therefore?
Cheers.
Mike…”Nowhere are the consequences of hypermasculine machismo braggadocio isomorphic identi cation with the conceptual penis more problematic than concerning the issue of climate change”.
Huh??? Hypermasculine???
You’re talking rednecks and I have yet to see a redneck who supports global warming/climate change.
I tend to regard the followers of the alarmist climate mantra as being the opposite of hypermaculine, people who need authority figures and have hissy fits when you try to contradict their dogma.
Not all, but many.
You read it wrong, Gordon.
Peer reviewed. Editorially reviewed. Published. Must be true, therefore?
Oh please.
Apologies Gordon, it was a hoax nonsense paper. I hope you didn’t think it was serious.
I posted the quote just to show how easy it is to get a mainly computer generated paper, containing gibberish, through peer review etc.
Once again, apologies. I wasn’t trying to trick anyone.
Cheers.
Mike…”Apologies Gordon, it was a hoax nonsense paper. I hope you didnt think it was serious”.
I did pick up that the paper was a hoax. I was merely adding more dark humour to your hoax.
cheers, back.
And don’t be put off by alarmists ganging up on you. I have become immune to it.
I hope these ongoing debates are being taken in the spirit of discovery. I tend to speak as if I know what I’m talking about but I’m the first to admit I don’t, in an overall sense. I am only too aware of the complexity of the universe and the lack of ability of the human mind to understand much of it.
Even brilliant people like Schrodinger, nor any other physicist of the day, could not prove his quantum theory for atoms more complex than hydrogen. It took Linus Pauling, with a strong background in chemistry and his experience with molecular shapes from x-ray crystallography to piece the theory together for the covalent bond and molecular shapes. He essentially married quantum theory to chemistry.
That’s why when Pauling talked about vitamin C later in life as being beneficial in megadoses, I did not doubt him. If you think what you endure is bad you might understand what it must have been like for Pauling to be called a quack by medical minions who lacked even an nth of his knowledge in chemistry and biology. Yes…he explored amino acid chains long before it was en vogue.
No one would admit they did not know and when Pauling was in Europe and tried to contact Schrodinger he was rebuffed.
Tim…you made this statement a while back and I’d like to address it in a new thread. It’s important.
“I assume energy came from somewhere, if the body is emitting energy ie., above absolute zero, and was therefore accumulated.
Internal energy, U, was accumulated. Heat, Q, is the name given to the process. But heat itself, Q, is not accumulated. Jsut like Work, W, can transfer energy to an object, but the object does not accumulate work”
I have my own theory that all energy comes from atomic structure. Certainly, all EM seems to come from atomic structure.
If you read the work of Clausius he provides an intimate relationship between heat and work. He goes so far as to talk of the equivalence of heat and work. They don’t have the same units but they can be equated to each other. Someone else provided a conversion factor.
If you do work on a volume of gas by compressing the gas, you gain heat in the volume. There’s a simple explanation for that through the ideal gas equation and it’s about the increased pressure due to the reduced volume.
With an increase in pressure, the gas molecules are able to collide with each other more. But how does that increase the temperature, hence the relative heat?
At an atomic level it is known that electrons on atoms move to a higher energy orbital when they absorb energy. That translates to a higher KE and an increase in heat. As far as I know, an increase in collision due to compacting the gas molecules can provide that energy.
Please note, there is little or no radiation involved here. There is an accumulated energy due to gas molecules being compressed into a reduced volume.
There is no disputing the fact that molecules of a gas increase their temperature when compressed and we refer to that increase in temperature as them becoming hotter.
However, temperature is a man-made device for measuring relative levels of heat, which is the relative level of kinetic energy of the molecules/atoms. Temperature is not the real phenomena here, it is the heat.
The heat was produced by work and if you could reverse the process the heat would produce an equivalent amount of work.
No one knows what energy is but we have formulated laws to try to describe it. We have made statements that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and the 1st law of thermodynamics suggests that energy must be conserved.
We have also broken energy down into different forms of energy such as mechanical, electrical, gravitational, thermal, nuclear, chemical, and so on. In each of those sub-divisions, energy can be described as potential energy or kinetic energy. I think we have to be careful not to confuse kinetic energy is certain branches as an energy of its own. It’s a genetic energy of ANY energy in motion.
For example, the vibrational energy between atoms in a solid can be described by their kinetic energy as they move and as potential energy at either end of their path of motion. However, that energy is known as thermal energy and it is heat.
There is no point describing heat as energy in motion because that energy in motion between atoms in a solid lattice is heat. It does not matter if you talk about the work done by that heat or the heat produced by work on a body, the internal atomic energy is the heat. There is nothing else it can be.
If you heat the end of an iron rod with a propane torch you are transferring heat from a high temperature flame in which the atoms/molecules in the gas are highly excited. In that state, when they contact less excited atoms in the rod they transfer the energy from the highly energetic state to the less energetic state of the iron atoms. Their response to that infused energy is to vibrate harder themselves and they pass it on to adjacent atoms.
There’s no point making the energy transferred a semantical argument, it is heat being transferred through direct contact with a hot mass of atoms in the gas. Heat is not the process, heat is the energy of motion of the atoms in the gas then the rod.
We never talk about transferring kinetic energy from the gas to the rod, we talk about a heat transfer. Heat is the energy transferred, not a reference to the process.
barry says, May 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM:
Thus concludes a rather incoherent comment from barry upthread.
We apparently have to go through this one more time. Because either the reading comprehension of barry here is severely impaired, or he is simply too busy staring at the tip of his nose, preventing him from making out what is actually being written. I’m sure it’s not because he’s just generally too slow …
Well, here is barry’s exact words:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247015
Let’s parse this. First paragraph:
“In the Earth system the heat leaving the surface is slowed down by greenhouse gases – in this case by radiative transfer (also by convection – ‘skeptics’ seem only to focus on convection for some reason).”
So, is “the heat leaving the surface” also slowed down by convection? Is that what barry is saying? Or is it only slowed down by “greenhouse gases” (that is, by “back radiation”, I guess)?
Hard to say. But let’s move on. Maybe we find our answer in the next paragraph. First sentence:
“The colder air can make the surface warmer if it becomes more opaque to upwelling infrared.”
Really? That’s all it takes? How?
“More a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n of upwelling infrared leads to more infrared being emitted downward (and every other direction). While the net flow remains hot to cold, the rate at which the surface cools is slowed down, and thus becomes warmer.”
Ok, so are any mechanisms OTHER than the radiative one (such as ‘convection’, mentioned in the first paragraph) included and accounted for here? barry asserts, without caveats, that the surface “becomes warmer” because “the rate at which [it] cools is slowed down”. Ok. But how exactly is it slowed down, according to barry? Like this: “More a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n of upwelling infrared leads to more infrared being emitted downward (and every other direction).”
But if there are OTHER mechanisms at work beside the RADIATIVE one, like ‘convection’, how do we know for sure that a change purely in the radiative one (such as barry describes above) will automatically reduce the OVERALL “rate at which the surface cools” so that we can know for sure that the surface actually “becomes warmer”? Overall.
This is where I point out to barry the following:
This is simply stating the ‘ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL’ prerequisite.
You need to assume that all the other mechanisms in operation do not change during the increase in “radiative forcing”. Otherwise you cannot know if there will be an overall reduction in the “rate at which the surface cools”, and thus you cannot know if there will be an overall warming of the surface.
This is all pretty logical and straightforward, but apparently oh so hard for barry.
Well, to me he very much seems like a man with a conviction. And such people, after all, are hard to change …
So, is the heat leaving the surface also slowed down by convection? Is that what barry is saying? Or is it only slowed down by greenhouse gases (that is, by back radiation, I guess)?
You just quoted me above that remark:
“In the Earth system the heat leaving the surface is slowed down by greenhouse gases in this case by radiative transfer (also by convection…”
Do you have a reading problem?
Radiative transfer is not the only process in the atmosphere. Will I need to make this caveat every time I post or can we take it as read from now on?
Now to your “argument.”
You need to assume that all the other mechanisms in operation do not change during the increase in “radiative forcing”.
No I don’t.
The discussion was specifically about how the greenhouse effect operates, nothing more. Other processes could completely swamp the atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect and it would still be operating. If the conversation had been about other processes then I would have discussed them.
But we still have people on this board who don’t even think the greenhouse effect exists. So that’s what we were talking about – and how to describe it the best way.
So what did you want to talk about? Let’s quote you. And this is the full quote that I took exception with.
“Yes, theoretically this could and would happen, if the surface heat budget was purely radiative. However, it isnt, and so this ISNT happening in the real Earth system.”
Now, unless you’ve expressed yourself incredibly poorly, this is what you are saying:
Because radiative transfer isn’t the only process occurring in the atmosphere it is therefore not occurring at all.
The “logic” of that is absolute nonsense. Here’s a statement based on exactly the same “logic.”
Because eating is not the only thing people do, they therefore do not eat at all.
Perhaps you would like to clarify your statement.
(By, the way, I tend to treat people how they treat me, usually erring on the side of being polite until I’ve had enough. If you think that mutual condescension is an effective way to discuss things, keep doing what you’re doing)
barry says, May 21, 2017 at 1:39 AM:
But, barry. You STILL are not getting what I’m pointing out to you. Are you really this obtuse!? I don’t know what to say.
You keep saying there are other processes in the atmosphere. And yet you STILL go on and claim that the surface will warm from merely reducing its heat loss by increasing the amount of “GHGs” in the atmosphere (somehow radiating more intensely downward). Do you seriously not see the problem here!?
I mean, it’s like talking to a wall. Or a preschool child.
Once again: Are you saying that the surface will necessarily warm by simply increasing the amount of “GHGs” in the atmosphere? Or are you not?
Is English not your fist language? I’ll simply quote myself:
Other processes could completely swamp the atmospheric greenhouse effect and it would still be operating.
What about this do you not get?
I’ll tell you. You are arguing from some other context. Probably regarding the Earth’s actual heat budget over time.
I am not discussing the atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect within your context. I am discussing it within the context dominating this thread. Does it exist? And how best to describe it?
This is as clear as day to me. you are not interested in joining the discussion as it stands. You are peddling your model of Earth’s heat budget.
But your approach is crappy. You’ve crashed the party like a boor with a pet peeve, and are astounded that everyone isn’t on the same page as you.
barry says, May 21, 2017 at 2:10 AM:
No, barry. I was simply responding to THIS particular statement of yours:
And my response:
“Yes, theoretically this could and would happen, if the surface heat budget was purely radiative.”
It should be bleeding obvious to ANYONE with a normally functioning mind what I’m referring to here. The ‘All Else Being Equal’ clause. It is completely logical what I’m pointing out, based on what you are actually saying in your quoted comment above. You’re saying that the surface will become warmer if the colder air becomes more opaque to upwelling infrared. And I say, yes, IF – and only if – no other mechanism is there to counter its effect. So theoretically it would work like this, IF, by reducing the RADIATIVE heat loss of the surface in the way you describe, you have thereby also automatically reduced the TOTAL heat loss of the surface. But you don’t know that, if all you do is making the air more opaque to upwelling IR. So you cannot say for sure that there will be warming from this. But that’s exactly what you claimed. You claimed there will be surface warming from simply reducing the RADIATIVE heat loss from the surface. That’s what you wrote, barry. In your comment. And that’s specifically what I responded to.
If you have said something else somewhere else at some other time, who cares? I responded to that particular comment of yours and what you stated in it. Live with it.
How hard is this!? I’m done here.
Again with the false logic, dressed up as logic.
You keep returning to the same quote. You have to ignore everything else I’ve said to keep making the same point over and again. This is pure argumentativeness.
And it’s wrong.
So, you’ve said it’s not about the actual heat budget:
Barry: “You are arguing from some other context. Probably regarding the Earths actual heat budget over time.”
Kristian: “No, barry.”
Ok.
So let’s say that some mechanism causes the surface to cool more than enhanced DLR warms it.
Does this mean that enhanced DLR is not making the surface warmer?
Nope. The enhanced DLR is making the surface warmer than it would be without it.
As you’ve said, we’re not discussing the actual heat budget, so the surface could well be cooler due to some other process, but enhanced DLR is offsetting some of that cooling effect, which means…. “While the net flow remains hot to cold, the rate at which the surface cools is slowed down, and thus becomes warmer.”
Warmer than what it would be if there was no enhanced DLR.
The surface temp could drop by 10C due to whatever cooling process, but DLR could provide 1C warming – DLR is still a warming mechanism.
What about that is difficult to understand?
Once again: Are you saying that the surface will necessarily warm by simply increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere? Or are you not?
I am saying that increased GHGs will have a warming effect on the surface.
I am discussing the greenhouse effect. Nothing more.
So let’s say that some other process has been going on in the atmosphere for decades that has a cooling effect larger than the greenhouse effect. Is my statement invalidated? No.
Let’s say that some other process has been going on in the atmosphere for decades that has a larger warming effect than the enhanced ‘greenhouse’ effect. Does this invalidate my statement?
No.
Because all these things could be happening at the same time.
In a useful debate it is important to be able to understand – or even better – express the opposing view. This I have done with the sun/cloud thing, which you are unable to comprehend is an accurate rephrasing of your point.
I also made a pretty good guess at what context you were operating from when I was chatting to Snape upthread. And that context is your ‘models’ of Earth’s energy budget from time series of various phenomena at different altitudes. Eventually you posted one of your graphs, as I expected you would.
Your line of argument regarding is quite familiar to me now. Other processes – like cloud cover changes – are’shown’ to be responsible for global warming in the modern age, and therefore the enhanced greenhouse effect is ruled out. You even have some ‘physics’ to explain that. It’s all over this website for many months.
Unfortunately, I don’t buy your models or your reasoning. And we’ve discussed that before. I doubt either of us would be satisfied with a resumption.
How about a direct response to this, Kristian. You may need to adjust your context to do so.
Yes, theoretically this could and would happen, if the surface heat budget was purely radiative. However, it isnt, and so this ISNT happening in the real Earth system.”
Now, unless youve expressed yourself incredibly poorly, this is what you are saying:
Because radiative transfer isnt the only process occurring in the atmosphere it is therefore not occurring at all.
The logic of that is absolute nonsense.
Perhaps you would like to clarify your statement.
Tsk, now I need to clarify. The mutual condescension impinges both of us in our discussion.
Your argument is in effect:
Because enhanced DLR isnt the only process occurring in the atmosphere it is therefore not occurring at all.
barry says, May 19, 2017 at 8:16 PM:
Mmm, but it’s not the CLOUDS that ’cause the warming’. It’s the Sun. The energy, the heat, producing the warming all comes from the Sun, not the clouds. The change in cloud cover only ENABLES the Sun to cause the warming.
But clouds are “a feature in” the real world, barry. And so excluding them from your data tells you nothing about the real-world situation. You will then just fool yourself into thinking that you see “causes” of warming that aren’t really there …
All Clear-Sky studies are useless. All-Sky is the ONLY relevant condition to study. If what you want to find out is whether there is an “enhanced GHE” at work or not. An “enhanced GHE” is supposed to be a NET effect, barry, not an effect localised to narrow spectral bands. You need to know if it has an overall effect. On temperature.
Mmm, but its not the CLOUDS that cause the warming. Its the Sun. The energy, the heat, producing the warming all comes from the Sun, not the clouds. The change in cloud cover only ENABLES the Sun to cause the warming.
That is exactly what I described.
youve said it was changes in clouds and the amount of insolation reaching the surface that causes warming.
So you’re just being argumentative.
Your comments on clear-sky measurements being useless applies only to the topic you are interested in. They are very useful for measuring changes in DLR from atmospheric gases – no clouds to contaminate the data, so they get a clearer picture of what the gases are doing.
The reason you don’t get this is because you are fixated on your model to the exclusion of any other investigation.
Why you are so fixated I don’t know, but it strongly interferes with your reasoning on topics outside your particular view.
To repeat what I said upthread – observations of increase DLR in the spectrum associated with CO2 are observed. I supplied numerous observational research to corroborate. Your attempts to summarily dismiss them have been specious.
barry says, May 19, 2017 at 8:20 PM:
But it’s not the CLOUDS that ’cause the warming’. It’s the Sun. The energy, the heat, producing the warming all comes from the Sun, not the clouds. The change in cloud cover only ENABLES the Sun to cause the warming.
It is the solar HEAT that matters to Earth’s energy budget, not the TSI (the Sun’s “intensity”). The solar heat is the ASR, the net SW. That’s TSI minus global albedo (refl SW). And the global albedo is mainly determined by cloud cover. Everyone knows this. Or at least, everyone SHOULD know this. Albedo is much more variable than TSI, and so it’s pretty obvious that changes in global albedo is what has enabled the Sun to warm the Earth over the last decades:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-refl-sw-vs-pmod-tsi1.png
No. “GHGs” do NOT play a part, barry. As is evident from the OLR vs. T_tropo data spanning the last 32 years:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbsceres-vs-uah1.png
But its not the CLOUDS that cause the warming. Its the Sun.
Once again you quote me saying exactly that, but once again respond as if I’m saying that clouds are a heat source.
This argumentativeness is getting boring very quickly.
I mean, how does your brain so effectively filter out what I say:
“less cloud = more insolation at the surface”
Those are my words. Exactly what you are saying. You even quoted them in your post.
Kristian: “But it’s not the CLOUDS that ’cause the warming’. It’s the Sun. The energy, the heat, producing the warming all comes from the Sun, not the clouds.”
Couple of the last nights in my area, overnight as clouds rolled in overhead the surface thermometer temperatures actually rose a few degrees F. Sometimes sfc warming is not all from the sun Kristian.
“”GHGs” do NOT play a part, barry. As is evident from the OLR”
In the longest available meaningful CERES data published to date, OLR is shown to slightly decrease inconsistent with Kristian’s work. Why is that Kristian?
Question: were the clouds associated with a warm or cold front? Just curious.
No, and the wind was calm.
This ridiculous routine keeps happening here.
Some ‘skeptic’ says the greenhouse effect is fake.
Someone rebuts that by explaining the greenhouse effect.
Another skeptic drops into the conversation to say that ‘warmists’ think that the greenhouse effect is all there is.
But it was the ‘skeptic’ who originally isolated the topic!
Context is everything. But it’s one of the biggest failings of this board (and many other net discussions). We spend a bunch of time talking past each other because ideology seems to be more important than intellectual rigour.
Okay, barry, here’s some “intellectual rigor” you can “talk past”.
The IPCC/AGW/CO2 “theory” is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will “heat the planet”. This (false) concept began with the Arrhenius CO2 equation, which indicates that the “forcing” (in units of Watts/m^2) is proportional to the natural logarithm of the “new” CO2 ppm divided by 280ppm. At today’s CO2 levels, that calculated “forcing” is about 2 Watts/m^2.
So, the IPCC states that “new” CO2 in the atmosphere is creating energy. (2 Watt/m^2 equates to 2 Joules/m^2, every second.) That’s clearly a VIOLATION of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. (Energy is NOT created out of “thin air”.)
Can’t wait to see what innovative way you spin your way out of this obvious VIOLATION of physical laws.
Website corrupted the text. Here’s the corrected version, for easier reading:
Okay, barry, here’s some “intellectual rigor” you can “talk past”.
The IPCC/AGW/CO2 “theory” is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will “heat the planet”. The (false) concept began with the Arrhenius CO2 equation, which indicates that the “forcing” (in units of Watts/m^2) is proportional to the natural logarithm of the new CO2 ppm/280ppm. At today’s CO2 levels, that calculated “forcing” is about 2 Watts/m^2.
So, the IPCC states that “new” CO2 in the atmosphere is creating energy. That’s clearly a VIOLATION of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Can’t wait to see what innovative way you spin your way out of this obvious VIOLATION of physical laws.
So, the IPCC states that new CO2 in the atmosphere is creating energy
If the IPCC “states” that new CO2 in the atmosphere “creates” energy, then you will have no trouble providing the exact quote.
Until you provide it, I will assume you are talking rubbish and there’s nothing to rebut.
Don’t dodge the point with blather – just corroborate what you’ve claimed here. That’s all you have to do. Then I’ll address the rest of your post.
If you don’t, you’re a BS artist and that will be that.
barry, are you admitting you are not aware of the pseudoscience you support?
Ever studied the IPCC nonsense?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
Pay special attention to “RF”, which in the report refers to “radiative forcing”, which is in units of Watts/m^2. That “RF” is supposedly created just by adding CO2 to the atmosphere!
Exactly what are you in denial of?
Radiative forcing *IS* created by GHGs (including CO2).
Perhaps you could define what you think “radiative forcing” is and why it is not caused by GHGs.
A link to a 30,000 word document will not do. I’m not searching that for you.
Provide the quote or be a BS artist.
It’s that simple.
the IPCC states that new CO2 in the atmosphere is creating energy
This is what you said. “IPCC states…” Prove it with a direct quote.
barry, that’s good, but not great, obfuscation.
You are trying to state that my statement was a direct quote. Notice I did not use any quotation marks. I never stated it was a “direct quote”. That is your attempt to “spin”, because you can’t address the sad situation that the pseudoscience you have swallowed all this years is bogus.
Good, but not great, spin. I think you can do much better, so I’m still waiting for the “what innovative way you spin your way out of this obvious VIOLATION of physical laws”.
(Notice the quotation marks.)
anger spins out of Barry’s challenge. Can’t find the passage purportedly read. anger remains a BS artist.
So, the IPCC does not “state” what you claim. You can’t quote the IPCC on it, which is why you have offered a link to a 30,000 word chapter, hoping that I will misapprehend it as badly as you do.
I’ve read most of the last 3 IPCC reports. Nowhere in them is it said or implied that the increase of CO2 “creates” energy.
Your claim is laughable.
Radiative Forcing:
A radiative forcing is anything that changes the radiative balance of the climate system. If global cloud cover reduces or increases, this is deemed a radiative forcing – not because clouds produce their own energy, but because they change the balance of radiation through the system.
If there is a long period of more cloud, then more sunlight is reflected away in the middle and upper troposphere, and this creates an energy imbalance with the surface, which then has to lose heat to attain thermal equilibrium with the amount of sunlight now being received. As the thermal capacity of the oceans is much higher than air, they take more time losing the warmth they attained when there was less cloud cover.
Same principle applies to aerosols, black carbon on snow (albedo) and to the sun itself.
No energy is “created” by the concept of radiative forcing. RF is merely an attempt to account for changes in energy balance through the climate system (surface to top of atmosphere).
GHGs aborb upwelling IR, which is re-radiated in all directions. If the concentrations of GHGs change, then this perturbs the radiative balance of the climate system, which must adjust according to the laws of physics toward equlibrium (energy leaving TOA must equal energy coming in).
Your lack of comprehension may stem from your inability to figure out why jumpers make you feel warmer on a cold day.
BTW, barry, that “30,000 word document” that you so casually toss aside, that is the “bible” of AGW pseudoscience. You don’t want to bad mouth that in any way. You might be scheduled for re-indoctrination camp!
“Nowhere in them is it said or implied that the increase of CO2 ‘creates’ energy.”
barry, barry, barry! “Watts/m^2” is not saying “energy”? “Watts/m^2 is not implying “energy”?
Hilarious!
(Your spin is getting much better now, more please.)
A cloud comes over your farm and sits there. There is a change in W/m2 at the surface on your land.
Has energy been created or destroyed?
barry, energy is not created or destroyed.
Your question indicates, again, that you prefer pseudoscience over science.
No energy is created or destroyed when there is a change in W/m2.
IPCC does not “state”, infer or imply that energy is “created” with the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
That’s why you can’t quote IPCC to corroborate your specious claim.
You can’t even explain why you think this is so. You have zero understanding.
RF is NOT about the creation of energy, but about a change in the radiative balance of the Earth’s climate system.
Which I can quote for you if you need further help.
But please amuse us with more attempts to corroborate your silliness. Please explain why you think IPCC posits that RF changes “create” energy.
Come on, spinner.
barry, if I understand your “new” spin on the IPCC pseudoscience, you are now saying that CO2 is NOT a heat source. The RF units of “Watts/m^2” just go away!
Well, that is a new spin, since for years the AGW crowd has been telling us CO2 is heating the planet.
So, just to confirm, CO2 is not heating the planet?
We might need a new acronym—-ANC (Anthropogenic Natural Climate).
The science is right, but governments will still want to raise our taxes.
you are now saying that CO2 is NOT a heat source.
I have always maintained that CO2 is not by itself a source of heat. But it does – read below – cause a warmer surface.
Here’s something you positively know is true.
When you put on a jumper that is the same temperature as the cold ambient air, after a little while you feel warmer.
I know you’re not stupid enough to claim that putting on the jumper in no way causes you to feel warmer. You’d just get laughed off the blog.
So I’m curious to see how you explain this every day, well-known phenomenon. A colder object makes a warm one warmer. You claimed this was not possible. So what exactly is going on here?
Tim, I corrected the typos in your comment from way upthread:
Norman, you have proven many times you are ignorant of basic thermodynamics. As with anything in life, mastery takes actual time and effort. Until you put in months (or years!) of honest-to-goodness studying/calculating/pondering, you will stay stuck where you are a clueless amateur who somehow thinks he knows more than the experts.
I tried getting you to focus on the basics, but clearly in-depth discussions of the actual science are not your thing.
G, That’s not a correction — it is an addition. Many people freshman physics level of knowledge (or less). Many people say things that are incorrect about thermodynamics. The fact that two people disagree does not mean that one of them is correct. The fact that one person has not studied much physics does not mean someone else has.
SO … is there something specific Norman has said that you think is incorrect thermodynamics? Post it here, along with what you think is a better explanation. We can then hash it out. *That* would be a ‘correction’.
Tim, my corrections to Norm’s “science” are all over this thread. You have to be in major “denial” not to see them.
The phrase “wearing blinders” comes to mind….
One specific example is all I asked. Can you not even come up with that? A specific sentence or equation where he messed up. Then your specific ‘correction’.
Norm indicates he has not knowledge of a thermodynamic heat source.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245692
When you have spun your way out of that one, I have more!
Hilarious.
Here .. let me give you an example.
Mike said “Are you claiming that air compressed in a Diesel engine, reaching a measured temperature in excess of 500 C, has not been heated?”
This shows an obvious misunderstanding of heat. Mike even repeated the same basic misunderstanding even after having been told the correct answer — the WORK was done to raise the temperature, without any heat needed.
Tim, If you are trying to compare Mike’s understanding of science to Norm’s, Norm will need a huge amplification factor….
Tim…”the WORK was done to raise the temperature, without any heat needed…”
What produced the work?
A diesel engine uses a glow tube to start. The tube provides the initial “heat” required to ignite the diesel fuel mix. Once ignition occurs, the diesel is self-sustaining, the ignition being provided by the heat due to compression of the diesel fuel.
Diesel engines depend on heat to operate, the work is produced by the heat of compression when it causes the fuel gas to explode.
Even in a gasoline engine you can get the diesel effect. When you turn a gasoline engine of on a hot day, the gas sometimes continues to explode even without electrical ignition. That effect is called dieseling.
Heat and work are equivalent. They produce each other.
G*, That is not a correction — that is an addition. Lots of people have a basic (freshman-level or lower) understanding of the thermodynamics of the GHE. Just because Norman makes some mistakes in no way determines whether or not Mike makes mistakes, too.
I will admit that I tend comment on the ‘anti-GHE’ posts more because they tend to be more incorrect. So in the spirit of fairness, why don’t you provide one or two *specific* things that (according to you) Norman got wrong in terms of thermodynamics. Then provide what you think is the correct perspective.
That way we can help Norman (and everyone else) toward a understanding.
Norman and others think that surface must get what equals what a blackbody emits into a vacuum for a given average air temperature of the planet.
Earth gets 240 watts and radiate 240 watt and blackbody emitting 240 watts is -18 C. So somehow energy must added to have a planet getting and emitting 240 Watts have average air temperature of 15 C.
A problem is that this blackbody is suppose to be in vacuum- doesn’t apply if under an atmosphere. It’s building ISS and complaining it doesn’t work well as a boat on the ocean.
Or ideal blackbody at Earth distance from the sun absorbs and conducts heat uniformly across the spherical surface and radiate 340 watts per square meter. Not on average but uniformly- the poles radiate 340 watts per square meter.
Now a blackbody which didn’t conduct heat uniformly across the entire surface would be a different beast. It would have higher temperature where the sunlight was most intense, and at night it would test how well you made it, it should the temperature of the universe- 2-3 K. And sphere would have most of sunlight per square at it’s equator area when directly facing the sun- so be hottest there- which about 120 C. or quite similar to the Moon. Though the Moon would have higher average temperature because the Moon rotates around the sun. Or if blackbody worked, it would not matter how fast it rotated.
So Moon is not ideal blackbody, but is “amazingly close” to a blackbody- though a slower rotation in relation to the sun would make it closer.
Anyway ideal blackbody at earth distance would have uniform temperature of about 5 C. And it could described as visible only in infrared light. Or an invisible refrigerator in space. Though the non-ideal blackbody would be both frying pan and very good freezer- and also invisible.
If you want the big reason earth is warmer than it “should be”
it is because it has an ocean. The ocean average surface temperature is about 17 C. There 70% of Earth covered with ocean, which means to have average temperature of entire global be 15 C the land areas must be cooler than average temperature of 15 C.
One could ask why a land dweller imagines “it’s world” is 15 C, requires one to know that this land creature thinks too much. Also one can ask why this creature which is tropical in nature and evolved in average land temperature of +20 C, thinks 15 C is too warm. One might say it traveled to cooler realms only to complain it’s too hot. But one can also claim it’s a victim of it’s technology- it made clothes and warm houses- in which it wants to set it’s thermostat above 15 C- strangely, room temperature is about 20 C.
Now, one might say the warmed ocean makes H2O gas and it’s this gas which causes it to be warmer. This might qualify you as believer in a theory, but the believer have an agenda [are suppose to have] and such ideas might get you banned and labelled as a Denier. But if you were excommunicated, then you really aren’t much of a heretic, instead you merely a victim of a witch hunt [many non witches were burned- or drowned/tortured/etc].
Now I would rashly say that were a planet further from the Sun, an ocean would also make the world have a higher average temperature. Or being further from the sun would mean one get less water vapor as compared to Earth’s massive amount of water vapor at it’s tropics.
So not saying Earth is warmer because it has a “runaway effect” of water vapor in it’s tropics
Tim asks: “I will admit that I tend comment on the anti-GHE posts more because they tend to be more incorrect. So in the spirit of fairness, why dont you provide one or two *specific* things that (according to you) Norman got wrong in terms of thermodynamics. Then provide what you think is the correct perspective.”
Tim, yes, I have noticed your slant toward the GHE pseudoscience.
One example of Norm’s incompetence is above.
But, you somehow must have forgotten the “scientific method”. In science, when clowns present a bogus theory, all it takes is one example to debunk the theory. You can’t “prove” a theory by finding some minor technical issue with a “debunker”.
Your choice, be a clown, or be a scientist.
i’d like to request some help with an experiment from AGW skeptics (and others, if they’re interested).
I want to design a foolproof lab test for the enhanced greenhouse theory. This is strictly to discern whether or not increased CO2 can cause a volume of air with a constant heat source to get warmer.
There are numerous CO2 increase experiments on youtube. Dr Spencer has also run some in various ways and posted about them here.
When reading the comments these experiments elicit there are always a bunch of people who claim the experiment is flawed in one way or another.
So I want to design the perfect lab test that no skeptic could reasonably dismiss (and that no ‘warmist’ could dismiss either).
To be clear, I’m not trying to recreate the Earth’s atmosphere, or figure out how much CO2 causes what amount of warming.
I’m only interested in testing the claim of those who say that no amount of increased CO2 in any volume of air could cause warming (given a constant heat source). There is at least one person (Mike Flynn) on this board who maintains that this is the case.
Here’s how I would go about it.
1 – The windowless environment housing the test chamber has to be constant. A thermostat keeps the room at constant temperature. The thermostat is located well away from the test chamber.
2 – All paraphernalia has to be constant. Same thermometer/temp monitor, same test chamber, same heat source, same gas monitor, nothing moved between tests.
3 – The chamber itself is vacuum sealed. Pressure can be kept constant. This is important to avoid pressure differences contaminating the experiment when CO2 is added to the chamber.
4 – There is a slow-moving blade within the test chamber, powered by a motor remote from the test chamber, that keeps the air mixed. The motor is monitored for changes in its temperature, to ensure no thermal contamination from that source.
Heat source and slow-sweeping blade is switched on and temperature of the chamber is monitored over 24 hours, noting rate and amplitude of temperature change. The resulting data set is called ‘A’.
Heat source and blade motor is switched off for a day.
Then CO2 is added to the chamber. Some of the air is released to keep pressure constant. Pressure is the same, only CO2 ratio changes.
Wait a day and then turn on the blade and heat source again and monitor temperature over 24 hours, noting the rate and amplitude of temperature change. The resulting data set is called ‘B’.
According to people like Mike Flynn, A and B should be perfect matches no matter what fraction of CO2 is in the test chamber volume.
Can anyone think of potential problems with this experiment. Problems that, if I then showed the results on youtube and the CO2 enhanced experiment showed greater rate/amplitude of warming, would obviate criticism from AGW skeptics?
What would be the perfect (or near-enough perfect) lab experiment if not this? What would you change?
“Can anyone think of potential problems with this experiment.”
Add a device minimizing possible conduction from your IR source.
Use boiling water in a black tank so as to know your IR source is constant temperature. This will make your increased T readings lower than desired, so up your calibrated instrumentation gain, the IR input is known constant in this way.
Dry the incoming gas with material absorbing water so as not to add an unknown amount of water vapor to the various gas specimens.
Make sure the inside chamber of your gas container is shiny so as to reflect the max. amount of incident photons minimizing specimen conduction to the lab air.
Use rock salt covering the IR entry and exit ports.
Repeat the tests several hundreds of times.
These are some of the considerations Prof. Tyndall used as he performed these experiments in 1859, 1860 on various dry gas specimens and reported it in minute detail in 1861.
And as you write, there are STILL commentators here who deny the results! Makes for good sport at times.
Thanks for the reply.
Add a device minimizing possible conduction from your IR source.
If conduction was constant between the tests, would this matter?
Use boiling water in a black tank so as to know your IR source is constant temperature. This will make your increased T readings lower than desired, so up your calibrated instrumentation gain, the IR input is known constant in this way.
I thought of directing the heat source through a black tube. I’m thinking a fixed lamp. The lamp itself could be monitored for temperature changes, or various tested until one is found with good constancy.
Dry the incoming gas with material absorbing water so as not to add an unknown amount of water vapor to the various gas specimens.
Good idea. I figured that keeping constant pressure through the experiments, including when changing the CO2 ratio (a slow process), would obviate this problem. The whole experiment is vacuum sealed for inputs.
