The Red Team approach has been used for many years in private industry, DoD, and the intelligence community to examine very costly decisions and programs in a purposely adversarial way…to ask, what if we are wrong about a certain program or policy change? What might the unintended consequences be?
In such a discussion we must make sure that we do not conflate the consensus on a scientific theory with the need to change energy policy, as is often done. (Just because we know that car wrecks in the U.S. cause 40,000 deaths a year doesn’t mean we should outlaw cars; and I doubt human-caused climate change has ever killed anyone).
While science can help guide policy, it certainly does not dictate it.
In the case of global warming and the role of our carbon dioxide emissions, the debate has too long been dominated by a myopic view that asserts the following 5 general points as indisputable. I have ordered them generally from scientific to economic.
1) global warming is occurring, will continue to occur, and will have dangerous consequences
2) the warming is mostly, if not totally, caused by our CO2 emissions
3) there are no benefits to our CO2 emissions, either direct (biological) or indirect (economic)
4) we can reduce our CO2 emissions to a level that we avoid a substantial amount of the expected damage
5) the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is low enough to make it worthwhile (e.g. mandating much more wind, solar, etc.)
ALL of these 5 points must be essentially true for things like the Paris Agreement (which President Trump has now withdrawn us from…for the time being) to make much sense.
But I would argue that each of the five points can be challenged, and not just with “fake science”. There is peer-reviewed and published analysis in science and economics that would allow one to contest each one of the five claims.
The Red Team Approach: It’s NOT a Redo of the Blue Team
John Christy and I are concerned that the Red Team approach, if applied to global warming, will simply be a review of the U.N. IPCC science on global warming. We are worried that it will only address the first two points (warming will continue, and it is mostly caused by CO2). Heck, even *I* believe we will continue to see modest warming, and that it might well be at least 50% due to CO2.
But a Red Team reaffirming those points does NOT mean we should “do something” about global warming.
To fully address whether we should, say, have regulations to reduce CO2 emissions, the Red Team must address all 5 of the “consensus” claims listed above, because that is the only way to determine if we should change energy policy in a direction different from that which the free market would carry it naturally.
The Red Team MUST address the benefits of more CO2 to global agriculture, “global greening” etc.
The Red Team MUST address whether forced reductions in CO2 emissions will cause even a measurable effect on global temperatures.
The Red Team MUST address whether the reduction in prosperity and increase in energy poverty are permissible consequences of forced emissions reductions to achieve (potentially unmeasurable) results.
The membership of the Red Team will basically determine the Team’s conclusions. It must be made up of adversaries to the Blue Team “consensus”, which has basically been the U.N. IPCC. If it is not adversarial in membership and in mission, it will not be a real Red Team.
As a result, the Red Team must not be allowed to be controlled by the usual IPCC-affiliated participants.
Only then can its report can be considered to be an independent, adversarial analysis to be considered along with the IPCC report (and other non-IPCC reports) to help guide U.S. energy policy.
Well the problem for them is global warming is now in the process of ending.
Salvatore…”Well the problem for them is global warming is now in the process of ending”.
Hope you’re right, all the signs are there.
The astronomer, Syun Akasofu, who I told you pioneered studies in the solar wind, has put forward a natural theory for the warming based on the Little Ice Age. He claims it was significantly cooler during the LIA (some claim 1C to 2C cooler) the second phase of which was going on when the IPCC started measuring atmospheric CO2 based on proxy ice core studies.
Akasofu claims the IPCC erred by not recognizing this significant cooling in their claims of anthropogenic causes. He thinks the 1 C warming claimed by the IPCC since the pre Industrial Era, right in the middle of phase 2 of the LIA, should have including natural re-warming at the rate of 0.5C per century.
If Akasofu is right, the rewarming phase has ended, or is nearing the end, and that is evidenced by the flat trend since 1998. I just hope the cooling you predict does not turn out to be another LIA.
Stop dreaming.
Roy
‘The membership of the Red Team will basically determine the Teams conclusions. It must be made up of adversaries to the Blue Team consensus, which has basically been the U.N. IPCC. If it is not adversarial in membership and in mission, it will not be a real Red Team.’
Sounds like you’ve decided what the conclusions should be. Hardly seems worth organizing such a team, to find the answers to your questions, if you know what the answers will be.
Also if you select only members who are ALREADY adversarial to Paris accord (the 3% ?), then you’re going to get a highly political, propaganda document, aligned with the FF-industry agenda.
Is that what we the people should want from our govt?
That’s what they’ve gotten for two decades.
Laura,
How so?
“Highly political, propaganda document”
We already have that in the IPCC reports. What we need is a fresh start, looking at the science, economics and finally social impacts of the global warming fraud from fresh eyes. That is what is needed to counteract an entire generation of global warming propaganda.
Remember, the blue team has already had at least 100 $B of funding to put their case. It is time the red team got some of that funding.
‘What we need is a fresh start, looking at the science, economics and finally social impacts of the global warming fraud from fresh eyes. ‘
That would indeed be good. But that is not what Roy is proposing with his Red Team of people who are already ‘adversarial’ to one side, and aligned with the other.
He would like our govt to develop propaganda that is aligned with a narrow set of corporate interests. Already this is occurring. Pretty much what an oligarchy does. That what you would like?
The IPCC, was open to contributions from contrarians such as Roy, John Christy, etc.
Contrarian views had input, but they happen to have been in the minority, in both the IPCC, and the larger scientific community. Oh well, so sorry. The IPCC was not setup to be a BlUE TEAM. Calling it one after the fact is just sour grapes.
They now want to form a RED team of just minority viewpoints and give it an equally large megaphone as the IPCC. Good luck.
@Nate: Your assertions are specious at best. Refer to Wikipedia’s entry for IPCC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Origins_and_aims
What am i supposed to see there?
Here John Christy discusses his Nobel for his contribution to IPCC report.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119387567378878423
nate…”The IPCC, was open to contributions from contrarians such as Roy, John Christy, etc. ”
The IPCC blasted a full page ‘add’ for the hockey stick and on the opposite page had a tiny UAH satellite data graph.
The IPCC has never been open to anything objective. Read the comments of original co-chair John Houghton. About as narrow minded as you can get.
That is the whole point of a red team exercise, Nate 8-|.
I cant read the wsj piece on this, so not clear how it is proposed to apply to agw.
In the usual use, it is intended to enhance an organization’s ability to deal with threats.
By bringing out adversarial positions that have been suppressed by groupthink, and forcing the herd consensus to acknowledge and confront them.
I think science already rewards novel findings, that may disagree with previous results. It is self correcting.
You think wrong, and no it isn’t.
Examples?
If you think the academic world rewards people who simply reproduce others results, then you clearly have no knowledge or experience of that world. I do.
Promotions in the academic world are based on demonstrating innovation, or pioneering a new direction that is influential.
Alfred Wegener died long before Continental Drift became generally accepted. Wegener was ostracized and lost several teaching appointments because of his unconventional theory. Posthumous encomiums are hardly a reward. Here are some others.
It is meaningless to say something is “self-correcting”. It can be self-correcting, but so slowly that it hardly makes any practical difference. Or, we may know a few instances of self-correction, but lacking omniscience, we cannot extrapolate those specific instances to a general rule.
Can I give you an example of something that is wrong today and has not yet been corrected? Well, obviously, that is rather an epistemological conundrum. How can we know it is wrong if we do not yet know it is wrong?
However, given that things like Continental Drift and the cause of gastric ulcers were uncorrected for many decades, we can extrapolate that there are almost surely other items taken for granted today which will eventually be found to be wrong. Here are some recently debunked items, and some of it has been re-bunked just since the article was written!
AGW is an item many currently take for granted, but the handwriting is pretty much on the wall for anyone who actually looks at the data than thinks!
Continental drift was an idea that was debated for several decades, without conclusive evidence available, one way or the other. That evidence came in the 1960s. Then a consensus quickly formed.
Were there holdouts? Contrarions who didnt accept the evidence supporting continental drift. Sure. Remind me of agw contrarions.
Thats an example of how its supposed to work.
Most of the debunked items are either plain dumb, or anthrpolgical notions based on very limited data.
I have long felt that the human family tree, derived from a few pieces of skulls, was not much better than guesswork.
“Can I give you an example of something that is wrong today and has not yet been corrected? Well, obviously, that is rather an epistemological conundrum. How can we know it is wrong if we do not yet know it is wrong?”
Cuba is wrong. Slavery is wrong [cf: Cuba].
Islam is wrong. The current Pope is wrong.
The +20 trillion debt is wrong [cf: slavery and Cuba].
Politicians are wrong.
TV sportscasting is wrong [cf: drooling idiots].
News is wrong. Actors tend to suck.
Hollywood is wrong.
Marxism is wrong. Lefties are still the useful idiots.
The UN is wrong. EU is wrong. Russia is wrong.
Adding stupid flavors to coffee, is wrong.
The idea that Men and Women are the same, is wrong.
Murderers are wrong. Criminals are wrong. Rapist are
wrong. Women falsely claiming to have been raped are wrong.
And the hypothesis of the Greenhouse Effect is wrong.
All pseudo science is wrong- a very long list [and including above mentioned Marxism and all the numerous and popular health fads].
And that absolute power, corrupts absolutely is still correct.
And God exists is still a correct assumption- and this partial list above could considered as some proof confirming such assumption [or I guess, a faith in God].
I got lost in all the people who are wrong, and missed the point.
For 34 years, establishment science believed there were 24 pairs of chromosomes. Why? Because an ‘expert” believed it. Even studies that counted accurately revised their number to conform with Painter. Sound familiar?
“Painter is also known for his early study of human chromosomes. In 1921 he first gave the number 24 for the count of human meiotic chromosomes. He had tried to count the tangled mass of chromosomes he could see under a microscope in spermatocytes in slices of testicle and arrived at the figure of 24. Others later repeated his experiment in other ways and agreed upon the number of 24. Popular thinking held that if there were 24 chromosomes in spermatocytes, there must be an equal number contributed by the female and the human chromosome number must be 48, which was undisputed for more than 30 years.[2] Then in 1955, Joe Hin Tjio, using more advanced techniques, looked at the chromosomes in human somatic cells and found 46 chromosomes. Together with Albert Levan, Tjio published his finding in early 1956, and the human chromosome number was finally revised.
In 1934 Painter was awarded the Daniel Giraud Elliot Medal from the National Academy of Sciences.[3]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_Painter
“Contrarions who didnt accept the evidence supporting continental drift. Sure. Remind me of agw contrarions.”
Reminds me of AGW religious devotees, who refuse to accept the evidence of the “pause”, and keep coming up with increasingly epicyclic hypotheses to explain away inconvenient facts.
But, you miss the point. Wegener first brought up the concept in 1912. It took over 4 decades for it to become generally accepted, and that only because new data became available. If that data had not become available, what then? No correction.
Wegener died before then, and so was not rewarded, indeed was penalized heavily. And, it was not self-correcting in the sense that detractors saw the light when new evidence became available. Old guard critics like Franz Kossmat simply died, and science, as Max Planck was wont to say, proceeded one funeral at a time.
‘Wegener first brought up the concept in 1912. It took over 4 decades for it to become generally accepted, and that only because new data became available. If that data had not become available, what then? No correction.’
Exactly. This illustrates well that without the evidence, the scientific approach cannot reach a conclusion.
Same with photons, proposed by Einstein in 1905. Not generally believed, until Compton found his effect in 1922. Acceptance had to wait.
“I got lost in all the people who are wrong, and missed the point.”
That was the point.
Or it’s not a epistemological conundrum, to determine what is wrong, unless you imagine there is some totalitarian type solution to what is wrong- then you would be wrong.
Bart says:
“Reminds me of AGW religious devotees, who refuse to accept the evidence of the pause,”
Better and deeper analysis showed there was no pause (Karl et al, Science 2015). Changes in ocean heat content confirmed that.
See what I mean? Religion is impervious to evidence. If the data don’t fit the hypothesis, they just change the data.
“The 3%”…HILARIOUS!!!
Shouldn’t the members of a Red Team have at least the same or more expertise in the science as the Blue team? That rules out all of the so-called ‘skeptics.
Salvatore has long claimed warming has stopped, and has been wrong each and every time.
“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
OMG, you have qualified as a true denier. Allow me to join you in your assertion. I’m looking forward to Maunder minimum II.
Not even another Maunder-like Minimum can stop AGW. This exact question was studied a few years ago by Feulner and Rahmstorf (GRL 2009), Song et al (GRL 2010) and Jones et al (JGR 2012), and it was found that anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming easily swamps any cooling from a Maunder Minimum-like sun. Cooling by 2100 would only be, at most, 0.3 C below IPCC projections. We will not be entering another Little Ice Age.
“On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth,” G. Fuelner and S. Rahmstorf, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L05707 2010.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
“Increased greenhouse gases enhance regional climate response to a
Maunder Minimum,” Song et al, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L01703 (2010)
http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/~zhang/PDFs/Song_et_al-2010.pdf
“What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?” Gareth S. Jones, et al, JGR v 117, D05103 (2012) doi:10.1029/2011JD017013, 2012.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
Unfortunately, where does society go to find a bona fide independent group to sponsor Red Team? Virtually every governmental body is tainted with the bias of UN-IPCC. This will end up like the current USA political “resistance” wherein the Blue Team folk will simply cast aspersions and obstacles to block the whole process moving forward.
Rhee…”This will end up like the current USA political resistance wherein the Blue Team folk will simply cast aspersions and obstacles to block the whole process moving forward”.
I am looking forward to see how the US electorate reacts to such tactics by the Democrats. I think Trump will find a way to turn this ‘resistance’ to his advantage. The Democrats and their sympathizers are essentially holding up the US government from getting on with business.
This resistance is based on the false and superficial ideals of political correctness. Here in Canada, we had multiculturalism imposed on us without consultation. No one asked Canadians what kind of country we wanted in the future, they simply opened the floodgates to immigration.
We are seeing the result of similar policies in Europe and some Europeans are getting pretty hot about it. The same people who imposed this ideology on us are behind the resistance to which you refer.
You have it exactly right IMHO.
A larger mistake than failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is the potential tragedy of failing to realize what actually does. The still-rising water vapor is rising about three times as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback).
The warmer temperature is welcome but the added WV increases the risk of precipitation caused flooding. IMO all rainwater retaining systems (dams, dikes, etc.) should be upgraded from design for 100 yr floods to design for 10,000 yr floods.
Dan Pangburn…”The still-rising water vapor is rising about three times as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback)”.
That feedback is a creation of climate modelers and does not exist in the real world. Why should WV be increasing from water temperature when there was no global warming from 1998 – 2015? The 2016 EN warming should not be included till we see where it is going.
Is that where you are getting your WV trebling, from the 2016 EN?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why should WV be increasing from water temperature when there was no global warming from 1998 2015”
Yet again you lie.
The world is greening. Hurricanes are becoming less frequent. The idea that a rising temperature – or a rising CO2 – is harmful should be challenged.
Nonono, the world is dangerously and unprecentedly greening.
You missed the question of CO2 reduction being the optimal adaptation choice. we all know it is cheaper to build a taller seawall than any alternative.
Don
A taller sea wall is not always a solution.
The tidal flooding which has affected Miami and southern Florida in recent years would not be stopped by a sea wall. The whole area sits on porous limestone and the seawater finds its way into low lying areas through cracks in the rock below ground.
Just let the property drown if nothing can be done. Just provide realistic information on when it will happen, yes?
They could remodel Miami to make it “The Venice of the West.”
Property prices are still holding up well in Venice.
..and don’t forget Holland: The Dutch have been creating new land from the sea for a very long time.
If the “property drowns,” it will be taxpayers making those property owners whole. That could cost trillions of dollars….
Which is what you propose doing to avoid your perceived threat. Who will be harmed: the poor. Certainly not the rich who live by the sea and have their costs of living there subsidized by those who live inland.
It’s mostly the rich who live right along the coasts.
But, yes, some very poor people will also be required to move — there have been stories recently about this happening in Louisiana, and an Maryland island in Chesapeake Bay.
Of course, the poor don’t have lawyers like the rich do, or the rich’s political connections. They’ll just get screwed, like the poor in Bangladesh, S Pacific islands, and elsewhere will be screwed.
Don,
Check PSMSL.org for world-wide tide gauge data including Miami Beach. Sea level at the beach has been increasing at about 1 or 2 mm/year for the past 100 years (about 4-8 inches total). There is no sign I can see of a change in the rising trend – no inflection whatever. I do not doubt that the 4 to 8 inch rise is causing Miami some problems and another 50 or 100 years will add another 4 to 8 inches compounding those problems. But the rise appears unrelated to CO2 since there is no inflection.
It’s also sinking ~9X faster than sealevel rise has likely increased.
Says who?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiTsue-qcXUAhWL24MKHdWqBDoQFggiMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ces.fau.edu%2Farctic-florida%2Fpdfs%2Ffiaschi-wdowinski.pdf&usg=AFQjCNErbIy5L3qNJZt_AxSMvpJREHH73A
Subsidence 3mm. GW contribution to SLR is probably 0-1mm. Circulation variance roughly 9mm the past decade.
Ok, 9X is hyperbole. 2-3 is probably more fair.
Probably confused the 9mm circulation change vs roughly 1mm GW SLR increase with subsidence.
“Ok, 9X is hyperbole.”
Caught you in a lie.
“2-3 is probably more fair.”
Where exactly on that poster does it say that?
BR corner. 3mm/yr subsidence.
That was no lie, it was an honest mistake. Confused 9mm /yr total with subsidence. Most is from change in Atlantic circulation. GHW is probably about .8mm/yr global average, may be higher and add to variance in the region, but doubt much.
Miami subsidence has nothing to do with AGW.
There has already been a Red Team.
Richard Muller, Judith Curry and others from outside the usual climate science community set up BEST to provide an independent check on the temperature record. The Koch brothers helped finance it.
What happened? BEST found that the temperature record was reliable. All the climate sceptics who had been so keen on it dropped BEST like a hot brick.
The real problem with a Red team is that it is not necessary. Science itself is self correcting in this respect. The usual checks and balances act as a Red team would.
Genuine evidence falsifying climate change would make a big splash in the scientific literature and earn its authors a Nobel Prize.
In the end all BEST did was confirm that the various incarnations of the temperature record were very similar. BEST did not correct measurement error or stop misuse of temperature series. Additionally, Richard Muller went beyond the data and made public comments that implicitly endorsed the consensus view of CO2 as the causal agent of warming. So as a Red Team effort BEST was limited at the outset and ultimately co-opted by the Blue Team.
Red Teams have to be aggressive and energized. Think Stanley Cup Playoff teams in the final series. Any less and they will not achieve the goal of full and complete testing of the prevailing paradigm. Any less and they waste time and effort.
He endorsed the consensus because the log(CO2) correlation was “smack on” (at 1:06 here):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
More:
– We can rule out any other scientific theory (4:00).
– I wrote a book about the changes of the earths orbit (4:12).
– Something else that just happens to match […], are you serious (4:34)?
Correlation diagram (note the pause from 1998):
– http://berkeleyearth.org/volcanoes/
Entropic…”What happened? BEST found that the temperature record was reliable”.
I think you’d better read Judith Curry on that. She claims the results of BEST were Mueller’s invention and not what the team had derived. She has distanced herself from BEST.
Where is Curry’s peer reviewed journal paper specifying her technical problems with the BEST methodology?
Entropic Man,
You wrote –
“Genuine evidence falsifying climate change . . . “
Climate is the average of weather. It has always changed. Next thing somebody will be saying something silly about “preventing climate change”, or “stopping climate change “, or similar nonsense.
Seriously, what do you think would happen if the climate stopped changing?
What a pack of foolish Warmists – deny, divert, confuse. Anything to avoid admitting they’re talking absolute rubbish!
Cheers.
Who says climate has always changed????
Wow.
Who??? The very same scientists whose other work you so gleefully insult and denigrate?
How’s that “Earth heats the Sun” paper going, David?
Lindzen, Richard S.
Not Muller!
Lindzen, Lindzen, Richard S.
Not Muller!Richard S.
Not Muller!Lindzen, Richard S.
Not Muller!
Entropic man, You do not seem to understand what BEST did.
First, BEST did not do what they pledged that they would do.
Second, BEST accepted the adjustments made to actual temperatures. If you accept the adjustments, of course you will end up with what the others had. There was a profound lack of acceptance by independent scientists who understood what BEST did.
BEST did not accept adjustments from anybody else.
They applied a terrific statistical method that
could use very bad input to increase accuracy:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf
“The Koch brothers helped finance it.”
Now that is just an out and out lie.
The BEST web site lists “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)”.
Richard Muller says they did not try to influence the results,
and I believe him.
He also said fracking is necessary to curb CO2 emissions,
and I think he has a point there too, even if the Koch
brothers agrees.
Next time read the post before spouting ridiculous talking points.
Damn Jingoists.
‘Science itself is self correcting in this respect. The usual checks and balances act as a Red team would.
Genuine evidence falsifying climate change would make a big splash in the scientific literature and earn its authors a Nobel Prize.’
Absolutely.
Right. It would be the discovery of the century, one of the greatest finds in all of scientific history.
But it also won’t happen, because well-established scientific laws require AGW, and the evidence for it is very strong.
The REAL surprise would be if the planet WASN’T warming in recent decades.
“It would be the discovery of the century, one of the greatest finds in all of scientific history.”
Just like your wackadoodle earth heats sun theory.
Well, you obviously don’t have any such evidence, that’s clear.
But thanks for playing.
Nonsense. You do not know science at all. A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Scientific truths happen because they have better evidence. Regarding AGW denial, that is nowhere is sight. The determination of the cause of modern warming was accomplished long ago.
Perhaps you would like the quote in the original German:
“Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, da ihre Gegner berzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklren, sondern vielmehr dadurch, da ihre Gegner allmhlich aussterben und da die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.” – Max Planck
For a mathematician you know surprisingly little science.
Newer generations take up the better ideas that the older generations reject because they are old and/or stuck in their ways.
That’s what Schrodinger meant.
Well, apparently you agree with me now.
Except it was Planck, not Schrodinger.
Yes Bart, Max Plank describes the situation in climate science quite well.
“The Red Team MUST address whether the reduction in prosperity and increase in energy poverty are permissible consequences of forced emissions reductions to achieve (potentially unmeasurable) results.”
Sorry, this is a loaded question.
You need to firstly address the assumption that reductions lead to reduced prosperity and increased energy poverty. There is plenty of evidence that a switch to renewables has the opposite effect.
The issue then becomes one of short term pain (the cost of switching) versus long term gain.
Why is Dr. Spencer attached to a volatile commodity like oil? Is our dependence on fossil fuels somehow good for the economy?
Here’s part of an article from Deloitte Press (2016):
“History repeated itself when disruptions in Irans oil production during the Iranian revolution, followed by the Iraq-Iran war, caused oil prices to skyrocket in 197980. This time, in addition to a supply shock, increased inventory demand in anticipation of supply shortages and rising global demand contributed to the oil price rise. The price shocks had a substantial impact on US GDP, and the US economy went into a recession.
The timeline of the Soviet Union collapse can be traced to Saudi Arabia deciding to stop protecting oil prices and increasing production fourfold in 1985. The sudden fall in oil prices was one of the key factors that weakened economic fundamentals of the Soviet Union. The region lost approximately $20 billion per year due to lower revenues from oil exports, which resulted in huge government borrowing in the following years. By 1989, the Soviet economy had stalled.
Wide fluctuations in oil prices have played an important role in driving economies into recession and even regimes collapsingwhich is why movements in oil prices are closely watched by economists, investors, and policymakers globally. Since 2008, oil prices have seen two cycles of highs and lows, with no indication of a steady path in the near future. The historic high values of oil prices during 201013 and the following prolonged downturn during 201416 (the longest since the 1980s) suggest that the world economy is in unchartered territory (figure 1).”
https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/economy/global-economic-outlook/2016/q3-understanding-economic-impact-of-fluctuations-in-oil-prices.html
snape…”Is our dependence on fossil fuels somehow good for the economy?”
It’s not only good for the economy, at the moment, it is essential to life and longevity. We have no viable or affordable alternatives.
Gordon, these two questions sound similar but have different meanings:
Are fossil fuels good for the economy?
Is our dependence on fossil fuels good for the economy?
Your answer makes sense for the first question, but that’s not the one I asked.
snape…I don’t think you can separate the economy from the quality of peoples’ lives. Interfering with oil supply, either in quantity or pricing, based on the notion that oil is producing catastrophic climate change and must be curtailed, will not only prove to be bad for the economy, it will prove disastrous for the well being of humans who depend on it.
John Christy has worked as a teacher in Africa and he has talked about the effect of fuel, or lack thereof, on peoples’ lives.
Gordon
If US citizens were to consume less fossil fuels because of a carbon tax, why would this make oil more expensive in Africa?
snape…”If US citizens were to consume less fossil fuels because of a carbon tax, why would this make oil more expensive in Africa?”
Not following. I was just reading a book by a guy who traveled extensively in Africa. You can’t even buy gasoline in parts of Africa, they have run out. It’s about corruption.
Why should anyone, against the wishes of the majority, have the right to prevent people buying gasoline? If you put it to a vote tomorrow, as to whether people should pay more for gasoline to support a carbon tax, I’ll bet it would be defeated soundly.
People at large are not willing to support Green initiatives. It has to be forced on them by a minority of fascists intent on controlling the way people live, against their wills.
Greens are essentially fascists. Fascism is essentially a dictatorial control of the economy by a minority. What do you call it when a minority of politicians, not supported by their constituents, force a program of carbon taxes onto the general public?
Here in Canada, we had a carbon tax enforced in our province (BC) by an uber-right wing government. The money collected from the carbon tax goes to a private company. Governments are using the justification of a carbon tax to line the pockets of their friends in the private sector.
Federally, we had multiculturalism forced on us without a vote. Not one politician ran on such a policy, they simply introduced it as a good idea and passed it into law.
Carbon taxes are not about the environment, they represent agendas that are being hidden.
Gordon, you need to edit the wikipedia page on the BC carbon tax. They say the money went to income tax reductions.
“Here in Canada, we had a carbon tax enforced in our province (BC) by an uber-right wing government. The money collected from the carbon tax goes to a private company.”
Which company?
Nate, that’s what I’ve read too — income tax reductions.
“BCs levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.”
“British Columbia’s carbon tax: The evidence mounts,” Economist, July 31, 2014.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax
So what will happen when they run out?
You are using up fossil fuels as mushroom flies consume a mushroom.
Run out?? You can’t be serious. Tiny Israel alone has a shale oil deposit larger than all the oil that the Saudis have, including what they’ve already pumped out of the ground. Running out of oil is a grand red herring. It’s known that the earth’s oil reserves are so massive that speculating on when we’ll run out is simply a waste of everyone’s time.
Oil demand will decline before oil production declines. That’s what oil people really need to be preparing for.
“Snape says:
June 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM
Why is Dr. Spencer attached to a volatile commodity like oil?
Anyone reading and not attached to oil,
please raise your right hand?
None.
Thought so.
John, I should have written,
“Why is Dr. Spencer attached to a volatile commodity like oil instead of advocating for greater fuel efficiency and the development of alternative energy sources?”
Snape,
I do not know if you are being intentionally obtuse or not. Dr. Spencer is “attached” to what is economic, to what is practical, to what is efficient.
if Alternative Energy sources would give us those results, he would be “attached” to them. Dr. Spencer is not seeking the role of deciding what society should do; he would rather the people in their free choices decide that.
John
I still rely on fossil fuels. Does this mean I’m attached to them? Not at all. I’m hoping my next car will be a Tesla.
snape…”Why is Dr. Spencer attached to a volatile commodity like oil instead of advocating for greater fuel efficiency and the development of alternative energy sources?”
I don’t know of anyone who is not interested in alternative fuel sources but when you come down to the practicality of replacing fossil fuels it proves far to expensive and unreliable.
I worked in the electrical field for many years and I am familiar with electrical distribution. Changing what we have currently to adapt it to wind farms and solar energy will be a nightmare. They have tried it in the UK and Australia and it has proved a complete bust.
Until we develop an alternative source that does not rely on the wind or the Sun, there’s little point in moving to replace fossil fuels. Augmenting them with wind and solar is not nearly enough.
Gordon
I can see how solar might be a disaster in the U.K.. From what I’ve read, though, it’s starting to do very well in Australia. As is wind and hydro. Here’s a recent article (February 2017)
http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/australia-positioned-to-be-renewable-energy-superpower-20170216-guf55r.html
Snape:
Clearly you have little understanding of economic issues and facts. Oil is a commodity; it varies just like other commodities viz iron ore, coal, fish, oil, cocoa and so on. Come to think of it climate also varies. Now, who would have thunked that!?
Oil prices fluctuate less than the prices of power in Oz particularly in the State with the most windpower (S.A. the infamous blackout state).
Your assertion that Oz is doing so well in wind and hydro is misplaced. Oz is very poorly served for hydro as it is an ancient continent with few viable mountainous options. As to wind being a success we have SA as the epitome of stability with a total blackout unprecedented is the word I seek! It cost BHP over $100 million. Other more contained blackouts have occurred in both NSW and Vic.
So not only are users heavily subsidizing renewables via a de facto tax but we are now subjected to more disruptive conditions which threaten industries. We were doing well without the counter productive unnecessary, subsidized investment in disruptive, inefficient renewables. If these were not inefficient they would not need subsidies. One of our biggest wind farms is McArthur in Victoria; capacity utilization is a pathetic 28%.
Productivity may not mean much short term but in the long run it means everything for standards of living. Thus far it is a monumental failure in overpriced solar and windmills causing power prices to surge. I worked out the subsidy a few years back and it equated to about 26c per kWhr of renewable power across the board. Pathetic! So much for capital productivity! So much for your assertion that they are efficient.
If wind was any good and economic I suggest we would still have sailing ships and the Dutch would never have given up their windmills.
What backward third world thinking could result in Oz becoming the biggest world exporter of coal and gas yet we do not now have sufficient to power our own needs.
A report on power has just been released to the Govt by the Chief Scientist of Oz. One recommendation is that renewables must supply a defined level of backup (by any means). So the hard lessons are finally being learned! Coal and gas are now back in the mix!
“You need to firstly address the assumption that reductions lead to reduced prosperity and increased energy poverty. There is plenty of evidence that a switch to renewables has the opposite effect.”
All the evidence I see is that the current policies are designed to make energy too expensive to use. As a direct result of that, people are suffering energy poverty and therefore reduced prosperity. If you don’t believe that, look at the people whose power is being switched off in Australia, UK, Germany. Look at the 20,000 people dying of hypothermia because they can’t afford to heat their own homes.
…..Without productive economic enterprises that are powered using energy from conventional sources, i.e., hydro, coal, oil, natgas, nuclear, etc., there will be no real money with which to provide subsidies for the so-called “renewables.” If you can find a way to provide the subsidies to keep the renewables going by having central banks magically conjure magic money out of their magic holes in the air to use to provide subsidies, then go for it. I am all for energy of all kinds ASSUMING it is viable source(s) of energy and not just some pie-in-the-sky phoomrah that is of the nature of what we have so many fantasoidics dreaming about currently.
The mere fact we are talking about blue/red teams implies people don’t believe the IPCC are objective in their approach.
Your best analogy fails because best dealt with temp trends only which is a very, very, very small part of what the two team approach Is trying to remedy
David Appel says
“A universe: Object A and Object B, at blackbody temperatures Ta and Tb respectively.
A obviously emits radiation.
That radiation carries energy.”
To understand why a colder object does not ‘heat’ a warmer object lets follow your logic and show that its false and this can be tested by a simple experiment.
Let A be at a higher temperature than B
Let A be in an adiabatically isolated box.
Something like a polystyrene box with perfectly reflecting inner surface will do for this experiment.
The object A radiates but the radiation is perfectly reflected and its temperature stays the same.
Now place object B in the box.
Object B also radiates but with a lower intensity than A.
After some time measurements will show that object A will drop in temperature and object B will rise in temperature.
So placing a colder object has not ‘heated’ the warmer object in fact the opposite has happened.
Bryan 4:47am, Dr. Spencer has actually performed that experiment on the real atm. He did not get the same results you think up. You need to actually perform the experiment and take data & use rough, simple calculations to support the data as he did.
Roy…”Heck, even *I* believe we will continue to see modest warming, and that it might well be at least 50% due to CO2″.
I think the problem is that we are deviating from basics physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics and relying far too much on radiation theory, the only theory that works well in models.
I realize the atmosphere is rife with perturbations related to convection and other forces but it is essentially a mixture of gases in a relatively constant volume and a constant mass. I have been arguing that the Ideal Gas Equations applies in a basic sense and with constant volume and mass it can be argued that atmospheric temperature should be based on the partial pressure of the gases.
In that case, there is no way CO2 should have a 50% warming factor assigned to it. At best, based on its partial pressure of a a tiny fraction of a degree C, CO2 could warm the atmosphere no more than a tiny fraction of a degree over a century.
sorry, brain is lagging…I said “At best, based on its partial pressure of a a tiny fraction of a degree C, CO2 could warm the atmosphere no more than a tiny fraction of a degree over a century”.
Should have read…”At best, based on its partial pressure of a tiny fraction of one percent of the total atmospheric pressure, CO2 could warm the atmosphere no more than a tiny fraction of a degree C over a century.
Take a look at this video, illustrating the effect of 400ppm of ink on the transparency of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
CO2 has the same effect in the infra-red part of the spectrum.
Notice that there is a dramatic change from zero ink to the simulated 290 ppm ink. There is a much less dramatic change from 290 ppm to simulated 400 ppm. This somewhat corresponds to the logarithmic effect (or diminishing effect) of increasing CO2 concentration.
Perhaps good demonstration to counter those that contend that 400 ppm is too small to have any effect on atmospheric temperature but not a “smoking gun” demonstration that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will have catastrophic effects. But we do know that the increased CO2 concentration is loved be plants as demonstrated by the greening of the earth.
It does provide a good demonstration for the scattering and/or reflection of the visible light that’s in the wave length of the color of the ink — What else? With ink, you are, in fact making use of particles of matter rather than just the individual molecules, don’t you know? (And furthermore, it is the smell of the red herring, not the color, that throws the hounds off the scent they are trying to track.)
entropic…”Take a look at this video, illustrating the effect of 400ppm of ink on the transparency of water”.
I have no interest in thought experiments. I gave you the figures, based on the Ideal Gas Equation which is based on partial pressures for multiple gases. The heat contributed to the atmosphere is directly proportional to its partial pressure which in turn is directly proportional to its partial mass.
The proportion of all CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%, that’s 4/100ths of 1%. The proportion of nitrogen + oxygen is over 99%. It’s plain as day that CO2 contributes no more than a tiny fraction of 1% of the warming.
Your ink analogy is an apples and oranges diversion.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The proportion of all CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%, thats 4/100ths of 1%. The proportion of nitrogen + oxygen is over 99%.”
Do you understand why CO2, CH4, N2O, etc molecules (all consisting of molecules of three or more atoms) absorb infrared radiation, while bi-atomic molecules like N2 and O2 do not?
entropic…”Take a look at this video…”
I did, the guy is obviously not a scientist of any repute. He claims the ink is initially watered down in the syringes at 9 parts water to 1 part ink but he fails to tell the viewer how he got the figure 290 ppmv.
Before starting he made the egregious error of claiming IR is heat. He makes no reference to the magnitude of the IR flux being emitted by the surface and what percentage of it is absorbed by CO2. Of the percentage absorbed he supplies no proof of how much the CO2 warms the atmosphere.
His suggestion is that the CO2 is trapping heat, which is utter nonsense. Heat cannot be trapped unless the atoms of which it is a property are trapped, like by the glass in a real greenhouse.
Overall his analogy between ink in water and CO2 in the atmosphere has proved absolutely nothing.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Before starting he made the egregious error of claiming IR is heat. ”
IR is heat. Everyone knows this but you.
IR isn’t heat. IR radiation is a wave, heat is mechanical, there is a necessary transfer step. At best, you are being disingenuous. Which is my guess since it’s obvious you know this.
David,
Next time you are in an ice cave, let me know how warm you feel with all that hot IR bombarding you.
SGW: Again you misunderstand, purposely distorting the situation.
A universe: Object A and Object B, at blackbody temperatures Ta and Tb respectively.
A obviously emits radiation.
That radiation carries energy.
What happens to the temperature of B when that energy-carrying radiation is absorbed by it?
Hmm……….?
A universe: Object A and Object B, at blackbody temperatures Ta EQUALS Tb.
A obviously emits radiation.
That radiation carries energy.
What happens to the temperature of B when that energy-carrying radiation is absorbed by it?
Hmm.?
Well, DIMWIT, Q equals ZERO per the radiative heat flow equation. So B does not increase in temperature. Why not EINSTEIN?
robert…”Perhaps good demonstration to counter those that contend that 400 ppm is too small to have any effect on atmospheric temperature…”
In which way? The ink is obviously interfering with all light in some way, whether it’s by reflection, diffraction, or what. CO2 affects only a tiny portion of the IR spectrum. It is masked by the spectrum of water vapour and there’s no way to separate the effect of each.
The basis of this argument is still that 400 ppmv of CO2 acts to trap heat, which is utter rubbish. I have no argument that it absorbs a tiny amount of the overall IR flux emitted by the surface but what happens to the rest of that IR?
Heat is a property of atoms. It is essentially a measure of the kinetic energy of the atom and represents in which energy bands the outer shell electrons reside. The higher the energy level, the higher the KE, and the hotter the atom. In gases, the electrons acquire energy through collision, moving to a higher energy level and heating.
Heat cannot be trapped by GHGs. It can be trapped in a greenhouse by the glass which won’t allow warming air molecules to rise. The warmed air molecules become hotter through collision and through contact with the soil heated by solar energy.
There is no mechanism in the atmosphere to do that. It’s plain as day that the bulk of atmospheric warming comes from nitrogen and oxygen being warmed through conduction at the surface then spreading the heat through convection.
A basic law in chemistry is that in a mixed gas container of constant volume, each gas contributes to the warming of the total gas in proportion to its partial pressure. You don’t need the ink. Look at the partial pressure of 400 ppmv which is 4/100ths of 1% of the mix of gases in the atmosphere. CO2 can contribute no more than 4/100ths of 1% of the overall heat.
Gordon, the demo is a nice illustration of the fact that different molecules can have very very different interactions with light. So much so that 400 ppm of ink interacts much much more with visible light than than 2000 times as much water.
Your oft repeated argument that mass ratios alone should be dominant factor is simply wrong.
At 1/2 the current CO2 concentration all energy in it’s part of the spectrum is absorbed. Beyond .02% there is no more energy that increased CO2 can absorb because it already has absorbed all that exists in that bandwidth.
Sooooo, more CO2 does not have the effect you incorrectly allege.
This is called the “saturation fallacy.” Claims of saturation are wrong because the atmosphere also emits radiation, not just the surface.
On Earth, CO2 is far from being saturated. It isn’t even saturated on Venus. See the sidebar in:
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Strictly for your entertainment: An animated ‘cartoon’ with a CO2 molecule as the lead character.
https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
Just as fiat currency can never provide a viable, reliable medium for storing financial value, CO2, nor any other so-called greenhouse gas, can never provide for viable storage of energy.
What an ineffably fatuous “experiment”.
Bart,
For you maybe, but not for the many many followers of the ‘400 ppm is too small to possibly have an effect’ meme.
Gordon,
You claim to be open minded and here learn but you never seem to.
‘In that case, there is no way CO2 should have a 50% warming factor assigned to it. At best, based on its partial pressure of a a tiny fraction of one percent of the total atmospheric pressure, CO2 could warm the atmosphere no more than a tiny fraction of a degree over a century.’
You really think this remotely captures how our complex atmosphere works?
Why should the fraction of CO2 match the fraction of a DEGREE of warming? Per century no less??!
As Einstein said, the correct model is usually as simple as possible, but not simpler.
nate…”You really think this remotely captures how our complex atmosphere works?”
I do…based on the Ideal Gas Law. I notice you have not responded with a scientific rebuttal. Tell me what’s wrong with my Ideal Gas Law analogy.
“Why should the fraction of CO2 match the fraction of a DEGREE of warming? Per century no less??!”
Because the ideal gas law says so, as does Dalton’s law of partial pressures.
It would be easy to argue, as you have claimed, that the atmosphere is so complex that no simple answer is enough. I agree wholeheartedly. Why don’t GHE and AGW proponents see that with their overly simplified and metaphorical models?
I am willing to settle for ‘we don’t know’. However, the flat trend over 18 years strongly suggests there is no significant correlation between CO2 and warming.
Gordon Robertson says:
“However, the flat trend over 18 years strongly suggests there is no significant correlation between CO2 and warming.”
Again you lie.
Gord, see my coment above on ink demo
‘each gas contributes to the warming of the total gas in proportion to its partial pressure. You dont need the ink. Look at the partial pressure’
No. Your model does not include the vast differences in optical props of gases, wich are central to the effect.
In the ink demo, what if he then shined an intense horizontal beam of visible light through the beakers? Would the ones with ink warm more than the one without?
I think we need a blue team that say we must increase global average temperature by a lot.
A Red team that argues we should stay in our icebox climate.
Roy,
You say:
“The Red Team MUST address the benefits of more CO2 to global agriculture, global greening etc.”
The real killer in history is global cooling. The natural drivers like the sun and orbital parameters are now cooling. The anthropogenic warming from CO2 plus feedbacks may offset this cooling for centuries thus prolonging the optimal phase of a slowly warming climate. I challenge that a warming climate is destructive in the first place. It seems almost as if the IPCC assumes climate is naturally static and we are leaving natural variability and this is not a valid position based on high frequency paleoclimate proxies. I suggest a fair look at disease and global precipitation along with agriculture, and greening would support this position.
So which natural factors are now big enough to overwhelm manmade warming, and why? Which even come close?
Roy, you mentioned five essential subjects that have to be addressed. Perhaps there is more to mention. The Red Team must promote the real physical aspects of the real world. This in contrast to the virtual world (Blue Team) in which you can create every monster, even climate monsters. Those virtual images of what could, may, might happen words we often find in climate papers – never represent the real earth. There it happens or it does not happen.
Some aspects:
– Orbit has a huge influence on very long term climate changes (think about thousands and ten thousands of years). Orbit did not stop to change all climates when human influence was added.
– At the scale of a thousand years the oceans play a main role. Those 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of (ice cold) ocean water continue to do what they always did, uncontrolled by man.
– Atmosphere follows the oceans in the way that atmosphere never can have a too big discrepancy with the oceans: a correcting reaction will follow.
– Pure physical processes have always been changing climate and they still continue to do so. Weather and climate are always searching for that new equilibrium which normally is as close as possible to the old one. That normal way of doing is the opposite of the propagated runaway danger.
– Natural forces of the Earth are massive. Man never did change an ocean current.
– Chaotic processes in the oceans and the atmosphere make any prediction a guess. And educated guesses are guesses as well.
– Our limited knowledge of physical processes on Earth and of their data make any model just a virtual world. Their results only work for the model itself. The Earth never follows a model. And models never represent the real Earth.
Most of what you say can be considered part of the discussion of the general points I listed. The whole subject has many sub-elements, and I think it’s important to categorize them.
— Roy Spencer says:
June 14, 2017 at 4:51 AM
Most of what you say can be considered part of the discussion of the general points I listed. The whole subject has many sub-elements, and I think its important to categorize them.–
Well a large point missing is idea that we have solve any problem by cooperation with other nations.
Or actually, that one must impose a global totalitarian order to control it.
And we have idea that if Hollywood stars believe in global warming why do fly around in personal jets.
Or we have “nations leading the way” who not vaguely solving the problem.
Or we have the US not doing enough, which is reducing CO2 more than those supposedly doing more.
And 5: “5) the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is low enough to make it worthwhile (e.g. mandating much more wind, solar, etc.) ”
The way you actually reduce CO2 from governmental action, is to promote more nuclear power.
Though making more natural gas available is shorter term solution [and wasn’t something supported by government [Obama didn’t do anything], but if interested in longer term solutions, it’s something like what France did- which they did, because they didn’t want to depend upon imported coal [or wasn’t driven by wanting to reduce CO2].
Which brings us to existing an existing “global totalitarian order to control it” of nuclear proliferation.
How is that working out, btw?
I would say it’s not working at all, if anything it’s encouraging nations which should not have nuclear weapons to acquire nuclear weapons. And it had a huge amount time in order to impediment it, so can’t say they didn’t have enough time to get it right.
Now the “deal” of nuclear non-proliferation, was nations were give up their right to make the weapons, in exchange they get nuclear technology for civilian use [they get nuclear power]. Lovely idea, but it’s not very practical.
What would work better is something like what Bill Gates wanted to do, mass produce portable nuclear powerplants. Or not a government somehow helping other nation make nuclear energy [which is essentially a clusterf*ck- it’s like expecting the Dept of Energy to actually do something about energy problems- and the Dept of Energy are actually funded a lot to do this.
And making car factories is something other nations have managed to do.
What best way to help Bill Gates or others. Basically getting government out of the way. The government is in the way in numerous ways. And government knows how to get out of the way, but doesn’t do it [for political reasons- mainly because they are bunch of power crazy idiots]. A model of how to do this was done in regard to spacecraft- govt allowed experimental spacecraft.
Basically, governments know how to do this, because they have done it before. Whenever there is enough need, governments will do it.
And generally this occurs when a nation is at war.
And an example is with Apollo program, Apollo was part of Cold War- a PR stunt to beat Soviets. Most people think it has something to do with a government throwing tons of money at something. It’s not really true. The main aspect was the government was in a hurry to do something. Throwing money at something, might be useful in this respect [if nothing else it add realism to idea they are actually being serious] but main part was the part about being in a hurry to do something.
Or generally, the only time government is anywhere close to being in a hurry, is to stop things from happening.
Anyways, something like making portable nuclear reactors, will take time and will have mistakes made, and etc.
A government forcing something to happen too quickly is not the point, rather it’s having enough priority to allow it to happen.
gbaikie…”What would work better is something like what Bill Gates wanted to do, mass produce portable nuclear powerplants”.
Is Baikie Scottish by any chance?
I don’t know how Bill got to be such a guru. He fluked his Microsoft success by adapting another language then fluking an exclusive contract with IBM, who had the machine but not the software.
You know how the portable nuclear plants would be employed by terrorists.
Gates has been in Africa peddling antivirals to people suffering severe malnutrition while suffering from contaminated drinking water and parasitic infections like malaria. They have blamed their subsequent illnesses, like wasting syndrome, on sexually acquired HIV.
The antivirals are severely toxic, causing liver failure, kidney failure, and death. The manufacturers admit they cause a form of drug-induced AIDS (IRS) and that they cannot cure HIV.
It’s amazing how you can be regarded a guru if you’re a billionaire.
— Gordon Robertson says:
June 14, 2017 at 4:58 PM
gbaikieWhat would work better is something like what Bill Gates wanted to do, mass produce portable nuclear powerplants.
Is Baikie Scottish by any chance?–
Apparently there is a number of them in the Orkney islands, and according to a google search the islanders second choice is to be considered Scottish. I was born on Vancouver island, Canada. With our mainland being a continent.
“I dont know how Bill got to be such a guru. He fluked his Microsoft success by adapting another language then fluking an exclusive contract with IBM, who had the machine but not the software.”
I think anyone with too much money to spend, tends to be regarded as something like a guru. I regard his idea that spending money on space related stuff, as not a good idea, as ill informed, but of course his partner in crime, apparently does think spending money on space related things as good idea. Paul G. Allen, stratolaunch was rolled out the other day- though still a couple years be it flies anything. It might end up something like the Spruce Goose, but I always been fan of using motherships. We will see, I suppose.
Do not forget the constantly changing tilt of the earth…..it should have a significant effect!
Not on century time scales — its cyclicity is 41,000 years.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
Powerful storms before a cold front in the central US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/06/15/0000Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-112.26,44.08,903
You can see that the GCR radiation over North America is strong.
https://i2.wp.com/sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/cutoff.gif
Transport of the cosmic ray particles GCR and SEP through the magnetosphere is estimated using the CISM-Dartmouth particle trajectory geomagnetic cutoff rigidity code, driven by real-time solar wind parameters and interplanetary magnetic field data measured by the NASA/ACE satellite.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/10/indirect-effects-of-the-sun-of-earths-climate/
“Showers. Primary cosmic rays above ~ 1012eV generate extensive showers of secondary particles in the atmosphere and above ~ 1014eV these penetrate to sea level. At this level, such a shower contains about 1 charged particle per 10 GeV of primary energy (at 1014eV, or 1 per 3 GeV at 1017eV, 1 per 1.6 GeV at 1020eV): 5% of the particles are within 3 m of the centre, 50% are within 40 m and 90% within ~ 250 m. Most of the particles are electrons and positrons; a few percent are penetrating muons. A burst of >100 particles m−2 over a few m2 due to a shower in the air would be seen about once per hour near sea level under a very thin cover (mass can add local showers), and >650m−2 once per day, the rate of showers doubling per 100 mb reduction in atmospheric overlay.
Variation with latitude. The number of vertical muons above 0.2 GeV is typically about 13% lower at the equator than at high geomagnetic latitudes; above 50 the flux does not change much. The component generating neutrons by nuclear interactions (largely the neutrons below 1 GeV)long used to monitor cosmic ray variationsfalls by about 24% in going from latitude 55 to the equator.”
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_7.html
Sorry.
10^12, 10^14 eV, 10^17 eV, 10^20 eV.
ren…”Most of the particles are electrons and positrons;”
The sun is made of mostly hydrogen and helium. When they break down under such intense heat and pressure, all that’s left is the electron and the proton from the nucleus (for hydrogen). Don’t know where the neutrons go.
When those orphaned particles are ejected from the Sun they become the solar wind.
Our magnetosphere is supposed to divert them but it stands to reason that a significant portion get through.
I suppose evolutionists will claim the Earth evolved its magnetic shield as an adaptation for humans and other lifeforms.
Cosmic-rays detected half a mile underground in a disused U.S. iron-mine can be used to detect major weather events occurring 20 miles up in the Earths upper atmosphere, a new study has revealed.
Published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and led by scientists from the UKs National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), this remarkable study shows how the number of high-energy cosmic-rays reaching a detector deep underground, closely matches temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere (known as the stratosphere). For the first time, scientists have shown how this relationship can be used to identify weather events that occur very suddenly in the stratosphere during the Northern Hemisphere winter. These events can have a significant effect on the severity of winters we experience, and also on the amount of ozone over the poles – being able to identify them and understand their frequency is crucial for informing our current climate and weather-forecasting models to improve predictions.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121091228.htm
PRIMARY COSMIC RAYS
Almost all primary cosmic ray particles (about 99%) are the nuclei (particles in the nucleus) of atoms,
with the rest being free electrons (similar to beta particles – see Backgrounder: Radiation & Human
Space Exploration). Most of the nuclei are protons (i.e., hydrogen nuclei) as well as helium nuclei
(similar to alpha particles – see Backgrounder: Radiation & Human Space Exploration). The nuclei of
other heavier elements (elements heavier than hydrogen and helium) also make up cosmic rays. These
high-mass, high-charged particles are known as HZE ions.
Primary cosmic rays originate from a variety of sources, including solar flares and explosions on our own
Sun (these are often referred to as Solar Energetic Particles) and stellar explosions such as novas and
supernovas which are mostly from within our galaxy, but can also come from other galaxies as well
(these are referred to as Galactic Cosmic Rays or GCR). Galactic cosmic rays begin as particles
propelled out of the expanding cloud of gases and magnetic field caused by a stellar explosion. They
tend to bounce around in the magnetic field and some eventually gain enough energy to become cosmic
rays and escape into the galaxy. As these particles continue to accelerate, some can travel close to the
speed of light.
The high speed and high energy of primary cosmic ray particles make them very dangerous to people
and machines. On Earth, and to some degree in low-Earth orbit, we are protected from primary cosmic
rays by Earth’s magnetosphere (magnetic field) and atmosphere. However, as astronauts travel away
from Earth (to the Moon, Mars, or asteroids for example), they are no longer under this protection and
hence would be directly exposed to these particles. HZE ions are especially dangerous due to their high
charges and high energies. These particles can penetrate through thick layers of shielding and body
tissue, breaking the strands of DNA molecules, damaging genes and killing cells (see Backgrounder:
Radiation Effects on Cells and DNA).
SECONDARY COSMIC RAYS
When primary cosmic rays collide with particles of other things, such as a spacecraft, the International
Space Station, or molecules in our atmosphere, they can split molecules, which results in the formation
of Secondary Cosmic Ray particles. For example, when primary cosmic rays enter the Earth’s
atmosphere, they collide with molecules of gas, mainly oxygen and nitrogen, which shatters the nuclei of
the gases into smaller pieces (a process called spallation). This shattering results in a cascade of
ionized particles and electromagnetic radiation, known as an air shower, in the direction in which the
primary particles were travelling.
Typical secondary cosmic ray particles include protons, neutrons, positive and negative pions (short for
pi mesons a type of subatomic particle), and positive and negative kaons (short for K mesons
another type of subatomic particle) (see Figure 1). Some of the pions and kaons decay into muons
(elementary particles similar to electrons) and neutrinos (electrically neutral elementary particles), while
other pions decay to form gamma ray photons, a form of electromagnetic radiation.
http://explorecuriocity.org/Portals/4/Images/ActionProjects/radn2/Backgrounder%20-Cosmic%20and%20Neutron%20Radiation.pdf
— ren says:
June 15, 2017 at 12:03 AM
PRIMARY COSMIC RAYS
… —
Kind of sounds scary.
GCR are problem related to exploring Mars [human exploration]
and the degree it’s a problem has a bit of denial connected to it- among advocates who favor such things as human settlements on Mars.
There is a degree of uncertainty about it, generally, but I would say that more is being known about in last decade or so.
I would say that roughly speaking, in open space [trip time to Mars] it’s about twice as bad as same time spent on ISS. Or roughly 6 month in Earth to Mars transit, is equal to 12 months in LEO. And roughly water shielding or substances with high hydrogen molecule content are best to diminish the effects of the very high velocity protons, but such things as the ‘oh my god particles” are different:
“The Oh-My-God particle was an ultra-high-energy cosmic ray detected on the evening of 15 October 1991 over Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, by the University of Utah’s Fly’s Eye Cosmic Ray Detector. Its observation was a shock to astrophysicists (hence the name), who estimated its energy to be approximately 31020 eV or 3108 TeV. This is 20,000,000 times more energetic than the highest energy measured in electromagnetic radiation emitted by an extragalactic object.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle
And roughly we have not been studying this stuff for long enough time period- or one has the unknown unknowns.
The reaction of the two main sceptic players in BEST was revealing.
Muller accepted the evidence and changed his beliefs.
Curry rejected the evidence and kept her beliefs.
There is no point in having Red or Blue teams unless both sides put evidence before belief.
The red and blue team members don’t necessarily have to believe what they are advocating…it’s like lawyers advocating for clients. They just provide the best possible evidence for the side they are defending.
Roy…”The red and blue team members dont necessarily have to believe what they are advocatingits like lawyers advocating for clients”.
Like Dershowitz et al defending O.J. Simpson.
I’ve long thought pro and consters should swap sides (on blogs such as this) and play DA for the other team.
We’d find out who is really objective just by noting who participates with full integrity. But such a challenge is beyond most people, who are too ideologically attached to their view to attempt arguing for the opposition.
Roy Spencer says:
“The red and blue team members dont necessarily have to believe what they are advocatingits like lawyers advocating for clients. They just provide the best possible evidence for the side they are defending.”
Roy, you just admitted you are biased and not at all interested in all the scientific evidence.
Amazing. And you wonder why people look upon your work as suspicious.
Entropic, you have the roles reversed.
Muller did not change his beliefs. He was always a believer in CAGW as was demonstrated in numerous post in numerous skeptic bogs.His claim to having changed after BEST was complete BS.
Curry was the one who changed her position over time from believer to skeptic.
Entropic, Your handle on history is suspect, and a weakness of democracy is that with your either careless or deliberate mischaracterization of history, you can still vote.
Muller did not accept the evidence. He selected the procedure that would give him the results he desired; thereby, he could justify remaining the warmist that he describes he always was.
Curry changed her position based on the evidence, and the shenanigans of Muller was part of misbehavior of warmists that prompted Curry to more thoughtfully review the evidence.
“Curry rejected the evidence and kept her beliefs.”
All you need to do is look at the gigantic level of scientific fraud being actively practiced by the blue team to realise that there is no evidence to support their case.
If I remember correctly, Curry was originally a believer. She actually looked at the evidence and realised how false global warming is.
Curry didn’t publish her misgivings.
I wonder why.
The jet stream will contribute to a very dangerous weather in the central US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/06/15/0900Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-112.26,44.08,903
CAPE can reach 6000 J / kg.
Solar wind from the coronal hole will increase the instability of the atmosphere (wind energy).
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20170613.png
“The Red Team MUST address the benefits of more CO2 to global agriculture, global greening etc.”
————–
Most of the effect is not very useful – more leaf more stem less protein.
Some is possibly harmful increasing cyanogen content
Stavro.your comments are misleading .apart from soya. eating plants is a poor way to obtain protein.plants are mostly eaten for their vitamin and fibre content.the larger the leaf the bigger the plant.the heavier the crop and yield.the bigger the yield the less land you have to plough.less land means less fuel and more food. It’s a win win situation
Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres. Recently, several meta-analyses have indicated that CO2 inhibition of nitrate assimilation is the explanation most consistent with observations. Here, we present the first direct field test of this explanation.. In leaf tissue, the ratio of nitrate to total nitrogen concentration and the stable isotope ratios of organic nitrogen and free nitrate showed that nitrate assimilation was slower under elevated than ambient CO2. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.
— Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat, Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html
David supermarkets are full of fruit and veg growing in CO2 enriched atmospheres.all growers report increased yields .more pest resistance .better flavour.and less fertiliser is required .the benefits far outweigh any drawbacks
So how does the nutritional quality of the supermarket produce grown under elevated CO2 compare to that grown in a natural environment?
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. Its going to be fairly universal that well be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and its not just protein…its also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/10/crop-nutrition/2014
David ,how many years will it be before atmospheric CO2 reaches the same levels as induced CO2 in polytunnels eg in excess off 1200 ppm, as far as i am aware there has been no incidents regarding health, either from working in such an environment,or from the consumption of the products.enhanced growing with CO2 has been used for decades
Ian: The question of CO2 isn’t about its direct respiratory health effects or hypercapnia — of course — but its impact on planetary temperature and precipitation.
Continuing your courtroom analogy, they apply two standards of proof.
For civil cases they decide on the balance of probability.
For criminal cases the threshold for guilt is “beyond reasonable doubt”.
As a Red team member I would have great difficulty assembling a case which would pass even the lower threshold.
Evidence that you aren’t a red team member. I could easily provide enough evidence just from a few blogs that would spending trillions on foolish prevention measures was not value for money.
Blogs?
From the same internet which tells me that the aliens from Roswell live in Area 51, that the Moon landings never happened, that the Illuminati are green lizards who rule the world and that Queen Elizabeth I was the man who wrote Shakespeare’s plays.
“There are stupid people on the internet, so everyone on the internet is stupid”
Nice try, but that’s nonsensical – and dishonest.
And Hivemind is right, you advocate for the “blue” conclusion here so ofc you say the “red” case is “difficult” to defend.
Entropic man says: June 14, 2017 at 5:53 AM
As a Red team member I would have great difficulty assembling a case which would pass even the lower threshold.
————–
This has always been my problem.
Ask a “sceptic” to give a scientific explanation for the temp increase and they will say “No way – you are proposing AGW it is up to you to prove it without using temperature records which are fake”
All I want to see is a number of climate scientists/physicists give an explanation why doubling co2 will have little effect, and what the cause is of their “it’s natural and cyclic”
Where is their valid research, were are their scientists/physicists.
I do not want to see research from the likes of dellingpole/wuwt. Why will they not provide the evidence?
Stavro, what do you think Dr. Spencer’s site is? He has already laid out the evidence for you here and in his books. You’ve already found the right place.
His evidence won’t convince you that no global warming exists, because that’s not his position. What it will do is show you that global warming from the current drivers is not big enough to be alarming.
What Dr. Spencer features is actual instrument readings, more than broad theories. Please read a bit here.
Roberto: UAH’s satellites don’t even measure temperatures.
They measure molecular oxygen microwave intensities as a function of frequency.
They then use a rather complicated model to convert these to temperatures.
The RSS also does this. Their leader says he trusts surface thermometers more.
test
I’m trying to reply to Entropic man about the experiment he linked above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
It’s not significative because the black ink removes ALL the wavelengths in the visible spec-trum.
Hi Dr Spencer,
for a strange reason I’m unable to post the whole reply.
Is there any list of unwanted word to avoid?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo…”Is there any list of unwanted word to avoid?”
So far I only have Had-crut and absor-pt-ion. I had others but I forgot them. If you find any, please post the,…with hyphens of course.
Try posting in small parts to see what gets through. If you have a small part, test each apparent word by inserting a hyphen, dot, or whatever.
Massimo…this time I had to add two hyphens to absor-pt-ion.
Also *.noaa[dot]gov/*
Massimo Porzio
The experiment could have been done using red or green ink and you would have seen a similar reduction in transparency, though over a narrower range of wavelengths.
What happens when you use a more realistic case, eg a glass of black ink (representing the wavelengths absorbed by water vapour in the atmosphere), then add a couple of drops of blue ink (representing the wavelength absorbed by CO2). Still black, isn’t it?
Massimo Porzio:
Did u not catch up with the news: CO2 now is able to absorb all radiation up to the light emitted by a candle.
Well at least that is what one experiment was showing on U tube courtesy of D Appell I think.
True, the flame of the candle completely disappeared from view once CO2 was introduced into the large tube between the detector and the lit candle. This warmist world is full of surprises; very convincing.:)
Oh yeah tonyM,
I know the candle trick, since last december I own a thermal camera and know how ot works!
I’ve been unable to specify why the experiment was wrong because something goes wrong with some wrords I use (I think).and I can’t post it
Have a grat day.
Massimo
Massimo, you do very well in expressing yourself given the English lingua franca is not your native language. I enjoy reading your comments as you invariably have given the subject considerable thought.
I have found the clip and you may like to try and explain it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
You have a great day too.
Massimo PORZIO
Is this the candle trick you were talking about?
http://www.creative-science.org.uk/hollywood15.html
They used a filter on the camera that is in a range absorbed by CO2 to create the effect but the Carbon Dioxide still did absorb IR.
Entropic man,
there are “absorbers” and absorbers, if you use an opaque pigment it absorbs all but the color you see and limits the whole light to pass through, if instead you use a real narrow band filtering liquid it absorbs only the red band and it’s all an another story. Especially because the absorbtion isn’t at the Wien’s BB peak but quiet ifar from it.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
tonym…”the flame of the candle completely disappeared from view once CO2 was introduced into the large tube between the detector and the lit candle”
That has already been explained as reflection rather than absor-pt-ion. There is no telemetry set up to measure reflection.
How much CO2 was used, BTW.
At what wavelengths does CO2 ‘reflect’ radiation?
Gordon Robertson:
Don’t know those details; I quickly lose patience with these Mickey Mouse experiments. But have found it for you (it was endorsed by D. Appell so that is a clear clue to its worth):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
I quote A.Watts on the fake Nye/Gore experiment:
“Then there was the time that I proved without a doubt that both Al Gore and Bill Nye were not just incompetent, but liars too, faking a science experiment. That finding by me was later backed up by a peer reviewed paper in the American Journal of Physics.”
Earlier, above an experiment involving black ink is suggested. So CO2 now behaves like black particulates.
The irony is that I have never come across a skeptic who does not accept that CO2 absorbs and emits at defined frequencies.
Gordon Robertson says:
>> tonymthe flame of the candle completely disappeared from view >> once CO2 was introduced into the large tube between the detector >> and the lit candle
“That has already been explained as reflection rather than absor-pt-ion.”
Explained where?
And as Barry asked — at what wavelengths does CO2 reflect light?
tonyM says:
“Did u not catch up with the news: CO2 now is able to absorb all radiation up to the light emitted by a candle.”
Tony, you misrepresented the demonstration.
It shows that the INFRARED view of the candle is extinguished, not “all radiation.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo&t=3s
David Appell:
You must have a guardian angel protecting you from my reply…for the 3rd time!!
Perhaps you should examine your own role in misrepresentation when you clearly refuse to acknowledge the deliberate misleading nature of this Mickey Mouse experiment. I simply parodied it in my exchange with Massimo.
The clip states it shows how CO2 affects climate; it does no such thing!!! Even Mickey Mouse would acknowledge this.
Its sensor is a “heat sensitive or infra red camera.” As the conditions are not defined nor quantified a viewer is entitled to assume this means all frequencies lower than visible light.
The clip further states the “hot spo-ts are glowing white” implying that these are the highest frequencies (still in the infra red). What else could such a message imply or conjure up in a viewer’s mind?
The clip then purports to show that CO2 ab-sor-bs ALL these frequencies. Yet real Science shows CO2 is severely limited in ab-sorp-tion frequencies.
It then confirms all this by saying the “CO2 is trapping THE heat” and that “candle’s warmth no longer reaches the camera. Instead it is ab-sorb-ed by the CO2.”
“That is exactly how CO2 works in the atmosphere. It tra-ps heat preventing it from escaping to space.”
Another fake CO2 demo with junk commentary; you fully endorse it.
QED
tony wrote:
“Its sensor is a heat sensitive or infra red camera. As the conditions are not defined nor quantified a viewer is entitled to assume this means all frequencies lower than visible light.”
False.
It means frequencies in the infrared.
It’s a very poignant demonstration.
David Appell:
CO2 absorbs specific frequencies in narrow bands so it cannot absorb all infra red.
This is a junk experiment, with junk commentary by a junk scientist to fool the ignorant.
You swallow and foster junk science!!
Dr. Spencer, I am interested in your opinion on this: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
N&Z are easily shown to be wrong, because
1) Their model cannot produce the observed TOA outgoing spectrum
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
2) Roy has thoroughly discussed why pressure cannot account for observed temperatures
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
3) N&Z can’t even calculate the average temperature of the Moon, while standard radiative physics does so exactly, as I showed here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
David,
I’m not sure you are honest or not.
Let me assume that your point 2 and 3 are right (I didn’t check, and I don’t have the time to do it because I’ve my own tasks).
But why do you still present the graph at point 1 such as it represent “the observed TOA outgoing spectrum”?
That’s just one outgoing flux at the nadir of a single point of the TOA.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Massimo, I’m not sure you’re honest or not.
Whether that outgoing TOA spectrum is for a single point or the global average, N&Z’s theory predicts neither.
David Appell:
As usual you can be really thick.
Where does the N&Z suggest it should predict it? Totally irrelevant to their objective. Read their paper.
Gavin’s unlabelled graph allows me to say he purports that the average emission from the surface is represented by a 294K flux average. We know that the earth avg T is 288K. Therefore the greenhouse effect is to reduce the T of the surface by 6K!! Your GHE fails! End of story.
I am fully aware of what you are trying to say but it is totally meaningless from this graph. People like you who confuse the outgoing flux with the surface flux ought go on a long retreat and contemplate. I think a desert retreat would help a bit like St Augustine of Hippo. Do it for a couple of dozen years or so. You might then grasp what the N&Z paper says.
tony: It’s obvious what N&Z’s pressure theory predicts for the TOA outgoing spectrum, and it’s nothing at all like what’s observed.
The TOA outgoing spectrum is the best evidence for the greenhouse effect via IR absorbing gases. Any theory of the Earth’s temperature has to predict it. N&Z don’t.
David: You are not reading clearly or not thinking clearly or both; I leave it to you. After having pointed out that it is irrelevant to the paper’s purpose you still don’t grasp it. I asked the question of you and you have no answer but irrelevant repetition of your ideology of what you think it ought say.
I have to lead you by the nose with a couple of quotes from the paper:
At the same time, greenhouse-gas concentrations and/or partial pressures did not show any meaningful relationship to surface temperatures across a broad span of planetary environments considered in our study
Have you grasped that point yet? It is an empirical fact from their study! It is the surface T that is the focus of their paper.
Try and grasp the following; it is simple and only ideology will stop you from understanding:
Furthermore, the relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (RATE) defined as a ratio of the planets actual global surface temperature to the temperature it would have had in the absence of atmosphere is fully explicable by the surface air pressure alone.
David, you have good intellect but your own predilection with this GHE ideology often seems to prevent you from seeing the obvious. Throw away this religion and focus on the thinking with an open mind.
Pressures don’t explain planetary temperatures. This has already been discussed on this blog. Nor do they explain the observed TOA outgoing spectrum.
N&Z are just plain wrong.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
David, here you go again, off on another tangent, obfuscating and conflating.
The issue was the irrelevancy of TOA emission to the paper. It is still irrelevant no matter how often you dive up different paths.
As an aside, your belief on pressure is also irrelevant to the paper. Further assuming the same net insolation as now and keeping other variables constant (to the extent possible) then the relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (RATE) according to you:
Venus: remove 98% of the atmosphere mass ; result same RATE
Earth: add 91 times the current atm mass in the form of Argon; result no change to RATE
Mars: add the equivalent of an earth atmosphere mass as Argon; result no change to RATE
Mars: add the equivalent of 92 times earth atm mass as Argon; result no change to RATE
If this is what you believe then I suggest it is time for you to go on that St Augustine retreat. Make it a double retreat at least.
David,
The point is that that graph doesnt show any point of the TOA outgoing energy spectrum.
That’s only the Nadir outgoing flux with the very narrow FOV of a satellites.
Under an energetic equilibrium point of view, it was meaningful if and only if the spectrometer was looking the baricentre of a radiating homogeneous sphere not surrounded by LWIR gases. Since the Earth hasnt a radiatively homogeneous surface and it is surrounded by a mixture composed also of LWIR active gases, the only way you have to give significance to that kind of graph is acquiring its spectrum data by a wider FOV that includes the full Earth dish and the atmosphere too.
Have a great day.
Massimo
I think that a serious point should be the egregious allowing of the media to print wild claims, and repeated us of ‘unprecedented’ without core scientists having the courage to say no.
Example. NSDIC scientists have regularly published the demise of arctic is in 2040’s. But they never once voiced issue with people, saying and printing 2012, 2016 2020 etc….. they were silent.
This is a huge issue. Consider the continuous publications concerning the rising seas in Miami, where every gauge nearby says it is constant AND substanence is also occuring. But no-one voices opposition and lets it ride.
When real scientist do not put down stupidity, because it helps fund them, they lose all credibility and that should be pounded home. They have acted as 1/2 scientist 1/2 leech.
There is a mechanism for scientific disagreement – peer-reviewed literature.
Yes Barry, you mean the pal reviewed literature or do you mean the press releases – the likes of Wadhams, Hansen, Schmidt to name a few.
Prognostications of an ice free Arctic by 2012; Manhattan underwater – great for easy fishing from your office window; hottest year EVAAAH well maybe 38% chance; urgent need to extract CO2 from the air suck the oxygen right outa my lungs; Tuvalu n Maldives under water while the latter built a new runway to welcome more tourists with the President declaring no problems; we’re all gonna be ruined by rising seas a 2 mm p.a. rise made for some very cheap prime water front real estate for the warmista tycoons; destruction of the Great Barrier Reef – while one dissenting Uni scientist was reprimanded for not being collegiate in supporting his alarmist colleagues. The list goes on and on.
We will all be ruined say the actors, promoters, hangers on and carpet baggers congregating en masse in Paris with some even flying in private jets spewing out that awful, awful, insidious fertilizer for plants; the giver of life.
Yes Barry, if only scientists were dumb enough to apply for grants to counter this voodooism via pal review.
There are plenty of papers published by ‘sceptic’ scientists. The IPCC also includes their literature. Mcintyre and McKitrick’s anti-hockey stick papers (peer-reviewed and published) made it into IPCC AR4, for example.
How do you tell between someone whining about a low quality paper being rejected and an actual plot against them. Conspiracy theories = lazy argument.
I definitely don’t mean ‘press releases.’
Barry:
Can you retrace the anti hockey stick saga and genuinely say this was honest peer review given all the obstacles and time it took? How long did it take for IPCC to acknowledge it?
Please don’t come protesting the strawman, Lewandowsky “conspiracy theory” crap. Many of the events are clear from the leaked emails and behaviour.
But why would there ever need to be a conspiracy when we have the biggest gravy train in the history of humans? Ponzi and Madoff eat your hearts out – two bit operators by comparison.
From your comment I guess you endorse the quality of all the pro papers produced in this field. Many would not!
As an illustration of my points let me give you a practical example. A few years back the Oz Govt wanted a study to evaluate the most cost effective way to tackle this issue of “climate change.” The study was not to be about questioning climate change. Only one university (UWA) agreed to the study which had a $4 million grant attached.
Can you guess what happened? UWA had to renege on the agreement. There was such a furore created by academics and students that the Chancellor had to go tail between the legs and extract UWA from the agreement.
What sort of a field of so called science and what sort of academia is it that free thought and investigation is quashed in such a manner. It smacks of academia in Galileo’s time; we have gone backwards.
This is but one illustration; there are many involving notable people. You seem to be endorsing this sort of behaviour. I find it hard not to conclude you are either oblivious or being disingenuous.
Can you retrace the anti hockey stick saga and genuinely say this was honest peer review given all the obstacles and time it took? How long did it take for IPCC to acknowledge it?
The papers appeared in the very next IPCC report. Steve McIntyre reacted to the graphic in the 3rd assessment report (2001), his papers were published (2003, 2005), and were covered in the 4th assessment report (2007).
From your comment I guess you endorse the quality of all the pro papers produced in this field.
Peer-review is a necessary first step that doesn’t guarantee a paper will hold up under further scrutiny.
“Pro-papers” looks like a political phrase. Most papers focus on narrow lines of research, not the general AGW debate.
Quality survives science, ideology doesn’t.
Politics was the basis of the Lomborg centre at UWA. The uni did not ask for it, the government ‘endowed’ it. Don’t you think that’s odd?
Barry:
Do you believe you know more about this issue than the Chancellor of UWA? O paste snippets but his official message is here:
http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201505087564/message-vice-chancellor-australian-consensus-centre
On your funding he said:
Is it appropriate for the Australia Consensus Centre to be funded by the Federal Government through a direct grant?
Again the answer is yes as many well-respected research centres across the country are funded this way including the Australian Centre on China in the World at ANU, the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine at James Cook University, and our own Perth USAsia Centre.
On your politics and Lomborg:
I understand there are strong views on this issue. However, I believe that a man who has worked with many Nobel Laureate economists, has been named one of Time Magazines most influential people, and has published with Cambridge University Press meets the criteria of being made an Adjunct Professor an honorary position that carries no salary.
Despite all this, there remains strong opposition to the Centre. Whilst I respect the right of staff to express their views on this matter, as all universities should be places for open and honest sharing and discussion of ideas, in this case, it has placed the University in a difficult position.
other
Therefore, it is with great regret and disappointment that I have formed the view that the events of the past few weeks places the Centre in an untenable position as it lacks the support needed across the University and the broader academic community to meet its contractual obligations and deliver value for money for Australian taxpayers.
I have today spoken to the Federal Government and Bjorn Lomborg advising them of the barriers that currently exist to the creation of the Centre and the Universitys decision to cancel the contract and return the money to the government.
I don’t believe I know more about the issue than the (ex) vice chancellor of UWA.
But there are things he doesn’t mention.
The Climate Change Commission – tasked with collating climate change research and examining economic issues, was shut down in Sept 2013, pretty much as soon as the Abbott gov came to power.
The reason given? It was a cost-cutting exercise for an unnecessary department.
2 years later, Abbott’s office initiated a government offer of $4 million over 4 years to establish Lomborg’s centre, dedicated to studying the economics of climate change. Which is what the Climate Commission had been doing. For only a little bit more cost. Suddenly there was money for it?
This was not initiated by the Dept of Education (Pyne). It came from the Prime Minister’s office. Abbott liked Lomborg’s views.
The decision was not reviewed, nor requested by the university. Academics at the university protested, as well as the student body, surprised (outraged) that there had been no involvement by academic staff in the decision.
This was a political appointment. It was obviously so. People protested. It fell through. Welcome to democracy.
Flinders uni academics also protested when the idea was floated to host Lomborg’s centre there, for much the same reasons as UWA – political interference with academic appointment and Lomborg’s credentials.
You reckon they know more or less than the vice-chancellor of UWA?
Barry:
You are confusing the Climate Commission with the Climate Change Authority. The latter is fully operational and is established by legislation.
The Climate Commission was led by flim flam Flannery, a political appointment, who ended up costing our various Govts $billions with desal plants given his prognostications that the ‘ rivers were unlikely to ever run or that the dams unlikely to ever fill again’ crap just before major floods that broke the drought was sacked. Great! Could not happen to a nicer person!
You are not privy to Cabinet discussions why make assertions that you can’t back up. It was Greg Hunt.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt rang chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery at 10am on Thursday to tell him the body had been shut down.
Plans to shut down the Climate Commission, along with a range of other climate-change related institutions and the carbon price, had been foreshadowed by the Coalition before the 2013 election.
The only person politicizing this is you. A Govt elected to make changes in this area is not entitled to do so according to your view of the world.
The then vice Chancellor of UWA certainly did not see it as either political or in the narrowed lines that you posit. Read his document fully where he covers all your points more than adequately. Are you suggesting he was unaware of what was happening in Oz? He did state:
This sentiment is captured in UWAs values which espouse the importance of academic freedom to encourage staff and students to engage in the open exchange of ideas and thought; and fostering the values of openness, honesty, tolerance, fairness, trust and responsibility.
The objections from Flinders Uni staff as well as the experience with UWA staff and students only serves to emphasize what I said earlier that we have regressed back to the academia of Galileo’s time.
Barry:
If by political you mean that I am suggesting this field has been bastardized by obfuscation, refusing to hand over data, methodology and the like then yes you can call it political if you like.
The merry go round of hockey sticks requires detectives to find out whodunwat and not scientists. It is true that it is the few who have orchestrated most of this but many have stood by silently! Not that I blame them. Fortunately peer review is not a part of the Scientific Method but in this field it is part and parcel of the corruption of science as the IPCC is set up purely as a political tool. Its charter says it all!
Re M&M hockey stick paper you assert:
The papers appeared in the very next IPCC report. … and were covered in the 4th assessment report (2007).
Your version is contradicted by:
Regrettably, the IPCC has refused to acknowledege the ‘hockey stick’ error or to review, let alone change, the slipshod procedures which allowed it to endorse it in the first place. All it has done and in the circumstances it could scarcely do less- is quetly drop the hockey stick from its latest, 2007 Report.
Source (Amazon):
AN Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming
By Nigel Lawson
Perhaps you can provide a reference as to where your version appears in that IPCC report.
IPCC 2007 report, AR4, McIntyre and McKitrick are mentioned about halfway down, after box 6.4.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
Their papers are also in the reference section for that chapter.
I wonder if Nigel Lawson gets his info from contrarian bloggers. He’s also wrong about this:
All [IPCC] has done – and in the circumstances it could scarcely do less – is quetly drop the hockey stick from its latest, 2007 Report.
MBH99 (the ‘hockey stick’) is in the 2007 assessment report, in a graph with other reconstructions that had been done since 2001. You can see that graph at the same link to chapter 6 above.
You are confusing the Climate Commission with the Climate Change Authority.
Your following quotes mention the CC by name.
Abbott tried to abolish the CCA, too, but failed.
Will you acknowledge, please, that McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticisms are included in AR4?
Barry:
(unsure why my reply gets rejected ..try breaking it up)
Of course I will acknowledge that the 2007 report does reference the M&M study. Perhaps not in a way M&M may have desired but it certainly is there.
It may be my eyesight but the “hockey stick” is not the same as in TAR. There is no splicing and the instrumental records are now very clearly identified. I recall Muller’s response to the original graph; he would not trust such a scientist (about Mann) (the splicing had further issues viz how was it then used to extend the graph).
barry:
(..ctd hmnnn…grr)
Acronyms:
Climate Change AUTHORITY – CCA
Climate Change Commission – did not exist
Climate Commission – CC
Acronyms:
Climate Change AUTHORITY – CCA
Climate Change Commission – did not exist
Climate Commission – CC
I am not sure how Abbott’s abortive try at removing the C.C.A (Climate Change AUTHORITY) via the requisite legislation meets your original statement that:
The Climate Change Commission tasked with collating climate change research and examining economic issues, was shut down in Sept 2013, pretty much as soon as the Abbott gov came to power.
diplomatically.
barry:
Acronyms:
Climate Change AUTHORITY – CCA
Climate Change Commission – did not exist
Climate Commission – CC
I am not sure how Abbott’s abortive try at removing the C.C.A (Climate Change AUTHORITY) via the requisite legislation meets your original statement that:
The Climate Change Commission tasked with collating climate change research and examining economic issues, was shut down in Sept 2013, pretty much as soon as the Abbott gov came to power.
It did not exist so was never removed. I assumed you meant to say the Climate Commission – CC , which was headed by Tim Flannery. This was indeed removed in line with your date.
But why do you express surprise or irritation that Abbott wanted to remove the legacy of Labor (equivalent to US Dems) given he campaigned so strongly and made CO2 such a central issue? To me, it is a pity he did not succeed as we are now clearly seeing this legacy has led to some mighty power price increases and lack of secure supply.
This is why Abbott wanted the study using ‘Lomborg methodology’ to optimize the Oz response to the targets he was setting for Paris. He certainly was not going to get that from Flannery who basically was an inconsistent, garrulous parrot for IPCC reports. The Govt stated that openly just more diplomatically.
barry:
grr … will post the offending line (with hyphens now)just to illustrate the frustration.
This CC was not a statu-tory body and hence did not need Parliament-ary approval for its removal.
I’m not arguing that the abolition of the Climate Commission was illegitimate in law. Where’d you get that idea?
I made a point, but you nit-picked an error of naming. I also got the name correct a few sentences later, but you determined it was a good idea to zoom in on the error. I’m very doubtful our conversation will rise higher than that.
But if I’m wrong, read my post for the points and respond.
This post: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251635
It may be my eyesight but the “hockey stick” is not the same as in TAR. There is no splicing and the instrumental records are now very clearly identified.
The profile is exactly the same. Middle graph. The error bars are shown for the ensemble in the graph below that.
The instrumental record was clearly identified in T.A.R. Here’s a copy of the MBH99 graph direct from the report.
http://tinyurl.com/yc4b2auq
Instrumental data is clearly labeled at the top of the graph.
barry:
You ask Where did I get that idea? that you thought it illegal.
I didn’t! You expressed irritation at Abbott dispatching the CC. Abbott was able to do this unceremoniously unlike the CCA which required legislation. That’s all!
There was no nit-picking but trying to establish that we were talking about the same body the CC. Flannery would never have been considered competent to undertake an analysis comparable to the one provided by Lomborg’s methodology. But you asserted otherwise so I thought of the possibility you may have been referring to the CCA. I did not pick up that you had identified the CC later. In any case don’t you think it may have just added to the confusion?
It would have been pretty pointless and rather self defeating time-wise for me not to acknowledge it as that is what I did want to establish. If it was then Flannery headed it. I consider him totally incompetent for the task which is contrary to the view you had expressed about the CC. The Govt certainly concurred as they sacked him and the CC. I expressed my views clearly on his competence before.
I have also given you clear answers or referred you to the Vice-Chancellor’s statement which covered your other objections. Just because the answers may not agree with your view does not mean your objections have not been addressed.
Re IPCC graphics:
I have checked and as one of the hockey stick issues is clearly the lack of distinction of the instrumental plot I stand by what I said. Muller picked up on this too. We are talking two different graphs. The 2007 centre graphic version shows the instrumental record clearly and distinctly just with more plots.
The equivalent TAR graph I referred to was well covered by McIntyre. He blows up the section where there is a “blending” of a less distinct instrumental plot (which is what I was referring to in saying it was less distinct). But the whole set of shenanigans is more complex and subtle including end period smoothing and its effect Mike’s nature trick. The TAR graph in question and relevant discussions are here:
https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/11/the-maestro-of-mystery/#comment-340175
https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/14/briffa-and-mbh99-smoothing/
https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%e2%80%99s-nature-trick/
Tony,
You expressed irritation at Abbott dispatching the CC.
I am not “irritated” by the dispatching of the CC.
Abbott was able to do this unceremoniously unlike the CCA which required legislation. Thats all!
Ok. But I don’t know why this is relevant.
Flannery would never have been considered competent to undertake an analysis comparable to the one provided by Lomborgs methodology.
Is it your understanding that Tim Flannery was personally tasked to do an economic analysis? It seems to me you are making this an argument of personalities. The CC included expertise in economics and business as well as environmental researchers.
Can you say who the economic experts were and the teams they formed? And can you shed light on what specific knowledge/ability they lacked that Lomborg has?
I’m going to assume that your response on this particular question will not be some sort of politico-conspiracy.
I have also given you clear answers or referred you to the Vice-Chancellors statement which covered your other objections.
“Objections” is too strong. I provided a narrative that the Vice Chancellor didn’t cover.
Just because the answers may not agree with your view does not mean your objections have not been addressed.
The UWA VC didn’t address my points at all. Were you hoping I would accede to an argument to authority?
You also have not addressed those points. Namely, CC abolished because unneccesary and costly, according to the Abbott gov, then 2 years later the PM’s office (not the Dept of Education) initiates an academic appointment that costs nearly as much as what was abolished. Seems pretty clear to me the gov abolished a group they didn’t like, and attempted to install one that they did (Lomborg is hailed in Abbott’s book).
It would be great if we could discuss the politics of the situation without barracking for one side or the other.
Re IPCC graphics:
I have checked and as one of the hockey stick issues is clearly the lack of distinction of the instrumental plot I stand by what I said.
You said that the MBH graph in the TAR was not labeled with the instrumental record. It was. I provided the graphic from the TAR report in a link for you. What did you make of that?
We are talking two different graphs.
The links at climateaudit display the spaghetti reconstruction (with other reconstructions besides MBH) that appear immediately beneath the one I linked in the report. I though you were focused exclusively on TAR’s display of the MBH graphic.
Your first 2 links to climateaudit show the spaghetti graph from. That graph has the instrumental data clearly labeled.
Wondering if I had misunderstood what you’d said, I read back to your quote that prompted my response. Here’s what you said.
It may be my eyesight but the hockey stick is not the same as in TAR. There is no splicing and the instrumental records are now very clearly identified.
I think I understood you correctly. You posited that the TAR graph did not clearly identify the instrumental portion of the reconstructed temperatures.
The instrumental data is clearly labeled and displayed in the TAR graph Steve displayed.
If you are thinking of resurrecting those old arguments, please don’t. They are beside the points we are discussing. I have demonstrated that ‘skeptic’ papers are published and appear in the IPCC, as you requested. I can provide more examples, too – of Pielke Snr and Jnr, and Lindzen’s publications and inclusion in the IPCC documents. Same with Spencer and Christy. And more.
If I’ve seemed frosty it because years of climateball has made me impatient with sweeping generalizations. And of gratuitous comments on my feelings and motives. Should we continue, let’s set such suppositions aside, ok?
barry:
It is hard to ignore the politics underlying this whole field. It is what drives it and is exemplified by Angela Merkel criticizing Trump for ‘just not understanding that this was a new way of doing international business.’ So CO2 is really not so important as if we needed to be told. Scientists are two bit players in the whole field. They are really just useful tools to help stimulate the gravy train the biggest in the history of the world. Politics, ideology and money are inextricably woven here. I suspect there is a key factor in there which may be important but as yet I am not clear in my own mind (it is touched on by Merkel’s comment and Bob Brown below).
Where does one start Agenda 21, Pauchuri extolling it as his religion, the precautionary principle, the scare tactics, scientists involved in conspiring to evoke RICO to prosecute deniers when the hallmark of Western Science has been skepticism, former Green’s leader Bob Brown gleefully rubbing his hands at the prospects of the demise of all Oz coal and the establishment of one world Govt just to touch the surface of this quagmire. I might add I have a lot of admiration for Bob just not in this other than his forthrightness.
Back to Tim Flannery. His name reeks of politics and ideological alarmism costing $billions in mothballed desal plants alone. The $90 million Govt award to the failed Geodynamics does not go unnoticed given he was a beneficiary (Solyndra rings a bell in the US).
I say Tim Flannery is incompetent for the jobs in question; you disagree. I say the CC was a waste of money; you say it had great capability. You say the Govt should not have terminated the CC; by its action it disagreed. The Govt gave its reasons that it could effectively get all his reports direct from the IPCC. You disagree. So what?
I don’t hide the fact I see him as inconsistent, incompetent and cost Oz $billions. I said so before. If even Virginia Trioli, who is as left as any in the ABC, can spot his faults and complain about them even commenting on Tim’s denial of his own comments then why would you expect that I or Abbott would form positive views.
I did not appreciate his touting that there was a consensus on the science and the science was settled; nothing was settled in science except for political purposes. It came back to bite the science community when Abbott cut funding on the basis that the science was settled. I could not imagine a worst outcome than having Flannery in charge of an in depth economic evaluation no matter who worked for him.
Ultimately a Govt has to have confidence in such a leader’s capability as well as rapport or else it becomes a dysfunctional, counter productive appendage. There may have been plenty of good people under Flannery but it would not suffice to offset these issues.
These principles apply equally well to Govt or senior management in large corporations where even Divisional heads often can bring their own team so the issue of whether CC had capable people does not arise.
Abbott had faith in Lomborg’s methodology no doubt for similar reasons given by the Vice-Chancellor. Ultimately Abbott had to take responsibility for the outcome, and not you nor I, so his choice is the only one that matters. There are no grounds for you to take exception when it is the norm not to persist with a previous Govt’s baggage around one’s neck. As I said, Flannery himself was a political appointment as was the creation of the CC. It was a useful tool for PM Gillard in prosecuting a carbon tax. This does not resonate with you: fine.
You assert the CC was tasked with examining economic issues and ..dedicated to studying the economics of climate change. Which is what the Climate Commission had been doing. I don’t recall any in depth analysis of climate change economics. Preaching a mantra of renewables versus scorched earth consequences is a poor substitute.
The UWA proposal using Lomborg methodology was much broader than this. Although Lomborg would not draw any a salary from the UWA he was already on the Govt payroll (DFAT)
as an advisor on aid innovation and would run rings around Flannery as foreign aid was also to be a project at UWA.
Re the Vice-Chancellor’s comments you dive up the first path to negativity. So my design is for you to be cowed by authority. That is silly! That document explains clearly the motivation and rationale for taking up the proposal and addresses many of your questions including Lomborg’s economic credentials which overwhelm Flannery. Saves me time to write about them; I couldn’t do as fine a job. But you choose to see it in a different light. Fine.
Ultimately we see the legacy playing out right in strained power supplies, threats to industry and people least able to afford it simply struggling.
barry:
I will briefly clear up a few points you asked.
Relevance of Abbott being able to dismiss CC:
Your assertion that I was suggesting you had thought the action illegal had to come from somewhere. I was just covering this area by closing off any thought that there was any other meaning behind my comment (by adding That’s all to it).
You were not irritated:
So you were pleased, indifferent or displeased? I suggest the latter.
IPCC Graphics:
From my first reference to the difference and lack of clarity I was always talking about the centre or middle spaghetti graph. I would not have been able to say that for MBH99 as the instrumental is clear there (despite my eyesight!). You understood it as MBH99. There is nothing further I can add but clearly this created confusion.
You yourself are creating confusion here as well. This is your statement:
The profile is exactly the same. Middle graph. The error bars are shown for the ensemble in the graph below that.
What does your middle graph mean if not the spaghetti graph? This is why I dismissed the graphic tinyurl you sent as MBH99 (the bottom graph) was not the graph I was talking about. I thought you had made an error.
For me the 2007 compared to TAR (spaghetti) is chalk and cheese in terms of clarity of the instrumental. Having two similar colours (pink & red) does not help in FAR.
Resurrecting climategate:
Beyond the obstacles put in McIntyres way I had no purpose other than following up on the comment you made that the hockey stick and M&M were in the 2007 report. I had mistakenly believed otherwise which was then confirmed by that book reference that came up. Not good and not desirable. I am nonplussed as to why the writer chose to write it in book form without checking.
It’s disappointing that you continue to need to characterise my emotional response. I did not “express surprise or irritation” about the climate commission. I said only that the Abbott gov abolished it soon after coming to office.
Barry: The Climate Change Commission tasked with collating climate change research and examining economic issues, was shut down in Sept 2013, pretty much as soon as the Abbott gov came to power.
The reason given? It was a cost-cutting exercise for an unnecessary department.
Your interpretation of my ‘feelings’ comes out of thin air and gives me no confidence we can have an objective conversation. One more try, then…
It is hard to ignore the politics underlying this whole field. It is what drives it…
If everything you say is laced with your own politics, then there is an unwelcome bias in our conversation. There is a science element to the discussion, and a political element. If you are unable to extract them from each other I’m not interested in continuing. I’ll see how your response goes.
Scientists are two bit players in the whole field. They are really just useful tools to help stimulate the gravy train the biggest in the history of the world.
With each change of government policy has changed on climate change. This is so in the US, too.
But the message from national science bodies remained consistent. The GW Bush administration rejected AGW for most of its course, scientists complained that the gov was wrong and interfered in their reports. The scientists did not become lackeys of that government. Same with Howard and Abbott.
The politics has changed, the science hasn’t. If scientists were following the government of the day, then the CSIRO would have piped out the Howard and Abbott message on climate change. they didn’t. Neither did the US National Academy, NOAA, GISS and other science bodies in the US when anti-AGW conservatives took power.
Researchers do not facilitate their scientific conclusions to the government of the day.
Back to Tim Flannery. His name reeks…
Again the argument to personalities. I’m not particularly fond of Flannery, but instead of citing the work of the CC you trounce the director.
Do you even know the names of the economists and business people who were on the CC?
I say Tim Flannery is incompetent for the jobs in question; you disagree.
I neither agreed nor disagreed. You just made that up.
I say the CC was a waste of money; you say it had great capability.
I made no comment about their “capability,” great or otherwise. You just made that up.
You say the Govt should not have terminated the CC
I did not say that the government should not have terminated the CC. You just made that up.
The Govt gave its reasons that it could effectively get all his reports direct from the IPCC. You disagree.
I did not comment on this at all. You just made that up.
I referenced other reasons the government gave for abolishing the CC.
I dont hide the fact I see him as inconsistent, incompetent and cost Oz $billions. I said so before.
Indeed. It has become somewhat of a mantra for you. I do read your posts, you know.
If even Virginia Trioli, who is as left as any in the ABC, can spot his faults and complain about them even commenting on Tims denial of his own comments then why would you expect that I or Abbott would form positive views.
I think it’s beginning to dawn on me that you don’t like Flannery….
I did not appreciate his touting that there was a consensus on the science and the science was settled
Still talking about Flannery?
Want to know something funny? The Lomborg Centre was to be called… The Australian Consensus Centre.
Ultimately a Govt has to have confidence in such a leaders capability as well as rapport or else it becomes a dysfunctional, counter productive appendage.
This is the most reasonable comment you’ve made.
I certainly agree that a government needs to have departments or other bodies that have leaders which give them confidence. I’m no fan of Flannery.
Abbott had faith in Lomborgs methodology no doubt for similar reasons given by the Vice-Chancellor.
But the academics didn’t. The following article outlines why in great detail.
https://theconversation.com/the-australian-consensus-centre-what-are-the-costs-and-benefits-to-uwa-40808
Now, you may be wondering why I’m not protesting that Flannery was a good leader and the CC should have remained. that surprise would be entirely of your own making, as I never argued differently. If you’re now wondering what my criticism was, I refer you to my original post on it.
The UWA proposal using Lomborg methodology was much broader than this. Although Lomborg would not draw any a salary from the UWA he was already on the Govt payroll (DFAT)
And you don’t see his attempted appointment to UWA as a political move?
Re the Vice-Chancellors comments you dive up the first path to negativity.
You just made that up. I never disavowed his comments. My points were orthogonal to his. You, on the other hand, “dive up the first path to negativity” regarding the academic response.
And the academic response was the point. The vice chancellor was not the only, nor the most authoritative voice on the matter.
Would I be correct in predicting you will write off every other opinion from academics on the matter as being political? Yet the VC was in the most politicised position of all the academic commenters as the sub head of an institution.
I refer you again to the link above as to the academic basis for rejecting the Australian Consensus Centre at UWA.
Ultimately we see the legacy playing out right in strained power supplies, threats to industry and people least able to afford it simply struggling.
When the Carbon Tax was abolished we were promised lower energy prices. Instead, they have soared since. That this is little to do with carbon and renewables policy is in no doubt. There have been a number of reports and articles on it.
A parliamentary report in 2013 covered causes for soaring rises in energy prices. None of those reasons was to do with climate change policy. And, perhaps surprisingly, prices briefly leveled off around the time of the introduction of the carbon tax. Note: I am not claiming that that is related, but it does work against an assertion that climate policies cause soaring energy prices.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/EnergyPrices
What we see here is energy prices soaring well before any carbon policy is enacted. The cause cannot be laid at the feet of any climate policy.
Since then a number of factors, different for each state, has contributed to the rise in energy prices, mainly grid maintenance (sometimes criticised as ‘gold-plating’), gas price rise, an uncertain policy environmant (due to changes with each new government) and closure of power stations.
Re coal station closure, an example that has been mischaracterized is the closing of the Victorian Hazelwood power station. While some point to it being a government decision, that initiative was scrapped by the government, and instead came from the private company that owned it, due to it being non-economic to run a 52 year-old power station that had endured past its projected operation life.
Here is the company’s press release:
http://tinyurl.com/y8oujykp
Lest you assume my position on coal and renewables, I’ll make it clear. I expect some cost would come with moving to renewables, and a concurrent increase in the price of electricity. But i know that blaming the majority of of the price rises we have seen on clean energy policy is false.
Australian policy on climate change and CC economics cannot occur in a vacuum. Hazelwood, for example, was owned by a French company. While the rest of the world (America absent for the moment) shifts to cleaner energy technologies, affecting the price of conventional fuels and technology to some degree, Australia would be unwise to go it alone as the US seems to be doing. Our economic success through successive governments of both stripes has come with positioning ourselves intelligently in a global market (ever since Keating floated the dollar) as well as domestic economic policies.
The issues are not as black and white as you present them, and the facts are much subtler. You seem to demonise all things AGW and renewables related. If it is, as you say, all politics, then that politics is global, and Australia (and the US) should face these realities instead of trying to deny them or get left behind.
Ultimately a Govt has to have confidence in such a leaders capability as well as rapport or else it becomes a dysfunctional, counter productive appendage.
A second look at your comment here:
Rapport? Counter-productive?
If you mean to imply in your above comment that Abbott’s office initiated the Lomborg centre because it would not be counter-productive to the government’s agenda, then we are in agreement.
barry:
You comment:
If everything you say is laced with your own politics …
I did go to lengths to explain that this field is covered completely and inextricably by politics. That does not mean that I am lacing it with my politics.
You rationalize for different administrations but don’t respond to practical on the ground consequences that have been lived by scientists to name a few like Judith Curry, Dr Roy or Lindzen, who has expressed a total frustration suggesting this field to have become a religion, that it should be de-funded and start again.
Further the RICO legislation gambit by scientists did not take place without political endorsement; I suggest even Obama was into it up to his neck (no I don’t have evidence).
If the science was sound I would also be in there driving CO2 mitigation on scientific grounds. But there is no fundamental science which can dethrone the null hypothesis of natural variability. There is no falsifiable hypothesis or testing to even call it science.
The best that could be done after over 150 years of this idea is to extract Hansen’s hypothesis (he has claimed thus his physics was exact), the Far predictions and even the hotspot consequence in the tropical mid troposphere. All fail and thus falsify whatever hypothesis one extracts. Other than that you are welcome to show me a clear, testable, quantifiable, falsifiable hypothesis and clear empirical evidence supporting that hypothesis.
Words are limited; interpretations can be limitless. This seems to be what is happening in our interchange and casting my eye over your objections I can see I would have to go into repetitive mode, address a whole lot of issues on the financial side where you are simply not comparing like for like and don’t seem to understand what goes into strategic analysis of major investment decisions and then even onto the bizarre notion of the US being left behind.
If I take an imaginary whiteboard and put up points on which we agree or have gained fruitful insights from each other and mark these with a tick or a smudge for just a semblance of a meeting of the minds, I imagine the board still being very white with just a smudge or two. So I ask the rhetorical question is it worth pursuing it any further given the length of postings.
Continuing on from your rather crude conditional statement ( more than one person is entitled to become sensitive) :
If you are unable to extract them from each other Im not interested in continuing
then I suggest you just assume that I am unable to do so.
I do genuinely wish you a nice day.
Roy…”Heck, even *I* believe we will continue to see modest warming, and that it might well be at least 50% due to CO2″.
Pure speculation, Roy. It’s really discouraging to see guesses put forth as representing reality. You did qualify your claim by saying “might”, which just confirms that it is a guess.
The temperatures climbed from 1910 to 1940, at the same magnitude as they have climbed from 1978 to the present. I don’t think you attribute the 1910-1940 warming to human-derived CO2, yet you are guessing that the current warming is attributed to CO2 to one percentage or another.
I assume you are making this leap merely because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than then, but there is no evidence this increased amount of CO2 is increasing the temperatures.
When the current temperatures go higher than the 1930’s, about 0.4C higher than today, then you might be able to make a case that something unusual is going on with the atmosphere.
Until then, we are still in the same kind of natural variation we have been in for the last century. We have been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s. So when we talk about current warming, we are really only talking about catching back up to where we were in the 1930’s, and we’re not quite there yet, even with all this added CO2 in the mix.
Prove ANY percentage of the warmth we are currently experiencing is from CO2. You can’t do it, so please refrain from putting a number on it, when there is no way you can know that number. It’s pure speculation.
TA: Your proof
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
Davie, is all that “radiative forcing” measured in Watts/m^2, by any chance?
Is that really the smartest reply you could come up with?
It’s not a “reply”. It was a question, directed to you. It was just one more way of ridiculing your pseudoscience.
It’s about the dumbest question possible.
It was obviously over your head.
If you are trying to used the IPCC “radiative forcing”, the units are in Watts/m^2. That, of course, means that CO2 is a “heat source”.
TA says:
“When the current temperatures go higher than the 1930s, about 0.4C higher than today”
Actually the 1930s were about 0.9 C *lower* than today:
GISS average global anomalies:
1930s: -0.10 C
2010s (so far): 0.76 C
David Appell:
Don’t know about world data but I have an archived GISS T set for the USA anomalies (John Daley archive):
1931 1.15
1933 .73
1934 1.30
1938 .93
1939 .91
This compares to the 1990’s:
1993 -.62
1994 .28
1995 .17
1996 -.37
1997 -.14
This is consistent with Hansen’s comment of no higher T in the USA in the 90’s.
I don’t have a full set of global but these global data suffice from GISS:
1941 is +0.09C
1945 is +0.05C
1960 is -0.02C
1976 is -0.17C
1995 is +0.40C
2011 is +0.51C
They are quite different to your data set. No surprise here given that Tony Haller showed a 0.98 R^2 correlation between T adjustments and CO2 increases. In other words the T fix is in!!! More GISS junk science!
Here are the current decadal averages for USA48, from NOAA:
decade average
starting
1901 51.5 F
1911 51.2
1921 51.9
1931 52.6
1941 52.0
1951 52.2
1961 51.7
1971 51.7
1981 52.4
1991 52.8
2001 53.2
2011 54.1 (so far)
David Appell:
You will have to do better than that. As I said the fix is in. Do you think NOAA and GISS use independent data and independent fixes? What a laugh.
All use basically the same data with components of homogenizing, kriging, infilling, projection, Karlizing etc with a good dose of past-ur-eysing. Add to that UHI, site quality, operator capability, inclusion/exclusion of sites over time, height adjustments and many with which I am unfamiliar that the mince pie that comes out just does not reflect the beef, chicken or pork that was really there. Some find it tasty!
Specific adjustment for specific, understood reasons is justifiable of course.
Now in the past I have asked you on two separate occasions to explain the T measures of two Perth sites which varied by 7C to 11C for most of the day to about 11pm. The sites are separated by less than 8km and both are basically at sea level. No response from you. So what was the T of Perth for those days? What would the official records show?
Yet you expect me to accept that infilling and projections of T are scientifically supportable methodology just because Hansen wrote a paper that showed just over 0.50 R^2 correlation coefficient within 1200km. What absolute junk!
I will go on from my experience in another field. Whenever an algorithm is introduced to average data and reduce variances by changing it when new data is available it will have the effect of moving the differences in a direction away from zero slope. I have tried to dampen the effect by using James-Stein estimators but an effect still remains and will invariably continue. That is precisely what is happening with databases. Go ask Tony Haller!
BOM (Oz) was tackled. It could not explain the alterations made to specific site data; too complex to explain. Heavens, I know what a thermometer T measure is and there is nothing complex. Imagine all hospital historical T records being changed every day just to satisfy Hansen methodology!! That should fix the patients!
Jennifer Marohassy seemed to lose her job because she questioned the BOM methodology.
Ditch the witchcraft and start again.
tony, that’s the best data available.
Do you have better?
All groups (including UAH) correct for biases.
How would you like to correct for those biases.
You can learn more here (great article):
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
PS: Jennifer Marohassy is an unscientific hack. I don’t know who fired her, or from what, but if it was regarding climate science she certainly deserved it.
David Appell:
I don’t have better data. But, I am not paid to have or to get it.
Thanks for your reference. I did point out that :
Specific adjustment for specific, understood reasons is justifiable of course.
But, no amount of rationalization will be persuasive given an end result that gives an R^2 = 0.98 correlation between adjustments and CO2 changes. Go see Tony Heller.
I tried to explain issues with algorithms involving new data inputs and iterative processes but it goes straight over your head. Your reference virtually confirms what I was saying.
In practice inexplicable step-changes or changes in linear slope involving past data confirms this problem specifically when it cannot be explained physically.
This is what Jennifer Marohassy was highlighting. Specific sites, like Rutherglen, were being turned upside down by this methodology. If there is no clear physical explanation then the past data should not be changed. End of story.
So whenever a scientist does not agree with your ideology then they clearly need to be denigrated as you have done with Marohassy.
Similarly with N&K even though they would run rings around you.
Now show us your prowess. How is your effort progressing to get that $10K prize? viz:
Accordingly, Peter Ward has issued a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can demonstrate by experiment that greenhouse gases are more effective at warming Earth than ozone depletion.
tonyM, which Perth sites were you referring to?
Here’s some stations:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/station-list/location/31.35S-114.97E
Perth combined estimate:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/31.35S-114.97E
Anybody who pays attention to Roy knows that for current temperature changes, he insists on using the satellite temperature record, rather than the ever-adjusted ground station record. He would presumably have a bone to pick with the BEST methodology right there. So would I. Use instrumentation that doesn’t need serious controversial adjustments in the first place. (I said Serious).
If that’s your starting point, temperature hasn’t significantly risen for nearly 20 years. Surely a genuine Red Team would take a stand on that, too.
Roberto
You may have noticed that UAH is on Version 6.0.
Dr Spencer has been adjusting his microwave based system since it started, trying to adjust for changes in sensors, slant angle and satellite altitude. Turning raw microwave data into a temperature estimate takes a complex and constantly updated algorithm.
If you think satellite datasets do not need adjustment you are deluding yourself
The satellite measurements are still superior to the ground measurements, because the ground measurements don’t even show warming unless you make hundreds of thousands of individual changes. Compare Hansen 1985 with Hansen 2015 (?). It looks just like scientific fraud to me.
Hive: How would you prefer to correct for biases?
.
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
Use instrumentation that doesnt need serious controversial adjustments in the first place. (I said Serious).
Satellite adjustments are as large and larger than surface record.
Satellite instrumentation doesn’t even measure temperature in the atmosphere. The data go through considerable processing.
What you would prefer doesn’t exist.
Roberto, the UAH model is far more heavily “adjusted” than the surface temperature model.
UAH is not having to extrapolate over something like 12 different satellites. Iffy.
* Should be, “UAH is *now* having to extrapolate….”
Sorry.
Visible line of convergence of cool and hot air on 18.06.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/06/18/0300Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-105.16,40.88,1806
Very high galactic radiation.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Great amounts of rain will fall in the east of North America.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=39.2;-90.9;3&l=rain-ac&t=20170624/00
There are currently no tropical cyclones in any ocean basin.
There are currently no invests in any ocean basin.
http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/storminfo/
“But Barber said once out on the water the scientists realized this wasn’t the usual sea ice, which would be relatively easy for the icebreaker to plow through, but thicker ice from further north which had broken off because of climate change.”???
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/u-of-m-climate-change-study-postponed-due-to-climate-change-428030543.html
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_zoom_4km.png
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00909/d1uvhcxoc1b2.png
If anybody thinks that CO2 absorbing IR shows anything other than the ability of all matter to be heated, they are mistaken.
Depending on pressure, CO2 absorbs between 750 and 2000 times better than O2 and N2.
For fun, replacing CO2 with a thin piece of wood results in even greater opacity. Nobody seriously proposes wood as having temperature raising properties (unless you burn it, I suppose). So where does the blocked radiation go? It heats the wood, of course, which proceeds to radiate at a lesser intensity in all directions. Just as CO2, or anything else.
A column of CO2 warmed from one end has a temperature gradient along it, as does any gas. It’s not simple, either. The specific heat of CO2 changes with density, and the concept of temperature fails at very low pressures, as “temperatures” in the thermosphere show. During the day, the atmospheric column is heated at one end by a 5500 K approx. distant heat source, and at the other end by a surface ranging from about -90 C to +90 C.
As the Earth rotates, the inputs at both ends are constantly changing, and this can result in low level inversions where temperature increases with altitude, and do on.
Still no GHE. Just a chaotic non-linear, unpredictable system. Unpredictable, that is, in any useful fashion better than a naive persistence prediction – day hotter than night, winter colder than summer, and so on.
Give the deleted GHE supporters a constant heat source, a thermometer at a distance, and some CO2. Just ask them to demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and the heat source makes the the thermometer hotter. No analogies or thought experiments. No computer simulations.
Just a simple scientific reproducible experiment. How hard can it be?
Bah. Humbug!
Cheers.
You can find such experiments in classrooms worldwide and on youtube (which I’ve supplied before) and in the scientific literature.
It’s been done over and over. Your ignorance of this doesn’t change the fact.
Mike Flynn
The classic experiment to demonstrate the principle of the greenhouse effect is a long tube with a mirror lining.
At each end I am infra-red detector and at one end(A) is a 15 micrometre IR source.
Fill the tube with Nitrogen/Oxygen mix. All the IR entering at A leaves at the other end (B).
Add a trace of CO2. Most of the IR leave at B, while a small amount of reradiated IR leaves at A.
Increase the amount of CO2 and the proportion of IR leaving at A increases. Eventually 50% of the Incoming IR leaves at B and 50% at A.
Any friendly university physics department will set up this experiment for you.
Trivial. Everyone knows CO2 absorbs in the IR. It does not follow that increasing CO2 concentration will necessarily warm the Earth’s surface significantly, or even at all.
Surface temperatures are the result of a complex chain of various influences and reactions striving together for radiative-convective equilibrium. The process cannot be decoupled into non-interacting pieces and then reassembled with any substantial hope of getting the right answer.
Bart says:
“Surface temperatures are the result of a complex chain of various influences and reactions striving together for radiative-convective equilibrium. The process cannot be decoupled into non-interacting pieces and then reassembled with any substantial hope of getting the right answer.”
Actually it can. (That’s what physics does.) Manabe and Wetherald were the first to calculate the correct surface temperature of the planet, and the lapse rate.
“Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” J Atmo Sci, Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Published online on 1 May, 1967.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Mmm, no. That is not what physics does. People sometimes do it, and it sometimes works, but generally under controlled conditions as in a laboratory, where the influence of confounding variables is artificially restricted.
Getting a plausible agreement with observations is not a sufficient condition to establish a physical theory, only a necessary one. There is no physical principal which requires increasing surface temperature due to increasing CO2; it is only allowed, not required.
Wrong.
CO2 strongly absorbs IR. Therefore, it increases surface temperatures. Manabe & Wetherald calculated how much, and got the right answer.
It was a monumental paper. And very clearly written, too — well worth a read.
You obviously are a spectator, rather than a practitioner, of science.
I know how to read a scientific paper, and understand what it means.
No, you really don’t.
Sure I do. I’ve read far more of them than you have.
Apes reading Nietzsche.
Trivial. Everyone knows CO2 absorbs in the IR.
Do you think comments about this are apropos of nothing? Gordon Roberts tells us CO2 reflects radiation.
Where are you when people here deny the greenhouse effect? Kristian is a ‘skeptic’, but has no problem correcting the no-greenhouse people here. Is your need for messaging so strong that you can let the lunacy pass?
“Where are you when people here deny the greenhouse effect?”
Do they deny that CO2 absorbs in the IR? If they do, then they are wrong. Beyond that, it gets complicated. There are many layers of the onion to peel back, and I am loath to engage in the discussion, as the waters can get muddied very quickly.
The cartoon version of the GHE, in which IR absorbing molecules take in incoming radiation and spit it back out, roughly half back to the surface, is definitely wrong. However, that does not mean that the GHE does not exist, only that it is more complicated than that. Maybe someday, I will discuss with you the complications. But, that day is not this day.
Simple, yes. But a good description to first order.
No, not really at all.
Roy,
The last sentence of your article mentioned US energy policy.
Is the Red Team, then, purely US interests and not an international panel?
Would that mean they should limit their view to purely the US?
Or if they compass global warming, should they expand their scope/policy views to the wider world?
AGW is a global problem. Looks like Team Red, in your view, is to be a parochial review board.
I agree with your post, but would suggest (at least) adding review of the social impacts of the global warming prevention measures, which have caused serious harm to all the countries that have attempted them.
We don’t need either team. It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars. If 97% is a consensus, then the 97% natural emissions/yr are a consensus, too: we have nothing to do with it. 😉
Ion-induced nucleation of pure biogenic particles
Jasper Kirkby, Jonathan Duplissy, Kamalika Sengupta, Carla Frege, Hamish Gordon, Christina Williamson, Martin Heinritzi, Mario Simon, Chao Yan, João Almeida, Jasmin Tröstl, Tuomo Nieminen, Ismael K. Ortega, Robert Wagner, Alexey Adamov, Antonio Amorim, Anne-Kathrin Bernhammer, Federico Bianchi, Martin Breitenlechner, Sophia Brilke, Xuemeng Chen, Jill Craven, Antonio Dias, Sebastian Ehrhart, Richard C. Flagan et al.
Atmospheric aerosols and their effect on clouds are thought to be important for anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate, yet remain poorly understood1. Globally, around half of cloud condensation nuclei originate from nucleation of atmospheric vapours2. It is thought that sulfuric acid is essential to initiate most particle formation in the atmosphere3, 4, and that ions have a relatively minor role5. Some laboratory studies, however, have reported organic particle formation without the intentional addition of sulfuric acid, although contamination could not be excluded6, 7. Here we present evidence for the formation of aerosol particles from highly oxidized biogenic vapours in the absence of sulfuric acid in a large chamber under atmospheric conditions. The highly oxygenated molecules (HOMs) are produced by ozonolysis of α-pinene. We find that ions from Galactic cosmic rays increase the nucleation rate by one to two orders of magnitude compared with neutral nucleation. Our experimental findings are supported by quantum chemical calculations of the cluster binding energies of representative HOMs. Ion-induced nucleation of pure organic particles constitutes a potentially widespread source of aerosol particles in terrestrial environments with low sulfuric acid pollution.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17953.html
SO4 particle map.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/particulates/surface/level/overlay=suexttau/orthographic=-82.29,42.09,903
Air humidity – Eastern Pacific.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/bTPW/TPW_Animation.html?fromDate=20170614&fromHour=23&endDate=20170615&endHour=5&product=EAST_PACIFIC_TPW&interval=hourly
Hi Norman and tonyM,
I hope this post works, because I had my previous attempt still blocked.
I try to post it by blocks
s Norman link highlights, they had a bunch of energy emitted by the candle, too much indeed to view the tiny influence of the CO2 abs-orp-tion (at 4 microns). Without the filter trick, probably no one realized that CO2 have almost any effect on that radiation (which it has instead, of course).
I am absolutely aware of the IR activity of CO2 (and I suppose almost anyone here with a little of basic physic knowledge agree with that), what is still in discussion IMHO is how much (or if) the CO2 IR activity at 15 microns (not the one of that experiment) could effectively increase the temperature of a much warmer object that is facing the gas emissions and it is the source of the very same gas.emissions.
What Entropic man din’t realize is that a real (for example) red abs-orb-ing liquid, if placed at a concentration of 100% in volume in a cubic container, and enlightened on one face of the cube, is seen as light green (the complementary color of red) on the face opposite to the light source, and very light red on the other faces.
All the colored inks used are opaque instead, so they abs-orbs all
the radiation (converting it to heat) and reflects only the colour
they appear. To do a parallel with the tropospheric thermodynamics
those pigments behave more like particulates than CO2.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Dr. Spencer,
I could have discovered the issue, it seems there is a problem posting long lines without CR-LF sequences.
Have a great day.
Massimo
I think it would be a very good plan to have a Red Team do a serious evaluation of Five Points.
I think far too many posts on this blog are endless comments on what “heat” is and how it works. Or a couple people do not believe the physics of GHE and debate endlessly that there is no possible way CO2 could increase the equilibrium temperature of a heated surface. Or a trace gas cannot have any influence (even though it appears the trace gas Ozone warms the Stratosphere considerably by absorbing UV energy).
I would much rather spend time and research on trying to figure out the actual impact increased CO2 will have on average global temperature and all the other effects predicted. Rising sea level (how much), Droughts (will they increase in intensity and area?), rainfall (will there be more or less flooding?), tornadoes( more or less?) hurricanes (more or less and what about intensity).
This is where I was hoping a science blog might go. Work on using the combined mental abilities of many people to try and figure out the questions and evaluate the reality of the various problems associated with global warming.
I think the Red-Team approach would help greatly in getting at some to the tougher questions.
Norman,
The IPCC stated that future climate states are not predictable. Neither is weather.
Good luck with predicting either. Try a climatologist, or an astrologer if that doesn’t work.
Or pray for good luck.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
There are always trends to observe. You can predict future weather to a certain degree. Winter will be much colder than summer in many regions. In the tropics they have repeatable wet and dry periods. There are some cycles and predictability within some ranges.
Not exactly sure what the point of your post is.
Mike Flynn says:
“The IPCC stated that future climate states are not predictable.”
But, given a socio-economic scenario, the probability distribution of future climate states can be *projected*. These are almost all worrisome.
And there is still the possibility of a relatively sudden nonlinear change due to tipping points, chaos, etc. The chance of these grows as more energy is put into the climate system, and their possibility could wreck havoc if one or more happened.
Davie, you’re going to scare yourself so bad you’ll be hiding under your bed tonight!
David Appell,
You’re delusional. Assertions are not facts. Anything is possible, except the chance of a foolish Warmist accepting fact over fantasy.
Cheers.
“Anything is possible….”
No, only what physics allows is possible. For climate change, the most important law is conservation of energy. Any change must meet that requirement.
Norm, your “confirmation bias” is showing, again.
You state: “I would much rather spend time and research on trying to figure out the actual impact increased CO2 will have on average global temperature and all the other effects predicted.”
That would be a WASTE of time and research because the satellite anomalies already have shown the IPCC predictions to be way wrong. The worms in your head just won’t let you see reality.
g*e*r*a*n
I do not thing these “worms” you speak of are the problem at all. The flaw is in your ability to read and understand information. Some people are dyslexic and have problems reading. You seem to twist and distort things you read in some unpredictable and unstable pattern and have problems with your comprehension.
Why would satellite data and IPCC predictions have anything to do with the nature of my post?
If you had some ability to comprehend what you read you may understand I was exactly asking that the Red-Team could evaluate the IPCC predictions to see what reality is actually doing.
Norm denies his own words, again: “…actual impact increased CO2 will have on average global temperature…”
g*e*r*a*n
I am not denying anything at all you just have no ability to comprehend what you read and twist it to mean something else.
ME: “I would much rather spend time and research on trying to figure out the actual impact increased CO2 will have on average global temperature and all the other effects predicted.”
If you take out the first part and leave a segment you can make things appear anyway you want them to. My statement in full is about trying to “figure” out the impact, it is not declaring there is any or how much it will impact, it is a declaration to work on figuring out the actual impact.
Now is that clearer to you or will you continue twisting and distorting and being unable to comprehend what you read?
Norm, if you want to deny your own words, it is okay with me. Just don’t get mad if I laugh at you.
(Hilarious.)
g*e*r*a*n
You are perfectly fine to laugh at your own twisting of reality. I do not know what syndrome you have but it is interesting.
Dr. Roy warns: “Do NOT Strive for Consensus with the Blue Team.”
Well then, we don’t want Pielke, Curry, Christy, or any other Lukewarmer on the Red Team. The Lukewarmers can’t wait to join hands and claim CO2 is warming the planet! They seem to love pseudoscience as much as the Warmists.
Massimo Porzio
You are stretching this far too far. The video I linked was a simple demonstration that small amounts of material can have significant effects on the transparency of a fluid, in response to the “CO2 is a trace gas and can’t possibly have any effect” straw man. It is not a detailed simulation of the greenhouse effect.
I described a better experiment t to Mike Flynn, but got no reply.
“The classic experiment to demonstrate the principle of the greenhouse effect is a long tube with a mirror lining.
At each end is an infra-red detector and at one end(A) is a 15 micrometre IR source.
Fill the tube with Nitrogen/Oxygen mix. All the IR entering at A leaves at the other end (B).
Add a trace of CO2. Most of the IR leave at B, while a small amount of reradiated IR leaves at A.
Increase the amount of CO2 and the proportion of IR leaving at A increases. Eventually you get 50% emerging from B and 50% from A.
Any friendly university physics department could set this up for you.”
Comments?
Incidentally, to compare this experiment with the atmosphere, stand it on end.
A is the earth’s surface, emitting IR a d receiving reradiated IR from the atmosphere.
B is the top of the atmosphere, from which IR is lost to space.
One of the jobs of a legitimate Red team would be to explain how the atmosphere could reduce the amount of energy lost from the surface to space without increasing the equilibrium temperature of that surface.
Let me guess, IR coming back to “A” is the deadly “back-radiation” that is going to “blow-torch” everything in its path?
Did I guess right?
The IR coming back to A is indeed back-radiation.
The rest of your comment is denier bullshit.
Dang, I thought you would like “blow-torch”.
How about “CO2 laser”? How about “thermonuclear device”?
Let’s “trap” some real heat!
(I just love psilly pseudoscience.)
Entropic Man,
You wrote –
“Fill the tube with Nitrogen/Oxygen mix. All the IR entering at A leaves at the other end (B).”
Well no, it doesn’t. John Tyndall actually performed experiments, rather than just thinking about them. His results disagree with your assertion.
You are just talking nonsense. CO2 above absolute zero radiates in all directions, according to its temperature. Even with a perfectly reflective tube, or other other imaginary apparatus, there will be a temperature gradient within it. The CO2 will radiate more intensely at the hotter end, in accordance with the fourth power of the absolute temperature.
Even if CO2 absorbs 2000 times the IR that O2/N2 do (and it doesn’t), then 4 molecules of CO2 do not block as much IR as 9996 molecules of O2/N2.
You’re talking rubbish.
Cheers.
Neither O2 nor N2 absorb infrared radiation.
David Appell,
You wrote-
“Neither O2 nor N2 absorb infrared radiation.”
John Tyndall measured the relative IR abs.orb.tive qualities of O2 and N2 compared to CO2 over 150 years ago. However, if you want something more up to date, and peer reviewed, –
“Introduction
[2] It is a widespread notion that both main constituents of the atmosphere, molecular nitrogen (N2) and molecular oxygen (O2) exert almost no greenhouse effect [Le Treut et al., 2007]. Their contribution is mainly ascribed to indirect effects like the pressure-broadening of CO2-lines in the infrared [Lacis et al., 2010; Goldblatt et al., 2009]. Thus, N2 and O2 are sometimes not considered as natural greenhouse gases even in case of low water vapor conditions [Lacis et al., 2010].”
You’re full of delusional crap.
Still no GHE. Still no CO2 heating.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Roy’s site is again blocking replies that contain science.
Still can’t post a comment referencing Tyndall.
What a way to run a science blog.
JT measured oxygen and nitrogen’s infrared ab.sorp.tion — and found them to be zero.
See the table in Tyndall’s paper, pg 31:
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf
With an understanding of quantum mechanics, it’s easy to see why two-atom molecules do not absorb IR but three-or-more-atom molecules do, via their rotational and vibrational bands.
David Appell,
From Tyndall’s experiments (real, not imaginary), relative IR opacity –
Dry air, oxygen, nitrogen – 1
Carbonic oxide, carbonic acid – 90
IR source approx 270 C
Pressure 30 in Hg
At 1 in Hg, same source –
Dry air, oxygen, nitrogen – 1
Carbonic oxide – 750
Carbonic acid – 972
Therefore, at atmospheric pressure of 30 in Hg, 4 molecules of CO2 intercept 4 x 90 = 360 IR rays. Air intercepts 9996 x 1 = 9996 IR rays, at 400 ppm CO2.
You’re still full of delusional crap. Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Or this one: “Dry air was now admitted into the tube, while the needle of the galv*anometer was
observed with all possible care.
“From Tyndalls experiments (real, not imaginary), relative IR opacity”
Where do these numbers appear in a Tyndall paper? (Link and page number).
Referring to your last paragraph, not really. The question is not warming or no warming due to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The questions are how much warming(immeasurable or some measurable figure)and the consequences thereof, whether beneficial or detrimental. You assume that the red team must adopt the position of there being zero effect from increased CO2 concentration in order to be an alternate voice to the blue team. Red teams role would be simply to attack the blue teams science.
It’s a pretty dumb experiment. Really no better than putting a piece of cardboard in front of the flame and proclaiming, “ya can’t see it now, can ya’?”
Someone doesn’t understand the nature of radiation.
Someone doesn’t understand the nature of cardboard.
Cardboard wasn’t put in front of the flame. Go learn.
It was in my thought experiment. And, it is the same principal – put an opaque substance in front of an object and, mirabile dictu! It disappears from view. Lame to the 10th power.
Exactly — enough CO2 makes the candle opaque in the IR.
You’re starting to see the light (!)
So what? Everyone knows that. Doesn’t change the fatuousness of the experiment. Doesn’t establish the necessity of AGW.
That demonstration shows that CO2 strongly absorbs IR.
That’s very irrelevant to the atmosphere.
No it doesn’t. I shows black ink is opaque to visible light. Just like cardboard.
Do you even know what experiment we are talking about? It is the one suggested by “Entropic Man” above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
I meant, obviously, the candle demonstration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
Well then, we have been arguing past each other.
Your experiment is not particularly fatuous, simply misleading. The gas is still, much higher than 400 ppm, and there is no water vapor or convective overturning.
Bart,
David Appell said someone doesn’t understand the nature of radiation. He looked in the mirror, obviously.
Cheers.
Entropic man
You don’t even need an experiment to prove the GHE exists. Real world measurements already prove it. Only many do not accept the reality. Even the few that might, they believe the Earth’s surface cannot absorb the IR radiation coming from the sky.
Strange as these cultists seem to be, they believe a colder photon cannot be absorbed by a warmer object that emits photons of higher energy. Not sure where they get this from. The only person I have ever seen state this is Claes Johnson (a mathematician) who wrote some paper proposing this. I read the paper. He has no supporting evidence for his idea and no experimental evidence yet all the cultists on this blog accept this as God’s own Truth given to the Prophet Claes but reject textbook knowledge based upon empirical testing and derived from logical thought process. Weird bunch but cult minded people do not have to use logic to prove their ideas. They just assert them with authority and we are all just supposed to believe it. Notice the cultists (g*e*r*a*n, Mike Flynn, Gordon Robertson, etc, never validate any of their assertions but we are all just supposed to believe, the power of Faith).
Entropic man
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_594347329a3ab.png
Real World measured downwelling IR which will be absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
The cultists do not accept this as valid data. It is similar to the experiment you describe. The Earth’s surface receives energy from the Sun. The energy warms the surface and it starts emitting IR which is absorbed by the GHG and is thermalized and is part of the process that warms the atmosphere to create emitting GHG that become part of the measured downwelling IR. (other atmospheric warming processes are convection, and evaporation which leads to condensation and warming aloft, and to a small degree conduction).
Norman,
Your sciency nonsense doesn’t seem to work at night, indoors, when it’s cloudy, raining, or foggy, does it?
Surface temperatures are measured with thermometers, not in W/m2, and vary between approximately + 90 C and – 90 C. Some effect!
Downwelling IR? Spare me the climatological garbage! Describe the GHE using terms that a real scientist would know, and you might get somewhere, I suppose.
Can you make a thermometer hotter by putting more CO2 between the Sun and the thermometer? If you can’t, you’re in the grip of a delusion, no matter how seductive your hypothesis seems to you.
No GHE. None.
Cheers.
Norm believes if he keeps spouting his pseudoscience over and over and over, it might someday become valid.
It’s not working out for him, but he’s hilarious to watch.
Mike Flynn
Yes the GHE does work 24/7 day and night, at the poles and at the tropics.
The net Watts/m*2 is what determines the temperature the thermometers read. Do you know what a watt is?
Since you act like you don’t have a clue it is joules/second. Joules is a unit of energy used in science to calculate things.
The meter^2 is an arbitrary surface size. Just makes it easier to keep the units similar.
What determines the temperature of an object is the amount of joules it has and its heat capacity.
The amount of watts a surface is losing minus the amount of watts it is gaining determine the number of joules it either is gaining or losing and what its temperature will end up being.
Norman,
How many W/m2 is 373 K if the object has an emissivity of 0.1? What if the emissivity is 0.9?
Foolish Warmist. You don’t really understand what you are saying, do you?
300 W/m2 is below freezing if you are measuring ice. It’s over 200 C if you’re measuring unoxidised aluminium.
That’s why scientists use thermometers rather than Wattmeters.
You’re spending too much time with those climatological fairies at the bottom of your garden.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are incorrect again. Scientists also now can use FLIR to measure temperatures of objects at a distance.
You can set emissivity with the instrument to get very accurate temperature readings for the IR watts detected by the sensor array.
http://www.scigiene.com/pdfs/428_InfraredThermometerEmissivitytablesrev.pdf
http://www.flir.com/home/news/details/?ID=71720
Mike Flynn says:
“Thats why scientists use thermometers rather than Wattmeters”
Doctor’s offices now use an ear “Wattmeters” to measure the body’s temperature. It measures part of the radiation spectrum from inside your ear, assumes an emissivity (0.95, I think), and calculates temperature from part of the blackbody spectrum.
http://www.radiantek.com.tw/download/files/Advanced%20Materials_english_1009.pdf
David Appell,
Your link calls the instrument a “thermometer”. Not a “Wattmeter”.
The foolish Warmist redefinition apparatus at its finest?
Cheers.
“Thermometers” measure temperature. Ear “Wattometers,” to use your parlance, is how doctors do it now.
Call it a thermometer if you want. The principle is still the same — measuring temperatures via IR radiation spectra.
Now take away the tube and experience the campfire effect. Adding CO2 blocks radiant heat from reaching the campers, but convection above the fire intensifies.
Are you going for the “comedy” award, or the “pseudoscience” award. It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes.
The red and blue team are the problem. Let the scientists do their work independent of politics and religion. If u dig into where the funding for science comes from these days, the money is linked to political groups. That goes for both red and blue teams.
That’s true.
These adversarial approach gets us nowhere. All the blue team has to do is keep spouting nonsense and who’s supposed to call the winner? Someone from the red team? No, a politician.
Congress Should Break Up Hatebook into Multiple Independent Identity Facebooks
Just recently I wrote a post about being censored on Facebook for doing nothing more than being critical of the AGW theory. This following quote is my best guess at what got the article banned:
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/congress-should-break-up-hatebook-into-multiple-independent-identity-facebooks/
C02 you have the right to be an independent thinker and it’s none of Facebook’s business what your stand on AGW is
I doubt Facebook even looked at his post, let alone tried to delete it.
I agree that the choice of participants in the red team is crucial. They should also look at what new research is needed.
I would suggest specific points that need addressing:
1: Do radiative gasses really ‘trap’ heat or just delay radiative transmission – if the latter then quantify it. As far as I can tell this has never been done by IPCC science. My estimate is that the heating effect of this delay is less than 1Kº.
2: Our whole industrial era CO2 emissions have contributed just 1% to the carbon cycle. What specific scientific evidence is there to prove that this is a problem. At an annual level our emissions add less than 10% to fluxes which is less than measurement error. The value of ocean sinks, particularly the Antarctic Ocean, are poorly understood, and the IPCC admits that it doesn’t consider soils.
See: RadiativeDelay and IPCC-CO2 at brindabella.id.au/climarc
dai
“What specific scientific evidence is there to prove that this is a problem.”
What do you mean by “problem?” It’s not a scientific term, but one of values. Problem for whom? In what way? How significant? Etc.
80% of warming has happened since 1975. If someone told you then there’d be 0.8 C of warming by 2017, what would you have said to them?
David Appell,
You wrote-
“But, given a socio-economic scenario, the probability distribution of future climate states can be *projected*. These are almost all worrisome.”
What do mean by “worrisome “? Worrisome for whom? In what way? How significant?
If someone told you that you were living in a foolish Warmist fantasy, what would you say to them? Why would they believe you?
Cheers.
“80% of warming has happened since 1975.”
Lying by omission. 1975 was the low point after the peak in about 1945. Half the warming occurred in the era 1910-1945, and the other half in about 1970-2005. But, the first period was not induced by CO2. The second wasn’t, either.
“If someone told you then thered be 0.8 C of warming by 2017, what would you have said to them?”
I’d have said, that’s right on the long term trend line which has existed since the turn of the century, long before anyone even heard of an SUV, and well before the mid-century acceleration in CO2 content.
Bart says:
> 80% of warming has happened since 1975.
“Lying by omission.”
It’s a fact. Calculate it for yourself.
CO2 had a major role in that warming, as did a brighter sun and a clearing of volcanic aerosols.
Since 1975, it’s even more aGHGs.
> “If someone told you then thered be 0.8 C of warming by
> 2017, what would you have said to them?”
“Id have said, thats right on the long term trend line which has existed since the turn of the century,”
Physics fail. What is the trend due to?
It is sophistry. Only 50% since the previous peak in ~ 1945.
Wrong.
HC4.5 warming up to 1945 was 0.23 C.
Warming since then is 0.78 C.
Wrong. I calculated it directly.
So did I. And you’re not using the latest version of HC data, which is 4.5, not 4.
Obviously, you didn’t.
Do you need a link to the data?
Bart says:
“Half the warming occurred in the era 1910-1945, and the other half in about 1970-2005.”
Nope.
Here’s the average temperature anomaly (deg C) in each decade in the starting year indicated, according to GISS data:
1881 -0.22 C
1891 -0.21
1901 -0.34
1911 -0.28
1921 -0.21
1931 -0.10
1941 0.03
1951 -0.03
1961 -0.02
1971 0.05
1981 0.27
1991 0.40
2001 0.62
2011 0.76 (so far)
So 1910-1945 warming is about 0.3 C, and 1970-2005 warming is about 0.7 C.
data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Based on HC4 averages:
1910-1945: 0.52 degC
1970-2005: 0.57 degC
It’s statistically the same.
Wrong.
HC4.5 averages:
1910-1945: -0.20
1970-2005: 0.16
Wrong. I calculated it directly.
SO did I. And you’re wrong (and not using the latest data, which is v4.5, not v4).
Nope.
These are the data:
1910 -0.49
1945 0.03
1970 -0.03
2005 0.54
Yes. (And 2016 = 0.77 C).