Make sure the inside chamber of your gas container is shiny so as to reflect the max. amount of incident photons minimizing specimen conduction to the lab air.
Good idea.
Use rock salt covering the IR entry and exit ports.
Why is this necessary if the heat source is stable?
Repeat the tests several hundreds of times.
Reckon 150 would be enough. 50 with normal air. 50 at a higher conc CO2. 50 more at much higher CO2 conc.
There is a potential problem with the fraction of CO2 I’d have to use. As the path length is so short I’d be obliged to use high concentrations of CO2 to observe an effect. Simulating the atmosphere would require a test chamber kilometers high.
This shouldn’t matter to those who claim that no amount of CO2 change would make a difference to the resulting temperature, but it would probably cause a goalpost change in ensuing discussion.
Barry, I think you will find that this task proves daunting — not because the GHE is false, but because 1) it requires rather specific conditions and 2) people can get very creative with their objections.
Tim, GHE IS false.
You need some worm medicine.
It was the creative objections that fueled the challenge, Tim.
barry says, May 21, 2017 at 8:44 AM:
It is obvious from this statement alone that barry doesn’t even understand what he needs to be looking for if looking for evidence for an “enhanced GHE”. It is NOT about him designing “a foolproof lab test” to “discern whether or not increased CO2 can cause a volume of air with a constant heat source to get warmer”. That is fundamentally misunderstood.
The “enhanced greenhouse theory” doesn’t say anything about that. That’s NOT its central claim. Its central claim is ONLY about the “raised ERL (Earth’s ‘effective radiating level’)”:
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
Described here in words by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert:
“An atmospheric greenhouse gas enables a planet to radiate at a temperature lower than the ground’s, if there is cold air aloft. It therefore causes the surface temperature in balance with a given amount of absorbed solar radiation to be higher than would be the case if the atmosphere were transparent to IR. Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere makes higher, more tenuous, formerly transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to IR and thus increases the difference between the ground temperature and the radiating temperature. The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming.”
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
So the “objection” to his experiment doesn’t have to be any more “creative” than that. Whatever he finds out, it won’t be ‘proof’ or ‘disproof’ of the “enhanced greenhouse theory”. Because his “foolproof lab test” won’t be addressing the actual claim and working mechanism of that “theory” at all …
Anyone who understands the general workings of the atmosphere would know that being able to warm a volume of air in a lab doesn’t mean you are thereby able to warm a specific layer of air in the troposphere in the same way. There is something called “atmospheric circulation” and the “tropospheric lapse rate”.
What you need to be looking for (based on the idea of “the raised ERL”) if you want to find out whether or not there is in fact an “enhanced GHE” in operation in the real Earth system, causing ‘global warming’, is simply a systematic reduction in OLR at the ToA over time RELATIVE TO tropospheric temperatures. However, we do not see this at all. OLR is simply observed to TRACK tropospheric temperatures over time, in the actual, relevant, available data (over the last 32 years):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbsceres-vs-uah1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/olr-vs-dwlwir-vs-tlt.png
And so there is no trace of an “enhanced GHE” in the real Earth system.
Is it possible that we are looking at GHG feedbacks here?
How much may snow/ice albedo feedback contribute?
Ehm, no. Why would it? The increase in ASR is obviously the cause of the warming, while the increase in OLR is an effect of the same warming. How would you go about to turn that around 180 degrees?
Snow/ice albedo feedback could definitely be(come) a factor in a warming world, whatever the cause of the warming. However, the particular rise observed in ASR (drop in global albedo) from the 80s to the 90s distinctly came as a result in a large-scale reduction in (significantly tropical) cloud cover:
https://tinyurl.com/j8y8mdw
I don’t know, but how can you be so sure it is not a feedback?
Some studies of tropical cloud cover feedback:
1) https://tinyurl.com/mz348fp
2) https://tinyurl.com/kuphpq5
3) https://tinyurl.com/mz348fp
1) https://tinyurl.com/mz348fp
In models where the current climate’s LCC sensitivities to inversion strength and SST variations are consistent with observed, LCC decreases systematically, which would increase a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n of solar radiation.
2) https://tinyurl.com/kuphpq5
The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, … linking the mixing to cloud feedback.
https://tinyurl.com/m69apup
The reduction of land cloud depends on global-scale oceanic warming and is not sensitive to regional warming patterns. The robust positive feedback can contribute to the warming amplification and drying over tropical land in the future.
barry, the fact that you call for such an experiment indicates you have an interest in science.
But, an “interest” does not indicate an “understanding”.
Suppose you have a thermodynamic control volume (CV). The CV is at temp T. Now, you add CO2 (at temp T) gas to the CV, while venting the existing gas so that the pressure does not increase.
Do you expect the CV temp to increase?
Only in pseudoscience.
And, barry, the dreaded CO2 molecule emits the deadly 14.7 micron photon.
Do you understand how much catastrophic heat a 14.7 micron photon can “produce”?
(Apologies to pseudoscientists that claim “CO2 produces warming”.)
A black body at -76C “produces” 14.7 micron photons, peak energy.
Hilarious.
(Norm, fortunately for you, ice “produces” much more heat, so your turkey should be fully baked in about………NEVER! But, we love climate clowns.)
Do you have any suggestions to improve the experiment as laid out? Imagine there is someone with trenchant opposition to the enhanced GH effect who will look or any opportunity to find fault with the experiment. What adjustments would you make to the experiment as is that would obviate any objection as to the validity of the experiment?
barry, the IPCC/AGW/GHE/CO2 “experiment” has already been performed, by “Mother Nature”. The IPCC pseudoscience failed miserably.
There is the science, and there are the observations. Warmists can’t just deny one. They must deny both science and the observations. That is why you see them claim “warming makes colder temperatures”, and “warming makes more snow”.
Lukewarmers can deny the science, but not the observations. They claim that the planet is not warming, but they also claim CO2 is “producing warming”. (You figure it out.)
It’s hilarious.
The global surface has warmed over the past few decades. GHG have increased. Mother Nature is on board as far as the broad picture goes. But people are still arguing about it. Like you are.
So, I’ve been trying to design a lab experiment for those people who don’t believe any amount of CO2 could cause warming.
Are you one of these people?
Because if so your input in refining the lab experiment would be valuable.
Yeah, I know your opinion on the general topic. Let’s take that as read. I’m asking you to put your science het on and help with the thought experiment. how can we make the lab test perfect so that no trenchant ‘skeptic’ (or ‘warmist’) would complain about flaws in it?
barry, CO2 can NOT heat the planet. So, yes, I am willing to help “peer review” your effort.
Thanks for asking.
barry…”This is strictly to discern whether or not increased CO2 can cause a volume of air with a constant heat source to get warmer”.
If you are going to do an experiment, do the experiment and get off these thought experiments.
You have not specified what the heat source might be or how much CO2 you are introducing to the mix.
I have not seen Mile Flynn or any one else argue that CO2 in a container will not absorb infrared energy and warm. From what I have seen, Mike has argued that blowing CO2 on a thermometer will not cause the temperature to rise. I agree with him, CO2 on it’s own won’t cause a thermometer to react, in fact the CO2 might cool it.
You seem to be re-inventing the wheel. It has already been proved that CO2 of sufficient mass in a container will absorb IR and warm. The argument against the enhanced GHE is that insufficient CO2 exists in the atmosphere to produce such an effect.
However, the main argument against the EGFE is that back-radiation from GHGs like CO2 cannot possibly warm the surface beyond what it is warmed by solar energy.
I can’t for the life of me understand why you are having so much trouble with that.
I have already produced an analysis of the ideal gas law. It is well established that contributions of heat to a gas at constant volume and mass is based on the partial pressure of each gas. The partial pressure per gas is determined by the mass of each gas present.
If you add CO2 to a mix of gas while reducing the overall pressure to accommodate the CO2 partial pressure you are essentially defeating your purpose.
When you talk about a heat source, do you mean IR radiation from a heat source or heating by contact? Is the inner housing containing the gas warmed through the walls of the inner container or are you bombarding it with IR?
If the latter, the rest of the gases in the chamber will not warm. They require heat transfer through the walls of the container to warm. If you are exposing the inner chamber to IR from a heat source, how does the IR get through the walls of the container?
Your explanation of the experiment lacks sufficient detail.
Gordon, read Tyndall 1861 and all your questions will be answered. Prof. Tyndall already performed the experiment barry is contemplating.
Gordon,
I have not seen Mile Flynn or any one else argue that CO2 in a container will not absorb infrared energy and warm.
He has specifically argued that no amount of CO2 will cause temperature change.
Mike Flynn: Even filling a house with 100% CO2 raised the temperature of a house not at all
He usually comments that increasing CO2 between the sun and a thermometer will have no effect. He, and people who think like him, are the target audience in the thought experiment.
However, the main argument against the EGFE is that back-radiation from GHGs like CO2 cannot possibly warm the surface beyond what it is warmed by solar energy.
I cant for the life of me understand why you are having so much trouble with that.
In the absence of an atmosphere the average temp of the surface of the Earth (the whole global surface) should be -18C. This is what it would be with only sunlight providing the warmth.
But the average surface temp of the earth is 33C hotter than that (15C).
How can this be?
barry, do a search on “heat capacity”.
As you’re part of Gordon’s crowd, he might listen to you.
According to Gordon the surface can’t be warmer than what direct solar warming would provide.
Please help him understand why he is wrong about this.
barry, confusion is the refuse of pseudoscience pimps. If you have a direct question, please ask. Don’t try to hide behind what someone else wrote, that you then confused.
You and I agree that the average global surface temp is warmer than what direct solar heating would provide.
Gordon does not agree. I’ve tried to explain it to him in the past, but with no success.
If you can do better, it will be a service to Gordon.
If you’re interested in the truth rather than tit-for-tat, will you help Gordon out?
barry, Earth’s oceans collect enough solar energy to hold surface temperatures, even as the Earth rotates away from the Sun. That’s why I gave you the hint: “heat capacity”.
I didn’t see where Gordon had said anything that would conflict with the above.
ger*,
Ok, good, the ocean traps heat. But it finally reaches some steady temp, when input =output.
So question becomes what determines output at each temperature?
Thats where atmosphere matters..
Gordon,
If you are going to do an experiment, do the experiment and get off these thought experiments.
I have to design it properly first. The point of the exercise is tat ‘skeptics’ always imagine a flaw in the experiment, so I’m trying to design something that would obviate this reaction.
Would the experiment I’ve designed so far satisfy you?
Answering a couple of your questions:
I’d be ok with the heat source being a lamp. Should I choose something else?
The amount of CO2 doesn’t matter for what the test is trying to achieve. I’d do an initial test with normal air, then for the next experiment make the CO2 560ppm, and then 1000ppm.
Remember I’m not trying to establish how much warming would occur in the atmosphere, just seeing if adding CO2 to a volume will change the temp with everything else constant.
There are people, unlike you, who believe that no temp change will occur. This experiment is designed for them.
“The lamp itself could be monitored for temperature changes, or various tested until one is found with good constancy.”
Possibly in modern times; Prof. Tyndall could not find one in his time, he tried many with much higher IR intensity so as to make delta T measurement easier but could not find the constant temperature desired. He went to the lower temperature source for the desired constant input and increased his measuring instrument gains.
The rock salt is necessary since if lab glass is used too much IR will be inhibited from entering the gas chamber.
Do not worry about the small optical depth, Prof Tyndall was “astonished” that even though the apparatus held clear gas as far as he could see, the measuring instruments were pegged to the max. when dry CO2 et. al. were introduced into his chamber. The volume of his small chamber was reported in detail.
Funny story: near the end of the experiments he reports removal of some of his guards against unwanted energy and found the same results. He even removed the apparatus entirely and just squirted some CO2 out into the lab air and found he could measure the temperature increase.
Ball4,
You appear to be a foolish Warmist of limited reading skills, and small comprehension.
You cannot quote Tyndall with contextual reference to back up your bizarre nonsense, because you are not able to understand English. If you could, you would have read Tyndall’s results and actually understood what they meant.
As usual, I invite anyone interested to read Tyndall’s most recently published work. You may find Tyndall’s extensive descriptions of calibration and use of his galvanometer mind-numbingly boring, but that’s science for you.
You will discover that “pegged to the max” means precisely the opposite of what you imply. Anyone with the attention span of a goldfish would appreciate the bipolar nature of a galvanometer with a very closely determined central null. This was obtained after weeks of careful work, to ensure that the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field did not bias what was essentially a freely suspended magnetised needle, one way or the other.
If you wish to dispute anything I have said, unless you quote my direct words, I will assume you are an ignorant fool. Deny, divert, and confuse are the hallmarks of the foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Tyndall 1861 p. 10: “the quantity of gas which entered the tube in this brief interval was sufficient to cause the needle to be driven to the stop”
Perhaps Flynn 5:46pm interpreted that to mean Prof. Tyndall drove his galvanometer over to the local bus stop. I would like to point out that neither cars to be driven nor a bus stop to be driven to existed when his 1861 paper was written. Actually Prof. Tyndall really did mean his galvanometer was “pegged to the max.”.
If CO2 could magically raise the temperature of its environment, Warmists would not have to resort to questionable “experiments” now over 150 years old.
Oh, I’m in no doubt about the effect. My experiment is based on the the objections of ‘skeptics’. But you know that because you’re such a good reader.
So, you are trying to prove pseudoscience?
Good luck with that!
Do you have any suggestions to improve the experiment? I thought maybe you were interested in science, too.
barry, ice is cheap. Buy some blocks of ice. Buy enough blocks to build a wall with a surface area of 10 square meters. Now, buy more ice. Buy enough ice to complete a structure so that 4 walls, each having a surface area of 10 square meters, form a “room”. Now, rent or buy, some large concave lenses, the larger the better. “Focus” the 40 square meters of ice on the center of the structure.
Since one square meter of ice is emitting 300 Watts, you should strive for at least 10000 Watts at the center.
Place a turkey at the center. It only takes about 2500 Watts to bake a turkey. So, when the turkey is fully baked, you have proved the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE theory.
Al Gore will personally pin a Nobel medal on you.
Let us know how it works for you.
I keep mistaking you for a serious participant. I’ll own up to my mistake and mend my ways. Bye.
Another pseudoscientist succumbs to the massive heat of atmospheric CO2!
At least the death from 800,000K heat was instantaneous.
(Anyone see Gravy Davie lately?)
Ball4…”Tyndall really did mean his galvanometer was pegged to the max.”.
I have yet to read what concentration of CO2 he was using.
If it was 100% I see nothing remarkable in his conclusions. It’s a no-brainer that a container filled with 100% CO2 would show that IR fired through it would have some of it absorbed. It’s the extrapolation of that information to our atmosphere, which contains 0.04% CO2, that concerns me.
How much IR got absorbed is the question. Also, what was the intensity of the IR used?
Read the Tyndall 1861 paper Gordon. There is no extrapolation; the 33c is directly measured also.
Ball4,
Which stop? There are two, you cloth eared dill!
You say nothing. A quantity of gas? Which gas? Was Tyndall trying to indicate transparency or opacity?
You don’t know, because you are of small brain. I’m not sure why you persist in referring to Tyndall’s 1861 publication, instead of his extensively revised and corrected 1905 book.
If you had half the mental acuity of a wombat, or even the average foolish Warmist, you would appreciate the brilliance of Tyndall’s experiments.
Come on, Ball4, you can do better than this. Show how removing the CO2 from the air causes a temperature drop of 33 C – or anything at all! No heating, no cooling, just more arrant foolish Warmist stupidity!
I’m not sure whether your rewriting of Tyndall’s words is supposed to make me flee in awe of your command of English. I hope not, because it’s not working.
Cheers.
The stop on the galvanometer. The quantity of gas in the test chamber. Each gas listed. Both transparency and opacity. I refer to experiment to prove Mike wrong. Works. Existing measurements show the 33c drop. No rewriting of Tyndall’s words, quoted Tyndall verbatim.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“The stop on the galvanometer.”
I don’t believe you could possibly be as thick as you appear! As I said, you’re a cloth eared dill.
There are two stops, one on each side.
Anyone who comprehends Tyndall’s experiments will realise why this is so. Now, tell me again, which stop was it, and what did it indicate? One will indicate increasing opacity, the other its opposite.
Witless fool – well, unless you can show evidence to the contrary.
Cheers,
“There are two stops, one on each side.”
Mike, Prof. Tyndall used only one galvanometer set of stops in his experiments, just read the paper. Don’t make stuff up, quote Prof. Tyndall.
His experimental specimen needle deflections are all…ALL recorded as positive up to the one set of stops at 90 degrees which was attained in certain situations. If you doubt that, search the paper for an experiment on a test specimen he ran that produced a negative deflection. Won’t find one.
“A copper ball heated to low redness being placed at the other end of the tube, the needle of the galvanometer was propelled to its stops near 90 degrees….The needle moved steadily in one direction until its maximum deflection was attained, this deflection showed that in all cases radiant (energy) was absorbed by the air within the tube….A slow current of air sent through the tube gradually removed the gas, and the needle returned accurately to zero….the quantity of gas which entered the tube in this brief interval was sufficient to cause the needle to be driven to the stops, and steadily held between 60 degrees and 70 degrees.”
barry
Nice thought but it would not change the minds of g*e*r*a*n or Mike Flynn. No matter what test you devise it will not make a bit of difference to them. They are trolls. They are not here to learn science or debate a complex involved topic as climate change. They pop up to taunt, annoy and get a response. It is their only goal and what makes their lives meaningful. You won’t change either one since it is an ingrained personality disorder that can only change when they want it to.
Roy Spencer has already done lots of real world experiments and it does nothing with those two.
Also you don’t need to do any experiment since the Earth surface temperature vs Moon surface temperature already determines that the GHE is real and effective.
Mike Flynn cannot understand averages and g*e*r*a*n cannot comprehend energy can be absorbed by something and it will not warm if the loss of energy is greater than the gain. He is unable to process the complex thoughts of simultaneous actions.
Flynn can only understand peak hot temperatures. He is unable to think about cold temperatures or averages.
Troll don’t care so it is a waste of time. As Ball4 has pointed out many times on many threads, the scientists of old have already done thousands of tests to verify the GHE. They will not accept those.
Trolls live and thrive on the Internet and there is nothing you can ever do to change their ways.
Norm, any luck raising the temp of that turkey yet?
Maybe add some more ice?
Hilarious.
Norman…”Also you dont need to do any experiment since the Earth surface temperature vs Moon surface temperature already determines that the GHE is real and effective”.
That theory is pretty lame considering the Moon has no oceans or an atmosphere. The notion that the Earth is 33 C warmer due to having an atmosphere with 1% GHGs simply does not hold up.
I have yet to see a shred of proof to support the GHE theory. It’s based on math and blackbody physics theory. If you are going to speculate why not consider the massive oceans we have that cover 70% of the planet’s surface.
They are massive heat reservoirs. Have you seen one calculation related to how the oceans might be moderating the atmospheric temperature?
The oceans are not only heated from above, they are heated from below by the Earth’s core temperature. Over millions of years, that has to have had an effect on the mean temperature of the oceans.
“The notion that the Earth is 33 C warmer due to having an atmosphere with 1% GHGs simply does not hold up.”
The 33c has been measured Gordon.
Like the cabbages that glow in the dark, huh “trick”?
Ball4…”The 33c has been measured Gordon”.
Who measured the temperature at -19C when the planet allegedly had no atmosphere and no oceans?
No one, Gordon. You will have to do some work to check into the actual observations.
Gordon,
Ball4 has measured the temperature of his fantasy with his imaginary thermometer.
This is no doubt why he attempts to deny, divert, and confuse by refusing to supply the non-existent observations to which he refers.
Foolish Warmists inevitably issue ridiculous and pointless demands, to disguise their complete lack of facts to back up their ridiculous assertions.
There is no GHE. CO2 heats nothing. Ball4 may be suffering from a delusional psychosis, which would be irrelevant if he was able to even define his mythical GHE.
Of course he can’t. Just claims that it exists somewhere else, but it is your task to look for it. Just like a unicorn, or the GHE!
Cheers.
Gordon can look up the 33c observations right in this very thread Mike, but of course, as you, prefers to remain lazy & just make stuff up. Hint: the 288K and 255K terms are searchable here & on the ‘net to understand. Laying it out for Flynn is a waste of limited time.
Try not to live up to all our expectations Mike.
Ball4,
Stupid, stupid, stupid, as they say.
More commands to waste other people’s time. Not very helpful, are you?
You either can’t or won’t provide the information that you claim exists. Don’t you know how to copy and paste? Appealing to the authority of people who share your delusion is not particularly convincing.
That would be as silly as believing that Mike Mann received a Nobel Prize for anything at all.
Cheers.
Mike lives up to all our expectations.
Ball4 is correct. The 33 or so has been measured. The surface could not have a higher effective temperature than the energy it receives from the Sun.
Some argue about the day/night cylce. This cycle only affects the input energy, the output goes on both day and night.
With the amount of energy the whole Earth surface can absorb can only raise its temperature to 255 (moon average temperature is proof of a much colder condition in an airless environment)
Since the effective temperature cannot get higher than 255 (if it would have a temperature higher than 255 you get a massive violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics). You have the average Earth temperature measured to around 288 K (give or take but close to this value, also can be confirmed by the fact that most the Earth is above freezing just by oceans alone with only around 5 or 6 % of the oceans frozen meaning 95% of the oceans are above freezing).
This confirms what Ball4 states, the 33 C temperature from GHE is a measured value, real science. Empirical.
Nope Norm, the 33C delta T is from natural “heat transfer”.
The GHE is from your imagination.
Norman,
I’d ask you who measured it, but I’m sure your response would be “Quick. Look over there!”, while you cleverly legged it in the opposite direction.
Stupid assumptions are not measurements. Dim witted poorly executed computer programs are neither measurements nor experiments.
Stupidity is not intelligence, and cooling is not heating.
The greenhouse effect has nought to do with greenhouses, and is of no heating effect whatsoever.
It doesn’t exist, and believers are quite siimply, simple.
Cheers.
Norman says, May 21, 2017 at 8:32 PM:
What a peculiar claim.
You do know, of course, that what is actually being “measured” is the average radiative flux from the Earth to space (the OLR at the ToA) of 239 W/m^2. It doesn’t originate from some single layer at 255K. That connection is purely hypothetical. It derives from the entire atmospheric column + the solid/liquid surface itself; give or take 85% of it from the troposphere.
You can also find this mean flux by taking the measured solar flux in space (TSI), divide it by four and then subtract the albedo [340-101=] 239 W/m^2. That’s the ASR at the ToA.
Earth’s ToA budget:
Q_in (ASR) = 239 W/m^2
Q_out (OLR) = 239 W/m^2
Q_net = Q_in – Q_out = 239 – 239 = 0
That would be in a state of perfect balance. In the real world, there’s a slight positive imbalance, which means that more heat is coming IN than going OUT, which in turn means that there will be a NET accumulation of energy inside the Earth system. Most of this ‘surplus energy’ ends up in the ocean, but some of it also stores up at the surface and in the troposphere.
This is the cause of ‘global warming’.
Now, from the available radiation flux data (ERBS+CERES), the evidence is in to suggest that our small, but significant current positive heat imbalance at the ToA is the result SOLELY of an increase in the heat IN (Q_in, ASR), and rather countered slightly by a parallel increase also in the heat OUT (Q_out, OLR).
What we can readily read from this, when comparing this radiation flux data with (significantly, tropospheric) temperature data, is a straightforward causal chain that goes like this:
+ASR => +T = +OLR
The increase in solar heat input (ASR) causes the increase in temperature (T), which in turn naturally causes an increase in Earth’s heat output to space (OLR), as a direct radiative effect.
The idea of the “enhanced GHE” expects the OPPOSITE to be the case: A reduction in OLR is supposed to force the T to rise (with ASR constant).
“..which in turn naturally causes an increase in Earth’s heat output to space (OLR).”
Except OLR is shown to decrease in the longest meaningful CERES data record by CERES Team published paper (Loeb 2016).
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “That theory is pretty lame considering the Moon has no oceans or an atmosphere. The notion that the Earth is 33 C warmer due to having an atmosphere with 1% GHGs simply does not hold up.”
It does hold up and I have linked you to considerable evidence. You can ignore it or work to understand it.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59224fc06cf01.png
This is the verifiable proof that 1% of GHG has considerable effect.
Here is another one.
(by the way do you ever even look at one of my links?)
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
You can use the graphs to calculate for yourself. It will give you the emissivity of each gas (these graphs were obtained with empirical testing). Take the partial pressure of Carbon Dioxide with is 0.04% of the air.
http://www.aqion.de/site/99
This webpage calculates for you the partial pressure of CO2 in the air at around 0.0004. If you use the gas emittance graphs and take the path length at 1000 meters you end up with a value of 0.4 for the Partial pressure times the path-length. If you follow the curve to the left to get an emittance for cooler temperatures you will see it is around 0.18.
If you put the temperature of the atmosphere in that 1000 meter column with this emittance you get around 60 W/m^2 of the 340 W/m^2 total average downwelling that is from Carbon Dioxide.
If you don’t like Hottel’s work tell boiler makers to reject his work when designing a coal-fired plant.
Norm, there are phonies here, but none are as hilarious as you.
Norm pontificates: “If you dont like Hottels work tell boiler makers to reject his work when designing a coal-fired plant.”
Norm, you pathetic pseudoscience pimp!
I’ve designed coal-fired power plants. I worked around boilers for years. Boilers are real, your pseudoscience is illusionary, as is your knowledge and experience with boiler making. Yet, you attempt to preach to others.
Hilarious.
Norman…”Take the partial pressure of Carbon Dioxide with is 0.04% of the air”.
That’s right. Now consider the ideal gas equation I posted earlier:
PV = nRT….. P = pressure, V = volume, n = mass (number of atoms), T = temperature and R is a gas constant to unify the other parameters.
You can consider the volume of the atmosphere to be constant and the mass is pretty well constant.
Pressure varies mainly with altitude. That’s due to the effect of gravity. Gravitational force is greatest at the surface and lessens with altitude. Near the surface, gravity compresses the air molecules creating a higher pressure, hence a higher temperature.
Let’s talk ideally…no weather induced pressure changes.
P = (nR/V)T
Since (nR/V) is constant, let’s chuck it out.
AND P = T ( maybe better to say P is proportional to T, even though I have seen it written as such.
With partial pressures: px/Pt = Tx/Tt
That means a partial pressure of one gas wrt the total pressure equals the partial temperature provided by that gas to the total temperature provided by the entire pressure.
From your link, N2 and O2 should represent partial pressures of nearly 99% while CO2 provides a partial pressure of 0.4%.
It’s not hard to see that CO2 should contribute no more than a fraction of a degree C while the bulk of atmospheric warming is produced by N2 and O2.
Norman,
More pointless demands that others run hither and thither at your command.
You are a fool if you don’t believe hot objects spontaneously lose energy, in the form of EMR. It’s called cooling by normal people.
Sure, the Sun heats all sorts of things. Even the atmosphere, believe it or not. How thick do you have to be to believe otherwise?
Maybe you don’t believe in the heating ability of sunlight. I do. Does your graph indicate otherwise?
I thought not. Oh well.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “They are massive heat reservoirs. Have you seen one calculation related to how the oceans might be moderating the atmospheric temperature?
The oceans are not only heated from above, they are heated from below by the Earths core temperature. Over millions of years, that has to have had an effect on the mean temperature of the oceans”
I would agree that oceans moderate atmosphere temperature. But they could not get hotter than the effective temperature. Since they absorb in the upper 90% of all incoming radiant energy they would be warmer than the ground if no clouds formed. IF the entire Earth was a blackbody and absorbed all incoming radiant energy it would only get to 278 K which is still cooler than what the average temperature has been measured at of 288 K.
The ocean heat from below is insignificant. Here you can see for yourself.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/sm_temperature_depth.jpg
Obviously the vast bulk of ocean warming is coming from above.
“IF the entire Earth was a blackbody and absorbed all incoming radiant energy it would only get to 278 K which is still cooler than what the average temperature has been measured at of 288 K.”
Norm, there you go again.
Comparing imaginary to real, to pimp your pseudoscience.
Your “black body” is NOT Earth! You left out the oceans, which are great for “trapping heat”.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
The ocean can’t reach a higher temperature than an effective temperature where the incoming energy equals the outgoing energy.
NOTHING imaginary about it. How will the oceans warm above the effective temperature? By what mechanism? As they warm they emit radiation based upon the 4th power of temperature. They can’t warm above the energy input no matte what the heat capacity is. Not sure what physics you are using to determine ocean temperature??
Norman…”The ocean heat from below is insignificant. Here you can see for yourself”.
I am not arguing that point so much as I am claiming it has never been properly investigated. Your graph only shows ocean temp vs. depth. Any warmed water via volcanic activity or other means of heat transfer through contact with the surface would float to the top.
Gordon Robertson
Earth’s heat budget (energy coming up from the Earth) has actually been rigorously tested. I linked a study to Mike Flynn above somewhere. If you want I can try and find it and link you to it.
38000 measuring devices in the study. Average Earth energy is around 450 miliwatts/m^2.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Obviously the vast bulk of ocean warming is coming from above.”
That’s about as stupid as claiming the molten interior of the Earth is due to the action of the Sun. It’s fairly obvious you don’t believe that the assumed heat at say, 10 km in the lithosphere, of 250 C, manages to make its way to the oceanic water at the same depth.
Maybe it’s magic CO2 heat, which can’t warm water. I suppose you imagine that the molten magma flowing directly into the ocean depths, and the numerous but uncountable thermal vents injecting water at over 400 C don’t actually heat the water with which they interact.
In the foolish Warmist world, replete with brightly coloured cartoon pictures, cold dense water rises, hot water sinks, and surface winds cause deep ocean currents to flow in opposite directions at differing depths.
Keep going Norman. No GHE. More CO2 good, less CO2 bad. Michael Mann not a Nobel Prize winner, Gavin Schmidt not a scientist.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are making bold assertions I have never claimed. I linked you to a study on Earth’s thermal budget (energy from interior to surface, volcanic vents do warm water around them but not the bulk of the water, it is very cold at the bottom of the sea).
YOU: “Obviously the vast bulk of ocean warming is coming from above.
Thats about as stupid as claiming the molten interior of the Earth is due to the action of the Sun. Its fairly obvious you dont believe that the assumed heat at say, 10 km in the lithosphere, of 250 C, manages to make its way to the oceanic water at the same depth.”
What are you trying to say here? Can’t you read graphs at all? The surface of the ocean is much warmer than the deeper ocean. It is warmed by the solar flux. What mushrooms are you eating to come up with your crackpot ideas? What are you reading for science? Tea Leaves!
You are so consumed with false ideas you are getting to be unreachable with valid science. Too bad. I guess you don’t need to cook a Turkey with ice, your brain is already fried!
Index of El Nino in May starts falling again.
http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Norman, Barry etc
I find it very odd that people like yourselves come on to a web site that has been set up to discuss and question man made global warming and call people who disagree with you trolls.
I and many of us following this site really enjoy Mike Flynn, g*e*r*a*n and ren.
Whether you like it or not they are very knowledgeable and people like you seem to get really rattled by them. Perhaps you should ask Dr Spence to ban anyone from this site who disagrees with your theory on man made global warming
.
HC
Did I call someone a troll, Harry?
Or did you pick a side and make a broad accusation at odds with the kind of acute perspicacity you admire?
barry, that’s the disadvantage of running with the wrong crowd.
You think you look cool, but then the cops arrive….
Harry made a mistake. He belongs to your crowd, doesn’t he?
If you believe he made a mistake, with your penchant for erroneous conclusions, then his is obviously a winner.
I’ve been wrongfully convicted m’lud. The prosecution can’t prove that I named anyone a troll. Others have. Not me.
Guilt by association, I guess.
Yep, that old fallacy.
Harry,
Thank you.
There doesn’t appear to be an easily accessible and clearly stated “global warming hypothesis”, nor a scientific “global warming theory”.
Looking for “greenhouse effect definition” provides a wide array of assertions. All of these can be simplified to the statement “objects can heated by the Sun”. No more, no less.
Cargo Cult Scientism at its finest. At least Lysenko was a fine scientist, even if mistaken. I believe Gavin Schmidt is not even a scientist, but I may be mistaken.
Cheers.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html
barry,
Thanks. I’ve seen it.
It starts off –
The Sun powers Earths climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum.”
Whether the authors are trying to misdirect readers, or just a bit dim, is open to debate. I know Wikipedia is often wrong , but –
“In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth’s surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared.”
As I said, pointing out that objects can be heated by the Sun is less than impressive.
Generally, a scientific “effect” relates to an observable phenomena – the Cheerios effect, for example.
The “greenhouse effect” does not relate to any observed phenomena whatsoever. The fact that thermometers indicate temperature, and that thermometers react to heat, is apparently a matter of amazement to climatologists.
Just like ESP and parapsychology, the “effect” vanishes when subjected to requests for reproducible experimental verification.
It’s complete nonsense.
Cheers.
The Sun powers Earths climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum.
Whether the authors are trying to misdirect readers, or just a bit dim, is open to debate. I know Wikipedia is often wrong , but
In terms of energy, sunlight at Earths surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared.
Well a good chunk of Sun’s IR is considered short wavelength [though not, very short wavelength] Also one could call some of this IR “near-visible” or it’s quite similar to red light. Some people can see more into this near infrared light spectrum and if in right conditions and if intense enough it can seen. Or the cut off point of visible and Near IR is not exact. And also one get different numbers of what is called near infrared. Wiki:
“A commonly used sub-division scheme is:
Near-infrared: 0.751.4 m and temperature range of source**: 3,8642,070 K
** “Temperatures of black bodies for which spectral peaks fall at the given wavelengths”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
So an incandescent light bulb peaks in near infrared, but also gives shorter wavelength of visible light.
Likewise wood fires emission are peaking in near infrared.
Sunlight [in terms of appreciable amounts of energy] goes to about 2.5 m, and this graph illustrates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
[ 2.5 m equals 2500 nm and vertical height equals watts per nm so the part of graph which is 2000 to 2500 nm is close to zero watts vertically but spans range of 500 nm or that chunk of spectrum isn’t completely insignificant. And sun spectrum goes beyond this but one could call the amount energy as insignificant [at earth’s distant from the sun.
As far as my comment upon this definition, I point to this bit:
“The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen (comprising 78% of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (comprising 21%), exert almost no greenhouse effect.”
One could infer from the definition that convectional heating as nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. I also think there is some disagreement with faithful about bulk properties of N2 and O2 “enhancing” the warming which is suppose to be caused by greenhouse gases. Or they might claim that the lack of such bulk properties of N2 and O2 is reason the massive amount of CO2 on Mars doesn’t work as well as one might expect.