And those data mean, for HC4.5 averages:
1910-1945: -0.20
1970-2005: 0.16
You won’t get away with cherry picking with me.
Do you have a tumor? We’re looking for the change.
Insults aren’t science.
Your numbers aren’t change.
Or if there are change of something, you didn’t say what.
Most people estimate change as slope*interval.
That gives the numbers I’ve been quoting.
But we can use decade-by-decade if you want. Anything else is cherry picking.
Yes they are: 0.03 in 1945 minus -0.49 in 1910 is 0.52. Do the same for 1970-2005, and you get 0.57, just as I said.
I am going to assume you are being willfully obtuse. Not worth my time.
You are simply cherry picking, which proves exactly nothing.
But it’s what deniers like you do all the time.
Odd how someone who claims they’re a mathematician would commit such obvious errors when analyzing the data.
But I won’t accuse you of having a tumor.
I think you’re just desperate for any argument you can find, whether it makes sense or now.
Stop digging.
Mike Flynn
Did you actually read Tyndall’s experiments before you posted?
It would not appear you did.
Here is his own words: “Hence the ab*sor*pt-ion by the above gases amounted to about 0-33 per cent.
I am finding the same problems posting quotes from the Tyndall 1861 paper.
I will try to paste parts of it to see if any go through.
Norman,
Yes. I quoted from his latest updated work, published 1905. Why do you persist in sticking to work that Tyndall later revised? Are you trying to deny, divert, and confuse, perhaps?
You’re as delusional as David Appell.
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Then why don’t you accept modern even better results with even more precise instrumentation?
Only you attempt to deny, divert and confuse. It is what you do.
You are a recruiter for the GHE denier religion. Not based upon any scientific study, just a lot of hot air opinions. You are not the only human who has read the BS on PSI web pages. The difference is I will look in textbooks to see the obvious errors in their thoughts. You, a true believer, come here looking for possible recruits to the religion you belong to.
Mike Flynn
Go here:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
I think once you open this page then you can see the graph I made using this tool. Or you could plot your own graph using this tool. It will present a problem for you. You will be confronted with evidence that opposes your religious view of reality so you will not be able to comprehend it or its meaning.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest61614423.png
Norman,
How does the transmittance of the atmosphere create the GHE? It doesn’t, of course.
I don’t believe that unicorns exist, either. I don’t need a scientific study to back up my disbelief. Do you?
You can’t even describe the so-called GHE, in anything remotely resembling a scientific fashion, can you? Just more Cargo Cult Scientism – claims that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, somehow.
Fantasy being presented as fact.
Still no GHE. None. CO2 heats nothing.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Again with the Unicorns! Is this the cult calling card you use to indoctrinate some unscientific types to your belief?
Why do you come here and post when you are not interested in the least with evidence, honest debate, rational thought?
You have been told several times what the GHE is and you ignore them all. Why? Ball4 is correct, you have an agenda. Hoping to lure some new people to the cult.
Anyway. GHE. The Solar energy that reaches the Earth has very little IR at the absorbing wavelength (or frequency) of Carbon Dioxide so the CO2 does not impede the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface. However, after the solar energy is thermalized by the surface, the surface starts emitting IR that is at the same wavelength absorbed by CO2. The atmospheric CO2 thermalizes the IR and will then become an emitter which will direct some IR toward the surface leading to a higher equilibrium temperature for the surface than if the carbon dioxide was not present.
Mike Flynn
The link is about your point that N2 and O2 can absorb and emit more than CO2 at atmospheric concentrations. Don’t change the goalposts. The graphs were not an attempt to prove GHE to you just that you are very wrong in your current belief that N2 and O2 will absrob/Emit more IR than CO2. GONG!
Mike Flynn
This chart which was obtained by actual tests done by Hottel is what will prove GHE.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
H2O and CO2 emit real energy when they have some temperature.
You can see this energy measured here in real world setting and real world values (not a global average).
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_594352b467e5d.png
You can use Hottel’s data to see how warm the atmosphere would have to be to be able to generate the measured energy values.
It is not hard to do.
Carbon Dioxide in air is 0.04%. Partial pressure of 0.0004 (if you use the graph and use a path length of 1000 meters) you get a pressure-length value of 0.4. If you follow the chart to the cooler gas temperatures it gives you an emissivity of around 0.18.
If you use the Stefan-Boltzmann law with an air temperature at the surface of around 30 C you get about 80 W/m^2 downwelling is because of carbon dioxide. The rest would be water vapor and a few other GHG.
Mike Flynn
Look here. Partial pressure of water vapor.
https://smartsite.ucdavis.edu/access/content/user/00002774/Sears-Coleman%20Text/Text/C16-20/17-5.html
If you look at the low number it is 0.002 multiply this by 1000 meters for a pressure-length number and you get 2. If you use Hottel’s chart for this value you get an emissivity of around 0.6.
Use 297 K for the temperature (due to cooling via lapse rate) to get a closer value to the air emission temperature of the entire 1000 meters. You get a value of 265 W/m^2. If you combine the two fluxes (there would be some overlap). You get around 345 W/m^2 which is very close to the Real World measured values.
Admit you do not like science, do not believe in empirical tested data, live in a reality bubble of your own making and will reject anyone who does not conform to your made up beliefs.
You do not validate your ideas, your conjectures or opinions. I offer real world data and evidence that you reject. Why do you do this? Why do you hate the scientific process so much? Did you do poorly in high school science and now have a chip on your shoulder for all who like science?
Norman,
You wrote –
“You have been told several times what the GHE is and you ignore them all.”
I’ve been told that the unicorn has a horn growing out of its head, and has a warm and sunny disposition. I don’t believe in unicorns.
Nobody has yet given a useful description of the supposed GHE. How may it be observed, or reproduced? I don’t believe in the non-existent GHE any more than I do in non-existent unicorns!
Maybe if you could demonstrate the existence of the GHE in reproducible terms for a start, it might help.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just more foolish Warmist cargo cult scientism.
Cheers.
When Norm gets beaten by facts and logic, he always resorts to endless rambling and irrelevant links. It’s like admitting he was wrong, only he can’t admit he was wrong.
It’s hilarious to watch.
Norm, here’s one of your continuing errors: “The atmospheric CO2 thermalizes the IR and will then become an emitter which will direct some IR toward the surface leading to a higher equilibrium temperature for the surface than if the carbon dioxide was not present.”
There is no proof for the last part: “…leading to a higher equilibrium temperature for the surface…” Not only is there no proof, your “belief” is invalidated by the laws of thermodynamics.
You keep spouting such nonsense because it is what you believe. You have great faith in your pseudoscience, but it’s all a big FAIL.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “There is no proof for the last part: leading to a higher equilibrium temperature for the surface Not only is there no proof, your belief is invalidated by the laws of thermodynamics.”
Exactly what laws of thermodynamics invalidate this?
Evidence is all around you, you reject it.
A warmer average Earth surface than the Moon’s surface (when the Moon actually receives more solar energy than than the Earth’s surface) which you do not accept. If you do not accept real world measured values than it will not be possible to prove anything to you, you are unscientific and refuse evidence.
Sorry you are just flat out wrong as is Mike Flynn. Evidence is against you. You have provided no evidence in support of your claims.
There you go again! Blasting off to the Moon, because you can’t find evidence of your belief on this planet!
Norm, IR from the sky coming toward the surface, does NOT imply “heating”. You can NOT get that worm out of your head.
But, if you like your worms, you can keep them.
Norm inquires: “Exactly what laws of thermodynamics invalidate this?”
Norm, you don’t understand thermo, and you don’t want to, as “understanding” kills worms. But, just to answer your question, “2nd Law”.
Norm spouts: “Evidence is all around you, you reject it.”
Nope, there is NO evidence that nature violates the 2nd Law. You believe it, so you imagine it. Everything you “see” is “proof” of the GHE. That’s what worms do to your head.
I can provide a clear, easy to understand, example that falsifies your “IR is heat” belief.
A common house has walls, floors, ceilings, furniture, fixtures, etc. All items emit IR. If “IR is heat”, and it is always thermalized, then all parts of the house would get warmer and warmer. As they heated up, they would emit even more IR. And since, as you believe “IR is heat”, then all parts of the house would continue to rise in temperature until they reached ignition. All houses, buildings, and structures would be burned to the ground!
Now, you will refuse to consider that simple example, and your vastly unscientific reasoning will be hilarious!
“A common house has walls, floors, ceilings, furniture, fixtures, etc. All items emit IR. If IR is heat, and it is always thermalized, then all parts of the house would get warmer and warmer.”
Oh boy.
Clue: The house parts are both absorbing and emitting IR.
Q: Guess what the difference is when in equilibrium.
Link to Tyndall’s 1905 paper?
And if you can’t stop the personal insults, don’t expect future replies.
David Appell,
I don’t dance to your tune. Find it yourself, if you wish.
Feel free to stop replying. My care factor is precisely zero, one way or the other.
Cheers.
MF, I can always tell when you can’t answer a question — you get all huffy and then stick your fingers in your ears and write “No GHE.”
Your science is very weak.
Davie, how do I get on your list for no “future replies”?
Mike Flynn says:
“Yes. I quoted from his latest updated work, published 1905.”
Tyndall died in 1893.
Well, he voted in 1905 😉
That mess at the end is a winking emoticon.
David Appell,
6th edition. Published 1905. After his death. Just like others. Why do you think this is relevant? Are you dim?
Cheers.
David Appell is not “dim”.
He is willfully deaf dumb and blind to the truth.
6th edition of what? Link?
More to the point, show us the infrared ab.sorp.tion spectrum of O2 and N2. You could start looking in the HITRAN database.
But you won’t find any, because O2 and N2 don’t absorb IR. And if they did, Earth would have a massive greenhouse effect and life wouldn’t be here.
Gcamel: Have you found your missing 150 W/m2 yet? You’ve had a couple of years now to look….
These lecture notes give the IR and near-IR spectrums of the major atmospheric gases.
It shows no O2 ab.sorp.tion in the IR, but only in the near-IR (Table 6.3), 6329/cm and beyond, where the Earth emits essentially no radiation.
QED.
The notes:
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
I am unable at the present moment to range with certainty oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen,
and atmospheric air in the order of their ab*sor-pt-ive powers, though I have made
several hundred experiments with the view of doing so.
“Their proper action is so small
that the slightest foreign impurity gives one a predominance over the other.”
Or this one: Dry air was now admitted into the tube, while the needle of the galv*anometer was
observed with all possible care.
Even by the aid of a magnifying lens I could not
detect the slightest change of position.
Oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, subjected to
the same test, gave the same negative result. T
The above are quotes from the Tyndall paper 1861
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf
Check out page 4 of the paper.
Norman,
Are you trying to appear dim?
Tyndall made many revisions to his original work. Maybe you don’t like the later results, but they remain, regardless.
Are all foolish Warmists anti-knowledge?
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Where are you links to Tyndall’s later work that revised his IR ab.sorp.tion findings on O2 and N2?
You won’t have any.
Norm, one word, “FAIL”.
(Hilarious.)
David Appell wishes to be spoon fed, or possibly wants me to dance to his dissonant tune –
“Where do these numbers appear in a Tyndall paper? (Link and page number).”
Oh dear, David. He won’t make the slightest effort to find things out for himself, by the look of things. He doesn’t seem to like me all that much, but still expects me to do the things he can’t do himself!
Tut, tut!
Inconvenient facts. Still no GHE. Just more foolish Warmists demands.
Cheers.
Mike…”Oh dear, David. He wont make the slightest effort to find things out for himself…”
That’s not his function here, Mike, he’s a troll. His aim is to disrupt while offering himself as an authority. He really thinks people are stupid enough to believe him when he deems something a lie.
Did you hear about Appell’s joke about a candle flame disappearing when you held a container of CO2 in front of it? That’s as bad as the ink dropped in the jar of water to demonstrate how a tiny amount can cloud out EM.
Even on an extremely foggy day with the air saturated with water vapour and droplets you can see a candle flame if it’s close enough. According to Appell, when you take a shower so the mirrors get fogged up with WV you should not be able to see a candle flame.
Tell that to women who have really hot, steamy baths and use candles as their sole source of light. The water vapour in the air far exceeds the WV normally in the air in our atmosphere.
The rocket scientist who offered to demonstrate how a tiny amount if ink can cloud a beaker of water fails to understand the difference between ink in water and CO2 in the atmosphere. One is a gas, the other is a liquid.
Doh!!
Gordon Robertson says:
“Did you hear about Appells joke about a candle flame disappearing when you held a container of CO2 in front of it?”
Ha. You completely misunderstand how the demonstration was conducted, and then, to appear even more hilariously wrong, you try to use it against me.
Bravo.
MF: I knew you couldn’t support your O2 and N2 claims with a reference to any of Tyndall’s work — because O2 and N2 don’t absorb in the IR.
If they did, this would be a whole different planet.
Everyone knows this but you. (And, naturally, Gordon Robertson.)
Hi Entropic man,
you: “You are stretching this far too far. The video I linked was a simple demonstration that small amounts of material can have significant effects on the transparency of a fluid, in response to the CO2 is a trace gas and cant possibly have any effect straw man. It is not a detailed simulation of the greenhouse effect.”
Really am I “stretching this far too far”?
What he’s doing, the “experimenter” in that movie?
He is not just showing us a “simple demonstration that small amounts of material can have significant effects on the transparency of a fluid” as you wrote.
He use exactly the percentages of ink which compared to the whole liquid represent the current and the supposed pre-industrial concentrations of CO2.
You are the one who is stretching this video too far, trying to deceive some people who don’t know the concept of spectral density.
Have a great day.
Massimo
I don’t know why this message has posted here, it was in response to Entropic man @June 16, 2017 at 1:47 AM.
Sorry.
entropic man…”The video I linked was a simple demonstration that small amounts of material can have significant effects on the transparency of a fluid”
I got that. What I don’t get is the analogy to a trace gas mixed in a seriously huge concentration of gases.
People have claimed that 300 ppmv of arsenic in coffee will kill you. What the horsebleep does that have to do with gases in the atmosphere? The effect the arsenic has on human cells has absolutely nothing to do with a trace gas absorbing a trace amount of a huge IR flux field emitted by the surface.
To understand the effect of arsenic on cells we’d have to understand how cells work and how the arsenic affects them. It’s not about the quantity per se, it’s about the action of arsenic on human cells.
In the atmosphere, we can apply Dalton’s law of partial pressures to a degree. We can emulate the atmosphere as a relatively constant volume and constant mass. It gives us a ball park figure of what to expect. Out of the entire average pressure of the atmosphere we know that gases make up that average pressure based on their partial pressures.
Even though the atmosphere is chaotic, it is still made up basically of a constant volume and a constant mass. Weather perturbations will affect local pressures but the overall partial pressures should dominate in the long term.
Since total pressure with constant volume and constant mass varies directly with temperature, then the total average temperature should be comprised of partial temperatures per partial mass.
I think it’s pretty obvious based on the ideal gas law, P = (nR/V)T, that the contributions of CO2 with a partial pressure based on its partial mass, has to be a tiny fraction of a degree C.
That’s why a gas at 400 ppmv cannot significantly warm the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with arsenic in coffee, or ink in water, it’s about tried and true laws in chemistry.
Even if GHGs absorb IR and warm, they still have to pass that heat onto the 99%+ that is nitrogen and oxygen. Do you seriously think that GHGs accounting for about 0.3% of the entire atmosphere can actually warm it significantly?
The ideal gas law says it can’t.
Gordon Robertson
You did not answer my question on the other thread about Ozone. Ozone makes up even less % but if you look at temperature profiles of the atmosphere you will see the Stratosphere warms by about 50 C from the peak cold of the Tropopause. I know you can’t accept reality that the ozone absorbing the Sun’s UV is the responsible agent for this significant warming, so what is your explanation of why the Stratosphere warms up? Until you can provide an acceptable answer you should quit peddling your opinions on what a gas can and cannot do.
” Norman says:
June 16, 2017 at 2:33 PM
Gordon Robertson
You did not answer my question on the other thread about Ozone. Ozone makes up even less % but if you look at temperature profiles of the atmosphere you will see the Stratosphere warms by about 50 C from the peak cold of the Tropopause.”
Are you claiming ozone warms Stratosphere by 50 K?
And would it be correct to say this ozone is only heated by sunlight?
Or is there some other mechanism which you have in mind which is involved in your claim that 50 K warming of stratosphere is caused by ozone?
gbaikie
Since you are interested this describes the process of what Ozone is doing and how it is heating.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/hozon.htm
Without the ozone, the UV would reach the surface and really damage living systems. The absorbed UV is converted into kinetic energy which warms the Stratosphere.
The point I am making with Gordon Robertson is that a trace gas (much less than Carbon Dioxide) can and does absorb considerable EMR and convert it to kinetic energy which then creates the 50 C temperature increase that is observed.
Gordon has this belief that trace amounts of gas can have no effect. Where it comes from I do not know. Evidence is against his belief but so far no amount of evidence will change his view.
Gordon Robertson says:
“People have claimed that 300 ppmv of arsenic in coffee will kill you. What the horsebleep does that have to do with gases in the atmosphere?”
This from someone who routinely tries to argue that a gas that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere can have NO effect.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I think its pretty obvious based on the ideal gas law, P = (nR/V)T, that the contributions of CO2 with a partial pressure based on its partial mass, has to be a tiny fraction of a degree C.”
Since you ignore all physics discovered after about 1890, you can’t possibly understand or explain the atmosphere.
Nor could you explain modern electronics, integrated chips, computers, heat-seeking missiles, night vision scopes, television remote controls and lots else.
That’s the price you stay for being stuck in the 19th century.
I think you have to be wary about using Hottel’s data for the atmosphere. I tried that a while back and, like others, got tens of milliseconds for radiative transfer from surface to space.
My recent work uses energy balance data published by Martin Wild, not because I believe it but because it is relatively uncontroversial. You can derive real atmospheric emittance values from that.
When I found delays of hours I was disappointed that the values were so much larger until I calculated a temperature. Maximum upward flux is around 200 W/m^2, ignoring convection and latent heat transport, which is a big consession. Mass of a 1 M^2 column of air is 10 tonnes. We have the equivalent of a 200 W lightbulb heating the air in a gym, so intuitively, 1 K temp increase seems quite high.
I’m not saying I believe my calculations. That may come incrementally with confirmation from others. All I can say is that I’ve spent far more time looking at problems and evaluating limitations than I did with the original analysis.
dai
Dr. Spencer,
I’m not sure you are still reading this thread, anyways I just want to highlight you that (to me), it has become hard time posting here.
I don’t know why, but most of my tries to write something results in to an unexplained reject.
Hope you can do something to fix it.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo,
I feel your pain, but almost all of mine are fine.
All part of the rich tapestry of life!
Cheers.
Hi Mike,
you are probably right.
Anyways, let me hope that someone behind the web-server will do something.
Have a great day.
Massimo
massimo…”Dr. Spencer,
Im not sure you are still reading this thread, anyways I just want to highlight you that (to me), it has become hard time posting here”.
I asked Roy about this problem and it’s not anything he is doing. It has something to do with WordPress where the blog is hosted.
My luck with it comes and goes. Right now, everything I post is getting through but other days it gets really finicky for some reason.
Have you tried other browsers. Sometimes the websites are set up for Internet Explorer (ugh!! arrgggh!!) and I had luck once using an old version of Opera (about version 12). The older version seems to confound the server and it becomes like text messaging.
Hi Gordon,
I use Chrome and Firefox but bith didn’t work sometime.
Thank you anyways for the advice.
Have a nice weekend.
Massimo
I would love some global warming. Most of May/June has been a washout in the UK.
Our carnival ride takes us up, then down, we know how high and how low but when depends on the maniac that runs the thing.
g*e*r*a*n
IN a post above. YOU: “Nope, there is NO evidence that nature violates the 2nd Law. You believe it, so you imagine it. Everything you see is proof of the GHE. Thats what worms do to your head.
I can provide a clear, easy to understand, example that falsifies your IR is heat belief.
A common house has walls, floors, ceilings, furniture, fixtures, etc. All items emit IR. If IR is heat, and it is always thermalized, then all parts of the house would get warmer and warmer. As they heated up, they would emit even more IR. And since, as you believe IR is heat, then all parts of the house would continue to rise in temperature until they reached ignition. All houses, buildings, and structures would be burned to the ground!”
I see you are still twisting reality and then thinking that is what I am claiming. You really can’t comprehend can you?
First of all, long ago I quit using the term “heat” for IR (as per Ball4 advice). I will say IR is energy. I leave the “heat” out.
Your example makes little sense and demonstrates your lack of understanding of physics. IR emitted by a wall to the opposite wall will not produce this “warming” you project upon reality with your lack of comprehension. I can explain it 1000 times to you and you will still distort it and not comprehend. Truly and amazing problem with thinking you have. Sorry I can’ help you with this condition.
Norm, you just “busted” the “CO2 heats the planet” myth.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, you just busted the CO2 heats the planet myth.”
I do not know anyone except GHE deniers who ever thought that way and used it as a Strawman argument against GHE.
Having GHG in the atmosphere will allow the Earth’s surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature with incoming solar energy than it would without the GHG. This is not conceptually the same as saying CO2 heats the planet.
Well, if you now deny that the “so-called” GHE “heats the planet”, welcome to reality.
g*e*r*a*n
I still do not know who is claiming GHE “heats the planet”. GHE leads to a warmer equilibrium temperature than on a surface with no GHE present. This is not conceptually the same as saying GHE “heats the planet”.
Do you have any links of a scientist making the claim that GHE “heats” the planet, or do they all say GHE will lead to a warmer equilibrium temperature, the GHG present are not adding “heat” to the surface (heat defined as NET energy, Energy surface emits minus energy the surface absorbs). GHG are adding energy to the surface but the surface is also losing energy.
Two processes with different sets of molecules involved in each process. Molecules excited to higher levels by internal energy will not then be absorbing incoming energy, until after they have emitted energy and returned to a lower energy state. Molecules that are in lower energy states will be able to absorb the incoming energy and thermalize it.
— Norman says:
June 16, 2017 at 4:27 PM
g*e*r*a*n
I still do not know who is claiming GHE heats the planet.–
Is Venus a planet? Is James Hansen a person?
Do you believe Venus had an ocean and was similar to Earth.
It seems to me if going to join a stupid and deranged religion, you should at least know the beliefs of “the father” of that religion.
gbaikie
James Hansen is considered the “Father of Climate Change Awareness”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
My discussion is not about climate change. It is only about the GHE.
The effect that GHG present in the atmosphere in enough quantity will absorb significant upwelling IR (thermalize most, reemit some). The discussion I am having is not even to the climate change debate, the deniers reject basic science, refuse to read textbook data I have several times linked them to.
Greenhouse effect is much different topic than climate change and much simpler. The reason it is termed greenhouse because at one point scientists believed a greenhouse warmed by radiative effects. Shortwave solar is transparent to glass but opaque to longwave IR. The GHG are mostly transparent to shortwave solar but considerably opaque to longwave IR. Only about 40 Watts/m^2 make it through and atmospheric window without being absorbed by GHG.
I have many questions about “climate change” and subscribe to no view. I want evidence and support before accepting any position.
GHE is a much different subject, one that is established, has no reason to be rejected. People’s incorrect understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes them closed minded. Also you have people like Gordon Robertson that continues to believe trace gases, with the long path length of our atmosphere, can absorb significant IR rejecting all empirical data in the process. There may be dishonest scientists in the climate change department but I think it is a huge stretch to think all data is fake and all are liars.
Even if they were he has not presented any evidence to support his views. He just makes claims and we a are just supposed to accept what he says.
— Norman says:
June 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM
gbaikie
James Hansen is considered the Father of Climate Change Awareness
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
My discussion is not about climate change. It is only about the GHE.
The effect that GHG present in the atmosphere in enough quantity will absorb significant upwelling IR (thermalize most, reemit some). The discussion I am having is not even to the climate change debate, the deniers reject basic science, refuse to read textbook data I have several times linked them to. —
Norman you are spinning.
Shall I spin too, how about: Hansen is the crazy single father of the crazies?
I would say as general note than Hansen was one of many derelict NASA directors, possible the worst one.
But that is just a hunch- as no one puts in the effort of ranking minor directors of the various bureaucracies.
As they do obsess over the numerous US Presidents.
And let’s replace “deniers” with “heretics” [to be more accurate].
As normal thing, I would advise believers to ignore the unbelievers and just focus on your belief. But the problem with all believers is they tend to be too lazy to do this.
Also being a believers, they have beliefs that other don’t have, and this makes think they know something, when they do not.
As for GHE.
The basic thing is that Earth is mostly covered by ocean. One could say the atmosphere covers all the surface of the planet, but an important aspect is our surface is heated by the sunlight, and heated surface is mostly water.
It’s was not too hard to determine Earth average temperature was about 15 C, all one needed to know is the vast tropical waters were quite warm. Or one had no need to go to the Antarctica and measure it’s temperature. Just look at a globe of the world.
Briefly I would say thing about greenhouses and what makes earth warmer than it should be. Is related to people living in England and Europe. Greenhouses were a fashion of the time, and why weren’t the English and Swedes not freezing to death. The sun does not explain why England is as warm as it is. One measures it and concludes we should be frozen.
Which is true, if not for the Gulf Stream. But they were idiots because Gulf stream has know about for quite some time. But maybe they thought the water seems too cold and how can something cold warm something.
Or the augments go on and on over the same stuff.
But do we really need to argue about Gulf Stream warming Europe? Doesn’t everyone agree about this?
So anyways, I think GHE is at best a secondary effect, and main focus should on the oceans being warmed by the sun.
Which is not weird or new, rather it’s the mainstream thought on the matter. It’s almost too obvious for some people.
It’s like, “yes, yes we know, but CO2 warms the thermometers”.
gbaikie
I must be honest. I am not following what the point of your post is.
YOU: “So anyways, I think GHE is at best a secondary effect, and main focus should on the oceans being warmed by the sun.”
I haven’t got a clue what you are trying to state there.
YOU: “As normal thing, I would advise believers to ignore the unbelievers and just focus on your belief. But the problem with all believers is they tend to be too lazy to do this.
Also being a believers, they have beliefs that other dont have, and this makes think they know something, when they do not.”
Not really sure what that whole thing is about. I would rather focus on science and not belief. Science is based upon logical thought process, math, experimental evidence, empirical measurements, tests.
Beliefs are what the science deniers use. Make declarative statements with no validation, no support, no experiments, no tests.
I do not know if you ever took a science course at elevated levels. In such courses you have to write science papers for grades. In order to get a satisfactory grade you have to research the topic you are writing about and include references from established sources to verify you points.
If you look at Gordon Robertson, g*e*r*a*n, Mike Flynn and a few others, they make statements with no source material. They make some declaration and we are all supposed to believe it. No links, no support, no experimental evidence. Do you see the difference.
A lot of posters have problems with David Appell but you will notice he often provides links to support his claims. This is much more than the “deniers” do. They provide nothing but their assertions and opinions.
— Norman says:
June 17, 2017 at 9:04 PM
gbaikie
I must be honest. I am not following what the point of your post is.
YOU: So anyways, I think GHE is at best a secondary effect, and main focus should on the oceans being warmed by the sun.
I havent got a clue what you are trying to state there.–
Greenhouse gases are said by some to delay the radiation of heat from the Earth surface.
It’s obvious to me that clouds can prevent nights from being colder than they would be without the clouds.
Or perhaps clouds delay the radiation of heat from the Earth surface
And it’s possible that greenhouse gases could do same as clouds- slow amount cooling.
Of course clouds are liquid and solid H20- or not H20 gas. Clouds are not gases but seem to be included as greenhouse gases or more plainly included in the greenhouse effect.
There also effect of humidity [greenhouse gas: H2O] and there is tendency from humid nights to remain warmer as compared to drier nights.
Of course another factor involved with clouds and humidity is latent heat of water- or a non-radiant transfer of heat.
But scientific question is how much?
In universe of greenhouse gases, it seems to me that H20 vapor is far more significant than CO2.
So not counting latent heat transfer nor water in liquid and solid form in clouds, but rather the radiant properties of H20 gas vs CO2 gas.
I don’t reference handy but there is paper which claims that clouds are responsible for about 50% of the greenhouse effect. I don’t know if this correct.
Let’s just search it.
Not paper I was thinking about, but first on list:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm
Again not it, but;
The cooling effect of clouds is partly offset, however, by a blanketing effect: cooler clouds reduce the amount of heat that radiates into space by absorbing the heat radiating from the surface and re-radiating some of it back down. The process traps heat like a blanket and slows the rate at which the surface can cool by radiation. The blanketing effect warms Earth’s surface by some 7C (13F). Thus, clouds can heat the surface by inhibiting radiative heat loss, much as they warm a winter’s night.”
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
Even the idiots:
Elevator Statement
At night clouds trap infrared radiation emitted from the ground, similar to greenhouse gases, and re-emit some of the absorbed radiation back to the ground.
More nighttime cloud cover means more trapped heat, and warmer temperatures near the ground, just as more CO2 in the atmosphere means more trapped heat, and warmer temperatures.
Because clouds are big and thick, their radiation-trapping effect is felt immediately, within a single night.
Because CO2 is diffuse, its effect is felt slowly, over many decades.
Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is like increasing the cloud cover at night: both warm the Earth by trapping infrared radiation.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_03_Greenhouse_Cloudy_Night.html
Again not it:
“With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%)and then CO2
with∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor role”
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/CO2%20role%20modern%20warming%202010.pdf
But anyhow, I didn’t find it, oh still not it:
“..The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. ” – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/#sthash.EIkrHxB9.dpuf
So when mean secondary, I mean all radiant effect- clouds, h20 vapor and CO2 [all other greenhouse gases].
And main factor is heating in tropics, and most heating of ocean waters in tropics, and heating ocean water outside the tropics.
Or say, all heating of ocean north and south 23 degrees [outside tropics] is comparable effect to radiant effect of clouds, H20 vapor, etc.
Or ocean heating can cause higher average global temperatures. Or reason global average temperature in the past was 20 C, is due to higher average ocean temperature. They always go together. Prove that assertion, wrong.
norman…” I will say IR is energy. I leave the heat out”.
Of course IR is energy, it’s electromagnetic energy. It is comprised of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field.
Electric fields tends to cause magnetic fields, they go hand in hand. However, IR, as is all EM, is defined by its intensity and frequency. Heat is also energy but it is not defined by frequency and it does not have an electric and magnetic field associated with it.
Heat is the energy of motion of atoms, either in a solid lattice where the atoms vibrate, or in liquids, or in gases, where the atoms/molecules collide with each other. As you heat a pot of water on an electric stove, eventually the water begins to get violent. It bubbles and spits. That action is due to atoms and molecules at the atom level becoming more energized.
So what do you call that energy? Internal energy has no specific meaning nor does kinetic energy, both are relative to the type of energy. There is nothing else it can be other than thermal energy.
A battery has both potential energy and kinetic energy and it has internal energy as well. A battery requires energy to operate internally and that energy is not available to the external circuit. All those terms are with reference to electrical and chemical energy. We don’t abstract either so why are we abstracting heat?
It’s no coincidence that metal expands when heated by a flame. The atoms increase their mean free path length as they vibrate. If you heat a metal bar with an acetylene torch it expands and that expansion is due to heat.
You can measure the specific heat and the heat capacity of substances and 1 calorie is the amount of heat required to raise 1 cc of water by 1 C at something like 15 C.
Heat is not an abstraction it is a very real form of energy. You can’t simply call everything ‘energy’, you need to specify the kind of energy.
Gordon Robertson
I am not sure why you make this claim.
YOU: “So what do you call that energy? Internal energy has no specific meaning nor does kinetic energy, both are relative to the type of energy. There is nothing else it can be other than thermal energy.”
Why does internal or kinetic energy have no specific meaning?. The temperature of a gas is related to the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat is the energy of motion of atoms, either in a solid lattice where the atoms vibrate, or in liquids, or in gases, where the atoms/molecules collide with each other.”
Does the Sun heat the Earth?
How?
The surface of Earth is largely covered with oceans, the energy of the sun, has it’s photons absorbed by the ocean waters.
Most of the energy of the sun, strikes the tropical zone of Earth and about 80% of surface area of the tropics is ocean area.
So mostly the sunlight heats the ocean of Earth. And the heated oceans can transport large amounts of heat to the rest of the world. And the tilt of Earth’s rotation, causes the heated portion of the tropics to move 23 degrees northward and southward, which in sense widen the tropics as compared to an axis tilt of zero degrees. Or by definition the tropic is marked by the furthest the sun goes poleward and has the sun at noon at Zenith [line of Cancer and Capricorn].
So this is major way that Earth is warmed by the sun. And currently, any other means of adding warmth to Earth’s surface is considered insignificant- so, say such as, geothermal heat or say, forest fires or other chemical reactions which generate heat.
You missed the whole point of my question.
–David Appell says:
June 17, 2017 at 3:28 PM
You missed the whole point of my question.–
How the sun warms earth is complicated if worried about small effect. The sunlight heating the ocean is a major effect, and quite simple.
Or if the sunlight was **somehow** prevented from reaching the tropics- Earth would become a frozen ball of ice.
Re: “if the sunlight was **somehow** prevented from reaching the tropics-”
Somehow, could be to eclipse that sunlight- put disk or sphere dust at Sun/Earth L-1. Very very big, btw. But if instead wanted to reduce the sunlight [cool by few degrees] quite cheap to do- or easily less than 1 trillion dollars. One probably get contract to do it for less than 100 billion dollars [and it could be very profitable to do it, if done correctly].
But no one wants or has any need to actually cool Earth.
You are still missing the point entirely.
David Appell wrote-
“You are still missing the point entirely.”
And you’re sure as Hell not going to help him out by telling him what the point is, are you?
In fact, your question is pointless, isn’t it? Purposely framed to be as ambiguous as possible, setting the stage for a “gotcha”, whether answered in the affirmative or negative. Typical foolish Warmist tactics. Haven’t you got anything better? Some facts, perhaps? I thought not.
Cheers.
He shouldn’t need help, if he can read.
Gordon Robertson wrote, “Heat is the energy of motion of atoms, either in a solid lattice where the atoms vibrate, or in liquids, or in gases, where the atoms/molecules collide with each other.”
I asked him how the Sun heats the Earth, with a vacuum in-between.
As always, Gordon ignores inconvenient questions.
–David Appell says:
June 18, 2017 at 3:45 PM
He shouldnt need help, if he can read.
Gordon Robertson wrote, Heat is the energy of motion of atoms, either in a solid lattice where the atoms vibrate, or in liquids, or in gases, where the atoms/molecules collide with each other.
I asked him how the Sun heats the Earth, with a vacuum in-between.
As always, Gordon ignores inconvenient questions.–
I think Gorden would say the electromagnetic energy of the sun heats the Earth.
Whereas I would say, the electromagnetic energy of the sun largely heats Earth’s oceans [because there is more ocean and 1 square meter the Earth’s ocean absorbs more of sun’s energy as compared 1 square meter of a land surface].
One can heat something with an electrical discharge- arc welder, lightning, etc – but electricity is not heat- it’s flow of electrons [which don’t have temperature- nor are warm or cold].
Gordon doesn’t think heat can be transported without a medium like atoms and molecules.
–David Appell says:
June 20, 2017 at 6:38 PM
Gordon doesnt think heat can be transported without a medium like atoms and molecules.–
Which is correct.
But any surface of a heated object does generate electromagnetic radiation and this radiation does transfer
the energy of a hot object thru a vacuum.
It’s not correct, which you just acknowledged in your response.
I think most people are aware that the Sun is an energy source. That any energy source can heat a body.
Can heat a body.
The zillions of stars are energy sources, but they aren’t warming Earth. But were Earth be close enough to any of these zillions of stars, those stars would warm Earth.
And related to this, our sun emits a vast amount of long wave IR, but such long wave IR from the Sun does not appear to warm Earth at all. But were planet closer to the sun, perhaps the Long wave IR radiation from the Sun could warm a planet by some measurable amount.
Any energy source can be used to heat something- if it can’t, it’s not an energy source. Or an energy source is something will can do work, any work done creates heat [even when you don’t want any heat created- or much effort is devoted to generating energy and reducing the amount waste heat [which regarded as “lost energy” for whatever purpose one needs the energy for. Or you could want heat, and can “lose this heat” you need- which also can be regarded as “waste heat”.
gbaikie: You’re STILL missing the point!
But never mind.
g*e*r*a*n
A wall emitting IR will be losing energy at the same time it is receiving energy. Why is this reality (which all textbooks on the topic confirm, which I have linked to you more than once), impossible for you to understand?
That is very simple reason that wall emitting and absorbing IR do not just keep warming up to ignition temperatures. The two walls are both emitting and receiving radiation from the other walls. If the insulation is very good on the walls facing the outside the temperature decline will be very slight and slow. One wall absorbs 390 Watts/m^2 from the opposing wall. It is also emitting 390 Watts/m^2.
Why in the name of science reality do you think this situation would cause this perpetual warming? How can you be so incredibly dense?
So, IR is now NOT “heat”! You interestingly catch on when presented with an example that busts your pseudoscience. A house does NOT burn itself up due to its own IR. A planet does NOT burn itself up due to its own IR.
You do NOT get to say one thing, and then say the opposite.
Oh, I forgot, you’re “Norm”. That’s what you do.
g*e*r*a*n
Others may still claim IR is heat. Depending on how you define heat. Because hundreds of posts go on about the definition of heat I just choose to use the term energy. Creates less confusion.
When do I say one thing and then the opposite?
“Energy does NOT leave the system, but energy leaves the system.”
g*e*r*a*n
That was already explained to you in depth but you could not follow it without a twist or two.
Norm, if you weren’t so confused by your own pseudoscience, you wouldn’t have to try to “spin” yourself away from your own words.
Hilarious.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/16/almost-300-graphs-undermine-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warmth/#sthash.HrKnOVnG.dpbs
AGW myth ends before 2020.
Salvatore, you previously said warming ended in 2002. Now 2020?? Which is it?
“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
Please stop your pathetic whining.
Norman,
You wrote-
“I still do not know who is claiming GHE heats the planet. GHE leads to a warmer equilibrium temperature than on a surface with no GHE present. This is not conceptually the same as saying GHE heats the planet.
If you forget about weasel words such as “conceptually”, what does the self proclaimed scientist Gavin Schmidt”s breathless claim of “Hottest year EVAH!” mean?
Your statement that the GHE leads to higher temperatures is just nonsensical. Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter – conceptually or otherwise!
You can’t even describe the GHE in any useful form. Where and how may it be observed? How may it be reproduced? Complete nonsense, the product of foolish Warmist imagination!
Maybe a bit of real science, by real scientists, might help your cause. Unfortunately, all you have at the moment is non reproducible Cargo Cult Scientism, promoted by fake “climate scientists”.
Such is life.
Cheers.
Hello Mike,
I have a question about your favorite slogan: “Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter.”
As you know, right now our atmosphere has a little more than 400 ppm CO2. Do you think this level makes a thermometer on the surface hotter, but any additional CO2 won’t?
Snape,
You wrote –
“I have a question about your favorite slogan: “Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter. As you know, right now our atmosphere has a little more than 400 ppm CO2. Do you think this level makes a thermometer on the surface hotter, but any additional CO2 wont?”/
First, the first definition of “slogan” I found –
“a short and striking or memorable phrase used in advertising.”
I’m not advertising anything, but thanks for your interpretation.
Second, what part of my statement do you not comprehend? Even though you may have inadvertently asked two closed questions in one sentence, what part of my statement do you find unclear?
Do you have any facts to contradict what I said?
Your questions seem completely meaningless to me, but maybe I cannot properly comprehend your questions. If you wish, you might care to let me know where I have been less than clear (in your opinion).
Cheers.
I got question for snape:
From your reading of the greenhouse effect, hmm, idea; do you think clouds or more clouds “between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun” make the thermometer hotter?
And couple more:
1 Are clouds a greenhouse effect?
2 What difference in terms of a “warming effect” is there between clouds and CO2?
Or is there any greenhouse effect other than an actual greenhouse which can heat the ground and make it hotter?
[a actual greenhouse can reduce the convection heat loss of the ground and thereby make the ground hotter than compared to other ground which doesn’t have this convectional loss inhibited- as you may recalled, an actual greenhouse is not the greenhouse effect.
Gbaikie
My reading of the GHE? Lol!
I had a question for Flynn regarding the statement he makes over and over:
“Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter.”
–I had a question for Flynn regarding the statement he makes over and over:
Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter.–
He does it over and over because the
faithful are brainwashed and think CO2 can make earth hotter- can even make Earth be like Venus.
Roughly a thermometer warmed “naturally” by the sun, is heated by the sun’s direct sunlight [not indirect sunlight- such as diffused or re-radiated sunlight {btw, nothing to do with using mirrors which can reflect direct light}].
Anyhow CO2 doesn’t increase the power of sunlight to heat something up [make it hotter]. What does limit how warm a surface can become is convectional heat loss [what parked car with windows rolled up or actual greenhouse, does].
BUT I would say that Earth average temperature has little to do with direct sunlight. Or I believe the Earth is warmed by the ocean being heated, and ocean is heated by scatter sunlight as well as direct sunlight [so both direct and indirect sunlight.
Now if complaining about how hot it is on the land surface- then this is related to direct sunlight- but this has nothing to do with th actual average global temperature.
Or said differently no one cares what the average temperature is, but things like heatwaves or hot weather does “worry” them. So the propaganda talks about how hot it will get. Unfortunately, for the religious nuts, CO2 doesn’t make Earth hotter. Nor could it make more extreme and violent weather. Nor melt ice caps or rise global sea levels.
Gbaikie
I don’t have a problem with Mike’s statement. He thinks it disproves the GHE, though, and I do have a problem with that. The GHE is a metaphor, and metaphor’s aren’t meant to be taken literally. That’s what Mike does, and what I suspect you do as well. GHG’s in our atmosphere obviously don’t impede convection.
Snape,
I assume you are aiming for a “gotcha” by pretending you cannot understand what I wrote.
Your diversion attempt, by lurching off into irrelevant foolish Warmist analogies involving salt, doctors, sodium, and what you might or might not be wondering, supports my assumption.
If you feel my statement –
“Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter., is wrong, you could always produce some scientific basis to show that my statement is factually incorrect.
Of course you can’t, so all you are left with is attempts to deny, divert, and confuse.
Still no GHE. A figment of the foolish Warmist imagination – no more, no less.
Cheers.
Mike
I’ve never said your statement is wrong. Increasing CO2 levels might even cool the thermometer. I really don’t know.
Here’s the thing. You and I both refer to the GHE, but we are not talking about the same thing.
Snape,
Maybe you could specify where the GHE may be observed, how it may be reproduced, and the other things that describe a scientific effect.
If you can’t, then talking about the GHE is pointless. It doesn’t exist in any usable form.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you could specify where the GHE may be observed….”
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Mike
Your statement starts with, “Increasing the amount of CO2….”.
From this, it’s unclear what you believe about an initial level of CO2.
Mike
Let’s say I wanted to know if I was eating too much salt, and my doctor said, “increasing the level of sodium in your diet would be unhealthy”.
I would still be wondering if my current level was too high.
Snape,
I wrote what I meant. It seems clear enough to me. I’m sorry you can’t understand. Increasing means increasing, or whatever synonym you wish to use.
Cheers.
Another dodge. No longer artful.
Mike Flynn
YOU make this assertion over and over (perhaps a 1000 times now): “Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter conceptually or otherwise!”
What evidence do you provide that it will not do this? What proof do you offer. You reject textbook valid science and think making the same claim a thousand times makes it true. What supportive evidence do you have for your claim, what science do you bring to the table to prove your opinion?
Scientists bring verifiable proof which you do not accept. The Earth’s average surface is considerably warmer than the Moon’s. This is real evidence. You reject it. If you reject measured values then what science do you peddle? Make a statement 1000 times with no proof, no evidence, goes against established physics and the world is supposed to just accept your opinion as fact? Why? Provide data and evidence that the thermometer will not have a higher temperature. Do a test and post your results!
Norman,
Maybe you don’t understand the scientific process as well as myself.
Without a well defined GHE, further scientific enquiry cannot be made.
As to my oft repeated statement, it happens to be true. Your demand for “proof” is just stupid, and demonstrates you do not understand how science proceeds.
As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
So go ahead and prove me wrong with a single reproducible experiment, if you can. Or you can just keep blathering about “evidence”, “textbooks”, “valid science” and all the rest. It doesn’t matter.
Here’s a piece of silliness from the IPCC –
“The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earths greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.”
In other words, “You’ll have to take our word for it, because we have no explanation. We’ll just pretend it’s got something to to with a real greenhouse, and hope nobody will notice we can’t say how the GHE operates!” This is your idea of science? Not mine, I have to say!
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
YOU: “As to my oft repeated statement, it happens to be true. Your demand for proof is just stupid, and demonstrates you do not understand how science proceeds.”
WHAT the hell are you trying to say here. It is stupid to demand proof and you do not believe that is how science works. Get off this blog and stop posting!
Why does your statement happen to be true? Because you repeat it thousands of times? That is how science works and truth is determined. Not with evidence, proof or facts just repetition??
Mike Flynn is a Loon!
Mike Flynn is a Loon!
Mike Flynn is a Loon!
Mike Flynn is a Loon!
Mike Flynn is a Loon!
Based upon your really stupid and unfounded science how many times do I repeat this truth that you are a complete loon before it becomes verified truth?
The big phony that you are:
YOU: “In other words, Youll have to take our word for it, because we have no explanation. Well just pretend its got something to to with a real greenhouse, and hope nobody will notice we cant say how the GHE operates! This is your idea of science? Not mine, I have to say!”
Which is exactly how you proceed to post. You offer no evidence of anything you post. David Appell asks for the 1905 paper by John Tyndall so he can examine it and you will not provide a link. You pretend you have this intelligence and knowledge of science by quoting a few lines from some prominent scientist. You hope no one notices that you make the claim thousands of times that Carbon Dioxide between Sun and thermometer cannot warm it but you offer no evidence or proof of the claim. Lame!
Norman,
You wrote –
“Which is exactly how you proceed to post. You offer no evidence of anything you post. David Appell asks for the 1905 paper by John Tyndall so he can examine it and you will not provide a link. You pretend you have this intelligence and knowledge of science by quoting a few lines from some prominent scientist. You hope no one notices that you make the claim thousands of times that Carbon Dioxide between Sun and thermometer cannot warm it but you offer no evidence or proof of the claim. Lame!”
I’m not sure what your point is. I choose to let David Appell do a bit of work for himself, and you berate me for it! I pretend nothing, but you criticise me for “quoting a few lines from some prominent scientist”. Why should that indicate I’m pretending anything?
You make a bald assertion that I hope something or other. Oh dear, you must have wasted your money on the same sort of ESP course as David Appell did! You’re not even close!
Phlogiston, unicorns, the luminiferous ether, caloric, the GHE – I offer no evidence as to the non-existence of any or all. Believe in them if you wish. Foolish Warmists believe in at least one, and eminent scientists have believed in most of the others.
Maybe you might care to offer evidence or proof that unicorns don’t exist, If that’s what you believe! If you can’t offer evidence to the contrary, must we assume, therefore that the existence of unicorns is thereby proven?
Foolish Warmist. You refuse to even clearly state what this GHE phenomenon comprises. It’s hard to disprove something, if nobody knows what it is! Do you agree with David Appell, who said that the GHE was only a metaphor? Let me know if you work out how to disprove an unknown metaphor – a whole unwritten chapter of science is just waiting for your delineation! I wish you well.
Cheers.
MF wrote:
“Do you agree with David Appell, who said that the GHE was only a metaphor?”
You lie without compunction.
There is an important distinction between saying that the GHE (radiative gasses trapping heat in the atmosphere) warms the Earth and saying that radiative gasses warm the Earth.
The GHE is negligible, but RGs play an important role in increasing surface and atmospheric temperature through the thermal day-night buffering process that lifts mean surface temperatures from somewhere around those of the moon to our present levels.
The two-way surface-air radiative transfer is far greater than thermal conduction alone, and our atmosphere is a far better buffer than the rock or dust surface than lifts the lunar night surface above zero or thereabouts.
dai
dai davies says:
“The GHE is negligible”
No, it’s not — it’s about 33 K out of 288 K. It’s the second largest factor determining the Earth’s surface temperature.
Last time I caught Davie trying to imply that CO2 was a “heat source”, he admitted that it was not. Now, he’s trying it again, hoping no one will notice.
He reminds me of a drug addict, trying to hide his habit.
Good cop, bad cop routine?
Ger*: Evryone said ‘CO2 is a heat source’. Nope, actually noone said it.
MF: ‘Quote me exactly!’. I never said that thing you say I said.
David Appell plucks a figure out of his fantasy – and the winner is 33!
The temperature today was around 33 C. A lovely dry season day, here at 12 degrees South. The sun was shining, the sea was smooth, and if the temperature was 33 C lower, all would be ice, I suppose.
Thank goodness the GHE is a fable. Just a metaphor for the febrile imaginings of foolish Warmists, according to David Appell!
If I want low temperatures, I’ll move to Antarctica.
Cheers.
Davie,
How’s that earth heats the sun paper going. Any takers on publishing that?
SGW: No one would publish such a paper, because it’s something all physicists have known for well over a century.
Davie, any “physicist” that believes the Earth is warming the Sun is NOT a “physicist”, he is a “pharmacist” that had been consuming too many “happy” drugs.
The Earth emits radiation.
Radiation carries energy.
Some of this radiation reaches the Sun.
The Sun absorbs it.
Dear Dumbs***,
National Enquirer wants to publish your paper.
Two blackbody objects Ta and Tb. Temperature of Ta equals Tb. Ta emits radiation. Radiation carries energy. Some of this radiation reaches Tb. Tb absorbs it. However, Q = ZERO per radiative heat flow equation. NO increase in temperature.
Total BUMMER.
Dai
“The two-way surface-air radiative transfer is far greater than thermal conduction alone”
Isn’t this the GHE?
“…and our atmosphere is a far better buffer than the rock or dust surface than lifts the lunar night surface above zero or thereabouts.”
Yes, but ocean water absorbs more energy and is better buffer than our atmosphere.
Or without sunlight our atmosphere starts freezing out in few days. Or reaches below 0 C and freezes out the moisture of air. Or the 2.5 cm of water on average globally falls out. Whereas ocean surface would still remain liquid for months. So since most of earth covered by ocean, it would slow the atmosphere from ‘freezing out” as much. Or in middle of a continent, the air would get cold pretty fast- without the Sun warming Earth.
But the atmosphere is better than rock or lunar dust.
Though if you are mile below rock, it will keep warm- cause we live on massive molten ball of rock- and is very different than the Moon- which is close to dead- it’s molten ball is somewhere around thousand km away and small.
Oh, slightly different opinions:
“Within a week, the average global surface temperature would drop below 0F. In a year, it would dip to 100. The top layers of the oceans would freeze over, but in an apocalyptic irony, that ice would insulate the deep water below and prevent the oceans from freezing solid for hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years after that, our planet would reach a stable 400, the temperature at which the heat radiating from the planet’s core would equal the heat that the Earth radiates into space, explains David Stevenson, a professor of planetary science at the California Institute of Technology.”
hmm others:
“Probably commandeering a ship, any ship, and heading for the equator lasts longer than living underground. But, not by much.”
https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?t=141200
[because freezing and blowing snow above, and no rain fall- so from lack of fresh water- if underground had enough food and had a underground lake- would be different]
As I have anticipated very heavy thunderstorms in the US Central.
http://en.blitzortung.org/live_lightning_maps.php?map=30
Magnetic storm and the flow of electricity in the atmosphere.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00910/yfpj72ny076b.gif
Cape > 5500 J/kg.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00910/hk0fvyw7tnpn.png
Snape
By GHE I refer to the erroneous IPCC consensus assumption that the Earth’s surface is heated by 33 K from a moon-like temperature with no atmosphere to the current roughly 288 K by radiative gasses trapping heat. I calculate this trapping, or more accurately delaying, to be less than 1 K. For that I use the label Radiative Delay Effect.
The heating to 288 K can be readily accounted for by Nikolov and Zellar’s Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE). It is a simple calculation. As I remember, Roy created a spreadsheet for it some time ago. I have a visualisation at brindabella.id.au/OCM/OCM.html.
The radiative coupling I refered to is largely responsible for our ATE. The atmosphere absorbs heat from the surface during the day through radiative transfer and conduction, cooling it, and heats the surface at night. The net result is surface warming. There is a full description in my article RadiativeDelay.pdf in my archive brindabella.id.au/climarc/.
Wild’s surface energy diagram has 398 W/m^2 up from surface and 342 W/m^2 down, cf. the incident solar radiation of 160 W/m^2. It is a powerful coupling, and our ATE is almost saturated, so no chance of run-away heating.
dai
N&Z’s theory can’t account for this observation:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Hence it is wrong.
(It’s wrong for other reasons too, but this is the most obvious one.)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
Dai,
Just as a matter of interest, I calculate a surface temperature for the Earth in the absence of the Sun, and based on admittedly sparse radiated energy measurements at, around 35 K.
This seems to fit with geophysical estimates, and if added to 255 K or so contributed by the Sun, seems borne out by current measurements. In many places, the Sun’s influence vanishes at about 20 m depth, but there don’t seem to be a lot of measurements at this depth.
The Earth being a big molten blob with a very thin crust would suggest its skin must be at least a little warm on the outside, even without sunlight. There’s a small insulating effect from the atmosphere, but that just slows the rate of cooling (and heating, if the Sun’s involved).
I can’t actually see a need for a GHE, an ATE, gravito thermal effects, or similar. Observations seem easily explained by simpler mechanisms. To each his own.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Just as a matter of interest, I calculate a surface temperature for the Earth in the absence of the Sun, and based on admittedly sparse radiated energy measurements at, around 35 K.”
Watts add.
Temperatures don’t.
‘around 35 K…..if added to 255 K or so contributed by the Sun, seems borne out by current measurements’
Once again, Mike proves his ignorance of actual science.
‘I cant actually see a need for a GHE, an ATE, gravito thermal effects, or similar. Observations seem easily explained by simpler mechanisms.
To each his own.’
Some prefer facts and science, others, like Mike, prefer to just make sh*t up.
Mike Flynn on this blog: a case study of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Mike Flynn says:
“The Earth being a big molten blob with a very thin crust….”
Actually, the Earth isn’t fluidic until the outer core, at a depth of about 2900 km.
The mantle is only fluidic over geologic time.
I’ll try those links again:
href=”http://brindabella.id.au/OCM/OCM.html”>brindabella.id.au/OCM/OCM.html
brindabella.id.au/climarc/
Hmm. Second one works but not first.
brindabella.id.au/OCM/OCM.html
Perseverance furthers.
David Appell asked –
“Does the Sun heat the Earth?
How?”
Another attempt at a foolish Warmist “gotcha”?
But what the heck! No, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, if “heat the Earth” means to raise its surface temperature. Or yes, if if “heat the Earth” means to raise the temperature of a thermometer on the surface after sunrise.
Now David will no doubt claim he meant something else entirely, as foolish Warmists are wont to do. Another example of a foolish Warmist trying to deny, divert, and confuse – not working as well as it used to.
Keep trying David.
Cheers.
I don’t know of any data that show the 4.5 Byr history of the Earth’s temperature.
Do you?
David Appell,
I don’t know of any data that show that David Appell is not mentally deranged.
Do you?
My assumption (restated for the benefit of slow learners) is that the Earth was created in a molten state.
What’s yours?
Still no GHE. None. 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.
Attempts by foolish Warmists to deny, divert, and confuse, cannot banish this somewhat inconvenient fact. Witless Warmist Wallies can’t even come up with any better description of the GHE than “It’s a metaphor”, can they?
Keep at it David. Maybe you’ll get the hang of this “science journalist” thing one day. It might help if you improve your knowledge of “science” and “journalism” a little.
What do you think?
Cheers.
So you don’t know of any such data — that’s exactly what I suspected.
David Appell,
If you say so, David, if you say so.
My care factor about the worth of your suspicions remains at zero.
Cheers.
MF: That’s another of your pitiful tactics — pretending not to care when you’re proven wrong.
You’re very easy to read.
Where is your link to Tyndall’s 1905 paper?
David Appell,
It’s a book, David The “Sixth Edition” and “1905” should have given a journalist such as yourself a bit of a clue. Not my fault if you leap to erroneous conclusions, is it?
I don’t dance to your tune. Find it yourself, pretend it doesn’t exist, have a tantrum and start blubbing like a baby, if you wish. It’s a free world.
Still no GHE. So sad, too bad. Just an inexplicable metaphor, as you said.
Cheers.
MF: Clearly you don’t have a link, and, when asked and expected to provide support for your claims, all you do is whine.
You have no game, and can’t man up.
David Appell
I did locate the 5th edition of John Tyndall’s work.
I think it must be very similar to the 6th edtion looking at Mike Flynn’s post:
MIKE FLYNN: “Dry air, oxygen, nitrogen 1
Carbonic oxide, carbonic acid 90
IR source approx 270 C
Pressure 30 in Hg”
https://tinyurl.com/y76rfcfd
Chapter 5 of the link; Pages 305-306
David Appell
From the book:
“The most powerful and delicate tests yet applied have not enabled me to establish a difference
between oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and air. The ab*sorp*tion
of these substances is exceedingly smallprobably
even smaller than I have assumed it. The more
perfectly the above-named gases are purified, the more
closely does their action approach to that of a vacuum.
And who can say that th best drying apparatus is perfect?”
I think Mike Flynn just looked at the numbers without reading any of the text. It appears impurities, which Tyndall was aware of, produced the slight motion of his galvanometer set-up.
Norman,
It seems you are at least capable of independent research. My edition doesn’t seem to agree with your page numbers.
Maybe there are extensive revisions and corrections between the 5th and 6th editions.
However, I point out that Tyndall calibrated his instruments very, very, thoroughly. He was unable to determine the absolute opacity of substances such as oxygen and nitrogen to his “invisible rays” but was certainly able to determine relative opacity.
This is why he stated –
“What extraordinary differences in the constitution and character of the molecules of various gases do the above results reveal ! For every ray intercepted by air, oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogenammonia intercepts . . . “
This is why he could state that the relative ab.sorp.tion of CO2 (compared with say, nitrogen,) varied between 90 and 750 at the pressures he used, and the wavelengths involved.
Your quote is correct, but you’ll notice he was talking about the differences in opacity between oxygen, nitrogen, dry air and so on, in absolute terms. He could, and did, measure CO2 for example, in proportion to those substances.
In relation to ammonia, he found great opacity to some IR radiation. He commented –
.“What does this prove? It proves that the ammonia which, within our glass tube, is as transparent to light as the air we breathe, is so opaque to the heat radiating from our source, that the addition of a plate of metal hardly augments its opacity.”
And so with other gases such as CO2. However, at 4 molecules of CO2 to 9996 molecules of nitrogen etc., even if CO2 is 750 times as opaque as nitrogen, the it could only absorb 3000 “rays” of IR to every 9996 of nitrogen etc.
Tyndall calculated the atmosphere prevented about 40% of the Sun’s energy from reaching the surface. I believe the current “measured” figures are only a little less. Not bad!
I believe you may be misinterpreting what Tyndall wrote, to some degree. I certainly have found nothing to contradict my thoughts as to CO2 heating. Quite the contrary!
I have read the whole book, and most (but not all) of Tyndall’s other writings
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Norman says:
“I think Mike Flynn just looked at the numbers without reading any of the text.”
Thanks Norman.
Yes, that’s very likely. He just copied something and pasted, without thinking.
Norman says:
“The most powerful and delicate tests yet applied have not enabled me to establish a difference
between oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and air. The ab*sorp*tion
of these substances is exceedingly smallprobably
even smaller than I have assumed it. The more
perfectly the above-named gases are purified, the more
closely does their action approach to that of a vacuum.
And who can say that th best drying apparatus is perfect?”
Thanks, Norman, for the link to the 5th edition, which is 1875, no where close to Flynn’s 1905.
And your quote, of course, shows that oxygen and nitrogen don’t absorb IR.
Which everyone already knew, and why MF can’t provide a link to anything that says otherwise.
David Appell
I am starting to wonder where the 1905 came from for John Tyndall’s sixth edition of Heat a Mode of Motion.
Here is a link to the actual copy of the 6th edition and it states it was published in 1885, about 20 years earlier than what Mike Flynn claims.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Heat-A-Mode-of-Motion-by-John-Tyndall-1885-6th-Edition-book-/152519654836
Thanks Norman.
Flynn is, of course, wrong as usual.
MF says: “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.”
I don’t have the patience to responds EVERY TIME you post some version of this line, but …
The importance of an IR absorber (like CO2) is that it is between a heated surface (like the ground) and colder surroundings (like outer space). Not that the IR absorber is between the initial heat source (like the sun) and the heated surface (like the ground), as you state. The IR absorber limits how easily heat can leave a surface, not how well heat can get to the surface.
Why do you keep repeating this idea, even when this is not how anyone (who has even a passing understanding of heat transfer) explains the GHE? Even when this error has been pointed out to you? Can you find anyplace that presents the the GHE in the manner you are trying to claim? If not, this is once again an exposed red herring.
Now, I will grant you that many of the simple experiments presented on the internet do not really show the GHE. It is actually tricky to set up something convincing, especially if only CO2 is used ar the IR absorber. That does not mean it cannot or has not been done.
A quote from Feynmann comes to mind: Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry. The “threads” of thermodynamics and heat transfer are deeply woven into that fabric. For the theory to fail for the GHE would require the unraveling of large swaths of physics.
Theory demands the GHE. The earth demonstrates the GHE.
+1
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“The importance of an IR absorber (like CO2) is that it is between a heated surface (like the ground) and colder surroundings (like outer space).”
Indeed. You have described conditions in the absence of sunlight – at night, when the ground is cooling. No GHE to be seen. The surface is cooling. No amount of CO2 will prevent it.
Unfortunately, the mythical GHE apparently only works when the Sun is shining. The Sun’s photosphere, at around 5500 K, is vastly hotter than the Earth’s surface. The surface therefore gets hotter in sunlight, once again regardless of the amount of CO2 present. Still no GHE.
Foolish Warmists claim that reducing the amount of insolation by placing CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface, somehow makes the thermometer hotter. No amount of sciency sounding appeals to the Gods of Thermodynamics can turn fantasy into fact.
You also wrote –
“Now, I will grant you that many of the simple experiments presented on the internet do not really show the GHE. It is actually tricky to set up something convincing, especially if only CO2 is used ar the IR absorber. That does not mean it cannot or has not been done.”
So far, precisely nobody has managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between a constant heat source and a thermometer distant from the heat source. Nobody. It is so tricky as to be impossible!
If the Earth was created in a molten state, then the surface has demonstrably cooled to date. No GHE, your plaintive cries of “But . . . but . . . Thermodynamics. . . ” notwithstanding.
Here’s another Feynman quote to make your day complete –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You can’t even find an experiment to support your odd GHE notion – whatever it’s supposed to be!
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
‘You cant even find an experiment to support your odd GHE notion’
Actually, every day an experiment is done, weather models are run to predict weather. These experiments test GHE, and they confirm its validity.
MF wrote:
“Foolish Warmists claim that reducing the amount of insolation by placing CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface, somehow makes the thermometer hotter.”
{chuckle chuckle}
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, your reply is all strawmen. If I thought you actually wanted to discuss, I might follow up. But it has been made amply clear that mostly you just want to repeat over and over “foolish warmist” and “divert, deny, and confuse” without any real substance.
Tim Folkerts,
I can’t actually see where I used the phrase “divert, deny, and confuse” in my response.
Maybe you have created a “straw man” in an effort to deny, divert, and confuse, rather than trying to address the matters which I raised in answer to your assertions.
You have previously indicated that you were refusing to discuss anything with me unless I accepted your opinions. I don’t mind at all if you decide to practise what you preach.
Foolish Warmists (as opposed to realistic ones), often seem to be incapable of implementing their ill thought out undertakings.
Ignore me all you want. I don’t think I’ll be any the poorer for it.
The GHE still won’t exist, will it?
Maybe you, David Appell, and others of like mind, might decide to have nothing at all to do with me! That’d have me shaking in my boots with fear and trepidation – not! Give it a try Tim, if you wish. You might feel better, avoiding reality.
Cheers.
“You have previously indicated that you were refusing to discuss anything with me unless I accepted your opinions.”
Really where? Provide a quote.
If you want a quote for future reference, I am not interested in discussing science with you as long as you won’t address basic thermodynamics head-on, but that is a different issue.
I don’t suppose you have a blog. We could go there and discuss one issue at a time.
“I cant actually see where I used the phrase divert, deny, and confuse in my response.”
You have used that phrase (or one very similar) 5 times on this page, including once in this specific thread.
June 17, 2017 at 5:26 PM. Every discussion you are in, that is one of your main tactics — to avoid any real science by preemptively attacking. Everyone knows it well by now.
Tim Folkerts says, June 18, 2017 at 8:55 AM:
So why are you still wasting time and effort responding to him, Tim? Why don’t you just ignore him?
We enjoy showing MF’s lies and inconsistencies.
And showing noncommenting readers here that he is dishonest and full of it.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you, David Appell, and others of like mind, might decide to have nothing at all to do with me”
We like showing what an ignoramus you are.
For the sake of others reading all this.
David Appell,
Your NASA link is broken and your second one is a red herring. I’m not discussing N&Z’s recent work to do with atmospheric pressure but their earlier ATE work which has stood for years now without contradiction. The Diviner moon measurements show the basic idea to be valid.
dai
This link isn’t broken:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Davie believes that link “proves” the atmosphere is “trapping heat”. Further, he believes that “trapped heat” is warming the planet!
Lacking an understanding of physics, Davie gets to believe whatever psilly pseudoscience he chooses.
Dai: N&Z’s earlier work certainly *never* stood “for years without contradiction.”
They couldn’t even calculate the average temperature of the Moon along its equator.
But it’s trivial to do this via standard radiative physics, as I showed here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
My calculation gives exactly the right answer.
David Appell –
Easy to calculate any answer you want, if you adopt your procedure –
“Radiative considerations alone cant fix the nightside temperature thermal conductance of the regolith must be included, so I’ll just take that as a constant Tn.”
So your trivial standard radiative physics calculation, while sounding very sciency, turns out to be based on a series of assumptions and estimates – or guesses, if you wish. You even say that “Radiative considerations alone can’t . . . “. Maybe not so trivial after all?
Unconvincing, David. Unconvincing and irrelevant, even.
Still no GHE. Calculate away, you still can’t make a thermometer on the surface hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun, can you?
Cheers.
It’s certainly not a calculation you could do. You don’t even understand it.
Keep denying. Keep refusing to answer questions. Keep whining when challenged.
That’s all you have — nothing. Very weak.
David,
Your much vaunted mind reading powers have come up short – yet again.
You have no idea of what I can or cannot calculate. You might even be unhappy if I pointed out some physical parameters relating to the Moon which you managed to ignore, in coming up with your desired answer.
And still no GHE.
Cheers,
MF: I know that you can’t ever provide support for any of your claims, and bitch and whine whenever someone asks you for it.
I know you have many mistaken ideas on climate science that you troll with, repeating them ad nauseum.
And I know there’s no way you could ever have done the calculation I did.
You just don’t have what it takes.
Davie has “what it takes”! His favorite “scientist” believes the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K!
g*e*r*a*n,
Excuse my ignorance, what was wrong the 800 000K figure?
What is your calculation?
“Svante says:
June 27, 2017 at 3:01 PM
g*e*r*a*n,
Excuse my ignorance, what was wrong the 800 000K figure?
What is your calculation?”
I say around 80 C due to Sun heat. Though the nuclear reaction occurring in Earth interior [without heat loss over enough time could increase the earth temperature higher than 80 C.
Other things which could make the temperature of Earth hotter than 80 C from the sun energy, could include chemical reaction [if heat not lost to space].
But issue was sun alone, and it’s about 80 K.
The moon could be heated to about 120 C- from the sun assuming the silly assumption that there not heat lost.