In terms of energy, sunlight at Earths surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared.
Infrared is a broad spectrum, and solar radiation is in the near-infrared to about 4um. It is also very low intensity in that part of the spectrum.
Terrestrial infrared extends starts at around 4um and intensity peaks at longer wavelengths. It peaks at around the same wavelengths most strongly absorbed by CO2.
CO2 absorbs very little in the solar infrared range, and nothing in the visible light range, which is around the peak intensity of solar radiation.
CO2 absorbs terrestrial infrared (longer wavelengths than solar infrared) much more effectively, and most strongly in the 15um band, which is right where terrestrial radiation is most intense.
That’s why the greenhouse effect works.
Here’s a graph that shows it. There is little overlap in the infrared region between solar and terrestrial radiation spectrum. Which is obvious. The sun and the surface of the Earth are at very different temperatures.
https://i1.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
So if you increase CO2 in the atmosphere, very little extra solar radiation is absorbed compared to terrestrial radiation.
Wikipedia’s not necessarily wrong. It’s just not precise. That 52% infrared is only about the spectral range – it says nothing about intensity. And it doesn’t mention that the sun emits at only part of the infrared spectrum – it emits very little infrared at terrestrial wavelengths, and at very low intensity in that small part of the spectrum where the two overlap.
Do you understand this? If not, have another look at the graph.
Wikipedias not necessarily wrong. Its just not precise. That 52% infrared is only about the spectral range it says nothing about intensity”
Your graph you provided also shows nothing about intensity.
The 52% is about watts, and
https://i1.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Is also about watts per square meter.
Roughly the sunlight over distance doesn’t lower in intensity rather it lowers over distance in terms of watts.
So Wiki is talking about the 1050 watts of direct sunlight and/or 1120 watts of combined direct and indirect sunlight.
Or with 1050 watts of sunlight hitting the surface, 52% is infrared light [1050 times .52 is 546 watts per square meter of sunlight].
Or at 1 AU [earth distance from the sun] Earth infrared light has an insignificant amount watts per square meter, but the light has same intensity. Or you can magnify earth’s light so it has same watts per square meters as compare what measured from orbit and it as the same intensity.
This is related to why you can’t bake a turkey with 300 watts of infrared, the light starts with low intensity [at it’s surface]. One course can bake a turkey 300 watts of IR which has the same wavelength as ice- ie, use a laser.
Or close to the sun, it’s longwave IR dwarfs the earth’s emitted longwave IR- it’s bigger and hotter.
gbaikie,
Your graph you provided also shows nothing about intensity.
It’s on the vertical axis on the left in plain English. It says, “Spectral intensity”.
https://i1.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Solar radiation in the portion of the infrared at which it emits is of low intensity. Much lower intensity than that of, say, the visible light spectrum. Look again at the left axis.
So Wiki is talking about the 1050 watts of direct sunlight
Intensity is indeed related to W/m2. Here is a another graph of solar radiation spectrum (also from wiki), with the vertical axis now labeled “Irradiance / W/m2/nm”.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg/800px-Solar_spectrum_en.svg.png
This graph does not even go to 4um, because there is so little intensity / W/m2 at this end of the solar spectrum. It goes to 2.5um, where intensity (W/m2) is very low. Both graphs show this.
Whereas terrestrial radiation spectrum begins around 4um and gets longer in wavelength, peaking around 10-18um. IOW, the intensity (W/.2) is greatest at that part of the spectrum.
To repeat, the sun emits very little radiation in the infrared spectrum emitted by Earth, and does so at very low intensity.
It’s in both graphs. Check the left axes.
“The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen (comprising 78% of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (comprising 21%), exert almost no greenhouse effect.”
One could infer from the definition that convectional heating as nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. I also think there is some disagreement with faithful about bulk properties of N2 and O2 “enhancing” the warming which is suppose to be caused by greenhouse gases. Or they might claim that the lack of such bulk properties of N2 and O2 is reason the massive amount of CO2 on Mars doesnt work as well as one might expect.
The definition of the greenhouse effect is separate from convection, but when the atmosphere is modeled convection is included.
By analogy, when we talk about rainfall in terms of millimeters, the existence of clouds or evaporation is not being denied.
The other gases in the atmosphere (O2 and N2 in your comments) participate in radiative transfer. For example by collision with GHG molecules. But they contribute virtually nothing to absorbing upwelling infrared radiation – the greenhouse effect.
The reason the greenhouse effect is so minimal on Mars is to do with the density of the atmosphere. It’s far thinner than Earths. The mass of GHGs on earth is far greater than on Mars, too.
Whereas on Venus, which has the highest albedo in the solar system, there are far more GHGs (about the same ratio CO2 as on Mars, but with a much denser atmosphere).
The av surface temp of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury despite having a much higher albedo and being further from the sun. That’s because of a very strong ‘greenhouse’ effect.
Harry Cummings
I am the one who calls both trolls. They do not come to disagree and come up with useful counter points or arguments. The come here to taunt, annoy, and illicit a response. This is the definition of a troll.
Point out the great science points or proofs either has provided in any of there 1000’s of posts. They provide no information to support any of their claims.
I hope you would look at a textbook on the subject rather than endless blog posts.
Here is one
file:///C:/Users/Norm/Downloads/ahttv204.pdf
Page 528 of this textbook. Look at figure 10.1 and you tell me why you consider g*e*r*a*n or Mike Flynn to know something of the subject of radiative heat transfer.
I would love it if they didn’t agree but provided some evidence for why they think that. That becomes a good learning tool.
If you like them that is fine, but they are both trolls.
Norman,
Can’t you just cut and paste? How hard can it be?
Maybe you could quote the precise words of something I wrote, and tell me why you think I am wrong. On the other hand, you could choose to deny, divert, and confuse, and make incessant demands that people waste their time at your behest.
Foolish Warmist. You call assertions and demands science. I prefer the the normal scientific process, where hypotheses and theories are subject to examination reproducible experiments.
Einstein said –
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Every experiment ever carried out has shown the transmittance of CO2 to be greater than 1, which would be necessary for the bizarre foolish Warmist claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface makes the thermometer hotter.
Einstein also said –
If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.
― Albert Einstein
tags: attributed-no-source, simplicity, understand 27781 likes Like
Bugger again. Fat finger syndrome.
Climatologists can’t even explain the GHE to each other. Poor communication, or poor comprehension?
Cheers.
Norm, in your delusion, you believe anyone that disagrees with you should be denigrated. They should be called names, censored, banned—hey, why not executed?
What you don’t understand is that you are a phony. You do not know science, you try to fake science. You make claims, but when challenged, you retreat into your shell. You can not stand by your own words. You have no character. There is nothing to you.
But, please continue. I like watching you fall on your face repeatedly, as you did again here.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, in your delusion, you believe anyone that disagrees with you should be denigrated. They should be called names, censored, bannedhey, why not executed?”
Wow where did you get that from. I called you a troll as that is what you do, taunt, annoy and illicit responses. How do you get that I feel you should be censored, banned or executed?
I am responding to your troll posts so obviously I am not censoring you. I really think you have nothing of value to offer anyone on a science blog.
YOU “What you dont understand is that you are a phony. You do not know science, you try to fake science. You make claims, but when challenged, you retreat into your shell. You can not stand by your own words. You have no character. There is nothing to you.”
When have I retreated into a shell? What fake science do I post, I put up links nearly in everyone of my posts that you can look at and to demonstrate there is scientific backing for all my claims.
I have not seen any science from you in 1000’s of posts. You mostly taunt people who accept a GHE based upon empirical evidence, reason and valid science. I have not seen any of your posts to any links supporting any claims you make, which are not many. Mostly strawman attacks and taunts.
g*e*r*a*n
If you think I am a phony and false, then please work to rip up my points.
You need to do a little work, a few clicks and some scrolling. If you do not want to do this then keep your troll remarks to yourself, if you have concerns that my points are bad and leading people to false science address them with proof, evidence. Then we all benefit. You will benefit by researching and I will benefit by seeing my errors.
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html
Download the textbook and then go to page 528 of this textbook. Look at figure 10.1 and then let me know how I have my science wrong. The figure describes two way energy fluxes between each object with heat being the NET flow of energy.
I have not seen this described differently in any online textbook even older textbooks. If I am wrong it would seem the entire science world is wrong on this matter. Have at it, prove I am wrong or simply shut-up and learn more!
Norm, you attacked my credentials, on this very thread. I challenged you to a bet. You backed down immediately. That makes you a phony. You have NO credibility, as a human.
You have no science background. You search for links that you believe support your “religion”. If anyone offers the real science, you throw up a smokescreen.
Readers learn from you. They learn what “pseudoscience” looks like. So, even with no character, you have some value here. And, of course, there’s the hilarity.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “You have no science background. You search for links that you believe support your religion. If anyone offers the real science, you throw up a smokescreen.”
Yes like numerous textbooks on radiant heat transfer. I guess if you believe science textbooks are support for a “religion” then my claim against your credentials is completely valid.
In your claim on the bet, I told you read a textbook, far better than trying to bet with someone. That is not backing down, I responded with a far more useful idea. Now I see you think science textbooks are not a valid source.
Norm, linking to “textbooks” does not mean you understand the textbooks. You clearly don’t.
You keep saying that I do not provide you with any science, but that is false. I provide you with easy to understand examples. Examples even you should be able to understand. The most common one is the example of trying to bake a turkey with ice.
That example should wake you up. It should make you ask questions about your beliefs. You belief that all IR photons must be absorbed by a surface. You believe that all IR photons will cause warming. That is your belief. It is not supported by your “textbooks”, and it is not supported by the real world. Yet, you cling to your pseudoscience, and attack me.
You are a closed mind, wallowing in your false belief systems. I see little evidence that you understand science, or are willing to learn science.
g*e*r*a*n
Sorry your post is not my “belief” I do not make the claims you state.
YOU: “You belief that all IR photons must be absorbed by a surface. You believe that all IR photons will cause warming. That is your belief. It is not supported by your textbooks, and it is not supported by the real world. Yet, you cling to your pseudoscience, and attack me.”
NO! I do not make the claim that all IR photons must be absorbed by a surface. The amount of energy absorbed has been already experimentally tested in tables on IR Absorpitivty. Some materials absorb nearly all the IR that reaches them, other materials not so much. The Earth’s surface is in the upper 90% for the amount of IR it will absorb.
NO! I do not believe all IR photons will cause warming. That is not what I state or claim. If you define warming as an increase in temperature, that is not my claim.
My claim is this. The addition of IR photons to a surface from a source will make that surface warmer than a surface without the addition of IR photons. It is a relative comparison between two states. My points are not for one isolated surface. If you have a hot surface and surround it with ice, the ice will not make the surface temperature warmer (an increase). But the ice will lead to a warmer surface temperature than the surface would reach in free space if it has a constant input of the same amount of energy.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, linking to textbooks does not mean you understand the textbooks. You clearly dont.”
That is what you believe, now supply evidence. What makes you certain that I clearly do not understand what the textbook is saying? I gave you a link and page number and figure to look at. Explain why you think I do not understand the information presented. Should not be too hard for you to do if my understanding is so clearly wrong!
Norm, you just ramble and ramble. You write whatever comes to mind at the time, but often reverse yourself later, sometimes in the same comment!
Here, you are trying to make the case that CO2 is a “heat source”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245692
Here, you are trying to “prove” cold can warm hot:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246990
All are just long rambling pseudoscience, that you cannot stand by.
You’re hilarious!
Harry Cummings
Sorry I did not send you a link to the Internet, that is a downloaded copy I use to refer to.
If you want to look at the textbook yourself and refer to the page I indicated here is a good link for it.
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html
Norman,
Are you completely stupid? Maybe not, I suppose. Merely pretending, for some hidden reason.
Compare the transmittance of CO2 with the transmittance of N2 to sunlight.
Now tell me again, why your interminable demands of others to read textbooks (which you appear to have difficulty comprehending, but correct me if I’m wrong, providing supporting facts), is indicative of anything except a strange foolish Warmist desire to waste the time of others for no cogent reason.
Dim, dim, dim, Norman.
First define the GHE. Even your foolish Warmist book doesn’t, does it?
“The atmosphere creates a greenhouse effect on the earths surface that is very similar to that caused by a pane of glass.”
An unsubstantiated assertion, and based on nonsense, at that! Putting a pane of glass between the Sun and a thermometer makes a thermometer hotter? How silly is that! Or maybe it’s only similar, but nothing like it!
Maybe it’s a metaphor, do you think?
Cheers.
Just doing a review of the Tyndall experiment and have the following observations:
1)He thought IR was heat and he was wrong.
2)He had the perfect opportunity to measure the absorp-tion of air containing it’s standard amount of CO2 and he failed to do that. The air he injected into his testing cylinder had the water vapour and CO2 removed.
Gordon, in Prof. Tyndall’s time the word photon had not yet been coined, his use of heat term should be read as we now term photon energy in context and you will capture his meaning in modern terms. Translate his radiant heat into modern radiant energy, his title into radiation of energy. Wherever Tyndall uses heat as a noun, insert the modern term energy.
Similar to his carbonic acid meaning in modern terms CO2. While Prof. Tyndall did experiment with lab air dried and carbonic acid removed, he also experimented with air direct from his lab.
Ball4…”Wherever Tyndall uses heat as a noun, insert the modern term energy”.
That would not be right either. IR is a form of electromagnetic energy, not heat. Heat, aka thermal energy, is a property of the motion of atoms/molecules.
Heat is not flowing through Tyndall’s tube it is IR. Furthermore, heat is not measured in photons it is measured in calories or joules.
Where is the substitution of energy for Tyndall’s heat term wrong then Gordon? I can’t find anywhere. Perhaps you found one – quote that wrong passage then in Tyndall’s words with page number. Or are you just making stuff up like Flynn?
A little known piece of history is that the greenhouse effect was discovered a few years before Tyndall by Eunice Foote, at a time when women were not allowed into the halls of science.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf.html
A version of her experiment is carried out today in high schools.
3)He claimed later in the paper that mountain tops, presumably like Ever-est, showed cooler temps, not because of the thin air but due to a lack of water vapour. Tyndall was obviously not very well tuned in to the effect of pressure on temperature.
In fact, he admitted as much, that he was not well versed in the theory of radiation through atmospheres.
censor did not like Ever-est either (without the hyphen)
Gordon,
Maybe you’re reading something different.
“In comparing dry with humid air, it is perfectly essential that both substances be pure.” – and so on.
He used both. His book explains why.
He also used ordinary air containing CO2 at atmospheric pressure. You are free to find the information if you wish.
As to mountains, here’s some of what Tyndall wrote –
“These enormous differences between the shaded and the unshaded air, and between the air and the snow, are, no doubt, due to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at these elevations. The air is incompetent to check either the solar or the terrestrial radiation,”
Indeed. As the amount of GHG between the Sun and the thermometer decreases, the thermometer gets hotter. No GHE to be seen.
As to pressure and temperature, I will guarantee you cannot distinguish between a cylinder of CO2 at a pressure of 57 bar, and one at a pressure of 1 bar, merely by measuring its temperature. I suppose you didn’t really mean what you wrote – maybe it was another metaphor?
Have you read Tyndall’s book printed some 40 years after the Bakerian lecture? Tyndall changed his mind about a few things, based on subsequent experimental results. These results, and the fact that scientists learn new things, are obviously anathema to the fixed and immutable views of most climatologists.
“The science is settled!” Is the alpha and omega of the climatological faith.
Still no GHE. Keep trying.
Cheers.
Norman wrote –
“You need to do a little work, a few clicks and some scrolling . . . ”
Have you considered the possibility that you might need to spend a little less time telling people what they need to do?
Why should anyone take the slightest notice of your unsolicited and gratuitous advice?
I’m not aware of any deep insights in “The collected scientific works of Norman”, probably because there aren’t any!
I wish you well in your belief that telling people what they need to do will create fact from fantasy. Maybe you can magic the GHE into existence at the same time. What do you think? Maybe you need to do a little work, a few clicks and some scrolling, if at first you don’t succeed.
Cheers.
Someone wants to do a reproducible experiment demonstrating that increasing the amount of CO2 between a constant heat source and a thermometer will cause the thermometer to get hotter.
It would seem easy to set it up. A reasonably sealed room, a heat source at one side of the room, and a thermometer at the other side of the room, opposite.
Adjust the heat source until your thermometer is reading a suitable temperature. Allow a little while for the air in the room to become more or less isothermal. Now add CO2 to the air in the room. Does the thermometer get hotter? Displace all the air in the room with CO2. Does the thermometer get hotter?
Don’t forget, the CO2 goes between the heat source and the thermometer, and you’re not trying to measure the temperature of the CO2. It absorbs heat, so it will warm up. Just like on Earth, it prevents radiation from reaching the thermometer.
Or you could do a real experiment. Tyndall’s setup is pretty good, and overcomes most objections. Just null out the reference heat source. From that point, any variation is due to the CO2. Good luck. If you understood Beer’s Law and all that stuff, you might even be able to calculate how much the temperature of the thermometer would fall.
I’d still suggest Tyndall’s method. Measuring absolute temperatures is very difficult, as well as irrelevant at this point. A simple, reproducible colder/hotter result will start you off.
Of course, you won’t actually do a damn thing. You prefer wishful thinking and magic. That’s not science, of course.
Let me know how far you get with actually doing anything, before you give up.
Cheers.
There are many experiments over the web. These are the ones I was talking about where skeptics argued about flaws in them (youtube).
1) http://tinyurl.com/mojp57p
Thermal imaging of candle gets blocked when CO2 is introduced.
2) http://tinyurl.com/c28aos3
Two vessels this time, with thermometers. One vessel with an increase in CO2.
3) http://tinyurl.com/kyf2cev
Similar set-up as 2, but with a better control on temp readings.
4) http://tinyurl.com/lcyjs7e
Mythbusters experiment with more attention to constant heat source.
I think most of these adequately demonstrate the greenhouse effect, particularly 1, 3 and 4. I have reservations about the heat source set-up in 2.
I’m pretty sure that you, Mike Flynn, will find flaws in any experiment I could link you to.
And that will bring us to where I started my questions. What set-up would convince a ‘skeptic’?
Thanks for your suggestions on an experiment. I’m confident that if I ran it, though, and the ‘greenhouse’ effect was demonstrated, skeptics would find problems with it. I reckon you would, too, even if I followed your suggestions to the letter.
It may be time to follow up on an experiment that I started playing a bit with a year ago, but never followed through to completion. I am sure it will not convince everyone, but it does eliminate many of the objections that are made to the sort of experiments shown in the links.
barry,
You have no intention of actually carrying out a reproducible scientific experiment. You’re afraid I might be right.
You would be correct.
Why would you care if people criticise your setup? Facts are facts.
The reason your experiment cannot succeed is that it is nonsensical. You cannot make a thermometer hotter by reducing the amount of heat reaching it. Whether you use your hand, a sunshade or CO2 to prevent heat getting to the thermometer, it won’t make it hotter.
Maybe you could talk the GHE into existence.
Cheers.
I’m not afraid you might be right. I’m not going to be able to set up an experiment because I don’t have the tools, the expertise or money to buy the tools and expertise.
Why would you care if people criticise your setup?
I’m asking for improvements on it.
I got a bit tired of all the tit-for-tat on this thread and posted something I was thinking about in order to invite anyone tpo join in and not be so damned tribal.
The reason your experiment cannot succeed is that it is nonsensical.
I provided the links to actual experiments for you to check. Check them out. They are all variations of an experiment to see if the greenhouse effect exists. All of them demonstrate it.
Mike says: “You cannot make a thermometer hotter by reducing the amount of heat reaching it. Whether you use your hand, a sunshade or CO2 to prevent heat getting to the thermometer, it wont make it hotter.”
Right off the bat, you have the wrong concept.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247819
“Dont forget, the CO2 goes between the heat source and the thermometer, and youre not trying to measure the temperature of the CO2. It absorbs heat, so it will warm up. Just like on Earth, it prevents radiation from reaching the thermometer.”
So, you think that it’s possible that increasing global CO2 will reduce the amount that say, the surface temperature of desert sand can/will heat up to?
A general problem is how much?
Does current amount of 400 ppm CO2, already do this? And if so how much does it do? And what if it was 1000 ppm of CO2?
What about Mars- which has about 28 times more CO2 in square meter column of atmosphere as Earth. Does cause the surface to not to warm up as much compared replacing the CO2 with some other gas?
And it reminds me.
Is CO2 more reflective than say nitrogen gas?
Now, Venus is quite reflective- and it’s supposed to be due to the clouds. Let’s assume clouds are fairly reflective and Venus has complete global cloud coverage. But does the 96.5% CO2 atmosphere [which are incredibly thick atmosphere] also reflect a significant amount of sunlight.
Oh so googled: earth sky is blue what color is venus sky
And wiki says:
“The atmosphere of Venus is so thick that the Sun is not distinguishable in the daytime sky, and the stars are not visible at night. Color images taken by the Soviet Venera probes suggest that the sky on Venus is orange.”
But I wasn’t thinking of the sky color from Venus surface, but rather if you were on balloon at elevation in which there was somewhere around 1 to 4 atm of pressure. Or at a elevation which at night one could see the stars.
Also:
“Around sunset and sunrise the Martian sky is pinkish-red in color, but in the vicinity of the setting sun or rising sun it is blue. This is the exact opposite of the situation on Earth. However, during the day the sky is a yellow-brown “butterscotch” color. On Mars, Rayleigh scattering is usually a very small effect.”
And:
“Astronomers expected Mars’ sky to have a deep blue color as seen from the surface because the atmosphere is only one percent the thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere. However, pictures from the Mars surface landers show the martian sky to be pink from sunlight bouncing off dust particles blown off Mars’ red surface. ”
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s5.htm
Flynn 1:01am asks: “Does the thermometer get hotter?”
Yes, as the thermometers in Tyndall’s room did, under the given circumstances with added CO2, “On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose, on exhausting it they sank”
“you might even be able to calculate how much the temperature of the thermometer would fall.”
No Mike, you are simply making data up again, actually: “the thermometric columns rose”
Ball4,
Maybe you’re quoting from the non-existent scientific works of Ball4?
Your Tyndall fantasy continues unabated.
If someone might actually believe you, their belief will only last until they read Tyndall’s later book (the 1906 edition I think).
Unless they share your mental aberrations, course.
Cheers.
All the tests I linked to a bit above demonstrate the greenhouse effect. It’s not just Tyndall. The experiment has been performed successfully in high school labs (and on you tube) thousands of time since Tyndall.
Of course, ‘skeptics’ reject every one of them. They keep making up reasons to flaw the tests.
barry says, May 22, 2017 at 7:10 AM:
Nope. Because that’s not the “GHE”, and it’s not the “enhanced GHE” either.
Far too many people imagine that if they can only “prove” that CO2 is able to absorb and emit IR within its distinctive bands of the EM spectrum (who has ever denied this!?), then they have somehow “proved” the “GHE”. But the “greenhouse EFFECT” is not equal to the physical fact that CO2 happens to be able to absorb and emit IR within certain bands of the EM spectrum. It is a NET TEMPERATURE EFFECT strictly postulated as somehow the (very indirect) result OF this physical fact.
Ok, so is it enough to show that CO2 gas can somehow impede the transfer of heat through some medium and to even indirectly create warming within that medium as a result of this ability?
No. Because this is ALSO not the “GHE”. In the real Earth system, it’s not enough to simply create warming of some specific layer of air above the ground. You need to be able to keep it in place as well for it to have an effect on anything. Inside a closed glass box in a lab you can. Out there in the open surface-atmosphere system you can’t. It’s called “buoyancy”. Convection.
Kristian
You:
“In the real Earth system, its not enough to simply create warming of some specific layer of air above the ground. You need to be able to “keep it in place” as well for it to have an effect on anything.”
You seem to believe that GHG’s could create warming in the lower troposphere (a specific layer). Your contention is that there’s nothing “to keep it in place”.
Yes there is:
– GHG’s create warming in the TLT.
– GHG’s are steadily accumulating in the TLT.
– The warming is therefore “kept in place”.
In other words, the warming is kept in place because the warming “mechanism” is kept in place.
Snape says, May 22, 2017 at 11:46 AM:
That’s not a BELIEF. That is a fact. Heard of radiative heat transfer? All heat transferred from the surface to the lowermost part of the troposphere will create warming in the lowermost part of the troposphere. Because that’s what a positive heat transfer does.
This is not a CONTENTION. This is also a fact. That is what the atmospheric circulation does. It transports the heat transferred from the surface and absorbed down low up high. Heard of the “tropospheric lapse rate”? It is maintained by heating down low, cooling up high and the convective transport in between.
No, Snape. GHGs also create cooling in the TLT. They warm down low and cool up high. The heat absorbed down low does not “accumulate” as warming in place. It naturally buoys upward to where it can be released to space (thus cooling up high). The lapse rate is maintained …
The THEORETICAL IDEA is that increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will somehow make the warming down low larger than the cooling up high, and so there will be an overall rise in the system temperature.
But in reality, we observe no such thing. The relevant radiation flux data CLEARLY shows that the two balance rather perfectly. There is NO reduction in OLR at the ToA over time RELATIVE TO tropospheric temperatures, which is the postulated warming mechanism of the “enhanced GHE” conjecture.
Nope. Only IN THEORY. Not IN REALITY.
Theory, meet Reality.
Kristian
Once again you misunderstand what I’m trying to say. Maybe it’s me.
“You seem to believe that GHGs could create warming in the lower troposphere (a specific layer).”
I wrote this because until reading one of your recent comments, it had been my impression that you DIDN’T believe this. Get it?
“Your contention is that theres nothing to keep it in place””
The “it” in the phrase “keep it in place”
refers to the verb, “warming”. Not the noun “warmth”. Get it?
Warmth moves all around, that’s a given, but the “process of warming” does not.
So in the TLT, the warming (verb) from GHG’s is kept in place even though this warmth (noun) is moving all around, including of course to higher layers of the atmosphere.
Snape says, May 22, 2017 at 6:08 PM:
Snape,
Now you’re not making sense again. The “warming” process will go on regardless of more or less IR-active gases in the atmosphere. We’re discussing whether we will be able to keep in place (that is, at the same specific altitude), say, the layer of air directly above the surface, after we have warmed it (but not the surface itself and not the air layers above it) to a higher temperature, for it to thereby affect the surface temperature.
This is the situation that these enclosed lab experiments described by barry try to draw their conclusions from …
Mike does not even believe that CO2 absorbs infrared causing warming in a test chamber. If you want to crash this party, help him understand that. Then I will respond to your particular interest.
barry,
Unless you can quote me saying such a thing, people are entitled to think you are a fool, or a liar.
I choose the second. Well, maybe both.
Cheers.
I’ve re-read your comments and now realize what you have been saying. You do believe that CO2 will warm when heated, but you think the thermometer in the same vessel (room) as the CO2 will show no temperature change.
You think that CO2 insulates the thermometer from the warming effect.
This is absurd.
In the tests I linked the thermometer (or other heat monitor) is in the vessel with the CO2. The thermometers record a rise in temperature.
How you could imagine that the gas warms but the thermometer doesn’t is beyond me. It defies the most basic laws of physics. If the gas warms, that warmth flows to the thermometer.
The fact that more CO2 causes more warming is also demonstrated by the tests. When the vessel has more CO2, the thermometers record more warmth. This should not be happening, according to you.
On Earth, CO2 absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation for more effectively than it does dolar radiation – solar emissions in the infrared are at different wavelengths to terrestrial, and much less intense, and CO2 absorbs very little at those wavelengths, and with such low intensity.
The Earth is the ‘thermometer’ inside the ‘vessel’ containing CO2. If the gas warms, so must the surface of the planet. That’s physics 101.
CO2 insulates against almost no solar radiation (oxygen and ozone do a better job of that), but it does ‘insulate’ the escape of terrestrial infrared to space.
The insulation is asymmetrical. Most of the action occurs at terrestrial wavelengths, which are mostly different from solar wavelengths. CO2 absorbs upwelling infrared far more than downwelling solar infrared (they are in different parts of the infrared spectrum) and re-emits that radiation in all directions including downward, back to Earth.
The thermometers in the tests get warmer from more CO2. So does the Earth.
Apparently you believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere would cause warming at the surface of the Earth.
This is arrant nonsense.
Far too many people imagine that if they can only prove that CO2 is able to absorb and emit IR within its distinctive bands of the EM spectrum (who has ever denied this!?)
Mike denies this! That’s why this discussion is happening. Help out. Then we can move on.
Barry, if you could prove that CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR, and is therefore an insulator, it only strengthens his nutty argument.
Mikes logic:
– if you put a cold beverage in an insulated thermos, it stays cooler.
– put a coat on a snowman and it won’t melt as fast.
– it gets colder at night….because of CO2
– Bedouin’s wear clothes to stay cool
– firemen wear thick clothing to protect themselves from intense heat
So in Mike’s mind, insulation causes cooling, not warming. After all, how could it do both!
I forgot his most important argument:
“Place insulation between the sun and the Earth and it will keep the surface cooler. Remember the thermos?”
If you ask him if a coat will keep a person warmer, he refuses to answer the question, and starts talking about corpses. Lol!!
Snape
You nailed Mike Flynn’s thought process. It is one-dimensional in all aspects. He thinks the Moon is warmer than the Earth’s surface because you get a higher peak temperature than on Earth. You pointed out his many one dimensional thought processes.
That is why the GHE can’t make sense to him no matter how many people explain it to him. He is fixated that the Greenhouse effect is equal an actual greenhouse. I guess he can’t comprehend the “effect” term added to greenhouse, it makes the concept more than single dimensions.
Norman
Mike reminds me of a character you might find in a Monty Python sketch.
Then along comes David Appell, who is smart but very grumpy……it gets very funny! That’s part of why I enjoy this blog.
Mike says: “Someone wants to do a reproducible experiment demonstrating that increasing the amount of CO2 between a constant heat source and a thermometer will cause the thermometer to get hotter.”
Right off the bat, you have the wrong concept. The important factor is the CO2 between the warm surface and the cool surroundings (not between the heat source and the surface). The IR-absorbing material impedes the surface’s ability to cool (not enhances the heat input). An object will warm if EITHER the heat in increases OR the heat out decreases. For the GHE, it is the heat OUT that is causing the changes, not the heat IN. You are focused on the wrong end of the stick, Mike.
For the earth, CO2 is between the warm surface and the icy cold of outer space, as required to create a GHE. Coincidentally, the CO2 is *also* between that sun and the surface, but that it NOT what causes the warming.
What someone *really* wants to do (or should want to do) is a reproducible experiment demonstrating that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heated surface with a thermometer and cooler surroundings will cause the thermometer to get hotter. (They will also want to control for differences in convection, conduction, specific heat, and a few other things.)
Tim Folkerts,
The point is, you foolish Warmist, that nobody has managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and the thermometer – not you, not anybody.
It’s complete nonsense!
You wrote –
“An object will warm if EITHER the heat in increases OR the heat out decreases.”
What a load of garbage!
Put your hot beverage in a vacuum flask. Heat loss decreases – unless you’ve redefined the laws of thermodynamics. I’m not yet aware of the Laws of Folkerts, so the laws of thermodynamics will have to suffice.
Does the temperature of your beverage rise? Of course not. You foolish fellow. It continues to cool. Cooling slowly or quickly is still cooling. Perhaps you disagree?
At this point, you’re going to revise your statement, I assume.
You didn’t mean to be taken literally, you meant to say something else, or it’s really a metaphor for the GHE which is a metaphor for something unstated!
No GHE.
Cheers.
Flynn is proved wrong yet again commenting: “nobody has managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and the thermometer – not you, not anybody. It’s complete nonsense!”
Prof. Tyndall did and many others have done so experimentally even when Flynn chooses to ignore the data.
Increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and the thermometer Prof. Tyndall data resulted in: “On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose, on exhausting it they sank”
East to prove Flynn wrong over and over with simple experimental results. Flynn has performed no experiments.
TF An object will warm if EITHER the heat in increases OR the heat out decreases.
MF “What a load of garbage!”
Q = mcΔT Where Q is the (net) heat into an object.
When Q = Q_in – Q_out = 0, then ΔT = zero, ie steady temperature
When Q = Q_in – Q_out > 0, then ΔT > zero, ie it gets warmer.
It doesn’t matter whether Q become positive by increasing Q_in or decreasing Q_out. Either will result in an increasing temperature.
Sorry, no “garbage” so far.
MF: Put your hot beverage in a vacuum flask. Heat loss decreases unless youve redefined the laws of thermodynamics.
You are conveniently forgetting the Q_in. In fact, you pretty consistently seem to conveniently forget Q_in when it suits you. The surface of the earth has a continuous Q_in from the sun. For your example to be a good analogy, you would start with an un-insulated flask of water with a small immersion heater inside. Let it sit around for a while until the water reaches some steady temperature. Then transfer the water and the immersion heater to your vacuum flask. Voil! The water gets even hotter because the Q_in is the same but Q_out is smaller.
Tim,
Not an analogy. Reality.
What part don’t you agree with?
No immersion heater, no imaginary heat sources.
No rise in temperature. Just like the molten ball of rock we call the Earth.
Foolish Warmist. Try facts rather than fantasy.
Cheers.
Meanwhile,
“According to GISS NASA, the average global surface temperature anomaly for April was 0.88 C, which is 0.18 C lower than the hottest April in 2016, making April 2017 the second hottest April in the record.”
dr No,
Does this mean that falling temperatures are due to the GHE? Or does it mean that some temperatures have risen and some have fallen, requiring an average?
Maybe CO2 causes both heating and cooling simultaneously, which is why you need a climatologist.
Still no GHE, by the look of it.
Cheers.
dr no…”According to GISS NASA…”
GISS is not reliable, they use adjusted data from NOAA.
Mike…”Maybe youre reading something different”.
Not sure where you’re coming from, Mike. I don’t think the GHE exists and I was criticizing Tyndall.
Gordon,
The GHE doesn’t exist and Tyndall was a brilliant experimenter. Sure, he believed in the ether like most of his time, and one or two other things which turned out to be incorrect.
His observations about the reasons for higher surface temperatures at altitude are correct. Most people confuse air temperatures with surface temperatures, climatologists in particular.
They consistently refer to air temperatures as surface temperatures, over land, but over the sea, which covers around 70% of the surface, they don’t bother with air temperature at all. They claim they are measuring the surface temperature, but actually measure water temperature somewhere – near the surface hopefully, but nobody really knows.
All irrelevant, as their measurements are completely useless in any case. Who cares what the temperature was? It won’t come back will it?
Parapsychology and climatology share the same types of unverifiable claims. To date, they share the same quantum of utility – none at all.