Another form of heating could from impactors, impactors if large enough could boil Earth oceans- something the Sun can’t do. And given enough time, and no heat lost, small impactor can amount to same energy as a very large impactor.
But issue was sun alone, and its about 80 K.
{ I mean: But issue was sun alone, and its about 80 C
[or 353 K].
David Appell,
You wrote –
“MF: Clearly you dont have a link, and, when asked and expected to provide support for your claims, all you do is whine.”
Tut, tut, David. I don’t dance to your tune. I choose not to provide you with a “link”. Nor will I provide with a copy of the book itself. Maybe if you tried, you could locate a copy for yourself. I have quoted Tyndall, and if you don’t like it – tough.
Ask and expect all you want. I do as I wish, not as you wish. In this case, my wish is not to do any work for you that you can do for yourself. Why should I? Am I supposed to care about your opinion?
Still not GHE. Maybe you could ask Gavin Schmidt for support.
Cheers
Troll. You hunger for respectability, but time and time again you show you just don’t have what it takes on the scientific issues.
David,
And yet Norman managed to locate at least the 5th edition.
Maybe you could demand a link from him. Or are Norman and myself superior beings who manage to locate that which you cannot?
As to calculations, any number of foolish Warmists can waste their time doing innumerable calculations using supercomputer time at vast expense, producing endless meaningless results. Even the IPCC accepts that the atmosphere behaves in a non linear chaotic fashion. Probability distribution functions are a waste of time, and cannot be shown to be any more accurate than the naive persistence forecasts that a reasonably bright 12 year old could do.
I don’t need to “have” anything. Facts are facts, and the GHE is not one.
Still no GHE. Nature still doesn’t care what you or I think, either.
Cheers.
You never did have a link to Tyndall 1905, and just made numbers up out of thin air.
And your opinion on the GHE doesn’t matter in any way at all.
If you say so, David. If you say so. Did you shell out good money for your ESP course?
I’ll support your application for a refund, if you think you’ve been gypped. It’s not working too well, I can tell you.
Cheers.
For anyone who’s interested (and haven’t already heard it), I have an idea that warmth in the atmosphere can be likened to water in lake, where there’s an inlet and outlet. The longer it takes the incoming water to move to the outlet, the more water will accumulate in the lake.
So if my analogy has any truth, the longer it takes IR to move from surface to space, the more warmth will accumulate in the atmosphere.
GHG’s absorb and reemit a portion of IR. This certainly slows it’s movement from surface to space.
This same idea can be understood in terms of velocity. The slower the overall velocity at which water moves from inlet to outlet, the more water will accumulate in the lake.
From this, it follows that the slower the overall velocity at which warmth moves from surface to space, the more warmth will accumulate in the atmosphere.
Snape,
I don’t think you need an analogy. It seems fairly obvious (and supported by observation), that the more insulation you pile on the Earth’s surface at night, the more slowly the surface will cool, and an r (insulating) value for the atmosphere has been calculated.
Conversely, during the day, the more insulation you pile on the surface, the more slowly the surface temperature will rise. The medieval ice house, with its thick walls and straw, prevented much melting of ice during the day, for quite long periods. Basic physics.
But no heating of the Earth’s surface due to insulation, I’m afraid. That’s why your hot soup at 70 C doesn’t get any hotter in your vacuum flask, regardless of all the internal back radiation emitted from the silvered surfaces, even if you leave it in direct sunlight!
Still no GHE. Not even a good description of the GHE. Doesn’t exist.
Cheers.
Mike, you wrote,
“Conversely, during the day, the more insulation you pile on the surface, the more slowly the surface temperature will rise.”
C02 is mostly transparent to solar radiation. Why do you compare it to other forms of insulation that block sunlight (like thick straw walls)?
Water vapor, which is a GHG, also enhances convection. This means it’s very effective at moving warmth away from a surface being heated. Convection is why a thermometer in direct sun actually gets cooler in the presence of an atmosphere and GHG’s. The heat gets moved to other locations.
Regarding your vacuum flask, again, it’s opaque and blocks sunlight from reaching the soup. Find a thermos made of a transparent material, and then put it in the hot sun. Do you still think it won’t warm up?
Snape,
The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2. Insulators are insulators. The majority of solar radiation is not visible light.
When there is little convection, as at night, temperatures still fall. What’s your point?
A transparent properly constructed insulating vacuum vacuum flask? Only in a foolish Warmist’s fantasy!
Soup at 70 C in a transparent flask will not increase its temperature if placed in the Sun. More foolish Warmist fantasy.
If you put as much effort into comprehension as you do into attempting “gotchas” or irrelevant analogies, you might advance your cause more effectively.
Are you actually disagreeing with anything I said, or just trying to be disagreeable? You don’t seem to have produced anything I didn’t already know, so you give me no reason to change my mind.
If your intent was to emulate a foolish Warmist, you have succeeded.
Cheers.
Mike
Convection is why a thermometer in direct sun actually gets cooler in the presence of an atmosphere and GHGs. Surface heat gets transported to other locations.
At night, when there is less convection, the suface cools because the sun is no longer present. It cools more slowly, however, because of GHG’s.
But of course, we’ve been through all this before.
Oh yeah, I spaced out the 70 C soup. Was thinking 70 F.
Mike Flynn says:
“CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
There you go again, admitting the greenhouse effect. Third time now.
–David Appell says:
June 18, 2017 at 3:15 PM
Mike Flynn says:
CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.
There you go again, admitting the greenhouse effect. Third time now.–
Isn’t there about 2000 to 500 times more N2 and O2 as compared to CO2?
gbaikie says:
June 17, 2017 at 12:32 AM
and our atmosphere is a far better buffer than the rock or dust surface than lifts the lunar night surface above zero or thereabouts.
Yes, but ocean water absorbs more energy and is better buffer than our atmosphere.
Yes, far far more heat capacity which is why ocean cycles effect air and surface temperatures on the scale of decades to centuries. Not so sure about day-night transfer that the ATE relies on.
Mike Flynn says:
June 17, 2017 at 9:23 PM
Dai,
Just as a matter of interest, I calculate a surface temperature for the Earth in the absence of the Sun, and based on admittedly sparse radiated energy measurements at, around 35 K.
I haven’t looked at this. I’ve read that upward conduction from the interior was negligible, though some have suggested that deep ocean heating is significant. I gather that we have no real knowledge beyond guesswork how many deep sea volcanos there are.
David Appell says:
June 17, 2017 at 6:45 PM
Dai: N&Zs earlier work certainly *never* stood for years without contradiction.
I was talking about the ATE from day-night buffering, which you acknowledge as valid in your link. The Earth’s atmosphere has a far higher buffering effect than the moon’s regolith, so our ATE is near saturated and large enough to give our present temperatures. I have provided calculations in my archive. Show me where I’m wrong.
The NASA link still doesn’t work for me. I usually ignore links when the person providing it doesn’t bother to say what is pointed to, but I have tried here. You don’t seem to have bothered with mine. You seem intent on repeating “I’ve proved you wrong” or such words, so a casual observer might get the impression that you were right. If I stop responding, it’s because I see nothing worth responding to.
dai
In my link I did not acknowledge anything N&Z did was right.
They couldn’t even calculate the temperature of the Moon. I could.
dai: Stop it. Of course that NASA link works.
I realize you find the results there inconvenient, but lying about it doesn’t help your case.
Snape says:
June 17, 2017 at 11:05 PM
… the longer it takes IR to move from surface to space, the more warmth will accumulate in the atmosphere.
GHGs absorb and reemit a portion of IR. This certainly slows its movement from surface to space.
That much I agree with and is what I’ve calculated. The accumulation causes 1 K increase in the atmosphere. With the lake analogy the amount of water is fixed by the size of the lake, and total flow is determined by input rate, which is roughly the same with the atmosphere. But the analogy is not quite right.
The rate of movement of energy through our atmosphere is determined by the infrared emissivity of water molecules and their density. Almost all of the delay is in the lower troposphere. This means that since CO2 is only a significant absorber/emitter at high altitudes where the mean free path of an IR photon is large (ranging from kms to infinity) its contribution to delay is negligible.
dai
dai
Why do you say, “… CO2 is only a significant absorber/emitter at high altitudes…”? Do you have a evidence to back this up?
Also, you wrote, ” With the lake analogy the amount of water is fixed by the size of the lake, and total flow is determined by input rate…”
Hypothetically, a lake doesn’t need to be a fixed size. Think of a river running down onto a vast, flat expanse.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say total flow is determined by input rate.
dai
Notice that a lake’s inlet could be a raging river, and yet the overall velocity at which water moves towards the outlet can be so slow it’s almost imperceptible.
Snape, trying to “model” the atmosphere as a “lake” just indicates you have no understanding of how the atmosphere works, or heat transfer, or thermodynamics, or radiative physics.
But, we enjoy you humor.
g*e*r
Yes, my understanding of climate science and physics is seriously lacking.
Regarding the lake. I was confused how the atmosphere seemed to trap heat even though I knew this is not really possible. When I thought about a lake, and it’s vast accumulation of water despite a constant inflow/ outflow, it was clear the word “trapped” was being used figuratively.
dai davies says:
“This means that since CO2 is only a significant absorber/emitter at high altitudes”
Completely wrong.
Hence dai can’t prove it.
“Infrared systems, among other techniques, have been considered by Goddard Space Flight Center for detecting and tracking the Apollo spacecraft during re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere (Reference 1). Although no present plans exist for utilizing this method of tracking, investigations have shown that infrared tracking on the heated spacecraft (6000″R – 7000″R surface temperatures) would be possible during the communications blackout period and for most of the re-entry trajectory, nominally 2000 nautical miles.”
Surprise, surprise!
The atmosphere is nearly transparent to most IR in the wavelengths studied here!
The point many foolish Warmists seem to miss, is that the other wavelengths absorbed by matter, are re-emitted almost immediately, if not completely converted to momentum, either at the same energy level, or, more likely, at a longer wavelength with the remaining absorbed energy being converted to momentum. Hence the “heating” of gases which absorb energy – greater molecular velocity on average.
In any case, all of the absorbed energy will be emitted at longer and longer wavelengths, all the way to absolute zero if no external energy source is present. The limit will be just above absolute zero, with thermodynamic equilibrium and maximum entropy, at the “heat death” of the universe.
CO2, like any other matter, can absorb and emit energy of any wavelength, but not absorb energy of a longer wavelength than which it is presently emitting. This can be demonstrated by trying to heat a ml. of water using the IR radiated by any amount of frozen CO2 (dry ice). It is apparently possible in the fevered imaginations of foolish Warmists, but not in reality.
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
This is even sillier than most of what you post!
* 2-5 um IR from very hot re-entering spacecraft in the study you reference is NOT the range important for the much cooler ground, atmosphere, etc.
* the energy of photons cannot “be converted to momentum”. energy is energy and momentum is momentum.
* CO2 absorbs and emits effectively only at specific wavelengths. This is quantum mechanics.
* No one (who understands basic science) thinks you can heat (add net thermal energy) from cooler to warmer, as you repeatly try to claim. (if you think otherwise, please show a link and/or quote). Everyone (who understands basic science) know you can slow the heat loss by warming the surroundings. Unheated water will cool slower surrounded by dry ice than surrounded by outer space around. And heated water will reach a higher steady-state temperature surrounded by dry ice than surrounded by outer space around.
You keep repeating unfounded, unsupported, unscientific claims.
Tim Folkerts
Everything you posted is verifiable truth from textbook data.
The group (not sure how many) that does not think GHE is possible all seem to think a cooler body will warm a hot one in a direct fashion. g*e*r*a*n takes it to the extreme and thinks if the GHE is correct than everything will start on fire.
Not one of the group can understand how GHE works no matter how many times it is explained to them or linked to actual textbooks on heat transfer.
I think they just distract from the main point of this thread. It uses so much effort debating GHE with nonthinking, illogical “Slayers” and we miss the real debate on how much effect will additional CO2 produce on global warming and the potential for climate change.
Climate models are vastly complex mathematical tools that can easily be wrong with their outputs. It is not a solid science that can be verified with experiments or observations. I would not declare that the models serve no purpose or are completely wrong, but I would rather the debate was on reality instead of endless discussion (99.9% repetition, I can go back to Roy Spencer’s threads of a few years ago and the arguments are identical, no new learning taking place, just an endless rehash of worn out points).
Norm, just keep convincing yourself with your illogical logic: “Energy does NOT leave the system, but energy leaves the system.”
g*e*r*a*n
I guess you might as well convince yourself you completely understand the Greenhouse effect and radiation physics. Even though you understand neither and get them wrong 100% of your posts about them. I guess if you convince yourself long enough then reality no longer matters, your bubble of pure knowledge will guide you along the way.
Now where again did you state that you studied physics. You like to attack my credentials but I am of strong opinion you did not even study physics in High School. I am not sure you ever opened a textbook on the subject but you seem to know all about it. The blog Universe is great, just read the blogs that agree with you and ignore the textbook data.
Norm, we’ve been here before. I challenged you to put up some cash. But, you backed down.
Are you now ready to wager some significant cash about your version of my physics “background”?
You know where the backdoor is….
Tim desperately expounds: “Unheated water will cool slower surrounded by dry ice than surrounded by outer space around.”
Tim, where does this occur on Earth?
You are desperate, as when you tried to compare atmospheric CO2 to a CO2 laser.
Why do you do this to yourself?
Tim Folkerts says, June 18, 2017 at 8:09 AM:
Ok. So when you add “net thermal energy” to an object, I guess you mean that its U and thus its T will go up as a result. It GAINS energy during some thermal process, some thermal interaction with its surroundings, making its temperature higher at t_f than it was at t_i (except in the case of a phase change).
So at stage 1 we let the Earth’s global surface equilibrate with the solar input only:
Q_in = Q_out, 165 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
Which will give a maximum average T_s of 232 K.
We then, at stage 2, include the atmosphere:
Q_in + DWLWIR – Q_cond+evap = UWLWIR, 165+345-112 = 398 (W/m^2)
Which will raise the T_s to 289 K.
Through stage 2 we have thereby effectuated an absolute GAIN in the U and T of the global surface of the Earth. And that gain derives DIRECTLY and ONLY from the “additional input of energy” from the cooler atmosphere, the DWLWIR. There is no ‘net LW’ (Q_out(LW)) in the budget above, only a separate INPUT of radiant energy from the atmosphere right next to the solar heat, and a separate OUTPUT of radiant energy from the surface as a result (an effect) of its temperature rise, caused by the separate input from the atmosphere:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
Can we finally agree, Tim, that arranging the budget in the above fashion is highly misleading and confusing as to cause and effect, as to what actually happens? That the DWLWIR is effectively TREATED as if it were an additional radiative heat flux to the surface, fully equivalent to the solar heat flux, and that the UWLWIR is correspondingly treated as the resultant radiative heat loss? Never called heat, but treated as …
When you split the two LW ‘hemifluxes’ and place them on opposite sides of the IN/OUT budget, then you are basically treating them as separate, independent thermodynamic fluxes with individual thermodynamic powers.
In the particular budget above, we are NOT raising T_s from 232 to 289 K by reducing the radiant heat loss from the surface, Tim. (There is no radiant heat loss there!) We are doing it by ADDING an extra incoming flux of radiant energy right next to the solar heat flux, from the cooler atmosphere.
Can we please agree that the budget should rather look like this in order for it to be consistent with physical reality?
Q_in = Q_out => Q_rad(SW) = Q_rad(LW) + Q_cond + Q_evap =>
165 W/m^2 = [398-345=] 53 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
I would of course drop the UWLWIR-DWLWIR bracket even, while you would probably insist on keeping it. Doesn’t matter. One-way or two-way transfer, the end result is the same. AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THE TWO TOGETHER AT ALL TIMES! THEY BOTH BELONG ON THE HEAT LOSS SIDE OF THE BUDGET! They cannot and must not be separated! They’re integrated into ONE transfer/exchange!
There are no separate LW fluxes adding and removing energy at the surface. There is only an instantaneous exchange leading to a NET change in energy content and temperature. First (t_i) you had two dimes, then (t_f) you had one. And that’s it. You exchanged one for another, and you lost a second one (no compensation). Net result: you lost one. You didn’t gain one and lose two. You never had three and you never had zero in your hand. No, first you had two and then you had one. So you lost one. We don’t label individual photons to track them specifically. We account for the energy associated with them and equivalent to them.
Kristian
YOU: “There are no separate LW fluxes adding and removing energy at the surface.”
You are still wrong. There are two separate fluxes of IR, one moving to the surface and one away and instruments easily detect the two separate macroscopic flows of energy. You can repeat it over and over but you still have failed to prove it or validate it. FLIR testing I have done already proves your assertions wrong despite how strongly you believe them.
+1, Norman.
Kristian: “So at stage 1 we let the Earth’s global surface equilibrate with the solar input only:
Q_in = Q_out, 165 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
Which will give a maximum average T_s of 232 K.
We then, at stage 2, include the atmosphere:”
Oops, with no atm. in stage 1 Kristian forgot to include the ~75 solar W/m^2 which is absorb-ed by the atm. when present in stage 2. For stage 1 T_s not 232K but T_s of about 255K with (165+75 total insolation already net of albedo) in stage 1.
-1, Kristian.
Mike Flynn says:
“CO2, like any other matter, can absorb and emit energy of any wavelength,”
Laughably, clownishly wrong.
Clearly you sleep through high school chemistry and physics.
Davie, maybe you could explain “your” physics, such as the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
(And you even have a “paper” to support such nonsense, huh?)
David Appell,
You didn’t take up the opportunity to demonstrate your awesome knowledge previously, when I posted –
“An atom of rest mass m is at rest in a laboratory and absorbs a photon of frequency ν. Find the velocity and mass of the recoiling particle.”
Maybe you might care to show that carbon and oxygen are specifically exempt from the normal operations of quantum physics.
While you’re at it, you might care to calculate the wavelength of a photon emitted by a CO2 molecule at 0.001 K.
Have fun. By the way, many general physics textbooks contain quite serious errors of fact. They are written by people.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“An atom of rest mass m is at rest in a laboratory and absorbs a photon of frequency ν. Find the velocity and mass of the recoiling particle.”
Trivial.
Do you have a point?
See “Scattering, Compton.”
David Appell,
As far as I know, neither oxygen or carbon are exempted from Compton scattering.
Are you claiming that CO2 cannot be heated by compression, for example?
Cheers.
Compression has nothing to do with any of this.
You asked a question, and it was answered by Compton a century ago.
If you knew physics you would have know that.
David Appell,
Maybe you are mistaken. You said I asked a question that was answered by Compton a century ago.
What was that question, and what was the answer?
Or are you just attempting another foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and confuse?
Your statement that “Compression has nothing to do with any of this.” seems like another David Appell assertion. What data do you have to support your statement, or are you just blathering, hoping nobody will notice that you don’t actually understand why I asked you that particular question? Maybe you’re worried it’s a “gotcha”?
Keep at it David. You could always post a few more irrelevant links. That might work!
Cheers.
MF: Ha.
Now you don’t even know what question you asked.
Hilarious.
Mike Flynn says:
“The atmosphere is nearly transparent to most IR in the wavelengths studied here!”
That’s not what the data show:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
David Appell,
You have a choice. Either believe research done for the US Government by the Goddard Space Flight Centre, using real instruments, calibrated and operated by real scientists, or the fantasies of an undistinguished mathematician claiming to be a scientist.
Who would you rather have defend your country in time of wsr?
Gavin Schmidt, or someone else?
Cheers.
I’d use a fake name too if I wrote the vomit that you do.
Davie, how many fake names do you have?
‘if not completely converted to momentum, either at the same energy level, or, more likely, at a longer wavelength with the remaining absorbed energy being converted to momentum. ‘
I see why MF avoids direct back and forth discussion of science. Because, as this quote shows, he is utterly confused. He thinks energy converts into momentum and vice-versa.
David Appell says:
June 17, 2017 at 3:24 PM
N&Zs theory cant account for this observation:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Hence it is wrong.
(Its wrong for other reasons too, but this is the most obvious one.)
OK, I was wrong about the link. It worked with another browser. But my guess that the info would be irrelevant was right.
I have had years of experience researching gas phase molecular spectroscopy and can’t see a connection between that spectral curve and anything that I’ve said, or any of N&Z’s work that I’ve seen. I’m talking about the rate that energy is moved about in the atmosphere by IR. Yes, that will vary with wavelength. I have used a measured aggregate value. TOA flux gives no information on transfer rate from surface to satellite.
If you do an ATE calculation for the Earth and can show convincingly that it can’t be large enough to account for present temperatures, that would be relevant. You can use my OCM package if you want and I will be pleased to help by adapting it to your needs if you show me you are serious.
dai
dai davies…”I have had years of experience researching gas phase molecular spectroscopy and cant see a connection between that spectral curve and anything that Ive said…”
That’s because the curve is by Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician, climate modeler, and a specialist at pulling irrelevant data out of a hat.
True, and in this instance DA was adding another layer of irrelevance.
dai
Gordon, you wrote that “Heat is the energy of motion of atoms, either in a solid lattice where the atoms vibrate, or in liquids, or in gases, where the atoms/molecules collide with each other.”
Again, so how does the Sun heat the Earth?
Radiation transferred to heat.
Yes, but Gordon thinks heat can only be transferred by a medium — atoms and molecules.
Which is why he’s avoiding this question.
Dai: N&Z’s model obviously cannot account for the Earth’s TOA outgoing spectrum, because they ignore greenhouse gas warming.
Their is model is wrong, and not just for this reason.
The IPCC predictions rely on the GHE warming. That’s why the predictions have been consistently WRONG.
Maybe the IPCC is only seeking consistency?
David Appell:
Their observations do not need TOA outgoing as it will always equal TOA net incoming over a climate period of time.
You don’t understand their study; it relates solely to the surface.
The TOA outgoing spectrum has a certain magnitude and shape.
N&Z cannot explain it if they ignore GHGs. Their theory does not predict it — it predicts a smooth blackbody spectrum.
Hence their theory is theory is wrong.
And not just for this reason.
You don’t understand their study. There is no need to know the TOA spectrum.
But, if you still believe they do then spell out your reasons in their terminology.
Snape says:
June 18, 2017 at 12:48 AM
dai
Why do you say, CO2 is only a significant absorber/emitter at high altitudes? Do you have a evidence to back this up?
The evidence is the well known vapour pressure of water and atmospheric measurements. It’s very low at the TOA, but CO2 is relatively well mixed.
Hypothetically, a lake doesnt need to be a fixed size. Think of a river running down onto a vast, flat expanse.
That works better. Better still is the common example of a tank with a tap at the bottom and a steady input flow. Water level rises to the point where the pressure at the bottom forces the egress to match the inflow. Open the tap a bit and water level drops and vv. Likewise, vary the input rate and the level will vary accordingly.
dai
dai
Yes, I just learned about the water tank/water pressure scenario in a previous thread (I was initially very confused and ended up embarrassing myself).
Anyway, my idea about velocity can be illustrated here as well. Given a constant input, more water will accumulate in a larger, broader tank than a smaller one (same size of drain). This is because the overall velocity at which water moves from faucet to drain will be slower.
In our atmosphere, the accumulation of warmth is not constrained by the size of a container or the pressure above a hole in the ground. This is why I’ve chosen the analogy of a broad lake instead.
Snape,
Have you considered abandoning analogies, and aiming to understand what happens in reality?
It’s fairly simple, and doesn’t involve a GHE at all.
Night follows day, winter follows summer, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years
No GHE required. Why invent something which is not needed to explain observed reality?
I suppose you have a reason, but you manage to hide it well.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Night follows day, winter follows summer, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years”
MF has previously admitted he has no data to support this claim.
Davie, you have previously demonstrated that your “data” do not support your claim.
dai
I tried to apply my velocity idea to the water tank scenario. I was tired and did a lousy job. Several problems with it. Please disregard and maybe I’ll try again later.
Dai
Sorry, increasing rate of flow in a larger water tank, more water will be able to move horizontally where it does not affect water pressure. This is different than my lake scenario.
CO2 and water vapor have some overlap, but it is not 100%:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/Images/greenhouse_gas_absorb_rt.gif
And at altitude, and in the polar regions, there is very little water vapor but the same amount of CO2.
This is science figured out decades ago.
Forecasted ice extent in Arctic in June. The temperature at the North Pole is still below the 1958-2002 average.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_monthly-06_en.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
In the Central Arctic ice extent is increasing again.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
As an electric current flows to the Arctic Circle during the geomagnetic storm.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2017/03/upward_and_downward_current_sheets/16872091-1-eng-GB/Upward_and_downward_current_sheets_node_full_image_2.jpg
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Supersonic_plasma_jets_discovered
Dr. Roy Spencer storms in the US will move southeast.
http://virga.sfsu.edu/gif/17061800_jetstream_h36.gif
In southern Arizona and California now gets a very high temperature, even above 45 C.
“Heck, even *I* believe we will continue to see modest warming, and that it might well be at least 50% due to CO2.”
Dr Spencer, your Satellite data provide all the evidence you need to determine the impact of CO2. Use the areas that isolate the impact of CO2. There is no urban heat island effect over the oceans or Antarctica. Antarctica air is very dry and emits IR near the ideal 15 microns absorbed by CO2.
I used your data to examine those areas, and here is what I found:
CO2 Cant Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/co2-cant-cause-the-warming-alarmists-claim-it-does/
Climate Debate Should Focus on Public Policy and Priorities, Not Science
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/climate-debate-should-focus-on-public-policy-and-priorities-not-science/
There is no urban heat island effect in the satellite data. Satellite data are lower tropospheric data.
You’ve focussed on Antarctica. The Arctic, on the other hand, has warmed more than twice as fast as the rest of the world (UAH data).
In fact, most large regions have warmed. Odd that you should focus on Antarctica.
Antarctica has warmed over the satellite period, by the way. You probably meant to train your focus on the Antarctic oceans.
http://tinyurl.com/jrx6wcn
Is it really?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
Ren, those are temps over three days. The red shading at bottom is suggestive of long-term warming, but without knowing what the baseline is it’s a poor reference.
I can’t even post a link to UAH’s own data page — blocked.
Roy, this is a lousy way to run a blog.
Davie fumes: “Roy, this is a lousy way to run a blog.”
Davie, maybe Dr. Roy is trying to discourage envious trolls.
Way to miss the point, barry.
Do UAH global results support the IPCC/CO2/GHE/AGW nonsense, or not?
Barry, my calculation finds a trend of zero (0.00 +/- 0.05 C/decade) for the SoPol in UAH’s v6 data.
UAH defines “SoPol” as 90S-60S.
It says 90S to 60s on the data page, but is in fact, 87.5S to 60S.
CO2 was talking about Antarctica – which is the continent. For Antarctica check again under the heading “land” immediately to the right of SoPol. SoPol. That’s the Antarctic continent. At the UAH link above it gives the decadal trend at 0.08C.
Barry, how do you know that (about the different upper latitude limit of 87.5 S)?
And in any case, it doesn’t change the conclusion.
The “0.08” number on UAH’s page is for SoPol land, not the SoPol itself.
Just download the data and calculate the trend for yourself. I have. It comes to 0.
David, CO2 was talking about Antarctica. The data set for that is SoPol “land”.
I had the 87.5S figure from memory. It may be 85S. But it’s not complete global coverage to 90S.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/docs/readme.msu
(RSS have slightly different coverage)
Barry, the UAH LT v6.0 data page says SoPol is 90S-60S
I know that. I said so above. It’s not accurate. Which I’ve also said before.
I gather that the latitude values for the poles are rounded. The information I linked above also comes from UAH.
This tidbit is fairly (but obviously not universally) well-known in climate circles. WUWT, Tisdale, SkS and others have mentioned it.
Eg,
The UAH lower troposphere temperature product is for the latitudes of 85S to 85N…
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/december-2016-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update-with-a-look-at-the-year-end-annual-results/
barry, I trust UAH’s own files far, far, far more than anything Bob Tisdale has ever had to say.
But it doesn’t matter. None of the data anywhere shows any Antarctic warming anywhere.
And you haven’t provided any.
You can also find mention of the ‘pole holes’ from Dr Spencer himself.
While the satellite data record is shorter than the surface thermometer record, it has several strengths. It has the greatest global coverage: With 96 percent coverage of the globe (except for small areas around the north and south poles)…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2011/November/Nov2011GTR.pdf
I’m not sure what the problem is, David. Could you answer 2 questions to discover where we’re at odds?
CO2islife mentioned Antarctica (no warming).
1) Are we agreed that Antarctica refers only to the continent?
2) Are we agreed that the proper subset of UAH data for Antarctica is the “land” portion of SoPol?
In the terminology I am familiar with, if one wishes to include oceans, one speaks of “the Antarctic” region.
Reading back, CO2islife said Antarctica, but you said Antarctic. I think this is where the confusion lies.
Not the first time I’ve run into this confusion, I have to say.
Barry, that’s NOT where any confusion lies.
The southern polar region hasn’t warmed during the satellite era.
Denying that makes you as ridiculous as the many other deniers of basic climate data here.
Why are you talking about the “Southern Polar region?”
That is precisely where you have misunderstood. I will quote CO2islife in the initial post.
There is no urban heat island effect over the oceans or Antarctica. Antarctica air is very dry..
That’s what I responded to. That is NOT the “Southern Polar region,” (SoPol) which, in the UAH, comprises both and land South of 60S to 85S.
The UAH regional decadal trends are, according to the UAH link above (and my own trend analysis):
SoPol: 0.0 C/decade
SoPol Land: 0.08 C/decade
SoPol ocean: -0.03 C/decade
SoPol land is Antarctica.
If you wish to help out, please give your own decadal trend for the area CO2islife mentoned. Antarctica. The continent. Not the oceans.
By the way if you have trouble posting links, use tinyurls, and you will never have a problem. Here is the link to the UAH data you were unable to post in tiny url form.
http://tinyurl.com/jrx6wcn
Here is the link to the tinyurl page – it’s very easy…
http://tinyurl.com/
Paste any link into the box on that page, copy the resulting tinyurl and post it here. Works every time.
Typo:
That is NOT the Southern Polar region, (SoPol) which, in the UAH dataset, comprises both ocean and land South of 60S to 85S.
SoPol is NOT Antarctica. I am talking about Antarctica. Get it?
Barry wrote:
“SoPol is NOT Antarctica. I am talking about Antarctica. Get it?”
UAH defines “SoPol” as 60-90 S.
That’s a pretty good cover of Antarctica.
And UAH LT v6.0 data show no warming there since they started taking data.
Admitting that doesn’t ruin the case for AGW.
Barry says:
“Thats what I responded to. That is NOT the Southern Polar region, (SoPol) which, in the UAH, comprises both and land South of 60S to 85S.
The UAH regional decadal trends are, according to the UAH link above (and my own trend analysis):
SoPol: 0.0 C/decade
SoPol Land: 0.08 C/decade
SoPol ocean: -0.03 C/decade”
Hmm, now I’m starting to think you are right and I am wrong — that is, that “SoPol land” is the best measure of Antarctica as a continent.
PS: Barry, my calculations agree with the trends you gave.
David,
Yes, you’ve got it now.
The area of the Antarctic ocean South of 60S is larger than the area of the Antarctic continent.
Antarctic Ocean – 26 million sq/km
Antarctica – 14 million sq/km
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/14southernssta.png
Once again, Antarctica – the continent – is brought up and someone supplies a graph of the Southern Oceans temp profile.
How hard is it to stay on point?
The study of solar minima suggests that during the solar minimum, the distribution of earthquakes can change.
http://earthquake-report.com/2017/06/18/tsunami-waves-damage-some-villages-on-the-greenland-coast/
http://earthquake-report.com/2017/06/16/moderate-earthquake-west-yellowstone-montana-on-june-16-2017/
“…because that is the only way to determine if we should change energy policy in a direction different from that which the free market would carry it naturally.”
If Earth were rapidly becoming like Venus due to CO2 emission,
why would want stop the only thing which works and replace it with whatever doesn’t work?
Any government is a lesson is how to be incompetent.
If want something done, why give to a government to do?
How stupid is it, for politician to vote on something that they admit they don’t even understand.
Would hand over your dog to the government, to care for?
How about your baby?
Only people in government have the massive delusion that they can get anything done.
Everyone else knows they can’t do anything right.
gbaikie states: “Would hand over your dog to the government, to care for?
How about your baby?
Only people in government have the massive delusion that they can get anything done.
Everyone else knows they cant do anything right.”
gbaikie, if we ever meet up someday, I owe you a beer.
gbaikie says:
“If Earth were rapidly becoming like Venus due to CO2 emission….”
It isn’t. The Earth doesn’t currently receive enough sunlight to experience runaway, Venus-like warming — it’s orbit is about 0.05 AU too high. (See the work of Jim Kasting and his group at Penn State.)
This will change as the Sun continues to get brighter (+1% every 110 Myrs, currently), but won’t reach a runaway stage for many hundreds of millions of years.
Davie will have a clue in “hundreds of millions of years”.
Okay, maybe I’m an optimist….
David Appell,
Show us the data to support your claim that the Sun will continue to get brighter!!!! Only joking. You can no more look into the future successfully, than I.
Can you show any data to prove the Earth wasn’t created in a molten state?
Have you any data to prove you are not completely clueless?
Cheap shot, I know. Oh well, nobody’s perfect.
Cheers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzsprung%E2%80%93Russell_diagram
Davie, in your world of pseudoscience, you love irrelevant links. You will love this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe
— David Appell says:
June 18, 2017 at 3:33 PM
gbaikie says:
If Earth were rapidly becoming like Venus due to CO2 emission.
It isnt. The Earth doesnt currently receive enough sunlight to experience runaway, Venus-like warming its orbit is about 0.05 AU too high. (See the work of Jim Kasting and his group at Penn State.)–
Obviously. More interesting question, would Venus change much if the planet was at Earth orbital distance?
[[Would Earth change as much if Earth/Moon system was at Venus distance from the Sun.
Which planet would “dramatically” change the fastest?
[If switching their orbits]]]
gbaikie says:
“More interesting question, would Venus change much if the planet was at Earth orbital distance?”
Stupid question, already answered.
gbaikie says:
“Only people in government have the massive delusion that they can get anything done.”
WW2.
Death of Osama bin Laden.
Interstate highway system.
Internet.
Funding of basic research of many essential pharmaceuticals.
Moon landing.
Public education.
Weather satellites.
Social Security.
Medicare.
Medicaid.
Farm subsidies.
Land giveaways.
Resource leases at very low rates.
Public sanitation measures.
Clean water.
Cleaner air.
Public transportation.
and on and on and on….
Davie, even you could do “something” constructive for billions of dollars.
Okay, maybe not you…
“Land giveaways.”
I love it.
Are you really unaware of the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889??
Are you really unaware that you can get free land today?
Snape wrote –
“Convection is why a thermometer in direct sun actually gets cooler in the presence of an atmosphere and GHGs. Surface heat gets transported to other locations.”
Rubbish. About as vague as the GHE making thermometers hotter.
Surface temperatures range from about -90 C to +90 C. Which ones are lowered by convection, and by how much?
All a bit vague. Maybe you might care to expand a bit?
Cheers.
IR photons emitted from Earth’s surface are absorbed by atmospheric CO2.
Even pseudoscience types will agree to this.
But, the IR emission from the surface acts to cool the surface.
Pseudoscience types will admit this, only kicking and screaming.
Then, atmospheric CO2 re-emits IR photons, with only one-sixth returning to the surface.
Quantum physics tells us that not all of the “one-sixth photons” will be absorbed, but even it they are, the surface has been cooled.
The pseudoscience types believe CO2 “produces warming”!
Hilarious.
Cartoon physics, not better than the Roadrunner halting in mid-air before he plunges downward off a cliff.
David Appell,
And rational people should accord you credence because . . .?
Cheers.
Davie, at least you know there are cartoons involving a roadrunner.
Just like you know, thanks to spellcheck, how to spell “physics”.
But, as with physics, you do not understand the “plot”. The roadrunner always wins. The stupid coyote always gets caught in his own pseudoscience.
Ring a bell?
Bart, I wonder if you might correct this misapprehension. gerry might listen to you.
It’s not entirely wrong. It’s just not entirely right either.
The idea of re-radiation is a misconception, though. Easily explained, but basically wrong. Most of the outgoing energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is not re-radiated directly. It is passed on to other atmospheric molecules (thermalization), as the mean time to collision is much shorter than the mean time to relaxation.
Re-radiation is the short-cut explanation. More is going on in the atmosphere, including collisional thermal transfer between all types of molecules.
I’ve sometimes said that a perfectly accurate explanation would be purely mathematical, and that pretty much no one in blogs like this would understand it expressed thus (I wouldn’t).
If you haven’t seen it, this post at Curry’s blog is a nice set of synopses re the greenhouse effect.
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/
It’s a short cut along the lines of storks bringing babies – a fairy tale to satisfy children’s curiosity.
… and keep them for asking inconvenient or uncomfortable questions.
What did you think of the explanations at Curry’s link?
Wanting…
What’s missing in your opinion?
Empirical proof.
Goalpost shift.
You said that molecular collision/relaxation was missing from explanations of the greenhouse effect. That is included in the descriptions at Curry’s blog.
1) What processes have been ignored in those descriptions of the greenhouse effect?
2) With your comment on empirical observations, are you now denying the greenhouse effect? (I think you’ve shifted to a different topic with that remark)
“You said that molecular collision/relaxation was missing from explanations of the greenhouse effect.”
No, I didn’t. I said it was missing from the cartoon physics explanation of the GHE in terms of backradiation. It is. Your source backs me up on that.
“What processes have been ignored in those descriptions of the greenhouse effect?”
Recursion. Godel, Escher, and Bach. The descriptions follow a forward path from cause to effect, but they neglect that the effects are also causes, and fail to follow up on what happens next in infinite recursion.
For example, CO2 captures photons from the surface acquiring energy, some of which then radiates to space, but most of which is passed to other atmospheric molecules in collisions. But, it’s not a one-way street. Other atmospheric particles also collide with CO2 molecules, and thermalize them in return. When the CO2 molecules so excited then emit photons, they are actually cooling the atmosphere. Ditto, and more so, for all the H2O molecules.
So, IR emitting and absorbing gases act both to heat and to cool the atmosphere. Which activity dominates? It depends upon the state of the atmosphere. Does additional CO2 tip the balance one way or the other? Again, it depends upon the state of the system.
Nobody knows which dominates at this time*. But, the majority of the bets placed thus far are on heating. That is increasingly looking like a bad bet. Global mean temperature has not increased significantly in the past 20 or so years, and the GCMs are almost all running way hot.
If you thought the theory was all cut and dried at this point, and we are just waiting for the agreed upon formulas to assert their invincible will upon the ultimate outcome, well, you were just mistaken in that viewpoint. Science is hard. Nature has all sorts of surprises lurking for the unwary. And, Nature doesn’t give a fig for any consensus of “experts”.
* Actually, I do, because of the other big thing neglected – the fact that CO2 concentration is temperature dependent, and thereby cannot produce significant temperature increase in turn without producing a runaway condition.
Well, I mostly agree with what Nullius in Verba says from link:
“…But almost universally, when they try to explain it, they all use the purely radiative approach, which is incorrect, misleading, contrary to observation, and results in a variety of inconsistencies when people try to plug real atmospheric physics into a bad model. It is actually internally consistent, and it would happen like that if convection could somehow be prevented, but it isnt how the real atmosphere works.”
It’s not how our real atmosphere works or any atmosphere works.
Nullius in Verba does seem to have faith in the models which incorporates convection- and I would say I have less faith in them.
The models might seem to work, but that doesn’t mean they can predict. Or models for future stock prices might seem to work, but they actually don’t.
It was interesting about the ideas they had about it.
“The models might seem to work, but that doesnt mean they can predict.”
Indeed. It is a given that any model with an extensive functional basis can fit just about any outcome to some degree of reasonability with the right selection of fundamental parameters. Basically, it’s just a glorified curve fit.
That’s why it is so damning that the “pause” was not predicted, and the GCM models with high sensitivity to CO2 all run way too hot. The curve fit failed to confer predictability, as they so often do.
The models are clearly deficient in some manner. Not ready for prime time, and certainly not a sound basis upon which to uproot the entire world’s economy, subject vast swaths of people to energy poverty, poison our rivers with silicon tetrachloride and heavy metal mining runoff, and kill off all the raptors, carrion fowl, and bats.
g*r*n*
How would you describe the effect of putting on a thick coat? Would you you insult someone who said the coat made them warmer or “produced warming”?
Snape,
Yet more foolish Warmist inappropriate and irrelevant analogies. What has a coat to do with the fairly obvious fact that the Earth’s surface cools when it emits photons?
Do you think it might be worthwhile to actually address the physics? Nobody has to feel insulted or offended if they choose not to, so your comment about “insult” seems a bit pointless.
It might even be seen as another foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, ands confuse, rather than discussing facts.
If you wish to feel insulted or offended, be my guest.
Cheers.
How does putting on a coat keepy you warm?
Davie, if you can find a cartoon version of “heat transfer”, look up “conduction” and “convection”. A coat manages both. Radiative heat transfer to space involves neither.
Someday, maybe you can get a basic physics book.
David Appell says upthread
A universe: Object A and Object B, at blackbody temperatures Ta and Tb respectively.
A obviously emits radiation.
That radiation carries energy.
To understand why a colder object does not heat a warmer object lets follow your logic and show that its false and that this can be tested by a simple experiment.
Let A be at a higher temperature than B
Let A be in an adiabatically isolated box.
Something like a polystyrene box with perfectly reflecting inner surface will do for this experiment.
The object A radiates but the radiation is perfectly reflected and so its temperature stays the same.
Now place object B in the box.
Object B also radiates but with a lower intensity than A.
After some time measurements will show that object A will drop in temperature and object B will rise in temperature.
So placing a colder object has not heated the warmer object in fact the opposite has happened.
byran,
Why does my skin get warmer when I put on a sweater on a cold day?
The jumper is cooler than my skin.
But my skin warms up.
Do jumpers break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Here’s another – my car engine overheats more readily on hot days than cold.
The ambient air is always cooler than the engine, even on hot days.
Is the 2nd law violated here?
Barry
I notice that you did not deal with object A and object B in their
‘universe’ isolated from any other object.
This allows you to focus on what is really going on
The hotter object loses heat and the colder object gains heat.
Coats jumpers and so on are examples of insulation
“The hotter object loses heat…”
Clauisus wrote an object never contains heat so, Bryan, how did the object A actually lose the heat it never contained?
Object A actually reduced in total constituent particle KE.
Dr. Spencer has actually performed your experiment on the real atm., bryan. His data showed a different conclusion than you simply make up. You need to actually perform the experiment and take data & use rough, simple calculations to support the data you measured just as he did.
Coats jumpers and so on are examples of insulation
And a metaphor for the greenhouse effect.
Do you think that the Earth makes the sun cooler?
Ball2 says
“Clauisus wrote an object never contains heat so, Bryan”
Please give me a link to this statement
I know that you cannot so stop making things up!
Ball4 and Barry
I have given you the most simple example I could think of to try to let you understand how a heat transfer works.
Two objects one hotter than the other isolated from any other heat source or sink in the universe.
The hotter objects internal thermal energy drops by radiation.
The colder objects temperature rises because it emits less radiation than it absorbs.
This is the simplest example of a heat transfer I could think of.
Heat transfer always spontaneously occurs from a higher to a lower temperature.
Since neither of you can find anything wrong with my example I hope you will study its consequences and end your confusion on this topic
bryan 1:40am, see Clausius 1st memoir p. 18 for his definition of heat being the KE of constituent particles in an object, the 7th memoir that “heat is not a substance” that can transfer. Along with the “quantity of heat in the whole mass could neither increase nor diminish since matter can be neither created nor destroyed”. Check out a modern thermo. text book of your choice, all will teach you heat does not exist in an object.
2:32am: “Since neither of you can find anything wrong with my example”
Dr. Spencer did find something wrong with your example by actual experiment. You have not done the experiment & presented data to replicate hence there is no confidence in your writing.
As I wrote your view is wrong by actual atm. experimental data, that is the trouble with thought experiments, you can easily be misled as you show in your writing. You need to do the experiment, done properly it will replicate Dr. Spencer’s findings & you will learn to write more accurate atm. physics.
bryan,
I wan’t following the conversation and assumed you were speaking of ‘greenhouse’ effect. I don’t have any particular issue with your description of heat transfer per se.
Two objects one hotter than the other isolated from any other heat source or sink in the universe…
Yep, definitely not a thought experiment for the greenhouse effect on Earth, which does have a heat source.
Sorry I misunderstood what you were trying to do.
Ball4 you are very confused and tend to contradict yourself.
For example you say
“Clausius 1st memoir p. 18 for his definition of heat being the KE of constituent particles in an object”
So a reasonable interpretation of this statement is that an object contains particles and the sum total of their individual KE’s is ‘heat’
Then you say
“Clauisus wrote an object never contains heat”
Which contradicts your previous statement
The correct modern interpretation of ‘heat’ is that it is a transfer of energy from a higher to a lower temperature because of the temperature difference.
The transfer spontaneously is always from a higher to a lower temperature.
The modern use of the word ‘heat’ therefore would describe a net transfer of energy .
This approach was favoured particularly by by Zemansky and is accepted in all modern thermodynamic textbooks.
Zemanskys approach is much later than the Clausius formulation.
bryan 8:36am, it appears you did not look up Clausius’ memoir statement. Heat as he defined is a measure of an object’s constituent particle KE NOT the particle KE. Zemansky’s approach exactly follows Clausius.
It is your 5:01am comment that follows neither Clausius nor Zemansky which I am pointing out.
Ball 4
You are so hopelessly confused that it is pointless replying to you.
bryan, please show me experimental data you must have that confirms your: “The object A radiates but the radiation is perfectly reflected and so its temperature stays the same.” Dr. Spencer has performed an experiment on the atm. that shows YOU are confused.
While you are at it, please show by experiment that heat is NOT just a measure of constituent particle KE, that an object can actually contain and lose heat by your “hotter object loses heat” thereby heat is not just a measure of constituent particle KE as Clausius wrote p. 18 1st memoir.
Snape, you must be in junior high school. (That’s not meant to be an insult, I was once in junior high school.)
When you try to apply the “thick coat” analogy to the atmosphere, you are implying that the atmosphere is a “blanket”.
If you believe the atmosphere is a “blanket”, then you have a lot more studying to do.
g*e*r*a*n
Wonderful! You are getting close to understanding the Greenhouse effect. Just about there, a little more thinking and you will know what is actually being said by the scientists.
YOU: “IR photons emitted from Earths surface are absorbed by atmospheric CO2.
ME: Check. That is accepted physics.
But, the IR emission from the surface acts to cool the surface.
ME: Check. That is accepted physics.
Then, atmospheric CO2 re-emits IR photons, with only one-sixth returning to the surface.
Quantum physics tells us that not all of the one-sixth photons will be absorbed, but even it they are, the surface has been cooled.
ME: Check, most will be absorbed by the surface with a high absorbitivity of around 0.96 for IR.
But the missing part, you have a constant solar input. The solar input without CO2 will lead to a cooler equilibrium temperature than one with CO2 present.
Very good work!
Norm, you can’t wait to blast into pseudoscience.
My example was WITH solar input! The Sun always shines on the planet. CO2 will NOT lead to a “hotter equilibrium temperature”.
CO2 is NOT a “heat source”.
You still have that worm in your head.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU CLAIM: “CO2 will NOT lead to a hotter equilibrium temperature
A declarative statement not based upon anything stronger than a belief in our own opinion.
Evidence does show your statement to be a false one. The Moon and Earth are in the same region of space and receive close to the same amount of solar input. The Moon’s average temperature is much colder than the Earth’s average temperature. Reality proves your declaration a false and unsupported notion.
Norman,
There is no “equilibrium temperature “. This is a climatological fantasy. The Earth is no longer molten. It has cooled. No equilibrium there.
Look at a thermometer on the surface. It gets hotter, it gets colder. No equilibrium there, either.
You have believe some self appointed “climate scientist” sprouting unsubstantiated nonsense, to accept an “equilibrium temperature”.
You haven’t the faintest idea of the Moon’s average temperature, nor that of the Earth. You seem to totally ignore the fact the Earth is more than 99% molten, with a congealed crust around 10 km thick, whilst the Moon’s core is some 800 km distant from the surface. The Moon also continues to cool. No equilibrium there.
Climatologists and other foolish Warmists ignore inconvenient facts.
Still no GHE. Nobody has managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and a heat source. A delusion – no more, no less.
Cheers.
g*e*r*a*n
Here is a measurement from the real world.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_594730326ca3e.png
The Nevada desert area will receive around 725 W/m^2 solar energy to surface at high noon. If the Earth rotation was like the Moon’s the same area would be exposed to this level of flux for several days allowing an equilibrium temperature to be established with radiant energy in and out.
In this scenario no clouds will form so we have the full solar input during this time. The atmospheric window will allow about 17% to directly leave, the rest will be absorbed, thermalized and then emitted in all directions.
If there were no lapse rate the TOA would rise in temperature until it was emitting 725 W/m^2 to space. Of this 725 17% is from surface straight to space, the remaining amount is absorbed.
The atmosphere would then warm until it was emitting 602 W/m^2 (602 from emission 123 directly from surface). It will emit this 602 Up and out and also the same back to Earth’s surface.
The Earth’s surface will continue to warm until it radiates at the same rate it is receiving energy of 725 plus 602 so the surface would raise to about 118 C. Close to the Moon even with a much higher albedo. The Earth’s surface would actually reach a higher peak temperature than the Moon if the albedo’s were the same and the only difference was GHG so this would prove Mike Flynn wrong.
Norm blasts off to the Moon again! What a clown.
He continually illustrates his lack of understanding. The Moon has NO oceans! Simpletons cannot compare energy budgets of the Moon and Earth. There is no comparison.
Norm, driven by the worms in his head, and little knowledge of science, seeks to prove CO2 is warming the planet. He has tried to prove that ice can warm a hotter surface. He has stated that the only reason he can’t bake a turkey with ice is because the IR from the ice is “diffuse”.
But, he maintains that the “diffuse” IR form CO2 is warming the planet! What a clown.
Hilarious.
Mike Flynn
I get you already. You can’t comprehend averages, you do not understand sine waves or periodic behavior. You have way too much physics to learn than I can educate you on this blog. You claim textbooks have these serious errors.
YOU: “By the way, many general physics textbooks contain quite serious errors of fact. They are written by people.”
Can you provide any evidence to support this assertion? You do it a lot, assert with no proof to support your claim.
Mike Flynn, since you jumped into my conversation it might help you to grasp what is being discussed. We are talking about the surface of the Moon and Earth, not the entire body.
The surface of the Earth has not continued to cool for 4.5 billion years. In much more recent geological time, Hawaii was molten and very hot. It cooled and now you have an equilibrium surface temperature that has a periodic wave function fluctuating between night and day cycle. Within the cycle you can calculate a mean temperature, and at other locations you can calculate yearly means.
Why would you assume that in a discussion of Earth and Moon we are talking about the temperature of the entire body? Then go off on a tangent about it?
Mike Flynn
YOU CLAIM “There is no equilibrium temperature . This is a climatological fantasy.”
An equilibrium temperature is achieved when the Energy IN Equals the Energy OUT. With a rotating body you will have periodic fluctuations so you can’t achieve a rigid steady state. But you can have a Mean equilibrium temperature for a region based upon the Energy IN minus the Energy Out.
The Earth as a whole can achieve and equilibrium temperature when you have the Energy into the Earth System equal to the Energy Out.
The local fluctuations your obsess over are not a condition of the global condition. The Earth’s SURFACE does have a global equilibrium temperature when the Energy IN and Out are equal. There will not be an equilibrium temperature for the Earth’s global surface if the Energy IN minus Energy Out are not in balance.
You might want to stretch your thoughts away from local (night/day, summer/winter) conditions and move to global conditions. When you are experiencing night some other area is day, when you experience winter it is summer in the opposing hemisphere. You try to use local thinking on a global scale and then you deny (GHE), divert (waste everyone’s time talking about local states while the concern is over global states), confuse (by bringing up unicorns in at least 50% of your posts).
g*e*r*a*n
You were getting close to understanding but went off on an incorrect tangent again.
YOU: “He has tried to prove that ice can warm a hotter surface. He has stated that the only reason he cant bake a turkey with ice is because the IR from the ice is diffuse.
But, he maintains that the diffuse IR form CO2 is warming the planet! What a clown.”
Not what I claim. It is how you twist and distort my claims.
Again. Ice will not warm a hotter surface, it will lead to a warmer equilibrium temperature of the hot surface than a surface exposed to colder surroundings than ice. Warm is a relative term not an absolute. The hotter surface does not have a magic fixed number. It has so many joules being added to it, the surroundings will determine its actual equilibrium temperature.
I do not claim CO2 is warming the planet. That is your distortion and twist of what I actually state (maybe with you this might be the 500th time, I have lost count since you constantly distort and twist it). CO2 will allow the Earth’s surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than in a similar state with no CO2.
You are close, I think you could easily understand it if you quit distorting what I say or claim and just read it as it is stated.
Norman
g*r*n* wrote, “Then, atmospheric CO2 re-emits IR photons, with only one-sixth returning to the surface.”
Are you ok with the 1/6 part? Seems very incorrect to me.
Norman
A commentator from an earlier blog thought only 1/6 of the photons emitted by atmospheric CO2 reach the earth’s surface, because “down” is one of six basic directions. A simple diagram seems to demonstrate this is not true. Maybe I’m missing something?
Norm, you keep backing away from your own pseudoscience! You can’t stand by your own words.
You state: “I do not claim CO2 is warming the planet.”
Then, you state: “CO2 will allow the Earths surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than in a similar state with no CO2.”
“Warming”, no. “Higher equilibrium temperature”, yes.
Pseudoscience at its best!
Hilarious.
Norman,
IMHO you are a good one, but when you use the ice to demonstrate the GHGe you miss the point that that ice should be there because of the surface cooling, which it cant.
When the surface cools, something other should warm because of it at some degrees (the degree of universe warming is of curse negligible).
For this reason that ice cant be there if not because someone placed it at a specific time, that is someone added energy to the system.
This has nothing to do with the GHGe as I know it.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“of course negligible” not “of curse negligible”… Of course!
: – (
” Norman says:
June 18, 2017 at 8:20 PM
g*e*r*a*n
Here is a measurement from the real world.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_594730326ca3e.png
The Nevada desert area will receive around 725 W/m^2 solar energy to surface at high noon.”
It says net solar.
The amount of solar energy at noon on clear skies [the smooth graph indicates clear skies] which reaches the surface is about 1000 watts per square of direct sunlight and about 1100 watts of direct + indirect sunlight. Because it’s July, in Nevada, the sun would be near zenith when at noon.
“If the Earth rotation was like the Moons the same area would be exposed to this level of flux for several days allowing an equilibrium temperature to be established with radiant energy in and out.”
The curve in graph is from sun going closer to zenith and then going further from zenith.
Or with solar panels pointed at the sun, one has about 6 hours of a 12 hour day, in which one gets the most amount of sunlight- 3 hours before noon and 3 hours after noon, before and after this middle of the day the energy the sun diminishes [as indicated on the graph- except it’s ‘net solar”. So at dawn or sun setting one has light but energy of sunlight is greatly reduced [say less than 100 watts per square meter]. So in terms of solar energy production, one only get 1/2 of daylight which makes significant amounts of power. Or we need electrical power for 24 hours a day, and solar gives at best 1/4 of this time- hence why it’s not viable. Or storing electrical power is costly- regardless of whatever “bright scheme” one can think of [lots of them have used and failed].
As for this idea of yours of equilibrium temperature, if had rotation of 24 days being one earth days. You replace hours with 1 earth day [or 24 hours], it would have same curve. Because at said it’s because the sun rises and sets.
Though on the moon and tracking the sun, one gets the full power sunlight that you get when sun is at zenith- because the moon has no atmosphere which blocks the sunlight.
Or when the sun is at Zenith, it’s only going thru 1 atm, and when sun is at 30 degrees above horizon, the sun is going thru 2 atm of atmosphere, and when at 20 degrees, it’s something like 5 atm worth of atmosphere it’s going thru.
Or everyday one can see what sunlight looks like when going to 1 atm to about 20 atm of atmosphere.
“Or everyday one can see what sunlight looks like when going to 1 atm to about 20 atm of atmosphere.”
Correction if live in tropics you see this all the time.
If it’s near summertime, and you are below say 50 degree latitude, you see this every day. Or if in polar regions the sunlight always goes thru more than 1 atm of atmosphere.
But if want to see sunlight going thru say 10 atms, generally one simply needs the sun to be in the sky. [not during polar winter, obviously].
–Snape says:
June 18, 2017 at 10:36 PM
Norman
g*r*n* wrote, Then, atmospheric CO2 re-emits IR photons, with only one-sixth returning to the surface.
Are you ok with the 1/6 part? Seems very incorrect to me.–
Basically, you have to think 3 d.
Get a globe. The photon can go any direction. Have ground be Antarctica, and space be north pole.
Hope that helps.
Snape and gbaikie
I may have misread g*e*r*a*n when I agreed with the 1/6. It depends on how you look at it. CO2 only emits in specific bands of IR.
The contribution of CO2 is around 17% (depending upon the overlap with H2O). In humid areas is is around 10% of the effect and in drier areas it is much more responsible.
If you take the average Downwelling flux of 345 W/m^2 and give CO2 around 60 W/m^2 of that flux (based upon Hotell’s work) you get 17.4%. 1/6 gives you 16.6% which is close give or take.
The amount of IR the CO2 actually would emit toward the surface would be 50% of the total. 50% up and 50% down. I think it depends on how you look at it. So I could be wrong on this one.
Norman
I wasn’t asking about the contribution of CO2, I was wondering why you or g*r*n* believe 1/6 of the photons re-emitted my atmospheric CO2 return to the surface. How did you come up with 1/6, or for that matter 50%?
Norman
Is it an estimate of the percentage of photons emitted in the direction of earth vs. space?
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, you keep backing away from your own pseudoscience! You cant stand by your own words.
You state: I do not claim CO2 is warming the planet.
Then, you state: CO2 will allow the Earths surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than in a similar state with no CO2.
Warming, no. Higher equilibrium temperature, yes.”
The two are different concepts.
If you had a planet with not GHG (Moon) the surface would reach some equilibrium temperature (globally not locally) with the incoming solar flux. That temperature would only be determined by Energy In- Energy out.
Do you agree surrounding change the temperature of an object with a set amount of energy input? Would a surface temperature with the same input energy not depend at all on the surroundings? Is that what you claim?
If you add significant CO2 to the planet, this gas will warm and start emitting back to the surface. The planet will warm until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature and it will no longer warm. The CO2 will not then be warming the surface. Warming is only a temporary condition that exists until a new equilibrium state is reached. So CO2 will not continue to warm this surface but it will allow it to reach a warmer equilibrium temperature than it had been at in the first state.
Norm claims CO2 warms the planet, but CO2 does NOT warm the planet!
(The worms have ate 97% of his brain.)
— Norman says:
June 19, 2017 at 4:49 AM
Snape and gbaikie
I may have misread g*e*r*a*n when I agreed with the 1/6. It depends on how you look at it. CO2 only emits in specific bands of IR.–
I did not mention it- just giving general idea- it matter greatly depending on the elevation. At low elevation, roughly half radiated IR heads towards ground, and only small amount goes towards space, but higher elevations, it’s the opposite.
Or let’s imagine something we can call the middle, well most would go sideways- 1/2 or more. Or about 1/4 goes down and 1/4 goes up.
But I have not put a number on low, middle or high.
I tend to think “warming” from CO2 would mostly occur somewhere around 100 meter or lower.
But since CO2 sort of competes with H2O gas, and H20 gas is stronger in lower elevation, it seems most climatologists, like to think CO2’s warming occurs at higher elevation [what I would count as very high- or why I wouldn’t argue against idea of 1/6th [or less].
g*e*r*a*n,
You’re right, of course.
It seems that foolish Warmists never take into account that when the surface emits IR, its temperature must fall as a result. They then double count the emitted IR, creating something from nothing.
Unfortunately, their initial basic misunderstanding of physics led them to believe that a greenhouse operated in accordance with their imaginary principles.
They are now stuck with a GHE that they cannot even usefully describe, which forces them to resort to all sorts of inappropriate and irrelevant analogies to avoid addressing the physical impossibility of their assertion.
They’ll never change their thinking – just as Lord Kelvin went to his deathbed firmly believing he had accurately calculated the age of the Earth, knowing nothing about radiogenic heat.
Hopefully, a new generation of scientists will avoid the brainwashing of the current generation. As the current crop of foolish Warmists wither and die, real physics will rear its head again, until the next scientific delusion appears.
I live in hope.
Cheers.
You yourself described the GHE.
What was wrong with that description?
David Appell,
I don’t think so. A direct quote might help. I don’t believe the GHE exists. Maybe you’re confused. I recollect describing a unicorn – horn, sunny disposition, etc. Unicorns don’t exist either.
Cheers.
I’ve quoted you many times on your description of the GHE.
You ignore all of them.
All from MF:
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
—-
May 18, 2017 at 5:57 PM
Of course they cant admit that CO2 also absorbs incoming solar energy in the 15 um band.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247260
—-
“…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
—-
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
David Appell,
I can’t actually see a description of the GHE. Maybe there’s one in your fantasy. Are you somehow trying to dispute anything I wrote, or maybe trying to give the erroneous impression that you can actually describe the GHE?
Others might reach the conclusion that you really are as hopelessly deluded as you appear.
Keep it up, if it gives you solace.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“I cant actually see a description of the GHE.”
: – )
Appreciate the support, Mike.
Cheers!
☺
g*e*r*a*n,
You’re most welcome. Whether it makes the slightest impact on true believers, I have no idea. Just look at Lysenkoism, or any number of other scientific delusions. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but proved to be wrong, as new facts emerged.
More power to your elbow! Have an extra one for me.
Cheers.
Mike
Convection is chaotic. Warm air moves up, down and sideways. Cold air does the same. Water vapor from tropical oceans, carrying with it enormous amounts of heat, is transported all over the world. You expect me to quantify exactly how much and where?
Have you ever checked out climatereanalyzer? The turmoil in amazing.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/
Snape,
You wrote –
“You expect me to quantify exactly how much and where?”
Well, yes – if you can. That’s how science works. If your hypothesis is not experimentally disprovable, it remains a fantasy, doesn’t it? If you can’t quantify your supposition, what use is it?
It’s about as much use as saying “The GHE makes the surface warmer!”.
As to your link, I’m not sure why you think I should look at it. Even the IPCC accepts that the atmosphere is a non linear chaotic system, making future climate states not predictable. I assume your link would tell me nothing I don’t know already, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Maybe you could quote something relevant from your link. Foolish Warmists tend to try to waste peoples’ time by providing links – which are usually devoid of appropriate information presented in a worthwhile fashion.
Cheers.
As if MF ever quantifies anything.
He balks and whines at each and any question anyone asks him. That tells you where he’s coming from.
Hey Davie, “quantify” this: How does the Sun heat the Earth to 800,000K?
David Appell,
If you say so, David. If you say so.
I choose not to respond to foolish Warmist “gotchas”.
You may characterise my response as you wish. My care factor about your opinion remains firmly settled on zero.
Cheers.
Anytime you’re asked to support your claims you whine about “gotchas.”
You can’t defend your claims. That’s all we need to know.
Mike
Taking a look at my link would be a waste of your time? Well, duh. You’ve got an important blog to attend to! My bad.
Snape,
If you can’t provide a reason to look at your link, why should I waste my time? I don’t dance to your tune either!
Does your link contain any information that I don’t already have?
Foolish Warmist. If you have any new facts, maybe you could present them. The only things I have on my side appear to be facts, physics, and Nature.
And to support you – David Appell and Gavin Schmidt? Good luck. You’ll need it.
Cheers.
Snape: MF flees anytime anyone asks him a question he can’t answer.
Somehow he finds this amusing.
David Appell,
I choose not to answer questions which I judge are not asked in good faith.
Almost all “questions” posed by foolish Warmists fall into this category. I don’t believe you can produce one that doesn’t, but feel free to surprise everybody, if you can dig one up!
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
David
Yes, it’s amazing how many simple questions g*r*n* and Mike refuse to answer, but I’ve come to expect nothing less. They are cowardly bloggers.
Yes. Even worse, they find their replies amusing.
Snape, when you get your high school diploma, ask me a question.
😪
Norman,
You wrote –
“I do not claim CO2 is warming the planet.”
It must be something else then, that made Gavin Schmidt proclaim “The hottest year EVAH!”
Maybe he meant an undefined metaphor? That’s what David Appell says the GHE is – apparently nought to do with greenhouses, and of no effect.
I assume you think that replenishing the CO2 to previous levels is somehow evil. Maybe you might care to explain what this evil is. Is it heating something else, possibly?
It’s very hard to have a rational discussion about the supposed GHE, when even its supporters cannot say what it is, or what it does. Maybe you can help.
Cheers.
Here’s an interesting comment I recently came across on a different blog:
“The tropics warmed during May while the arctic cooled. That may explain the relative warmth in the satellite measures. Per WxBell the tropics continue to warm and now have a larger positive temp anomaly than the global average, quite a change vs Jan-Apr when the tropics were much cooler than the global average. The satellites were also relatively cool in this period. Expect the satellites to continue relatively warm vs ST in June due to relative warmth in the tropics.”
Snape,
The atmosphere behaves chaotically. Hotter here, colder there, hot spells, cold snaps.
Unpredictable in any useful sense – that is, any better than you or I could do. Just when you think you’ve got it all worked out, along comes an earthquake, volcano, influenza outbreak, or a plane falling out of the sky!
Don’t worry. Be happy!
Cheers.
Mike
The comment suggests satellites are extra sensitive to tropical measurements. That’s what I found interesting.
snape…”The tropics warmed during May while the arctic cooled”.
Part of the Tropics warmed while part of the Arctic cooled.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/may/MAY_2017_map.png
Mike…”It must be something else then, that made Gavin Schmidt proclaim The hottest year EVAH!”
Gavin Schmidt gets fudged data from NOAA AND they offer their hottest years ever with lowered confidence levels. In 2014, they proclaimed it the hottest year ever based on a 48% confidence level.
Tell me something. Why do you need a confidence level with real data? You don’t, you only need them with fudged statistically adjusted data.
Gordon, I remember this event well. Obama needed some “alarmism” for his State of the Union address. Both NASA and NOAA came out with the “warmest year ever” crap. Then the very next week, both agencies published the probabilities, 48% for one, and 38% for the other. Of course, the probabilities did not make the headlines.
It’s called “propaganda”. They fooled the masses.
g*r…”Its called propaganda. They fooled the masses.”
Of course it’s propaganda but why are scientific organizations getting away with propaganda?
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm claims CO2 warms the planet, but CO2 does NOT warm the planet!”
It is a complex issue that you do not want to understand, I explain it in detail but you do not grasp the ideas.
Temporary warming is not the same as warms the planet. I think rigorous terms are needed to help you understand, you are close but not there yet.
The term warms is a plural, in my use of it I clearly state it is a temporary condition from one state to another, the transition. CO2 does not warm (singular) in a way that it would keep adding heat to the surface and continuously cause warming condition. I am trying to find the right terms and words but with your arrogant attitude it becomes a difficult hurdle. Instead of being so caught up in the word choice try to understand the concepts explained by the words.
No, Norm. Your problem is not your choice of words. Your problem is you do not understand science or logic. You can NOT say opposite things, like you continually try:
“Energy does NOT leave the system, but energy leaves the system.”
“CO2 warms the planet, but CO2 does NOT warm the planet.”
Here’s a “word choice” to match your hilarious pseudoscience: “confused”.
PS Your lack of education is revealed once again: “The term ‘warms’ is a plural…”
Maybe you meant “worms”, Norm. “Worms” IS a plural.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
It is word choice problem and your lack of desire to even attempt to understand the concept. You pounce on all the word choices but miss the bigger picture of the concept discussed.
More rigor is needed when communicating with you. I do not mind that you demand it, people get sloppy when there is no pressure to get better.
Here would, maybe, be a more correct wording.