Cheers.
Tiny solid and liquid particles suspended in the atmosphere are called aerosols. Examples of aerosols include windblown dust, sea salts, volcanic ash, smoke from fires, and pollution from factories. These particles are important to scientists because they can affect climate, weather, and people’s health. Aerosols affect climate by scattering sunlight back into space and cooling the surface. Aerosols also help cool Earth in another way — they act like “seeds” to help form clouds. The particles give water droplets something to cling to as the droplets form and gather in the air to make clouds. Clouds give shade to the surface by reflecting sunlight back into space. People’s health is affected when they breathe in smoke or pollution particles. Such aerosols in our lungs can cause asthma or cancer of other serious health problems. But scientists do not fully understand all of the ways that aerosols affect Earth’s environment. To help them in their studies, scientists use satellites to map where there were large amounts of aerosol on a given day, or over a span of days.
https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MODAL2_M_AER_OD&year=2017
More than just the idle stuff of daydreams, clouds help control the flow of light and heat around our world. Because there are so many clouds spread over such large areas of Earth, they are a very important part of our world’s climate system. Clouds have the ability to cool our planet, or they can help to warm it. Because there are so many different kinds of clouds, and because they move and change so fast, they are hard to understand and even harder to predict. Scientists want to know how big the particles are that make up clouds. Clouds with smaller particles tend to reflect more sunlight and, therefore, cool the Earth.
https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MYDAL2_E_CLD_RD&date=2017-05-16
The current theory is that higher clouds cause warming at the surface, and lower clouds cause cooling. IIRC, it’s largely to do with the geometry of solar radiation and the temperature of clouds. Lower clouds block sunlight better than high clouds. You can see this effect on the ground just by looking at their shadows. And low clouds are warmer and so absorb little thermal radiation from the surface, whereas high clouds are much colder and so absorb more of the warmer thermal energy, re-radiating in every direction (including downward).
The east to west winds (trade winds) remain strong along the equator in the western/central Pacific. Neutral/la nina conditions continue likely for late summer
Current level of galactic radiation compared to the previous two solar cycles.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00902/2lpxa6bktekp.gif
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
In physics, it is common to start with simplified, idealized conditions. Like assuming frictionless surfaces and massless pulleys when dealing with Newtons Laws. These idealizations are not *required*; rather they help beginners focus on a smaller number of important concepts.
Similarly, the greenhouse effect (GHE) can be introduced with idealized conditions. Again, this is not *required*, but merely a first step for beginners. Once, these basics are understood, then the results can be generalized and expanded to describe more complicated situations, like the earth and its atmosphere.
Here are key features of the beginners “idealized GHE.”
1) An inner hot object with a heat input of constant power, P, a surface area, A, and an emissivity ε = 1. Call its temperature T_h.
2) Outer surroundings with a constant cold temperature, T_c, and an emissivity ε = 1
3) An intermediate layer between the inner object and the outer surroundings with temperature T_i.
4) The intermediate layer should have an emissivity ε = 1 and have no conductive or convective heat exchange with either the inner warm object or the cool outer surroundings. The intermediate layer should be removable. The inner layer should be close to the inner hot object so that its surface area is approximately the same as the inner object, A.
WITHOUT the intermediate layer, the inner object radiates directly to the cool surroundings. The inner object will change temperature until it is radiating out power as fast as it is receiving power. In this steady-state situation
P/A = σ(T_h^4 T_c^4) (Stephan-Boltzmann Law)
or
T_h^4 = (P/σA) + T_c^4 (without intermediate layer)
WITH the intermediate layer, when the steady-state condition has been achieved, the intermediate later has to radiate P/A = σ(T_i^4 T_c^4). In other words, this intermediate later must warm to the temperature that the inner object had originally so that the intermediate layer can radiate P/A to the surroundings. The inner object must in turn warm until it can radiate P/A to the warm intermediate layer (rather than simply to the cold surroundings).
T_i^4 = (P/σA) + T_c^4
T_h^4 = (P/σA) + T_i^4
Or
T_h^4 = 2(P/σA) + T_c^4 (with intermediate layer)
To state the obvious, since 2(P/σA) > (P/σA), the new temperature of the inner hot object WITH the intermediate layer is higher than the original temperature WITHOUT the intermediate layer.
************************
Of course, once you start relaxing the idealizations, the calculations get MUCH more challenging (just like calculations for the motion of objects get much more challenging when you include air resistance, friction, etc.) And the sun-surface-atmosphere-space system requires relaxing many of these idealizations: ε ≠ 1 for surface or atmosphere, there is conduction from surface to atmosphere, heat input to the surface is not constant, etc. That does not invalidate the GHE. It means dealing with a non-idealized GHE in addition to any number of OTHER factors that all influence earths climate.
Now I an just link here the next time someone asks what the greenhouse effect is.
TIm, nice try, but this is nothing more than the old “shell” game (“surface” and “shell”).
I can’t believe you are trying this scam.
I *can* believe you are complaining without any scientific reasons why you consider this as scam.
What SPECIFICALLY do you disagree with? What assumption or equation do you think is wrong?
Tim, do you not realize this is the old “steel greenhouse” scam?
What SPECIFICALLY do you disagree with? What assumption or equation do you think is wrong? Why do you consider the “Steel greenhose” (as you call it) a scam?
The “steel greenhouse” uses a perfect setup to make it appear as if the “shell” is warming the sphere. The “setup” has NOTHING to do with the reality of Earth energy balance.
If you add a second shell, and do the math correctly, you will find you have increased the temperature of the sphere! A third shell will increase the temperature more. If you add infinite shells, you can increase the sphere to an infinite temperature!
It’s one of the best tricks of pseudoscience!
“The steel greenhouse uses a perfect setup …
Yep. As a learning tool to understand the basic concepts.
“to make it appear as if the shell is warming the sphere.”
In this idealized situation, having a shell clearly results in the inner surface than it would be without the shell. The COMBINATION of constant heat input and reduced heat output warms the inner sphere.
“If you add a second shell, and do the math correctly, you will find you have increased the temperature of the sphere! “
Yep. That is as it should be. When the surroundings are very cold, then each shell in the idealized GHE increases the inner-most surface by a factor of 2^(0.25) = 1.19. Four shells would double the temperature.
“If you add infinite shells, you can increase the sphere to an infinite temperature!”
Now this is a good observation and one worth discussion.
In the idealization with a FIXED HEAT INPUT, that would indeed be the case. Just like adding more and more insulation around a fixed heat source inside a box will make the interior hotter and hotter.
However, in any real situation, other factors will limit the temperature. One simple limit is that the shells will melt/vaporize at high enough temperatures. But even ignoring this limitation, there is another fundamental physic limitation.
For the real sun-earth situation, the heating of the surface is by incoming sunlight. This adds the requirement that the shell is transparent to the incoming thermal radiation. But we also had assumed that the shell completely blocked the outgoing thermal radiation from the surface. As the inner surface gets hotter and hotter, its thermal IR spectrum gets more and more like the spectrum from sun. Thus it becomes more and more difficult to allow one but block the other. In this case, the inner object will limited to a temperature less than the temperature of the initial heat source (eg less than the temperature of the star that is heating the planet).
1) You start with a fictional “idealized” scenario. But, you plan to use it as a model for Earth. That “bait and switch”. That’s called “deception”.
2) You confuse radiative heat transfer with conductive heat transfer. You believe that you can increase the temp. of the sphere, by adding more shells. You want to compare it to putting on more layers of clothing. That’s called “deception”.
3) You do not get to violate the Laws of Thermo. For a fixed power to the sphere, any reflected IR will NEVER heat the sphere above it’s S/B temperature. Hopefully by now, you know what that is called.
1) What I might “plan to use it for” is immaterial. Do you have an objection to this model? That would be like complaining that “I plan to use newton’s laws for some complicated purpose in the future, so I can’t start with a frictionless idealization as a first step toward understanding.”
2) Where specifically do you think I “confuse radiative heat transfer with conductive heat transfer”? There is no conductive heat transfer in this model at all, so it is pretty tough to be confused. (Although you still seem to have managed.)
3) I don’t violate any laws of thermodynamics. Heat always flows from warmer to cooler. Energy is conserved. What law do you think is violated?
“For a fixed power to the sphere, any reflected IR will NEVER heat the sphere above its S/B temperature.”
Funny, I never saw that listed as a law of thermodynamics in any textbook. What law do you think implies this? What equation requires this?
In fact is trivial to show that reflected IR can easily raise the temperature of an object above its “SB temperature”. (Note, the original problem involves ABSORBED IR, not REFLECTED IR, but I am going from your statement.
Consider a 1 m^2 panel with emissivity = 1, in the cold vacuum of space. The panel has a 480 W electric heater inside. The panel will radiate 240 W/m^2 from each side ==> 255K on both surfaces. Now put a thin, highly reflective (emissivity ~ 0) sheet of aluminum foil over one side. This will reflect back the IR. An IR camera beyond the foil will basically detect no IR from this side.
That means the entire 480 W/m^2 must be radiating from the other side. That means the exposed side will be 303K. (The foiled side will also be 303 K.)
Yet another objection shot to hell …
1) “Do you have an objection to this model?”
g: Maybe you overlooked three itemized objections. Blinders?
2) Where specifically do you think I “confuse radiative heat transfer with conductive heat transfer”? There is no conductive heat transfer in this model at all, so it is pretty tough to be confused. (Although you still seem to have managed.)
g: Tim, did you forget what you wrote: “Just like adding more and more insulation around a fixed heat source inside a box will make the interior hotter and hotter.”
3) I dont violate any laws of thermodynamics. Heat always flows from warmer to cooler. Energy is conserved. What law do you think is violated?
g: The reflected IR from the shell can NOT warm the surface!
And Tim, your “panel” example is especially hilarious. If, with the foil, the temperature of the panel rises to 303K, then the foil would then be receiving even more IR. Then, the panel would rise to a new temp. Then, the foil would receive even more IR. Your panel would soon reach an infinite temperature!
You may be an even better pseudoscientist than Norm. And, thats hard to do!
Maybe you overlooked three itemized objections. Blinders?
All were addressed. Blinders of your own?
“Tim, did you forget what you wrote: Just like adding more and more insulation around a fixed heat source inside a box will make the interior hotter and hotter.
Do you not agree that ANY restriction of outgoing heat will have a warming effect when there is a constant heat input — whether for conduction or radiation?
The reflected IR from the shell can NOT warm the surface!
Repeating a false claim with an exclamation point does not make it any more true. What law of physics is this based on? What textbook or physics professor tells you this?
“And Tim, your panel example is especially hilarious. If, with the foil, the temperature of the panel rises to 303K, then the foil would then be receiving even more IR. Then, the panel would rise to a new temp. Then, the foil would receive even more IR. Your panel would soon reach an infinite temperature!
Clearly you understand neither physics nor infinite series.
When the foils first added, the foil side reflects the 240 W back, so there is no loss from that side. The front side will emit 240 W, but there is 480 W of electrical power. There is a net 240 W in, so the panel INITIALLY warms.
When the panel has warmed to 303K with the foil, there is 480 W coming in from the electrical heater. On the foil side, there is 480 W of IR leaving. However, the aluminum foil reflects the whole 480 W back where it is reabsorbed. So there is no heat loss from the back side. There is 480 W leaving the unfoiled side. Energy is balanced with 480 W in and 480 W out; no further increase in temperature.
If the panel DID somehow manage to warm above 303 K as you seem to think it must, it would be losing MORE THAN 480 W from the front side, losing none from the backside, and gaining 480 W from the electric heater. And losing more than it gains means it would COOL DOWN, not warm up further! See how that works? No infinite temperatures involved.
I can see you are really trying, but still nothing sticks.
Tim Folkerts,
What a tool.
You can’t even define the “greenhouse effect”, can you?
As for this piece of condescending, patronising nonsense _
“Here are key features of the beginners idealized GHE. Eh?
In your own mind possibly. Idealised nonsense is still nonsense.
Why not address the real non-existent GHE? Because you can’t, can you?
Raising the temperature of a thermometer on the Earth’s surface by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun is just complete and utter rubbish.
I’m a little curious though. Your outer cold surroundings have an emissivity of 1. Obviously not a vacuum, which has no emissivity at all.
So you have one internally heated object of unknown composition completely surrounded by another object of unknown composition, and this somehow represents in a simple fashion how the undefined GHE operates!
Might I suggest that the average person is not quite as dim as you assume.
Why don’t you just define the GHE? Because it’s impossible? Because if you did, someone would point out the flaws in your definition?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer placed on the surface of the Earth, will make the thermometer hotter. This is ridiculous on the face of it, so maybe you can state what an appropriate definition might be.
Any scientific effect is framed in such a way that it can be observed in an independent and reproducible fashion. The GHE is fake science, or cargo cult scientism, if you prefer.
You’re deluded. The Earth has cooled. The surface is solid. There is no internal heat source able to prevent the surface from cooling. There is no external heat source capable of preventing the surface from cooling.
Your nonsense is just that – nonsense.
You don’t appear to have a clue – I can lend you one, if you like. I have enough that lending one to a foolish Warmist won’t worry me too much.
Cheers.
Tim, you’ve got too much confusion started here. Let’s just tackle one at a time.
When the foil is first placed on one side of the panel, you claim the foil reflects 240 Watts back to the panel. And, that will cause the panel to reach 303K?
But then, you claim, the foil is reflecting back 480 Watts, but that will not raise the temperature of the panel?
240 Watts will raise the temperature of the panel, but 480 Watts will not?
(I just love the comedy.)
Are you TRYING to be dense?
“When the foil is first placed on one side of the panel, you claim the foil reflects 240 Watts back to the panel. “
Yes, that is what reflectors do — they reflect light (and IR) back. The net loss from the backside is 0 W. Indeed, the net loss is ALWAYS 0 W.
” And, that will cause the panel to reach 303K?
Eventually. The temperature will slowly build, as will the thermal radiation. There is an initial imbalance.
240 W net out from the front to space;
0 W/ net out from the back to the reflector;
480 W net in from electricity.
OVERALL NET: + 240 W into the panel that goes to warm the panel
A little later when the panel is a little warmer …
250 W net out from the front to space;
0 W/ net out from the back to the reflector;
480 W net in from electricity.
OVERALL NET: + 230 W into the panel that goes to warm the panel
A little later when the panel is a little warmer yet …
260 W net out from the front to space;
0 W/ net out from the back to the reflector;
480 W net in from electricity.
OVERALL NET: + 220 W into the panel that goes to warm the panel
….
A little later when the panel is a little warmer yet …
470 W net out from the front to space;
0 W/ net out from the back to the reflector;
480 W net in from electricity.
OVERALL NET: + 10 W into the panel that goes to warm the panel
The panel asymptotically approaches 303 K, at which point there is an overall net of 0 W into the panel to heat it further.
“240 Watts will raise the temperature of the panel, but 480 Watts will not?”
Your thinking is all twisted around. You have to look at ALL the energy flows. Here … let me fix it for you.
*Only* 240 W lost from the panel (with 480 W added from the electric heater) will raise the temperature of the panel.
*Increasing to* 480 W lost from the panel when it is warmer (with 480 W added from the electric heater) will cause a steady temperature.
Its really not that tough.
Mike: What a tool
Ah the old ad hom attack. Very persuasive.
“Im a little curious though. Your outer cold surroundings have an emissivity of 1. Obviously not a vacuum, which has no emissivity at all.”
A good question. Here are two different ways to answer.
Answer 1: Theoretically, space is the ultimate “cavity radiator”. As such it absorbs and emits perfectly.
Answer 2: Experimentally, outer space emits nearly perfect black body radiation at 2.7K toward earth. Also experimentally, no radiation from earth gets reflected from space and returns to earth. Both of these are pretty much the definition of “emissivity = 1”.
“You cant even define the greenhouse effect, can you?”
[[Sigh]] I just did.
” … unknown composition … “
General rules don’t need specific materials. Do you object to “F=ma” because Newton didn’t specify what caused the force and didn’t specify the composition of the object being pushed?
“Correct me if Im wrong, but you seem to be claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer placed on the surface of the Earth, will make the thermometer hotter. “
Ummm … I already did correct you on that. The important feature is for the IR absorbing material (CO2) to be between the warm surface (the earth) and the cool surroundings (space). The coincidence of the CO2 also happening to be between the source of incoming heat (the sun) and the ‘thermometer’ (the surface) is not what causes the warming.
Tim, go back to where you started this nonsense:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247834
* You started with a “hot object” and a “layer”.
* I pointed out that your “scenario” was nothing more than the “old shell game” of a “steel greenhouse”.
* “You feigned innocence, and asked what was wrong with the “steel greenhouse”.
* I mentioned the violations of physical laws.
* You then came back with the “panel”, with foil on one side.
* I mentioned that that was just more confusion. It is a new “scenario”. I suggested that we take one thing at a time, lest it appears you are just bouncing all over the place.
So, that brings us to where we are now.
Do you now admit your “hot object” and “layer” scenario is just a rehash of the “steel greenhouse”?
(This is basically a “yes or no” question. You may add clarification, but rambling in excess of 50 words just indicates you are trying to cover your tracks.)
Your response, please.
“* I mentioned the violations of physical laws.
For both the original model and for the follow-up heated panel:
* No energy is created or destroyed, so Conservation of Energy and/or First Law of Thermodynamics is fine.
* Heat never moves from a cooler to a warmer region, so the Second Law of Thermodynamics is fine.
* All surfaces radiate in accordance with Stephan-Boltzmann Law.
* When there is a net heat flow into an object, it warms in accordance with Q = mc Delta(T).
The only “law” that you have claimed is broken is “The reflected IR from the shell can NOT warm the surface!” Not only is this not a law of physics, it is wrong. The panel was introduced to show the illogic of your claim.
Simply repeating that laws are broken makes it no more true. What specific law (perhaps with a link to something on the internet or a quite from a textbook) do you think is broken? In what specific step in anything I said (please quote my statement)?
Tim, thanks for the nice little rant. (It didn’t answer my question, however. I’m trying to determine if you are genuinely confused or genuinely attempting to confuse.)
Do you now admit your hot object and layer scenario is just a rehash of the steel greenhouse?
And yes, this is basically the same as Willis’ “Steel Greenhouse” that was posted long ago at WUWT. It was correct then and it is correct now.
And do you now admit you can’t come up with any laws of physics that are broken?
Tim, thanks for admitting that.
You could have tried to “spin” your way out of it, like some. But, you chose to answer, respecting TRUTH. I respect that.
There are many problems with the “steel greenhouse”. One could almost write a book. The concept involves a lot of physics, which few understand. The concept is a nearly perfect tool of pseudoscience to promote the IPCC/AGW/GEH/CO2 hoax.
The first problem is the power source. Some present the concept as the “sphere” will be maintained at a constant 255K. Some present the concept as the “sphere” will be constantly “fed” 240 Watts. There is, of course, a BIG difference.
Because the “shell” is configured to be “perfect”, a constant supply of power to the sphere will allow a “runaway” condition. That is what the Warmists want. A sphere that is restricted to a temperature will not produce a runaway condition.
Whenever you see a “model” of Earth’s climate that allows a “runaway” condition, it usually only takes a quick look to find the violation of the laws of physics.
“The first problem is the power source. Some present the concept as the sphere will be maintained at a constant 255K. Some present the concept as the sphere will be constantly fed 240 Watts. There is, of course, a BIG difference.”
I have never seen anyone assume a constant temperature — it has ALWAYS been constant power in my experience. Where have you seen any one assuming a constant temperature?
“Because the shell is configured to be perfect, a constant supply of power to the sphere will allow a runaway condition. “
I keep hearing you claim this, but I have shown that the temperature can only climb by a factor of 2^(0.25) with a ‘perfect’ e=1 shell. Are you saying that one shell can cause temperature to ‘runaway’ toward infinity? If that is indeed what you are saying, can you show calculations to support this?
Certainly more shells can cause more warming — and infinite perfect shells with a constant heat input would indeed theoretically lead to infinite temperature. There are many reasons that a real atmosphere cannot lead to ‘runaway conditions’ (by which I assume you mean heading up toward infinity). For one, no atmosphere is infinite. Also, convection in a real atmosphere limits the effectiveness of the ‘shells’ of atmosphere. Furthermore (as explained before), the temperature of the surface is, at a maximum, limited to the surface of the star providing the incoming heat.
The Earth is said to radiate from an effective temp of 288K. If you are trying to “prove” the GHE, you cannot supply the needed power to increase that temp. It must come from the “shell”. (Which, or course, it cannot.) So, supplying endless power to the sphere raises the sphere temp, and deceives the innocent.
Adding shells, to an infinite power supply, will raise to infinite temps. There will be no “melting”, because it is a “thought experiment”. Pseudoscientists only want people to believe that melting would occur in a real world. The “steel greenhouse” is a fictional device, used to trick people.
A reputable scientist would run from it, except to expose it.
“The Earth is said to radiate from an effective temp of 288K. If you are trying to prove the GHE, you cannot supply the needed power to increase that temp. It must come from the shell. (Which, or course, it cannot.)”
I can see how some might think this, but it is a misunderstanding. The sun ultimately provides all the energy to keep the system warm. None originated from the shell.
Start with no shell. The sun provides (on average, of course) 240 J to each square meter of surface. The surface settles in to 255K, at which point radiates 240 W/m^2. Energy flow is balanced.
Now add a shell That allows the sunlight in but block thermal IR). Let’s make it 0 K just to ensure it has no energy of its own to start with. At this point:
The surface is receiving 240 W.m^2 from the sun
The surface is radiating 240 W/m^2 to the shell
>> all is balanced for the surface.
The shell is receiving 240 W/m^2 from the surface
the shell is radiating 0 W/m^2 to space.
>> the 240 W/m^2 imbalance causes the shell to warm up
>> no energy is created by the shell
>> the energy need to increase the temperature of the shell came from the surface (which came from teh sun)
At some point the shell has warmed up enough to radiate 10 W/m^2 to space.
The surface is receiving 240 W.m^2 from the sun
The surface is radiating 230 W/m^2 to the shell
>> The surface is not balanced at start to warm.
>> the energy to do this comes from the sun.
The shell is receiving 230 W/m^2 from the surface
The shell is radiating 10 W/m^2 to space
>>The imbalance of 220 W/m^2 causes the shell to warm up
>> since 220 > the 230 W/m^2 of incoming energy is from the surface, not created out of thin air or supplied from some outside source.
So we have energy flowing from sun -> earth -> shell -> space.
We have the surface and the shell imbalanced and warming up. The exact rate of warming will depend on the heat capacities of the sphere and he shell.
Will this continue to infinity with some sort of “runaway GHE”? NO! the final state is
The surface receives 240 W/m^2 from the sun
The surface @ 303K radiates 240 W/m^2 to the shell @ 255 K.
>> Surface is balanced
The shell @ 255 K receives 240 W/m^2 from the surface @ 303 K
The shell @ 255 K radiates 240 W/m^2 to space
>> shell is balanced
“you cannot supply the needed power to increase that temp”
… and I don’t. All power ultimately comes from he sun, flowing sun -> surface -> shell -> space.
IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THIS, please state either what you consider the first mistake, or what you consider the most important mistake.
Tim…”Here are key features of the beginners idealized GHE.”
Tim, as renowned physicist David Bohm once commented, an equation with no reality to back it is garbage.
Gordon, what SPECIFICALLY do you object to? What specific physics do you object to? Or it this just an objection with no reality to back it up?
I have no problem with your conceptual model, Tim. Just make sure you don’t ever forget that this:
T_i^4 = (P/σA) + T_c^4
T_h^4 = (P/σA) + T_i^4
Or
T_h^4 = 2(P/σA) + T_c^4
is but a strictly MATHEMATICAL operation to illuminate a specific point (which in itself is of course absolutely fine).
I like the way you’re sticking to the net exchange/movement of energy (macroscopic ‘radiative flux’). Still, I know it’s easy, once you’ve gone down that road at some point, to fall for the temptation of reverting to an argument based on separate opposing fluxes of radiation (W/m^2) back and forth, as if they were both discrete REAL PHYSICAL entities. Just remember, in reality it is all resolved WITHIN the bracket on the righthand side: P/A = σ [T_h^4 – T_c^4]. Which is basically a simplified (split hemispheric) expression of the integrated radiation field (the ‘photon cloud’).
Kristian wrote:
“….. heat escapes the surface itself as fast with as without an atmosphere, in the steady state, which is what matters to the surface temperature. It doesnt matter how fast it moves up the atmospheric column….”
Wrong. Energy may be emitted from the surface at the same rate (energy/time) whether in a humid jungle or an arid desert. The velocity (distance/time) at which this energy moves up the atmospheric column is what determines the surface temperature.
Faster means more cooling. A slower velocity of upward transport (in this case from less convection) means heat gets “backed up” because inflow remains constant.
As the total heat content in our atmosphere increases, the velocity of its upward movement will slow. This slowing will result in surface warming, because, like in a desert, the heat will get “backed up”.
How will a greater atmospheric heat content lead to a slower upward velocity? This is easily demonstrated using Kristian’s “water tank” analogy, if anyone’s interested.
Oops. Just realized my temperature comparison between jungle and desert doesn’t mention condensation or evaporation.
Snape says, May 22, 2017 at 12:42 PM:
The worst (?) thing is, you might actually have hit the nail on the head here, Snape! Such an effect would, after all, fit very well (and consistently) with empirical data from the real Earth system. It is actually pretty logical.
However, AGAIN, it would NOT make any difference in the steady state, only in building UP to it. If the transport of heat away from the surface (up through the air column) is faster (=more effective), this would enable the surface to maintain a steady state at a lower mean temperature, given equal heat INPUT from the Sun. The ‘heat IN’/’heat OUT’ would be the same (in the steady state), but the balance between them would be reached at a lower T_sfc; less energy would’ve accumulated at/below the surface during the buildup phase TOWARD the steady state.
Yup. Makes sense!
Feel free to read this post (written by me), which proves a rather perfect case in point:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/
Kristian
Sorry, I lost my train of thought when I argued upward velocity was relevant in the steady state. When velocity changes…..? Then it becomes important.
See my comments below.
Just out of curiosity, how would you measure the “speed of energy”? What is the speed of energy moving up in the atmosphere above a jungle?
Tim
It would be easy to measure the velocity at which water is moving up the “water tank”, right? How would you measure the velocity at which warmth is being transported up the atmosphere? That’s obviously a lot tougher problem.
On a very small scale, it would be fairly easy.
On a calm day, suspend a few thermometers 100 meters above the ground using drones. Then light a bonfire on the ground beneath them. Then record how long it takes for the thermometers to show warming. You have distance and time so you have velocity.
On a mega scale, like you’re talking about?
The problem is further complicated by the fact that the warmth would be transported in three different ways – all having different velocity’s. How would you find the “overall velocity”?
I have no idea, but hypothesize there is one.
If I understand correctly, radiation is slowed as it encounters GHG’s. Convection would be slowed by the slightest horizontal breeze, and gasses are a poor conductor of heat.
I don’t even know where evaporation, condensation or precipitation would fit in.
Needless to say, there are plenty of impediments to the upward transport of surface warmth.
Should have said “vertical” (upward) convection would be slowed.
Kristian
Glad we’re finally on the same page!
Another river analogy illustratomg this concept:
The Mississippi has an enormous rate of flow (gallons/minute), but because it moves at a rather slow velocity (MPH), it is very wide – a lot of water is able to accumulate. If it moved faster, it would be narrower.
This is a very simple and familiar idea. I just haven’t noticed it applied to the atmosphere.
Another example of the relevance of “upward velocity” is how fast smoke moves up a chimney. If the speed is too slow and the smoke doesn’t “move away” fast enough, it will back up inside the house.
What would happen in Kristian’s water tank scenario is if the velocity of upward transport slowed and no longer matched rate of inflow? This situation is not allowed to be possible….the inflow pipe would burst!
If the atmosphere were in a steady-state, the upward velocity of warmth would not be important. But if something, like an increase in GHG’s, were to in any way impede this upward movement?
Warmth would begin to accumulate.
Snape says, May 22, 2017 at 4:13 PM:
Yes, but you could just as well argue the other way around. If you increased the amount of IR-active gases in the atmosphere, the tendency would rather be towards more heating down low AND more cooling up high, and so this would tend to drive the speed of convective transport in between UP, not down. If anything …
However, the real-world situation is much more complex than that. Because of atmospheric circulation.
Kristian
I feel relieved that we again understand each other, even if we don’t agree.
Your reasoning sort of makes sense, but is completely incorrect. Let me explain.
Let’s call the space between a person’s skin and a t-shirt the “inner layer”. The space just inside the jacket is the outer layer.
Now, if the person puts on a sweater over his t-shirt, the inner layer will become warmer, right? The outer layer, it turns out, will become cooler.
The three layers of clothing will all-in-all accumulate (figuratively) more warmth than the initial two layers.
What you’re arguing is this: “after the sweater is added, the inner and outer layer will have a greater temperature differential. Therefore heat will be transported away from the person’s skin at a faster velocity.
We know from experience this is not the case.
Snape,
That’s because in your example you effectively block convective transfer. Convection IS the transport. It is driven by temperature gradients. The steeper the gradient, the more vigorous the convection. The lapse rate remains stable. On average. However, if you put up physical (solid) surfaces in between the warming and cooling ends, convection is stalled.
I have the radiation flux data from the real Earth system on my side here, Snape. You won’t radiatively accumulate more energy in the troposphere by injecting more IR-active gases into it.
Kristian
Good observation about the layers of clothing in regard to convection. Not a good “fit” (pun intended) for describing the atmosphere.
And yeah, the earth system is very complicated. Difficult to discuss without oversimplifying.
Seems like Science of Doom already tackled most the questions raised by Flynn and g*e*r*a*n in 2010.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/
Flynn he has a graph that destroys your notion that CO2 absorbs solar energy to any extent.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/planck-300-to-5780-toa-lin-typ-albedo-45.png
Quote from webpage:
“99% of the suns radiation has a wavelength less than 4μm
99.9% of the earths radiation has a wavelength greater than 4μm”
So adding more CO2 will insignificantly reduce solar incoming but it will absorb strongly at upwelling IR wavelength.
Wanted proof Flynn, there you have it. I guess you can Thank me for helping you out.
Norman,
It’s obvious you haven’t stumbled across Tim Folkerts’ missing clue. Still clueless, I see.
More pointless links to more nonsense. Foolish Warmist garbage. Are you so terrified that you can’t actually bring yourself to quote what I said?
An irrelevant quote from a web page – if you can’t even define the GHE, its a bit pointless arguing about its non-existent properties, wouldn’t you say?
Sunlight heats things – even air. So do other heat sources. Use a hair dryer. Want to cool air? You can cool it far enough to separate liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen. Put either in the Sun, and watch what happens. Now claim that sunlight can’t heat oxygen or nitrogen.
Allow CO2 to cool to below its freezing point – “dry ice”. Put it in the Sun. It heats up, and reverts to gas. Even if you have a graph that says it’s impossible!
You say –
“So adding more CO2 will insignificantly reduce solar incoming but it will absorb strongly at upwelling IR wavelength.” Unfortunately, you still can’t make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun. Your magic one way insulator is nonsense.
I suppose reality is irrelevant to you, and no wonder. You can’t even define the nonsensical “greenhouse effect” in any reproducible way.
Parapsychology and climatology are equally useless. Cargo cult scientism.
The only proof you have supplied is proof that you are completely clueless and delusional.
Cheers.
norman…”Seems like Science of Doom already tackled most the questions raised by Flynn and g*e*r*a*n in 2010″.
If you read scienceofdoom you have sunk to the bottom. I read one of their articles on the 2nd law which they referred to as the imaginary 2nd law because some people had expressed it in terms of entropy. The wizards at scienceofdoom cannot deal with entropy.
Admitting they knew nothing about the 2nd law, they looked it up on wikipedia.
Then the rocket scientists went on to corrupt the definition given by Clausius of the 2nd law by claiming heat ‘generally’ cannot ‘flow’ naturally from a colder body to a warmer body.
Clausius said nothing of the kind, he said specifically that heat cannot of its own be transferred from a colder body to a warm body.
SOD needed an opening to justify their next statement that NET energy is the basis of the 2nd law and that more energy cannot flow from a colder body to a warmer body.
SOD is totally mixed up between NET energy as infrared, which is electromagnetic energy, and heat, which is thermal energy, and cannot flow between bodies.
If you want pseudoscience, you’ll find plenty at SOD.
And Norm definitely wants pseudoscience!
☺
Gordon Robertson says:
“If you read scienceofdoom you have sunk to the bottom.”
Gordon, you have admitted you don’t even know what an electromagnetic wave is.
You have no right to judge anyone’s science, least of all SOD.
So just shut up for a change, listen to those who do know science, and try to learn, maybe just a little bit.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s a question for you.
Venus’ atmosphere is 90 times denser than earth’s and is composed of 96% CO2.
Venus has the highest albedo in the solar system, being about 7 times greater than the Moon’s and Mercury’s, and more than twice as much as earth’s.
If CO2 insulates solar radiation from reaching the surface, Venus’ surface should be frigid.
Venus’ surface temperature should be much lower than Mercury’s.
It’s further away from the sun.
It has a much higher albedo.
Venus’ atmosphere is almost 100% CO2, but its surface temperature is hotter than Mercury’s av surface temperature.
Can you explain why the surface temp of Venus is 470C in the presence of an extremely dense atmsophere of 96% CO2?
Can you explain why it is hotter than Mercury, being further away from the sun and with a much higher albedo?
barry,
In answer to your question, yes I can.
What’s the relevance? How do you imagine it relates to your metaphorical and non-definable greenhouse effect?
Do you really not know the answer to your question, or are you attempting a “gotcha”?
Cheers.
So explain the surface temperature of Venus. Just for laughs and giggles.
David Appell,
Don’t you know?
Trying for a gotcha?
Are you stupid?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
Again, “Mike Flynn” won’t reply. All he ever has are insults. Sad.
“Venus atmosphere is 90 times denser than earths and is composed of 96% CO2.”
Yes, 96.5 CO2 and 3.5 nitrogen. Or has about 3 times more nitrogen as compared to Earth’s atmosphere.
Would it make much of a difference if it had 96% N2 and 3.5% CO2?
“Venus has the highest albedo in the solar system, being about 7 times greater than the Moons and Mercurys, and more than twice as much as earths.”
It would seem that albedo has little to do with air temperature
“If CO2 insulates solar radiation from reaching the surface, Venus surface should be frigid.”
The atmosphere with it’s Co2 and it’s clouds prevent most of sunlight from reaching the surface. Or Mars surface is far brighter sunlight at it’s surface as compared to Venus surface.