A planet with no GHG would reach a certain equilibrium temperature (global not local) with the incoming solar flux.
If you add significant amounts of carbon dioxide to this planet, the surface IR will be absorbed by this added carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide atmosphere will begin to warm as the absorbed IR is thermalized.
The carbon dioxide downward energy flux (which will be less than the upward IR flux from the surface) will not ALONE warm the surface. In conjunction with the solar flux (together with) the carbon dioxide emitting atmosphere will begin to warm the surface until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature that is higher than the initial surface temperature. Once a new equilibrium is established, Incoming Energy equals outgoing energy, the surface will no longer warm. The carbon dioxide atmosphere will not lead to any increase in the surface temperature of the planet. If you add more carbon dioxide the surface will be warmed again by the conjunction of both solar flux and downwelling IR from the emitting CO2. The scale is logarithmic so at some point, additional CO2 will lead to very little increase in surface temperature.
Now that should be better for you. I do not think even you can twist this to say something I am not claiming.
“In conjunction with the solar flux (together with) the carbon dioxide emitting atmosphere will begin to warm the surface until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature that is higher than the initial surface temperature.”
Norm, I don’t have to twist your words to reveal your pseudoscience. IR is NOT heat! You’re still hung up on adding solar and atmospheric IR. FAIL!
(That “back-radiation worm” is hard to get rid of.)
Don’t you realize that if what you are saying were true, the surface would continue to warm? What would stop the temperature from rising above the “equilibrium” temperature? Solar is constant, but the IR continues to increase as the surface temp increases. Then, the atmosphere temperature increases. Then the surface increases, then the atmosphere increases, then…. If your beliefs were valid, the oceans would soon be boiling. (Oh, I guess that’s what alarmists claim!)
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Don’t you realize that if what you are saying were true, the surface would continue to warm? What would stop the temperature from rising above the “equilibrium” temperature? Solar is constant, but the IR continues to increase as the surface temp increases. Then, the atmosphere temperature increases. Then the surface increases, then the atmosphere increases, then…. If your beliefs were valid, the oceans would soon be boiling. (Oh, I guess that’s what alarmists claim!)”
This is where the flaw in your thinking comes in. The surface only increases to a point where it establishes a new equilibrium temperature. It is the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The Earth system is absorbing 240 W/m^2 of the incoming solar flux (30% is lost from reflection and is not absorbed). The surface will continue to increase in temperature until the outgoing flux equals the incoming of 240 W/m^2. The atmosphere will warm to the point where at the TOA it is emitting 240 W/m^2. It will not warm past that point.
Norm, the “flaw” is in YOUR belief. You still want to have it both ways. You want CO2 to act as a “heat source” until it gets to the temperature that fits you belief, then it stops “adding” to solar!
And, as if that already isn’t silly enough, you say that adding more CO2 then makes a NEW temperature “target”. The CO2 once again becomes a “heat source” until your new target is reached!
That’s not how it works, Norm!
But, it is hilarious.
norman…”If you add significant amounts of carbon dioxide to this planet, the surface IR will be absorbed by this added carbon dioxide”.
norman…think this through. You make it sound as if CO2 can absorb all IR emitted from the surface. Where are your figures? How much IR flux is emitted and how much of it can CO2 absorb?
You also said significant amounts of CO2. How much is that? Do you consider 0.04% significant?
Before the alleged anthropogenic warming claimed by the IPCC from the Industrial era onward, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was close to what it is now. Given that it has increased 100 ppmv, which I think has never been proved adequately, it’s still in the ballpark of 0.03 to 0.04%. There was no significant warming with 0.03% why should there be any significant warming with 0.04%?
Gordon Robetson
Look at this link, it will answer all your questions.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
Massimo PORZIO,
Above you posted: “IMHO you are a good one, but when you use the ice to demonstrate the GHGe you miss the point that that ice should be there because of the surface cooling, which it cant.
When the surface cools, something other should warm because of it at some degrees (the degree of universe warming is of curse negligible).
For this reason that ice cant be there if not because someone placed it at a specific time, that is someone added energy to the system.
This has nothing to do with the GHGe as I know it”
Maybe this will help. Have a pipe heated by some internal source to a certain temperature (equilibrium meaning the temperature no longer is changing). Now completely surround this pipe with an absorbing material that does not touch the pipe. The hot pipe will add energy to the sleeve surrounding it and warm it. The warmed sleeve will now emit IR in all directions and 1/2 back to the hot pipe. The hot pipe will get warmer than it was previously because the sleeve is adding energy to the hot pipe along with the energy it is receiving from an internal source. The hot pipe will warm until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature, with the sleeve having to radiate at the same rate the hot pipe is receiving input energy. Does that help?
Norm, another FAIL!
Your “pipe” is just a rehash of the “steel greenhouse”, which is blatant pseudoscience.
Try coming up with something new and original. The same comedy routines get boring after several exposures.
g*e*r*a*n
You say the steel greenhouse is blatant pseudoscience. Do you have any evidence (testing or experiment) to verify your claim or are you just making this up as your own personal opinion?
Norm, there is a simple “experiment” that completely destroys the “steel greenhouse”. I’m not going to tell you yet, but I’ll give you a hint: It’s involves a common household item that you have used.
g*e*r*a*n says, June 19, 2017 at 8:05 AM:
“The hot pipe will get warmer than it was previously because the sleeve is adding energy to the hot pipe along with the energy it is receiving from an internal source. The hot pipe will warm until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature, with the sleeve having to radiate at the same rate the hot pipe is receiving input energy. Does that help?”
It is indeed rather amazing to behold how they’re completely and utterly unable to see it themselves! “No, we don’t add HEAT, we add ENERGY, only this energy just happens to directly make the central object rise to a higher temperature. Exactly like … heat.” Yeah, you don’t get to arbitrarily choose your own definitions of thermodynamic phenomena whenever it suits your ‘argument’. You can’t have it both ways. If you thermally ADD energy to RAISE THE TEMPERATURE of something, then you’re HEATING it.
It appears they won’t ever be able to grasp the fundamental distinction between “heating” and “insulation”. They’re simply fully blinded by dogma.
Kristian 10:12am: “If you thermally ADD energy to RAISE THE TEMPERATURE of something, then youre HEATING it.”
Ok then, when Dr. Spencer measured that the surface water in view of the icy cirrus cloud did thermodynamically ADD internal energy to RAISE THE TEMPERATURE of something, then youre HEATING it. In his experiment on the actual atm., the surface water in view of the icy cirrus was measured to be raised to a higher temperature overnight than the control water not in view of the icy cirrus.
It does appear some won’t ever be able to grasp the fundamental distinction between “heating” and “insulation”. They’re simply fully blinded by mythical heat dogma.
Norman
For what it’s worth, that makes perfect sense to me.
Snape
Thanks!
I wish there was a ‘Like’ button here.
Norman
I’m wondering what happens to the internal heat source when the sleeve is introduced. Does it burn a little hotter?
If the sleeve were to make the heat source burn slightly hotter, the pipe and the sleeve would then become slightly warmer. It seems like this pattern continue in ever diminishing increments of warming…. Lol!
This scenario is similar to the idea that the earth radiates energy back to the sun. In which case the obvious question is, “does this cause the sun to burn slightly hotter?” If so, does the earth then recieve slightly more solar radiation? ….and so on.
Infinitely smaller increments of mutual warming?
Maybe this is just describing how an equilibrium is reached.
Snape
If you built a sphere around the Sun made of material that would not melt at solar temperatures. The sphere would warm up until it radiated the same amount of energy it received from the Sun. If the sphere was fairly close to the Sun and not much more surface volume it would have to reach a temperature that was near equal to the Sun. Now it would radiate in both directions, away from the Sun and back toward the Sun. The radiation radiated back to the Sun would lead to a warmer Solar surface area and it would continue to rise until it was emitting at the same rate it was receiving energy. I might try a calculation sometime if you are interested.
Norman
Yes. That sounds right. The sphere around the sun would be similar to an atmosphere…except with a hard shell.
I’ve come to believe that skeptics were right all along when they claimed CO2 is not a heat source and therefore cannot raise the temperature of a system. As additional CO2 causes the earth to warm, it simultaneously causes the universe to slightly cool. The net result is a wash.
I should have said, “….the rest of the universe to cool”.
Thanks, Norman
Your idea of the sun being warmed by a shell was very helpful. I can see now that warming a heat source is not the same as a heat source “burning hotter”….duh!
Please throw all my related comments in your wastebasket.
— Norman says:
June 19, 2017 at 2:50 PM
Snape
If you built a sphere around the Sun made of material that would not melt at solar temperatures. The sphere would warm up until it radiated the same amount of energy it received from the Sun. If the sphere was fairly close to the Sun and not much more surface volume it would have to reach a temperature that was near equal to the Sun.–
No known solid can remain solid at such temperatures- anything would become a gas or when hotter, a plasma.
“Now it would radiate in both directions, away from the Sun and back toward the Sun.”
No, long before this the sun would expand until such point as it ate whatever you made. Of course the Sun is very violent at such distances, other forces involved [things like explosions which make human made nuclear bombs seem like firecrackers] would vaporize anything.
Gbaikie
It’s a hypothetical situation. You need to pretend the sphere won’t melt.
–Snape says:
June 20, 2017 at 2:52 PM
Gbaikie
Its a hypothetical situation. You need to pretend the sphere wont melt.–
Alright, now some match out star trek with star wars- and can’t remember who wins. But let’s say the deathstar has star trek shields. So it would be very strong and big shields. And you have say a million deathstars.
At least some imagine that shields might someday be possible.
“Guide to the Enterprise further states that shields on post-refit Constitution-class vessels – of which the USS Enterprise of Star Trek: The Original Series is an example – were generated by the subatomic scan and replication of an alloy known as diburnium-osmium, and then projected as a force field beyond a ship’s hull along the shield grid. In “That Which Survives”, the alloy of diburnium and osmium is stated to be the hardest alloy known to the Federation.”
But in star trek movie where they save the whales, the Klingon bird of prey, it didn’t seem do very well against the sun. Probably poor Klingon shield design.
norman…”Have a pipe heated by some internal source to a certain temperature (equilibrium meaning the temperature no longer is changing)”.
Norman…you need to stop the thought experiments and get into the physics. When you heat a pipe and it goes to equilibrium, that means it is radiating as much energy to space as it is taking in from it’s heat source. When you surround it with an insulator, you are changing the parameters of equilibrium. The IR radiated is blocked so the pipe can’t cool as well. Therefore it rises to a higher temperature as it would if there was no cooling radiation from its surface.
The pipe does not heat because the insulator is back-radiating IR to it. In fact, the 2nd law tells you that cannot happen. The insulator must be cooler than the pipe or at least at the same temperature. It could not radiate heat to the pipe in order to increase the heat of the pipe unless it was an independent heat source that was hotter than the pipe.
Gordon Robertson
The pipe itself has its own internal heat supply, it does not have to be “heated” by the surroundings to warm up. It is basic 1st Law Thermodynamics. You have a set amount of joules/second added to the pipe by an internal source. The pipe will heat to the temperature at which it is losing energy at the same rate as the internal supply is adding it. Anything that surrounds the heated source and alters the amount of energy leaving will cause the pipe to get warmer. You can understand it with an insulating blanket but you can’t with a radiant barrier. You know if you put insulation around a heated object is will get hotter than if there was no insulation. You also know the insulation is not adding any independent energy to the object. Why do you have such a problem when radiation is involved?
Roy Spencer has explained it numerous times in many ways. He used the example of a house in winter. Have a furnace pumping out the same amount of heat energy into your house. With the only alteration being more or less insulation you can change the temperature of your house. You are not adding any new energy with the insulation, you are just preventing some from leaving at the same rate as it would without the insulation.
Gordon
Any comments on my question about the internal heat source?
Well, another fun thing to think about is this: As the sleeve and pipe are warming, the room will be cooling. When the sleeve and pipe have reached a warmer equilibrium, the room will have reached a cooler equilibrium.
Oops. That was for Norman, not Gordon (although I would welcome input from anyone).
Norman
Also, I’m pretty sure the new temperature of the pipe/sleeve + the new temperature of the room would equal the original sum (prior to the sleeve being introduced). After all, the sleeve is not an additional heat source.
Norman,
The only thing you have overlooked is that the internal heat source is producing less and less heat – just like the Earth. It will cool – just like the Earth has. The insulating effect of the atmosphere is insufficient to even stop the surface from cooling at night. It cannot even stop temperatures in Antarctica dropping below -85 C.
Maybe you could figure out a useful description for the GHE – possibly even dumping the word “greenhouse”. Impossible, I know, but many people still believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface, and the Sun, makes the thermometer hotter!
Of course it’s silly, but you might like to give it a try.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
If the molten part of the Earth solidified and cooled you would still have surface warming. Asteroids have a solid core but still the Sun will warm the surface. Not sure what you point is on that one.
Gordon
You wrote, “The IR radiated is blocked so the pipe cant cool as well”.
This is true, but happens to the IR that is blocked?
Hi Norman,
try to use an aluminium foil as a thermal sleeve as you stated and report the temperature increase. Then redo the experiment using a glass wool as sleeve and see what it happen.
Anyways this is not the GHGe as I know it is, because the sleeves have to warm up to increase the pipe temperature, while the GHGe as they say it is, it is just “back-radiation”. Get the point?
Have a great day.
Massimo
The greenhouse argument here is almost entirely a battle of semantics.
Yes barry. No experimentation. Whatsoever.
Actually some could have learned about physics of light (EMR) with the ink added to water experiment but a golden opportunity was thoroughly missed.
Ball4…”Actually some could have learned about physics of light (EMR) with the ink added to water experiment but a golden opportunity was thoroughly missed”.
What was really missed, IMHO, is that a liquid added to a liquid is not the same as a gas being added to a gas. There is no point dropping drops of ink into water and claiming it’s the same as adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Water molecules are bound to each other to form a contiguous mass. That’s far from the case in the atmosphere, The ink diffuses due to the properties of the water. If you dropped the ink into a beaker of mercury it would not even be absorbed.
For one, the ideal gas law applies to gases in the atmosphere as does Dalton’s law of partial pressures. Neither applies to liquids. In an ideal atmosphere with constant volume and mass the heat in the entire atmosphere is based on the sum of the partial pressures of each gas, hence the partial mass of each gas.
I have still not seen a scientific rebuttal to the obvious, that the partial pressure of CO2 is minute and incapable of adding any more than a minute amount of heat to the atmosphere.
Another point is that no one has addressed the massive IR flux from the surface and quantified how much is absorbed by the overall percentage of GHGs in the atmosphere, which is around 0.3%. What happens to the rest of this massive flux?
Gordon 2:05pm: “There is no point dropping drops of ink into water and claiming it’s the same as adding CO2 to the atmosphere.”
Ahhhh…but there is a point Gordon. That you could write this shows you have much to accomplish in the field of climatology as to scattering of light. Maybe I can raise your interest a bit and you actually dig in to the science. The ink can teach about reflectivity and scattering of light (what is the difference in those terms?).
“What happens to the rest of this massive flux?”
To our eyes, clouds are bright in daylight but much darker at IR wavelengths that we cannot see. Why are some more respectable clouds dark? That ink experiment scattering light will help you understand. Because of multiple scattering, absorp-tion by cloud water does not have to be great before a cloud of water droplets becomes quite dark. Clouds emit day and night & more so than the clear sky. This ought to be a clue for you as to the similar added CO2 effects scattering/absorb-ing light on your massive surface flux.
“the ideal gas law applies to gases in the atmosphere”
Sorry, IGL does not at all apply Gordon, just look at any hour by hour weather report. T&P move opposite sometimes. IGL is most useful when you can write “at constant density (or constant volume, n)” then you can write T&P move together. Our atm. is not constant density as you can tell when an airplane passes by and the engine regularly varies in sound.
Ball4,
You mentioned the “field of climatology”.
It seems to be a bit of a barren field. Maybe you could indicate what’s so special about endlessly reexamining historical weather observations? There doesn’t seem to be much point, and it has achieved precisely nothing of use – at great expense.
Climate is the average of weather – no more, no less. Climatology seems like a sheltered workshop for under achievers, in general. Can you name a single first class mind who currently identifies as a climatologist?
Cheers.
“Can you name a single first class mind who currently identifies as a climatologist?”
I’d say he is in a class by himself: Mike Flynn
There is no point dropping drops of ink into water and claiming its the same as adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
You missed the point of the demonstration, which was simply to show that small amounts can have a large effect. You are rejecting it based on a premise that is your own, not what was intended.
I thought the experiment demonstrated what it was designed for very well. 100 parts per million has an effect that can be seen easily. It’s a bonus that the the experiment was light-based.
Actually some could have learned about physics of light (EMR) with the ink added to water experiment but a golden opportunity was thoroughly missed.
That experiment was purely to show that small amounts can have a large influence. It was rejected based on ideas it was not designed to demonstrate. Yes, the point was missed. Some kind of mental intransigence caused that.
And, small amounts can have negligible influence. It’s meaningless. There is no general rule from which to draw a lesson.
Bart, on a clear day can you see forever?
Ball4,
Are you still attempting pointless “gotchas”? Is it possible you could actually ask a question to seek to improve your knowledge?
Foolish Warmist.
Still no support for the GHE. You can’t even properly describe it, can you?
Cheers.
Sure I can describe the GHE, but being a first class mind identifying as a climatologist Mike Flynn described the GHE well enough already, in many different ways, all actually verified by testing and observations in the wild.
Ball4 – I can see for miles and miles.
Yes Bart, but as a general rule on a clear day you can not see forever.
Ball4,
You say you can describe the GHE, but of course you won’t, presumably because it would be too much trouble, or “everyone knows what it is”, or ten years of climatology are required to understand it, or any number of other excuses. You can’t do it. The best you can do is claim that someone who doesn’t even believe in the GHE has provided the best description you’ve ever come across!
I understand that you don’t want anyone to take you seriously. I applaud the effort you’ve put into making sure that you’re perceived as being bonkers. A good effort.
With a bit more attention, you can probably convince everybody that you’re barking mad. Keep it up!
Cheers.
Of course I won’t Mike 7:48pm, there is no need to one up you as you’ve done a first class job properly describing the GHE. Your comment just now is a very clear demonstration Mike Flynn is in a class by himself, a single first class mind who currently identifies as a climatologist.
What’s your point?
There are general rules from which to draw lessons. General rules learned from relevant experiments.
And, small amounts can have negligible influence. Its meaningless. There is no general rule from which to draw a lesson.
Again, the point of the experiment is missed.
The demonstration was presented in response to those who say, “no way can such a small amount produce a noticeable effect!!”
It was not presented as a “general rule,” and implying that it did, or that it has to is a red herring. The final thing the presenter says in the vid is, I hope that this explains how things in very small amounts can have big impacts.”
That’s the point of the video.
As Einstein said, it only takes one experiment to prove him wrong. This is the experiment that proves the people who say stuff like the quote above are wrong.
Not much of a point. It generally does require a significant addition of a given substance to have a substantial impact on a given system. The likelihood is that a small change will produce a small result. That is the general rule whose exceptions are special cases.
Ink is not CO2. The experiment is worthless. It does not show CO2 is one of those special cases.
Ink particles scatter light same as CO2 and water vapor particles Bart, the ink experiment demonstrates light scattering & shows why you cannot see forever on a clear day. CO2 et. al. atm. particles scatter the light same as ink particles.
That’s just dumb. An opaque material impedes light. Duh. Who’da thunk it?
Bart
Skeptics often say, “it’s impossible for something so small to have any significant impact”.
The experiment proves this is an incorrect statement.
But, for general application, the statement “it is improbable for something small to have a significant impact” is not incorrect.
The experiment proves the statement you have offered is incorrect in the same way quantum tunneling “proves” it is not impossible to walk through a wall. Yeah but, what of it? The odds are still very much stacked against you.
Ink is not CO2. The experiment is worthless. It does not show CO2 is one of those special cases.
Again, that’s not the point of the experiment. Your criticism is a classic straw man – twist the point being made into something you can argue against.
It generally does require a significant addition of a given substance to have a substantial impact on a given system. The likelihood is that a small change will produce a small result.
Unfortunately there are plenty of people who posit an absolute version of this point. I’m sure you’ve seen such views here – they occur fairly regularly (sometimes rebutted with analogies to arsenic or LSD or CFCs – trace amounts that can have a big impact). That’s the view that the video is challenging. As a bonus, it does via an experiment with light, making it more on point than those analogies.
What is the point of the experiment? To show that sometimes, a small amount of something can have a big effect? Is this really a point that needs to be made? Will it have any impact on anyone’s thinking who is not already a member of the choir? Hardly.
The people who are arguing that such a trace gas cannot have the impact being claimed are not expressing an absolute. They are expressing skepticism based on the correct observation that small things having significant impact are generally the exception rather than the rule. You won’t overcome that skepticism by proffering an at-best marginally related exception to the rule.
You also won’t help yourself by referencing intricate biological systems. We are dealing here with a large, essentially passive system that has been gaining entropy for millions of years, and settled into a configuration from which, it is entirely reasonable to believe, it is unlikely to be easily budged.
What is the point of the experiment? To show that sometimes, a small amount of something can have a big effect?
Yes.
Is this really a point that needs to be made?
It doesn’t come apropos of nothing. The vid is challenging a very common refrain.
I will alert you the next time it comes up in a thread here.
Will it have any impact on anyones thinking who is not already a member of the choir? Hardly.
This made me smile. People on this board rarely shift their positions, and yet here you are thread after thread trying to have an impact on member’s of the ‘choir.’
IOW, I’ll take this point of yours seriously when you stop arguing here.
The people who are arguing that such a trace gas cannot have the impact being claimed are not expressing an absolute. They are expressing skepticism based on the correct observation that small things having significant impact are generally the exception rather than the rule.
That’s straight up bullshit.
So, your claim is that small things typically do have a large impact?
Sorry, no. Not in this universe.
So, your claim is that small things typically do have a large impact?
Nope.
No matter how many times you repeat your ‘interpretation’ of the video and of what skeptics think when they say such small amounts could mot possibly have a noticeable impact, these comments remain straw men.
If you have to invent arguments to win a point…
I’m not “inventing” anything. I am making the point that it is generally true that small quantities have small effects. If you assume that is true, you will be correct probably well over 90% of the time. So, it is not a sign of ignorance when someone doubts such an effect. It is an opinion informed by general knowledge.
The jury in this case is still very much out. You are approaching this as though the verdict were already known, and the doubters simply need to be shown that guilt is possible in order to fall in line. If you are counting on that, you are going to be disappointed. Science needs proof to some reasonable standard, not maybe’s and could be’s.
Barry,
One virus can kill you. One is sufficient.
The weight of a largish single virus (vaccinia) is ~110(−17) kg. Far smaller than 400 ppm.
One could go further. There is no minimum measurable amount which separates chaos from non chaos in a system which can exhibit both states. None. No matter how small your measurement, you can always have one smaller.
And the atmosphere appears to act chaotically. Anything and everything may affect the behaviour. Unfortunately, the quantum and effect remains completely unknown, much to the dismay of GHE enthusiasts.
The future is unknown. I make assumptions about the future, including assuming that I’ll be alive tomorrow. One day my assumption will be shown to be wrong, I suppose.
Until that time, I live in hope. My assumptions have proven to be fairly advantageous to date.
To each his own. Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Well it’s also argued the Co2 emission are big thing.
And that’s it’s so much, we have make it less or less
than zero emissions.
Is the sun a small thing?
Are clouds a small thing?
At least in terms ink demonstration clouds are black to most of energy of sunlight, black to reflected sunlight and mostly black long wave IR that is emitted from Earth.
The ocean is transparent to visible light, but ocean absorbs
most of sunlight reaching earth’s surface [UV, Visible, and the Shortwave IR]. If the ocean were black rather than transparent, it would not absorb as much sunlight. It’s the lack of the little things in very clear vast ocean water which makes the world warmer.
Three more failed Red Teams.
Anthony Watts’ Open Atmosphere Society has disappeared from WUWT.
Lord Lawson’s GWPC “International Temperature Data Review Project” has produced nothing since it formed more than two years ago.
In Oregon three of the groups who ward into the Our Children’s Trust lawsuit want to disengage. The American Petroleum Institute (API), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) all major trade groups representing fossil fuel and manufacturing interests filed motions to withdraw from the case just before a court-imposed deadline would have forced them to state their positions on climate science.
The Red team concept does not seem to work well. None of them have yet produced a case good enough to stand up under scrutiny.
When entropy sets in does “Entropic Man” become “Entropic Woman”?
☺
Entropy set in years ago, but I’m still male.
You are on dangerous ground here.
Do you doing to the school of thought that regards woman as an appendage, Adam’s rib?
Perhaps you regard Adam as the prototype and Eve as the improved Mark II version?
Entropic Man,
You wrote –
“Do you doing to the school of thought that regards woman as an appendage, Adams rib?”
I view this as a puerile attempt at “politically correct” bully boy tactics, often employed by foolish Warmists, when short on fact. A very stupid attempt at a gotcha, posing as a question seeking knowledge. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Maybe you might be better served by coming up with a scientific description of the GHE, or even finding Trenberth’s missing heat. If it’s all too difficult, by all means keep up the deny, divert, and confuse tactics.
Irrelevant and poorly thought out imaginary “experiments” are always a good standby. Anything to avoid having to actually provide reproducible experimental support for your mad fantasies.
Still no GHE. CO2 heats nothing – not even thermometers.
Cheers.
Still here I see.
Anything original to add?
Thought not.
You sound like a broken record.
Dr No,
Thank you for your support.
It means so much to me.
Cheers.
True. A red team exercise does not work very well when the vested interests have no intention of conducting objective research, and angle to quash any vestige of heterodoxy. Catastrophic failure is the only remedy when that occurs. It’s just a matter of time.
Dr. Roy Spencer, will be a lot of rain in the Southeast US.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/tatl/rb-animated.gif
Good news for North America. They can be great fishing in the North Pacific and the Atlantic.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00910/6r9w59z722xw.png
Meanwhile,
High temperatures in nine San Francisco Bay Area locations were new records for Sundays date, National Weather Service officials said.
In San Rafael, the temperature reached 105 degrees, breaking the record of 98 degrees set in 1962.
At Moffett Field the temperature reached 100 degrees, which broke the record of 95 degrees set in 1993.
Temperatures rose to 106 degrees in Sacramento Sunday afternoon, breaking an almost 75-year-old record.
Maybe there will be enough temperature rise in the Sierras to melt the record snow pack.
Meanwhile, just this past March we had record low temperatures in Bangor, MA, in Providence, RI, in Watertown, NY, in Waterloo and Cedar Rapids, IA, in Memphis, TN, in Melbourne and Jacksonville, FL, in Macon, GA, and in Florence and Charleston, SC.
You can always play this game. The Earth is a big place. Records are being set all the time in both directions.
I always play this game.
And I always win because the number of warm records continually outnumbers any cool records.
Until it doesn’t. The Earth warms, and the Earth cools. In the 70’s, it was the other way around. And, in the 30’s, it was back the other way. This has been going on for much longer than you have yet lived.
I am glad you agree that the Earth is currently warming.
That is a start at least.
Of course it is warming. Nobody who can read a graph would say otherwise. The questions are, how much, if any, is due to our activities, and is there anything we can do about it? The answers are, not a lot, and no.
That is a reasonable opinion to hold (although I might disagree).
Others here are so stubborn they will not even agree that it is warming.
Well, maybe if the climate establishment didn’t spend so much time revising the numbers as far as they can within the constraints of uncertainty to bolster their case, maybe if they hadn’t so blatantly fudged the “hockey stick”, or “compensated” sea surface temperatures to eliminate the “pause”, people would trust the records more.
bart, if you read review papers on the hockey stick, rather than proganda from blogs, you will find that the hockey stick has been reproduced by many independent groups.
Oh dear.
How disappointing.
Here I was thinking you were reasonable.
Then you spout nonsense.
These are objectively problems that the establishment has created for itself. The problem with trust is, once you lose it, it is very hard to get it back.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, incessant claims that hot weather proves anthropogenic climate change, while cold weather is just weather, don’t do a whole lot for credibility, either.
Mr Spencer,
It is not optimal to solve poverty with CO2.
These two problems are best treated separately.
It has been proved mathematically that free markets will achieve Pareto optimum, but only if there are no externalities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
To be optimal, everyone must pay for damages to third parties.
If you don’t like the result you need income redistribution.
It is just not optimal to have losses in Miami and elsewhere that are greater than the gain in Africa. It is better to pay compensation directly and let everyone’s choice be based on reality.
You do not need to do 4) and 5), you only need to estimate costs and benefits and then put this (positive or negative) price on CO2.
Markets can then bring its full arsenal to bear, including R&D.
If eco systems collapse anyway we can tell our grand children that they were not worth saving.
“There is around a 50% chance of El Nio developing in 2017double the normal likelihood.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Surely not!
How can this be ?
This would lead to another global average temperature spike !
So soon after the last one !!
Time to put our heads back in the sand.
Some quotes you somehow managed to miss:
“The El NioSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) remains neutral.”
“However several indicators have shown little or no increase for several weeks, suggesting El Nio development has stalled for now.”
“Sea surface temperatures across the tropical Pacific remain warmer than average, though cooling has occurred in some areas over recent weeks in response to stronger than average trade winds. The Southern Oscillation Index has also eased to near zero values. All other ENSO indicators also remain neutral.”
“Four of eight international climate models suggest tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures may exceed El Nio thresholds during the second half of 2017, down from seven of eight models that were forecasting a possible event in April. Virtually all models have reduced the extent of predicted ocean warming compared to earlier in the year, indicating that if El Nio forms, it is likely to be weak.”
Surely, you are not denying what they said:
There is around a 50% chance of El Nino developing in 2017double the normal likelihood.
What, then, is your estimate of the likelihood?
I estimate that, if there is an El Nino this year, Alarmists will claim it is due to AGW.
97% certainty.
Further, I estimate that, if there is not an El Nino this year, Alarmist will claim it is due to AGW.
97% certainty.
(I’m seldom wrong.)
What is called The Greenhouse Effect Theory, wiki explains and summarizes:
“An ideal thermally conductive blackbody at the same distance from the Sun as Earth would have a temperature of about 5.3 C.”
And continues by adding modifiers to this ideal blackbody:
“However, because Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 C”
A Ideal blackbody could absorb less sunlight if the sun emitted less energy or if ideal blackbody was further away from the Sun- and received less sunlight.
At earth distance the sunlight has solar constant of 1361 per square meter at distance of 1 AU.
30% of 1361 is 408.3. And – 408.3 is 952.7.
If at distance from the Sun where solar constant was 952.7 watts per square meter an ideal blackbody would have uniform temperature of about -18 C.
Making the amount something reflects modify the distance from the sun, seem quite problematic in number of different ways.
If one make object reflect 90% of the sunlight, does this make temperature as though it further from the Sun?
90% of 1361 is 1244.9. And 1361 – 1244.9 is 136.1
136 watts per square meter is distance of over 2 AU- halfway to Jupiter or about distance of Dwarf planet Ceres.
A reflective object at Earth distance in a vacuum can be quite hot, a reflective object does absorbs much less energy- but the reflective surface also emit less energy.
Modifying a ideal blackbody by subtracting 30% or 408.3 from 1361 is also like having half the ideal blackbody which faces the sun being 30% reflective and having the entire body radiate like idea blackbody.
I reject that approach. Which means I reject what is called theory of Greenhouse Effect.
I do accept that Earth absorbs about 240 watts and it emits about 240 watts and Earth’s hemisphere facing the sun, does reflects about 400 watts per square meter.
And roughly the earth’s temperature is about 5 C.
And, there are numerous factors which cause Earth’s average air temperature to be around 15 C. And some of this could called a greenhouse effect.
For instance, clouds can cause what could be referred an atmospheric greenhouse effect.
If for instance clouds added say 10 C to average temperature of 5 C, one is done.
But I think it’s not this simple. Rather I think clouds can add some amount to the average global temperature and more importantly it’s not quite as significant as other factors.
And I agree that the clouds are sort of mixed bag of effects which can cause warming and cooling- depending numerous factors- type of cloud, height of clouds, location of clouds, etc.
But there is little doubt that clouds can cause a winter night time warming effect, and there are theories explaining how they can have cooling effects [ie Iris effect].
One might assert that all factors causing significantly higher global temperature, probably also have cooling effects- so clouds could fit into such a requirement.
But such an assertion is more than a little problematic for the numerous cults of doom.
Where is the end of everything, in having such a wild and unproven idea of having natural balancing forces?
And it adds too many unnecessary [and dangerous] complications in terms of the “messaging effort” needed to have a noble battle against the evil forces.
So I am not done, but one argue with the above if you like.
To summarize, I reject the GHE.
Agree with idea of ideal blackbody giving a starting point.
Though I think of more complicated starting points [and mentioned them, many times in past]
Agree clouds can have a warming effect.
Will note I have mot mentioned in this post other warming or cooling effects.
And will add I am a lukewarmer in terms of the possibility of greenhouse gases having some warming effects, but probably in next post I will not focus much on greenhouse gases possible warming effects [other than perhaps discuss clouds, some more].
gbaikie,
I wonder how the foolish Warmists calculations fare, if they start out with a black body of 5500 K throughout, which has now cooled until its unaided emissive temperature is around 35 K?
It takes less energy to raise the temperature of a body from 35 K to 288 K, than from 0 K to 288 K. This fairly obvious physical fact may have escaped the notice of foolish Warmists. Or maybe it hasn’t, and they’re promoting something they know to be untrue.
Still no GHE. I agree with you, although we may have different reasons, for all I know.
Cheers.
Mike, can you convert that into Watts per meter squared?
( they are the units we commonly use when talking about heat sources).
I guess that the time scales involved will render your numbers meaningless.
(you do understand what a Watt is??)
Dr No,
Conversion into meaningless units would serve no purpose. That is why temperatures are measured in units such as Kelvins or degrees Celsius.
As an example, you may not believe me, but saying an object is emitting say, 300 W/m2 tells you nothing at all about its temperature.
You sound like a foolish Warmist, or a climatologist, sounding sciencey, whilst demonstrating completely ignorance about basic physical concepts.
So tell me, how many W/m2 does a body emit, if the body’s temperature is 288 K?
You’re wrong, of course. Try anyway. So much for foolish Warmist “gotchas”!
Foolish Warmist. Still no GHE.
Cheers.
“Conversion into meaningless units would serve no purpose”
Sigh! Such ignorance.
“So tell me, how many W/m2 does a body emit, if the bodys temperature is 288 K?”
Have you heard of the Stefan Boltzmann Law?
(the answer, for a black body, is sigma*T**4)
Any more questions o-foolish-one?
Hi Mike,
thank you for the information, I was not aware that the Earth surface was so “hot” without the Sun.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi gbaikie,
For what it worth, I write this just to to tell you that I fully agree with you.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Returning to ideal blackbody in vacuum at Earth distance, it would have uniform temperature of about 5 C. Or every square meter of planet is constantly radiating 340 watts per square meter.
It could be a fancy ideal blackbody which had controls [perhaps thought activated] which allowed you to adjust how much each square radiated.
One should keep in mind that an ideal black body or fancy ideal blackbody is science fiction.
So, a really fancy one might allow almost any range of output of watts per square meter.
But let’s say it’s a cruder model which allowed you switch off large sections so they get less power of watts per square meter.
So they have instructions [it’s not thought activated] and like all instructions they are written by idiots.
But assuming one can figure how to control it, one could do things like power only the southern Hemisphere- zero watts to northern Hemisphere and 680 watts to southern Hemisphere.
For the general purpose of understanding Earth’s global climate, I want the energy received from the sun to stay in the broad regions where the solar power originated.
Now the ideal blackbody doesn’t need to spin, all needs is the disk of the sphere to get 1360 watts per square meter. But I want the ideal blackbody to spin and orbit around the
sun just like Earth.
Though it would be adequate to simply simulate these effects.
I want to start seeing spring/fall equinox solar heating of the ideal blackbody.
Or when sun is at Zenith at noon at the equator.
Of course someone could actually build such a simulation- and it could already been done.
Or building such a simulation is far easier than building any kind of ideal blackbody [it is possible, rather than technically impossible].
Following the crappy instructions, I want to disconnect the transfer of heat from the tropics to the rest of the planet.
So pole-ward of 23 degrees north and south, it uses the sunlight it receives to uniformly heats it’s area.
And the tropics retains the energy it gets from the sun and uniformly heats just the tropics.
[Having the same amount of watt per square meter radiated within the tropics]
But, after I considered how easy it would be to simulate this, perhaps someone knows of one that is already done.
And they could link to it?
It might save me the bother of typing out words to describe it.
{I did mean to get around to the clouds or other fun stuff}
Well, I guess not.
Anyways, with disconnected Ideal blackbody the tropical equator region would have uniform temperature of about 40 C.
Clouds:
If you had floating cities would these create a new type of UHI effect?
“Cloud Nine is the name Buckminster Fuller gave to his proposed airborne habitats
created from giant geodesic spheres, which might be made to levitate by slightly
heating the air inside above the ambient temperature.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Nine_(tensegrity_sphere)
If one had higher national economic growth, one might have such floating cities on Earth.
There would be many technical problems, but the matter transportation to and from them, or the potential legal problems related to them, could more difficult than constructing them.
And wonder if such floating cities could heat the global air temperature- would one warm atmosphere by significant amount, thereby many could affect global air temperature?
Since is very unlikely we going to build any floating cities, or floating cities on the water
is more likely [though also improbable: or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_colonization%5D.
Why not change the question to would floating cities on Venus increase Venus average air temperature?
Or in many ways floating cities on Venus could require less national economic growth.
It’s easier to float in CO2, less legal problems, and it enable rather than adds a problem in regard to transportation issues. Or having floating cities on Venus is how you have transportation on Venus and how you get to Venus orbit.
Now it seems to me that the clouds of Venus have a global warming effect.
As general matter I think that clouds on Earth and clouds on Venus have a warming effect.
And the question for both planets is how much warming do the clouds do, and how do clouds actually cause warming.
In terms of having lots of people agree with you, it seems many people agree that clouds on Earth cause warming, and seems not many people think clouds on Venus causes warming.
Though also lots of people think clouds on Earth causes cooling and lots think the clouds of Venus cause cooling.
Everyone knows that Venus has a lot of clouds, but other than “a lot”, there isn’t much knowledge about how much or other things.
But same could said about Earth clouds- a lot,
trillions of tonnes of them floating over our head.
But in terms of quantifying, most would agree that roughly Venus as a lots more clouds than Earth has.
Because they are said to be thick, dense, covering entire surface such a degree that one can’t see the rocky surface of Venus. And Venus is roughly the same size as Earth.
Now, one might ask, what would Earth or Venus be like if there were no clouds.
Or say if earth and Venus had only one type of cloud. Or both Earth and Venus was sort of slightly hazy, rather having any dense clouds. Or say both planet only had cirrus clouds.
So Earth and Venus without any clouds or with a different kind of clouds, what effect would it have in terms of average temperature?
Another perhaps more illuminating question would if without any clouds, what would the bond albedo be of these
planets be?
Or how much do these planets reflect sunlight if
clouds were removed from the atmosphere.
And also say clear skies during day, but lots of clouds during the night.
And do clouds [somewhere] in day lit hemisphere cause warming and/or don’t cause as much cooling?
I think clouds on Venus during daylight cause warming and if were removed during daytime this would cause cooling [or not something I imagine others believe].
I suppose next I might answer the question of what affect of clear sky planet would have on temperature. Or maybe this will be the last post [in this particular series. It seems
a clear sky Venus is in some way easier than clear sky, Earth. Or at least clear sky Venus is something which possible to do- and so it’s practical nature {LOL] makes
it more interesting.
I was looking for something about above, and not related too much, but rather I thought, somewhat interesting:
” In the Arctic cloud cover is extensive at all times of the year, with monthly means ranging from 50-80%. Retrievals of the clear sky surface broadband albedo are therefore of limited utility for climate studies. Is it possible to estimate the surface albedo under cloud cover from visible satellite data?
The differences between cloudy and clear albedos from surface measurements made during the SHEBA experiment are shown in the figure below. Overall, the cloudy sky albedo is higher than the clear sky albedo by about 0.05 (5% absolute), though it ranges from slightly less than zero (probably data error) to more than 0.1..”
https://stratus.ssec.wisc.edu/projects/albcloud/albcloud.html
And SHEBA:
https://data.eol.ucar.edu/project?SHEBA
Or:
“The scientific objectives of SHEBA included: (1) To develop accurate physical and mathematical relationships between the state of the ice cover and albedo, for any given incident short-wave radiation…” etc
So the clouds over ice effectively reduced bond albedo- in terms their modeling. Though I am not too interested in polar regions as it’s small part of planet [and this nothing to do with polar winter time- when no sunlight is shining in arctic].
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, there is a simple experiment that completely destroys the steel greenhouse. Im not going to tell you yet, but Ill give you a hint: Its involves a common household item that you have used.”
It would be a mirror. But I did my own test and found your test incomplete.
Here is a link:
https://tinyurl.com/y7eoqhx7
Wrong.
Hi Norman,
I’m very wondered of what I read there in that site.
I don’t know how many “radiant barrier” Innovative Insulation Inc. had installed today to verify their effectiveness.
Maybe I’m wrong of course, but that seems to contradict this link:
http://windowoutdoors.com/WindowOutdoors/Staying%20Warm%20-%20Interesting%20Observations%20on%20Heat%20Loss.htm
Go to figure 4:
“The emissivity of the surfaces between the two layers (i.e., on either side of the air gap between the clothing layers) is varied from 0.1 (aluminized space blanket material) to 0.95 (garbage bag, nylon, most other fabrics). The low infrared emissivity “space blanket” coating reduces heat loss by less than 10%. This is worth doing if there is no weight penalty, but for the most part, the space blanket with the aluminized layer pointing inward is not significantly warmer than a cheap heavy duty garbage “lawn and leaf” bag as an emergency shelter. Protection from the wind, and having an extra layer with stagnant air inside are much more important than the emissivity. As an interesting aside the emissivity would be more important in a thick outer layer, thin inner layer clothing system because the air gap is warmer in this situation. This is the case for some of the new jackets where the low emissivity coating is inside the insulating layer.”
IMHO show what I always thought, that is at lower tropo where air has sufficient pressure, radiation is not the driving path for heat (or energy, anyone is free to call it as he/she prefers).
Uhmmm… I think that it’s time to look at who is spreading “science” in the net, don’t you?
Have a great day.
Massimo
g*e*r*a*n
I will try and provide a quote from link:
In it is an experiment to try (which I did)
From Link: “TRY THIS EXPERIMENT: Hold a sample of FOIL INSULATION close to your face, without touching. Soon you will feel the warmth of your own infrared rays bouncing back from the SURFACE. The explanation: The emissivity of heat radiation of the surface of your face is 99%. The abs*orp*tion of aluminum insulation is only 5%. It sends back 95% of the rays. The abs*orp*tion rate of your face is 99%. The net result is that you feel the warmth of your face reflected.”
I could not feel the effect facing the foil (my skin at that location may not be sensitive enough), I easily felt the effect when I put the foil near my ears. I would suggest others try this test to see for themselves.
Wrong.
Hi Norman,
“I could not feel the effect facing the foil (my skin at that location may not be sensitive enough), I easily felt the effect when I put the foil near my ears. I would suggest others try this test to see for themselves.”
This remember me when some people tried to convince me that my cellphone was dangerously heating up my brain…
How much was close to your ear pinna the foil?
Remember that your ears have a continuous air exchange process by convection which cools the inside.
It’s the very reason my grandmother’s home made ear caps worked great.
BTW the simple fact that they suggested such experiment that didn’t worked (as they suggested), say all to me about that company (I don’t wonder if they get some eco-funds for their task).
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
I just pulled out a sheet of aluminum foil and moved the sheet close to my ears without touching them. I could feel a warming sensation.
g*e*r*a*n stated “wrong” but I doubt he actually tried it. Try it yourself and see what you get. I suppose some may feel it on their face.
If it does not work for you after you try it let me know.
Norm, it is “wrong” because it proves NOTHING about the GHE. The foil is blocking convection. That’s why you “feel” the warming. Also, there is the “placebo” effect.
Hi Norman,
I agree with g*e*r*a*n it’s more due to convection locking than back radiation.
If you read the link I posted few message above, the one who wrote it was in good faith and just checked for the best clothes to getting warmer.
He finally established that: “the space blanket with the aluminized layer pointing inward is not significantly warmer than a cheap heavy duty garbage lawn and leaf bag”.
This should highlight you how radiation plays very little at low tropo, because of convection prevalence.
Have a great day
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
But haveyou tried the test yourself. I am wondering how is the foil stopping convection when I am holding it sideways toward my ear (not above).
You can try different arrangements of the foil to see if your convection idea is the correct reason you can feel warmth.
I have read about the space blankets. Aluminum is a very good conductor of heat so if it is in contact with something warmer energy quickly moves to into the aluminum. The test is not about GHE it is about IR emitted by your body being reflected back to it and producing a warming sensation. It is an easy test to perform and you can vary it to determine if stopping convection is what is causing the warming sensation or not. All I can ask for is try and see what you get.
Massimo PORZIO
Do you have access to a FLIR camera at your work area? You can use this to test the idea of “backradiation” for yourself. That is if you do not accept the measurements taken of the atmosphere.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_594922f77dd00.png
I have already done my own tests but describing them won’t help until you do them yourself.
You can start with all objects at room temperature and see what the camera shows. If you heat some object (say a pot of coffee) and put some item close to it and observe what happens. The FLIR starts showing the energy emitted by the coffee pot, and it will show the object near the pot also warming. The energy of the pot is absorbed by the surrounding object and it warms up.
After they have reached an equilibrium temperature put the FLIR inbetween the Pot and the object. First point it at the coffee pot and then turn it to the warmed object. The warmed object is emitting IR energy toward the pot. In similar EMR wavelengths the emissivity and absorbitivity are the same. A good emitter is also a good absorber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
You can detect IR coming from the warmed object and moving toward the coffee pot. The coffee pot will absorb the radiation to the degree of its own absorbitivity. Having the object near the pot will make the pot warmer than if the object were not there (provided the energy input to the pot is kept at a constant).
Norm, “convection” does not only work in the vertical. Convection is caused by ANY air currents, even air currents you can not detect.
That’s why all of your pseudoscience “experiments” are FAIL. You only look for what you want to find. That is NOT science.
“Do you have access to a FLIR camera at your work area?”
Norm, no one denies IR exists. What you are continually FAILing to understand is IR from a “cold” object can NOT warm a “hot” object.
g*e*r*a*n
You make the declarative statement: “Norm, convection does not only work in the vertical. Convection is caused by ANY air currents, even air currents you can not detect.”
You do not prove your assertions with any tests. Are we to just accept what you claim based upon the strength of your convictions? Is that the type of science you advocate?
I did further testing to demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. You don’t even do the test yourself but find flaws in it. What type of science is that?
I easily disproved your assertion that stopping convection is what produces the warming sensation. I used a sheet of aluminum foil and it produced a warming sensation around my ears. I then put a book close to my ear and there was no heating sensation. Both foil and book would equally stop convection (which you have not proven is the case) but the book did not result in a warming that the foil produced.
Rather than just making declarations, try it yourself. Do you have aluminum foil available?
g*e*r*a*n
Another way to disprove your assertion of preventing convection is the answer. I did the test under a ceiling fan where I could still feel the air hitting my ears with the foil near them. The heating sensation was still there even with forced convection. I suggest you try some tests yourself and be honest about the outcome.
Norm, everything you see is “proof” of your pseudoscience. The worms in your head are controlling you. You can NOT get away from the fact that ice can NOT bake a turkey. You continually try to prove that solar and atmospheric fluxes “add”.
More, please!
g*e*r*a*n
Does your last post demonstrate you will not even try a simple test?
Norm, what do you consider my “last post”? What “simple experiment” are you referring to?
(It’s hard to follow your illogical paths and ramblings. But, I enjoy your humor.)
Hi Norman,
“But haveyou tried the test yourself. I am wondering how is the foil stopping convection when I am holding it sideways toward my ear (not above).”
As you wrote few line below, an aluminium foil is a good thermal conductor, if you place vertically sideways toward your ear it shorts/modifies the convective loop which is cooling the ear.
Anyways, I’m not saying that the LWIR do nothing, I’m arguing that here at ground convection is dominant.
If you want establish how much is LWIR or convection changes, I suggest you to do the very same test using the aluminium foil and a polyethylene foil which is know to be a good LWIR transparent material (probably you need to frame them to keep them rigid).
Make the foils of the same size and place them at the same distance from your ear more times alternatively and try to feel any difference.
At least, this way you try to replicate the same air flow near your ear, the only convective issue is limited to the different vertical conductivity of the two foils.
Unluckily I’ve not sufficient free time these days, but I already planned to play with the thermal camera.
Have a great day.
BTW I would like to see you Mike and g*e*r*a*n less “caustic” in your messages (this is directed to all you together)
: – )
Massimo
Massimo, you have seen some of the practitioners of pseudoscience turn rabid. This is because some of us throw their nonsense back in their faces. We don’t let them get away with spreading their “poop” (Italian translation is “merda”, as I recall).
So, don’t be offended. Dr. Roy allows a vigorous discussion of science here. It’s just that a few prefer pseudoscience, and get mad that they don’t get their way.
Hi g*e*r*a*n,
no I’m not offended, I just wrote that because I consider you, Mike, Norman, Gordon and any other here friends (David Appell too).
I just prefer read people explaining their points of view without calling the counterpart with epithets because he/she ignores some aspects of the issue.
I know that since this is not my work, I’m less irritable reading some thoughtlessness.
If I was a professional in the field, I probably would be more upset and intolerant.
BTW (this is for Norman too), I thought a little more about the “two foils facing the ear” experiment. And I realized that I missed an important point that it was the trick used in that link to demonstrate the “high efficiency” of their shields, that is the environment temperature.
Norman, if you do that experiment with the environment around you few C above your inner-ear temperature, you should feel your ear warmer. While if you do that with the environment around you few C below your inner-ear temperature you should feel your ear colder indeed.
This is because the aluminium foil is mainly at the environment temperature and forces the air around it to that value by convection. Your tiny radiation does very little on it indeed.
As always said, trying thermal experiments is an hard task.
Not so easy.
Have a great day.
Massimo
g*e*r*a*n
In this link it is explained that reflective aluminum in an attic will keep a house cooler but the energy has to go somewhere and it will end up raising the temperature of shingles 5 to 10 degrees (not sure if it is F or C).
https://tinyurl.com/yd6bos85
Nothing new here, Norm. I’ve been trying to explain that all lR NOT absorbed for years! But, even with you finding this link, you probably still believe CO2 is warming the planet.
You can’t get rid of that worm. (“Worm” is singular. “Worms” is plural.)
Mike Flynn
Not a foolish question at all. I am making fun of you and g*e*r*a*n with it.
(Norm carries so many worms in his head that he does not know how to place his comments.)
g*e*r*a*n
I found the source of your current understanding. As I had suspected, not a textbook on the subject or any actual experiments, it comes from Joe Postma.
I am reading through his material, I will spend some time on it and think about it. I think he is very wrong but I will keep an open mind.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/
Norm, you seem very infatuated with Joseph. I’m sure he would be very flattered. He understands physics quite well, so I doubt if you will be able to understand him….
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, the flaw is in YOUR belief. You still want to have it both ways. You want CO2 to act as a heat source until it gets to the temperature that fits you belief, then it stops adding to solar!
And, as if that already isnt silly enough, you say that adding more CO2 then makes a NEW temperature target. The CO2 once again becomes a heat source until your new target is reached!
Thats not how it works, Norm!
But, it is hilarious.”
You are not thinking about it correctly yet but it seems you are close.
Start with a surface radiated by 1000 watts of incoming solar flux.
First case, no greenhouse gases present. Surface will get around 364 K (90.9 C).
Add cold GHG with properties similar to Earth’s GHG. That means only about 10% of the energy emitted by the surface makes it out directly. At the start the surface is emitting 1000 watts/m^2 but only 100 W/m^2 are directly leaving. At the start you only could measure 100 W/m^2 with a satellite, the rest is absorbed by the atmosphere and will result in a slow warming of the atmosphere. The atmosphere will continue to warm until it and the direct IR loss equal the incoming energy of 1000 W/m^2 (I did read enough from Postma that it will not be exactly 1000 W/m^2 since the surface area of the TOA has a little more surface area but it will be close).
The atmosphere will have to keep warming until it reaches a temperature that will emit around 1000 W/m^2 upwelling which means it will also emit 1000 W/m^2 back to the surface. You now have 1000 W/m^2 solar input and you have have the emitted IR flux of 1000 W/m^2 so the surface will warm until it emits 2000 W/m^2.
g*e*r*a*n
I went too fast on my math in the 1000 W/m^2 solar flux calculation
Because 10% leaves directly (not absorbed) I would need to calculate for that effect.
The balance is around 1818 W/m^2 surface emission (not 2000, that would only be the case if the atmosphere absorbed all the surface radiant energy).
The atmosphere would warm until it was emitting 818 W/m^2 in all directions. 818 W/m^2 out plus the direct 10% not absorbed of 182 W/m^2 would equal the 1000 W/m^2 incoming flux.
Your example is so botched, I can’t even tell what you believe you are trying to foist on us. Are you claiming again that your surface is radiating more energy than it is receiving?
Seriously botched!
Norm, your example is so poorly stated it does not meet the minimum levels of science. For example, is your surface “flat”? Does your surface have a backside? Is your “incoming flux” in “Watts” or “Watts/m^2”? These are important details.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, the flaw is in YOUR belief. You still want to have it both ways. You want CO2 to act as a heat source until it gets to the temperature that fits you belief, then it stops adding to solar!”
It does not stop adding to solar. Nor is it based upon my belief. The temperature is based upon Energy IN minus Energy Out. When those equal the temperature no longer changes, you have an equilibrium condition.
Also you could try and answer this question. What temperature do you think an object, receiving a constant energy input of 1000 joules/second, will get to and why? Will the surrounding temperature have any effect? Will anything affect the equilibrium temperature? How do you arrive at your calculation?
Norman, I admire your persistence. But it is like trying to educate a cage of baboons.
Did you believe Norm was trying to “educate”? People with little knowledge of science may miss the humor, but Norm is trying to “entertain”.
Admittedly, some of his jokes may be a little too esoteric for you.
Norman, you have been very busy today, not sure if you saw this:
Thanks, Norman
“Your idea of the sun being warmed by a shell was very helpful. I can see now that warming a heat source is not the same as a heat source burning hotter.duh!
Please throw all my related comments in your wastebasket.”
In my defense, I should mention that it’s fairly easy to visualize the surface of the sun being warmed by an external source. I was thinking of a flame. Very tricky idea to grasp.
Snape
Thanks.
Norm, this latest string of yours is beyond hilarious! I asked for something new, as your old comedy routines were getting rather stale. And, you came through for me. Great job!
Norm, my poor lost pseudoscience pimp, let me see if I can help. Sentence by sentence, let me offer my comments:
Norm: Also you could try and answer this question.
g: What follows is not one question, but at least 4. So, it should be “…these questions”.
Norm: What temperature do you think an object, receiving a constant energy input of 1000 joules/second, will get to and why?
g: Not enough information. “Joules/sec” is “Watts”, but “Watts/m^2” is needed for the S/B equation.
Norm: Will the surrounding temperature have any effect?
g: Not in a vacuum.
Norm: Will anything affect the equilibrium temperature?
g: If there are no changes, equilibrium should not be affected.
Norm: How do you arrive at your calculation?
g: I didn’t do any calculation because your worms messed up your question(s) beyond meaningful interpretation.
Norman,
You wrote –
“What temperature do you think an object, receiving a constant energy input of 1000 joules/second, will get to and why?”
What a completely meaningless, ridiculous, pointless, foolish Warmist question!
Are you really as thick as you pretend?
Still no GHE. I’m starting see why foolish Warmists believe the fantasies they do, in light of your “question”.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Not a foolish question at all. I am making fun of you and g*e*r*a*n with it.
Norman,
I’ll leave it to others to determine how successful you’ve been.
Cheers.
Norm, even when you are “grasping at straws”, trying to somehow save face, you are hilarious.
Please, keep the humor coming.
Why pressure of 0.1 bar is the limit for the troposphere with a dense atmosphere? Thanks to the dense atmosphere, the temperature is determined by convection. The troposphere mass controls the surface temperature.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2016.png
In the stratosphere, the density of gas is so low that the temperature rises only due to UV radiation (ozone). It can be seen precisely in the mesosphere, where the temperature drops with the drop of ozone.
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter1/graphics/vert_temp_mes.free.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2016.png
ren…”Thanks to the dense atmosphere, the temperature is determined by convection. The troposphere mass controls the surface temperature”.
ren…you should not read NOAA propaganda, it could make you blind.
It claims the troposphere mass controls surface temperature then it claims the temperature is controlled by convection.
I have no argument that convection does mediate temperature but only locally. As a whole, it is gravity that creates the dense atmosphere near the surface. The ideal gas law for a constant volume/mass states the pressure controls the temperatures via the mass.
If there was no convection, the temperature would be directly proportional to the mass, which produces the pressure via gravity. That’s relative to the base temperature set by solar energy. Convection creates localized perturbations in the overall atmospheric pressure and that’s why you could not apply the Ideal Gas Equation practically.
However, for a ballpark figure, with no convection, it’s blatantly obvious that the partial pressure of CO2 and even water vapour is far too small wrt to N2/O2 to have little or no effect on atmospheric temperature.
I can’t see why, on average, the same does not apply with convection and other atmospheric forces. You cannot change the AVERAGE temperature from within a system. The global average calculated temperature of 15 C or so is sourced from solar energy heating the surface but, without convection, the overall vertical temperature gradient is set by gravity and pressure gradients it creates.
Through in convection and you have a random, chaotic system no model could hope to replicate.
Thanks to the gravitational force, the average pressure at the Earth’s surface is constant. But the troposphere is shrinking and expanding depending on the available solar energy. See below.
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/gif/zt_sh.gif
Norman,
You wrote –
“If the molten part of the Earth solidified and cooled you would still have surface warming.”
This must be foolish Warming doublespeak. If it cooled, it would still be warming? I suppose you could say that sunlight can heat an object on the surface to a maximum to 90 C or so, but even small animals know that sunlight can heat things. Nothing to do with any imaginary GHE, if that’s what you’re trying to imply, without actually saying so.
It’s about as silly as claiming that the surface heats up at night. It cools. No GHE. If the molten part of the Earth cooled, it cooled. It didn’t get hotter.
Maybe you could keep trying to deny, divert, and confuse. Or you could try to properly describe the mythical GHE, if you thought it was possible.
Still no GHE. Just a product of a gaggle of second raters, who share a common delusion.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, eh?
Cheers.
I suppose that changes in tropospheric mass may be due to changes in the magnetic force of the Earth’s magnetic dipole.
http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967/F3.medium.gif
http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
Variations on different time scales are evident in the final low-noise cosmic radiation (radionuclide production) record (Fig. 3 B, C, and D). A comparison with changes in the geomagnetic dipole field strength (21) (Fig. 3A) shows that the geomagnetic dipole shielding is the main cause of the observed multimillennial variability; the stronger the geomagnetic field, the lower is the cosmic radiation. On multidecadal to centennial time scales the cosmic radiation variations are mostly due to solar modulation (Fig. 3 C and D) as indicated by the coincidence of cosmic radiation maxima and grand solar (sunspot) minima like the Maunder minimum (Fig. 3D).
MIke, how old are you.
You sound more and more like an angry old man shouting at the clouds.
At least try and come up with something new.
dr No,
Thank you for your concern.
You must be slightly out of touch with reality if you think I am likely to pay any attention at all to your wishes.
Maybe you could provide a fact or two to support your fantasies?
Cheers.
“Maybe you could provide a fact or two to support your fantasies?”
Sorry, that would be like casting pearls before swine.
Didn’t you just recommend for others to come up with something “new”? I guess you feel safe avoiding your own advice.
Mike Flynn
Not doublespeak at all, just your inability to comprehend ideas and concepts. I am pointing out that the molten part of the Earth, if it is cooling or not, does not have much effect on the surface conditions. Separate realities. You combine them in many posts as if they were one.
Norman,
The Earth is a large ball of molten material. Its surface temperature in the absence of an external heat source, is above absolute zero – a figure I believe you have calculated for yourself. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
It has cooled. It continues to cool. Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface, and the Sun, cannot make the thermometer hotter. There is no additional energy.
All part of the one reality. Just one, which doesn’t include an imaginary GHE.
Cheers.
Mike…”the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface, and the Sun, cannot make the thermometer hotter. There is no additional energy”.
AGW suggests you can recycle solar energy by converting it to heat in the surface then radiating the heat as IR to GHGs and back to the surface so as to increase surface temperature.
Someone…anyone…please explain energy losses and why this perpetual motion cannot work. Explain how trace gases can aborb a tiny fraction of the immense losses due to surface IR flux then radiate it back from a colder region in the atmosphere to a warmer surface in order to raise the surface temperature.
I won’t mention 2nd law since it seems to irritate the AGW believers.
“Explain how trace gases can aborb a tiny fraction of the immense losses due to surface IR flux then radiate it back from a colder region in the atmosphere to a warmer surface in order to raise the surface temperature.”
Dr. Spencer’s actual experiment showed how surface liquid water temperature is measured higher when added atm. IR from trace amounts of frozen water in night time cirrus cloud is incident on it Gordon. Text books that you have yet to read explain the process in detail based on 1st principles.
The time you spend here is better spent with your nose in an atm. thermo. textbook.
Gordon Robertson
The “trace” gases absorb about 90% of the surface upwelling IR.
Who gets irritated by the mention of the 2nd Law?
The increase in surface temperature is not a perpetual motion and everything works just fine.
“IR from trace amounts of frozen water in night time cirrus cloud is incident on it Gordon. ”
I thought “trace amounts” was interesting. Cirrus clouds have very small amounts of water droplets- roughly they are high and frozen. And poked around a bit and I thought this was interesting:
“The global cirrus cover has been estimated to be about 20 to 25 %, but recent analysis using the satellite in
frared channels at the 15 μm CO2 band has shown that their frequency occurrence is more than 70 % in the tropics. ”
http://people.atmos.ucla.edu/liou/Cirrus_&_Climate.pdf
Didn’t know they had such coverage, nor that more coverage in tropics. And:
“Limited measurements from highflying aircraft in tropical cirrus clouds, which can extend to as high as 15-18 km, illustrate that their ice crystal size ranges from about 10 μm to 2000 μm…”
And:
In midlatitudes, where most of the observations
have been conducted, cirrus clouds have been
found to be composed of primarily nonspherical
ice crystals with shapes ranging from solid
and hollow columns to plates, bullet rosettes,
and aggregates, and with sizes spanning from
about 10 to thousands of micrometers.”
What are “bullet rosettes”.
Hmm, something like a snowflake:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/class/class-old.htm
Almost like they are designed for flying.
Anyhow, I don’t think I would call it trace amounts, light and fluffy and bigger than they seem, as they are far away from you, seems like better description. And generally regard the size of cloud as more towards monstrous.
Mike, your cooling molten model is ridiculous.
We have seen cooler and warmer surface temperatures over the millennia.
There is no evidence that the surface is slowly cooling (other than in your fevered mind).
dr No,
No model. Just fact. Ask a real scientist – a geophysicist, for example.
Cheers.
Norman
In your hot pipe scenario, you didn’t explain how or why the pipe/sleeve reach a new equalibrium. This may be why some people are still confused.
You wrote, “The hot pipe will warm until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature, with the sleeve having to radiate at the same rate the hot pipe is receiving input energy.”
Maybe this would explain things better, “The sleeve will warm as it receives energy from the hot pipe. This will lead to a temperature difference between the sleeve and the air in the room (the sleeve will become warmer). The greater this difference, the faster the rate of outflow. When energy flux from sleeve to room finally matches energy flux from hot pipe to sleeve, a new equilibrium will have been reached.
Snape
I do like your explanation. I don’t think it will convince anyone though.
The problem is even if the GHE is real, the induced changes, i.e. the induced energy imbalances from GHGs, are so itty-bitty, it would near impossible to prove the effect is real.
…so far as any actually measured change in global average surface temperature.
Out of curiosity, can you think of a couple of ways to measure the effect? If you set aside your assumption that the effect was itty-bitty, how exactly would you go about looking for it?
barry,
There is no way to directly measure its effect on any actual surface temperature change is my point. The perturbation itself isn’t large enough, and the system is an immensely dynamic, chaotic, and ever changing one. Moreover, the observed change that has occurred is ho-hum. Only a few tenths of a degree C (maybe 0.5C at most). The system is always fluctuating at that level of change in some way or another.
I think we can be near certain there is some anthropogenic influence on the climate and global average surface temperature, but frankly I don’t think anyone even knows whether it’s net warming or net cooling. Again, the magnitude of change that’s occurred is spectacularly unspectacular, given how much hype surrounding the issue is out there.
RW 7:25am: “There is no way to directly measure its effect on any actual surface temperature change is my point.”
Dr. Spencer found a way and performed the experiment to “directly measure its effect on any actual surface temperature change” in his backyard:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/#comments
And you are right 7:34am the thermometer measured change was small due the added atm. terrestrial LW IR radiation but reasonably matched his accompanying rough calculations.
B4, I’m glad you believe you finally found a “backyard experiment” that fits your pseudoscience. In your belief system, “IR is heat”. And, it is “magic heat”. It can heat objects on ANY temperature. Heck, IR for Earth’s surface can even “warm the Sun”!
Enjoy your pseudoscience. We certainly do….
I meant any actual global average surface temperature change. This is because any change will always be the sum of all the pushes, warming and cooling, natural and anthropogenic. We don’t even know what they all are, let alone have any way to precisely calculate each one’s contribution. As long as we’re in the realm of tenths of degrees C of change, which we are, there is no way to discern any net anthropogenic influence, be it warming or cooling.
Concur RW. Even if there is a 30 year overall T decline, the added terrestrial LW IR at surface from +ACO2 ppm on the then global median T will still be in the mix as Dr. Spencer’s experiment demonstrates.
Global median W/m^2 95% confidence intervals in the satellite results calibrated with Argo data are now on the order of the overnight changes he demonstrated. The CIs should even improve as Argo data is improved.
anger writes: “In your belief system, “IR is heat”.”
Sorry, no anger, for me IR is EMR wavelength band. EMR is never heat as was defined by Clausius long ago.
Hilarious! you would write otherwise.
B4, someday you will actually have to study Clausius. Maybe you will learn that energy exists in many different forms, and that cabbages do not glow in the dark.
Maybe….
RW says, June 20, 2017 at 6:52 AM:
RW says, June 20, 2017 at 7:16 AM:
RW says, June 20, 2017 at 7:25 AM:
But we’re not SUPPOSED to observe the effect of an “enhanced GHE” in the temperature data ALONE. There can be many causes of warming. What we need to look for is that special “+GHE signal” behind the warming. And that is something we’re supposed to observe when comparing the temperature data with Earth’s final heat loss to space (the OLR (‘net LW’) at the ToA) over time, not in the temperature data itself.
So if you’re trying to verify the CAUSE of warming by just looking at the warming, then you’re clearly not thinking straight. What is the warming MECHANISM? THAT’S what you’re looking for. Not the warming itself. The process driving the warming …
So what is the postulated “greenhouse warming mechanism”? That’s the raising of the ERL:
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
As the atmosphere becomes more opaque to outgoing IR, Earth’s Z_e (effective radiating level, ERL) is supposed to be forced up, while its effective radiating temperature in space (T_e) stays unchanged. Over time. This will cause the physical temperature at each altitude-specific level from surface to tropopause to rise, via the lapse rate, while the OLR (directly associated with the T_e) stays flat. Over time.
IOW, what we’re looking for is the OLR at the ToA trending significantly lower over time than T (T_s/T_tropo). The specific “+GHE calling card” is the held-back heat loss (OLR) at any given T, so that the heat loss distinctly grows less over time than the temperature, either not at all, or (if there are other contributions to the warming, like solar warming) along a clearly more gently inclining trendline.