But if you walked on clouds, you might consider the clouds as a surface. Or if walked on ocean floors, you might consider Earth ocean floor as it’s surface- making Earth very dark and cold place- and Venus being a planet with a vacuum.
“Venus surface temperature should be much lower than Mercurys.
Its further away from the sun.
It has a much higher albedo.”
Venus surface temperature is right where it should be, it’s your false ideas which are wrong.
If dug a deep well on earth [filled with air so as deep as Venus atmosphere- have the same atmospheric pressure], it’s bottom air temperature would be as hot as Venus air temperature. And it has nothing to do with the sunlight reaching the bottom of well [you could cover it with a roof- if you want]. What matters is that it’s a gas and it’s insulated [and the surrounding rock would do fine job of doing that]. Venus atmospheric pressure is same as Earth’s when at elevation above the rocky surface is about 50 km- so you making a well of air which about 50 km deep on Earth.
There would be technical problems- which involve Earth water table and the very hot lava you will encounter.
If built the deep well on the Moon or Mars there would not be such problems- or neither are “suppose to” to have global water table nor have molten rock at 50 km [or 100 km].
All planets in our solar system with deep atmospheres are hot if measuring below 50 km of 1 atm of gas pressure.
It would seem that albedo has little to do with air temperature
Albedo is the reflectivity of solar radiation. higher albedo means more reflectivity. It most definitely has an impact on surface temps. Some skeptics here argue that changes in Earth’s albedo are responsible for changing surface temperature (Kristian’s hypothesis). It is both physically and intuitively obvious.
Yet Venus, with 7 times the albedo and receiving 25% of the solar intensity that Mercury gets, has a surface temperature hotter than Mercury.
Mike Flynn believes that CO2 insulates a planets surface from solar radiation. Venus should be cooler than Mercury by a long shot, but it isn’t. He doesn’t seem to be able to explain why with his supposition about CO2’s solar insulating effect.
3.5% NO2 overwhelms 96.5% CO2? You can’t be serious.
Any case, Mike imagines that any gas acts as an insulator to solar radiation. According to him, Nitrogen should ADD, not subtract, to the cooling of Venus’ surface.
Pressure doesn’t cause hotter temps if you dig down. The thermal gradient (heat of rocks) increases as you dig down. The atmospheric lapse rate ensures warmer temps at lower altitudes.
If pressure causes hot temps, the bottom of the oceans would be boiling.
Pressuriazation can cause heat, because that is work being performed. Constant pressure doesn’t cause heat, which is why the deeps aren’t boiling, and why a scuba tank under high pressure is no warmer than the ambient air. I dive with pressurised scuba tanks at twice the surface pressure of Venus and I can assure you my back did not burn away.
The pressure argument is completely phony and non-physical.
Mike believes Venus’ CO2-rich atmosphere should protect it from solar radiation. Yet Venus is hotter at the surface than the av surface temp of Mercury, despite being further from the sun, and despite a much higher albedo.
He has been dodging an invitation to explain this. I don’t think he can.
— barry says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:50 PM
It would seem that albedo has little to do with air temperature
Albedo is the reflectivity of solar radiation. higher albedo means more reflectivity. It most definitely has an impact on surface temps.–
The reflectivity of earth atmosphere- on clear day and when the Sun is at zenith reduces the direct sunlight at TOA from 1360 watts to about 1000 watts per square meter [and sunlight has about 120 watts of indirect sunlight-direct sunlight which has been reflected,scattered/disfused, or re-radiated].
It’s the amount of direct light [not indirect light] which allows matter such as sand or rock, to be warmed to a certain temperature, ie 1000 watts of sunlight can warm sand to about 70 C. And for sand to warm to 70 C require the air to be fairly warm [which inhibits convectional heat loss] If stopped all convectional heat the sand can reach max temperature of about 80 C.
Or on Moon or Mercury [neither has an atmosphere] if 1000 watts of direct sunlight reaches it’s regolith surface the surface will be about 80 C. Now lunar surface at noon, gets 1360 watts of direct sunlight on a level surface and the surface will warm to about 120 C. The lunar surface does get less than 1360 depending on angle of sunlight and whether ground is level. Or, say with level ground with sun about 40 degrees above horizon gives about 1000 watts of direct sunlight per square meter of this level surface [or before 9am and after 3 pm- if at equator].
But something like water, is transparent to sunlight and doesn’t heat up like rock or sand. The surface of water heats up, because warmer water rises [in gravity]. So most of the energy of sunlight warms below inches to meters below the surface. And both direct and indirect sunlight warm the water.
So a rock is heated at surface at somewhere around 1 mm thickness and if surface is warmer than interior, heat is conducted towards interior. So all sunlight impinges upon this 1 mm surface thickness, whereas with water virtually none of sunlight is absorbed within 1 mm of surface.
Now, with a gas, it averages the velocity of all molecules of gas. And roughly gas molecule at 1000 meters elevation have same average velocity as air at 3000 meter elevation, but a volume of air at 3000 meter has less molecules within the volume as compared to same volume at 1000 meter elevation. Or gas at 1000 meter elevation have more density- like say 1.1 kg per cubic meter. So when gas molecules have same average velocity but have more density, the air is warmer. So if dig a big enough hole, the air falls in hole and it’s gas velocity is averaged by air above it, so deeper in hole, has air at higher density- it warmer than air above it.
–Some skeptics here argue that changes in Earths albedo are responsible for changing surface temperature (Kristians hypothesis). It is both physically and intuitively obvious.–
I was going respond to his idea that Moon absorbed more sunlight than Earth. The lunar surface is highly insulative- it’s in the realm of magical. We can make something similar, and it’s called aerogel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel
Though the lunar surface is better.
Obvious more sunlight hits the lunar surface [per square meter] and lunar surface is dark- though the brilliance of sunlight makes the blackish material look lighter.
And the moon would absorb more sunlight [same amount of sunlight would hit it] if it had a faster rotation.
And a lunar day is 29.5 earth days in duration.
“Mike Flynn believes that CO2 insulates a planets surface from solar radiation. Venus should be cooler than Mercury by a long shot, but it isnt. He doesnt seem to be able to explain why with his supposition about CO2s solar insulating effect.”
I would say the large size of Venus atmosphere prevents sunlight from reaching the rocky surface. And basically at noon and sun near zenith one get some indirect sunlight reaching the surface. Sort like when cloud blocks the sun and you see the brighter part of cloud where the sun is.
And when sun is nearer to the horizon, it’s night time [without the stars].
Venus has say 92 atm. 10 meter of ocean water is 1 atm, 92 atm under water is 920 meters. Venus clouds and Co2 is more transparent than 920 meters under the Earth ocean surface.
“Any case, Mike imagines that any gas acts as an insulator to solar radiation. According to him, Nitrogen should ADD, not subtract, to the cooling of Venus surface.”
Well for me, in terms of Venus “energy diagram” the clouds are the surface. And it’s rocky surface is like putting the Earth ocean floor in the diagram [though Mike might think volcanic heat is factor, so he [and/or others] might put ocean floor in the diagram.
“Pressure doesnt cause hotter temps if you dig down. The thermal gradient (heat of rocks) increases as you dig down. The atmospheric lapse rate ensures warmer temps at lower altitudes.”
On Earth Highest air temperature will always be at lower elevations and never at higher elevations. Death valley has the record for highest recorded air temperature- if it gets beat, it will be from some other below sea level region.
“If pressure causes hot temps, the bottom of the oceans would be boiling.”
Water is not compressible- you can’t add molecules to a given volume. And water is liquid and gases are gases.
With pressure you add molecule of gas to volume, with gravity the mass above the air, add molecules of gas to a given volume. It’s not the pressure it’s the added molecules of gas, and gas molecule will average their velocity- zillions of them hitting each other and at speed of a bullet with “frictionless” collisions, does this.
The energy of gas is KE = 1/2 mass times velocity squared- this is meaningless in terms of defining temperature of liquids or solids.
“Pressuriazation can cause heat, because that is work being performed. Constant pressure doesnt cause heat, which is why the deeps arent boiling, and why a scuba tank under high pressure is no warmer than the ambient air.”
The pressure of atmosphere is different that a tank of pressurized gas.
With pressurized tank, the gas has uniform pressure and uniform density.
With atmosphere the pressure is created by gravity- which create a gradient of pressure and density.
How are they the same. With pressurized tank one forces more molecules to be in same volume- this make the gas hotter, it then warms the tank walls, and cools to room air temperature.
When it cools, the average velocity of gasses is reduced. The velocity of gas doesn’t have slow down much because of above formula- velocity is squared- say slowing it down from 400 m/s to 390 m/s makes significant change in temperature.
Now, when say to dig a hole, I am not counting on rock’s increased temperature to warm the gas but if air is warmer than the rock, I expect heat loss from the air warming the rock, but also know that couple feet of rock provides good insulation. So I can lose heat but at some point the rock wall will be warmed by atmosphere and remain warm. Now with atmosphere there isn’t the rock walls to lose [or gain] heat. Or going back to pressurized tanks, if pressurize and tanks are well insulated, the heated gas, remains hot and keeps it’s higher average velocity.
So question come down to, can you have a slower average velocity gas, below, a portion of atmosphere with higher average velocity gas. Or in the pit we will have more gas molecules per cubic meter volume- gravity or weight of air takes care of that.
Now I would say we have this with our atmosphere- and occurs beginning at tropopause:
“This transition zone is the tropopause. It’s distinguishable by temperatures that stop decreasing with altitude and remain constant for a brief period. Then, once temperature begins to increase with altitude you’ve entered the stratosphere.”
http://study.com/academy/lesson/tropopause-definition-characteristics.html
So seems to me that at tropopause instead of less dense air getting colder, average velocity is increasing, giving no change in temperature when there is less density.
So it might be that air in pit as lower average velocity than air above, but unless the walls of pit are cooling the air [**enough**], i don’t see why the average velocity would be slower.
The act of compression causes heat – when a volume is suddenly subjected to an increase in pressure. But a constant pressure does no extra work, and causes no heat.
Same if the pressure gradient is constant.
In the moments after filling a scuba tank, if the compression is high rate, the tank can be a bit warm, but that heat soon leaches away after the new pressure equilibrium is reached. If it didn’t we’d be able to construct a perpetual motion machine.
The only way for the pressure argument to work on Venus is if the surface pressure is constantly increasing.
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“Consider a 1 m^2 panel with emissivity = 1, in the cold vacuum of space. The panel has a 480 W electric heater inside. The panel will radiate 240 W/m^2 from each side ==> 255K on both surfaces. Now put a thin, highly reflective (emissivity ~ 0) sheet of aluminum foil over one side. This will reflect back the IR. An IR camera beyond the foil will basically detect no IR from this side.
That means the entire 480 W/m^2 must be radiating from the other side. That means the exposed side will be 303K. (The foiled side will also be 303 K.)”
You fool. Each side is still radiating 240 W/m2. If it wasn’t, your imaginary foil would have no imaginary energy to reflect, would it? If you managed to make one imaginary surface vanish, then you would have radiation of 480 W/m2, which would result in a temperature of some 303 K.
You proceed to scale the heights of absurdity even further.
You now claim that both sides have risen in temperature to 303 K. This is equivalent to 480 W/m2. By the cunning use of foil, you have managed to double the input power from 480 W to twice that! 960 W total from a 480 W constant input. Perpetual motion for all!
Do you want to reconsider? If you can’t even create a proper imaginary experiment, how would you fare with a real one?
Only joking. You can’t even say what the greenhouse effect in any consistent and reproducible way. I can give you a clue on how to structure such a description – but it will wind up appearing ridiculous.
Cheers.
“Only joking. “
That is the most correct thing you said in your entire post.
What of the following do you disagree with and/or not understand?
Suppose you point an IR thermometer at the foil that covers one side of the panel. What will it read? If it is indeed a perfect reflector, it will read the reflected temperature of the surroundings — 3K in this case.
This is true no matter the temperature of the panel because the foil reflects all the IR from panel back to the panel. From the other side of the foil, it reflects the IR from the surroundings back to the surroundings.
So the back side of the panel loses no heat since it “sees” 303 K thermal radiation reflected from the foil. The front side must lose the whole 480 W.
There is no doubling of power: a total of 480 W enters the panel (electrically) and a total of 480 W leaves the panel (radiatively from one side).
If we use ‘real’ numbers for emissivity of the panel and/or foil, the numbers will be slightly different, but not much. The heater will still warm significantly with a reflecting sheet behind the heater.
Heck, either or both of us could do this easily. Buy a heating pad at any drug store. Hang it vertically in a room. Measure the surface temperature. Put some aluminum foil behind it and remeasure the surface temperature — it should go up considerably. As a control, put a sheet of clear plastic wrap behind it instead of the foil — its also clear to IR, so it should have little or no effect. As an extra control, put a sheet of paper behind it instead of the foil — opaque to IR, which should have an effect somewhere between that of the foil and the clear plastic wrap. (You do need to make sure there is no thermostat built in to the heating pad.)
Please — go visit any local university and talk to an physics professor. Have them read this discussion and ask them with whom they agree.
Tim Folkerts,
Gotchas, gotchas and more gotchas, but I’ll play your silly game – for a while at least.
First question. You haven’t got an imaginary thermometer, but you claim you can reflect a temperature and measure it. Nonsense. Be clearer – if you mean to say something else, just say it. What harm can it do?
Thanks for all the demands that I do this or that. Telling me what I should do, and how I should do it, without first seeking my agreement, is the mark of a fool. Why would you think that I would pay any attention to your attempts to deny, divert, and confuse?
You may talk to anyone you like. You may agree with yourself if you like, or seek the approbation of similarly delude people – Schmidt and Mann spring to mind.
I’ll just ignore your suggestions – they’re unsolicited and gratuitous. Worth precisely what I’m prepared to pay – in your case , nothing. Zero, nil, nought etc.
Your magical energy doubler is crap. You obviously do not realise the difference between heat and temperature, let alone energy.
Try and define the GHE. You can’t. Try and demonstrate it. You can’t. Try and make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun. You can’t.
You haven’t actually performed any of the “experiments” you call on others to do, have you? All mouth and no trousers, assuming people think you know what you are talking about.
No GHE. Not even a description. Feel free to spout more imaginary nonsense. When you realise how clueless you are appearing, let me know. I’ll lend you one of my spare clues. I don’t think I’ll get it back, of course. I’m pretty certain you’ll lose it, and be just as clueless as before.
You could always try bringing a fact or two to the discussion, but it seems that you prefer fantasy to fact.
Cheers.
The evidence “Mike Flynn” does not know how to account for:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Tim rambles: “Heck, either or both of us could do this easily. Buy a heating pad at any drug store.”
Tim, your heating pad “experiment” would only prove you do not understand heat transfer. You can NOT mix radiative, conductive, and convective, and expect to “prove” anything about radiative.
Maybe you should “go visit any local university and talk to an (sic) physics professor”.
“You can NOT mix radiative, conductive, and convective, and expect to prove anything about radiative.”
Of course you can — it’s all just energy, and the FLOT applies.
No, Davie, you can NOT mix if you are trying to “prove” something about radiative heat transfer. Especially in this situation.
You can NOT mix radiative, conductive, and convective, and expect to prove anything about radiative.
That was the point of adding the control situations with the paper and the plastic wrap. If they have the same geometry as the foil, they should have the same basic affect on conduction and convection.
The only significant difference between foil, paper, and plastic here is their effect on radiation. Hence the differences can be attributed to radiation. (The whole thing could also be done in a vacuum chamber, but not many people have access to one of those.)
Tim Folkerts,
I’m relatively sure that you have no intention of performing any experiments at all. Blathering about them is not the same as actually carrying them out, is it?
Maybe you might be better making a hat from the tinfoil. It might prevent the ingress of foolish Warmist delusions into your brain!
Have you tried? Did it work?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn already admitted there is a greenhouse effect:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
David Appell,
If you can’t quote me, you’re lying.
Parapsychology and claims of being able to read my mind won’t help.
Cheers.
He did quote you Mike, you agreed there is a GHE. Then you write there is no GHE. Flynn can’t keep his stories straight. Run some experiments, that will help you.
Ball4,
Foolish Warmist.
Irrelevant links are not quotes.
There is no GHE.
I have no intention of performing foolish undefined “experiments” for you. Do your own, if you wish. It’s a free world. If nobody takes any notice, bad luck for you.
Cheers.
There was a relevant link in addition to the direct quote, Mike, showing your words claiming there is a GHE and your words claiming there is no GHE. Can’t get a straight story out of a trapped Flynn.
I agree Flynn has performed no experiments, those that have do demonstrate nature’s GHE exists in the lab and nature’s GHE is observed and measured out in the wild.
Try harder to keep your story straight Mike, very easy to show you are wrong.
Mike Flynn admits there is a greenhouse effect:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Mike Flynn
Idiot! Why do you think 60 watts of electricity can raise the temperature of a light bulb filament to 1000’s degrees C? Take of your clown costume and read some physics!
Tim Folkerts plate test was adding the same amount of energy but reducing the radiating surface area so the temperature will go up.
Do you have a light bulb? Do you have even a clue of what is going on? If you took 60 joules/sec (60 watts) and used to warm a 1 m^2 plate in a room with ambient temperature of 25 C you would raise the temperature of the plate from 25 C to around 33.85 C.
The energy input to the plate and the tungsten filament are the same but one gets much much hotter. Why? The emitting surface is the reason.
The filament itself proves you are a bonehead unable to understand even simple physics when it is right in front of you!
If you have the same amount of energy going into something but limit how much can leave (example above, 60 watts in a 1 m^2 hot plate vs 60 Watts in a much much smaller radiating surface area) your object will become much hotter vs another state where it can leave at a greater rate.
You and g*e*r*a*n both fail the stupid test! You can’t understand that the Earth system is always receiving solar energy and the surface is not cooling overall.
You can see a light bulb and know the filament is very hot but you are clueless of how or why this is. How can a mere 60 watts raise the temperature to thousands of degrees C? What does the S/B temperature say a filament getting an energy input of 60 watts should be???
Dumb and Dumber. You should make a movie together.
Norman,
What is any of your nonsense to do with the non-existent GHE? Light bulbs? 1000’s degrees? I suppose this is like Al Gore’s millions of degrees, is it?
I’ll point out that your statement about a “plate test” doesn’t refer to an actual test of any sort. Just more imaginary nonsense. No foolish Warmist would lower himself to carry out an actual, real, experiment. No, just issue petulant demands that others bend to your will.
How stupid are you? That’s not a gotcha, by the way. I really have no idea of how stupid you really are. I guess its a large number. You don’t have to answer if you’d rather not, of course.
I wouldn’t blame you.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
First you have to get the words correct (I know a difficult task for a one-dimensional person that you seem to be). One dimensions only can think of light bulb but can’t seem to understand light bulb filament. Put two or more words together and the man gets confused and says a one dimensional response.
YOUR 1D response to light bulb filament: “What is any of your nonsense to do with the non-existent GHE? Light bulbs? 1000s degrees? I suppose this is like Al Gores millions of degrees, is it?”
I also forget one dimensional thinker can’t process multiple ideas. Like energy IN and OUT and how that changes temperature.
A light bulb FILAMENT rises to a couple thousand C with only 60 Watts of energy. Yet this same energy in a larger surface area will not produce such high temperatures. It does show how GHE works directly in ways you can see. On Earth surface without GHG the incoming energy will raise average temperature to around 255, with GHG the outgoing energy balance changes (of the surface) and the temperature goes up until the surface output equals the input (Solar input plus downwelling input minus loss from convection and evaporation).
By the way you may look in the mirror and reflect your words about me to your own dense thoughts that are based upon no physics, just your one-dimensional opinions and conjectures and ideas you come up with on your own.
YOUR words reflected back to you: “How stupid are you? Thats not a gotcha, by the way. I really have no idea of how stupid you really are. I guess its a large number. You dont have to answer if youd rather not, of course.”
Norm, I took all of the “rambling” out of your comment.
Norman says:
May 22, 2017 at 10:15 PM
Mike Flynn
You’re welcome.
Mike…”Now claim that sunlight cant heat oxygen or nitrogen”.
The problem is that AGW theory has focused the wavelength of terrestrial IR radiation and it has lead people to believe GHGs are the only atoms/molecules that can absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation.
Gordon,
And yet no matter what lens they attempt to focus through, the surface manages to cool at night, losing all the energy it received during the day – plus a bit more of the Earth’s, as Fourier pointed out.
As the Earth moves around the Sun, it experiences seasons, due to axial inclination, elliptical orbit, precession, and various other regular, quasi regular and apparently chaotic perturbations.
All a mystery to foolish Warmists, who seem convinced the Earth hasn’t cooled since its creation, and can’t believe that a large ball of molten rock, suspended in space, refuses to obey foolish Warmist commands to heat up!
The AGW “theory” is the usual metaphor for something which cannot actually be described sufficiently to allow experimental verification. Delusional, all of it.
Cheers.
The Earth’s surface receives an average of 240 W/m2 from the Sun.
Yet the Earth’s surface radiates an average of (at 15 C) 390 W/m2.
Explain.
David Appell,
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
The surface cools at night.
The GHE doesn’t exist.
You appear to be as thick as two short planks, and delusional to boot.
Explain.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.”
Yet again, where are those data?
And why is it warming now?
Or during the PETM?
Or after the snowball Earth’s?
Or after every Pleistocene glacial period?
Cat got your tongue?
Flynn, where are your data??
I don’t think you have any. None at all. Just more fakery.
Davie, see this
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247953
Mike Flynn
The truly 1st ever one dimensional man. They make science fiction movies about a 4D man but no one has made one about a 1D man, you could be the first.
In your one-dimensional analysis of the Earth (stuck on the fact that a molten surface cooled quickly then reached a steady equilibrium with the Sun) you claim there is no GHE because the Earth cools at night but mister 1D, as one part is cooling another is warming and and as one hemisphere experiences winter the other has a summer all at the same time. 1D thought cannot process such a reality and gets perplexed.
The one-dimensional man sees the hottest temperature on the Moon and declares boldly and often the Moon is hotter than the Earth little realizing that the Moon surface is a continuum with a hot day side and a bitterly cold night side that are existing in time simultaneously and the total average between the hot and cold is considerably colder than the Earth day and night side.
One Dimensional man can’t process complex thought that entails more than one thing happening at the same time and thinks 3D thinkers are foolish and delusional.
A great book for people that want to be able to communicate effectively with Flynn. Flatland. The beings in flatland can’t understand higher dimensions and consider such talk delusional and foolish (how many times does Flynn say “foolish Warmists”?))
http://www.eldritchpress.org/eaa/FL.HTM
Norman,
You can’t even state what the GHE supposed to be!
You’re a fool! There is no GHE. There are no unicorns. Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface, and the Sun will not make the thermometer hotter.
Maybe you could quote exactly what I say, and produce facts in rebuttal?
Foolish Warmist! Delusional believer in the non-existent.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Prove your idiot assertions about the thermometer. barry has linked you to videos, actual experiments to prove it to you. Since you won’t accept the video evidence presented (like the Myth Busters) do your own test and prove us all wrong.
Take a thermometer, place it on the ground, surrounded by a large container filled with CO2 and see what happens to the thermometer. To see any change you will have to make the CO2 much more concentrated than the air and also to get a good partial pressure beam length value and you should cool the top of the container so the CO2 emissions are less Up than Down to create an equivalent to the atmosphere.
Without any experiments or tests to validate your assertions they are nothing but cult repetition.
Norman,
If you aren’t prepared to quote me exactly, people might assume you are just making stuff up. How about you follow your own instructions, write your results on a piece of toilet tissue, and file it in the appropriate place.
There is no GHE. There are no unicorns. At least unicorns have been described, even if they don’t exist.
You can’t even describe the mythical GHE. Calling it a metaphor for a unicorn is as good as anything a foolish Warmist is likely to come up with.
What is your GHE? How may it be observed? What must one do to measure it? Who has actually observed this wondrous thing?
Maybe you should stick to unicorns. The descriptions seem to be fairly consistent, at least. Horn, horsy looking, and so on.
As opposed to the GHE.
Cheers.
“What is your GHE? How may it be observed? What must one do to measure it? Who has actually observed this wondrous thing?”
GHE is as described by Mike Flynn in comments above. The GHE is observed as Mike Flynn described in comments above as measured naturally in the lab and outdoors.
To precisely measure it, one must build an apparatus such as Prof. Tyndall did, and obtain the necessary instrumentation to observe Mike’s defn. of the GHE outdoors. Prof. Tyndall has observed the GHE as defined by Mike Flynn, I have experimentally observed the GHE as defined by Mike Flynn & published authors have observed the GHE as defined by Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn is simply in denial of all this experiment.
Yes, here it is:
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
“I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
That’s the second time now he’s admitted there is a greenhouse effect.
Norm believes “flat land” is one-dimensional!
Hilarious.
Norm, a “line” is one-dimensional. A “surface” is two-dimensional.
(Lack of any meaningful education is very valuable in comedy.)
g*e*r*a*n
I guess you got me! Thanks for pointing out that mistake.
Yes it Flatland is 2D not 1D, that would be Lineland. I stand corrected.
Dang, no insults?
I hope you are not ill.
Mike…”The GHE doesnt exist and Tyndall was a brilliant experimenter”.
I have nothing bad to say about Tyndall as a scientist. I thought his experiment to prove certain molecules absorb IR was well thought out and explained. I just detected a conflict of interest between his claims that such molecules warm the atmosphere and his omission of the use of room air with water vapour and CO2 to see how the room air affected the galvanometer.
Maybe he did test the actual room air and found no difference in it’s absorp-tion with the purified air and decided not to include the results.
The Earth’s surface receives an average of (1-0.3)*1365/4 = 240 W/m2 from the Sun.
But radiating at 15 C in the infrared, it emits 390 W/m2.
Explain where the extra energy comes from.
David Appell,
Your figures are complete nonsense, but I realise you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed. Just a tool!
But anyway. If a body is losing energy faster than it absorbing it, that results in a phenomenon known as cooling.
Explain why you are so thick as not to know the difference between heating and cooling.
What does any of this have to do with the non-existent GHE? Nothing? Indeed.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Your figures are complete nonsense”
How so?
(Don’t worry, I know you’re afraid to answer.)
MF: I knew you’d have no response.
You clearly can’t discuss the science.
Davie, the Earth’s surface receives an average of 960 W/m^2 over half the globe. So 960/2 = 480.
You need to compare 480 “in” to 390 “out”, to get in the ballpark.
Not to confuse you any further, but the “out” at TOA is supposed to be 240 Watts/m^2. Also, don’t be confused by geometry. The Sun “sees” a disk, not a sphere.
Science can be sooooo confusing, but hang in there, maybe someday….
g*e*r*a*n* says:
“the Earths surface receives an average of 960 W/m^2 over half the globe. So 960/2 = 480.”
Laughably wrong.
But a cute try.
Oh yeah, I forgot, CO2, that “heat source” of pseudoscience, is making (390 – 240) = 150 Watts/m^2!!!
(Pizza boy is hilarious!)
Didn’t know you were a flat-earther.
But it’s not a surprise.
Yes Davie, pizzas are flat.
And you are fat.
There is an Earth,
But you have no net worth.
(A little pseudo-poetry to go along with your pseudoscience.)
Gordon 8:13pm – Prof. Tyndall did indeed test air right from his lab, deflecting his galvanometer needle 15 degrees: “Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid (CO2) and aqueous vapour, produced an absor-ption of 15.”
Hi Ball4,
how did he discriminate the wall radiation for attributing that radiation to CO2?
Did he do a differential measurement of his room with and without the added CO2?
IMHO Prof.Tyndall greatly demonstrated the radiative effect of some gasses when heated. Just that.
AFIK he never computed the quantity of energy exchanged to the room by convection due to the CO2 heating and compared it to the radiated one.
I guess that the second was almost negligible compared to the first.
In fact he had to add a shield between the heating spherical burner and the thermopile to avoid the much higher energy/heat flux by the convective air heating.
I don’t really think it’s an easy task demonstrate the GHGe in a lab as you suppose.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“how did he discriminate the wall radiation for attributing that radiation to CO2?”
He let the experiment come to equilibrium with the wall radiation at lab temperature, then introduced the specimens and recorded the immediate temperature change result with various instrumentation and then let the experiment come to equilibrium once again & reported the equilibrium temperatures.
“Did he do a differential measurement of his room with and without the added CO2?”
IF I understand your question, yes, this was accomplished with the steady state equilibrium when measured temperatures stopped changing. I urge you to read the actual experimental description Massimo and use Tyndall’s words.
Convection was not an issue, neither was conduction as he took countermeasures to minimize to near zero the effects of both. They are independent energy transfer processes and can be superposed if non-zero with radiative energy transfer.
Demonstrating the GHE proposed in earlier years turned out to be WAY easier than Prof. Tyndall imagined as he removed his whole apparatus and was still able to measure the GHE from the various gas specimens.
Hi Ball4,
“He let the experiment come to equilibrium with the wall radiation at lab temperature, then introduced the specimens and recorded the immediate temperature change result with various instrumentation and then let the experiment come to equilibrium once again & reported the equilibrium temperatures.”
How do he established that he don’t “imported” (let me use this non scientific term) some energy with the specimen?
I’m really impressed of your assertion because in an average “zero ground” pressure environment, I always known that after the stabilization the temperature of a thermal conductive cube filled with no matter which gas or pressure, the final temperature inside the cube it’s always the same temperature of the external environment.
So you are arguing that pointing an IR radiometer on a wall in a CO2 filled room an IR radiometer measures more energy than in a room filled with O2 & N2, even if the room walls are at the very same temperatures?
I’m not sure I get how should be the GHGe in your point of view.
Have a great day
Massimo
Thoughtful questions Massimo 9:15am and Prof. Tyndall adequately anticipated them. Again, I urge you to read Prof. Tyndall’s words for your answers. Simple google string: Tyndall 1861
In brief, his gas specimens were in containers held in his lab at
lab temperature, he did the experiments over a couple years. Decent time for specimen temperatures to become steady state, no energy was imported and even if it was he let his apparatus achieve steady state when recording instrument readings.
Think it thru a little more and you will see that the evacuated chamber has no measurement of mercury thermometer temperature due essentially no matter. He calibrated with two black boiling water tank IR sources so his thermopile would be driven to show zero on his galvanometer to overcome this issue with a near vacuum in the chamber.
Pointing an IR radiometer on a wall in a CO2 filled room – an IR radiometer does not measure more energy than in a room filled with O2 & N2 if the room walls are all at the very same temperature. Prof. Tyndall found very DIFFERENT temperatures in has chamber when the vacuum was eliminated, filled with CO2, O2 or N2, lab air, dry air, wv and a whole list of other gases.
Hi Ball4,
“Pointing an IR radiometer on a wall in a CO2 filled room an IR radiometer does not measure more energy than in a room filled with O2 & N2 if the room walls are all at the very same temperature.”
Ok, I got it wrong before, I believed you were arguing that.
I’m sorry, but sometime I misunderstand what I read in English.
About Tyndall’s 1861 experiment I always believed that it’s a very well done experiment to demonstrate that some gases are LWIR active and others are not.
I don’t see where he demonstrated with that experiment that the source of the heat warmed more having the active gases in the pipe, compared with not active gases in the pipe.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Prof. Tyndall had a thermometer in his IR sources, but you are correct, Tyndall did not report their temperature data to demonstrate the source of the IR being warmed. Other experimenters such as Dr. Spencer have run tests on the atm. to demonstrate that.
Hi Ball4,
thank you for considering my issues, because I already read about Tyndall’s experiments, but I was wondering about how by itself, it could be a proof of GHGe.
Let me dare that I think that proving the GHGe at the ground pressure is pretty tricky. That because radiation propagates into the free spaces between matter, and at our pressure I think is very hard to discriminate how much radiation is emitted because previously absorbed by the gaseous molecules or because of their bouncing each other.
The first is how I know GHGe should be, the second is just a second thermal path from 2 point in the atmosphere.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, Prof. Tyndall’s GHGe work was done at the atm. pressure of his lab ~1bar. He did directly test for the GHGe. He dried the lab air and removed the CO2 using chemicals and his results experimentally demonstrate the GHGe.
In Prof. Tyndall’s words p. 28:
“I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest as regards the effect of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial (SW and LW energy).
In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:
Air sent through the system of drying tubes and through the caustic potash tube (removing the CO2) produced an absorp-tion of about 1.
Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorp-tion of 15.”
Hi Ball4,
few message below I responded to DA with a link that I repropose here.
http://geologist-1011.mobi/
I fully agree with the geologist
He didn’t measured any absorp-tion indeed.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, reading through your link in detail will give you a deeper understanding of Prof. Tyndall’s testing, translation issues aside; Tyndall correctly anticipated the issues raised by the geologist. Tyndall took steps to minimize reflection loss, minimized IR beam attenuation loss in the lab air, and minimized conduction to the lab air from his test chamber by temperature difference all reported in detail in his paper.
The geologist is correct in that Tyndall did not measure opacity OR absorp-tion, technically Tyndall measured temperature changes in the gas specimens by thermometer caused by gas absorp-tion (death of photons) net of reflection (life of photons).
In the Tyndall writing quoted by the geologist, opacity is used just ONCE when the professor used his eyes to examine the clarity of the gas in his chamber. Our eyes do not see in the IR. There could not possibly be any Tyndall confusion about opacity and IR absorp-tion.
Absorp-tion really is the correct term in radiative physics despite what the geologist writes as absorp-tion means the death of photons. Emission is photon birth, reflection is photon life.
If you want to dig into the issue more, I’m happy to stay tuned.
Thanks Massimo for providing that link.
Of course all the so-called “experiments” that “prove” CO2 is heating the planet are pseudoscience. But, it’s nice to see someone actually spend the time and effort to debunk all the nonsense.
Hi g*e*r*a*n*,
Being just an electronic engineer I must honestly admit that the more I read the less I understand.
I’m still a “luke warmer”, meaning that Ive no proof that the GHGs do northing to the ground temperature, but all lead me to think that even if they do something, that something it should be almost negligible.
I really would live for sufficient time to see the true TOA spectrogram of the outgoing LWIR diffuse transmittance averaged on the whole globe and finally see how much (if any) is that damned bite at 666 cm-1
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Ball4,
thank you for your original photon birth-life-death paradigm.
What I cann’t still understand is how one could discriminate when a photon is death and rebirth or is just birth because of the GHGs temperature.
Have a great day.
Massimo
There is no photon rebirth Massimo, an absorb-ed photon is annihilated. Emission results in a completely new photon.
Ball4, you’re good.
Massimo PORZIO says:
“Being just an electronic engineer I must honestly admit that the more I read the less I understand.
Im still a luke warmer, meaning that Ive no proof that the GHGs do northing to the ground temperature, but all lead me to think that even if they do something, that something it should be almost negligible.”
And here you have the perfect description of a typical climate change denier.
He admits he understands almost nothing.
But somehow he thinks he understands enough to make a judgement that goes against all of the work of climate scientists of the last century.
I’m really interested, Massimo: If you understand so little, why do you think you get an opinion on the science???
Massimo, you don’t want to sit in the “Lukewarmer” section. I’ll try to get you upgraded to the “Extreme Skeptic” section.
It’s much better here.
Hi Ball4,
yes of course.
I know the physics of photon absorp-tion and emission (I’m just an EE but being a designer, in the past I designed an optical spectrum analyzer and entered the world of photons transmission, reflection, absorp-tion and emission.
My “death and rebirth or is just birth ” was just a way to highlight that it’s very hard to state when a photon is emitted because of bumping between molecules or because an another photon was previously absor-bed. The first is just thermal emission shared with N2 and O2 the last is the GHGe as I know it.
I apologize to have missed to use the quotation marks to let you know that it was just a “way of say” as we say here in Italy.
Have great day.
Massimo
Hi David Appell.
I usually don’t reply to your comments because I finally realized that you arent so smart as you believe.
This time I reply just because directly provoked.
And here you have the perfect description of a typical climate change denier.
Im not denying anything, Im just trying to understand things that I dont know for sure.
You have a very confused belief on what denying means, but on the other side I can’t pretend too much from one who cites a scientist like William Connelly.
He admits he understands almost nothing.
I prefer stand amongst who knows that don’t knows but wants to know, than amongst who dont knows that dont knows and believes to know. Its just a question of preferences of course, but rarely who dont knows that dont knows successfully accomplishes in any task in his life.
But somehow he thinks he understands enough to make a judgement that goes against all of the work of climate scientists of the last century.
Judgement? What judgement are you writing about?
You have some wording problems David, I always asked explanation about the things that I dont know, and sometimes I expressed my doubts (licit I think) about some assertions made by faith.
Im really interested, Massimo: If you understand so little, why do you think you get an opinion on the science???
Simply because I dont consider me an idiot!
Only an arrogant idiot wakes up in the morning and spend his day dont exchanging opinions with others.
Have a great day David, and put your feet on the ground one day, maybe that that day you’ll feel better.
Massimo
Hi g*e*r*a*n*,
I still havent any proof that the surface isnt warmed by that back-radiation.
If had understood your point, you argue that the source of heat cant warm, and I would agree with you if the surface was really the source of heat. I think that the system is composed by the Sun (which inner core is the source of heat), the atmosphere, the surface and the atmosphere again.
Since the surface is in the middle of an energy flow its temperature should be a consequence of how much heat pass through it.
On regard to this, my doubt (at low tropo) is about if those downwelling LWIR photons are really the consequence of other absor-bed upwelling LWIR photons from the ground or just because of the local atmospheric temperature. I still believe that atmospheric molecules stand up there because the surface is warm, so there should be a consistent and continuous exchange of heat by collision with the surface just needed to allow the atmosphere to exist that its not considered by the famous K&T energy flux analysis.
Said that, I dont know how (always at low tropo) the two parallel fluxes weight each other.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, I use the example of “baking a turkey with ice”. One square meter of ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2. Just as a cold sky cannot warm the surface, ice cannot bake a turkey. Warmists cannot understand this. They will scream “but ice can warm something that is colder’! But, as usual with most of their arguments, that completely misses the point.
Warmist cannot get away from the basics. The Sun warms Earth’s surface and oceans. The excess heat moves to the atmosphere, and on to space. It’s just that simple. The atmosphere does NOT “trap” heat. “Back-radiaton” does NOT heat the surface. The atmosphere is NOT a blanket. CO2 does NOT “produce warming”.
Hi g*e*r*a*n*,
I use the example of baking a turkey with ice. One square meter of ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2. Just as a cold sky cannot warm the surface, ice cannot bake a turkey. Warmists cannot understand this.
I dont believe Norman, Ball4 and probably neither David Appell believe it. I think there is a kind of misunderstanding between you and them. As far I get it, they argue that if you put your hot turkey in an box of ice it frozen later than leaving in the outer space.
Just to say, in the cold Arctic winter an Inuit that had to exit for a task leaves his hot turkey (ok guys, they dont eat turkey, but let me imagine they do) in the igloo expecting that when he will return to the igloo the turkey is more warm than leaving it outside the igloo.
The Sun warms Earths surface and oceans. The excess heat moves to the atmosphere, and on to space. Its just that simple. The atmosphere does NOT trap heat.
I agree.
Back-radiaton does NOT heat the surface. The atmosphere is NOT a blanket. CO2 does NOT produce warming.
I still havent the proof, or better Im sure that the atmosphere is NOT a blanket of course, but Im not sure that the surface temperature is independent of what its between it and the outer space. My intuition says that a little should depend on it, but it’s just intuition of course.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, comparing ice to the temperatures of outer space is a trick pseudoscientists use to attempt to fool us. I don’t dispute that ice emits IR. That’s what the 300 Watts/m^2 is. But, IR from ice can NOT warm much of anything that is on this planet. (In fact, ice at -2C can NOT “warm” anything above -2C! You could have 10 square meters of ice, 3000 Watts, and still not raise the temperature of an object above -2C.)
Warmists often try to claim that reading sky temperatures with an IR thermometer “proves” the sky is heating the surface. Pointing a handheld IR thermometer straight up at a clear sky, you will read temps at or below -20C. That is, the clear sky is much colder than ice!
Going off into space, or to the Moon, or to Venus is “slight of hand” trickery. More often than not, it indicates the pseudoscientist has lost the argument. His next tactic is then insults.
“Pointing a handheld IR thermometer straight up at a clear sky, you will read temps at or below -20C.”
Roughly correct experiment anger if not pointed at the sun, and experiments also show if you pointed a handheld IR thermometer straight up at space replacing the atm. it would read on avg. around -270C and and your feet in contact with the ground would be on LT avg. about 33K colder. Replace space with the much warmer atm. at anger’s -20C and your feet warm 33K on LT avg.
I know these physics are beyond anger’s comprehension but confirming experiments and observations are in place for those that can understand them.
Ball4 (aka “Trick”) lives in a fantasy world. He believes you can replace the atmosphere with space. He believes you can see cabbages glowing in the dark. He believes CO2 is heating the planet. He believes he is smart.
All in his fantasy world.
“I know these physics are beyond angers comprehension…”
anger 9:28am: Q.E.D.
anger, yes, you can replace an atm. with space, check out the moon. What do you know, NO atm.!! Any Moon atm. replaced long ago. Go there, point your radiometer up from there for the space reading and then come back to Earth surface point your radiometer up from here.
Different reading, huh! Hmmmm…could that be due to a GHE? Not according to your fav. Flynn at times, at other times it IS. Try to straighten Flynn out will ya’! Make the Flynn stories consistent for us.
Also, in his fantasy world, Ball4 believes he can write coherently.
“I know these physics are beyond anger’s comprehension…”
anger 7:29pm: Q.E.D. #2
Hi Ball4,
I partially agree, you are attributing all those +33K to that radiation.
Instead, I still would be convinced from someone who explain me which difference there is from that radiation (ipotising it come all from the ground radiation) and the returning back energy due to the whole molecules of the atmosphere that after having thrown up by the warm surface fall down again on it by gravity.
I never see that energy considered in K&T papers.
It seems to me that some climatologists believe in perpetual motion for justifying the sky up there.
Have a great day.
Massimo
I missed a “been”:
Please read:
…the returning back energy due to the whole molecules of the atmosphere that after having BEEN thrown up by the warm surface fall down again on it by gravity.
Sorry, I apolgize for my English
“I never see that energy considered in K&T papers.”
If I understand correctly, you are right, that returning energy is not usually explicitly shown in the LT energy budgets, that energy is usually lumped in as a component of the huge budget amount for all-sky emission to surface from a hemisphere of directions.
Massimo PORZIO says:
“I dont really think its an easy task demonstrate the GHGe in a lab as you suppose.”
Actually, it’s trivial to show this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
Davie, what’s “trivial” here is your understanding of IR.
How is CO2 in the tube heating anything? Are you still wanting to believe CO2 is a “heat source”? What happens if you take the candle away?
You are so easily fooled.
DA you are gullible!
Mike Flynn and g*e*r*a*n
Simple experiment that you can do at home for very little expense to prove the GHE.
It will prove to the both of you that the ambient surrounding IR energy absorbed by a surface considerably affects the surface temperature of objects.
Get a standard 60 watt incandescent light bulb, put a thermometer (maybe modern style with leads and electric detection) put the light bulb assembly into a double walled container. Leave the top open so convection does not change things and also you want the surrounding air to be constant temperature so conduction does not affect the test, you are trying to see the effects of radiant energy on surface conditions.
Don’t put anything between the walls on the first run and just get a equilibrium temperature reading as a control.
Now fill the double walls with ice cubes and cool the surface pointing toward the light bulb. The theory would suggest that now the light bulb surface is receiving less radiant energy from the surrounding walls and will radiate away more energy than in the control and should end with a lower equilibrium temperature than your initial control temperature.
Next evacuate the ice and put boiling water between the walls of the container. The theory would suggest that now more radiant energy is reaching and being absorbed by the light bulb surface than in the control so the temperature should go above the initial control temperature.
Try and out and let us know the results. Thanks in advance.
Hi Norman,
Reading this message above, I’m really not sure how you define the GHE (or GHGe) indeed.
I don’t get how could your setup demonstrates that something heated by something other could cool or warm this last.
In your setup you add ice or boiling water to cool or warm the heater, those are both momentary sources or sinks of energy to the system.
Anyways, just to avoid you to try your experiment and waste your time, let me highlight you that an incandescent lamp has a metallic filament which behaves as a positive temperature coefficient resistor, for that reason, your lamp will remain practically at the same temperature indeed. The PTC behaviour will reduce the input current to the lamp when placed close to the boiling water and increase the same input current when placed close to the ice cubes.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I guess I might have to use boiling water for a heat source in a container inside the double walled outer container to get a constant temperature source (as Ball4 advised).
The goal of this test was to demonstrate a hot surface (I guess around 250 C for a 60 Watt bulb have not measured it but read that this is the temperature such a bulb might reach) can absorb energy from cooler sources and change temperature (if the input energy is constant, which you inform me would not be) based upon the energy it absorbs from the other cooler sources.
Hi Norman,
now I get better your point. I did miss the detail that you were just trying to demonstrate that two colder object can warm a third warmer one.
But always remember that in this case you put or sink energy in the system with those two objects, it’s always a transitory effect.
With time the boiling water and the ice cubes will reach the temperature established by the lamp and the environment surrounding depending on the placement of the objects.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Norman,
Do this. Do that.You foolish Warmist.
First, I’m assuming that it wouldn’t be of much you asking you what your results were from your pointless “experiment”, because you wouldn’t actually be silly enough to carry it out!
Second, you use the words “. . . prove the GHE . . .”
May I point out that you haven’t actually described what the GHE is supposed to be, let alone what it affects.
I cannot see where you even mention CO2 or the Sun. Maybe you’re describing a metaphor, because you don’t actually know what you are talking about?
I have no intention of doing anything you want me to do, unless you provide me a good reason for doing so. Maybe you could do it yourself first, to demonstrate that you are actually serious, and not just trying to waste peoples’ time.
You don’t seem to have a clue. You obviously haven’t come across Tim Folkerts’ or David Appell’s missing clue, so I suppose you are all still clueless.
Maybe praying might help.
Cheers
David Appell,
I believe you have posted the same irrelevant computer graphic 36 times.
How’s that working out for you? Has it achieved what it was supposed to?
Have you figured out what the GHE is supposed to do yet?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
Only 36 times? It sure seems like a lot more than that.
Davie–The key to good comedy is to be unpredictable. Try coming up with something new once in awhile. Notice your competition above. Norm has a new “experiment” with a light bulb, ice cubes, and boiling water! (I hope he doesn’t hurt himself….)
The graphic is very relevant, and you’re afraid to address it, because you know what it means. Everyone here does.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Davie, where’s your graphic that shows how much heat is “trapped” by rain forests?
You’re not trying to hide those figures, are you?
It’s the global average that’s relevant.
Everyone knows this.
Are you a “denier”? Are you denying that rain forests “trap” heat and are causing the polar ice sheets to melt?
Hope you sleep well tonight, as polar bear cubs and penguin chicks are dying.
Tim Folkerts wrote –
“Ummm I already did correct you on that. The important feature is for the IR absorbing material (CO2) to be between the warm surface (the earth) and the cool surroundings (space). The coincidence of the CO2 also happening to be between the source of incoming heat (the sun) and the thermometer (the surface) is not what causes the warming.”
This seems like nonsense to me.
If the Sun is not present, it would appear to be night.
And at night, the temperature does not generally rise, does it.
Maybe he needs to correct me again? Is Tim trying to say that CO2 causes thermometers to become hotter at night, or only when the Sun shines, but it’s only coincidence that the CO2 happens to be between the Sun and the surface?
Where else could it be? Is Tim really trying to say that CO2 has nothing to do with raised temperatures when the Sun is shining?
What is the GHE, then? A metaphor perhaps. Maybe Tim’s been so busy correcting and explaining, that he’s forgotten where he hid the description of the GHE. Does it involve sunlight and CO2, and if it does, what is supposed to happen?
How hard can it be to actually state what the GHE is? Pretty hard, if you’re clueless, I’d imagine. Of course, Tim could always correct me, and actually produce a definition of the GHE. Not an explanation of course. You have say what something is or does, before you can attempt to explain it – unless you believe in parapsychology or climatology, I suppose.
Maybe Tim’s not as clueless as I suppose. Or maybe he is.
Cheers.
“What is the GHE, then?”
The GHE is the testable hypothesis as even Flynn defined in comments above.
Ball4,
Maybe you don’t know the difference between an effect and a hypothesis. Real scientists do. If they don’t, they’re obviously fake scientists.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Cheers.
See 6:40pm below for Azimov’s axiom.
MF: If you don’t know the definition of the GHE, how then are you denying it exists?
Logical contradiction.
Mike Flynn says:
“What is the GHE, then…”
I’ve defined it for you many times now. Why do you always ignore it?
GHE = (a planets actual global average surface temperature) minus (the planets brightness temperature).
Davie, that is also the definition for “temperature difference caused by natural heat transfer from Earth’s surface to TOA”.
It’s funny how the two definitions are the same, huh?
What is the “natural heat transfer from Earth’s surface to TOA?”
In Watts per square-meter.
Why Davie, it’s the same as for your “GHE”.
Isn’t that a coincidence?
barry wrote –
“Apparently you believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere would cause warming at the surface of the Earth.
This is arrant nonsense.”
Of course it would, and does – no nonsense involved.
Witness the Moon – no CO2 to speak of, and far higher temperatures after the same exposure time, than Earth.
If you wish to talk about GHGs generally, the less GHGs in the atmosphere, the hotter it gets. The hottest places on Earth are the arid tropical deserts, characterised by a lack of the most important GHG, H20.
Foolish Warmists delusionally believe that increasing GHGs in the atmosphere, somehow makes thermometers on the surface hotter. How stupid is that – reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter, according to foolish Warmists! They probably also believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere will make a surface thermometer colder.
Allowing more sunlight to reach a thermometer causes the temperature to drop? Eh?
Moving the thermometer into the shade works far better, it seems. Temperature falls, no change in CO2. This shade miracle even works where there is little CO2 – arid tropical deserts – even the Moon, I believe.
barry is happy, living in his fantasy, and good luck to him, I say. As long as others can distinguish fact from fantasy, no harm done. Unfortunately, the foolish Warmist delusion seems to be infectious, and spreads amongst the gullible, and those of small brain.
Pity.
Cheers.
Mike, all I can say at this point is that pretty much everything you wrote is a strawman and/or a gross misunderstanding of the GHE. IF you would listen at all, you would hear that the things you *claim* about ‘warmists’ are rarely true.
Mike first claims there is a GHE and then claims there is no GHE, he can not keep his stories straight. And hello Mike, there is a lack of the most important GHG, H20 in the cold, dry arctic regions too. You can’t even get that story straight.
Mike simply keeps himself in the dark on the relevant science, it is good sport to always be able to easily show Flynn is wrong though. Mike needs to better his science game for some real competition.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“And hello Mike, there is a lack of the most important GHG, H20 in the cold, dry arctic regions too. You cant even get that story straight.”
And that is why the lowest temperatures on the surface are found in Antarctica!
I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops. Beer’s Law, if you choose to look it up, applies.
No contradiction, and I believe I have pointed out why the lowest temperatures on Earth are to be found where the amount of GHGs is least. Basic physics.
The same physics explains the wide variation in daytime and nighttime temperatures in arid tropical deserts, and also points out that only a fool would use the desert’s average temperature as guide to appropriate clothing.
The UK MOD did, and SAS members died of hypothermia as a result. Foolish Warmism can be fatal.
Keep at it, Ball4. Maybe you’ll get one right eventually.
Cheers.
Flynn 4:24am: “The hottest places on Earth are the arid tropical deserts, characterised by a lack of the most important GHG, H20.”
Flynn 5:16pm: “I have pointed out why the lowest temperatures on Earth are to be found where the amount of GHGs is least.”
Still no sign of a consistent story from Flynn as yet.
Flynn once again claims Earth GHE exists (accurately too per Prof. Tyndall testing): “…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Keep at it, Flynn. You eventually got one right according to tests.
Do not step outside in the arctic regions wearing proper clothing after checking the Earth’s median surface temperature Mike, check the local weather, identify proper clothing for your safety. You might need a jacket to trap some heat.
Ball4,
Hottest and coldest places on Earth – both characterised by lack of supposed GHGs.
No GHE.
Keep lying, denying, diverting and confusing. Maybe it will work one day. Who knows?
Cheers.
I have to admit I can’t disagree with a comment that isn’t even wrong in the Pauli sense. Now GHGs characterize hot AND cold regions, the transmittance of the atmosphere doesn’t increase as the amount of GHGs in it drops so that there is no GHE. Flynn covers the waterfront of wrongness.
Flynn is a modern example of Asimov’s 1988 axiom: “When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is more wrong than both of them put together.”
Flynn, look, try not to live up to Asimov’s axiom, if you do, we will have to start to call it Flynn’s Law.
Ball4,
Maybe you think that lying, denying, dismissing and diverting will make a GHE spring magically into existence.
Maybe you don’t agree with other foolish Warmists that the GHE is either a poor metaphor, a pretty good metaphor, or just a plain metaphor.
What do you think it might be, if not a metaphor?
A non-existent effect doesn’t actually do anything. Just like loony and delusional computer games used by climatologists don’t actually achieve anything at all.
Upset? I wouldn’t blame you if you were! What, $70,000,000,000 wasted for no discernible result? Do you think is a great leap forward? I don’t.
Cheers.
“What do you think (GHE) might be, if not a metaphor?”
I agree with Prof. Tyndall tests demonstrating Mike Flynn is correct about real science since the Prof. verified with thermometer Mike’s testable defn. of the GHE in Mike’s own words 5:16pm: “…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
“What, $70,000,000,000 wasted for no discernible result?”
Flynn’s political agenda surfaces. Suspicions confirmed.
Do you think the money was launched into deep space? No, all the money was spent right here on Earth. Including for the top post data.
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
“I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Hey, that sounds oddly familiar…..
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Ball4 says:
“Mike first claims there is a GHE and then claims there is no GHE, he can not keep his stories straight.”
Exactly.
Worse of all, he switches positions with no shame whatsoever. Just like D.Trump.
Mike,
It’s not a gotcha.
The av temp of the surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury, despite being further from the sun, despite having an albedo 7 times higher (both of which should make the surface of Venus cooler than Mercury).
I think the answer is the extreme ‘greenhouse’ effect with 96% CO2 in the atmosphere.
You think that is not possible, because you believe CO2 can’t cause warming, and instead insulates the surface of Venus (the thermometer) from solar radiation (the heat source).
In which case the surface should be very cold.
It can’t be pressure, because a constant pressure does no work and doesn’t create heat (whereas pressurization IS work and can create heat).
I don’t think you are able to explain this according to your view on CO2 and the greenhouse effect.
But I’d like to see you try rather than avoid the question.
Why is the surface of Venus hotter than Mercury? If not the greenhouse effect, what is the cause?
barry,
If you already believe you know the answer, you are trying for a “gotcha”. You’ve already made your mind up, by the look of it.
Give me a good reason why I should waste my time.
Cheers
barry,
I think you’re a foolish Warmist, trying to deny, divert, and confuse!
Maybe you could quote my exact words, if you know how. I’m not sure that I ever wrote the words you attributed to me.
If I didn’t, you’re arguing with your own statement, and I’ll leave you to it.
But what the hell. You may be truly ignorant of physics, so here’s a hint regarding Mercury. Mercury is not much bigger than the Moon – around 4900 Km diameter, as opposed to around 3500 for the Moon.
If you think the figures are pointless, you wouldn’t be able to understand the reason why you have already answered at least one of your questions.
I’ll leave you with your “gotcha”. Maybe it will ensnare you, rather than its intended victim. What do you think?
Cheers.
How exactly does a planet’s radius affect its average surface temperature?
David Appell,
You’re not the same fool that told me you weren’t going to give me any answers, perchance?
You’re not trying for another stupid “gotcha” are you?
If you tell me why you believe a planet’s radius has no effect on its average surface temperature, I’ll think about telling you why you’re wrong.
Obviously, I don’t think you’re actually seeking knowledge, but maybe I’m mistaken.
If you want to convince me you’re not just being stupid, go ahead. Or not, as you wish.
I assumed the answer was obvious, but I forgot that foolish Warmist ideas are not well-based in fact, on occasion.
Are you really seeking knowledge, or just attempting to be irritating? Let me know, if you want to.
Cheers.
MF: You’re afraid to address observed data.
Everyone here knows your game — pathetic denial.
PS: No, the ocean doesn’t emit blue light.
MF: How exactly does a planets radius affect its average surface temperature?
I think you’re stumped with this one and are avoiding answering.
You’ve been arguing with people who disagree with you for months, who believe they know the answer, and never complained about a gotcha. My challenge is no different.
96% CO2, according to you, should be a mighty insulator against the sun and make the surface of Venus cool. Along with the higher and albedo and greater distance from the sun it should be much cooler than the average surface temp of Mercury.
How do you explain the surface of Venus being hotter than Mercury?
Can’t be pressure. Can’t be density, because the density enhances your supposed insulating effect.
Are you able to explain this? If there’s no ‘greenhouse’ effect, what is the cause?
Sorry. Initially posted in wrong place.
barry,
I think youre a foolish Warmist, trying to deny, divert, and confuse!
Maybe you could quote my exact words, if you know how. Im not sure that I ever wrote the words you attributed to me.
If I didnt, youre arguing with your own statement, and Ill leave you to it.
But what the hell. You may be truly ignorant of physics, so heres a hint regarding Mercury. Mercury is not much bigger than the Moon around 4900 Km diameter, as opposed to around 3500 for the Moon.
If you think the figures are pointless, you wouldnt be able to understand the reason why you have already answered at least one of your questions.
Ill leave you with your gotcha. Maybe it will ensnare you, rather than its intended victim. What do you think?
Cheers.
Venus breaks your theory that CO2 insulates a planets surface against solar radiation.
You can’t figure out a response to this, so you’re flailing. You can’t give a straight answer.
The av surface temp of Venus is hotter than the av surface temp of Mercury, despite being further from the sun, and despite having an albedo 7 times greater because it has a powerful ‘greenhouse’ atmosphere.
barry,
Once again you’re making up your own theory, and arguing against it. You certainly haven’t quoted anything I wrote.
Keep going with the gotcha. Anyone can see why casting pearls before swine benefits neither party.
Maybe when you can actually quote exactly what I wrote, people might be able to draw the conclusion that you are not lying.
No GHE. No definition better than “it’s a poor metaphor”. Maybe you have a better definition? At least the amazing David Appell wasn’t quite as dismissive. He wrote –
“The planetary greenhouse effect is a metaphor, . . .”, and we all know what a genius David Appell is. Do you disagree with his statement?
Maybe your questions a metaphor – for a “gotcha”, perhaps?
You’ll work out the answers to your questions, eventually. I know you won’t ask me to expand on the figures I provided. Bad luck for you.
Cheers.
Flynn has a testable defn. of the GHE in his own words commenting about real science 5:16pm: “…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Ball4,
Are you really proposing that definition of the GHE is “the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.?
Are you completely immersed in a fantasy? That is no more nor less than a statement of a physical process. Why would you imagine it would support the foolish Warmist claim that the Earth is heating up due to the presence of GHGs? Stupid, I know, but I believe some foolish Warmists claim that it is so.
You might care to explain how my statement would lead to global warming. Or probably not, because it doesn’t, except in the depths of your foolish Warmist imagination.
Keep at it. Don’t be afraid, your head won’t literally explode. That’s just a metaphor.
Cheers.
No fantasy, no imagining, Prof. Tyndall’s experiments validated Mike’s statement of real science, Earth’s GHE exists as the Prof. showed thermometer temperatures will decrease when: the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn says:
“Ball4, Are you really proposing that definition of the GHE is the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.?”
Mike Flynn said the very same thing just recently!
Mike Flynn:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Maybe when you can actually quote exactly what I wrote, people might be able to draw the conclusion that you are not lying.
I realized that I misunderstood you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247876
Don’t let that distract you from this problem. Read below.
You are unable to explain why Venus av surface temp is hotter than Mercury.
You know Venus is twice the distance from the sun and gets a quarter the solar intensity that Venus does, you know Venus has an albedo 7 times higher than Mercury and gets even less solar radiation at the surface.
But you can’t explain why the average surface temp of the sphere of Venus is hotter than the av surface temp of the sphere of Mercury.
Because you cannot accept that Venus’ atmosphere makes it hotter.
Flynn is beginning to write about correct science since one can see that his science now is his corollary: “the absorp-tance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it increases”. This along with Venus surface pressure is his correct explanation for Venus’ GHE.
It might even be foretold Flynn will eventually understand the correct GHE science also is: “the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of surface pressure drops.”
Ball4…”This along with Venus surface pressure is his correct explanation for Venus GHE”.
Astronomer Andrew Ingersol admitted at one point that the surface temperature of Venus is so hot that an inference of a greenhouse effect would contradict the 2nd law. More recently, as global warming pseudo-science has become popular, he has minced his words.
There’s no way a greenhouse effect could cause the surface of Venus to be as hot as it is.
barry…”Because you cannot accept that Venus atmosphere makes it hotter”.
The atmosphere on Venus could not possible raise the surface temp as high as it is. It’s far more likely the hot surface created the atmosphere as it is.
“There’s no way a greenhouse effect could cause the surface of Venus to be as hot as it is.”
Gordon, there is a way, the IR window from Venus surface is closed tight for many km.s of height. The atm. opacity decreases and opens the IR window by when the total pressure decreases to around 0.1, 0.2 bar iirc.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The atmosphere on Venus could not possible raise the surface temp as high as it is.”
Why?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Theres no way a greenhouse effect could cause the surface of Venus to be as hot as it is.”
Why?
The greenhouse effect on Venus is even more obvious than the GHE on Earth:
https://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/crisp_spectra.jpg
The atmosphere on Venus could not possible raise the surface temp as high as it is. Its far more likely the hot surface created the atmosphere as it is.
Venus surface temp is virtually isothermal. It’s as hot on the day side as night side. There is no evidence to point to the surface supplying heat. Though Venus has more volcanoes as Earth, it is is less tectonically active than Earth.
Do you imagine a sea of lava just beneath the rocky surface? You’ve pulled that out of thin air if so.
The ‘greenhouse’ effect well explain the high surface temperature. You answer is purely imaginative.
barry
The thing Gordon does not seem to understand that even if Venus was heated by molten rock below the surface the evidence does not support it in the fact that if the GHE was not responsible than you would see Venus as a super bright IR emitter from satellites flying above it. Venus emits very low level IR at its TOA meaning the atmosphere is absorbing a large amount of the surface radiant energy and returning the bulk of the absorbed energy back to the surface via emission.
Norm spouts his pseudoscience: “Venus emits very low level IR at its TOA meaning the atmosphere is absorbing a large amount of the surface radiant energy and returning the bulk of the absorbed energy back to the surface via emission.”
Well, Norm, no one knew that gases could direct photons. Everyone on Earth thought gases emitted photons in all directions. But, in your pseudoscience, you have imagined Venus gases only emit in “bulk”, back to the surface. And, to you, that becomes fact!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I know you love to twist and distort what people write but how do you come up with this farfetched twisting from my post??
YOU: “Well, Norm, no one knew that gases could direct photons. Everyone on Earth thought gases emitted photons in all directions. But, in your pseudoscience, you have imagined Venus gases only emit in bulk, back to the surface. And, to you, that becomes fact!”
Not what I said, claimed or even stated.
Norm, as usual, you run from what you write.
Do you need some examples?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Astronomer Andrew Ingersol admitted at one point that the surface temperature of Venus is so hot that an inference of a greenhouse effect would contradict the 2nd law.”
How?
I don’t think you know, Gordon — you’re just repeating inanities.
g*e*r*a*n
Another one of your twisted distorted false statements. You seem to have this endless supply of distorting people’s posts then making fun of what you distorted.
YOUR NEW FALSE CLAIM: “Norm, as usual, you run from what you write.
Do you need some examples?”
More dishonesty from the Flat-Earth member.
In the post you claim I am running away from. I know you can’t comprehend this and it will appear as rambling. And what you do understand you will twist and distort to such a degree it is no longer recognizable, then you will make fun of your own distortion attributing it to the person that never said it.
First it is fairly obvious that the IR emitted by Venus surface is not making it out of the atmosphere. The surface would be emitting around 16000 W/m^2 at the surface temperature and the outgoing IR flux of Venus is around 160 W/m^2.
Yes the gases in Venus atmosphere emit in all directions (isotropic) but the rate of emission is based upon gas temperature (you should know this from the time you designed Coal-fired power plants, maybe your memory grows old). Venus has a lapse rate around 10 C/1000 m so as you move up the vertical the gas is cooling and emitting less (in all directions up and down). The gas from near the surface is emitting upward but at the same time gas above this level is emitting downward just to a lesser extent.
As you move up to Venus TOA the temperature is cold enough so that the gas is emitting around 160 W/m^2 in all directions.
What did I state that indicates I do not understand GHG emit in all directions??
I guess since you will just see my explanation as rambling and hilarious it serves not much point. Also I do not think anyone else is reading this post so it does not even inform them. I guess I just am wasting my time, not sure why?
Norm hopelessly ponders: “I guess I just am wasting my time, not sure why?”
Norm, maybe it time you sought professional help.
g*e*r*a*n
Have you taken your own advice you gave to me to help yourself?
YOU: “Norm, maybe it time you sought professional help.”
You are obviously much older than 15 (from other posts) but you need to troll on all the blogs you post on.
Taunt, Annoy, illicit response. Over and over and you never get tired of doing this.
I have yet to see a good sound scientific response you have to any post. Taunting someone is all you seem to do.
So maybe you should go seek help and try to find out what drives you to do this. It may make you a more valuable asset on Internet blogs. I am not sure why you feel taunting and annoying people until they insult you in frustration is some worthy and valuable goal to achieve. I would not question the mental health of anyone else, if I were you, since you seem to be engaged in behavior of an immature teenage male.
Norm admits: “I have yet to see a good sound scientific response you have to any post.”
Norm, you have to have “eyes that see”.
You would not know science if you saw it. You believe that IR is “heat”. You believe that ice at -5C can warm things to temps hotter than -5C. You probably believe, like your hero Davie, that the Sun can radiatively heat Earth to 800,00K. You believe in your pseudoscience, even as it continually makes you look stupid.
Hilarious.
here’s a hint regarding Mercury. Mercury is not much bigger than the Moon around 4900 Km diameter, as opposed to around 3500 for the Moon.
A grey bowling bowl 100 million kilometers from the sun will be hotter than a grey marble 50 million kilometers from the sun?
Good God, is that really what you are contending? The bowling ball is getting a quarter the solar intensity than the marble is. And it has more surface area losing heat the dark side, if you think size matters.
The bowling ball is going to be colder, bub.
barry,
I wonder if you are arguing with yourself again? What are you talking about with your foolish Warmist analogies? Bowling balls and marbles? Is that the best evasion you can come up with?
Maybe you might care to explain why you asked a stupid “gotcha” when it seems that you claim you know the answer.
The fact that your assumptions are flawed is not my problem. You don’t need my help to appear stupid, by the looks of it.
Maybe you could quote me exactly, instead of arguing with yourself.
Maybe you could give some thought to a useable definition of the GHE. Nobody else seems to be able able to achieve this miraculous feat.
Do you think foolish Warmists are too busy dreaming up irrelevant and meaningless analogies to disguise the fact they can’t intelligently discuss the non-existent GHE?
Cheers.
The evidence for the greenhouse effect is starkly obvious, but Mike Flynn won’t dare go near it:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Barry, notice how Mike Flynn completely ignores your argument (which is a good one).
He isn’t even a denier. He won’t even read.
David Appell,
barry attempted a “gotcha”. It didn’t work. That makes him a fool.
About the same as your puerile attempts. That makes you a fool, too.
Why would anybody accede to your petulant demands? Maybe the extremely gullible or the weak-minded (kindred spirits of yours?), but nobody with an intellect superior to that of a mentally defective wombat would be fooled.
You keep claiming the GHE is a metaphor, and everybody knows it. Hold fast to that thought. It might become reality one day.
Cheers.
I’ve provided physical facts and challenged you to explain them. It’s no “gotcha.” Whinging about that is just trying to wriggle out of the question.
Mike Flynn says:
“You keep claiming the GHE is a metaphor….”
Liar.
Lying is the only tactic you have.
“Mike Flynn” says:
“Why would anybody accede to your petulant demands?”
MF is afraid of data.
Imagine that — someone who wants to write about science, but is allergic to observed data.
David Appell,
Somebody calling themselves David Appell wrote –
“The planetary greenhouse effect is a metaphor, Gordon.”
Do I have to post the same thing 41 times before you accept it?
Maybe there are two David Appells – dumb and dumber, perhaps.
You right. I’m not even a denier (another undefined term – maybe it’s a metaphor too?)! I choose not to believe in the non-existent GHE. As you say “The planetary greenhouse effect is a metaphor . . .”, so not believing in an undefined metaphor, without knowing its reference, seems rational.
You can believe in anything you like, even when you can’t actually say what it is. The GHE, for example.
Who’s the fool, would you say?
Cheers.
Bowling balls and marbles? Is that the best evasion you can come up with?