And this is something that’s pretty easy to check using official, publicly available observational data from the real Earth system. OLR at the ToA (ERBS Ed3_Rev1 + CERES EBAF Ed4) vs. TLT (UAHv6):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbsceres-vs-uah1.png
We see no such thing. There is no sign in the data of an “enhanced GHE” behind the warming …
What’s more, it is just as straightforward finding out what is really behind the warming – the Sun:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/ersb-asr.png
(Heat gain from the Sun (ASR).)
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-olr.png
(Heat loss from the Earth (OLR).)
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-net-flux.png
(Net flux at the ToA (ASR minus OLR).)
The entire rise in the net flux, opening up our current positive imbalance at the ToA, is evidently due to the substantial increase in ASR from the 80s to the 90s, and rather countered somewhat by the parallel rise in OLR, a mere radiative effect of the resultant warming over that same period.
I seriously don’t know why we’re still arguing over this matter at all. It’s all in the data. Right there in front of us. The Sun did it. No trace of any “enhanced GHE”. We’re off the hook …
Kristian, do you have a profile that runs to present instead of the early 2000s? Do you nat have access to that data?
Can you provide a link to the data?
And do you have global coverage instead of the tropics?
barry 6:11am: “Can you provide a link to the data?”
The data Kristian uses and its calibration method is discussed by CERES Team in Loeb, Manalo-Smith et. al. 2016 which you can find here:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science-team-members.php?person=Loeb
barry says, June 22, 2017 at 6:11 AM:
Second link. ERBS Ed3_Rev1 + CERES EBAF Ed4 vs. UAHv6. Missed it?
The three final links are all ERBS. If you want to go beyond 1999, you need to look at CERES.
ERBS Ed3_Rev1: https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/project/erbe/edition3_rev1/access_ed3_rev1_data.pdf
CERES EBAF Ed4: https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAF4Selection.jsp
CERES, sure. ERBS, no. There’s a 20N-20S and a 60N-60S product, where the former is by far the most widely used. Here’s the 20N-20S vs. the 60N-60S ToA OLR data:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-olr-20-20-vs-60-601.png
Cross-post.
So you would try to measure it by looking at changes in global surface temperature.
Would a century’s worth suffice?
No. Not when the total change is less than 1C, which it is. It’s estimated to be about 0.5-0.8C. Looking at the ice core data, as just one example, suggests that amount of change over the last 100 year period might even be below average for this interglacial period (for 100 year time intervals).
The bottom line is it’s an absurdly small of change, and if this whole issue didn’t exist, no one looking at it (or even the last few decades) would think anything extraordinary or note worthy has occurred.
Yes, I agree the so-called basic radiation physics supports (or should support) some effect, i.e. some push in a warming direction, but that’s meaningless since the climate is always changing and those changes always have consequences — some good and some bad. Moreover, it doesn’t even mean the climate must warm — it could just cool a little less, for example.
RW…”The bottom line is its an absurdly small of change…”
And there’s a perfectly valid natural explanation for it…rewarming from the Little Ice Age that ended circa 1850.
“Rewarming” due to what cause?
The last century’s global average surface temperature (1917 – 2017) has warming of 0.8 – 0.9C.
Annual variation is about half that at most. Decadal is less.
The long-term rise is greater than the variation (thus, centennial trends are statistically significant: strongly so).
Why would that not be sufficient?
(Ice core data doesn’t have centennial resolution)
A very good point, RW. The GHE is a scientific “bust”, but even if it were valid, it would be lost in the natural variability of Earth’s climate. For example, the “worst-case” warming the GHE pseudoscience conjures up is 2 Watts/m^2. But, Earth’s orbit causes annual changes in the solar flux of about 90 Watts/m^2!
Hide under your beds, folks. Earth’s orbit is going to cause the mountains to melt!
Right anger 7:19am, do not fly from NYC in the winter to Fla. as the huge temperature change from all those added W/m^2 will cause you severe health issues. Especially if you do not remove your GHE in the form of an expensive NYC heavy overcoat while in Miami.
And vice versa flying back to snowy NYC after a week in the Fla. sun. Oh my! The shock! Perform that test under strict adult supervision.
Hilarious!
(b4 sends text while hiding under his bed.)
Skeptics assert that natural processes are more impactful than anthro GHGs over the long-term.
I guess you can choose to believe assertions or not believe them. No data or reference leave only those two options.
One could dredge up the data and research (again), but then the game becomes rejecting some data and giving other the stamp of approval. Again by assertion. It’s a merry-go-round. If only the tone of the discourse was, too, instead of the juvenile sniping.
barry, you prefer temperature data over science. That’s fine. Actual observations verify science.
So, what would temperature data would convince you that the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense is nonsense? For example, what is the UAH global anomalies dipped below zero in the next few years? Would you just say it was “natural variability”, or would you admit there was something seriously wrong with Warmist “theories”?
For example, what is the UAH global anomalies dipped below zero
If one month’s anomaly dipped below zero in the coming months or years, but the overall trend remained positive there’d be nothing to discuss.
If we get 30 years of no warming from 1998 and no natural mechanism to explain it (like a few years of cascading volcanic eruptions) then I’d say that was a huge challenge to AGW having a pronounced effect. Assuming there was no problem with the data (I’d have to see it with UAH and RSS, and also reflected to some degree in the surface records.
A few skeptics have predicted exactly that – 30 years of no warming, based on PDO (or AMO or both, depending on whose talking). I wonder if they’ll shift their position should warming continue.
— barry says:
June 20, 2017 at 9:41 AM
Skeptics assert that natural processes are more impactful than anthro GHGs over the long-term.–
The natural processes are actually measurable.
But UHI effects are an “arhro effect”, and it’s easily measurable, noticeable by anyone, and which could be considered an “overwhelming effect” in terms of comparison to natural changes in temperatures.
There are humans living in cities which are “suffering” from increases in average temperatures, caused by their UHI effect, with is as much as a 5 C increase in average temperature.
The faithful will say this is an insignificant effect [it’s not like it’s effecting the polar bears, or anything actually important].
Though, sometimes, a bone is tossed about “anthro effects” other than CO2 and greenhouse gases, or sometimes idiots say that the UHI effect is caused by CO2.
Barry: Skeptics assert that natural processes are more impactful than anthro GHGs over the long-term.
gbakie: The natural processes are actually measurable.
Heh, I said the post that tops this subthread,
Skeptics assert that natural processes are more impactful than anthro GHGs over the long-term.
I guess you can choose to believe assertions or not believe them. No data or reference leave only those two options.
And rather handily you come up with… an assertion.
Most phenomena are measurable to some degree. Skeptics think that long-term natural influences on global surface temps are more accurately measured than anthro. Yet to see them prove it.
(I make no particular claim one way or the other. I’m not a salesman)
“Most phenomena are measurable to some degree. Skeptics think that long-term natural influences on global surface temps are more accurately measured than anthro. Yet to see them prove it.”
You mean when sea level were 140 meter lower and massive ice cap in US, kind of stuff?
Or things like El Nino is likely to cause spike in global warming? Or say, the Gulf Stream does warms Europe, significantly [around 10 C].
It seems as I said anthro of UHI effects are easily measurable, and it seems any effect of added CO2 in terms added global temperature is mostly a hunch of an expert’s opinion. With main value of being such an immeasurable effect and such vague number given, that difficult to disprove and it’s politicians saying it [not a hideous one like AL Gore- making money from the suckers, type guy, but rather the less obvious and essentially anonymous hideous political types- backed by a very hideous railroad engineer- who was fired I believe due to some unsavory acts [or at least that was an excuse to get rid of the jerk.]
The rise of sea level by about 8 inches in last hundred years, is measurable, and it is not an anthro effect [certainly not from CO2- not much doubt about this, right?].
I like to consider myself a skeptic [it’s possible I am not skeptical enough [ie too gullible]. And I don’t have much faith in long-term measured effects [or “that long-term natural influences on global surface temps are more accurately measured than anthro”] but I think they somewhat correct considering the challenges involved, they are things to consider and help understand the past- or obviously better than simply guessing without such points of reference.
But interested in any valid effort at improvement- or faith there will much improvement in such measurements [I could die from old age before this].
RW
Would your point be GHG in general or the addition of Carbon Dioxide from fossil fuel burning during the industrial age?
The induced changes from the GHE are quite substantial. Around 33 K worth of change. The induced energy imbalances from GHG’s are actually quite large.
GHE and AGW are two different streams. The additional warming is not very large. The conversation than would shift is the climate system like a chaotic attractor where it exists in some semi-stable configuration but if something is enough to disturb it it can move to a completely different semi-stable configuration with vastly different patterns developing.
Here is empirical real world evidence the contribution of GHG are not “itty-bitty”
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59492ced8b9a5.png
If you set out the same measuring instrument with no GHG present (just nitrogen and oxygen) you would not even detect this significant amount of downwelling IR.
“The induced changes from the GHE are quite substantial. Around 33 K worth of change. The induced energy imbalances from GHGs are actually quite large.”
Wrong.
The 33K is caused by the natural heat transfer capability of the atmosphere. The lapse rate is an indication of the heat transfer gradient.
So anger, what fuel did the atm. burn to cause your 33K natural heat transfer? Did it burn some lapse rate? Did it use up some gravity? What?
Entertain us with your trademark hilarious! answer.
I understand that “heat transfer” is not covered in pseudoscience. It’s just one of many aspects of actual science omitted.
Norman,
Yes, I mean the incremental enhancement to the GHE is itty-bitty. Of course, the whole of the GHE, i.e. the effect of all the GHGs, is quite large.
RW
Thanks. I tend to agree with you. A couple posters no this blog cannot wrap their physics around the GHE and empirical data does not matter to them.
But what of the potential for climate shift even based upon a small increment in temperature?
I think Roy Spencer has clearly shown the models that are predicting this large temperature increase are not valid sources of scientific information (3-10 C in some cases) since they are not remotely trending real world measured values.
I keep an open mind on the issue.
“I keep an open mind on the issue.”
Norm, now that IS hilarious!
More of the same, please!
Norman,
“A couple posters no this blog cannot wrap their physics around the GHE and empirical data does not matter to them.”
This is because they think the total of DLR at the surface is the driving physics of the GHE, i.e. of enhanced surface warming. It really isn’t, and this is why so many are confused and can’t understand. Our host, Roy Spencer, himself doesn’t seem to be able to explain it very well, and do I dare say that he might not quite understand it entirely correctly either.
RW 9:13am, I’m curious what specific aspect of enhanced surface warming you imply “really isn’t” demonstrated by Dr. Spencer’s experiment(s).
norman…”The induced changes from the GHE are quite substantial. Around 33 K worth of change. The induced energy imbalances from GHGs are actually quite large”.
No one has ever proved either of these statements. The first is an estimation based on the application of Boltzmann where it does not apply. The constant in Boltzmann’s equation does not apply to Earth’s atmosphere.
Furthermore, the 33 C theory addresses only an atmosphere versus a non-atmosphere, it does not take into account the oceans.
There is absolutely no proof of the second. If there was you could show the data from direct measurement. It’s not available. No one has data that relates atmospheric warming to GHGs.
You seem to think down-dwelling IR means something. Why would it? You and everyone else have failed to prove it raises the surface temperature.
Gordon, Dr. Spencer’s experiment demonstrated a higher surface water temperature resulted from added atm. terrestrial IR and the 33K is directly measured. Also as long as universe entropy is increased cold spontaneously can transfer to hot after Boltzmann showed how.
Gordon Robertson
Holy Cow! You claim: The induced changes from the GHE are quite substantial. Around 33 K worth of change. The induced energy imbalances from GHGs are actually quite large.
“No one has ever proved either of these statements. The first is an estimation based on the application of Boltzmann where it does not apply. The constant in Boltzmanns equation does not apply to Earths atmosphere.”
“There is absolutely no proof of the second. If there was you could show the data from direct measurement. Its not available. No one has data that relates atmospheric warming to GHGs.”
What are you saying.
Here look at this link. It is a direct measured value (though Kristian disagrees, that is another semantic debate of what the word measurement means).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement
What do you think this is?
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59494fa5f01d9.png
Norm asks: “What do you think this is?”
Well Norm, nice try. You keep linking to examples of DWIR, thinking it will “prove” your pseudoscience.
We have to keep reminding you that “IR is NOT heat”!
You just can’t get that worm out of your head.
g*e*r*a*n
Is IR energy?
Is a book on a shelf energy?
Think of it this way:
A book on a shelf has “potential energy”. IR has “potential heat energy”.
If no one pushes the book off the shelf, the potential energy is not converted to kinetic energy.
If IR is not absorbed, the potential heat energy is not covered to heat energy.
Did that kill any worms?
“converted”, not “covered”.
Stupid auto-correct!
g*e*r*a*n
Why do you believe the IR will not be absorbed?
Norm, are you trying to play Davie? Asking leading questions, hoping to probe for a weakness? Trying to imply I said things I never said. You should have learned it didn’t work for Davie, doubtless it will work for you.
But, your attempt to mimic someone else is amusing.
g*e*r*a*n
I asked the question because of your post in which you state.
“If IR is not absorbed, the potential heat energy is not covered to heat energy.”
You concur that IR is emitted by the atmosphere, you agree that it is real energy. Now if you agree it is absorbed by the Earth’s surface then you are there in accepting the GHE and understanding what is going on.
Without the downwelling IR (which is only a product of GHG despite the declarations of Mike Flynn and Gordon Robertson who declare that N2 and O2 emit considerable IR) you would then conclude that the Earth’s surface would be cooler than it currently is with GHG present.
If the surface is warmer with GHG then you would conclude that GHG allows the surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than in a case without the gases.
Norm says “Now if you agree it is absorbed by the Earth’s surface then you are there in accepting the GHE and understanding what is going on.”
Norm, this is where you always get confused. Just because IR impacts an object does NOT imply the IR will be thermalized. I have offered the image of a house that would burn down if that were true. If there were a Law of Physics that said “ALL Infrared E/M MUST be absorbed”, there would be no life on Earth.
You just can NOT get that worm out of your head. Try repeating every 15 minutes, aloud, “IR is NOT always absorbed”.
Not wanting to face up to your worms is an indication you are severely addicted to pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n
The amount of IR absorbed is based upon its absorbitivity. Most substances vary in their ability to absorb. I believe you need to get to very high temperatures before the absobitivity of materials is reduced because of large populations of molecules in higher energy levels so unable to absorb significant IR.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
From the graphs (empirical tested) it looks like the emissivity (which is also the absorbitivity) starts to drop after about 1000 K.
It still can absorb IR at least up to 3000 K (end of graphs) just at a decreasing rate.
Norm, once again, you do not understand the links you provide.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
YOUR POINT: “Norm, this is where you always get confused. Just because IR impacts an object does NOT imply the IR will be thermalized. I have offered the image of a house that would burn down if that were true. If there were a Law of Physics that said ALL Infrared E/M MUST be absorbed, there would be no life on Earth.”
You must not forget that while the Earth’s surface is absorbing and thermalizing a significant amount of the downwelling IR, estimated to be in the upper 90% based on global IR absorbitivity, the surface is also emitting even more IR upward. This is why the oceans do not boil and the house does not burn down. Two simultaneous processes are going on.
Water seems to be very absorbing of IR.
https://tinyurl.com/n22hjv6
g*e*r*a*n
Okay so tell me what am I not understanding about the link to gas emissivity. Statements saying I do not understand something without explanation are kind of pointless you know.
“This is why the oceans do not boil and the house does not burn down.”
Sorry Norm. The oceans do not boil and the house does not burn down because “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
You are trying to find things to justify your beliefs. You choose not to understand even my basic examples, because they conflict with your beliefs.
If you saw a redbird and claimed that it was red because it ate strawberries, what would convince you that was wrong?
Nothing, because that is what you choose to believe.
“Okay so tell me what am I not understanding about the link to gas emissivity.”
On the CO2 chart, what values of PgL and T are you choosing for the atmosphere?
“Statements saying I do not understand something without explanation are kind of pointless you know.”
Trying to explain something to someone with a closed mind is kind of pointless, you know.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU ASK: “On the CO2 chart, what values of PgL and T are you choosing for the atmosphere?”
I choose the number around 0.4 range. Why?
I just wanted to verify you don’t know what you are talking about, again.
“0.4” is not on the chart for either PgL, or T.
g*e*r*a*n
I suppose that means you never learned about interpolation from high school math classes. It would be difficult to use this type of chart in real world situations when the real world may not conform to the exact numbers presented.
You can trace out a line between the 0.46 and the 0.3 line and move it over to the left at the cooler atmospheric temperatures. Not really that difficult to do.
You say you used “0.4” for the PgL for the atmosphere. Then
1) What value of “T” did you use?
2) What value of Pg did you use?
Gordon Robertson says:
>> normanThe induced changes from the GHE are quite
>> substantial. Around 33 K worth of change. The induced
>> energy imbalances from GHGs are actually quite large.
“The constant in Boltzmanns equation does not apply to Earths atmosphere.”
What???
(Do you mean perhaps the Stefan-Boltzmann equation?)
“Furthermore, the 33 C theory addresses only an atmosphere versus a non-atmosphere, it does not take into account the oceans.”
False. See Figure 2 in Lacis et al, Science 2010.
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/co2-main-ct-knob-lacis-sci10.pdf
g*e*r*a*n
Above you make a statement: “Norm, no one denies IR exists. What you are continually FAILing to understand is IR from a cold object can NOT warm a hot object.”
Ball4 tries to explain it you but you are not grasping it, yet. I think you might at some point. Sometimes you seem close to comprehension.
Fisrt “warm” is a relative concept based upon more than one state.
It is a process term indicating some sort of change from one condition to another. A transition state.
If you add 1000 joules of energy to an object with a one square meter surface area and the surface has a very high emissivity you will reach a certain equilibrium temperature correct?
Now would you admit that the surrounding temperature will also determine what the actual equilibrium temperature will be?
Norm, the reason you are funnier than B4 is you actually try to sound like you have seen some science. B4 is just ridiculous from the start. The comedy doesn’t work for him.
Above, you present the example of an object that receives 1000 Joules. But, your example is incomplete. For example, in a vacuum, with no additional energy input, the object will continue to cool. It will not reach “equilibrium” until it has approached absolute zero.
See why you are hilarious?
g*e*r*a*n
How about 1000 joules/second. Does that help you out?
You’re moving in the right direction, but you’ve got a long ways to go.
norman…”Fisrt warm is a relative concept based upon more than one state.
It is a process term indicating some sort of change from one condition to another. A transition state”.
No it’s not, warm is a relative level of heat measured by a human invented temperature scale. It can be a subjective opinion but in science it is a relative level of heat.
It has nothing to do with concepts, it can be measured provided you have a reference temperature. It’s not a process term either indicating a change. The word for that is warmer. It does not have to be a transition state, it can be a constant, either long term of short term.
You are in a shower and it feels cold. You turn up the hot water and it feels warm. You think to yourself, that’s warm. You are talking about the heat of the water mix relative to your skin temperature.
Gordon Robertson
These semantic debates get old after thousands of times.
The word “warm” can be a adjective (which is how you are using it) or a verb which is how I am using it.
Here is the definitions so you can quit harping on semantics.
“adjective, warmer, warmest.
1.
having or giving out a moderate degree of heat, as perceived by the senses:
a warm bath.
2.
of or at a moderately high temperature; characterized by comparatively high temperature:
a warm oven; a warm climate; a warm summer.
3.
having a sensation of bodily heat:
to be warm from fast walking.
4.
conserving or maintaining warmth or heat:
warm clothes.
5.
(of colors) suggestive of warmth; inclining toward red or orange rather than toward green or blue.
6.
characterized by or showing lively feelings, passions, emotions, sympathies, etc.:
a warm heart; warm interest.
7.
strongly attached; intimate:
warm friends.
verb (used with object)
15.
to make warm; heat (often followed by up):
to warm one’s hands; to warm up a room.
16.
to heat or cook (something) for reuse, as leftovers (usually followed by over or up):
to warm up yesterday’s stew.
17.
to excite enthusiasm, ardor, cheerfulness, or vitality in (someone):
The wine soon warmed the company.
18.
to inspire with kindly feeling; affect with lively pleasure:
It warms my soul to hear you say that.
19.
to fill (a person, crowd, etc.) with strong feelings, as hatred, anger, or zeal:
Restrictions had warmed the crew to the point of mutiny.”
This is even funnier when you realize that Norm believes “warms” is the plural of “warm”!
g*e*r*a*n
I would suggest you try and experiment to demonstrate you conclusion is not a real or correct one.
YOU: “Norm, no one denies IR exists. What you are continually FAILing to understand is IR from a cold object can NOT warm a hot object.
You may be working on a semantic issue. If the hot object has no heat source then a cold object will not warm it, both will cool. If the hot object has a constant, stable heat input, the cold object will result in the hot object reaching a higher equilibrium temperature than it would compared to colder objects.
If you take a heated object (light bulb, hot plate, etc), as long as the heating is constant and stable, and put it in a container with double walls filled with dry ice so the walls will be chilled to the temperature of the dry ice around -78 C. Keep a thermometer on the surface of the hot plate and wait until it reaches equilibrium temperature with its environment.
Now remove the dry ice and add just cold water which is still much colder than the surface of the heated object you are using.
Will the surface warm or stay the same? You almost need to run the test to see. My view is the surface temperature will depend on the surrounding environment. The more IR emitted by the surroundings the warmer the surface of the heated object gets.
The IR from the colder surroundings will warm the surface of the object relative to other states. I hope you try it and let us know the results.
“You almost need to run the test to see.”
Norm, you will “see” what supports your pseudoscience. Warmists have predicted less snow, due to AGW. But, when we get record snowfalls, they claim it is due to AGW!
Keep the hilarity coming!
g*e*r*a*n
Sorry I fail to see the logical connection between running a test and predictions “Warmists” have to do with each other. Are the two ideas somehow connected, measuring real world surface temperature of a heated plate with different surrounding temperatures, and predicted snowfall? If so how do they connect?
Norm, I don’t mind explaining simple concepts to you. It just adds to your hilarity.
You will always “see” what you want to believe from any “experiment”. Other Warmists predict their “theory” will cause LESS snowfall. But, when the planet gets record snowfall, instead of admitting their “theory” is wrong, they claim if is “verified”.
That’s what you do.
See the “connection” now?
(I already know the answer.)
g*e*r*a*n
Oh so that is how you take it. I do not see any supporting evidence from you that my “theory” is wrong or incorrect application of textbook physics. I have not seen any support or validation of your ideas. You give declarative statements with no proof, no evidence. I suggest a real world experiment for you to do. You could do it and prove me wrong but you won’t do it.
See, I already knew the answer.
g*e*r*a*n
More assertions less validation. You claim to have studied science and are good at it but you make declarations and assertions with zero validation. What science did you study that did not require some form of evidence?
Norm, you do not understand science. You don’t have the academic background. But, you “believe” you do. So, when someone tries to show you where you are wrong, you blast off to the Moon, or run to your irrelevant links, or resort to insults. Anything to avoid learning where you are wrong.
You believe pounding on a keyboard makes you something other than a comedian.
But, keep it up. You are more fun than mowing the “back 40”, which I am trying to avoid this morning.
g*e*r*a*n
At least I understand science much better than your leader, Postma.
It would appear from your posts that you have obtained nearly all your knowledge of physics and radiant energy from him. I guess that is why you detest physics textbooks so much and won’t look at the links I provide. It will shock you to much to learn your leader is a true caustic idiot that really knows very little physics, has poor reasoning skills and covers it all up by being an aggressive jerk to any who would dare question his self professed brilliance.
Postma really is not very bright about science but he really goes after anyone who dares suggest he is wrong.
Norm, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you do not understand science at all.
You believe “energy does NOT leave the system, but energy leaves the system”!
That’s NOT science, that’s comedy.
Please keep at it.
norman…”Will the surface warm or stay the same? You almost need to run the test to see”.
No you don’t, norman.
2nd law: heat cannot on its own be transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object.
There is nothing in that statement which addresses IR, the 2nd law is about heat. Climate alarmists have tried to redefine the 2nd law using a net positive balance of IR between two bodies and that is wrong.
All your thought experiments are geared to the totally incorrect concept that if IR exchanges are balanced in the positive direction then the 2nd law is satisfied.
Not so, read Clausius, he does not talk about a balance of IR fluxes he talks about heat.
You need to understand, Norman, that heat does not travel between bodies in radiative heat transfer. Heat and IR are not the same energies. IR is the messenger only, it is not the heat.
Plus, only IR that matches the energy difference between the valence electron energy level in an atom and the next highest energy level can drive the electrons to that level. That’s the only way you can increase the heat in a warmer body. IR from a cooler body cannot supply that energy.
Why do you think heat can only be transferred hot to cold without external power and apparatus intervening? Is it not obvious that IR flux from a cooler body cannot affect a warmer body by raising it’s temperature?
Still showing your ignorance.
You, and countless others, have yet to explain what happens to the radiation from a cooler body when it approaches a warmer body:
Does it pass right through?
Or does it do a 180 degree turn and after being rejected?
Explain this:
Why is the temperature at the surface warmer at night under a cloudy sky than a clear sky?
Someone is still showing his ignorance of quantum physics.
dr No
I had the same thought. Commenting on the pipe scenario, GR said something like, “the pipe gets warmer because the sleeve blocks IR from escaping, not because it gets re-emitted”. I asked him what happens to the blocked IR……forgot to check back to see what he said.
dr No,
You asked –
“You, and countless others, have yet to explain what happens to the radiation from a cooler body when it approaches a warmer body:
Does it pass right through?”
A reasonable question.
Yes. In simple terms, it passes “right through”. Low frequency photons such as those used by the mobile phone system, for example, are of a lower “temperature” than you. They past “right through”, due to your physical composition.
Some longer frequencies, such as those generated in microwave ovens, are preferentially absorbed by water molecules, which is subsequently exhibited as heat. Materials such as most plastics, paper etc., are not affected by the microwaves. The microwaves “pass through”, as you put it.
But the radiation from a cooler body “passes through” the hotter body (is not absorbed).
I apologise to those who will point out that I have provided only a lay synopsis of the interaction between light and matter. You’re right.
Cheers.
Gosh, Mike
GR said the IR gets blocked and now you say it’s only “passing through”. Now I don’t know what to believe.
Gee! How stupid is this !
“But the radiation from a cooler body passes through the hotter body (is not absorbed).”
Think about it!. You are saying that I can detect the presence of a cool object behind a warm object!
The “cool” radiation apparently passes right through and can be measured!
Apparently, if the “warm” object was 1 meter thick or 1 km thick doesn’t matter!! The “cool” radiation” just keeps going.
Imagine! If you pointed your radiometer towards the ground you should be able to register radiation from every cooler object on the other side of the Earth. You could even detect the passing of the moon on the other side!
Amazing!
dr No,
Of course you can. Listen to your radio. The low temperature photons have passed through all sorts of matter, been intercepted by tuned circuitry, and amplified so you can hear them.
I know it seems magical, but it’s basic physics.
Not so amazing, is it?
Moving to shorter wavelengths of light, millimetre waves pass nicely through the human body. They are used in full body airport scanners, for example.
As I said, simplified, much omitted, but true nevertheless.
As much as you try to make liquid water hotter b subjecting it to any amount of carefully concentrated or focussed radiation from ice (in excess of 300W/m2), you will fail. The photons from the ice do not interact with the liquid water. On the other hand, the liquid water’s photons do interact with the ice. Popping a couple of ice cubes into your whisky will demonstrate what happens.
Cheers.
Snape,
Maybe you could work out what is happening for yourself?
If you can defend your position using facts backed by theory, you’re right – unless shown to be wrong by experiment.
Cheers.
“Of course you can. Listen to your radio. The low temperature photons have passed through all sorts of matter, been intercepted by tuned circuitry, and amplified so you can hear them.
I know it seems magical, but its basic physics.”
Not so amazing, is it?”
No – pure stupidity. From which cereal packet did you get your qualifications?
What is a “low temperature photon”? There is no such thing!
Are you saying that my radio is “cooler” than the radio transmitter? Surely not!
What happens if i put my radio into a freezer and gradually cool it.
At what temperature do the “low temperature photons” stop being intercepted and my radio goes quiet?
Even more astounding !
“Moving to shorter wavelengths of light, millimetre waves pass nicely through the human body. They are used in full body airport scanners, for example.
As I said, simplified, much omitted, but true nevertheless.”
I see, visible light has a wavelength of millimetres?!!
Go to your nursing home library and find a text book on radiation. You will find out that the wavelength of visible light is in range of 400 – 700 nanometers.
Now, pay attention.
A nanometre is one BILLIONTH of a meter.
I think you are out by a factor of a million.
Golly gosh!
“As much as you try to make liquid water hotter b subjecting it to any amount of carefully concentrated or focussed radiation from ice (in excess of 300W/m2), you will fail. The photons from the ice do not interact with the liquid water. On the other hand, the liquid waters photons do interact with the ice. Popping a couple of ice cubes into your whisky will demonstrate what happens.”
1. OUt in deep space a glass of water will immediately freeze.
Surround it with a thick layer of ice and it will remain liquid for quite some time.
2.Melting ice cubes in my whisky represents the process of conduction – not radiative transfer. Please go back to school and re-enrol in a physics subject.
Mike Flynn
I challenge you to validate your claim: “But the radiation from a cooler body passes through the hotter body (is not absorbed).”
What physics book makes such a claim, what experiment do you provide to prove this statement.
dr No,
What part of my statement are you disagreeing with? The part I didn’t write, I assume.
I apologise if you do not understand the relationship between wavelength, the energy of the photon, and the theoretical temperature of black body emission. I assumed you did. My mistake.
The temperature of your radio has little to do with its ability to receive specific frequencies. Cryogenic receivers are routinely cooled to less than 100 K to improve noise rejection.
Light is light, from photon energies approaching zero, to infinite. Speak with a physicist in the field, rather than a self styled climatologist. Many scientists are not very knowledgeable about matters outside their field of expertise. I’m sure, like you, they automatically assume that someone is referring to visible light, when they hear or see the word “light”.
All EMR is light. All. As a matter of interest, light with a wavelength of 1mm would be the peak emission of a black body with a temperature of 3.9 K, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Feel free to argue with yourself – at least you can’t lose!
Still no GHE. Maybe you could redefine it into existence, do you think?
Cheers.
Gordon: How does the Sun heat the Earth, with a vacuum in-between?
David Appell,
Is this another pointless “gotcha”, or do you really not understand the interaction between light and matter?
Cheers.
Mike, your reply to my challenges above is very very weak.
I know you must be embarrassed.
At least admit you botched the wavelength for visible light.
dr No,
What are you talking about? I don’t respond to foolish Warmist “challenges”. I’m just not that interested.
As to the wavelengths for visible light, unless you can quote me exactly, I don’t believe I mentioned the range of wavelengths comprising visible light.
If you can’t quote me doing so, you are just making stuff up, in typical foolish Warmist fashion.
If you can’t be bothered quoting my exact words, others might think you are just trying to deny, divert and confuse.
Cheers.
Gordon Robetson
What I suggested to g*e*r*a*n is not a “thought experiment”, it is one that can easily be performed with common materials at relatively low cost.
You have to many incorrect ideas in your post. I have taken the time to link you to correct material but you reject it.
Your valence electron posts for IR get old real quick when you have been informed you thinking is not correct.
Electrons are not changing energy levels in the IR range of the Carbon Dioxide molecule. Near infrared (very close to visible red is still caused by lower energy electron orbital transitions but as you span the IR spectrum less and less electron jumping is taking place).
Gordon Robertson YOU: “Is it not obvious that IR flux from a cooler body cannot affect a warmer body by raising its temperature?”
If the warmer body has its own heat source its temperature will be determined by the surroundings. It has no set temperature for its surface based upon the energy input. It is dependent on the size of the object, the emissivity of the object and the IR it receives from its surroundings. All must be taken together to find the final equilibrium temperature the heated object will reach.
Norman,
I just wrote this comment but it ended up in a different location…I’m reposting it here:
In your hot pipe scenario, you didnt explain how or why the pipe/sleeve reach a new equalibrium. This may be why some people are still confused.
You wrote, The hot pipe will warm until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature, with the sleeve having to radiate at the same rate the hot pipe is receiving input energy.
Maybe this would explain things better, The sleeve will warm as it receives energy from the hot pipe. This will lead to a temperature difference between the sleeve and the air in the room (the sleeve will become warmer). The greater this difference, the faster the rate of outflow. When energy flux from sleeve to room finally matches energy flux from hot pipe to sleeve, a new equilibrium will have been reached.
Reply
Snape
I did see your post above and thought it was a very good and detailed explanation.
Norman
The rate of energy emitted by the earth’s surface, in the form of IR, is greater than the energy input from solar alone, right? Though true, I find this statement very misleading. What if I said:
“More energy is emitted from the surface than into space”
Snape
Evidence based upon empirical data would support your statement.
The average emission of Earth’s Surface is 398 W/m^2 while the emission at the TOA is measured at a global average of 240 W/m^2.
Norman
I was hoping it was true (seemed logical based on the initial statement). My point is that most people would find it confusing, don’t you think?
Norman
If you didn’t know better, you would think the earth would turn into an oven.
Norman
Well, the wording is confusing. The 398 is a *gross*, while 240 is the net result. Similar situation with the numbers comparing solar and surface. For a while, I was completely baffled. Had to bang my head against the wall a few times before I figured out what was going on.
Snape
That appears what they think. I guess they do not know the basis of equilibrium.
Snape says:
“I was hoping it was true (seemed logical based on the initial statement). My point is that most people would find it confusing, dont you think?”
It does look confusing at first, which is what led scientists to understanding the greenhouse effect.
David
I thought I had a decent grasp of how the GHE works, but started thinking about it this morning and realized I had forgotten. Sort of worked it out in a simplified way. Maybe you could tell me if I’m close.
(Pretend numbers)
The surface is a steady 40 C. It absorbs solar energy at 100 units/second and emits IR at the same rate.
Now along comes a cloud of radiative gases and suddenly an additional 5 units/second of IR is added to the surface. Inflow is now greater than outflow, so the surface starts to warm. As it does, it emits IR at a faster rate, eventually adding the 5 units/second back to the atmosphere.
The surface is both emitting and receiving 105 units/second, so a new equilibrium is reached. Now, however, the surface is a little warmer than before (maybe a degree or two), and is emitting IR at a faster rate (105 vs. 100).
Notice the net upward IR is still 100 units/second, same as incoming solar.
David Appell,
You wrote –
“It does look confusing at first, which is what led scientists to understanding the greenhouse effect.”
Is this the effect that you cannot describe, but instead say it’s a metaphor for something else which you also cannot describe?
No wonder people get confused – they might even think that the undistinguished mathematician, Gavin Schmidt, is a scientist, or that Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize!
All in pursuit of a metaphor!
But still no GHE. Still metaphorical and non-existent.
Cheers.
Snape:
Yes, you have the basics right.
In reality, the surface receives about 2/3rds of its heat from the atmosphere radiating infrared radiation, and only about 1/3rd from the sun.
David
Thanks!
Snape says, June 20, 2017 at 9:42 PM:
It pains me to realise that an uncannily large number of laypersons seemingly walk around thinking that this is in fact a (or even THE) physically valid way to explain what’s going on thermally between the surface and the atmosphere. When this approach is so obviously muddled on such a fundamental level. All you need in order to see this is a basic understanding of thermodynamic principles. See if you can work it out for yourself, given these three hints:
# 1st Law. In thermodynamics, Q (heat) and W (work) are the ONLY kinds of energy transfers that will change a system’s U (internal energy) and thus its T (temperature). A photon will not.
# The surface is involved in TWO separate heat transfers at the same time, not just one. And these two DO NOT MIX! ‘In’ and ‘out’.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/heat-engine.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/net-sw-net-lw.png
# Thermodynamics concerns itself with MACROscopic phenomena, not with MICROscopic (quantum) ones.
Whenever you ADD energy to an object and this addition of energy directly makes the temperature of that object go up from t_i to t_f, then the energy you have added is defined thermodynamically as HEAT, Q. You have HEATED the object. This is the opposite of insulation.
# What does the 2nd Law say?
# Does the Sun HEAT or INSULATE the surface?
# Does the atmosphere HEAT or INSULATE the surface?
Kristian
You: “Thermodynamics concerns itself with MACROscopic phenomena, not with MICROscopic (quantum) ones.”
Why can’t the microscopic be used to explain the macroscopic? In other words, why couldn’t quantum physics be used to explain the laws of thermodynamics?
This of course is naive, but I think of incoming IR as earnings, and outgoing IR as spending. The two are occurring simultaneously, so from the MACRO perspective, all you see is richer, poorer or unchanged.
Richer, of course, would be heat. Poorer would be cooling and unchanged would be equalibrium
Was quantum physics even around when the laws of thermodynamics were written? If it was, maybe those great scientists could have explained how it all relates.
Or work, W.
Kristian
Question: How could adding IR to an object not make it’s temperature go up?
Answer: the object is losing heat at a faster rate than that which is produced by the incoming IR
This does not mean the IR has no effect. You seem to think that if you spend a dime, earning a nickel therefore has no value.
Kristian
Maybe we are all missing your point.
Do you think it’s inappropriate to discuss the GHE, and related atmospheric science, in terms of quantum physics? Do you think it simply makes more sense to discuss it in terms of traditional thermodynamics?
“A photon will not.”
A reflected photon (albedo) will not.
An absorbed photon (ASR) will.
Ball4 says, June 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM:
Only if no other photons were absorbed or emitted by the object/surface at the same time. How often does that happen, you think?
A photon is a QUANTUM MECHANICAL entity, not a thermodynamic one. It therefore does not itself affect the U and T of objects. Only as PART of Q_rad …
MICRO vs. MACRO. Quantum vs. thermo.
“It therefore does not itself affect the U”
(absorbed photon) therefore does itself affect the U by its hf by 1LOT. A demonstration of the atm. physics application is available by Dr. Spencer’s cirrus cloud experiment.
Woo-hoo this site now seems to be accepting plain English absorbed term.
Kristian says:
“A photon is a QUANTUM MECHANICAL entity, not a thermodynamic one. It therefore does not itself affect the U and T of objects.”
Kristian: Does sunlight affect the temperature of the Earth?
Snape says, June 21, 2017 at 4:05 PM
This is what I’m talking about. You STILL don’t get it. Norman is talking about ADDING energy to RAISE the temperature of something. It isn’t NOT raising its temperature. It IS raising its temperature. That’s the whole point of the “GHE”. The temp goes UP!
But if you’re thermally adding energy to something to raise its temperature, then you’re HEATING that something, Snape. And heat [Q] never moves from cold to hot. 2nd Law. So you have to EXPLAIN what is going on in a different way. Insulation DOES NOT ADD ENERGY to the insulated object to make it warmer. That’s what the heat source of the insulated object does.
You cannot approach this problem by invoking QUANTUM MECHANICAL phenomena. This is a THERMODYNAMIC problem, and it therefore demands a thermodynamic approach.
Just above here Appell writes:
“In reality, the surface receives about 2/3rds of its heat from the atmosphere radiating infrared radiation, and only about 1/3rd from the sun.”
To this truly facepalm-provoking violation of the 2nd Law you simply respond:
“David
Thanks!”
Which goes to show that you simply do not see the profound problem with his statement. Which is sad. And tells me you sorely need to read up on basic thermodynamics. Norman, BTW, is actually saying the very same thing as Appell does, even though he tries his best to cover it up by just insisting the atmospheric contribution in his explanation somehow isn’t HEAT. Even though it does directly heat the receiving object! A positive transfer of heat [+Q] after all is just that: a thermal addition of energy to directly raise the temperature of the receiving object.
His problem is that he splits the two “hemispheric component fluxes” (UWLWIR & DWLWIR) of the actual (thermodynamic) radiative flux (Q_rad, net LW) between the surface and the atmosphere, and treats them as distinct, independent macroscopic fluxes of radiation (W/m^2), putting them on opposite sides of the surface budget, the DWLWIR on the input side and the UWLWIR on the output side. You can’t do this. They’re ALWAYS integrated into ONE, the net. They are BOTH on the heat LOSS [Q_out] side of the surface budget. And this is something you can only fully understand if you apply a MACROscopic (thermodynamic) perspective on the exchange and not a MICROscopic (quantum mechanical) one, which will only confuse you into thinking that you ‘see’ discrete thermodynamic effects (like a change in U and T) in places where they do not (and should not) exist.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247505
* * *
Snape says, June 21, 2017 at 4:27 PM:
Duh! It doesn’t simply make more sense. You HAVE TO discuss it in terms of thermodynamics. Because the “GHE” is fundamentally a THERMODANMIC phenomenon, “insulation”, and the issue of what raises the average surface temperature of Earth above that of the Moon is at its core a THERMODYNAMIC question, not a quantum mechanical one.
If you insist on explaining the “GHE” from the narrow perspective of individual photons and what happens as they’re emitted or absorbed (in isolation, that is, with disregard to everything ELSE happening simultaneously), that is, a perspective from thoroughly BELOW the thermodynamic limit, then you will forever stay confused, and you will never understand the fundamental objections to that perspective of yours. It’s fine if what you want to do is look at the action of individual photons or at specific parts of the EM spectrum itself. If, however, you’re specifically looking for thermal effects, then this approach will get you nowhere. Then you will HAVE TO cross the thermodynamic limit and enter the MACROscopic realm.
Snape says, June 21, 2017 at 3:48 PM:
It can. And it does. They’re connected via the field of “statistical mechanics”.
It’s not naive. It’s wrong. From a thermodynamic (macroscopic) budget perspective. Your “earnings” are the incoming HEAT [Q_in]. Your “spendings” are the outgoing HEAT [Q_out]. Your account is the internal energy [U]. The U (and T) changes only with Q (and W), not directly with “partial IR” (UWLWIR or DWLWIR). “Partial IR” only matters to the extent that it might affect the radiative part of the outgoing heat [Q_out(LW)]. But the two conceptual “hemispheric component fluxes” are ALWAYS integrated into this ONE radiative flux, the Q_out(LW). You cannot split them apart and pretend they belong on opposite sides of the budget. Then you completely lose track of cause and effect and you end up fooling yourself into thinking you see things that aren’t really there …
Kristian
Your comments are always very intriguing, although, like you mentioned, I’m still having a hard time understanding your point.
Let me think on it for a while and get back to you later.
Kristian:
The surface receives about 2/3rds of its heat from the atmosphere radiating infrared radiation, and only about 1/3rd from the sun.
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg
Kristian wrote:
“His problem is that he splits the two hemispheric component fluxes (UWLWIR & DWLWIR) of the actual (thermodynamic) radiative flux (Q_rad, net LW) between the surface and the atmosphere, and treats them as distinct, independent macroscopic fluxes of radiation (W/m^2), putting them on opposite sides of the surface budget, the DWLWIR on the input side and the UWLWIR on the output side. You cant do this. Theyre ALWAYS integrated into ONE, the net.”
This is still wrong, and is the source of all your misunderstanding and misleading claims.
It’s easy to measure just the downward radiation — put a tube around an instrument’s aperture and point them upward. That’s exactly what was done with the instrument in this study:
“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 wrote:
“1st Law. In thermodynamics, Q (heat) and W (work) are the ONLY kinds of energy transfers that will change a systems U (internal energy) and thus its T (temperature). A photon will not.”
So (again) how does sunlight heat the Earth?
Snape says, June 22, 2017 at 1:59 AM:
What is it exactly that you have a hard time understanding? Is it the concept of “heat” [Q]? Or is it the distinction I make between the MICRO and the MACRO realms? The connection/relationship between the quantum mechanical world and the thermodynamic world, on either side of the “thermodynamic limit”, so essential to the field of statistical mechanics?
It’s all pretty straightforward once you ‘get’ the relevant physical concepts behind, and the points I make are in fact fairly (there’s always something, isn’t there?) uncontroversial among people who have bothered to acquire the fundamental understanding.
“Norman” is clearly NOT one of these, and I see he’s already busy downthread trying to keep up his (and your) confusion on this subject.
David Appell says, June 22, 2017 at 9:38 AM:
No. It receives (essentially) ALL its heat IN [Q_in] from the Sun and transfers ALL its heat OUT [Q_out] to the atmosphere and space.
Do you know what heat is? Q? Do you know about the 2nd Law?
David Appell says, June 22, 2017 at 9:46 AM:
Photons, yes. Using a quantum detector. As I told Snape:
“It’s fine if what you want to do is look at the action of individual photons or at specific parts of the EM spectrum itself. If, however, you’re specifically looking for thermal effects, then this approach will get you nowhere.”
David Appell says, June 22, 2017 at 9:48 AM:
What do YOU think!? By transferring HEAT [Q_in(SW)] to it … Difficult?
Kristian
I tend to agree with Barry. You guys are all obviously sharp and understand the various phenomenon, but you disagree about the proper language.
If a person believes a property of heat is that it only moves from warmer to colder, then it follows:
The sun heats earth’s surface, earth’s surface heats the atmosphere, the atmosphere heats space.
This doesn’t mean, however, that a colder object can’t raise the temperature of a warmer object, as demonstrated downthread in Norman’s “ice wall” example. (The ice wall, assuming the above definition of heat, is being heated by the 25 C wall).
Kristian
YOU: “Its all pretty straightforward once you get the relevant physical concepts behind, and the points I make are in fact fairly (theres always something, isnt there?) uncontroversial among people who have bothered to acquire the fundamental understanding.
Norman is clearly NOT one of these, and I see hes already busy downthread trying to keep up his (and your) confusion on this subject.”
Really? If they are fundamental understanding then what is your source for them. I think I have asked you many times and you will not provide any source of validation for your unfounded opinions but your own blog.
Instrumentation easily proves your conjecture and understanding incorrect. Physics disproves it as well. The molecules that are at energy levels able to emit will not be the molecules that will be absorbing energy or photons, it will be other molecules.
You have no fundamental understanding of bosons. Have two cars made of bosons. They are moving toward each other. When they reach the point of intersection they move on through with no effect on each other, their energy is distinct and unique and will only become thermalized upon contact with matter.
So prove your point, I have taken your own textbook links and showed you how your ideas are wrong. You just ignore them and move on. Why do you do this? If you are so correct why do you have such difficulty demonstrating it or finding a valid source to agree with your ideas?
Norman
It’s my understanding that although the atmosphere raises the temperature of Earth’s surface, the earth’s surface, being warmer, heats the atmosphere.
Are you ok with this?
Kristian, you specifically wrote that “a photon will not” change the temperature of an object.
But that’s exactly what sunlight does to the Earth.
Kristian says:
“It [the Earths surface] receives (essentially) ALL its heat IN [Q_in] from the Sun and transfers ALL its heat OUT [Q_out] to the atmosphere and space.
“Do you know what heat is? Q? Do you know about the 2nd Law?”
Nothing about any of this violates the second law. Of course. Because the Earth+atmosphere is not an adiabatic system.
“Its fine if what you want to do is look at the action of individual photons or at specific parts of the EM spectrum itself. If, however, youre specifically looking for thermal effects, then this approach will get you nowhere.”
Telescopes used to record collimated light on film. Now they use CCDs. Both methods work.
What you call “thermal effects” can also be described in terms of radiation and its quanta. They’re just different ways of looking at the same picture.
>> So (again) how does sunlight heat the Earth?
“What do YOU think!? By transferring HEAT [Q_in(SW)] to it Difficult?”
But just above you claimed that photons can’t do that:
“In thermodynamics, Q (heat) and W (work) are the ONLY kinds of energy transfers that will change a systems U (internal energy) and thus its T (temperature). A photon will not.”
Snape says, June 22, 2017 at 7:37 PM:
I’m sorry, but Norman does NOT “understand the various phenomenon”, Snape. He’s a toddler that just really, really wants to play with the bigger kids in the sandpit. He’s clearly not taken the time to actually learn and assimilate the fundamentals of the physical sciences, and so he comes off simply as a tedious dilettante that constantly scratches the surface without actually understanding what he’s scratching the surface of, rather just skimming through various textbooks in a frantic search for something that somehow seems consistent with his belief system.
No, we do NOT just disagree about the “proper language”. We disagree about the MECHANISM behind the thermal effect of insulation. You asked me about this very issue also on a previous thread, Snape. And here’s my reply:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247538
“Snape says, May 20, 2017 at 6:42 AM:
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.
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. [And the surface wouldn’t cool at night.] It’s not. [And it does.]
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.”
Once again: Whenever you thermally ADD energy to an object and this addition of energy directly makes the temperature of that object go up from t_i to t_f, then the energy you have added is defined thermodynamically as HEAT, Q. You have HEATED the object. This is the opposite of insulation.
Norman claims you can add energy from somewhere cold to a hot object and as a direct result of this addition, the temperature of that object goes up. Which means he is inadvertently trying to EXPLAIN the hot object’s rise in temperature through the mechanism of HEATING (a positive heat transfer, +Q). And that is the inescapable truth of the matter, regardless of how Norman might try to wriggle his way out of it …
And HEAT [Q], as we all know, can and does not in nature move from cold to hot. Never! 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
This isn’t just semantics, Snape. This is PHYSICS.
This isn’t something you believe or not. It’s an integral part of how you define HEAT, Q, in physics. But you’re quite right: the Sun heats the Earth’s surface (not the other way around), which in turn heats the atmosphere above (not the other way around). The atmosphere finally emits its heat to space, although saying that therefore it “heats space” is awkward, because the heat transfer will effectively never change the U and T of space. Space is considered an infinite heat sink.
No, the colder object doesn’t raise the temperature of the warmer object. The relatively warm PRESENCE of the colder object forces the temperature of the warmer object to rise. Yes, this is semantics, but it’s important semantics. Remember: Your way of thinking affects your language, but your language also very much affects the way you think …
When a heated object is insulated, the heated object heats the insulating layer around it, thereby raising its temperature beyond that of the outside surroundings. As this happens, the temperature difference or gradient between the heated object and its immediate thermal surroundings is reduced, and so the macroscopic flow of energy out of it (its heat loss, Q_out) is naturally reduced as a result. If the macroscopic flow of energy into the heated object (Q_in), from its heat source, stays the same, this means that the balance between the heated object’s Q_in and Q_out is disrupted, shifted, Q_in > Q_out, a positive imbalance, which means that energy will accumulate inside the object, +U, which will normally lead to a rise in temperature, +T.
THAT’S how insulation works, Snape. It reduces the macroscopic flow of energy OUT OF the insulated object. It doesn’t increase the macroscopic flow of energy INTO the insulated object. That would be HEATING, the opposite effect. That’s what the Sun does, not the atmosphere. Why? Because the Sun is hotter than the Earth’s surface, while the atmosphere is cooler.
Kristian
Let me first say that my basic understanding of insulation has become pretty good. It’s something I enjoy thinking about, so you don’t need to explain it to me.
Anyway, I still think all parties understand perfectly well what is going on, but maybe use incorrect wording from a “macro” perspective.
Actually, the correct semantics would often be quite silly. Here’s some examples:
You wrote, “The surface ONLY cools (loses energy) from its particular thermal exchange with the atmosphere.”
From this, a person ONLY cools when wearing a coat.
I would argue a person does, infact, get warmer after putting on a coat. You would then say, “no, the PRESENCE
of the coat makes the person get warmer.
So we have:
1. A coat only cools a person
2. The presence of a coat warms a person (but the coat does not).
Kristian
BTW, I understand that after putting on a coat, a person is simply loses heat at a slower rate than previously, but if it had been cold outside, and the person was shivering, the person’s body temperature would indeed increase after putting on the coat.
So this is where semantics are a problem. It would be nonsensical to say the coat is cooling the person, while at the same moment the person is actually getting warmer. You could explain that the coat is just cooling the person at a slower rate than initially, but this doesn’t help with the assbackwards wording.
Kristian
This is the same semantics problem that presents itself when describing the GHE.
David Appell says, June 22, 2017 at 8:07 PM:
So “sunlight” to you is “a photon” …
David Appell says, June 22, 2017 at 8:22 PM:
Hehe. The Earth’s surface getting two thirds of its heat from the cooler atmosphere would indeed violate the 2nd Law. It would be the most blatant violation ever.
Nope. You’re not getting it. Micro vs. macro. Quantum vs. thermo.
Er, no. I said “a photon” can’t do that. The solar heat to Earth is not “a photon”.
Once again: Micro vs. macro. Quantum vs. thermo.
Snape says, June 23, 2017 at 2:45 PM:
Well, if you still walk around thinking that insulation actually warms the insulated object, then a more thorough explanation is needed, I fear.
No. Insulation is – by its very nature – a macroscopic (thermodynamic) phenomenon only, and so trying to explain it through a model description of distinctly quantum mechanical phenomena will not work; in fact, it will eventually lead you down a path to utter confusion regarding cause and effect, because you will then trick yourself into thinking that the insulating layer actually does warm the insulated object directly by adding energy to it, which would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A circumstance that alone should wake you up to the realisation that it doesn’t really.
Norman still can’t wrap his head around this crucial distinction between MICRO (quantum) and MACRO (thermo). And neither can you, it appears.
I have described this to you before in detail. It seems you didn’t read it. It’s a bit vexing having to cover the very same ground on this over and over again.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247505
See, already here you’ve lost the thread. You need to be more of an attentive reader, Snape, if you want to actually understand these things. It’s not hard, but you NEED to pay attention!
The surface cools at night. Its temperature drops. At night there is no heat source, no Sun. So there is only the thermal exchange between the surface and the atmosphere left. And what happens? “The surface ONLY cools (loses energy) from its particular thermal exchange with the atmosphere.”
When you put on a coat, why do you think your skin become warmer? Hint: Would the skin of a corpse become warmer also?
You’re mentally mixing the two simultaneous heat transers (heat IN & heat OUT) into one, which is what gets you confused (as to cause and effect):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/heat-engine.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/net-sw-net-lw.png
Again you need to pay attention to what I write. A living person will get warmer (if he’s out in the cold) when putting on a coat. But it’s not the coat itself doing the warming. It doesn’t ADD any energy to the person. Because it’s not a second heat source to the person. By “the presence of the coat” I could just as well have said “the temperature of the coat”. Didn’t I just explain this to you!?
“When a heated object is insulated, the heated object heats the insulating layer around it, thereby raising its temperature beyond that of the outside surroundings. As this happens, the temperature difference or gradient between the heated object and its immediate thermal surroundings is reduced, and so the macroscopic flow of energy out of it (its heat loss, Q_out) is naturally reduced as a result. If the macroscopic flow of energy into the heated object (Q_in), from its heat source, stays the same, this means that the balance between the heated objects Q_in and Q_out is disrupted, shifted, Q_in > Q_out, a positive imbalance, which means that energy will accumulate inside the object, +U, which will normally lead to a rise in temperature, +T.”
Snape says, June 23, 2017 at 5:29 PM:
Indeed. That’s exactly what I’m saying! (But it’s not the coat itself doing the warming.)
Sure. But here you have BOTH heat transfers present, not just the one, remember? Your constant internal conversion of chemical energy into kinetic energy is what’s responsible for your body temperature. This process basically provides you with heat (your Q_in). However, at the same time, you constantly LOSE energy to your surroundings (your Q_out), assuming they’re cooler than you. The colder your surroundings, the faster you lose energy. So you’re trying to strike and maintain a balance between your heat IN and your heat OUT.
Insulation (the coat) ONLY ever affects the heat OUT part, your energy LOSS, Snape. It does NOT provide an extra INPUT of energy to your system. You need to get that worm out of your head.
Take away the heat source (your internal generation of kinetic energy; the Sun) and the central object (your body/skin; Earth’s surface) ONLY COOLS, its temperature ONLY goes down, EVEN when insulated (by a coat; by the atmosphere).
Insulation simply SLOWS DOWN your cooling process. IOW, it reduces your rate of heat loss at any given surface (skin) temperature. And it does so by being warmer than the outside surroundings (after being heated by you). Smaller temperature difference/gradient. And – significantly – by physically suppressing convective/evaporative losses.
Then say it like this: The coat has reduced the rate of heat loss from your skin (at equal skin temperature).
Snape says, June 23, 2017 at 6:15 PM:
There is no semantics problem. The ‘problem’ is only that people want so badly to explain the “GHE” by saying that the atmosphere WARMS the surface some more (ADDS extra energy to it). It doesn’t. It simply cools it less. Than space would. The Sun is what warms (heats) it.
The atmosphere simply reduces the rate of heat loss from the surface at any given temperature.
Kristian says, June 24, 2017 at 3:22 AM:
And
Or, I should say: “You putting on a coat (the ‘presence’ of the coat) will reduce the rate of heat loss from your skin (at equal skin temperature.” And “The thermal presence of the atmosphere directly on top of the solar-heated surface will reduce the rate of heat loss from the surface at any given temperature.”
Semantics, semantics.
The latest data show the 30-day average SOI is about -4.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.6.19.2017.gif
The weaker magnetic field over North America and high galactic radiation guarantee high rainfall.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/cutoff.gif
GENEVA
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reports the planet Earth is experiencing another exceptionally warm year with record-breaking temperatures occurring in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the United States.
https://www.voanews.com/a/world-temperatures/3908281.html
Warm weather is not evidence that humans are changing the weather. You are not influencing anyone outside the choir with this silliness.
Silliness?
I will remember that when next you refer to any (rare) cold events.
p.s. What are the chances for a record warm year this year?
Go on – tell me what you really think.
Zero chance?
100 to 1?
10 to 1?
even money ?
less than even money?
Who cares? What would it prove?
As I thought.
Cowardice in the face of having to quantify your certainties.
You know you are losing – but are too afraid to commit to a true test.
I will ask you again, what do you think the chances are that this year will be a new record warm year?
In the absence of a number, I will assume you think it is zero.
That would confirm some degree of stupidity.
dr No,
Define “record warm year”.
Would this be like the breathless Gavin Schmidt “Hottest year EVAH!”, with his probability of 38%?
Let’s assume any probability of >37% is satisfactory. What odds are you prepared to offer? Who decides the probability? Me? You? Gavin Schmidt?
You’re talking nonsense. No “gotcha” for you today. Try again tomorrow>
Foolish Warmist. Still no GHE!
Cheers.
dr No says @ June 20, 2017 at 9:37 PM
Don’t kid yourself. Whatever it is that goes on in that melon atop your shoulders, it isn’t thinking. You’re not even engaging in the actual debate. You’re just trying to score emotional points, playing on fear. Grandstanding. It’s piffle.
Academic Corruption; How Immigration and Climate Change are Related
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/academic-corruption-how-immigration-and-climate-change-are-related/
g*e*r*a*n
Here is a post by Kristian (from his blog) that shows the true nature of your leader. You employ his tactics, you are an obedient disciple of his. We are slowly trying to deprogram you. Your opposition is understandable. If you read this article it may slowly help turn the tide.
Postma is an extremely rude and unpleasant person and he is not very rational but he does have a small following that adhere to his anti-science views and employ his caustic tactics against anyone who dares question his beliefs.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/postmas-confusion/#more-1469
Norm, why are you so infatuated with Joseph?
g*e*r*a*n
I really do not care for this creep. I wanted to discover the true source for your irrational thought process. I know it was not textbooks because I have been reading many different ones to find the real science behind heat exchange.
You exactly mimic his thought process and ideas. In order for me to understand your fake physics I had to find the source of it and Postma is the source.
Well, as with many other areas, you’re wrong, again!
But, some people believe consistency is good.
Hang in there.
g*e*r*a*n
If Mighty Joe Postma is not the source of your fake and incorrect physics, where did it come from. It is not in any textbook on heat transfer I have read.
The concepts you bring up in your posts are identical to Postma including the word choice “pseudoscience”.
You are not a climate science, perhaps and engineer if you were involved in design of power plants. You would have had to get information of climate science from somewhere. It is not from any textbook on the subject. All lines point to Postma as your source of information. That would also explain why you never validate your claims with actual textbook science, you are embarrassed to direct people to Joe’s blog because then they would know your fake physics.
At this time I strongly suspect I am right, you claim I am wrong, then prove it with a link to a source for your physics. At least Mike Flynn does give a link to his sources. You have never done so in all the posts I have read from you.
Norm, perhaps what is confusing you is the science of physics. You don’t understand science, especially physics. That’s why you “believe” folks that espouse physics are wrong. Earth’s CORRECT energy budget is based on physics, NOT pseudoscience. You cannot tell the difference. You believe that pounding on your keyboard, and making up false innuendos about others, makes you appear “scientific”.
But don’t stop, I enjoy your continuing comedy.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, perhaps what is confusing you is the science of physics. You don’t understand science, especially physics. That’s why you “believe” folks that espouse physics are wrong.”
I have linked you to different textbooks along the way and gave you specific Chapters and page numbers to look at and point out what you felt I did not understand. You had no response to this request.
You peddle in fake science. You puff up and declare it but never validate it.
Norm, that is not a rant up to your usual standards. Are you feeling well? You can usually ramble on endlessly, non-stop. I hope all is well.
Here’s something that would be fun: Give me an example of what you believe is “fake science”, from me.
Watching you try to disprove established physics–now that would really be hilarious!
g*e*r*a*n
A statement from your leader.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/03/08/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-11-quantum-mechanics-the-sheer-stupidity-of-ghe-science-on-wuwt/
“But wait a minute, the planet was intrinsically radiating 235 W/m2 at the start; if this was striking the shell, then his conservation of energy and equilibrium condition should have been that the shell emits half of this outward and half inward, i.e. 117.5 W/m2 either direction. However, what he actually did was just say that the shell emits twice as much energy as it receives, i.e. a full 235 W/m2 either way, so that the interior shell now has double the energy output. So, Willis just arbitrarily doubled the amount of energy available, so that he could add half of it back to the original 235 W/m2 in order to double it. Just arbitrarily doubled out of nowhere. Just made up bullshit.
And then what is strange, is that Willis stops this energy doubling process for no reason! If at the beginning, a 235 W/m2 output comes back to double itself to 470 W/m2, increasing its own temperature, then why doesnt the 470 W/m2 output double again from itself coming back to increase itself yet again?”
In his first case of 117.5 radiating in both ways, what happens to the IR reaching the heated inner sphere?
Now the inner sphere is generating 235 W/m^2 and also receiving 117.5 W/m^2. Unless he violates the 1st law of thermodynamics the energy must go somewhere. So now the inner sphere is receiving 352.5 W/m^2. The surface has to increase in temperature until it is emitting 352.5 W/m^2 (1st Law physics).
It is really simple to see why Postma is a moron. He wonders why the outer sphere stops increasing when it reaches 235 W/m^2 emission.
So just go beyond the 235 outer shell emission in both directions. Try 300 W/m^2 from both directions.
Now you have 300 W/m^2 reaching the surface of the inner sphere plus the 235 W/m^2 supplied by an internal source. That means the inner surface will raise in temperature until it is emitting 535 W/m^2. Now that really does not work to establish equilibrium does it? You are only sending 525 W/m^2 to the outer shell but it is emitting 600 W/m^2 (300 W/m^2 in each direction).
That is why the inner sphere will warm until it is emitting 470 W/m^2 and will not continue past that point. It is very easy math to understand. Your leader is incapable of simple math but that is okay with you. You think him a great physicist.
Do the simple math yourself. The inner sphere is emitting 470 W/m^2. The outer shell is receiving 470 W/m^2. It is emitting 235 W/m^2 out and away and 235 W/m^2 back to the sphere.
It is the only logical equilibrium state for the conditions described. The inner sphere produces 235 W/m^2, it receives 235 W/m^2 from the outer sphere. It will raise in temperature until it emits 470 W/m^2 and the outer shell will emit a total of 470 W/m^2 (235 W/m^2 back to sphere and 235 W/m^2 out to space) 1st Law balance of energy in minus energy out.
Norman,
If you can’t even define the GHE, waffling on about everything else under the Sun won’t magically bring it into existence.
No GHE. None. Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface, and the Sun, will not make the thermometer hotter.
Or is the GHE supposed to do something else? Maybe you could tell us where the GHE may be observed, how it may be reproduced, and what measurable results occur due to the operation of this effect?
I suppose not. Ah well, back to poorly composed “thoughtless experiments”. Just more deny, divert, and confuse. Anything to avoid addressing the cargo cult scientism masquerading as climatology, I suppose.
Cheers.
Mike,
Here’s a good GHE analogy (with two small corrections):
“For fun, replacing CO2 with a thin piece of wood results in even greater opacity. Nobody seriously proposes wood as having
temperature raising properties (unless you burn it, I suppose).
So where does the blocked radiation go? It heats the wood, of
course, which proceeds to radiate at a lesser intensity in all
directions. Just as CO2, or anything else.”
1) I have seen open water under wooden bridges when there is ice elsewhere, so ‘nobody’ should be ‘somebody’.
2) Radiation goes up with temperature, so ‘lesser’ should be ‘higher’, obviously.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251146
Svante,
Foolish Warmists love an inappropriate and irrelevant analogy. Do you believe that my statement is somehow an analogy for the non existent GHE?
Maybe you could actually state what the GHE is supposed to be, rather than any number of irrelevant analogies. Or maybe not. The task of actually discussing the properties of the supposed GHE seems beyond the ability of any foolish Warmist to date. Wouldn’t you agree?
Moving along, I assume you are disagreeing with what I wrote, but with what part is unclear. What have wooden bridges to with with anything I wrote? Are you trying to claim that wood has magical temperature raising abilities?
Further, I assume you don’t know the difference between radiative intensity and wavelength, nor the relationship between temperature, energy and heat, otherwise you wouldn’t have been so eager to demonstrate your foolishness by assuming you could “correct”me!
What a Wayward Warmist Wally! Still no GHE. None.
Maybe you could continue to argue with yourself, about things I didn’t write. You’re less likely to lose, I would hope.
Cheers.
You said wood was like CO2.
Why do I see open water under a bridge?
Svante,
Maybe you could actually quote me, instead of making up your own words to put in my mouth.
Where did I say wood was more like CO2 than anything else? In one of your fantasies?
I’ve seen open water under many bridges. Have I ever indicated otherwise? You may enjoy arguing with yourself, but I’m not sure what it has to do with me.
Why not have a go at providing a useful scientific description of the GHE? Or you could try disagreeing with something I said, and provide facts in support of your disagreement.
Have you a particular reason for refusing to quote me, before expressing your criticism? I assume you’re criticising me, but it’s not at all clear why.
If you’re actually trying for a “gotcha”, instead, it’s possible you need a little more practice.
Cheers.
OK, here it is again (your quote is within the double quotes):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252183
– You say wood is like CO2.
– The bridge does not stop convection.
– It keeps the water ice free even if it’s covered by snow,
so it’s not conduction (day after day).
– Can it be back radiation?
I would suggest back radiation.
Or, an insulator effect.
Anyway, I enjoy reading a bit you youse guys arguments. Mike, of course, is always dependable in his holier than thou rants. Reminds me of DA a bit in some ways.
Does anyone know if they’re related.
(you’re welcome Mike)
Norm, you appear to be foaming at the mouth again. Is it because you got caught providing irrelevant links again?
Tsk, Tsk. When you get caught, the only one to blame is yourself.
I quoted you three messages up.
Svante,
Good for you. I suppose you could always do it again, if you thought you could spare a little of your valuable time. Or not, as you wish.
You could even indicate if there is something you disagree with, and why. Or not, of course.
It won’t make any difference. There’s still no GHE. You can’t even say what the GHE is, can you?
Keep at it.
Cheers.
OK, here it is again (your quote is within the double quotes):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252183
You say wood is like CO2.
The bridge does not stop convection.
It keeps the water ice free even if its covered by snow,
so its not conduction (day after day).
Can it be back radiation?
Svante,
Foolish Warmists post links, in an endeavour to make others waste time. If you cannot be bothered to quote me directly, I can’t be bothered to respond to your stupid “gotcha”.
You’re dreaming, obviously. Arguing with yourself, and apparently unable to answer your own foolish question.
What are you rambling about? Bridges, snow, convection, mythical “back radiation” – are you addicted to obfuscation, or just unable to accept fact?
If you disagree with something I have said, maybe you could quote me directly. If you don’t know how, I’m sure some other foolish Warmist knows how to do that, at least!
Cheers.
Mike, put your hands over your ears and keep shouting
NO GHE! NO GHE! NO GHE!
That is the level of debate for a 3-year-old.
dr No,
I presume you disagree with something I wrote.
If you do, maybe you could provide some facts to support your disagreement. If you claim you can describe this mythical GHE in scientific terms, it should be easy enough to confirm its existence.
If you can’t even describe it, claiming that it exists is a bit of a stretch, even for a foolish Warmist, wouldn’t you say?
Obviously, no GHE. Certainly nothing to do with greenhouses, and of no reproducible effect whatsoever. What is this GHE supposed to do? Where and how may it be observed?
Or you can just keep claiming that fantasy is fact, and hope nobody notices that you can’t even say what the GHE is – in any useful sense.
Have you tried having a tantrum? That might convince someone!
Cheers.
Evidence for the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Davie, how many times have you tried to claim that link is “evidence” of the GHE? The link merely shows the IR spectrum at TOA. For CO2, the wavelength is about 14.7 microns. Is that somehow surprising to you?
Now, your next step is to “prove” that the small portion of 14.7 micron photons that are re-emitted to the surface can actually warm anything.
It appears you left out a HUGE step! But, that’s what you have to do in pseudoscience.
You can lead a horse/baboon to water but you can’t make it drink.
Sorry about the link Mike, I’ll try again without it.
You have been asking what the GHE is, but you nailed it yourself when you said:
“For fun, replacing CO2 with a thin piece of wood results in even greater opacity. Nobody seriously proposes wood as having temperature raising properties (unless you burn it, I suppose). So where does the blocked radiation go? It heats the wood, of course, which proceeds to radiate at a lesser intensity in all directions. Just as CO2, or anything else.”
1) ‘Lesser’ should obviously be ‘higher’ because higher temperature means higher radiation, right?
2) ‘Nobody’ should be ‘Anybody that is familiar with ice and wooden bridges’.
There is often open water under bridges when there is ice everywhere else.
So what keeps the temperature above freezing?
– A bridge does not stop convection.
– Air is not good at conduction.
– The bridge can have snow on top, so nothing from above.
What can it be except back radiation?
So you described the GHE very well when you replaced “CO2 with a thin piece of wood”.
Cheerio!
Svante,
In relations to your observations, you’re wrong on both counts.
Higher temperature does not mean “higher” radiation – unless you’re a foolish Warmist or a climatologist.
Nobody means nobody – apart from foolish Warmists of climatologists who are unable to comprehend normal English usage.
As to the rest, you appear to be asking a series of particularly pointless, irrelevant, and stupid “gotchas”. Ice, bridges, wood, snow, “back radiation”?
You don’t seem to be capable of factually contradicting anything I wrote, so you’ve flown off at the usual foolish Warmist tangent. Thanks for your interest, but your ts tics of deny, divert, and confuse, still don’t help you to accurately describe the GHE, do they?
Still no GHE. You can’t even describe it – probably because it doesn’t exist!
Cheers.
Now I understand, Stefan-Boltzman got it wrong, radiation does not go up with temperature.
Svante,
No , of course you’re incorrect. I assume your command of English or science is defective.
You wrote –
“Now I understand, Stefan-Boltzman got it wrong, radiation does not go up with temperature.”
Your phrase “radiation does not go up” is meaningless. In the same manner, your previous statement ‘because higher temperature means higher radiation, right?” is meaningless.
Maybe you misunderstand the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I’d offer to explain how you should express what I think you are trying to say, but I don’t want to impose. Stefan-Boltzmann got it right. You got it wrong, by misunderstanding them.
Rather than aiming for silly “gotchas” based on your lack of knowledge, you might care to improve your scientific communication skills. You’ll probably need to understand a bit more science first. I wish you well.
Cheers.
Not at all please explain!
You say: “Higher temperature does not mean higher radiation”.
Stefan-Boltzman: j* = sigma*T^4
Currently there is very low geomagnetic activity.
“During storms, the currents in the ionosphere, as well as the energetic particles that precipitate into the ionosphere add energy in the form of heat that can increase the density and distribution of density in the upper atmosphere, causing extra drag on satellites in low-earth orbit. The local heating also creates strong horizontal variations in the in the ionospheric density that can modify the path of radio signals and create errors in the positioning information provided by GPS. While the storms create beautiful aurora, they also can disrupt navigation systems such as the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and create harmful geomagnetic induced currents (GICs) in the power grid and pipelines.”
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/geomagnetic-storms
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/impacts/electric-power-transmission
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/goes-magnetometer.gif
Meanwhile,
Dramatic temperatures of nearly 120F (nearly 49C) hit Arizona, Nevada and California amid one of the highest heatwaves recorded in the region. Temperatures are causing problems for workers, air transportation and power grids. Authorities have cautioned that the heat poses a life-threatening risk to the elderly, the sick, the homeless and migrants crossing the Sonoran desert into the US. New research shows climate change has escalated the risk of heatwaves around the world
https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2017/jun/20/south-west-us-heatwave-in-pictures
dr No,
I believe it’s called weather. Climate is the average of weather. Climatologists apparently spend millions of dollars examining and reexamining this average.
I just thought you’d like to know.
Cheers.
Just what the frog in the beaker of warming water said:”It’s only weather”.
Frogs can talk?
So can baboons, apparently.
I know it’s tough being an Alarmist. Maybe this will help cool you down:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/kluane-chilkat-bike-relay-canceleld-1.4165844
Thanks for the link.
One of the comments I read there there notes:
“Arctic Sea Ice extent is at or near the lowest levels in the many decades of satellite monitoring, as expected due to global warming which is expected the expected result of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere which is undeniably due to human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels.”
Very perspicacious.
“Thanks for the link.”
You’re welcome. Glad to help.
“Very perspicacious.”
That’s the nicest thing anyone has said about me today. Thanks!
Now, as to the comment you found. How do you know it is true? How do you know that the comment wasn’t planted by some oil company? Alarmists told us long ago that the Arctic would be melted by now. So, is there any doubt?–ALL the sea ice is gone! There are no polar bears left. When you see a polar bear, it is just some fake imagery, or possibly a robot, financed by “Big Oil”.
It’s all over. No more sea ice, no more polar bears, sea levels are expected to rise 2000 feet by tomorrow. If you move to a mountain top, there will be no oxygen. All of the O2 is now CO2!
Sleep well.
My goodness.
I never thought a perceived compliment could unleash such a torrent of gobledy-gook!
It has obviously triggered some neurons (assuming you have any).
Just trying to insert some reality into your beliefs.
Maybe I partially succeeded….
dr No,
What part of what I said are you disagreeing with?
None?
That would no doubt explain why you’ve been reduced to rambling about frogs and beakers! At least it’s a change from steel spheres, overcoats, pipes and all the rest.
Maybe, one day, you might be able to clearly state what the mysterious and invisible GHE is supposed to do, where it may be observed, and the all the other scientific niceties that distinguish real science from climatology.
Or you could just continue to try to deny, divert, and confuse.
Still no GHE, is there?
Cheers.
Mike,
calm down. The men in white coats will soon be there with your sedatives.
Of course you are right.
Everybody else is wrong.
Your lone mission to reveal the conspiracy will some day be recognised.
The climate will right itself and everything will be back to normal, just as it was when you were a child.
dr No,
You wrote –
“Of course you are right.
Everybody else is wrong.”
Thank you for expressing the truth so forthrightly, albeit a little clumsily.
The only people who are wrong are people who cannot produce facts to support their disagreement with what I write. That seems to include foolish Warmists, and people who stridently proclaim their belief in the non-existent.
I’m not sure whether you deserve any particular credit for stating a fact, but if you think you have achieved a miracle, feel free to congratulate yourself all over the place!
Cheers.
Strong temperature drop in McMurdo, Antarctica.
https://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=-77.84999847,166.80000305&sp=ISCOTTBA1&MR=1
Yeah, air transportation problems are unprecedented as they never happened a hundred years ago.
Now that we know you read the Guardian at least the pics are fine. Other than the guy with the Batman costume all others were being well looked after.
I noticed a sign with an extreme heat warning Danger sign – seems permanent.
So what exactly is your point on your summer solstice day?
BTW if you don’t like the weather where you are REN just posted a T drop at McMurdo; just drop in for a beer make yourself comfy.
“So what exactly is your point on your summer solstice day?”
I am on the red team
“BTW if you dont like the weather where you are REN just posted a T drop at McMurdo; just drop in for a beer make yourself comfy.”
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel referring to REN. That post refers to a 10-day forecast – yes, a forecast! – and is, as always, completely irrelevant.
Ball4,
“RW 9:13am, Im curious what specific aspect of enhanced surface warming you imply really isnt demonstrated by Dr. Spencers experiment(s).”
I’m not sure what Dr. Roy actually thinks, but of course all absorbed radiation on a surface (any surface) acts to warm that surface, whether there is GHE acting on a particular surface or not. The total absorbed DLR at the surface is not the underlying physics of the GHE that leads to enhanced surface warming, but is more a required after effect of the underlying mechanism of the GHE, such that balance can be achieved at the TOA.
This is an important distinction that Roy doesn’t seem to make. Or at least doesn’t clearly make in his experiments and write ups on the GHE.
As Dr. Spencer wrote & implied back then, it doesn’t matter what prose you write RW, what important distinction you make, doesn’t matter what you call the effect, the fact is the added IR when the cirrus clouds showed up overnight enhanced the existing GHE as the surface water temperature in cirrus view increased by digital thermometer reading over the surface water not in cirrus view.
I’m not disputing that.
Ball4,
Unless you can actually describe the GHE in such a way that it can be reproduced and critically examined, it must be assumed that it is imaginary – possibly a persuasive figment of a delusional fantasy.
Maybe you might care to describe the imaginary GHE, rather than trying to wish it into existence.
What do you think?
Cheers.
I think, and observe as the internet never forgets, Mike Flynn 4:44pm has actually described the GHE in such a way that it can be reproduced and critically examined, it must be assumed then it is not imaginary not possibly a persuasive figment of a delusional fantasy.
In fact many, including Dr. Spencer, have done quite a few confirming experiments supporting Mike Flynn’s descriptions of the GHE. I also think Mike is in a class by himself, a single first class mind who currently identifies as a climatologist.
” I also think Mike is in a class by himself, a single first class mind who currently identifies as a climatologist.”
I think that should read:
“Mike sits in the class by himself.
He has the smallest mind in the class.
He imagines he knows something.”
dr No,
If, as you say, I’m in a class of my own, I’m also the most brilliant in the class.
I can well understand why you would be in awe of my intellectual prowess.
Thank you for pointing out my superiority to the average foolish Warmist. I’m far too humble to claim that non-belief in the non-existent requires any special mental ability not possessed by any normal rational person.
On the other hand, in an assemblage of self styled climatologists, at least half are dumber than the average. Where do you think Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann would rank? Amongst the top half, or the bottom half?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
Ball4,
You can’t actually quote me saying that I believe in the GHE can you? Not unsurprising, because it’s obvious to even a severely retarded wombat, let alone myself, that the GHE doesn’t exist!
Maybe you could find a scientific description of the GHE? Or maybe not?
There are better descriptions of unicorns than the GHE, and it’s generally accepted that unicorns don’t exist.
If the best thing foolish Warmists can come up with is the non-existent GHE description from an unbeliever, climatology is in dire straits indeed!
Cheers.
“Maybe you could find a scientific description of the GHE?”
Sure, Mike Flynn has already found several scientific descriptions of the GHE in his own climatologist comments. All well based on confirming experiments thus Earth GHE is in a good situation with no need to fix, not in dire straits at all according to Flynn.
Ball4,
Your description of the GHE seems to be along the lines of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. It’s asupposed to be well known fact, but nobody can actually show that it exists.
If the GHE can’t be scientifically described, then talking about experiments supposedly supporting it, is just complete delusional. Keep it up. Maybe you can wish it into existence. It might help if you can describe what it’s supposed to do to yourself, at least – to focus your mental powers.
Even Mann, Santer et al are apparently having second thoughts. I’m sure they would value your support – maybe you could convince them not to weaken, although it might be a bit late.
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn has scientifically and repeatedly described the GHE well enough for confirming experiments, no need for me to do so.
Dr. Spencer has run experiments supporting the GHE as described by Flynn. Perhaps Flynn could wish the GHE out of existence if he could focus his first-class mental powers, but like the guy that said he bent the key, Flynn’s mental wish for nonexistent GHE will not be proven to hold up under close inspection.
Foolish politician.
Experiment!
RW
Maybe you could explain to us, and Dr. Spencer, what is “the underlying physics of the GHE that leads to enhanced surface warming.”
The underlying mechanism is surface IR absorbed by the atmosphere that’s re-radiated back downwards towards (and not necessarily back to) the surface. Most of the IR absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface that’s re-radiated back downwards doesn’t pass all the way back to the surface, but is instead just re-absorbed a lower point somewhere (and doesn’t travel very far before being re-absorbed).
It gets confusing (and Roy doesn’t clarify) because there are multiple energy inputs to the atmosphere besides just the upwelling IR emitted from the surface which is absorbed by the atmosphere — all of which contribute to the downward IR push and to the total of DLR at the surface. There is post albedo solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere and re-emitted downward towards and to the surface, and there is also significant non-radiant flux moved from the surface into the atmosphere, primarily as the latent heat of evaporated water, which condenses to forms clouds — whose deposited energy within (in addition to driving weather), also radiates substantial IR downward to the surface. The total amount of IR that is ultimately passed to the surface has contributions from all three input sources, and the contribution from each one cannot be distinguished or quantified in any clear or meaningful way from the other two.
The total of DLR at the surface is not really the underlying physics of the GHE, but is instead a required after effect of the underlying mechanism of the GHE. Moreover, not all of the DLR at the surface (about 300 W/m^2) is actually added to the surface. Much is cancelled by non-radiant flux leaving the surface, but not entering the surface (as non-radiant flux). Thus why massive confusion still persists on all of this that Roy hasn’t been able to clarify (I’m not sure he understands it fully himself, actually).
In short, the GHE is not DLR at the surface that’s absorbed by the surface and warming it, but rather the total of DLR is a required after effect of the mechanism of the GHE, mixed in with all of the other physics, radiant and non-radiant, required to achieve balance at the TOA.
RW 8:21pm, my first impression reading that is you are describing LBL RTM underlying atm. physics. This effort was well established in the mid-1990s and early to mid 2000s, there are many papers showing ability to closely compute the local temperature profiles measured by sounding rockets even through clouds (though a bit tougher).
Reads like you are trying to grasp that process, suggest you find/read some of those if not already done. This method can be applied to iteratively compute Venus T profile and works reasonably well compared to the sparse observations obtained there.
I have no idea what you’re referring to, but virtually certain it’s not what I’m describing.
It never is. Troll Ball4 lives entirely within its own little fantasy bubble.
RW 10:29pm, then browse a couple papers on the subject, your wording means you will find atm. observations and LBL RTM analysis of “the GHE, mixed in with all of the other physics, radiant and non-radiant, required to achieve balance at the TOA.”
RW,
You’ve no doubt noticed that IR radiated by the surface must have the effect of lowering the surface temperature. No matter what proportion of the emitted energy is returned to the surface, it will not result in heating.
Foolish Warmists exist in a delusional state, and confuse sunlight with some miraculous heating property of CO2, apparently!
You’re right – it is confusing. Confusing fantasy with reality, by the look of it.
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
RW
I enjoyed your comment. Most of it made sense to me, but I’m still confused about what your main point is.
RW
I do think that the global energy budgets do take all the effects in to their analysis. They have the radiant side of the energy balance plus evaporation and convection. They ignore conduction as that is a very small effect in insulating air.
The balances do not ignore conduction Norman, atm. air convection has to start with conduction.
Ball4
But the heat transfer via conduction would have to be fairly slow to allow the air in contact with the surface from warming up enough to lose density (expansion) so that convection can take place. If conduction were a rapid heat transfer mechanism in air you would not get a density difference as the air would warm at a uniform rate.
Convection exists when a fluid is warmed from below in a gravity field, any warming is a result of conduction from the surface. The amount of global convection in the balances includes the conduction driving it.
In the stratosphere, for about 9-10km of z, the air becomes warmed from above and convection ~ceases, there is no T gradient, isothermal conditions prevail in standard atm. This ought to be a clue the lapse rate exists when convection exists.
Current extent of sea ice in the south.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00911/bx42m8q1s0dg.png
Sea ice is holding up well in the central Arctic.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00911/wtusiaugkha6.png
Lots of rain in the eastern US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/06/24/1500Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-91.05,47.54,786
I’m not disputing that.
From a recent paper including Santer and Mann as authors.
Title –
Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates
“We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”
One mind conclude, unkindly I suppose, that this could be translated as “Our last lot of very expensive toy computer games weren’t worth a cracker. Now we want lots and lots of money to make a whole lot of revised expensive toy computer games. Trust us. We know what we’re doing!”
Would you really trust people like this to look after your money, or even your pet canary?
Good grief!
Good grief!
I have just realised that I have been complimentary to both Mike Flynn and Anger in my previous posts.
Maybe I am getting old.
Or maybe I am in a good mood celebrating the solstice.
Best wishes to all.
dr No,
Or maybe you’re slowly returning to reality, after being immersed in a delusional climatological fantasy.
In any case, thank you for your compliments. I deserve them.
Enjoy your celebrations!
Cheers.
Thanks, drano!
Kristian
Way up on a long sub-thread, in a reply to Snape, you included me in your discussion (incorrectly I will state).
YOU: “Which goes to show that you simply do not see the profound problem with his statement. Which is sad. And tells me you sorely need to read up on basic thermodynamics. Norman, BTW, is actually saying the very same thing as Appell does, even though he tries his best to cover it up by just insisting the atmospheric contribution in his explanation somehow isnt HEAT. Even though it does directly heat the receiving object! A positive transfer of heat [+Q] after all is just that: a thermal addition of energy to directly raise the temperature of the receiving object.
His problem is that he splits the two hemispheric component fluxes (UWLWIR & DWLWIR) of the actual (thermodynamic) radiative flux (Q_rad, net LW) between the surface and the atmosphere, and treats them as distinct, independent macroscopic fluxes of radiation (W/m^2), putting them on opposite sides of the surface budget, the DWLWIR on the input side and the UWLWIR on the output side. You cant do this.”
Snape if you read Kristian’s response, what he claims I am saying is not correct. He does not validate his theory with any textbook. NO textbook to date agrees with his view. All are stating exactly what I write. That is where I got the material from I am posting. Not sure where Kristian gets his.
There are two distinct energy fluxes. They are not “heat”. Heat is an artificial calculated sum of all energy reaching a surface minus the energy being absorbed by the surface.
If you take an FLIR and point it at a hot object is will give you a temperature based upon the IR the instrument is picking up. You can take a thermometer and measure to see how valid the FLIR is. You can turn it in opposite direction and the hot object IR is not longer able to be detected (screened by instrument from reaching sensing array) but it will pick up IR given off by something heated by the hotter object. You have two real distinct flows of energy on the macroscopic scale that can and are detected by many different instruments.
The energy is not heat. Heat is a sum of energies reaching a surface. The energy of the atmosphere does not directly warm the surface. It adds energy which is not heat. Heat is the calculated value of the energy emitted by the surface minus the energy absorbed by the surroundings. This is what all the textbooks state and Kristian keeps claiming I am wrong. But he can’t prove it or validate his ideas at all and ignores my request he do so.
Norm, rambling in circles is funny, but you forgot to include one of your hilarious irrelevant links.
g*e*r*a*n
So again you are indicating you have zero ability to comprehend what you read and you commented on a point not even addressed to you.
So let met understand you. You read a post that is not to you. You can’t possibly understand the contents (Joe Postma did not answer you email when you sent him the link so it confuses you) and then you comment that I am rambling in circles.
Are you bored today? Maybe you should go mow the lower 40 and do something useful because you taunting posts really are a waste of your time.
I give this a 3-star rating. I liked the run-on sentences, demonstrating your poor ability to communicate. And your continuing infatuation with Joseph is very funny.
But, you forgot to include some of your classic comedy:
—Your irrelevant links are missing
—Your childish attempted insults are missing
—Your insecure mention of “textbooks” (that you clearly don’t understand) is missing.
3 out of 5 stars isn’t terrible, but I know you can do much better.
In the center of the Arctic will be a deep low, which ensures a low temperature over the North Pole.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/06/26/0600Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-339.95,94.84,596
Snape
Here is a way to demonstrate the GHE and show how Kristian, g*e*r*a*n, Mike Flynn, and Gordon Robertson do not understand the concept and go off on their own tangents.
My demonstration is straight from textbook heat transfer books and maybe it will help you.
I may get negative feedback from some but they won’t understand it anyway so their opinions really do not seem to matter.
You have a room in a vacuum state (to eliminate convection or conduction completely…only radiant energy will be analyzed).
One wall is heated to maintain a 25 C temperature with the ice wall up, the amount of energy added does not increase it is a set and constant value. In-between this wall is another wall (that can be pulled up and removed from the view of the other walls) which is filled with ice and maintained at around 0C. On the opposing wall you have a wall with dry ice behind it.
You have IR measuring instruments set up to point to the first heated wall, two more on opposite sides of the middle ice wall both facing it, and a final IR measuring instrument directed at the dry ice wall.
If you observe the IR indications on each instrument you will soon see why Kristian’s view of radiant heat transfer is not correct and why no textbook on the topic will ever describe it as a one-way flux in a radiant energy field.
The one facing the heated wall will give a certain value say 447 W/m^2
Both IR instruments facing the ice wall will give a value of 315 W/m^2
The one pointing to the dry ice wall will give a reading of 80 W/m^2
Now you pull the ice wall up. The instrument pointing to the heated wall still reads 447 W/m^2 but in time the surface will start to cool and you will get a less amount when it reaches an equilibrium temperature facing the dry ice wall.
What is different. The amount of radiation emitted by the heated wall only started to change when the surface temperature decreased.
Move the ice wall back down and the surface will increase in temperature back to 25 C.
The ice wall did not add heat to the heated wall but the temperature went up. It did add energy though which can be seen with the IR instruments.
When you first move the ice wall up the heated surface is radiating the same 447 W/m^2 as it did with the ice wall down. The difference it is only receiving 80 W/m^2 from the dry ice wall. It is now losing NET energy at a faster rate than with the ice wall down and will cool.
With the ice wall down it radiates 447 W/m^2 and receives 315 W/m^2 from the ice wall. With the energy it is heated by (the internal source) it will reach 25 C with the ice wall down. It will cool when the ice wall is up not because it radiates at a higher rate, it is just receiving energy at a lesser rate.
Does that help? I hope it was not confusing for you. I can try again if that does not make sense to you.
Norman
I don’t have time to respond for a while but will get back to you as soon as I can.
Norman
One quick question. The “hot pipe” warms the sleeve (insulation) and in return the sleeve radiates at a higher rate. I assume this is the same when CO2 is the insulater. Does the CO2 molecule reach a higher temperature and thus radiate at a higher rate? The photons themselves have no temperature, rather could be described as units of energy?
Snape
That would be correct. The amount of IR CO2 will emit is based upon its concentration, path-length and temperature. The hotter the CO2 the more IR it will radiate (provided you have enough CO2 to create continuous collisions)
Each photon has a specific quantity of energy (joules). The flux would be the number of photons moving in a direction, in a defined space that cross the plane every second…then you get Watts/m^2, an energy flux.
Thanks, Norman
Norm, you remind me of a con-artist. You’re always trying to sell fake goods. Have you ever worked in telemarketing?
g*e*r*a*n
Then the textbooks on the subject are conning everyone and only your leader, Postma, has the correct understanding.
What textbook information do you possess to prove your declaration that I am trying to sell fake goods? Link me to your valid source and correct what you perceive is my incorrect understanding. You have failed to do this so far. What is holding you back. There seems to be at least 4 good textbooks on heat transfer that you can read online. Find in those textbooks what is “fake” with what I post and then let me know Chapter and page. That would be of much greater value for me and those who read these comments. What you currently post really helps no one.
Norm, I’m so glad you asked me for a sample.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252192
g*e*r*a*n
That is not a textbook. Your ability to comprehend what you read is still lacking it seems.
If you want to know what I used for the numbers. The graph goes from 500 down 250 increment you go between that value. I am not trying to get a super precise emissivity with this chart. Ballpark is good enough for the discussion. Other sources have gone into much greater depth and have the atmosphere emissivity in the 90% range. I can link you the source if you are interested.
I used the partial pressure of CO2, at 0.04% the partial pressure is 0.0004. I used a path length of 1000 meters but it might be more in actual calculations. Emissivity would be around 0.15-0.17 depending upon the value you use for your path length.
That’s another nice circular ramble, Norm. But you still didn’t answer the questions. What did you use for “T”?
(Con men are always so evasive about their “products”. They can’t answer questions in a straightforward manner. Yes, it’s hilarious!)
g*e*r*a*n
I did answer you question you just don’t have very good reading skills.
ME: “The graph goes from 500 down 250 increment you go between that value.”
Do you look at the graph or just ask questions. It is not a precise tool to give extremely precise answers. It will give you ballpark results that give an idea. So you want a T how about 285 K. Will that work for whatever you are trying to figure out?
The reason I keep pressing you is to verify you don’t have a clue about the link you provided. The link is NOT about Earth’s atmosphere. It is talking about hot gases in a controlled environment. There is no “T” below 273.15K!
You found a link that you “believed” supported your pseudoscience, and now that you got caught, you are trying to spin your way out of it!
Norman, you will have to do a test or cite one with actual data for the inquisitive around here. That is why Dr. Spencer resorted to simple atm. testing and still can’t reliably educate some on atm. science.
Also why Universities have say 1 credit hour lab courses along with 3 credit hour lectures in science.
I observe the long ago departed from around here Joe Postma & his advocates Mike Flynn and anger among many others would rather poke fun than do even one simple actual experiment to prove their points. I have never observed Joe do even one simple proper experiment reporting replicable data to discuss around here or anywhere else.
g*r*n*
You remind me of Inspector Clouseau. A character who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else, but is in fact a complete idiot. The main difference? Inspector Clouseau is funny and loveable. You, not so much.
“,,,but is in fact a complete idiot.)
snake, I will wear your junior high school attempted-insult as a badge of honor.
g*r*n*
I’ve noticed you have outstanding writing skills. Even your most idiotic comments are well punctuated!
ANOTHER “badge of honor”!
Thanks, snake.
g*e*r*a*n
Are you confessing that you have no clue about science? It would appear you last post would strongly suggest this as a reality.
What do you think science and experiments are for? You get data under controlled settings so you can get useful information.
The graphs go down to 275 K. The emissivity of a gas will not suddenly drop to zero below this temperature. The charts are only to determine the emissivity of CO2 and water vapor at different temperatures and path lengths. It will give good approximations to the same gases in the atmosphere. The basic properties do not change from Hottel’s experiments to the atmosphere. If you have a path length and gas concentration for one of the lines you can get an emissivity over a wide range of temperatures. The emissivity of the concentration of CO2 in the air will be somewhere between 0.15 and 0.19. The actual amount has already been worked out in other papers.
g*e*r*a*n
Here is a link to the already worked out emissivity of GHG’s in Earth’s atmosphere.
http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
Figure 4 on page 353 shows that the emissivity at the surface pressure is over 90%. So you can plug this value into your stefan-Boltzmann calculator for the air temp and you should see a value very close to the one given by the actual measuring devices of ESRL.
So why does real information that is factually based make me a con-man? Do you have a valid solid science source that in any way can demonstrate I am trying to con other posters? Or is it just more of your declarative statements with no basis in fact or reality?
If you hurry Joe Postma may be able to respond to your email before your bedtime.
Con man Norm challenges: “So what textbook did I get wrong?”
The very one you linked to:
“…and is not strictly true for all circumstances when the temperature of the body and the cavity are different…”
This is great!
You are trying to use the link to hype your pseudoscience. You want so badly to “prove” that CO2, at 1000’s of degrees, is still absorbing photons! You do this by spinning “emissivity” to “absorpitivity” (correct term is “absorbtance”).
Obviously, you have misread your “textbooks” once again!
Please continue.
g*e*r*a*n
Not my spinning. Krichhoff’s Law.
Have a look:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node135.html
So what textbook did I get wrong? You make lots of statements, you back very few up with any validation. Why is that?
What source do you have that would indicate CO2 stops absorbing IR at 1000’s of degrees? If you do not provide valid sources why should anyone believe what you claim? Just because? Is that how your science works?
(The comment appeared at the wrong location. I must have been laughing too hard.)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252438
g*e*r*a*n
Do you get the general idea that good emitters are good at absorbing?
You play dodge ball. What evidence do you bring to the blog that would prove Carbon Dioxide stops absorbing IR at 1000’s of degrees?
So far you have provided none except that you like to laugh. Interesting, but not much evidence to support your beliefs.
It seems you are using a stalling tactic waiting for the Postma email to come through so you might be able to supply some Joseph proof of your assertions. You seem unable to supply evidence on your own.
Norm, you’re so rattled your comment is just hilarious rambling.
g*e*r*a*n
Maybe you should check your email inbox. Could be that Postma finally came through and sent you some information.
Maybe he did, you use his pet word “pseudoscience” quite often.
See?
“You have a room in a vacuum state (to eliminate convection or conduction completelyonly radiant energy will be analyzed).”
Say you standing in the room, you need a spacesuit or pressure
suit.
Spacesuits don’t have heaters, rather they have a cooling system. The Apollo moon suits used a block of ice to cool their suits. And block of ice is very powerful way to cool in a vacuum.
So you going into the vacuum room with a spacesuit [else you die], do need a functional way cool in your spacesuit in this room?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Cooling_and_Ventilation_Garment
Norman
I’m getting pretty familiar with this idea, and yes, it makes sense. The ice wall was colder than the heated wall, and yet it caused the heated wall’s temperature to increase.
I’m still not sure if this will prove anything to Kristian.
Snape
The ice wall only made the heated wall temperature go up based upon some other state or condition. The other condition is the dry ice wall would supply much less IR energy to be absorbed by the heated wall so in the two cases the ice wall will allow the heated wall to reach a higher equilibrium temperature as compared to equilibrium temperature it will reach from the dry ice wall.
Snape
You can read this and you will see where I am getting my thought process from. It is not from Kristian’s blog or Joe Postma blog, it comes from textbook data. All the textbooks I have read so far say the same thing as this example.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
“For body 1, we know that $ E_b$ is the emissive power of a black body, so the energy leaving body 1 is $ E_{b1} A_1$ . The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 is $ E_{b1} A_1 F_{1-2}$ . The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is $ E_{b2} A_2 F_{2-1}$ . The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is
$\displaystyle E_{b1} A_1 F_{1-2} – E_{b2} A_2 F_{2-1} = \dot{Q}_{1-2}.$”
Norm, with no science background, you can be easily fooled by not understanding the “textbooks”. Here, you are convinced that your link verifies your “thought process”. But, you keep fooling yourself.
Hint: Black body.
Norman
Ouch, my head hurts just looking at that! It’s probably very simple to you, but I should confess my only physics class was in 9th grade (I’m sure g*r*n* is snickering right now), and I haven’t had a math class since college, over 30 years ago.
Which is exactly what I’ve been telling Norman all along. The two “hemispheric component fluxes” are always fully integrated into ONE “net energy interchange”. This is part of the fundamental knowledge that Norman lacks, and seemingly refuses to acquire. You can’t split the hemispheric component fluxes apart and put them in two separate (and opposing) heat transfers. They belong together in ONE, they make up ONE between them, completely interdependent:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/net-sw-net-lw.png
The Sun alone heats the surface, not the Sun + the atmosphere. The atmosphere COOLS the surface. Two separate heat transfers, Q_in(SW) and Q_out(LW), which do not mix:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/heat-engine.png
Snape, just ask Kristian for an experiment proving his points, as Norman has been doing unsuccessfully. Once Kristian produces the replicable proper experimental data with a fundamental reason, then his point is made.
Unfortunately for Kristian, there is no such experiment & Dr. Spencer has provided an experiment on the atm. contrary to Kristian’s prose using surface water and thermometers.
Where is the beef Kristian? Show each of your points valid by experiment.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 12:41 PM:
All of Spencer’s experiments prove my point, thank you.
Well another assertion. Without justification. Fill us in how Dr. Spencer’s experiment supports your prose Kristian. This ought to be good after you are on record disagreeing with his experiment.
According to Kristian the black line in the data ought to have not turned down when the cirrus showed up. Why is it that the black line turns down Kristian? Support with your existing prose.
Why is it that the red and gray lines do not overlay? Remember it was done at night time, not a photon of sunlight. Perhaps you could quote directly from Dr. Spencer in support of your prose.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 1:40 PM:
No, sorry, YOU’RE the one continually asserting that Spencer’s experiment somehow disproves what I’m saying. Without justification.
Quote, please.
I’m afraid that’s not according to me, no. Because why would I think that? Hearing a voice reverberating inside your dank little troll cave, troll? Well, it’s not mine. Whose could it be, I wonder …
“Quote please.”
3:13pm: “There are no separate LW fluxes adding…energy at the surface.”
Kristian now disagrees with his own words and agrees with Dr. Spencer’s test in which a separate LW flux from added cirrus was shown adding energy at the surface.
In the test, a separate LW cirrus energy flux adding energy absorbed in the surface water in the form of terrestrial IR from the icy cirrus showing up was additionally absorbed in the warmer surface water in view adding internal U constituent KE as measured by thermometer, over the water not in view.
As shown by the black line trending down and Kristian now writes you agree with Dr. Spencer test result from the added cirrus IR: a higher temperature. Due the added terrestrial atm. energy from the lower T atm. constituents in the warmer water. No 2LOT violation by test.
If Kristian were correct 3:13pm: “There are no separate LW fluxes adding…energy at the surface.”
then the black line would not have started to trend down when the increasing cirrus showed up. The black line trending down with the increasing cirrus proves there was a separate LW flux adding energy at the surface. By test.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 4:13 PM:
No-no. Your assertion was that I disagreed with the EXPERIMENT, not with how Spencer interpreted its results. You do need to read in order to keep up, troll.
Problem is, it SHOWED no such thing. It was INTERPRETED that way. By Spencer. And by you. Big difference.
So the black line did not trend down in your opinion.
Well, ok if that’s what you want to believe so be it. Inspection shows otherwise. You will remain in disagreement with the test, with Dr. Spencer’s interpretation, which is also my interpretation, and with every atm. radiation text book based on experiment I have ever taken the time to dig into. Incoherent photons do not interact as you claim. You really DO need to do experiments.
The black line trending down with the increasing cirrus proves there was a separate LW flux adding energy at the surface. By test.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 5:58 PM:
What? Out doing that troll thing again, troll?
No, it doesn’t. That is not shown by the test. That is one interpretation of the test.
No energy was added to either surface. They both cooled, after all. Less energy simply moved OUT of the shielded one per unit time.
So the test proved me right.
“No energy was added to either surface. They both cooled, after all”
If that were true, no energy was added, the black line would have trended up all night as apparently you insist it must have. This is not true by inspection.
Energy was added to the surface water in view of the increasing cirrus as measured by the thermometer causing the black line trend up to reverse and trend down. No other interpretation is possible. The black line reversed direction, one water did not cool as fast as the other due the added energy from the icy cirrus.
“Less energy simply moved OUT of the shielded one per unit time.”
And what made that happen? The view of the shielded water did not change during the night, the shield blocked its view of the cirrus. There was no cause for shielded water to have any impact on the black line reversal.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 7:16 PM:
No. If no energy was added, then both surfaces would’ve cooled all night. And they did. So no energy was added to either. Q.E.D.
No. The surface still cooled. Thus, no energy was added.
Exactly! Now you’re getting it.
Of course not. That’s just a flawed interpretation on your part. No energy was added. The surface still cooled.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 7:34 PM:
A difference in the gradients of radiative intensity/density through the radiation field/photon cloud.
Proven by Spencer’s test.
Kristian’s prose is not worth reading, just refer to Kristian’s eqn.s down thread for accurate radiative science:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2.
Whenever Kristian writes a comment he should include the accurate eqn.s with whatever numbers apply.
Ball4 says, June 25, 2017 at 11:46 AM:
Whenever you see my “prose”, simply refer back to this equation, and you will see and understand what my “prose” is actually saying. Ball4 here will seemingly be happy to assist at every turn …
Yes your eqn. is correct Kristian, but if you make the reader do the work to write it out of your prose in the future then you will not communicate, all you will get is debate. YOU will need to write out the eqn. to communicate your point as your prose should be avoided.
Ball4 says, June 25, 2017 at 5:03 PM:
Yes, and my “prose” is just saying exactly what the equation is saying. Hence, my “prose” is also correct. Thanks!
g*e*r*a*n
They use a black body to simplify the concept. Other sources use grey bodies which is similar to the black body equation with the added emissivity term.
Not really that hard to understand. The basic concept with a grey body or a black body is the same.
A fraction of the energy emitted by surface 1 is absorbed by surface 2 (based upon the field of view) and a fraction of energy emitted by surface 2 is absorbed by surface 1.
Not really hard to understand. That you cannot convert a black body equation to a grey body (or real world body) by using an emissivity factor would seem to be a personal problem you have.
So what am I fooling myself about. Again you post your assertions but you do not back them up.
Norm, you are on a roll tonight!
Desperate insults, directionless rambling, and occasional pseudoscience thrown in to make for award-winning hilarity.
(Black bodies do not exist in reality. They are used in textbooks for instructional purposes.)
g*e*r*a*n
What are the “Desperate insults” in my post?
g*e*r*a*n
So what is the textbook concept saying? What is the pseudoscience you see in the explanation given?
How many do you want?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252352
Does it make your life easy to keep telling someone they are wrong but never validating your claims. You found a new toy to play with calling people con man did Joseph come up with that toy for you to play with?
Pointless toy. Really does not advance thought or science. A derogatory term meant to belittle someone without validation to justify the belittlement.
I asked this above but you ignored it. I will see if Joseph gave you an answer yet (or will you just resort to your new toy until he blesses you with an email).
So what is the textbook concept saying?
>>> What textbook? What concept?
What is the pseudoscience you see in the explanation given?
>>>What explanation?
Do you have specific, relevant questions, or are you just playing con man tricks?
Norman
Yes. I totally get that. The ice wall added more energy to the heated wall than was previously available. The heated wall’s temperature increase is based on a previous situation.
Obviously, the more familiar scenario is where the ice wall, being colder than what was prior, causes the warmed wall’s temperature to decrease.
Norman
I wrote a response to this a few comments down. But yeah, I get it.
Oops, I thought this would appear upthread
Ball4
You are true to the scientific method. But from your interactions with the disciples of Joe Postma, even testing does not change anything. Real world measurements of Downwelling IR do not phase them. You have stated Roy Spencer’s real world tests and the effects of cirrus clouds on the water but that does not change their view.
I wrote that test up for Snape since he is interested in the topic and I thought it might help. Most textbook equations and information has come about from many experiments in the field. That is why I like to use this as a source.
The problem with any test I might do (hot plate surrounded by ice and room temperature difference with the same input energy in each case) then they will site conduction and convection. I would need to do any test in a vacuum to eliminate the other heat transfer and that becomes beyond my means at this time.
I do like your posts and what you state. Real science is experiments and elbow grease. Get the hands dirty.
I have done tests with FLIR that proves Kristian’s view wrong.
“…even (proper) testing does not change anything”
I observe that is mostly true Norman, then at least commenters are debating nature not prose in a comment. Let nature prove which comments are factual and not false news. Dr. Spencer’s tests are a good source.
If you want couple more books on atm. testing, try the inexpensive Bohren books, or a tech. library, some of their content is on line: Clouds in a Glass of Beer & What Light Through Yonder Window Breaks?
Oh, and anger, you will find in Bohren’s writing, a cabbage illuminated by BB radiation at room temperature in your closed closet IS secretly glowing. Though the minute you open the door & let in daylight it increases the intensity of the visible light glow to keep what it was doing a secret from anger.
This is a great day in Climate Comedy! The con-artist and cabbage-head have teamed up to determine they own the “scientific method”.
Hilarious.
Right anger, the experimentalists will have to disprove or prove your points for you as you can not.
In the meantime anger remains…
Hilarious!
You and con-man should start selling your “glow-in-the-dark” cabbages. I imagine you could make a fortune.
g*e*r*a*n
It is nice to see Joe Postma is emailing you what to say to us.
I guess he really does care for his strongest supporter. Your blind belief in his crappy physics and illogical thought process is getting rewarded by him.
I can’t wait to see his next email to you so you can post it on this thread.
Con man is just jealous of my 6-digit annual income from Big Oil.
My point is DLR at the surface is not really the underlying physics of the GHE, or the underlying physical driver that leads to enhanced surface warming, i.e. greenhouse effect induced surface warming.
And that this is why so many people are perpetually confused and can’t grasp the physics of the GHE.
Well you did not dispute Dr. Spencer’s test demonstrating added terrestrial DLR at the surface from added cirrus was physical driver that led to higher temperature in the surface water exposed to cirrus view over the non-exposed water, a greenhouse effect induced surface warming.
Please provide a link.
This is true.
Superficially, it appears certain that, if the surface is radiating more or less as a blackbody, and the outgoing spectrum at the top of the atmosphere has a divot taken out of it by some IR gas, then the surface is going to have to warm to a greater temperature than it otherwise would have in order for incoming and outgoing energy flux to balance.
But, this does not mean that the relationship between GHG concentration and surface temperature is necessarily monotonic, i.e., that it will always warm the surface by some positive increment for each incremental increase in concentration. I.e., that the total area taken out by the divot will necessarily incrementally increase with incremental increase in concentration.
More GHG means more interception of outgoing radiation. But, it also means more thermalization from other constituents of the atmosphere, and more dissipation of atmospheric heat. Where actual balance is achieved is anybody’s guess at this point. Historically, higher CO2 is not generally correlated with higher temperature in the proxy records. And, lately, the Earth has failed to warm in line with expectations.
“Please provide a link.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/#comments
Bart, I am not interested in the political aspect, at all, but IMO added CO2 is just one surface T driver of many known and maybe some unknown; added CO2 alone is not necessarily always king. As long as there are unmarried photons emitted from the surface (and lower high-pressure atm.) to marry up with noncondensing CO2 above there will be added tendency to surface warming in the mix of global median temperature drivers. At some point all the surface emitted photons will be married and any more added CO2 will have no potential marriage partners, have no further effect on surface median T (the logarithmic decline).
In the ancient past when it appears CO2 ppm followed T (the 800 years), there were no leading unnatural substantial adds of CO2 ppm like today except for the occasional forest fire, volcano, degassing event, meteor explosion back then I suppose. Maybe early campfires, bonfires but that’s about it, no SUVs.
That earth has not warmed per some warnings does not mean IR active atm. constituent theory is off, just that it is not king driver in the time period examined. A combination of others is king, known and unknown. Even if for a 30-year future decline say. Some other driver is king. Does not mean lab tests and in the wild instrumental observations are somehow off.
Our inputs are minuscule compared to the natural flows, and we are not significantly contributing to atmospheric concentration. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is very obviously proportional to suitably baselined temperature anomaly. Integrating that relationship results in a very good fit to the absolute CO2 concentration at least since reliable measurements became available, without any need to consider human inputs. They are negligible.
This relationship makes it quite impossible for CO2 to be a significant positive driver of temperatures in the present state of the climate system. It would produce an unstable positive feedback, and a runaway to a saturation condition would have ensued eons ago.
AGW fails on every count:
1) We aren’t the main driver of atmospheric CO2
2) CO2 concentration does not drive temperatures significantly in the present climate state
3) Warmth is better than cold
4) More evenly distributed temperatures produce less extreme weather, not more.
5) Sea levels have been rising steadily for thousands of years, and show no sign of recent acceleration
The whole thing is a scientific fiasco of the first order. It was brought to us by activist scientists who were corrupted by a what they thought was a noble cause, but which has instead produced misery and environmental destruction.
The worst is yet to come, when the charade is fully exposed, and science no longer is held in high repute. I shudder at the explosion of pseudoscience that is in the offing, when Creationists and quack medicine providers can just shrug and say, “Yeah, well, you sure got that Global Warming thing right, didn’t ya’?”
“Integrating that relationship results in a very good fit to the absolute CO2 concentration”
That’s 1st class curve fitting Bart. Anyone can always make that definite integral fit so there is no added info. You have three free parameters (at least). Just pick them to fit. Try it on the stock market to pick tomorrow’s winners if you think it works, you will soon feel some financial pain.
1),3),4),5) are not AGW failure modes, 2) is confirmation & “significantly” is in the eye of the beholder.
“Anyone can always make that definite integral fit so there is no added info.”
Nope. The rate of acceleration is defined by the slope in the rate of change, which is fixed by the matching of the variation.
But, you are correct that the integral adds nothing that isn’t already evident in the rate of change domain. And, what is evident is that there is a phenomenal match between the temperature anomaly and the rate of change, with little to no room to fit in any substantial sensitivity to human inputs, which are not temperature dependent.
“Nope.”
Then apply your “rate of acceleration is defined by the slope in the rate of change, which is fixed by the matching of the variation” technique to the stock market.
Can’t lose writing such stuff here, so I wonder what keeps you from using it there to pick tomorrow’s winners. I suggest your very real fear of financial ruin because you know what you write here isn’t fundamental in nature.
You’re going off the deep end now. This is not a chaotic stock market. This is a consistent relationship between temperature anomaly and the rate of change of CO2. Human emissions also have a trend in this domain, but the trend is already explained by the temperature relationship, and there is no room for them to have a significant impact.
Bart, you are curve fitting plain and simple. And very good at it. Or explain what is fundamental in “a consistent relationship between temperature anomaly and the rate of change of CO2.”
Fact is you will have to pick different parameters in any future time to achieve your fit. Since that relationship will fundamentally change over time. That is the exact same problem applying your technique in the stock market. You seem to miss that point.
Bart says:
“The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is very obviously proportional to suitably baselined temperature anomaly.”
That can’t be true, because over the year d(CO2)/dt is fairly approximated by a sinusoid. The temperature anomalies aren’t.
I agree with Ball4 — you’re just curve fitting, and worse, by eye.
You guys are just desperate, or clueless, or both.
As I suspected, Bart has no explanation for what is fundamental in his statement a consistent relationship between temperature anomaly and the rate of change of CO2″.
In fact, there is no fundamental explanation for Bart’s statement.
Word salad.
It’s not a curve fit, Ball4. It’s an offset (because the temperature anomaly baseline is arbitrary) and a scaling factor (because temperature and CO2 rate of change have different units). That’s all. A simple affine relationship. Two parameters.
The odds of fitting all the bumps and wiggles, as well as the long term trend, using such a relationship, and have it be mere happenstance, are infinitesimal.
Bart, you still have not provided a necessary fundamental explanation, all you have is an interesting fit. The thing is, there actually might be a fundamental explanation.
It is obvious that if I am allowed to pick the arbitrary definite integral limits I can show your curves diverge. They might diverge unpredictably in the future, no way to know.
The rate of change curve does not even involve an integral, and it is enough on its own to contradict the anthropogenic attribution hypothesis. The rate of change curve matches every dip and contour of the temperature anomaly curve, as well as the long term trend. There is no room to fit in the long term trend in human emissions to any particularly significant level.
Might the relationship diverge in the future? Anything’s possible. But, this relationship has held for at least 59 years and counting. That’s since CO2 was at about 315 ppm, which means it has held for at least 95 ppm out of the total rise of about 130 ppm from the purported pre-industrial level.
What kind of “fundamental” explanation are you looking for? Do you need a fundamental explanation for how a diesel engine works before you decide its a good idea to get off the tracks when a locomotive is bearing down on you?
If you want to know how I think the relationship most likely comes about, you can read a description here. Whether one agrees or not on the mechanism, though, the train is coming, and only fools will be left on the tracks.
Ok, thanks Bart. It will take some time to go through all that.
Bart, ok, after reading thru to the bitter end, I accept you have made a fundamentally reasoned argument for your correlation contention. That was what I was looking for.
I have never become interested in any subject where Henry’s Law is the main course, just not my cup of tea to really mix a metaphor. If I had any interest I would dig into your debate with FE in detail try to form a better opinion along with text books & papers.
I especially liked & agree with your comment that is so applicable around here:
“I have had to massage my temples repeatedly in viewing all the leaps of logic made to support the hypothesis of * human induced global warming. There are fallacies galore, and enough loopholes to weave a rug that carpets an entire city.”
*Insert “no” for same view for the other side. I participate here because it motivates me to dig more deeply into the atm. thermo. texts & Dr. Spencer testing for better understanding of GW debate.
Bart says:
“You guys are just desperate, or clueless, or both”
How convincing!
I’ve yet to see you construct a scientific argument on this blog. Never once.
Bart says:
“The rate of change curve does not even involve an integral, and it is enough on its own to contradict the anthropogenic attribution hypothesis. The rate of change curve matches every dip and contour of the temperature anomaly curve, as well as the long term trend.”
That’s simply false.
Temperature anomalies clearly don’t match the annual sinusoidal curve of d(CO2)/dt.
Hence your theory is wrong.
(It also lacks a physical basis.)
Bart says:
“But, this relationship has held for at least 59 years and counting. Thats since CO2 was at about 315 ppm, which means it has held for at least 95 ppm out of the total rise of about 130 ppm from the purported pre-industrial level.”
That’s also wrong.
CO2 was 315 ppm in 1957. After that there was almost two decades with little-to-no surface warming, yet d(CO2)/dt kept going up exponentially and oscillating seasonally/sinusoidally.
Let’s see THAT graph. (No, WFT won’t do it for you.)
DA: “(It also lacks a physical basis.)”
I disagree, you participated in the thread Bart linked, your arguments were discussed & are not nearly as persuasive as Bart & FE imo. This subject is hard to imagine for which there might be a test which is likely a reason for my lack of interest, there isn’t a good way to advance the debate or reasonably join a side.
Thank you for your gracious words, Ball4.
I don’t really care if someone disagrees with me if they have good reasons. What’s really annoying is when they give dumb reasons. To wit:
David Appell @ June 23, 2017 at 6:34 PM
“Temperature anomalies clearly dont match the annual sinusoidal curve of d(CO2)/dt.”
Duh. Temperature anomalies are anomalies. They’ve already had the annual cycle subtracted out. It’s only fair to do the same to the CO2 measurements.
David Appell @ June 23, 2017 at 6:39 PM
“After that there was almost two decades with little-to-no surface warming, yet d(CO2)/dt kept going up exponentially…”
Nope. It rose essentially linearly, just like the temperature anomaly.
Bad link. Dumb computer doesn’t know herf means href.
It rose essentially linearly, just like the temperature anomaly.
Bart, on first read of equations I check units to see if I understand. Constructive comment: your prose reads like these were ppm (H is the anthropogenic input), should be hdot and udot i.e. if I understand correctly H is the anthropogenic input per unit time, ppm/unit time.
Bart says:
“Duh. Temperature anomalies are anomalies. Theyve already had the annual cycle subtracted out.”
Look how quickly you changed your story.
Because up above you wrote:
“The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is very obviously proportional to suitably baselined temperature anomaly.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252421
Proportional TO THE anomaly, not any seasonal variation.
You can’t even keep your own story straight. Duh.
Bart, I’ll take you lack of a response as an admission of error.
Bart says:
“Nope. It rose essentially linearly, just like the temperature anomaly.”
Wrong. CO2 has been rising exponentially for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#/media/File:Keeling_Curve_full_record.png
Obviously over any short period of time an exponential can be approximated by a linear function. But not over the whole record.
Wrong. I presented the plot of the rate of change. It is approximately linear. That makes the absolute curve essentially quadratic. There is no basis upon which to claim a higher order dependence as of this time.
Good lord.
The plot of CO2 is NOT the plot of its rate of change.
Do you honestly not understand that?????
I don’t think you do.
Bart: Do you deny that C(t) has a strong seasonal component that is close to a sinusoide?
Bart says, June 22, 2017 at 4:54 PM:
But the surface isn’t radiating more or less as a blackbody. It is at 289K on average, but sure doesn’t emit a flux of 398 W/m^2 to its thermal surroundings. It emits a mere 53 W/m^2. While through the ToA, 240 W/m^2 escape to space. That’s 4.5 times the intensity! Apples and apples; Q_sfc vs. Q_toa. You can’t compare a calculated value of some hypothetical BB emission flux to surroundings at absolute zero based simply on an estimated surface temperature with an actually detected radiative heat flux from the Earth system as a whole to space. Neither the UWLWIR nor the DWLWIR are heat fluxes like the OLR at the ToA. They are only conceptual “hemispheric component fluxes” of the actual (full) radiative flux. Which is the sfc net LW (UWLWIR minus DWLWIR). The surface Q_rad(LW). 53 W/m^2.
Another thing, Earth’s EM spectrum as seen from space is NOT an absorp*tion spectrum! It is NOT the surface Planck curve somehow eaten into by atmospheric gases on the way out! It’s an EMISSION spectrum, and on average (globally, annually, All-Sky) ~85% of it is emitted from the TROPOSPHERE.
The ‘divots’ are not the source of Earth’s relatively high average surface temperature, Bart.
“It is at 289K on average, but sure doesn’t emit a flux of 398 W/m^2 to its thermal surroundings.”
Well then according to Kristian who has run NO experiments he is right and Dr. Planck et. al. who have actually performed and reported their experimental data (& independently replicated at STP) are the ones who are wrong about nature.
Kristian, you really do need to prove your points through experimentation. Now that you comment sunlight is not a photon above, I predict proving your point by experiment is going to be a bit difficult with sunlight as not a photon.
Assertion as shown by Kristian’s prose is easy, proving that assertion by replicable proper experiment will be more difficult, much more interesting since Dr. Spencer has already shown Kristian is wrong by atm. experiment.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 8:52 AM:
No. They’re RIGHT about nature. YOU’RE the one who’s wrong about nature, troll.
Good, Kristian corrects himself, now agrees with Dr. Planck’s and others experiments.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 8:52 AM:
So in your mind, sunlight is equal to ONE photon … Thanks!
Experiments show sunlight is a photon Kristian, doesn’t matter what is in my mind. To support your assertion, show sunlight is not a photon by experiment.
Cool! Experiments show that sunlight is in fact just a single photon!? Wow!
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 10:11 AM:
No, I correct YOU, troll. I always agreed with Planck.
Kristian comments Planck formula is right for BB radiation from his and others experiment: Planck formula for 289K BB radiation measured on average emitting a flux of 395.6 W/m^2 to its thermal surroundings over all frequencies.
Kristian with no experimental evidence: It is at 289K on average, but sure doesnt emit a flux of 398 W/m^2 to its thermal surroundings.
Ok, then 395.6 but surely not 53. Kristian then comments agrees with Planck. But doesn’t really. Carry on Kristian. You are fun to watch twist things into pretzels as per Dr. Spencer.
Kristian 10:17am: Assertion doesn’t convince, you will need an experiment showing sunlight is not a photon.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 12:19 PM:
Sure I do. However, I do agree I was being imprecise. Bart, what I should have said is this: It doesn’t radiate as a blackbody into surroundings at absolute zero (or thereabouts), like Earth in space does, but rather as a 289K body (sort of ‘black’) radiating into surroundings just ten K cooler …
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 12:21 PM:
No. YOU will have to point a proper radiometric detector towards the Sun and show that it will only ever detect ONE SINGLE photon coming in. Think you can do that?
So how about an experiment proving your reworded point Kristian.
Hint: I happen to know Planck references some in his treatise, those reports are available free on the internet. Experimental setup description and all.
You could use that, but of course more instructive set one up like Dr. Spencer does. Heck, I’ve done them in my kitchen and out on the patio (night and day) just to make sure.
“Think you can do that?”
It is Kristian claiming sunlight is not a photon. I make no such claim.
Sunlight is also an electromagnetic wave Kristian. If you need the experimental ref.s I can look up provide the originals. More fun to seek out on your own.
Kristian–The way you patiently take down b4 is fascinating.
b4 is a climate clown that has been around for years. He used to traffic under “Trick”. He knows little about physics, but likes to paraphrase from online sources.
He doesn’t understand that there are different types of energy.
He firmly believes that cabbages glow in the dark.
(One more “qualifier” for b4, Norm thinks he knows physics!!!)
b4 is hilarious.
Hmmm…anger is yet another commenter devoid of all experimentation. At least my stuff is easily traceable to experiment such as Dr. Spencer’s test anger.
So let’s see, has anger posted up any cabbage experiments lately? No. Just assertions. Unless anger can fill us in on how it was detected cabbages do not in fact glow in the dark and Planck’s experiments and formula are in fact wrong, then anger remains
Hilarious!
Without an understanding of science, all you can offer is the experiment by Dr. Roy you keep linking to. That’s it.
You have linked to the same experiment dozens of times, trying to use it to support your nonsense.
Even Dr. Roy has stated there are flaws in the experiment. He indicated it needed more work. He has not submitted it for publication. He would not stake his career on it. He was attempting to do actual science in his backyard, and shared it with us. That’s all.
But you, with no understanding of science, thought it was a HUGE scientific breakthrough.
You thought all of your pseudoscience would be validated.
WRONG!
(How are the sales of “glowing cabbages” going? Are you selling on Amazon yet?)
I thought no such thing anger. Dr. Spencer’s experiment is a reasonable demonstration of long established Planck radiative physics applied to the atm. which is why he set it up.
I notice anger has no such experiment, just another tantrum. Try testing a cabbage for no glow when illuminated by BB radiation, anger might learn something instead of being so
Hilarious!
cabbage head, what did the experiment show?
You keep linking and referring to it constantly. Surely you can state in 50 words or less what the experiment “proved”.
(You still didn’t say how many “glowing” cabbages you have sold.)
“what did the experiment show?”
Finally a decent question anger. Dr. Spencer’s experiment showed what he described.
To reduce his description in terms applicable for anger, that means he showed earth atm. glows (radiates) in the dark just like a cabbage glows (radiates) in the dark per Planck’s experiments. All available on the internet for free. Read and understand them anger or remain
Hilarious!
But, cabbage head, we all knew that the atmosphere radiates, all the time. Are you claiming that is all the experiment “proved”.
(Still wanting to know where I can buy the cabbages that glow in the dark. Norm thinks you are a “science hero”. You wouldn’t want to let me down, would you?)
Ahhh…so now anger has a test and agrees when shown that the atm. glows (radiates) in the dark.
Anger has no test that shows cabbages glow (radiate) in the dark per Planck’s principles so cabbages must not glow (radiate) in the dark per anger. I get it. Anger does not trust Planck’s explanation and experiments, they could be wrong. I’ll go with Planck principles, anger is free to experiment on cabbages in the dark but I doubt he will. Anger will have to remain in the dark.
This is a little like arguing whether when a tree falls in the forest without anyone around to hear it, did it make a noise? Which to a scientist is
Hilarious!
So cabbage head has been linking to the backyard experiment, dozens of times, claiming it was “all about experiments”. But when asked to state what the experiment “proved”, in 50 words or less, he could not.
Just another day in pseudoscience….
As I wrote no need for me to do so anger, Dr. Spencer’s description is quite adequate, no improvement necessary & free on the internet.
cabbage head has been linking to Dr. Roy’s experiment, dozens of times. He has insinuated it was “monumental”. It proved cabbage head’s pseudoscience was somehow valid.
But cabbage head cannot state the scientific significance of the experiment.
cabbage head also refuses to tell us where we can buy cabbages that glow in the dark.
Hilarious.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 1:10 PM:
Why? When what I’m saying is just what everyone else is saying. Just pick any experiment and there you have it.
Cool. Try it out, then.
Why do the same as Spencer when Spencer has already done it, proving me right?
You can buy them anywhere cabbages are sold anger!
Buy one. Get out your spectral measurement device, I suggest a Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm. Lacking that, any old IR thermometer will do like my $30 Ryobi IR002.
1) Obtain a cabbage & IR thermometer
2) Put them in dark closet until equilibrated at room temperature
3) Measure cabbages brightness temperature, point your Ryobi IR002 at it.
4) Read off room temperature!
That’s it!
You now have done an experiment proving cabbages glow (radiate) in the dark according to Planckian physics. What an achievement that will be. You might be able to describe it in 50 words or less or remain
Hilarious!
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 1:15 PM:
No. It is Appell (and now you) that claims that the radiant heat from the Sun, as absorbed by Earth, comes in the form of just ONE SINGLE photon. So prove it.
cabbage head, maybe you forgot. You promised me I would not need any specialized equipment. You said I could see cabbages in a dark closet.
Are you backing away from what you said?
(I hope you do, because I saved the link.)
Hilarious.
“Why do the same as Spencer when Spencer has already done it, proving me right?”
Ok then you finally agree Dr. Spencer is right at night, it doesn’t matter whether you call it “reduced rate of cooling”, or “warming”, the result is the same: a higher temperature.
Now if you keep agreeing with his test, cite it or similar in all your prose, you will end disagreements on that basic experimental science.
Also good to see you agreeing with Planck formula for 289K BB radiation measured on average emitting a flux of 395.6 W/m^2 to its thermal surroundings over all frequencies.
Somehow your track record is always to backslide and forget these agreements, I expect no less until you prove you can agree with testing.
“You said I could see cabbages in a dark closet.”
Those are anger’s words, not mine.
Kristian, I searched on what you claim I wrote, there is only 1 hit, what you wrote at 3:15pm.
Your words, not mine. Sunlight is an electromagnetic wave as measured with duality as a photon in certain tests. Your claim that sunlight is not a photon is plain wrong. What is it then?
ch has been caught again!
Proclaims an experiment as his foundation, but can’t identify the significance.
Enormously hilarious!
50 words requested by deniers that cabbages glow when irradiated by BB radiation in closets per Planckian physics:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252609
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 3:43 PM:
Strange, because this is your first comment on this subthread:
“Now that you comment sunlight is not a photon above, I predict proving your point by experiment is going to be a bit difficult with sunlight as not a photon.”
And you have asserted several times after this that sunlight IS in fact one single photon only. Without justification, of course. Without empirical proof. I’m afraid it’s put up or shut up on your part.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 3:30 PM:
No, of course I don’t agree with that claim. Because it’s wrong. And only confuses things. Because they’re not the same thing. They’re the OPPOSITE thing.
I said the EXPERIMENT and its results proved me right. I never referred to Spencer’s personal interpretation of them.
I’m still waiting for you to show how this experiment somehow proves me wrong. That’s your continual assertion, after all.
To surroundings at absolute zero, yes. What’s not to agree with?
Kristian, a beam of sunlight is looked upon as a stream of single particles called a photon with the peculiar property that they carry energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum but not (as far as we can measure) mass.
If a photon and another photon are made coherent, the 2 photons can interact but in nature they are incoherent and do not interact.
Your claim that there is a single net of 53 photons does not agree with photon test. The black line declined. You cannot have the measured photoelectric effect without a photon. So forth.
“I said the EXPERIMENT and its results proved me right.”
Only if as you insist in your opinion the black line trended up all night.
But by inspection the black line reversed trend and started down with the increasing cirrus. The test results prove you wrong.
“To surroundings at absolute zero, yes. What’s not to agree with?”
Planck and others don’t agree, they developed & found their result at room temperature, at 1 bar in the various labs.
Obviously you have not reviewed their experimental set up available for free on the internet as I pointed out. Later run at near vacuum with the same exact results to confirm.
Hey cabbage head, have you came up with the reason your favorite experiment is so important? The only thing you mentioned so far is that the sky emits IR, which was proved many, many years ago.
Then you ran off with your cabbages.
Yes, the sky radiates IR anger, you are correct this has been known for years & the experiment also showed what has also been known for years: icy cirrus temperature can affect the temperature of warmer liquid water on the surface which many claim (including Kristian) is a violation of 2LOT which has been known for years NOT to be a violation of 2LOT.
Cabbages glow in the dark anger. Your lyin’ eyes are just that.
Well cabbage head, I see you are still unable to state, in 50 words or less, what the experiment “proved”. Your dancing around is cute, however.
Cute dance with cabbages that glow in the dark–all pseudoscience.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 6:18 PM:
Yes, and is “a stream of single particles” equal to ONE single particle, or is it MANY single particles?
It’s like spoon-feeding an infant child.
Sunlight is a stream of a photon after a photon Kristian. Or waves extending through all space which are not so easily incarnated.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 6:22 PM:
No. You’re discussing YOUR personal version of what I’m saying, troll. Not what I’m actually saying. That voice ringing inside your head is your own.
The test proved me right.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 6:26 PM:
Sorry. Second attempt:
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 6:22 PM:
No. You’re discussing YOUR personal version of what I’m saying, troll. Not what I’m actually saying. That voice ringing inside your head is your own.
The test proved me right.
Ball4 says, June 23, 2017 at 6:26 PM:
Wrong. They all agree. In fact, it’s an intrinsic truth of radiative transfer. It’s right there in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/jstefan1.png
https://tinyurl.com/lycsrj3 (p.799)
And (straight from Stefan himself, 1879):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/jstefan2.png
(Translated from the German original. Words in brackets all replacing the term “heat”.)
https://tinyurl.com/bvfp7od (p.411)
# 289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 0K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 0^4) => σ 289^4 = 395.6 W/m^2;
so the equation in such a case simply takes the form: Q/A = σT^4.
# 289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2.
Ball4 says, June 24, 2017 at 6:01 AM:
And so I ask you again: Is the sunlight we see comprised of just ONE SINGLE PHOTON, or of MANY PHOTONS?
“Is the sunlight we see comprised of just ONE SINGLE PHOTON, or of MANY PHOTONS?”
The sunlight we see is comprised of a photon after a photon.
And your equations are correct, the objects are each emitting as you write & you calculate net energy Q/A. I admirably notice no mention of a measure of your objects constituent particle KE aka heat. Good job, you thus end your confusion, try to stay consistent with the calculations hereafter (I bet you won’t).
Where Dr. Spencer’s test proved you are wrong is in writing above: “But the surface isnt radiating more or less as a blackbody. It is at 289K on average, but sure doesnt emit a flux of 398 W/m^2 to its thermal surroundings. It emits a mere 53 W/m^2.”
As you write, your objects are emitting at 289, 279 and 0. Good job, they are not emitting at calculated 52, which took testing to prove you wrong about that. Even Kristian can get the radiative physics right.
Now let me apply Kristian’s insight to anger’s cabbage in a closet which anger writes doesn’t glow (radiate) in order to disagree with me. The cabbage is being illuminated by BB radiation so emits very, very close to BB radiation. The difference may not be measurable but that’s for quantum arguments and we are dealing with macro. Say his room (closet) temperature is about 72F held ~steady state by a furnace or A/C thermostat:
295.4K BB cabbage emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 295.4K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (295.4^4 – 295.4^4) = 0 W/m^2
zero calculated net energy per second per m^2 to/from anger’s cabbage in the closet. Means the cabbage is actually glowing (radiating) steady state at and over all wavelengths as Kristian’s insight from Planck’s experiments demonstrates.
Yet the cabbage certainly has thermodynamic internal energy U from which there exists a measure of the cabbage constituent particle KE. A measurement device such as an IR thermometer or mercury thermometer can be used to measure the cabbage temperature 72F.
Ball4 says, June 24, 2017 at 7:12 AM:
Not what I asked you. Is the sunlight we see comprised of just ONE SINGLE PHOTON, or of MANY PHOTONS?
One or many? Your answer, please. One word is enough.
Ball4 says, June 24, 2017 at 7:12 AM:
No. The warm object is losing energy according to the temperature difference between it and its surroundings. That’s what the S-B equation is describing. The Q/A is the actual emissive/radiative power. The rest is just radiative expressions of temperature.
Exactly how and where does Spencer’s test prove this to be wrong? On the contrary, it proves it to be correct.
No, that is not what I write. And anyone can see that.
Ball4 says, June 24, 2017 at 7:52 AM:
I’ll give you this, you’re right about the cabbage also emitting photons within the visible range:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/plots/guest1865520453.png
“And your equations are correct, the objects are each emitting as you write & you calculate net energy Q/A.”
“No” huh. You slide back into incorrect prose, stick with your correct calculations.