It’s based exactly on what you “hinted” as your explanation for the surface of Venus being hotter than Mercury.
heres a hint regarding Mercury. Mercury is not much bigger than the Moon around 4900 Km diameter, as opposed to around 3500 for the Moon.
You’re telling us that size maters. And the distances I provided are very close to the actual distances of Venus and Mercury.
But if you think I’ve misunderstood, just lay it out plainly.
Venus gets 25% of the solar intensity that Mercury does, being twice the distance from the sun. Venus’ albedo is 7 times more reflective than Mercury’s.
This should make it colder than Mercury.
YOU think that CO2 should insulate Venus surface from solar radiation, so Venus’ average surface temperature should be much cooler than Mercury’s.
If you can’t explain it just say so. If you can, explain it.
But quit with the “gotcha” bollocks. These are physical facts. Either deal with them or concede you can’t.
During the El Nino troposphere expands. The temperature changes of tropopause are evidenced. This indicates a rise in pressure in the troposphere as a result of increased surface evaporation in the Oceans.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00903/e2800qhmyebr.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
hey ren…are we having an El Nino right now or a La Nina? It’s flooding right across Canada at various times.
The last few days have been quite warm on the coast at Vancouver.
Right now the ENSO state is neutral.
Follow El Nino index.
http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
And the jet stream 500 hPa.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-80.14,82.95,298
You can keep track of changes in sea surface temperature.
http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
South East Pacific temperatures are falling.
Here’s a real scientific effect –
“The Seebeck effect is the production of EMF, electromotive force, with junctions of two different conductors. Two junctions connected back to back are held at two different temperatures TH and TC and an EMF V appears between their free contacts:
𝑉 = −𝑆(𝑇𝐻 − 𝑇𝐶). S is Seebeck’s coefficient.”
Here’s a fake non-scientific effect –
“The greenhouse effect is a metaphor.”
One can be observed and recorded. The output can even be calculated.
The other is nonsense.
Cheers.
Mile Flynn…another scientific effect is joule heating, something we often refer to in the electrical field as an I^2.R loss. You will commonly see it on electric stoves when you turn a ring on full and it gets so hot it will glow cherry red.
To those who think heat is an abstraction, I don’t suggest you touch the glowing ring. The conducted heat will seriously burn your finger. Even if you hold your finger close to the ring it could char-broil your skin via radiation, as carbon atoms and water molecules in your skin absorb it and convert it back to heat.
Another point to note is that holding your finger 4 feet away you will not be able to detect the heat. That’s how fast a potent heat source’s radiation drops off due to the inverse square law.
Imagine how quickly 250 w/m^2 drops off at the Earth’s surface.
Gordon, congrat.s on being one of the few that use heat as a noun correctly. Use Clausius defn. inserted into your comment:
To those who think KE of ring constituent particles is an abstraction, I don’t suggest you touch the glowing ring.
The conducted KE of ring constituent particles will seriously burn your finger.
…your skin (will) absorb (radiation) and convert it back to KE of finger constituent particles.
…holding your finger 4 feet away you will not be able to detect the KE of ring constituent particles (at least by your finger).
That’s how fast a potent KE of constituent particle source’s radiation drops off due to the inverse square law.
You are in an exclusive club for there is no radiant heat, heat does not rise, no heat entity transfers, heat entity cannot be added to a system (just as cold cannot be added), heat entity is not energy in motion, all that just tries to keep the notion of heat alive as a substance.
What about heat radiation? None. All bodies radiate whether they are cold or hot (cue anger: even cabbages), there is no special form of radiation known as heat.
Ball4…don’t know if you have [sarc/on] or [sarc/off]. No matter, it’s taken in good humour.
I don’t use KE other than as a generic form of energy in motion. I grew up in the field of electronics and we used KE and PE all the time. Later, in semiconductor theory we used terms like potential hill.
In electronics, KE generally refers to charges in motion as electrical energy. I cannot regard that KE as the same KE in reference to heat. I think there are similarities between the two in that valence electrons in atoms are involved with the transfer of charge and heat in solid conductors.
I would like to know what energy is at an atomic level. I am sure they are one and the same at some level but we have not come near to investigating what it is.
Therefore, for now, I accept the Clausius notion that heat is the energy associated with atoms in motion. That rules out infrared energy but there may be a tie in between electromagnetic energy and thermal energy that we have not discovered. As it stands, their properties are remarkably different.
No sarc tag intended. At all. Dead serious.
Heat is a myth of the 1800s, not a substance that can transfer in modern science. Though many authors try to keep the myth alive, using desperation at times. You use Clausius heat def. as KE and radiation as EM energy correctly. Keep up the good work. It is a tough battle.
Don’t get me going on Ocean Heat Content…it is Ocean Energy Content. The reader is tasked to make the substitution. A good writer will avoid that.
“Dont get me going on Ocean Heat Contentit is Ocean Energy Content.”
I mostly agree with you, but OHC doesn’t include internal molecular energy, or mass-energy. And I’m not sure if it includes potential energy.
Gordon Robertson says:
“In electronics, KE generally refers to charges in motion as electrical energy. I cannot regard that KE as the same KE in reference to heat. I think there are similarities between the two in that valence electrons in atoms are involved with the transfer of charge and heat in solid conductors.”
Gordon, again your vast lack of knowledge is showing.
In classical thermodynamics, where avg(KT) is proportional to the temperature, there ARE NO valence electrons. Or any charge. Or potentials. Gas molecules are considered to be billard balls with a certain number of degrees of freedom. That’s it.
There is nothing at all quantum about thermodynamics. This is the source of much of your misunderstandings, and of your inability to conceive of radiative consequences.
When the whole field of Ocean Heat Content discusses the ocean heat content they always mean the KE of ocean constituent particles. Not the chem., atomic, elastic, electrical energies so forth. The reader has to do the work to translate.
It is unfortunate but even Dr. Spencer once commented you have to live with it. Usually they get it right but still you can find slip ups where they write of heat still as a colorless, odorless substance banging into the fish.
Mike Flynn says:
“The other is nonsense.”
The evidence Mike Flynn is afraid to look at:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Ball4…”Earths GHE exists as the Prof. showed…”
Tyndall demonstrated nothing to validate the GHE. In fact, he could have contributed something had he measured the absor-p-tion of the room air complete with water vapour and CO2. I am guessing it would have shown a similar absor-ption to the air he used with wv and CO2 removed.
All Tyndall did was demonstrate that CO2 can absorb IR. He did nothing to prove the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can absorb enough surface IR to be of significance and he certainly did not demonstrate how our atmosphere behaves like a real greenhouse. All he offered was sheer conjecture.
“…had (Tyndall measured the absor-p-tion of the room air complete with water vapour and CO2.”
Tyndall reports he did so p. 28: “Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid (CO2) and aqueous vapour (wv), produced an absorp-tion of 15.”
This was a significant amount, with CO2 at 100% in his test chamber being much higher.
+1
This site did not allow a substantive comment to be posted here.
DA…please note the post can be locked out due to one word. I have checked with Roy and it’s nothing he is doing so don’t take it personally. It has something to do with the censoring mechanism at WordPress.
Note that Ball4 and I have had to add hyphens to words like absorp-tion. Without the hyphen the post fails. Another word I know of is Had-crut.
That’s a lousy way to run a blog, and, I’m sorry, I hold the blog’s author responsible.
==
My reply is still not being accepted.
Gordon Robertson says:
“All Tyndall did was demonstrate that CO2 can absorb IR.”
No, he also measured its a.b-sorp.tive properties.
“…and he certainly did not demonstrate how our atmosphere behaves like a real GH. All he offered was sheer conjecture.”
That was already known from F.ourier’s work in 1827:
“On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space,” Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Sciences, 7 569-604 (1827).
English translation of Fourier:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html
No comments,
except the advice to read the first chapter after the “Introduction” of this link:
http://geologist-1011.mobi/
But if you want you can read also the second chapter about Tyndall.
Have a great day.
Massimo
DA,
Fourier did not state that our atmosphere acted like a greenhouse. Please quote specific portions of his work.
Fourier stated:
“The earth receives the rays of the sun, which penetrate its mass, and are converted into non-luminous heat: it likewise possesses an internal heat with which it was created, and which is continually dissipated at the surface: and lastly, the earth receives rays of light and heat from innumerable stars, in the midst of which is placed the solar system. These are three general causes which determine the temperature of the earth. The third, that is, the influence of the stars, is equivalent to the presence of an immense hollow sphere, with the earth in the center, the constant temperature of which should be a little below what would be observed in the earth’s polar regions.” [Fourier, 1827]
“How does the Earths blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation? Fourier tried to explain his insight by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment the box’s interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape.(10) This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (As Fourier knew, the main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away. The glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping, but that’s less important.) Nevertheless, people took up his analogy and trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called “the greenhouse effect.”(11*)”
http://history.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M085
One small mistake for a man, one giant leap for pseudoscience:
“Nevertheless, people took up his analogy and trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called the greenhouse effect.”
David,
No, You are not quoting Fourier. You are quoting some other idiot who did not read the original paper, and has no clue like you.
SGW: I’m quoting an expert who wrote on Fourier. You can easily find this in Fourier’s paper if you look.
Totally bogus David. Please provide the direct quotes from Fourier.
Fourier did not even describe what is now known as the GHE.
This is typical AGW BS. They don’t understand heat flow, but do understand the flow of BS.
Massimio…”read the first chapter after the Introduction of this link:”
Good stuff, well worth the read.
Fourier is exonerated. Is he the same Fourier who developed the Fourier Transform? If so, I don’t think someone with his brilliance would be duped into a GHE theory.
Fourier knew circa 1824 that greenhouses warmed due to a lack of convection and according to your link, he knew convection was the means of transporting heat from the surface, not radiation.
DA…”That was a well-known experiment the boxs interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape.(10) This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box”
So you quote Spencer Weart correcting Fourier.
Fourier was right, the glass in a greenhouse traps molecules of air, 99+ % of which is nitrogen and oxygen. Weart is wrong, there is no other explanation.
David Appell,
From your link –
“That which penetrates in the equatorial regions is exactly compensated by the heat which flows across the polar regions. Thus the earth returns to space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part from its original heat.”
Even Fourier knew there was no GHE. All the heat from the Sun is radiated away, plus another bit from the cooling interior.
Try again, David. Maybe you are scared to quote your references?
Still no definition for the GHE. I think your effort was par for the foolish Warmist course –
“The planetary greenhouse effect is a metaphor, Gordon.
Everyone knows this except, apparently, you.”
No GHE, not even a definition. Some science!
Cheers.
Mike…”The planetary greenhouse effect is a metaphor….”
Here’s a real metaphor….’He drowned in a sea of grief’.
No one would claim there is such a thing as a sea filled with grief. By the same token, no one except a poet would claim there is a greenhouse in the atmosphere.
Where this notion came from is not at all clear. Glass in a real greenhouse traps the heated molecules that make up air and prevents them rising naturally. The glass also prevents cooler air replacing the rising hot air therefore the trapped air continues to warm.
There is absolutely nothing in the atmosphere that can accomplish that. There is nothing to prevent hot air from rising and the atmosphere is rife with convective currents. Otherwise, surface temps would rise to 70+ C, according to Lindzen.
Those who named the GHE obviously confused infrared energy with thermal energy but even then the theory is absolutely lame. Bohren claimed it may be a metaphor at best, but at worst, the notion of heat being trapped by the atmosphere is plain silly.
The “greenhouse effect” is a metaphor.
Only people who don’t understand the science — I’m talking about you, Gordon — think this is some kind of a problem.
No one else does.
Gordon 6:26pm, here you make a mistake in the use of the term heat: “the notion of heat being trapped by the atmosphere is plain silly.”
Bohren in 2006 did not mean (inserting the Clausius defn. as I did before): the notion of KE of constituent particles being trapped by the atmosphere is plain silly.
This is what is written in Bohren’s 2006 text: “Moreover, the notion that the atmosphere traps radiation is at best a bad metaphor, at worst downright silly.”
Radiation is not heat, you did not convey the meaning correctly. You fell off the club wagon.
Also, you are wrong about “There is absolutely nothing in the atmosphere that can accomplish that.” meaning a limit to convection.
There is the limit at the tropopause where convection ~ceases as the standard atm. becomes isothermal for ~10km and the absolute limit at the TOA as no convection gets to space. These natural atm. limits are the equiv. of the glass panes limiting convection in the farmer’s greenhouse.
Robertson wrote:
“Those who named the GHE obviously confused infrared energy with thermal energy but even then the theory is absolutely lame.”
False — yet again.
They recognized that there is more than one kind of heat transfer.
There is “thermal energy” — convection and conduction — and “radiative energy” — EM radiation.
Absolutely everyone understand this but Gordon Robertson. For some reason this physics escapes him.
“Mike Flynn” says:
“No GHE, not even a definition.”
As you know, I’ve defined the greenhouse effect for you many times.
But you’re so fundamentally dishonest, you can’t even acknowledge that.
Conversation isn’t possible with fundamentally dishonest people.
Another David Appell gem –
“Gas molecules are considered to be billard balls with a certain number of degrees of freedom. Thats it.”
That’s it. The science is settled. The irrelevant and pointless analogies continue.
How about saying that gas molecules are considered to be gas molecules? Not bowling balls, billiard balls, or marbles.
Still no GHE, billiard balls notwithstanding.
Cheers.
MF: Did you ever study classical thermodynamics?
There’s no evidence here that you did; you’re clearly writing from a position of ignorance.
Davie: Did you ever study any science?
Theres no evidence here that you did; youre clearly writing from a position of ignorance.
If you say so, David, if you say so.
Cheers.
MF: You make very basic errors time and time again.
So asking for your credentials is legitimate.
PS:
The ocean still doesn’t emit blue light.
Atomic and molecular energy levels are, in fact, quantized.
The Sun emits extremely little radiation in the 15 micron band.
Davie, don’t forget your hero that says the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K.
Yeah, I know the “if”, but you don’t understand the “if”. The “if” means the Earth can cool itself.
I doubt you will still understand.
Such is the world of pseudoscience.
g*eran lies again.
Absolutely no qualms about lying outright.
How do you deal with such a person?
Roy, why do you allow such people to comment here? (It’s a serious question — please don’t ignore it.)
What is the “if?”
Davie, you are the one that supplied the link. Didn’t you even read it? The very first two sentences are pseudoscience!
Here, again, is the exact quote:
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 (10)17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
Do you not understand why he is wrong?
“…if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
Super-Dense-Davie.
David Appell wrote –
“The evidence Mike Flynn is afraid to look at:”, accompanied by probably the 40th post of a pointless computer graphic.
It’s certainly evidence that David suffers from some sort of mental perturbation, I suppose.
If David expects me to be impressed, I point out that looking at piece of crap for the 40th time, doesn’t change its nature. Maybe David hopes it will turn into something useful. Alas, no.
Crap remains crap. The GHE remains a metaphor – for nothing. It doesn’t exist.
Cheers.
The evidence “Mike Flynn” is *still* afraid to look at:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
David Appell,
I’ve looked at it once. What evidence can you produce to the contrary? None, of course.
Irrelevant garbage is still irrelevant garbage.
Is that the 41st time you’ve posted that particular piece of crap? Have you a reason?
Einstein reputedly said –
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
Things are not looking good for you, David.
Cheers
…and Mike Flynn proves yet AGAIN that he’s afraid to consider real-world data:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Most deniers are never ever this flat-out obvious….
David Appell,
Nothing to deny. You said the GHE was only a metaphor.
The GHE doesn’t exist. Or are you having a furious argument with yourself?
Do you really think you or Gavin Schmidt could terrify me, other than by exposing your naked hirsute bodies in all their masculine glory, while I’m eating?
On second thoughts, I’d probably laugh. Would you like to try? Maybe you could ask Gavin, as well.
Cheers.
See Mike Flynn contradict himself.
Here he says “the GHE doesn’t exist.” But just the other day he admitted it did:
—
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
—
Clearly it’s too much to expect “MF” to be consistent. He’ll say whatever lie he needs to go escape the moment.
Mike Flynn says:
“Do you really think you or Gavin Schmidt could terrify me, other than by exposing your naked hirsute bodies in all their masculine glory, while Im eating?”
Mike, I’m really sorry you read the Web while eating.
That sounds very lonely.
David,
You’re dreaming, lying, or making stuff up – again. Why would I read the Web while I’m eating?
Your ESP and detailed knowledge of parapsychology has failed you again – if that’s what you used to come to another bizarrely incorrect conclusion.
Maybe you dredged it out of your fantasy world. Just as pointless, I suppose.
Oh well, keep trying.
Cheers.
Very visible extension of the troposphere during El Nino in 1983
(see the tropopause temperature data).
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00903/14k42nq7joyv.png
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inino5_1979:2017.png
Latitude-height cross section of zonal mean temperature in the Northern Hemisphere
The contour interval is 5 C.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/
El Nino is clearly visible at the North Pole (2016).
https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5JYfcI0wFH6ZHJ4eGJWTVJWTDQ&export=download
Now the troposphere shrinks.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
barry asked me –
“How do you explain the surface of Venus being hotter than Mercury?”
barry believes he already knows. I’ve asked for some evidence from barry that he’s not just asking a “gotcha”, or an irrelevant question, hoping that he can use the answer to denigrate me in some fashion.
He has been unwilling or unable to provide such evidence, but I charitably gave him a hint, relating to physical properties of Venus and Mercury. No GHE, involved of course. The GHE is only a metaphor, according to commenters on this blog They’re right. It doesn’t actually exist.
barry complains than I am “whinging” because I have pointed him in the right direction. He tries to impute words to me that I have never uttered – in other words, he chooses to lie, rather than quote me exactly. He wrote –
YOU think that CO2 should insulate Venus surface from solar radiation, so Venus average surface temperature should be much cooler than Mercurys.
If you cant explain it just say so. If you can, explain it.
But quit with the gotcha bollocks. These are physical facts. Either deal with them or concede you cant.
Presents lies as fact. Then demands that I bend to his will, giving me two choices.
Then he further demands that I quit with assuming his question was not posed as a genuine desire for knowledge which de did not possess. Bad luck, barry – no!
barry follows up with a further two commands – both of which I decline to obey.
Others can make up their own minds. I can defend my advice to barry, of course. If he’s too lazy to do a bit of research, why should explain anything to him?
He bears some resemblance to a spoilt and petulant child – demanding, demanding, demanding – and not prepared to make any effort to help himself.
Oh well, life amongst the foolish Warmists! Interesting, if nothing else.
Cheers.
MF admits there is a greenhouse effect:
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
David Appell,
There is no GHE. Even you state – “The planetary greenhouse effect is a metaphor . . .”
As to atmospheric transmittance, you are correct. I believe it was myself who first pointed out on this thread that atmospheric transmittance increases, as misnamed GHGs decrease. In plain words, the less GHGs, the hotter the surface becomes for a given intensity of sunlight, and the colder it becomes in its absence.
Dream on David. You can look up how Beer’s Law operates, and how the atmosphere cannot possibly transmit more energy to the surface than impinges upon it from the Sun. If you need help to understand it, I’ll be glad to help.
You’re talking complete and utter nonsense. Maybe you have been feasting on the garbage which fills your foolish fantasy!
Keep twisting. More attempts to dismiss, deny, divert and confuse might eventually work. I hope somebody is taking notice of your pronouncements – it no doubt gives them succour in their own unrealistic fantasy worlds.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, you just cannot ever get your science stories straight. You should stick to your political agenda only.
Beer does NOT have a law about how the atmosphere cannot possibly transmit more energy to the surface than impinges upon it from the sun. You just made that up or more probably copied from a source that is incompetent.
The law you incorrectly attribute was first stated by Pierre Bouguer in 1729 (Essay on the Gradation of Light), so you are wide of the mark given this work preceded Beer by more than 100 years.
See “Mike Flynn” get huffy when you ask him to explain the consequences of his admitted transmittance/GHG relationship:
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
“I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
What are the consequences of this lower transmittance?
David Appell,
If you’re aiming for a “gotcha”, you may have caught yourself. You have written –
” . . .the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
You follow up with
“What are the consequences of this lower transmittance?”
You accompany both statements with the same link, obviously intended to waste peoples” time. Are you too lazy to quote someone’s exact words?
You tell me that transmittance increases, then ask that I explain the consequences of this lower transmittance.
Don’t you even understand what you are writing?
Why should I respond to your stupid, infantile “gotchas”? I decline, unless you can give me adequate reason.
No GHE. As you state, it’s only a metaphor, anyway.
Cheers.
Notice how “Mike Flynn” gets angry when someone points out that he already admitted there is a greenhouse effect:
Mike Flynn:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Spent much of last night refreshing myself on basic chemistry and realizing how much I’d forgotten and how much I had replaced known information with wrong information. It happens over the years, the brain forgets and somehow pseudo-science infiltrates.
When Clausius made the 2nd law, he did not draw his logic from a hat. When he declared that heat cannot of itself be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body he based that on careful experimentation in which he followed a thermodynamic process in a heat engine.
He traced the transfer of heat from it’s input to a body through the intermediate states which involved changes in work done, pressure, temperature, and volume, and sometimes back to the starting point in a reversible process. That’s how he derived the concept of entropy as the integral of infinitesimal changes in heat at the temperature, T, at which the changes took place.
In a heat engine, he was not dealing with infrared energy and the 2nd law he derived had nothing to do with IR. He later expanded the 2nd law to include radiation and IR but the conclusions remained the same.
Clausius talked about heat at the atomic level but in 1850, he knew nothing about quantum theory or bonding between atoms and molecules. He knew that atoms vibrated and he related the work done in the vibration to it’s equivalent, heat. He stated that heat was the energy related to those vibrations.
Unfortunately, chemistry is convoluted when it comes to bonding theory and I don’t think anyone knows to this day what is actually going on in an atom with regard to electrons and the role they play in bonding with their subsequent ability to pass electrical currents and heat in certain elements.
AGW theory has focused on radiation theory and it has created a pseudo-science in which infrared energy and thermal energy are one and the same. They cannot possibly be the same since their definitions and properties are so different.
In order to understand heat transfer between a hotter and colder body it is imperative to understand the difference. I am not denying that IR can be measured to indicate the intensity of heat that created it, I am claiming only that IR is not heat. If the two are confused, utter confusion arises as to how heat can be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body at the same time the warmer body is heating the cooler body.
To understand that fully, one must go to the atomic level and fully understand how IR is radiated and absorbed by electrons. Without an understanding of that theory it is futile trying to understand IR radiation.
You have a ways to go yet Gordon, one must go to the atomic level and fully understand how IR is radiated and absorbed by atoms and molecules.
Gordon,
I’d even go a little further. Richard Feynman, like any competent physicist, did not discriminate between wavelengths of light. From the lowest energy photons, at a vanishingly small fraction of an eV, to the most energetic particles in the universe, all is light.
Feynman wrote a small book called “The strange theory of light and matter”. It seems reasonable to me.
Foolish Warmists obviously have no competent physicists amongst their ranks. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have to create all the climatological nonsense words that they use.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Id even go a little further. Richard Feynman, like any competent physicist, did not discriminate between wavelengths of light. From the lowest energy photons, at a vanishingly small fraction of an eV, to the most energetic particles in the universe, all is light.”
Clownishly, utterly wrong.
Feynman’s QED methodology assigns a “propagator” to photons, which depends on their 4-momentum.
That is, it depends on the photon’s energy, viz. its wavelength.
You are way out of your league and are completely wrong.
Again.
David,
So what sort of photons did Feynman specifically claim were not light?
Can’t actually provide a quote? Maybe you’re confused, and it’s another metaphor.
In case anyone is interested –
“261Light
This is the first of a number of chapters on the subject of electromagnetic radiation. Light, with which we see, is only one small part of a vast spectrum of the same kind of thing, the various parts of this spectrum being distinguished by different values of a certain quantity which varies. This variable quantity could be called the wavelength.”
– From Feynman’s physics lectures.
If you say I’m completely wrong, it must be so – at least in your fantasy!
You could always read the rest, but I doubt you will. Fact seems to be anathema to some foolish Warmists.
Another round of dismiss, deny, and divert, might be in order for you?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, you clearly do not know Feynman’s QED and you have no idea what you’re talking about.
DA…”Feynmans QED methodology assigns a propagator to photons, which depends on their 4-momentum”.
I don’t think you have the slightest idea what Feynman did. You look up wiki explanations and quote from them.
How many Feynman diagrams have you ever calculated, Gordon?
Ha ha.
Gordon, go look up Feynman’s QED photon propagator.
Does it depend on energy?
Let all of us know what you find……
Mike…”Id even go a little further. Richard Feynman, like any competent physicist, did not discriminate between wavelengths of light”.
I thought Feynman was brilliant. The only question I have of him is why he pushed quantum theory so much after claiming it made no sense.
I watched a series of lectures he gave in New Zealand in which he explained the basics of Feynman diagrams. I think Feynman knew he was talking about a non-reality but at that level there is little in the way of options. You either accept the mystery math that is the basic of quantum theory or you have nothing.
Same with Einstein. I don’t think someone with his intelligence believed there was a physical reality called space-time. People like David Appell are so gullible they will swallow anything an authority figure presents to them.
Quantum theory treats the electromagnetic spectrum as a set of harmonic oscillators. Unfortunately, rather than develop that theory they attached each oscillator to probability theory. A Swedish mathematician, Claes Johnson, feels you can treat the atom mathematically while remaining in the real physical domain.
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.ca/
Gordon,
Feynman’s ideas make sense to me. As far as I know, no experiment has ever shown a prediction based on QED to be false.
Until one does, I reckon I’m on a winner.
Cheers.
And Feynman’s QED propagator depends on the photon’s energy.
It’s completely obvious that it should. And it does.
Amateurs.
Claes Johnson is a quack of the first order.
You’d know that Gordon, if you knew any science at all.
Shame.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Unfortunately, chemistry is convoluted when it comes to bonding theory and I dont think anyone knows to this day what is actually going on in an atom with regard to electrons and the role they play in bonding with their subsequent ability to pass electrical currents and heat in certain elements.”
This is the point where I laughed out loud.
Just couldn’t help it.
Gordon, every time you write you make more and more of a fool out of yourself.
Be quiet for a change and just read and learn.
Gordon,
David Appell implies that he understands quantum mechanics.
Feynman wrote –
“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
David knows better. Feynman was wrong. Go, David, go. Dismiss, deny, divert!
Cheers.
DA…”This is the point where I laughed out loud”.
Yes…circa 1925, Schrodinger, Bohr, and many physicists were struggling with the nature of chemical bonding. It took Linus Pauling to straighten it out by simplifying quantum math and using his immense knowledge in chemistry to visualize the solutions.
If you were back then observing, you’re the type who would have laughed since laughter is often an expression of abject ignorance.
Please enlighten us on the nature of chemical bonding. If I listened to your blethering I’d need a lobotomy to reach your level of understanding of science.
Gordon,
And of course, I’d rather have a full bottle in front of me, than a full frontal lobotomy.
Sorry ’bout that.
Cheers.
You clearly have both.
1925, Gordon?
That’s what you base your understanding on?
No wonder you know so little.
meanwhile,
“Donald Trump was given a gift during his meeting with Pope Francis at the Vatican: a papal letter detailing why the world should fight against climate change. ”
Obviously the pope thinks Donald needs educating. I doubt it will succeed since it is rumored that Donald has a very short attention span.
Dr No,
Do you think the Pope should consult with the approximately 80% of the population who are not even Roman Catholic? or don’t you believe in democracy and consensus?
Cheers.
“8 in 10 people now see climate change as a ‘catastrophic risk’: survey,” Reuters 5/23/17
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-risk-survey-idUSKBN18J36O
David,
8000 people out of more than 7,000,000,000!
Must have been done by a climatologist. The science is settled?
You said the GHE was only a n metaphor, so I assume that the catastrophic risk has nothing to do with CO2?
No GHE, David.
Cheers.
Mike F,
What’s with the 3 n’s in Flynnn? Are you making sure no one confuses you with an even more infamous Michael Flynn?
You don’t have to answer directly, you can take the 5th amendment if you like.
MikeR,
A genuine mystery. Maybe it’s an example of “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics.” – Feynman.
I might have to take the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, the 4th, in addition to the 5th.
I’m worried that any comments I make might tend to incinerate me.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Cheers.
Mike Flynnn says:
“8000 people out of more than 7,000,000,000!”
You really shouldn’t pretend to be more stupid than you already exhibit.
It makes you look even worse.
The GHE evidence “Mike Flynn” is afraid to discuss:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
dr no…”Obviously the pope thinks Donald needs educating”.
The Pope represents the same church who threatened Galileo and Copernicus for suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun. Seem to be still practicing the same kind of pseudo-science.
Hi Gordon,
you are partially right.
Looking at the historical documents, those times it was the “scientific consensus” that asked the Pope to threaten them, not the Pope himself.
The religion was just a means to justify and support the then scientific status-quo.
http://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy
Today is happening the same.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo
Historical documents?
The article you linked to was a “just take my word for it” version of history, completely void of historical documents.
I’m not sure, but I could violate some blog rules leaving here this link because it could be considered a publicitary advice, anyways you could read this book about who asked the Pope to prosecute him.
http://www.amazon.com/Setting-Aside-All-Authority-Copernicus/dp/0268029881/?tag=stno-20
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Massimo
I clicked on you your first link because you wrote, “Looking at the historical documents,………”
I was immediately incredulous that you had actually done so. Sure enough, the account of “history” provided didn’t cite a single source to back up it’s claims.
(I don’t actually have enough interest in “Galileo vs. the Church” to read a book about it.)
Yes Snape,
my fault, I just missed to mention that the link wasn’t related to any historical document at all, but it was just the translation of the official Vatican analyses of those documents released few years ago from the Vatican archives (the Vatican web site has a word by word copy of that on line).
The book instead does a good research about what really happened those times.
Have a great day,
Massimo
Massimo
Sorry to pick on you. I just have a pet-peeve with what I call “pop history”.
An author can write an article about the past that is total BS, but if it sounds convincing, there will be many people who believe it.
Not saying that’s the case here.
Massimo
Here’s a familiar example. I have on many occasions seen this “definition of insanity” attributed to Albert Einstein. It even appears on Brainy Quotes:
“Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
It turns out Einstein had written something with a similar meaning, but there is no record of him ever using this particular phrase.
Massimo PORZIO says:
“Looking at the historical documents, those times it was the scientific consensus that asked the Pope to threaten them, not the Pope himself.”
That’s completely wrong.
The opposition came from within the Church.
In fact, many enlightened scientists supported Galileo, such as Kepler and Descartes.
Read “Galileo’s Daughter” or even Kim Stanley Robinson’s “Galileo’s Dreams.”
Massimo…”Looking at the historical documents, those times it was the scientific consensus that asked the Pope to threaten them, not the Pope himself”.
The church was not shy about executing anyone for heresy, actual or perceived. The scientific community may have ratted on Galileo and Copernicus but it was the church who made the heresy laws.
Yes Gordon,
those times it was easy have your head cut off from your neck, but it was not a question of the church, it was the way things were those times.
The Pope Urban was a king as many other, and handled the law of that time in his reign.
If you want know an authoritative opinion about Galileo’s trial:
https://erikbuys.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/galileo-goes-to-jail.pdf
Read page from 68 to 78, that’s all.
Note that the book comes from Harvard University and reports the facts as they should have been. Of course no one can really know the truth about that dark age.
Despite DA thinks that I wrote things “completely wrong”, I think that I’m essentially a curious man and I still believe I’m capable of discerning what is wrong and what is right for me.
For that he is free to believe whatever he wants and don’t read the link above of course.
Have a great day.
Massimo
David Appell, telling me how he’s helping me –
“As you know, Ive defined the greenhouse effect for you many times.
But youre so fundamentally dishonest, you cant even acknowledge that.
Conversation isnt possible with fundamentally dishonest people.”
Here’s David’s definition –
“The planetary greenhouse effect is a metaphor . . .”
Apparently, David’s memory is about as good as his definitional powers.
I wonder what his definition of dishonesty is? How about a person who would claim they have defined the greenhouse effect many times, with the implication that it is a meaningful definition?
Cheers.
I’ve defined the GHE for you many times.
Every time you ignore it, your credibility drops even further below zero.
Mike…”Apparently, Davids memory is about as good as his definitional powers”.
David is a legend in his own mind.
Gordon, stop your insults, and start providing some science.
Mike,
I asked you upthread why the av surface temp of Venus is hotter than the av surface temp of Venus.
You’ve complained about it being a “gotcha” question. You’ve quoted other people. You’ve given a “hint” about relative size and talked about a bunch of stuff.
But you haven’t once given an explanation.
Either give one or say you can’t.
Avoiding the question with lots of blather just convinces me that you can’t answer it. If you post more blather all I can conclude is that you’re stumped.
barry,
Thanks for your interest. I don’t have any inclination to provide information, on demand, to a fool.
Your demand, that I either give you information, or say I can’t, is an example of your impotence to make me dance to your tune.
Why should I care about your opinion? You can conclude what you like. A fool will no doubt conclude many things, most of which will be wrong. Concluding that one can raise the temperature of a thermometer on the surface by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and the Sun, would obviously identify one as being a fool.
Unless you can convince me you’re genuinely seeking an answer to a question you cannot find the answer to, using your own resources, then I feel no particular need to waste any of my obviously superior knowledge on your games.
Once again, the answer is quite simple. I’ve no doubt that I could explain it to a reasonably intelligent 12 year old. Explaining it to you might be a little more difficult, but I’m sure I could do it – if I felt like it.
Of course, I’m not going to – in spite of any commands you may issue. Tough. My care factor in relation to your desires and wishes, is precisely zero. If you try really, really, hard, I’m sure you can get used to the fact that some people don’t give toss what you think.
Keep demanding – it won’t do you any good at all!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says, May 25, 2017 at 4:46 AM:
Then why exactly is the T_sfc of Venus (which has an “amount of CO2 between the thermometer [on the surface] and the Sun”) higher than on Mercury (which hasn’t got an “amount of CO2 between the thermometer [on the surface] and the Sun”), Mike? If, as you clearly seem to suggest, it should be the other way around …
That is what barry is asking you. Nothing more, nothing less. Why?
We are all waiting for your answer … Not just barry. We all are.
barry, Kristian – It is obvious Flynn can’t explain Venus sfc temperature. Flynn is simply here for his political agenda reasons nothing more.
Kristian,
Maybe you could quote me, rather than tell me what you think I might be suggesting.
You are not seeking knowledge. Just another foolish Warmist, attempting another foolish “gotcha”, unless you wish to convince me otherwise.
If you can’t be bothered, at least you’ll save me wasting my time. I suppose I should thank you, but I won’t.
Why wait for my answer? Why not just work it out for yourself?
As to Venus itself, the atmosphere is around 96% CO2, at a maximum pressure of 90 bars or so. Somewhat less than the Earth’s atmosphere in even the Archaen Era, let alone the Hadean, which was so hot that the first rocks had not formed!
In spite of atmospheric conditions containing more CO2 than Venus, greater pressure, and far hotter, the Earth still cooled, didn’t it? No GHE. Just like there is no GHE on Venus.
There’s a start for you, if you choose to follow up the peer reviewed papers. I’ve mentioned before, a starting point for establishing why Venus is hotter than Mercury, but people were too lazy to follow it up for themselves.
Off you go now. I’ve told you I have intention of dancing to your tune.
Now is your cue to abuse me for not acceding to your demands. I don’t give a rodent’s rectum, to be honest.
Cheers.
Mike Flynnn says, May 25, 2017 at 9:42 AM:
This is what you’re “suggesting” (I quote you verbatim):
“Concluding that one can raise the temperature of a thermometer on the surface by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and the Sun, would obviously identify one as being a fool.”
And then, directly based on this statement of yours, I ask you:
“Then why exactly is the T_sfc of Venus (which has an “amount of CO2 between the thermometer [on the surface] and the Sun”) higher than on Mercury (which hasn’t got an “amount of CO2 between the thermometer [on the surface] and the Sun”), Mike?”
Care to provide an answer? After all, according to you, it shouldn’t be warmer. Concluding that would be foolish. Again according to you. (Quote above.) But it IS warmer. And it’s warmer EVEN if it receives MUCH less heat from the Sun.
Why?
Yes, I am. That is EXACTLY what I am. YOU, on the other hand, clearly aren’t.
I know the answer, Mike. What we all want to know is: Do you?
And what “starting point” is that, Mike? Why exactly is the T_sfc of Venus higher than on Mercury?
–Care to provide an answer? After all, according to you, it shouldnt be warmer. Concluding that would be foolish. Again according to you. (Quote above.) But it IS warmer. And its warmer EVEN if it receives MUCH less heat from the Sun.
Why?–
I don’t think adding CO2 was allowing for adding +900 tons of CO2 per square meter between the sun and thermometer.
I am not sure that if 900 tons CO2 were added to the our 10 tons per square meter of atmosphere, that it would increase the temperature of the thermometer. But I think it’s possible it could increase the temperature of thermometer. Well actually assuming the 900 tons was a gas, it has to increase the thermometer, because at that pressure CO2 would become a liquid unless it was hotter. And it seems fair that the CO2 has to be a gas, but since on the topic, if CO2 was liquid CO2 would that “warm” like the gas?
Now on Venus where the atmospheric pressure is the same as Earth, the “in the shade air temperature” has hotter air temperature than any air temperature on Earth, it’s around +50 C or say around 60 C would be common. Or at 1 atm pressure on Venus the air temperature would similar to the air temperature of a parked car with windows shut on Earth. And a similarly parked car at elevation on Venus of 1 atm pressure and during the day at noon, would be much hotter than an earth parked car in a parking lot.
Now in the comparison of Mercury and Venus, one is comparing air to ground- apple to oranges. What happen if one had an actual greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse [or parked car] on Mercury?
Remember that GHE is only a “metaphor” of a real greenhouse effect- something that prevents convectional heat loss- a parked car or an actual greenhouse.
Now, I have read people [serious people:)] claim that making and using a greenhouse on the Moon would a big problem- basically it would be too hot for plants. Now I would say making greenhouse on the Moon would be a problem, but problem mostly has to do with air pressure problems- structural strength issues. Anything like a earth greenhouse which was sealed and with only a few psi of air pressure would explode. Or roughly the problem is similar to having a submarine made of glass. Of course there are submarines with large window which go to shallow depth- with thick glass windows, etc. Now I don’t think designing and making greenhouses on the Moon [or Mars] is particularly daunting problem- in terms of merely having air temperature too hot. Though one could easily make greenhouse so air temperature would fry the plants- though this can also be done on Earth.
So if made the greenhouse “the wrong way” on the Moon, the air temperature could get quite hot, and this applies in spades in regard to making greenhouse wrongly on Mercury.
Kristin,
First you asked me a “gotcha”.
Then you said you dint know the answer, and were seeking knowledge.
Then you wrote –
“I know the answer, Mike. What we all want to know is: Do you?”
You already knew the answer. You were just attempting to get me to waste my Tim.
Typical foolish Warmist tactics. Dismiss, deny, divert.
Good luck with that!
Cheers.
Typical foolish Warmist tactics. Dismiss, deny, divert.
That’s exactly what you’re doing on this question.
Kristian…”And then, directly based on this statement of yours, I ask you:Then why exactly is the T_sfc of Venus (which has an amount of CO2 between the thermometer [on the surface] and the Sun) higher than on Mercury…”
The surface temperature of Venus is around 460 C and it has nothing to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. Astronomer, Andrew Ingersoll, admitted as much when he claimed blaming the hot surface temperature of Venus on a greenhouse effect would contradict the 2nd law.
In other words you would be transferring heat from a cooler atmosphere to raise the surface temperature to a whopping 460 C.
No one can explain why the sfc of Venus is as high as it is. It was Carl Sagan who started the GHE propaganda and it was taken up more recently by James Hansen, a former astronomer and a follower of Sagan’s theory.
Mike Flynn says, May 25, 2017 at 3:37 PM:
Yes, but MY answer is not YOUR answer.
So what we all want to know is how YOU would explain the fact that the T_sfc of Venus is higher than the T_sfc of Mercury, even with a much smaller heat input from the Sun?
How long are you going to “dismiss, deny and divert”?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Astronomer, Andrew Ingersoll, admitted as much when he claimed blaming the hot surface temperature of Venus on a greenhouse effect would contradict the 2nd law.”
Citation?
DA, Gordon is writing about this old paper that has since been replaced (in the 1990s) by the now proven LBL RTM method for balancing the temperature profile in the atm. of Venus which is now well understood despite Gordon’s claims that Venus T troposphere profile has not been explained.
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/37176/1/JA085iA13p08219.pdf
Mike Flynn says:
“Your demand, that I either give you information, or say I cant, is an example of your impotence to make me dance to your tune.”
Genuine students of science are up for taking on all questions as a way to challenge their understanding.
Thanks for your interest.
You’re welcome.
The ‘greenhouse’ effect is what makes the temperature of the surface of Venus hotter than Mercury’s. I’ve never seen another explanation that is remotely plausible. You’re not the first person to emptily vow there is one.
Barry, the defintion is simple
GHE = (a planets actual global average surface temperature) minus (the planets brightness temperature).
What’s so complicated?
barry…”I asked you upthread why the av surface temp of Venus is hotter than the av surface temp of Venus”.
No one has an answer as to why the Tsfc of Venus is 460 C. A runaway greenhouse effect has been proposed but it’s a theory.
A runaway greenhouse suggests that back-radiation from CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere is radiating sufficient energy back to the surface to raise the Tsfc to 460 C. Since the atmosphere is cooler than the surface that contradicts the 2nd law.
The seriously hot Venusian surface remains a mystery to those serious about science.
Gordon Robertson says:
“A runaway greenhouse suggests that back-radiation from CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere is radiating sufficient energy back to the surface to raise the Tsfc to 460 C. Since the atmosphere is cooler than the surface that contradicts the 2nd law.”
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Planetary atmospheres aren’t adiabatic.
Do you know why, Gordon?
And do you know why that matters?
Gordon Robertson
You were asking about what is known about IR and how it is absorbed at the molecular level.
This website can help you with that understanding. If you read through the link it should help update your understanding of IR and what is known about it at this time and why they know it and the math used to describe how it works.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy/Infrared%3A_Theory
Good link, Norman, but Gordon has already admitted he doesn’t know what an electromagnetic wave is — something we all learn in freshman physics.
So no way he can understand your link.
Norman..”You were asking about what is known about IR and how it is absorbed at the molecular level”.
Your link offers absolutely no information that is off use because the author obviously does not understand the problem.
I have been trained thoroughly in electronics and I have studied atomic and molecular theory in-depth. The author at your link obviously does not understand that atoms are driven off negative and positive charges related to the sources of those charges: electrons and protons.
The vibrations of which the author speaks are all due to the interaction of charges, both negative and positive. Although the electron is tiny compared to a proton it has an equal and opposite charge. It is these charges in different atomic and molecular formations that govern the shape of the molecules and the vibrations in them.
Although the author does mention the electron transition he fails to relate it to other vibrations going on in a molecule.
Molecules, like NaCl are held together by electrostatic charges. However, the electrostatic charge is directly related to electrons. Na readily gives up an electron to Cl which accepts one. By giving up the electron, Na resort to a full outer shell making it stable like Argon. Same with Cl, which has one less electron than is required for Noble stability.
When Na gives up its electron it has one fewer electron than protons therefore it has a positive charge. Cl gains an electron so it has one more than the number of protons and becomes a negative ion with a negative charge.
Everything that goes on in atoms and molecules is about electrons and protons and their opposite charges. The author at your link is offering an obfuscation of the real world.
Molecules consist of atoms BONDED together either by electrostatic charges or by the sharing of electrons. CO2 has carbon sharing electrons with oxygen. CO2 bonds are dependent directly on electrons and their energy levels.
Gordon Robertson says:
“CO2 has carbon sharing electrons with oxygen. CO2 bonds are dependent directly on electrons and their energy levels.”
Whoa, man, wow. That’s deep man.
Also wrong.
For climate, the important CO2 quantized energy transitions in the infrared are between its rotational and vibrational energy levels. See the HITRAN database if you want a list of every last one of them. I dare you.
This is why all GHGs consist of molecules of three or more atoms.
Deep, man, really really deep.
Gordon says: “Your link offers absolutely no information that is off use because the author obviously does not understand the problem.”
What specifically do you disagree with in the presentation? Why do you think you are more of an expert than the experts?
Gordon Robertson
Did you actually read the linked article you are complaining about?
Here is a direct quote from it: “The energy levels can be rated in the following order: electronic > vibrational > rotational. Each of these transitions differs by an order of magnitude. Rotational transitions occur at lower energies (longer wavelengths) and this energy is insufficient and cannot cause vibrational and electronic transitions but vibrational (near infra-red) and electronic transitions (ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum) require higher energies.”
The author quite well does understand the material presented and it is used in the real world in Chemistry Analysis sorry your knowledge is wrong and incomplete.
Electrons do not transition in energy levels in vibrational or rotational energy emission.
You do not comprehend what molecular vibration means even though many visual examples are given. The author goes into depth on a Hydrogen Bromide molecule. Explains it in great detail and yet you say they are wrong?
The atoms of the HBr have a charge imbalance and it creates a dipolar molecule. What a vibrational energy state refers to is the whole atom within the molecule moving (not the individual electrons…they are not changing orbitals at all in the IR emission, the electron transitions are not taking place, the atom is moving with a charge imbalance and creating an electromagnetic disruption that creates an IR photon that moves away from the molecule at the speed of light (a packet of energy).
I think you should reread the article and learn from it.
It would be fascinating to get several of these personalities together for some sort of group chat with a whiteboard to share diagrams, equation, etc in real time.
Yes, many would be quite hilarious.
Tim,
Or even for one to do an experiment showing the increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface makes the thermometer hotter. Might convince more people than any amount of whiteboards, diagrams, equations, computer games, or similar.
After all, how hard can it be? Too hard for a climatologist, obviously.
Cheers.
THe deniers here have shown time and again that they have no interest in science.
They’ll say blue = green if that’s what they need.
g*e*r*a*n
You seem not only to have troll behavior but very dishonest and actually a liar.
Here you make these claims that you attribute to me.
HERE: “Norm admits: “I have yet to see a good sound scientific response you have to any post.”
Norm, you have to have “eyes that see”.
You would not know science if you saw it. You believe that IR is “heat”. You believe that ice at -5C can warm things to temps hotter than -5C. You probably believe, like your hero Davie, that the Sun can radiatively heat Earth to 800,00K. You believe in your pseudoscience, even as it continually makes you look stupid.
Hilarious.”
You are a liar and dishonest as one can be. Find and example of where I stated ice at -5C can warm things to temps hotter than -5C. Not only do have a strange compulsion to troll but now you need to lie?
I have stated many times that an objected surrounded by ice with an internal heat source will get warmer than if it was in free space (no other radiant energy around). With an internal heat source it will get warmer than the -5C ice.
Are you going to add stupid to your list of negative attributes (troll and liar). You can check for yourself that a hot plate in a freezer that you turn on will get warmer than it was when off. How dumb do you have to be? Double D (dishonest and dumb).
Norm, nice straw man! I’m talking about here on this planet. You keep rambling off into space.
But, I love the “hot plate in a freezer, that you turn on, will get warmer than it was when off”.
Outstandingly hilarious!
G, You seem to have mis-read the conditions. Norm was comparing:
1) the surface of a powered hot plate when surrounded by space @ 3K.
2) an identical powered hotplate surrounded by ice @ 268 K.
Not
1a) the surface of an unpowered hot plate surrounded by ice @ 286 K
2) 2) an identical powered hotplate surrounded by ice @ 268 K.
You might want to double-check what you are reading before commenting next time.
Wow Tim, you speak good “Normanese”!
But, your English appears to be lacking: “Im talking about here on this planet. You keep rambling off into space.”
You might want to double-check what you are reading before commenting next time.
(How’s that “steel greenhouse” working out for you? Got any new converts yet?)
SO … do you think you DID interpret Norman properly about the hot plate?
There is NO way to “properly” interpret Norm. He’s on his own planet, with his own convoluted “language”.
(Any converts with your new representation of the deceptive “steel greenhouse”?)
So G, you can’t understand Norman when he makes a very simple, very clear comparison between two situations … and this is Normans’s fault?
Maybe I just don’t do well with pseudoscience, confusion, and deception.
But, I’ve never considered that a weakness….
g*e*r*a*n
It is as I suspected. Your ideas are not your own. You blindly follow one person Joseph Postma and whatever he says must be reality.
He is a Cult leader of a bunch of semi-literate people, who maybe had some high school science, and he can lead you to believe anything and you do. Follow the Leader g*e*r*a*n. Postma is not as smart as you think he is and his physics is very flawed.
Here is a sample from you a while back.
YOU ON POSTMA BLOG. Say the same things then as you do now. Evidence of cult mind programming. No free or original thoughts. Mindless repetition. No science, even back then.
“g*e*r*a*n says:
2015/05/06 at 6:01 PM
Mark, Dr. Spencer has indicated several times that using a hand-held IR thermometer to read sky temperatures is proof of the GHE. His thinking (and admittedly I dont know what he is thinking, but I am interpreting from what he has written) is that since the thermometer works off incoming IR, that proves IR is returning to Earths surface, from the atmosphere. And since, to him, IR means heat, he translates that as the atmosphere is heating the Earth (the GHE).
Joseph explained the physics, but let me try an example. If you read the temperature of deep blue sky with an IR gun, you usually get a temp between -60 and -20 F (-51 and -29 C). A modern freezer can easily chill ice to about 0 F (-18 C). So, if deep blue sky can warm a warmer Earth, an ice cube should be able do even more. Ice is actually a very good emitter, so going directly to the S-B equation, one square meter of 0 F ice would be emitting about 340 Watts.
So, the joke for Lukewarmers is Why bake food in an oven when you can bake in your freezer?
And, of course, if 340 Watts is not hot enough, just add more ice”
Norm follows me around like a “groupie”!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Not really. You just sound a lot like Postma in your posts.
I do not believe you are able to generate your own thoughts and you do sound very cult minded so I was just verifying this possibility and it was confirmed by looking at Joseph Postma blog and seeing your posts there saying the same thing years ago as you say today. Cult programmed mind.
I just want to know if you are a moron with no hope of understanding or learning anything new and just taunting anyone who dares upset your small world thought process, or just a cult programmed individual who still possess and intellect but had it twisted by the strong personality of Postma.
If the latter is the case there is hope you may break free and read a textbook and see Postma is an cult leader who just wants followers but has no desire to teach correct physics.
I think you learned 90% of your understanding of radiation physics from his blog and Claes Johnson. That is why you are terrified to read the textbook links I post for you and then consider it a ramble. It protects your false and untrue belief system. If you read the textbook your world-view is shattered and you leader (Postma) is exposed for the fraud he is!
Norm, you mentioned Postma in every single rambling paragraph.
I’m jealous!
g*e*r*a*n
You shouldn’t be jealous. He is the source of your current understanding of radiative energy transfer. You shun the textbooks but accept his version of reality.
No need to feel left out by my post, you and him are interchangeable in thought processes, the only thing is he is the source and you are the sponge.
Norm, your ramblings are getting shorter!
Now, if you can learn to write something intelligent.
Massimo PORZIO
I was reading some material from you link about the Consulting Geologist.
I have some thoughts for you and wonder how you might understand them.
If you take a hot plate out the freezer (turned off, no power supply) its surface is much colder than the ambient room temperature.
The hot plate surface is radiating away energy but much less than it is absorbing from the surroundings so it starts to warm up. Are the room walls a heat source?
At some point the hot plate surface will reach the room temperature and be radiating energy at the same rate it is absorbing energy from the surroundings and will be at an equilibrium temperature.
Now if you turn the hot plate on and supply power it will warm up more than the room temperature and radiate away more energy.
In the earlier case you could clearly determine the hot plate (cold) was absorbing energy from its surroundings and warming.
So once you add power to the hot plate does that mean it no longer can absorb the energy of the surroundings even though it had been continuously doing just that?
If you read Claes Johnson he is making just that claim but it is based upon nothing logical and many believe it.
Based upon that you can set up a GHE test. You need to have a surrounding environment that will add 340 Watts to your hot plate surface continously. Then you have a power supply that adds 163 Watts. You have some water dropping on the surface to remove 86 watts by evaporation and you allow convection to remove 18 watts.
Now you can see if the GHE works. The final step would be to remove or super cool the surrounding flux so it goes from 340 to a much smaller value and see how that effects your setup.
Thanks for listening. I like to share ideas and you seem thoughtful. Other skeptics, not so much!
Norman…”If you read Claes Johnson he is making just that claim but it is based upon nothing logical and many believe it”.
Claes Johnson is a mathematician who is well educated in the laws of radiation and electromagnetic energy. The difference is that you don’t know what he’s talking about because your understanding of radiation and heating is lacking.
Norman…you are far too focused on the radiation of IR to understand heat transfer. You continually mix the two up, IR and heat. You have a notion firmly implanted in your mind that two-way radiation between bodies has to heat both bodies to an extent.
You need to go deeper, to the atomic level, to see how heat is absorbed and emitted by materials and how it is related to electrons in atoms.
Forget about radiation for a bit and look into thermal energy transfer in solids. Radiation theory does not apply there but the 2nd law does.
In solids, there is no net energy transfer there is only a uni-directional transfer of energy down a metal rod heated at one end, for example. There’s no reason why such heat transfer should be any different via radiation.
Norman…sorry I messed up.
I said, “You need to go deeper, to the atomic level, to see how heat is absorbed and emitted by materials and how it is related to electrons in atoms”.
I should have said, “You need to go deeper, to the atomic level, to see how infrared energy is absorbed and emitted by materials and how it is related to electrons in atoms”.
Roy is censoring again…. Tsk tsk.
(Trying yet again)
Yes; for CO2, it’s determined by infrared ab.sor.ptio.ns and emissions from the rotational and vibrational quantum levels of the CO2 molecule.
Maybe Gordon can learn a bit afterall…..
Gordon Robertson
I disagree with you on Claes Johnson. I do not believe he is well educated in the laws of EMR. I thing he read some material on it and made wrong conclusions and acts like an expert.
I have gone to his webpage and read the comments and some educated scientist that comments completely disagrees with his conclusions and offers evidence with different links.
In the link i posted above they clearly state (an if Claes was an expert he would know this.
From Link:
“At room temperature, the majority of molecules are in the ground state v = 0, from the equation above”
Link again so you can see for yourself:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy/Infrared%3A_Theory
It takes a considerable amount of temperature to start getting all molecules to excited states and on Earth they aren’t even close.
Gordon Robertson
I was discussing this with Massimo but the language barrier does not help.
If you put a hot plate in a freezer (off status). The surface is much cooler than the surrounding ambient temperature when you bring it out.
You can know it is absorbing energy from the surroundings since its temperature is going up (from conduction and IR from all the radiating objects). The molecules are almost all at ground zero so it has many available molecules that are free to absorb all incoming energy. All this is already known with emissivity (with equal types of wavelength the emissivity and absorbitivity are very close) tables. Most surfaces reject some radiation and absorb the rest based upon the molecules that make the surface up.
http://www.thermoworks.com/learning/emissivity_table
So once the hot plate surface reaches equilibrium it is emitting and absorbing the same amount of energy. No NET energy flow.
Now if you add energy to the plate the temperature goes above the surrounding temp. Why do you think it will stop absorbing the same amount of energy from the environment it had been before it was heated?
Norman, there is a difference between gas molecules and solids for IR & vibrations.
Individual molecules gas molecules like CO2 and H2O would indeed mostly be in the ground state. The link is saying that “At room temperature, the majority of [individual gas] molecules are in the ground state v = 0”
Solids are different. With a huge number of atoms hooked together, they have vastly more ways to vibrate, including vibrations with lower quantized energy steps.
Your statement “The molecules are almost all at ground zero so it has many available molecules that are free to absorb all incoming energy.” is misleading. First, the atoms in the solid metal are almost certainly already vibrating. Furthermore, (for either solids or individual molecules), there is no requirement to be in the ground state to absorb energy. Using the notation from the link, a molecule in the ground state, v=0, can absorb energy and get kicked up to the next state, v=1. But a molecule @ v=1 can absorb energy and go to v=2; a molecule @ v=4 can go to v= 5, etc.
Tim Folkerts
I thank you for your response. I think you might be the most knowledgeable poster on this blog (didn’t you mention you had a PHD in physics and have studied thermodynamics at the University level).
Curtis was also very knowledgeable but he no longer posts comments here.
What I am trying to determine is at what point would Claes Johnson hypothesis become a reality. I do not think it is close to a reality at Earth system temperatures. I believe they do emissivity and absorbitivity tables for various temperatures but I have not found them yet. This would show at what temperature a surface would start rejecting incoming radiant energy because most the energy levels are filled and not dropping down fast enough to be able to absorb new incoming energy and then it would just be reflected.
I think the surface has enough available open energy states that it will absorb nearly all the downwelling IR (at least to the upper 90% range).
Therefore the downwelling flux from the atmosphere will add energy to the surface as an independent process of the energy the surface is losing based upon the emission rate. I know Kristian does not agree with this view but it is textbook supported. The time it would no longer be valid is when the surface would reach a temperature where most the surface molecular bonds are already in excited states and cannot absorb an incoming photon.
If you know what this transition temperature is that would be helpful in my continuation of learning the topic (as extensive as it is with Climate Science)
Thanks.
Norm postulates: “I think the surface has enough available open energy states that it will absorb nearly all the downwelling IR…”
TRANSLATON: Norm has already formed his opinion.
Norm begs Tim: “If you know what this transition temperature is that would be helpful in my continuation of learning the topic…”
TRANSLATION: Norm needs some pseudoscience to support his pre-formed opinion.
Hilarious.
I have not looked too closely at Johnson’s work. Near as I have figured out, he seems to be saying quantum mechanics is wrong and should be replaced with his “finite precision computation”. I get suspicious any time someone whats to just throw out major chunks of textbook physics.
From the prefeace to his relavant book: (http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf)
“The basic idea is to use a classical deterministic continuum wave mechanics combined with a new feature of finite precision computation, which Nature is supposed to use in analog form and which can be modeled by a computer in digital form. This leads to a form of computational blackbody radiation with close connections to the computational thermodynamics and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics developed in the book Computational Thermodynamics.
Tim worries: I get suspicious any time someone whats to just throw out major chunks of textbook physics.
Yes Tim, you need to be very wary. There are folks using models, of the Earth, that end up in runaway conditions. Steer clear of such nonsense also.
Tim Folkerts
If you are still going back to this. I looked at some of the material in your Claes Johnson link and this is a comment he made in his work.
“Stefan-Boltzmanns Law (14.3) thus requires T2 > T1 and does not contain
two-way opposing heat transfer, only one-way heat transfer from warm to
cold. Unfortunately the misinterpretation has led to a ficititious non-physical
backradiation underlying CO2 global warming alarmism.”
This is where I think Ball4 is correct. There are not two heat flows. But there are two energy flows. They can be derived from instrumentation and seem to exist in reality. Sensors pointing to Earth read different energy than those pointing to the sky above.
But when he claims backradiation (emission from GHG that are moving toward the Earth’s surface) is fictitious and non-physical what does he believe the sensors are detecting? It is an empirical reality.
“But when he claims backradiation (emission from GHG that are moving toward the Earths surface) is fictitious and non-physical what does he believe the sensors are detecting? It is an empirical reality.
If you want to take a “uni-directional flow model”, then the interpretation is that the sensor detects the net one-directional flow, ie the heat in or out (relative to the temperature of the sensor). So if the sensor is at 20C and the net heat flow is zero, then the meter will report an incoming flux from a 20C source. (the bidirectional model would say there is a known flux out from the 20C instrument, so there must be an equal incoming flux.)
Hi Tim,
very nice explanation.
For what it’s worth, I couldn’t write it better.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Tim, Massimo, nature doesn’t have two modes of operation to choose from, there is only one with incoherent non-interacting photon flux in both directions. Only humans have invented the heat term for nature’s avg. KE of an object’s constituent particles. The net photon flux being the one that naturally increases universe entropy. Nature does not know that heat exists as a human invention.
Whenever heat term is used in comments it immediately identifies a human construct not nature’s. Some humans do use heat in concert with nature but when mistakes are made those humans that make those mistakes will become immediately incoherent just like photons (or EMR if you will).
Hi Ball4,
I agree of course, but think a little about this:
nature doesn’t have photons too, we (humans) invented that item called photon for our own usefulness.
I’m an electronic engineer, in the last 30 years my task has been and it is “train” electrons to do something, but I’m perfectly aware that electrons do not exist in nature, they are just a name given at hypothetical particles invented by we (humans), which behave so that our calculations are right.
If you think a little, under a philosophical point of view everything could be just how we feel it, not how it is indeed.
Don’t you agree?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Experiments do not agree Massimo, those experiments show photons exist and electrons exist in nature. Those experiments show electrons interact with each other, incoherent photons do not interact with each other.
No experiment has ever shown heat exists in nature. The KE of an object’s constituent particles exists in nature as shown by experiment; all objects radiate EM energy (photons!) at all frequencies as experiments have shown.
Sure, in different languages photons and electrons have different naming conventions, doesn’t change their nature.
Hi Ball4,
I don’t agree with you this time.
Electrons exist in our scientific culture just because we can see their effects on matter and we decided that that must be its behavior, but no one ever seen an electron indeed it could not exist at all. But that it doesn’t matter until whatever it is indeed, it behaves as we predict.
The same is valid for photons and anything “discovered” (or invente) by the human kind, what it matter is that its behaviour can be predicted and reproduced or not.
So if me and Tim and any other want call the way energy propagate in matter “heat” we can do it until we establish that “heat” does exactly what is supposed it must do by the law of physic.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, I have experiments that demonstrate entities such as electrons, photons exist while you have no experiment that shows an entity called heat exists and is NOT simply a myth.
Though, yes, as long as you use heat term synonymous with time tested Clausius 1st memoir p. 18 defn. as a measurement of the observed, experimentally shown avg. KE in the motion of an object’s constituent particles then your physics discussions and reasoned predictions will be soundly based on long held experimentally determined principles.
Hi Ball4,
maybe I’ve been not clear, I’m not saying you are wrong considering heat nonexistent. I’m just claiming that everything we are discussing here is a human construct.
You wrote: “I have experiments that demonstrate entities such as electrons, photons exist”
I don’t believe this, and since I don’t want believe but verify what you asserts, you should give me a reference for this.
Until now, I guess that you should have just experiments that show us effects that we (humans) attribute to subatomic particles that we called electrons and photons, nothing more. If they really exist or not it is just a philosophical issue.
Of course you are free to consider heat nonexistent, and construct a parallel theory of kinetic energy movement in matter without using the word heat. What it matters it is that the results comply with observations.
As always said I’m just an electronic engineer, so I could miss something about this.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Philosophical: relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
Electrons, photons are well within physicists experimentally determined knowledge of fundamental nature, reality and existence.
While getting a bit out of date, the ref. I suggest is anything by the late Dr. Feynman where he succeeds to bridge common, everyday speech with that of those physicists.
Hi Ball4,
it’s evident to me that we have some semantic issue each other, maybe because of our different native language.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Norman,
I hope to don’t delude you since I’m just an electronic engineer, so I could not be the most entitled for answer your question.
Anyways, I’m not sure what is your point (it’s my fault I know, my English is not so good), but I try for what I understood.
“The hot plate surface is radiating away energy but much less than it is absorbing from the surroundings so it starts to warm up. Are the room walls a heat source?”
No, the source of heat could be an heater in the room or the sunshine incoming from the windows, the walls are always matter which abs-orbs energy from the environment and emits energy back to it. Anyways, I add that all the air in the room interacts with your freezer hot plate (Do you note how it’s usually made? It’s to exchange better the heat with the air of the room, not only the radiation with the walls). IMHO radiation is the way energy (or heat, I know that Gordon is dissenting about that, but I’m on this side) flows through the interstitial spaces between matter while heat is the way the energy moves into the matter.
“At some point the hot plate surface will reach the room temperature and be radiating energy at the same rate it is absorbing energy from the surroundings and will be at an equilibrium temperature.”
Right, but I add: also exchanging heat by conduction or convection with the surrounding air. Convection only on transitory temperature changes of the environment. This is important because some people here believes that the equilibrium state is absolute, but it’s not in my opinion: the exchange of energy with net zero result is continuous even at equilibrium.
“Now if you turn the hot plate on and supply power it will warm up more than the room temperature and radiate away more energy.”
Right.
“In the earlier case you could clearly determine the hot plate (cold) was absorbing energy from its surroundings and warming.”
Ok.
“So once you add power to the hot plate does that mean it no longer can absorb the energy of the surroundings even though it had been continuously doing just that?”
Here I’m not sure what you mean, it still exchange energy (by radiation, conduction, convection etc…) with environment of course, and the process includes both ways exchange, the only difference is that the system will never reach an equilibrium, your freezer plate will be always warmer because of the incoming energy source (that’s a true heat source, which is supposed infinite).
“If you read Claes Johnson he is making just that claim but it is based upon nothing logical and many believe it.”
I read him, but I can’t tell you if he is right or wrong, that’s a theory not different from the GHGe, after theorized it must be proven in the reality. If I look at how a solar panel works converting the sun to electron charges, I surely tell you that he is right, but considering that a solar panel loses efficiency when is unconnected to a load just heating up, I suggest that he is wrong.
“Based upon that you can set up a GHE test. You need to have a surrounding environment that will add 340 Watts to your hot plate surface continuously. Then you have a power supply that adds 163 Watts. You have some water dropping on the surface to remove 86 watts by evaporation and you allow convection to remove 18 watts.”
This is cryptic to me, I’m not sure what you mean at all.
Radiation per se is not GHGe, are you arguing it is that?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo observes: “Anyways, Im not sure what is your point…”
Hey Massimo, most of the time Norm is not sure what his point is. He just likes to ramble, often incoherently.
Hi g*e*r*a*n*,
As a personal norm I consider anyone who write here a friend and I don’t really like take the position of one against the other just for sympathy, I take a position in case I share the same point of view on a specific argument instead.
I don’t really understand why you Norman, Mike Flynn and some other here don’t take this blog in a easier way.
I don’t know personally Norman, but I think he is really looking for the truth about this argument (which I’m absolutely sure is everything but not settled).
Anybody should keep calm, because luckily this isn’t a question of live or die.
Have a great day.
Massimo
People get mad when their belief systems are attacked. I attack false belief systems. They can’t defend their belief systems, so they lash out.
They don’t realize that I view their insults as indicators of my success.
g*e*r*a*n
I can’t speak for other people you annoy, I can speak for myself.
It is not your challenge of a “belief system” that provokes insults from me. It is your taunting and bad mouthing that draws insults, retaliation against unprovoked taunting from you and the dishonest twisting and distorting of the material I post. A liar and dishonest person is open to insult.
Also calling you a troll is not an insult but a factual statement. I is a description of your internet behavior.
You also consider textbook material to be a belief system and don’t equate it with valid science. So who suffers from delusion. I have posted links to textbooks and guided you to the material I am presenting. You do not explain how I got the material wrong, you just declare I did. This is a troll behavior which is annoying. If you explain why I am wrong that is valuable. I am still learning daily. I reject the likes of Claes Johnson or your hero Joseph Postma. I read them in the past and the way they present the material it seems valid until you start reading a textbook. They are just flat out wrong in their understanding and are more like Cult leaders who twist the truth just enough that people like you, with limited science and no desire to open a textbook and reading it, will think that their view is the correct one and all the scientists are wrong.
It satisfies your lazy and unmotivated researching abilities that you now know the “truth” and everyone else is stupid but you.
Those men got to you and now you are into their cult and cannot get free of the grip they have over you mind. They control your thought process primarily because you are very lazy and do not have enough drive to look at textbooks and read them.
Yes I know you will see this as a hilarious ramble. Let me see if my prediction of your behavior is correct.
Norm, seriously, consider getting help. You are obsessed with yourself.
g*e*r*a*n
Thanks for the unexpected response. Still a taunt (suggesting Ihave mental health issues that require help) but no hilarious. Good job on trying to be a little original and unpredictable.
http://www.psychguides.com/guides/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-treatment-program-options/
g*e*r*a*n
Looks like you did a good self diagnosis of yourself. Stop bringing me up in your posts and stop responding to my posts to other bloggers and you will see how much interest I have in any on your opinions or posts.
Thanks in advance for not responding to any of my posts. Or bringing me up as you did in my post above directed at Tim Folkerts. I was seeking information from him and you had some twisted need to interject your troll post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246117
After removing all El Nino months from the data, here is the ranking of each of the last 6 months in the UAH data:
November …. FIRST out of 26
December …. 3rd out of 26
January …. 2nd out of 26
February …. FIRST out of 27
March …. 5th out of 30
April …. FIRST out of 30
No sign of a cooling trend there.
For newest news you have to go to see internet and on the web I found this web page
as a best website for newest updates.
That is a very good tip particularly to those new to
the blogosphere. Short but very accurate info_ Thank you for sharing this one.
A must read article!
This piece of writing will help the internet people for building up new weblog
or even a blog from start to end.
We’re a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community.
Your web site offered us with useful info to work on. You
have done an impressive task and our entire group can be
thankful to you.