So now you indicate by “No” you think your objects are NOT each emitting as per your calculations. And/or you think you do not calculate net energy Q/A correctly.
Which is it? Remember:
Planck: The warm object is radiating energy according to its temperature. Same for your cold object.
“Exactly how and where does Spencer’s test prove this to be wrong?”
The black line trending down with the increasing cirrus radiating energy according to its temperature, the radiated energy being absorbed in the viewing water & indicated by the black line trending down. If your prose writing were correct, that would not have happened, but the black line trends down so your prose is wrong but your equations are right since they show the black line will trend down.
“No, that is not what I write. And anyone can see that.”
Your incorrect prose doesn’t matter as Dr. Spencer tried to tell you. Fact IS that your calculations are correct, many can see that, and it is also what Planck wrote a whole treatise on: The warm object is radiating photon energy according to its steady state temperature when illuminated by BB radiation: σ * T_h^4. So is the cold object: σ * T_c^4.
Recommend: Stop writing incorrect prose Kristian, just always write your calculations as you did 6:51am to make a point and Kristian will always be correct according to Planck’s hard won experimental data.
Pretty sure Kristian won’t follow my recommendation, but at least, and at last, Kristian got the Planckian equations correctly written for BB radiation.
Kristian says:
“The warm object is losing energy according to the temperature difference between it and its surroundings. Thats what the S-B equation is describing.”
Utter bullshit.
The S-B equation says what a body emits. THAT’S ALL. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any temperature difference.
Kristian, your knowledge of physics is actually worse than zero — you make up falsehoods about it.
Ball4 says, June 24, 2017 at 12:49 PM:
The troll once again doing what trolls do best – trolling.
As always, you need to include the full response to see what it actually says:
“No. The warm object is losing energy according to the temperature difference between it and its surroundings. That’s what the S-B equation is describing. The Q/A is the actual emissive/radiative power. The rest is just radiative expressions of temperature.”
You deliberately misrepresent what I write, and so I tell you “No”. I’m setting you straight, troll. I’m correcting you.
You know of course that the black line is just tracking the difference in temperature between the two water surfaces, nothing else. So why do you keep pretending it’s somehow an “indicator of radiative input” from a cold sky? That’s only YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, troll. It is not something that the experiment actually SHOWS.
The black line is proving ME correct. It’s all about temperature and gradients.
Why exactly, according to the voice apparently still echoing inside your head, could the black line not go down “according to my prose”, troll? Explain.
Because, as a matter of fact, the black line trending down as the clouds move in rather proves me right.
I don’t know what that internal voice of yours is telling you, troll, but it sure ain’t something remotely resembling “my prose”.
I know. Thanks. Good to see you’re coming around. It’s called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, and it shows how the radiative power density flux between two blackbodies at different temperatures simply depends on the difference in their temperatures raised to the fourth, multiplied by a constant.
BTW, it appears I will have to ask you again, troll, seeing you seem to have missed it:
“Is the sunlight we see comprised of just ONE SINGLE PHOTON, or of MANY PHOTONS?”
One or many? Photon or photons?
Your answer? One word is enough.
Kristian says, June 24, 2017 at 12:18 PM:
Sorry, that link doesn’t work. Here’s the same image, though, originally from SpectralCalc:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/visible-light.png
Hmm, that’s for a BB at 285 K (12 C, 54 F). Here’s one for a BB at 295 K (22 C, 72 F):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/visible-light-2.png
Kristian 2:01am: Your 6:49am eqn.s are correct, they prove your prose is many times false. Dr. Spencer’s test agrees with your 6:49am eqn.s which is why he did the test.
“There are no separate LW fluxes adding…energy at the surface.”
If that were true prose the black line goes up all night as there would be no separate LW flux adding energy at the surface from the increasing cirrus.
Your prose is proven false by the black line reversing trend when a separate LW flux is shown adding energy to the surface water.
Your 6:49am eqn.s accurately show there IS a separate LW flux adding energy at the surface from the increasing cirrus. Your prose is false. Your eqn.s are accurate.
—–
“So what is the postulated “greenhouse warming mechanism”? That’s the raising of the ERL:”
The postulated “greenhouse warming mechanism” is the separate LW flux adding energy at the surface from the increasing cirrus (the black line trending down) which is the reason Dr. Spencer did the test: your prose is false, your 6:49am eqn.s are correct.
—–
“rather countered somewhat by the parallel rise in OLR”
Your prose is false, the longest meaningful OLR data in CERES Team record shows OLR decreasing (Loeb 2016). Your 6:49am eqn.s are correct.
—–
“Whenever you ADD energy to an object and this addition of energy directly makes the temperature of that object go up from t_i to t_f, then the energy you have added is defined thermodynamically as HEAT, Q. You have HEATED the object.”
Your prose is wrong. Compared to the shielded water, the water in view of the cirrus had a higher temperature, but both waters cooled all night, no one would say they were heated. Your 6:49am eqn.s are correct as they correctly agree with what happened to the surface water temperature.
—–
“But if you’re thermally adding energy to something to raise its temperature, then you’re HEATING that something, Snape.”
Your prose is false, compared to the shielded water, the water in view of the cirrus had a higher temperature as shown by the black line trending down, but the water cooled all night, no one except Kristian would say it was heated. Your 6:49am eqn.s correctly show this effect, they concur the black line trends down.
—–
“His problem is that he splits the two “hemispheric component fluxes” (UWLWIR & DWLWIR) of the actual (thermodynamic) radiative flux (Q_rad, net LW) between the surface and the atmosphere, and treats them as distinct, independent macroscopic fluxes of radiation”
There exists two independent hemispheric component fluxes as shown in your 6:49am eqn.s, your prose is false, the 6:49am eqn.s correctly show two hemispheric component fluxes (UWLWIR & DWLWIR) agreeing with those found in the test as the black line trends down.
—–
“They’re ALWAYS integrated into ONE, the net.”
Your prose is false, your 6:49am eqn.s show nothing radiating at net 52 (or 53), concurring with the test when the black line trended down. The 6:49am eqn.s show two hemispheric component fluxes (UWLWIR & DWLWIR) as does the test.
—–
“which will only confuse you into thinking that you ‘see’ discrete thermodynamic effects (like a change in U and T) in places where they do not (and should not) exist.”
Your 6:49am eqn.s are correct, unshielded water U & T were changed compared to shielded water, they show your prose is false & the test shows your prose is false.
If you follow my recommendation and just write the eqn.s showing two “hemispheric component fluxes” (UWLWIR & DWLWIR) as you did then you will always be correct, just eliminate your incorrect prose, don’t write it just write correctly as you did 6:49am for two objects illuminated by BB radiation:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2.
Ball4 says, June 25, 2017 at 7:30 AM:
Nope. There is no “separate LW flux” SHOWN to be adding any energy to the surface water.
The surface water still cools, so no energy is added to it. Q.E.D.
My “prose” specifically says that the black line (which is ONLY about temperature difference, not about LW fluxes) should go down as the clouds move in.
The test proves my “prose”. Thanks again.
No. It shows that the surrounding TEMPERATURE goes up. Which reduces the radiant loss of energy from the unshielded water surface.
Just as my “prose” explains. Proven by Spencer’s test. Thanks.
Nope. I am doing nothing but stating EXACTLY what the principles of thermodynamics are telling us. Thanks for bringing back up and highlighting this statement of mine; it’s a crucial fact to always bear in mind so as not to fall for the willfully obfuscating semantic tricks performed by the likes of you.
Nope. Again I’m simply stating what the principles of thermodynamics are telling us. Thanks for bringing it up!
No. What the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is showing us is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim. The two “hemispheric component fluxes” are anything but independent and separate. It’s right there in the equation itself. They’re always kept safely within the same bracket. That’s the whole point of the equation. To show that, mathematically, they make up the net transfer of energy between them. If you don’t specifically keep these two expressions together as one at all times, you will find no net transfer! You will effectively eliminate the physical phenomenon of radiative heating, a hot object (like the Sun or a bonfire) warming a cold one (like yourself) via radiation. Gone!
No, my “prose” points out a necessary fact of nature. Shown and applied via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Thanks!
Kristian says, June 25, 2017 at 2:05 AM:
BTW, it appears I will have to ask you EVEN AGAIN, troll, seeing how you seem to have missed it the first TWO times:
“Is the sunlight we see comprised of just ONE SINGLE PHOTON, or of MANY PHOTONS?”
One or many? Photon or photons?
Your answer? One word is enough.
Kristian, your prose doesn’t matter to even read, I skimmed it for eqn.s, none, my prose does refer to eqn.s as below, so your prose isn’t worth the time as I recommend to anyone else.
You do get the Planckian equations right, stick to discussing the accurate eqn.s as they are found from test proved out in Dr. Spencer’s test on the actual atm. (for which object emissivity epsilon is needed but not that much different than unity (maybe ~5%) as the natural illumination is so close to BB radiation) your accurate 6:49am again:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2.
As far as asking the same question over and over and OVER while expecting a different answer than I already gave that’s a sign of, well, you can find what that is a sign of on the internet easy enough.
Ball4 says, June 25, 2017 at 11:35 AM:
I am. The S-B equation and Spencer’s test both prove my “prose” to be correct.
And once again I thank you for highlighting the S-B equation AND my correct “prose” describing it in combination. (289K BB emissive/radiative power [Q/A] with surroundings at 279K is 52 W/m^2, not 396.5 W/m^2. As shown by the equation. 396.5 W/m^2 is the emissive/radiative power of the 289K BB only with surroundings at absolute zero.)
Well, you haven’t given a straight answer, only roundabout ones, like the little troll you are, so if anything it’s a sign simply of amused inquisitiveness into the delusional mind of a person who is simply unable to admit he’s been put in a box he cannot get out of.
So what will it be, troll? Is the sunlight you see every day beating down on you from that big glowing ball in the sky just ONE SINGLE photon and that’s it? Or is it a constant stream of a gazillion microscopic ones?
One or many? Photon or photons?
How hard is this? One word from you.
Once again: Sunlight is a stream of a photon after a photon Kristian.
Not spotting any new eqn.(s) to discuss.
Your eqn. has two objects independently radiating in each others view illuminating each other with near BB radiation, one in + direction and one in – direction, you correctly calculate their net energy transfer in joules per sec per m^2 = Q/A. You can find that well covered in Planck’s treatise. And many modern text books.
BTW Kristian, you will want to examine Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet where he properly calculates the independent UWLWIR from the water and the DWLWIR from a local measurement and uses components of your eqn.:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 T_c^4) => σ (289^4 279^4) = 52 W/m^2.
He deduces the 6 W/m^2 from that. He used clear prose also that lines up with your eqn., text books and the spreadsheet adds clarity. A device you should employ by showing eqn.s and your calculations as he did.
This time with – signs:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2.
Kristian says:
“It doesnt radiate as a blackbody into surroundings at absolute zero (or thereabouts),”
The radiation of a blackbody doesn’t depend on the environment that surrounds it.
Ball4 says, June 25, 2017 at 4:57 PM:
Ok, so you simply are not capable of just saying “ONE” or “MANY”, “PHOTON” or “PHOTONS”. What does even “a stream of a photon after a photon” mean? You think there is only one solar photon absorbed at a time? First one, then another? Who do you think will fall for such disingenuous stupidity?
Well, you absolutely will not give me a straight answer, so then I will just have to assume that you are aware, like the rest of us, that sunlight in fact consists of a countless number of photons, so many at any one instant that they can no longer be said to be individual entities. This is what the field of “statistical mechanics” is all about. As you move from the quantum realm to the macroscopic realm, crossing the thermodynamic limit, you lose any concept of individual photons. What’s left is only a probabilistic (statistical) average of ALL photons, a “photon cloud” filling the radiation field, and a net movement of radiant energy THROUGH the field.
Ball4 says, June 25, 2017 at 5:34 PM:
Yes, mathematically, you can do that. That’s how pyrgeometers work, after all, they CALCULATE (don’t detect) the UWLWIR and DWLWIR values based on Q and T. I do this too. And I’ve never said you couldn’t.
“You think there is only one solar photon absorbed at a time?”
Absorbed photon energy = hf.
That is what the eqn. shows Kristian. You wrote below “I will use eqn.s” yet you used none in this last comment. I skimmed your prose, didn’t find any eqn.s Your points did not come across.
Ball4 says, June 26, 2017 at 6:06 AM:
What? That there is only ONE solar photon absorbed by the surface AT A TIME!? Even YOU’RE not this obtuse. You fool no one, troll. Your game has been up for a long time already …
So, Kristian disputes the eqn. a quantum of a photon energy=hf with prose.
This is why Kristian’s prose is not meaningful, not worth reading.
What is the right eqn. then Kristian if sunlight is not a photon stream, one quantum of energy hf absorbed after another. Don’t answer in prose, I won’t read it, if you answer with an eqn. I will read and respond.
Ball4 says, June 26, 2017 at 4:20 PM:
Do I? Or do I simply ask you: “Does this equation show that there is only ONE solar photon absorbed by the surface AT A TIME!?”
Hmm, could it perchance be described simply by a radiative flux? 165 W/m^2. Containing innumerable photons absorbed by the surface at any point in time, not just ONE SINGLE photon, as you think.
No eqn.s presented Kristian so your prose was avoided as inaccurate.
A photon carries energy = hf which is an eqn. (for an example), look it up in a good text. Or do you need me to provide a paragraph, page, edition (which you avoid completely)?
And yes, a photon energy = hf is absorbed (and emitted) by an object one at a time, check out the meaning of quantum electrodynamics. Do you need a cite to paragraph, page, edition?
RW
You previously wrote, “The underlying mechanism is surface IR absorbed by the atmosphere thats re-radiated back downwards towards (and not necessarily back to) the surface.”
Yes, GHG’s absorb a portion of IR emitted from the surface and re radiate a portion back towards the earth. Except for the likes of Flynn or g*r*n*, this is not controversial.
snake, you probably have not learned a big word like “misrepresenting” yet, in junior high. But, when you imply that someone said something they never said, that is “misrepresenting”.
Let’s use it in a sentence, to make sure you understand.
When snake implied that g* did not accept that CO2 radiates IR to Earth’s surface, he was misrepresenting the facts.
Maturity is good, immaturity is BAD!
g*r*n*
Sorry,
RW was describing the underlying mechanism of the GHE. I assumed you wouldn’t agree.
“Except for the likes of Flynn or g*r*n*, this is not controversial.”
I am not particularly sympathetic to their arguments, but while this may not be controversial, it is not so because of the reasons you think.
That is not really how the GHE works. I recommend you read through the thread here. Also, peruse the discussion at Dr. Curry’s website at the link Barry provided.
g*e*r*a*n
This source should finally convince you about the absorbitivity of hot CO2. The book does use the term “absorbitivity”
It is from the Babcock and Wilcox 41st edition of Steam which is available online at this time.
http://www.academia.edu/12075401/Steam_its_generation_and_use_Edition_41
Go to Chapter 4 of this book and on page 31 you will find Example 6 “Radiation from hot gas to furnace walls”.
They go through a whole problem of heat transfer. It is an approximation but it lets you understand the point that hot gases still absorb IR and you have to include this in the problem to get valid results.
Norm, it’s okay to be confused. But, to WANT to be confused is not okay. But, to then want to peddle your confusion on someone else is just irresponsible.
I’m not going to tell you what is wrong here, because I’ve seen you turn my help into a weapon to use against science. Why would someone tell a con man what is wrong with his con? He will just go out and improve his con game for the next sucker.
But, I will give you some hints, in case there is any part of you that sincerely wants to learn.
Hint 1: What is going on in the firebox of a boiler?
Hint 2: Where do the gases in the firebox come from?
g*e*r*a*n
I am not sure if you looked at the link I provided but in the Example 6 do hot gases (CO2 and H2O) still absorb IR.
A yes or no answer would be enough.
Norm, your “question” (without a question mark) indicates you still don’t get it. You’re still trying to justify how you can bake a turkey with ice cubes, only now, you’re in a boiler firebox!
Why do you seek pseudoscience? Why do you run from reality? Why do you want to live in a world of spin and distortion?
g*e*r*a*n* says:
“Norm, your question (without a question mark) indicates you still dont get it. Youre still trying to justify how you can bake a turkey with ice cubes, only now, youre in a boiler firebox!”
No he isn’t.
This is the kind of lie that you try to pull all the time.
Having to lie here like this simply ruins your name here.
Don’t you care about your reputation — even if you’re afraid to comment under your real name?
g*e*r*a*n
Hint 1: Coal is reacting with O2 which produces energy
Hint 2: From combustion of coal, the water vapor comes from the coal moisture, the CO2 comes from chemical reaction of O2 with the carbon in the coal.
Does it make your life easy to keep telling someone they are wrong but never validating your claims. You found a new toy to play with calling people “con man” did Joseph come up with that toy for you to play with?
Pointless toy. Really does not advance thought or science. A derogatory term meant to belittle someone without validation to justify the belittlement.
I asked this above but you ignored it. I will see if Joseph gave you an answer yet (or will you just resort to your new toy until he blesses you with an email).
ME: “What source do you have that would indicate CO2 stops absorbing IR at 1000s of degrees? If you do not provide valid sources why should anyone believe what you claim? Just because? Is that how your science works?”
Hint 1: Coal is reacting with O2 which produces energy
>>>It doesn’t “produce energy”, the combustion converts chemical energy into heat energy. (Exothermic reaction.) The O2 is in the air that is drawn into the firebox. The air also contains about 80% N2, water vapor, and trace gases.
Hint 2: From combustion of coal, the water vapor comes from the coal moisture, the CO2 comes from chemical reaction of O2 with the carbon in the coal.
>>>The water vapor comes mainly from the combustion of the coal or natural gas.
CH4 + 2O2 –> CO2 + 2H2O
The water vapor and CO2 from the air mix with the water vapor and CO2 from combustion.
The hot gases, very similar to a plasma, must be “modeled”, as exact measurements are not feasible. The “modeling” is accomplished through testing. Results allow for charts and short cuts for future design calculations. Such experimentally gathered techniques are NOT applicable to all other situations.
“To surroundings at absolute zero, yes. Whats not to agree with?”
Did Planck think the universe was absolute zero?
Is earth orbital distance near absolute zero, or 2.726 K
Or Earth orbital distance is not is normal place in the universe- ie, cold and dark. Or anywhere in galaxy isn’t normal either. Then we have the Moon and earth magnetic sphere which extends far your atmosphere, which you could say ends about 800 km above the surface, or magnetic energy/Van Allen belts begin where atmosphere ends, has two belts with outer going about 20,000 km but then it’s tail goes past the Moon.
The temperature of empty space is 2.7 K.
In the solar system it’s a little higher, of course, because space here isn’t quite empty.
To summarize [long rambling posts above- …oh darn].
The model of ideal blackbody emits 340 watts
uniformly, at Earth’s distance from the Sun.
And something like black body radiating
340 watts in space has temperature of about 5 C.
Which provides a kind of proof that Earth should have
average temperature of 5 C.
Though not to say that Earth should have uniform
temperature of about 5 C, rather it should about
5 C or average about 5 C.
Or anything like earth should have a temperature of
about 5 C
So, the Moon is not like Earth. No known planet or
body in other solar system is like Earth.
Many claim that Mars is most like Earth.
One most significant aspect of Earth is it is
mostly covered by an ocean and it’s a fairly
deep ocean.
Mars has no oceans or lakes or ponds.
Only bodies with global oceans of water are the
moons of Jupiter- in theory Europa has very deep
ocean of water.
But both Europa or Mars are much smaller bodies
than Earth. If put the Europa moon at Earth’s
distance, you have body with open ocean [not frozen
surface like it is in Jupiter’s orbit.
But it’s gravity is like our moon’s gravity: 1.62 meters per second per second.
Europa being: 1.314 m/s
And Mars gravity is 3.71 m/s/s [Earth is 9.8 m/s/s]
It can argued that Mars is most like Earth- though if
only requirement is most similar gravity than Earth, then
it’s Venus.
If put Mars at Earth distance, and consider similar
enough to Earth, it should also be about 5 C.
Another thing similar about Mars is it has polar ice caps-
which water and frozen Co2, and it snows meters of CO2 during Winter at the poles.
Now if Mars was at Earth distance it would not snow CO2 at the poles. And what probably more important is that Mars has glacial water not only at the poles- it has a “significant amount” of glacial water in it’s equatorial region- which roughly thought due to equatorial region being at one time, in it’s polar region.
Anyhow it seems clear to me, one wouldn’t get CO2 snow, such warmer Mars, but the frozen water might stay in the polar regions, despite being closer to the Sun.
But the ice which elsewhere should melt and/or evaporate
Currently mars has 28 times more CO2 per square meter as compared to Earth and has about 210 ppm of water vapor. Or has about .021% and Earth has about 1% water vapor.
And should notes if exclude water vapor in Earth tropics, it would significantly lower the “about 1% water vapor”.
Mars atmosphere is around 2.5 x 10^16 kg with 95.32 CO2 and 2.7% nitrogen.
Or about 25 trillion tonnes of CO2
And if Mars was at earth distance- CO2 which snow stays in
atmosphere and any CO2 ice evaporates, and expect a significant amount water ice to evaporate, though it’s possible one gets a net gain water ice at polar
region, it’s also possible one gets lake of water on mars surface- one could lakes in polar region which melt into liquid and refreeze during winter but toward equator one could liquid lakes which remain liquid-
though perhaps freezing at night and re-thawing during daytime.
But such things would depend upon how close in temperature Mars would be compared to ideal blackbody temp of 5 C.
So such warmed Mars could have say 50 times more Co2 per square meter
and significant increase in water vapor.
And not be required to be close an average temperature of 5 C.
It be say an average of -20 C or 30 or 40 K warmer than it is presently.
At mars distance soil temperature reaches 20 to 30 C, at Earth distance same
soil would 70 to 110 C. Or should reach at least 70 C at some locations and time periods and probably won’t reach much higher the 110 C at any time periods or places.
It could it’s very likely it would be higher than -20 C, my point is could not be much lower than this and there going changing in atmosphere at or around an average of -20 C.
If you have twice as much atmosphere on Mars, it’s still not enough pressure to allow human to breath without pressure suit, but such pressure does increase the boiling point temperature of water- or water wouldn’t boil at 20 C, and
perhaps might not boil at 40 C [I say perhaps 40 C because it’s possible weather and/or night or day and “environmental factors” could affect it].
Though Mars isn’t very similar, it seems the average temperature of Mars at Earth distance would around 5 C.
Also don’t think it’s a given, that such a warmer Mars
would be “more habitable” as compared to Mars at Mars
distance. But solar power on Mars- whether at earth distance or Mars distance is roughly as or more viable than solar power on Earth.
Kristian
When you are making claims I am not I have to respond.
YOU: “For body 1, we know that E_b is the emissive power of a black body, so the energy leaving body 1 is E_b1 A_1. The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 is E_b1 A_1 F_1-2. The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is E_b2 A_2 F_2-1. The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is
E_b1 A_1 F_1-2 E_b2 A_2 F_2-1 = Q(dot)_1-2.
Which is exactly what Ive been telling Norman all along. The two hemispheric component fluxes are always fully integrated into ONE net energy interchange. This is part of the fundamental knowledge that Norman lacks, and seemingly refuses to acquire. You cant split the hemispheric component fluxes apart and put them in two separate (and opposing) heat transfers. They belong together in ONE, they make up ONE between them, completely interdependent:”
You really do not understand what I am stating though you think you do. Odd. The link clearly states there are TWO independent ENERGY FLOWS. There is not real world HEAT FLOW. Heat flow is the NET of two energy flows to a surface, it only exists when you have more than one flow.
Do you understand the word meaning of NET?
Here is the definition when used in physics:
“In physics terminology word “net” means total. For e.g.: if we say “net force” on a particle, it means that “the total force acting on the particle”. That is in this context “net force” is the “sum of all the forces” acting on the particle. In simple words “net” means “total” or “sum of similar quantities” on a particular thing of interest (say a body or particle), in physics.”
From this link:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-net-in-physics
There is not a unique 53 W/m^2 flux that exists in the real world. There is a flux of energy leaving the surface (being emitted) at 398 W/m^2 and another separate energy flux reaching the surface from the atmosphere of 345 W/m^2. Those fluxes are all that one can measure. There is not measured 53 W/m^2 flux. You can’t find it as it does not exist in reality. It is a NET of two other fluxes, does not exist.
I do not claim there are TWO separate HEAT FLUXES!! Since a heat flux is the NET of energy fluxes (the sum of all energy fluxes, if you have more than two bodies present you can have many energy fluxes but you will only have one NET flux). The net flux is a mathematical abstraction that only exists to determine direction of the net energy and is calculated by adding the two fluxes together.
Since the fluxes are moving in opposite directions, adding them together is the same as subtraction. Energy emitted by surface minus energy being absorbed by surface.
Norman 10:06pm, Kristian agrees with you 6:49am above when he correctly writes the Plankian eqn.s for an object illuminated by BB radiation:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2
It is his prose that can be and is usually wrong, I’d just ignore his prose, maybe he will cease to write prose as he does but I doubt it. When Kristian writes prose just picture he really correctly means the accurate 6:49am eqn.s as he wrote, just plug in different numbers for whatever he is discussing:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2
Ball4 says, June 25, 2017 at 7:41 AM:
Thanks, Ball4! Good to see you’re finally getting what I’ve been saying all along. Q/A is the emissive/radiative power of the 289K BB. And it’s restricted to 52 W/m^2 whenever the surroundings are at 279K.
Good job Kristian, skip your prose & write the eqn.s you will always be correct. I doubt even DA or Norman will debate you as they do. What a relief.
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2.
Ball4 says, June 25, 2017 at 11:39 AM:
Why? It says exactly what the equation is saying. I’m USING the equation to explain what I’m saying.
Once again, thanks! If everyone simply read and understood those two lines, they would understand BOTH the equation AND my “prose”. (289K BB emissive/radiative power [Q/A] with surroundings at 279K is 52 W/m^2, not 396.5 W/m^2. As shown by the equation. 396.5 W/m^2 is the emissive/radiative power of the 289K BB only with surroundings at absolute zero.)
You DON’T understand my “prose”, because you absolutely cannot and will not grasp the thermodynamic concept of HEAT, plus the fundamental distinction between quantum mechanical and thermodynamic processes and effects. I get that. But I’m afraid that’s YOUR problem and yours only.
Kristian, as Norman suggests 2:31pm, it is best for informed, critical readers to ignore your prose as he, DA and I & likely many others such as Dr. Spencer try but we can not make sense of your prose, even as you do correctly write:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2
So if you want to know why? from someone then communicate with those of us that actually consult text books to learn about Dr. Spencer’s radiative science experiments or posts by simply writing out an equation so we can make sense of what you are claiming. Or cite an established text passage, paper or available experimental data (such as Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet on his water experiment) so we can look it up, do not self cite. Thank you.
To answer your why? I will simply need eqn.(s) or established text, paper passage to discuss if you want to pursue further.
Ball4 says, June 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM:
Thanks again. This is exactly what my “prose” says and has been saying all along. If you haven’t understood my “prose” before, now you do. It’s in those two lines, one “prosaic”, one mathematical.
Like these two:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/jstefan1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/jstefan2.png
Links to originals upthread.
Yes, this eqn. makes sense to Norman and I Kristian as it shows two independent radiant energy fluxes to us as below not a single radiant flux that you many times incorrectly claim in prose.
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2
Use Planckian eqn.s to get your radiant energy points across correctly.
Kristian, I still think you are too stuck in the 1800’s. No matter how smart Stefan (or Boltzmann or Clausius) was, they do not get the ‘final word’.
When Stefan wrote those lines, there WERE no surfaces near absolute zero to use in experiments– liquid nitrogen was not produced until 1883. There was no concept of photons, let alone a detector that could detect individual photons.
If you want to stick with the classical thermodynamics of the 1800’s which focused on ‘heat’ = net flow of thermal energy, that can work perfectly well. But this is not the only (nor the most modern nor most powerful) way to understand energy and radiation.
Neither view is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ per se. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Tim, the eqn.s and experimental results from the 1800s are equally valid today. I agree with you in that the prose has changed in modern use but not entirely.
Which makes Kristian’s prose unreliable, the best way to communicate is with eqn.s in his case as Norman, DA and Dr. Spencer all have trouble with Kristian’s prose. Others such as yourself can write the prose consistent with the radiant energy transfer eqn.s developed in the late 1800s early 1900s.
It is evident while modern tests write the correct eqn.s not even modern texts can write reliable prose in my observations, look up Stigler’s law for instance. Much of the top post & comment confusion is the result.
Ball4 says, June 26, 2017 at 6:01 AM:
No, it specifically shows ONE actual radiative flux, the Q/A. That’s the whole point of this equation. It shows the spontaneous thermal transfer of energy via radiation from a hot object to a cold one as a result of their temperature difference. That’s the Q/A. The mathematical operations on the righthand side are there to obtain the Q/A. The hot object LOSES energy and the cold object GAINS energy. There is nothing in between. There is nothing in this equation about two “independent” fluxes in one.
Tim,
You still haven’t responded to this one from way upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251681
This is how we can learn you are wrong Kristian by eqn.s, nothing is radiating at 52, there are two near BB radiative energy transfers by Planck’s treatise, which I can cite page # and eqn. if you like:
#1 object T=289K radiating at σ T_h^4 in a positive direction per your own eqn.
#2 object T=279K radiating at σ T_c^4 in a negative opposing direction per your own accurate 6:49am eqn.:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2.
There is no object radiating at 52, that is a calculation of the net Q/A between the two objects each at the T you assign.
Any response by you needs to contain eqn.s to be meaningful.
Ball4 says, June 26, 2017 at 4:29 PM:
You’re being a troll again, troll.
I didn’t say it’s “radiating at” 52. I said the emissive/radiative power TO the surroundings FROM the warm object is 52 W/m^2 when it is at 289K and the surroundings are at 279K. Q/A is simply the spontaneous thermal transfer of energy from hot to cold via radiation in this situation. This is an incontrovertible (and thus completely uncontroversial) fact, troll, described and explained by the following equation:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2
You continue to display your inability to distinguish between QUANTUM MECHANICAL (microscopic) and THERMODYNAMIC (macroscopic) phenomena.
Here’s your inaccurate prose verbatim as written Kristian quoted by Norman starting this subthread: “You can’t split the hemispheric component fluxes apart and put them in two separate (and opposing) heat transfers. They belong together in ONE”.
That is contrary to what your eqn. shows, Norman and I can not find a text author that agrees with your prose.
There is not ONE heat transfer as you write, there are two objects! radiating in each others view, the net energy transfer Q/A in your formula is simply a calculation.
Again, the eqn. you wrote 6:49am shows you are wrong writing that prose as Norman is over and over pointing out, your own eqn. has two hemispherical radiative transfer fluxes and net Q/A correctly calculated from them:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2.
This shows why Kristian needs to include eqn.s in any explanation.
Ball4 says, June 27, 2017 at 11:31 AM:
Poor little troll. So confused. I’m afraid it’s not inaccurate at all. It’s a fact of nature. Only ignorants and dabblers in the field of physics would have a problem with such a statement, merely pointing out this fact.
LOL! It’s exactly WHAT my equation shows! They’re both part of the SAME heat transfer, Q/A.
Yes, there is. The equation describes ONE radiative heat transfer process, troll. Write an email to ANY physicist in the world and ask him or her about it.
Er, yes. The heat transfer is BETWEEN these two objects. Duh! A heat transfer can’t move between ONE object, troll.
Yes, they’re both radiating. No one said otherwise.
Micro vs. macro. Quantum vs. thermo.
Statistical mechanics. Thermodynamic limit.
Everything in the equation is “simply a calculation”, troll. It’s a mathematical equation. Things are being calculated. That’s what you do with a mathematical equation.
No, it shows I am right. Thanks!
“289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2.”
Accurate eqn. Kristian, I skipped your prose; if you cite a textbook agreeing with your prose, then I will read your prose but not until the cite is offered, because I can find the eqn. you write in text books.
You might want to start with a cite to Planck’s (or Clausius’) treatise for accurate prose but a modern text I can find is sufficient to get me to read your prose. This is what radiative transfer between two objects in each others view means in nature:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2
It seems by now I could just leave it all to you, troll. You’re after all doing a spledid job at presenting my equation (and thereby my “prose”), again and again.
Keep it up!
Ball4
Again you are right. I should just ignore his prose. Above Kristian makes the claim.
“Nope. There is no separate LW flux SHOWN to be adding any energy to the surface water.
The surface water still cools, so no energy is added to it. Q.E.D.”
I do not not think Kristian can get over the word term add and how it applies. You can add something and the net amount can still go down. I have explained it to him using apples but the concept does not work for him.
I would agree that the NET energy cannot be added to the surface as that would cause a rise in temperature.
Kristian does not understand the molecular reality of how it works and that is why he can’t understand energy can be added to a surface but not cause it to increase in temperature. So many fail to understand this idea and come up with hybrid physics not supported by the textbooks.
I have read others saying there is no IR flux from the atmosphere or if there is the surface cannot absorb it.
No textbook supports either of these hybrid views.
Text book support only one view. All objects, that have temperature, emit IR at a rate only determined by the temperature of the surface and its emissivity. No other conditions are needed.
If you add other emitting surfaces the energy of these other surfaces will be absorbed by the first surface and add energy to the surface. If the NET energy emitted – absorbed is postitive, the surface will cool at the rate of the NET energy loss. If negative it will warm at the rate of the NET energy gain.
I know of no textbook that states objects change the rate of emission based upon the objects around them. Nothing of this sort appears. Or that surfaces can’t absorb incoming IR from a cooler body. Not one textbook claims this.
I rest my case on the textbooks. Kristian can huff and puff his prose all day but he can’t find one source to support his ideas. Maybe he can convince the many lazy posters that won’t look in textbooks and read what they are saying, unfortunately that audience seems quite large. I will stick to real and tested science.
Norman 2:31pm, I agree we will have to look for any future improvement in Kristian’s comments by his using eqn.s, calculations not prose. I am of the opinion he can eventually earn back our reading his prose once he establishes he can invoke the eqn.s and proper text book language.
Ball4 says, June 25, 2017 at 5:40 PM:
I will use equations AND “prose”. Because they say the same thing. The “prose” explain the equations and the equations explain the “prose”.
YOU, on the other hand, should strictly stick to the equations only. Because YOUR “prose” isn’t saying what the equations are saying.
“I will use equations..”
Good Kristian, Norman and I will be able to make sense of your eqn.s and text/paper ref.s. Your 6:49am 1LOT & Plank radiation eqn. makes sense and shows us your prose isn’t worth reading:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2
Ball4 says, June 26, 2017 at 5:46 AM:
My “prose” is right there … Are you having trouble with your eyesight? You see, words, not just numbers and letters. Actual, full words.
Those two lines ARE my “prose”. Every time you show us those two lines, you promote my “prose”. And I thank you for that. More people should read those two lines and gain some insight into the matters we’re discussing, don’t you agree?
Keep up the good work!
Only skimmed that for eqn.s Kristian, none, you miss your own goal:
“I will use equations”
That didn’t last very long. As I suspected.
Ball4 says, June 26, 2017 at 4:32 PM:
Equations AND “prose”, is what I said. If you look at my comment above yours, there is both “prose” AND an equation there. What’s the problem? Could it be that you’re simply deliberately misquoting me, troll …?
No, Kristian used no eqn.s in his explanation of the copied eqn. so I didn’t find anything worthwhile skimming his prose. Kristian didn’t use an eqn. for explanation as he wrote he would. Sigma * T^4 would be meaningful Kristian, not your prose alone with a self cite. Find a text cite that agrees with you, Norman and I can not.
Ball4 says, June 27, 2017 at 8:35 AM:
You seem confused as always, troll. YOU’RE the one who has copied MY equation. Why should I reiterate an equation that’s already there? My “prose” refers TO and is backed BY that equation.
No eqn.s Kristian, no idea what you mean without them as you wrote you would include eqn.s. No text that can be found agrees with your prose Kristian, or cite one. Include eqn.s and you make sense, without them you do not.
Ball4 says, June 28, 2017 at 7:57 AM:
Yes. They ALL agree with my “prose”. None of them agree with YOUR or Norman’s “prose”. The evidence is right there in the equation.
To people with an actual understanding of physics, I do. To you and Norman, apparently I don’t. That’s YOUR problem, not mine …
“Yes. They ALL agree with my “prose”.”
Post one up then, cite prose paragraph, page, edition so forth so it can be found. You never do as there really aren’t any.
Ball4
Here is the actual prose from textbooks that Kristian gets wrong with his own version.
For body 1, we know that E_b is the emissive power of a black body, so the energy leaving body 1 is E_b1 A_1. The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 is E_b1 A_1 F_1-2. The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is E_b2 A_2 F_2-1. The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is
E_b1 A_1 F_1-2 E_b2 A_2 F_2-1 = Q(dot)_1-2.”
Here is a big flaw in Kristian’s logic that he won’t understand but is apparent.
If you have two identical plates facing each other with identical temperature, the Q/A is zero. Kristian believes that the energy loss acts like insulation meaning the energy from a cooler plate is NOT adding any energy to the warmer body but must be suppressing the amount of radiant flux the warmer body can emit. He does not postulate a mechanism for this idea and it is not at all supported by molecular physics of why objects emit or absorb.
Anyway, if there is a Q/A zero flux from each surface, what energy is being emitted by either that would be able to suppress the emission activity of the other?
Ball4
The two macroscopic flux conclusion gets exactly the same results as Kristian’s one way flux (which he can’t see even when shown).
So either way gives you the very same results but the two flux view is supported by empirical tested data.
Since he will not accept ambient temperature calibrated instruments can detect a real flux of energy entering them from the direction they are pointed at, scientists can use super cooled detectors and get very similar results. Point on up and you get a value of a flux reaching the super cooled sensor, point it down and you get a different reading. Nowhere do you detect this calculated one way flux as an actual existing measurable entity.
Also on the molecular level (which the early scientists would not have known) the surface molecules that can emit energy are not the same molecules that will be able to absorb energy. The two processes are separate by the nature of how molecules work. I do not think Kristian can see this point.
His prose does not match any textbook I have read to date.
All state, in early chapters, all objects emit thermal energy at a rate (or intensity) based upon the object temperature and emissivity.
Kristian’s approach would be hopelessly lost with multiple objects at various temperatures. It is a super complex math setup to solve. But it is real easy to determine the energy emitted by each object. Just have two values, temperature and surface emissivity. Getting the Q/A takes complex field of View equations.
Concur Norman, your eqn.s and prose agree with experiment and text books I look into, many times Kristian’s prose does not agree so I agree pay attention to his accurate eqn.s not prose. Kristian should provide a text cite if he continues to just write prose.
Ball4
I have asked him for a textbook support for his opinion but he has provided zero. He also will no longer directly communicate with me after I challenged his opinions. He thinks I am pretentious. I do not know why asking for textbook validation for an idea makes one a jerk. Isn’t that the point of science to keep it on track?
Norman
You wrote, “The two macroscopic flux conclusion gets exactly the same results as Kristians one way flux…..”
I’m pretty sure you mean, “The two microscopic flux conclusion gets exactly the same results as Kristians one way flux….”
Norman
You also wrote, “I know of no textbook that states objects change the rate of emission based upon the objects around them.”
Why do you say this? The Earth’s surface emits energy at a faster rate being surrounded by an atmosphere than it would if surrounded by space.
Snape
No, I would mean “macroscopic” watts/m^2 as opposed to electronvolts.
And your other point.
“You also wrote, I know of no textbook that states objects change the rate of emission based upon the objects around them.
Why do you say this? The Earths surface emits energy at a faster rate being surrounded by an atmosphere than it would if surrounded by space.”
That would only be true if the Earth’s surface had a different temperature. I may not have been totally clear but I think Ball4 understood what I was claiming. I might have left information out.
The Earth’s surface emits energy at a rate only determined by its temperature.
If the Earth had an atmosphere of none the rate it emitted would not depend on any backradiation or atmospheric temperature as the two fluxes are separate. The Earth’s surface flux is only dependent upon the temperature. In a no atmosphere state, the Earth’s surface could exceed the emission rate than the similar Earth with atmosphere in high noon solar energy input.
Earth’s surface at 15 C would radiate at the same rate regardless of what any surrounding flux was (until the surroundings could effect the surface temperature).
Does that more detailed explanation help?
Norman
Why do you consider an energy flux to be macroscopic just because it is measured in watts/m^2?
To your other point. I understand an object emits energy at a rate that’s based on it’s temperature and emissivety. But an object’s temperature is based on what it is surrounded by. This is why your comment makes no sense to me.
Norman
Going back to the “hot pipe”, didn’t the sleeve raise the temperature of the pipe? And didn’t the pipe emit energy at a faster rate as a result?
Now you say an object emits energy at the same rate, regardless of what is around it. I’m not following.
Norman
Your “coin” analogy is good for the flux issue. A man has two pennies in his hand. They are then removed while at the same moment one is replaced. The man, watching carefully, simply sees a penny disappear. This is the macro flux, and it’s always one direction.
It seems like the unseen back and forth of pennies should be called “micro” fluxes.
Nineteenth century scientists could observe changes in temperature, but not the comings and goings of photons.
Snape
My point was not what occurs at an equilibrium temperature or a steady state condition. It was a specific example of disproof of a one way flux notion.
Maybe this will help.
Say you have an object with high heat capacity so it would take a period of time to change temperature.
The object is radiating (emitting) energy at a rate based only upon its temperature. If you surround it with a cold or hot shell, it will continue to radiated at the same rate solely based upon its temperature.
My point in all this is that the energy of the surroundings is not enhancing or suppressing the surface emission, only the surface temperature determines the rate of emission (and its emissivity). You are correct that in time the surroundings would change the rate of emission but I do not agree with Kristian that the surroundings suppress the emission rate of a hotter surface. I have found no textbook information to support his notion. And he has never attempted to supply any but he says I do not know what I am talking about.
Norman
You: “…..but I do not agree with Kristian that the surroundings suppress the emission rate of a hotter surface.”
This still doesn’t make sense. If you place a big chunk of ice in a warm room, the room’s air temperature will decrease and the walls will become cooler. Being cooler, they will emit energy at a slower rate.
The ice (and lower air temperature) has suppressed the emission rate of a hotter surface.
Snape says, June 28, 2017 at 9:34 AM:
You’re starting to get the hang of it now, Snape. You’ve already passed Norman and Ball4 in your understanding of this subject. Good on you!
Snape says, June 28, 2017 at 1:20 PM:
This is actually an ok way of picturing it, Snape. Even though it’s really not even “micro fluxes”. It’s just photons that happen to be flying in a direction ‘covered by’ one particular hemisphere of the full radiation field/photon cloud.
Real radiation physicists know that the actual RADIATIVE FLUX through a thermal radiation field is the unidirectional net movement of ALL photons flying around the field, making up the photon cloud, and that humans then choose, specifically as an analytical model, to split the full radiation field into two geometric “directions”, two “hemispheres” – up and down. There is, however, nothing in the photon cloud itself that is inherently bidirectional. There is just ONE net movement of photons, not two. Either (microscopically) there are ALL the individual photon movements, going in ALL directions. Or (macroscopically) there is just their statistical AVERAGE. ONE net movement. The RADIATIVE FLUX.
Norman and Ball4 should try and catch up … You seem to be getting there, Snape.
Kristian
It is my understanding that all objects are emitting and receiving energy from each other. When comparing the movement of energy between two particular objects, the net movement will be from the warmer to the cooler.
Again, Kristian has written the correct eqn. accurately but his prose is incorrect as found in any text on the subject as it does not agree with the eqn. Kristian never cites where his prose comes from other than self cite. The eqn. is referenced in any relevant text.
Pick plus direction positive away from body at 289K radiating in view of a body at 279K. All macro., all positive radii, all objects large enough relevant to wavelength of light.
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 279K:
Q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ (289^4 – 279^4) = 52 W/m^2
The photon cloud itself as shown in the eqn. is inherently bidirectional, the positive photon energy flux in a hemisphere of directions emitted from object at 289K toward the other object as the relevant eqn. indicates:
σ T_h^4
The opposite photon energy flux from a hemisphere of directions emitted from object at 279K in the relevant eqn.:
-σ T_c^4
Thus Q/A is calculated positive. In nature, as you find in all the relevant texts, the photon cloud itself is inherently bidirectional as in this eqn. considering objects illuminated by BB radiation so emissivity epsilon is very close to unity.
Kristian won’t use eqn.s to explain this or quote from a text because he knows his prose is wrong. If not, cite a relevant text, Kristian, that can be looked into. No self cites.
Ball4
I don’t know the correct terminology, but it seems a back and forth movement of energy should have a different name than their net movement. Norman used the term, “macroflux” for each. This doesn’t make sense.
Both σ T_h^4
and the opposite photon energy flux from a hemisphere of directions emitted from object at 279K in the relevant eqn.:
-σ T_c^4
are inherently bidirectional macro photon energy fluxes Snape, as Norman indicates. These are incoherent photon fluxes so the photons do not interact. Any relevant beginning text on the subject will introduce the physics in the early chapters.
Ball4
I have no problem with two-way fluxes of energy or photons. Makes great sense. Just confused as to why you use the contrasting prefix “Macro” in isolation.
Kristian
There is no textbook I have yet found that validates your claim.
You make this statement about photons and radiant energy: “Real radiation physicists know that the actual RADIATIVE FLUX through a thermal radiation field is the unidirectional net movement of ALL photons flying around the field, making up the photon cloud, and that humans then choose, specifically as an analytical model, to split the full radiation field into two geometric directions, two hemispheres up and down.”
So where are all these “real” radiation physicists and why don’t they ever write textbooks on the material? No one even talks about a photon cloud. The UP/Down direction could be better stated as emitted radiation and absorbed radiation by a surface.
Photon’s only move in one direction away from an emitting surface. They don’t move around in all directions as molecules in a gas. If you have multiple radiating surfaces you will get multiple photon fluxes but all will be moving away from the surfaces emitting them, none will backtrack so that excludes one direction completely.
Snape
YOU: “I dont know the correct terminology, but it seems a back and forth movement of energy should have a different name than their net movement. Norman used the term, macroflux for each. This doesnt make sense.”
How would you prefer energy emitted by a surface as one flux which will always move away from the surface, and energy absorbed which is the energy moving to the surface. That makes two unique independent fluxes. At any surface you can calculate the NET energy by taking the emitted energy minus the absorbed energy. But that NET flux is not a real measured flux, there is no 53 W/m^3 flux moving up from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere. There is a 398 W/m^2 flux moving up and a 345 W/m^3 flux (global average not specific to regions) moving down. The surface is emitting 398 W/m^2 and absorbing 345 W/m^2 from the atmosphere emission. The NET energy will let you know how much energy the surface is losing but it is in no way what the surface is actually emitting. Does that make sense?
Norman
Macro is a prefix intended to contrast with micro. It doesn’t make sense on it’s own. If textbooks use the term “macroscopic flux”, they should also use the contrasting term “microscopic flux”.
Is this the case in the textbooks you read?
Norman
I’m a little confused by the numbers:
” The surface is emitting 398 W/m^2 and absorbing 345 W/m^2 from the atmosphere emission.”
How much energy is the surface receiving from solar?
Snape says, June 28, 2017 at 5:19 PM:
Exactly. They EXCHANGE energy microscopically. But MACROscopically, energy is only TRANSFERRED (it only MOVES) one way, from hot to cold. The net is the statistical average of ALL microscopic movements. There is but ONE such statistical average. Unless you CHOOSE to split your perspective of the radiation field/photon cloud into two geometric directions (hemispheres): First you look up, then you look down (photons will come in (and move out) no matter where you look, after all). Mentally splitting the field like this gives you a useful analytical/mathematical MODEL, but it is only in your head, it is not something that is physically inherent to the radiation field/photon cloud itself.
This is what Norman and Ball4 STILL simply do not understand: The fundamental distinction between microscopic (photon) exchange and macroscopic (flux) transfer of energy.
You, on the other hand, do seem to get it.
* * *
However, and this is essential, the two-way vs. one-way flux discussion is of secondary importance. The most important mistake Norman and Ball4 does is not in adhering to the two-way model. In fact, that’s not really a “mistake” at all. It works perfectly well. If you only know how to use it correctly. They don’t. The problem lies only in the way they APPLY this model to Earth’s surface energy budget, to explain the elevated mean surface temp. I’ve laid it out for them so many times, but they simply do not and will not get it. You can see one way of describing the problem here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251681
Kristian
I agree it’s confusing when an insulator, in this case the atmosphere, is treated the same as a heat source.
Snape says, June 29, 2017 at 12:54 AM:
Thank you, Snape. This has been my point from the beginning.
If Norman only wrote the surface energy budget like this (consistent with the fundamental principles of thermodynamics):
Q_in = Q_out => Q_rad(SW) = Q_rad(LW) + Q_cond + Q_evap => 165 W/m^2 = [398-345=] 53 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
instead of like this (NOT consistent with the fundamental principles of thermodynamics):
Q_in + DWLWIR = UWLWIR + Q_cond + Q_evap => 165 + 345 = 398 + 24 + 88 (W/m^2) => 510 W/m^2 = 398 W/m^2 + 112 W/m^2
then we would have no conflict.
I’ve been working hard in the past (can’t be bothered any longer) in trying to make him come to this particular realisation. But to no avail whatsoever. He still thinks this is all about the two-way vs. the one-way view. It’s not. The two-way view is present and employed in BOTH budgets above, as you can see, only that, in the upper one the “hemispheric components” of the net LW flux (your “microfluxes”, the DWLWIR and the UWLWIR) are NOT treated as two separate, independent heat fluxes, they are rather kept together inside the same bracket, that is, integrated into ONE heat flux, the outgoing Q_rad(LW), while in the lower one, they are – one incoming, one outgoing.
Kristian
You have previously mentioned that the one way, net flux of energy is what’s most important to the field of thermodynamics. I agree. Concider a situation where everything is the same temperature. Energy is still moving between objects…emitted and absorbed. The two way flux is unphased. On the other hand, net fluxes no longer exist (equal zero).
Now, if you decide to discuss the situation in terms of thermodynamics, you will quickly realize there’s nothing to talk about!
Snape says, June 29, 2017 at 8:38 AM:
When everything’s (finally) at the same temperature, there IS nothing more to talk about in terms of thermodynamic energy transfers. Because there are none. However, we can never achieve such a situation with the thermal interaction going on between the Sun, the Earth’s surface, the Earth’s atmosphere, and space. And so there will always be something to talk about …!
Snape
YOU WROTE: “This still doesnt make sense. If you place a big chunk of ice in a warm room, the rooms air temperature will decrease and the walls will become cooler. Being cooler, they will emit energy at a slower rate.
The ice (and lower air temperature) has suppressed the emission rate of a hotter surface.”
The ice is not suppressing the emission rate of the hotter surface.
Before you added the ice the wall was emitting at a rate based upon its temperature but at an equilibrium state because the opposing walls were emitting the same amount of radiant energy to the wall as it was emitting.
Adding the ice did not slow down the rate of emission of the warm walls, the ice emitted less energy to the walls and with the same previous emission rate but receiving less energy they cool down. The radiant energy of the ice did not directly suppress the emission of energy by the wall surface. Is that making sense, I am not sure if I am explaining it well. Do you want a textbook link to read for yourself?
Norman
In my example, a wall began to emit energy at a slower rate as a result of changes (cooling) to it’s environment. The wall’s surroundings, whether directly or indirectly, acted to suppress it’s emission rate.
Snape
I would not use the word suppress the emission rate. I think the proper word for this description would be slow the emission rate.
Suppress, at least as i understand the term, would mean the ice is using its radiant energy to act upon the molecules of the walls to make them so they are not able to emit energy (like a force stopping the emission).
Snape
I have not found any mechanism where a radiant flux directed at a surface will prevent molecules at higher energy levels from emitting radiation.
It would mean that that the IR from the atmosphere would somehow stop molecules at higher energy levels from emitting photons by striking the molecules. I do not know what this mechanism is and have not found anyone suggesting that this is a factual reality.
The IR photons would stop the excited molecules from emitting at their normal rate of 398 W/m^2 and only allow the emission of 53 W/m^2 (considerably less photons leaving the surface).
I am not sure my thoughts are communicating correctly. I will keep trying.
Norman
I misunderstood what you were trying to say. The ice emits less IR, which results in cooling and a slower emission rate. Maybe you’re right and this is different than, “suppresses emissions”.
Snape
YOU: “Im a little confused by the numbers:
The surface is emitting 398 W/m^2 and absorbing 345 W/m^2 from the atmosphere emission.
How much energy is the surface receiving from solar?”
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
Averages globally around 163 W/m^2 for solar input. The Earth’s surface would get much warmer if radiant energy was the only heat exchange. Evaporation and convection also cool the surface to keep the surface at the equilibrium temperature that emits 398 W/m^2.
Norman
Thanks
Norman, Ball4
“At any surface you can calculate the NET energy by taking the emitted energy minus the absorbed energy. But that NET flux is not a real measured flux, there is no 53 W/m^3 flux moving up from the Earths surface to the atmosphere.”
We can get temperature readings directly from nature, whereas temperature *anomalies* are just a calculation. But just because we can’t measure anomalies doesn’t mean they are less important to climate science. Rather, they are often what’s most important.
Norman, Ball4
Forgot to say this example might be helpful in understanding Kristian’s point of view.
Snape, Kristian’s eqn.s are usually correct, for his POV only look at his eqn.s. For example, 3:59am his two eqn.s are exactly the same, can be found by looking in texts & relevant papers, I didn’t read his prose.
Use Kristian’s eqn.s, not his prose which hasn’t been found in any relevant text so far as Norman points out, or if it is found, then post up the text that can be compared in which case I’ll read his prose again.
Snape,
Are these quotes both from Norman (I know the last one is)? Or is one from Ball4?
“At any surface you can calculate the NET energy by taking the emitted energy minus the absorbed energy. But that NET flux is not a real measured flux, there is no 53 W/m^3 flux moving up from the Earths surface to the atmosphere.”
– – –
“There is not a unique 53 W/m^2 flux that exists in the real world. There is a flux of energy leaving the surface (being emitted) at 398 W/m^2 and another separate energy flux reaching the surface from the atmosphere of 345 W/m^2. Those fluxes are all that one can measure. There is not measured 53 W/m^2 flux. You can’t find it as it does not exist in reality. It is a NET of two other fluxes, does not exist.”
This isn’t just confused. It is downright delusional. The reality of things is of course THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!
Here is how a pyrgeometer (the radiometric instrument allegedly “measuring” the DWLWIR) actually works. Carefully compare what is being said in the below with what is being claimed in the above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation
I mean, how willfully ignorant can one get …?
The net flux (the macroscopic ‘radiative flux’), the radiant heat, is what’s actually physically DETECTED. FROM this (and the sensor temperature), the conceptual “hemifluxes” (the DWLWIR and the UWLWIR) are CALCULATED. They are NEVER measured! NEVER detected. Only the net is. The components are ALWAYS merely CALCULATED (assumed!) quantities.
Kristian
You are wrong and I already have explained it to you. You just do not want to listen.
You can put the sensor in a liquid helium bath and it will detect an almost pure downwelling flux since the Net will be the same as the downwelling flux (minus some milliwatt value).
The instruments they use are calibrated in labs to be accurate valid readings in the field. Scientist learned that you did not have to have super cooled sensors to get valid and accurate readings of upwelling and downwelling IR. I think the difference might be a couple of watts between air temperature sensors and super cooled ones.
So if you have a liquid helium bath that your detector is in and it records a temperature change from downwelling IR that is in the range of hundreds of watts/m^2 will you admit you do not know what you are talking about?
I have read the theory of how the instruments work already.
So what is a sensor reading when it is immersed in liquid helium??
Kristian
I believe everthing except the following comment was input from Norman.
I wrote: “We can get temperature readings directly from nature, whereas temperature *anomalies* are just a calculation. But just because we cant measure anomalies doesnt mean they are less important to climate science. Rather, they are often whats most important”
I wrote this to show a calculation, like an anomaly, can sometimes be more important than measured values.
It will take me awhile to get through your comment. I’m a little out of my league trying to understand a lot of your argument with Norman and Ball4.
Snape,
I have stated that you can use either a two-flux approach or a uni-flux approach and you get the same results. My complaint with Kristian is he says I am wrong and do not understand physics. I also do not think his view is a real view but it works.
But if you read Kristian deeper, he does not believe the amount of GHG’s matter as long as you have some to create this circuit he talks about. I think the amount of GHG is critical as the amount and temperature set the backradiation that determines the surface equilibrium temperature.
If you take the numbers.
163(in)=58(out)+86.5(out)+18.5(out)
Kristian style
It works the same to do it my way, exact same results.
163(in)+340(in) = 398(out)+86.5(out)+18.5(out)
Kristian seems to think it is awful to put the downwelling flux as an energy gain (which it is in reality).
It does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is not adding heat to the surface. Without solar input both atmosphere and surface would continue to cool until it reached an equilibrium with geothermal input (a few hundred milliwatts).
Norman
Like I just mentioned to Kristian, a lot of the argument between you two is past my skill level. On the other hand, it’s interesting and challenging to try and understand your points of view. I get the general concepts, and that’s the only area where I can add anything.
Snape says, June 29, 2017 at 1:48 PM:
It is clearly beyond Norman’s “skill level” too. He doesn’t understand the simple thermodynamic concept of a heat transfer, and he doesn’t understand the fundamental distinction between a photon being emitted and absorbed and a thermodynamic transfer of radiant energy, the MICRO vs. the MACRO perspective. Plus he doesn’t understand how the hypothetical quantity of “back radiation” is something that’s only ever calculated, never actually detected (what’s actually detected is the net exchange, the heat).
I’ve been trying to explain these things to him for so long, but he absolutely refuses to get it. He is truly a lost case. And so I can no longer be bothered communicating with him. He’s not worth the time and effort. It is always going to be a waste, pure and simple.
As Norman writes 4:48am, Kristian ignores Norman: “So what is a sensor reading when it is immersed in liquid helium??”
Since only Kristian’s eqn.s agree with what the basic text books contain, not his prose which is confused by heat term unlike the texts, I’ll put his eqn.s into a numerical example. A cabbage initially at T_c 289K is inserted in anger’s dark closet which is being held at room temperature 72F (295.4K) T_s by a house thermostat, the convenience is the bath of BB radiation, so no need to worry about emissivity epsilon as it is near enough to unity for gov. work.
Kristian’s eqn. which he accurately writes updated for this example:
289K BB emissive/radiative power with surroundings at 295.4K:
Q/A = σ (T_c^4 – T_s^4) => σ (289^4 – 295.4^4) = -36.2 W/m^2,
the bidirectional, detectable light fluxes determine cabbage net gain of internal energy U by virtue of a temperature difference, net Q/A energy flows toward the cabbage, its constituent particle KE increases towards equilibrium with surroundings. It is easy to actually perform this experiment, take a cabbage out of your refrigerator, stick in a thermometer and place in closet. Take data.
At equilibrium, for anger’s cabbage in a closet, both Kristian’s other eqn.s are the same as I wrote:
Q_in = Q_out => Q_rad(SW) = Q_rad(LW) + Q_cond + Q_evap => 431.8 W/m^2 = 431.8 W/m^2 + 0 W/m^2 + 0 W/m^2 = 431.8 W/m^2
Q_in + DWLWIR = UWLWIR + Q_cond + Q_evap => 0 + 438.1= 438.1 + 0 + 0 (W/m^2) => W/m^2 = 0 = 438.1 W/m^2 – 438.1 W/m^2
Now immerse anger’s closet in liquid helium, put these parameter’s into Kristian’s eqn.s:
289K BB emissive/radiative power cabbage with 4.2K surroundings:
Q/A = σ (T_c^4 – T_s^4) => σ (289^4 – 4.2^4) = ~395.6 W/m^2,
the two bidirectional, detectable light energy fluxes determine cabbage is now net losing internal energy U by virtue of a temperature difference, cabbage constituent particle KE decreases towards equilibrium with surroundings.
I will let Norman and/or Snape write out Kristian’s same two eqn.s in liquid helium case for practice, they will each give the same answer. Note it doesn’t matter if there is air at 1 bar in the closet or a near vacuum. Check for roundings, math errors, I’ll blame them on the calculator.
Lesson: just skip Kristian’s prose until he writes it and/or cites it the same as text books, learn what he means from his accurate eqn.s when you can find them in text books.
Ball4 says, June 30, 2017 at 6:45 AM:
No, troll. Once again you got it all backwards. YOU are confused by the heat term, not me. YOU are. And so YOU don’t understand my “prose”. My “prose” is just saying exactly what the equations are saying, so it is most definitely correct. But this whole thing utterly confounds you, so you repeatedly end up misinterpreting my “prose”, and as a result, you THINK it’s wrong even when it’s not. I’m afraid, however, that this is YOUR problem and yours alone, troll.
They’re not detectable. They are specifically mathematically derived FROM physically detected inputs like Q and T. They are calculated, not detected. The net exchange is what’s actually detected.
Your copied eqn.s are correctly found in text books for the bidirectional light energy flux Kristian, I didn’t read your prose and won’t unless you can show a cite to a text.
Ball4 says, June 30, 2017 at 8:18 AM:
Well, if you had read my “prose”, you would’ve seen that what I responded to wasn’t your mentioning of the term “bidirectional”, but rather to your assertion that there are “two bidirectional, detectable light energy fluxes” inside the net exchange.
There aren’t, and YOU need to “show a cite” that clearly states that the two hypothetical hemifluxes making up the net flow of energy in a radiant heat transfer process are themselves in fact directly and distinctly physically detectable, not just calculated.
You know already what Josef Stefan said about this particular issue, because I’ve just recently linked to it, not just once, but twice. Do you want me to link to it a third time, troll? And maybe quote from it …?
Kristian
You already have the answer that you totally ignore. Put the sensors in liquid helium and have it pointed to the sky and it will give you a reading of some hundreds of Watts/m^2 and put another sensor in liquid helium and face it down and it will also pick up an upwelling macroscopic flux of hundreds of watts/m^2. This simple test will prove there are two individual fluxes and both are easily detected and they are moving in opposite directions. You are wrong again. Still why won’t you site a textbook agreeing with your claims?? You spend hours justifying your beliefs but will not spend a minute validating it with a textbook. Why is that?
I happened to notice Stefan and after searching this thread you have NOT linked directly to his stuff Kristian. Link and quote his experimental stuff directly or I won’t read your prose as you know since it so different from what I find Stefan wrote (as translated) and what is in texts – waste of time reading you anymore. Even Dr. Spencer once wrote you twist this radiative science into pretzels.
Norman and I have searched low and high for a text author that agrees with you Kristian; all Kristian has to do is cite a text, should be so easy to do as you claim they all agree with your prose. Not. They do agree with your eqn.s.
This may not help but ….
Sensors (like the pyrgeometer listed above) do not measure DWLIIR from the sky.
Sensors do not measure UWLIIR from the ground
Sensors do not measure NET LWIR between ground and sky
A pyrgeometer measures the net LWIR between somewhere (eg the ground or sky) AND THE SENSOR.
In other words. the sensor measures IR_in_to_sensor – IR_out_from_sensor. Since the temperature of the sensor can be measured separately, the IR_out_from_sensor can be calculated. In turn, IR_in_to_sensor (eg DWLWIR or UWLWIR depending on orientation of the sensor) can be estimated as NET-IR_out_from_sensor. And in one more step, you could calculate NET LWIR since you now have UWLWIR & DWLWIR.
************************************
You could do something sneaky like mounting the detector in the ground, so that it was at ground temperature an effectively measuring the NET IR. You could also do something sneaky like cooling the sensor to very low temperatures so that you are effectively measuring DWLWIR or UWLWIR directly.
Tim Folkerts says, June 30, 2017 at 1:48 PM:
Exactly. Tell it to Norman and Ball4. They both absolutely refuse to acknowledge this trivial fact.
Yes. Tell it to Norman and Ball4. They are both convinced the IR_out_from_sensor is in fact directly detected.
Yes. You have just repeated what I quoted above. Everybody (except the likes of Norman and Ball4) knows this perfectly well to be the case. The UWLWIR and the DWLWIR are both CALCULATED quantities. The net exchange (the Q/A, the radiant heat) is what is actually being physically DETECTED.
Yeah, pretty ironic, isn’t it. These instruments are specifically designed NOT to visually quantify (display to you) the physical phenomenon they actually detect, but rather a purely hypothetical one, a purely calculated quantity. So in order for you to “find” the thing your instrument actually detected in the first place, you will have to “derive” it through a back engineering operation, FROM two purely calculated and assumed quantities whose own derivation specifically depended on the actually detected quantity as input (as well as the T of the sensor). How stupid is that?
Well, then it wouldn’t be the DWLWIR (the downward ‘hemiflux’) from the sky to the ground you’re detecting, now would it? It would be the Q/A, the net flux, the radiant heat, from a relatively warm (or cool) sky to an exceedingly cold detector. The colder the detector, the “purer” the heat flux. The sky would effectively HEAT the detector, in the sense that it transfers heat [Q] to it.
Only fools would seriously believe (and claim) that you had now somehow “measured” directly the atmospheric “back radiation” to the surface.
Yes, sneaky indeed.
Sorry, Kristian, I absolutely acknowledge your “trivial facts” in the radiative energy transfer eqn.s behind the calibrated pyrgeometer operation as they are found in text books.
What is not found in text books is your prose. Or kindly post up a text book upon which you base your prose.
Ball4 says, June 30, 2017 at 10:08 AM:
I sure have. Either you’re lying, or you’re just not very good at searching …
First one is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252736
Second one is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-253064
Do you want us to go through these two quotes in detail?
“Do you want us to go through these two quotes in detail?”
Those are self cites to your own website as usual afaik. Link Stefan’s published work directly in his own publications as translated not drive traffic to your site and be glad to go through them.
Ball4 says, July 1, 2017 at 8:28 AM:
No, troll. I link to the originals also. If you could only bother to actually read through the comments I link to. But there are “no equations there”, so I guess you can’t … What a joke!
Now, should we go through them?
Kristian: “I link to the originals also.”
Not in this thread; go ahead and actually do so on Dr. Spencer’s site if you want me to read your unconfirmed prose. Or just stick to eqn.s, I’ll read those.
Ball4 says, July 2, 2017 at 10:05 AM:
Yes, troll. On THIS thread. It’s right there in the first comment linked to just above. You can’t miss it. If you ACTUALLY READ IT.
Actually Kristian you have self cited; again link directly to Stefan publication and I’ll read it. Or give Stefan’s pub. title and I’ll find it.
Ball4 says, July 2, 2017 at 3:01 PM:
No. The cut quotes just happen to be pasted on my blog (because this site didn’t let me paste them here), but they are not my words. In both cases, the links to the originals are to be found right below the links to my blog, with the relevant page number behind them.
Still too hard to see?
I have linked directly to a Stefan publication. So why aren’t you reading it!?
This site not posting links is not an excuse Kristian. Self cites are not going to work, post which title of Stefan’s work here for all to see if you want to discuss.
Ball4 says, July 2, 2017 at 5:05 PM:
Click on the link that I’ve provided ON THIS THREAD and tell us the title yourself.
Once again: In both cases, the links to the originals are to be found right below the links to my blog, with the relevant page number behind them. Just a few comments above this one, troll. I know you can do it. It’s just a bit hard at times when you’ve decided for yourself not to read what your opponents are actually writing …
I find no link yet to Stefan’s work you refer Kristian, you know he is easy to find on the ‘net, somewhat famous historical character. His work actually has titles for easy look up. Title = ?
Ball4 says, July 2, 2017 at 5:46 PM:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-253437
Hint: tinyurl
I know you can do it, troll. But you need to actually read through my comments …
Kristian, as I have been writing, there is no indication that url points to anything by Josef Stefan.
Until you directly link to his work here (you know provide a traditional cite, title, page) you have not provided any support for your “theories” that K&Z, Apogee are wrong about their instruments detecting and measuring DW and UW IR independent bidirectional incoherent light, that our eyes do not detect DW cloud visible light, and that there is support for your “theories” that DW and UW light are only “apparent” calculated from their “heat” to be found in modern texts.
Ball4 says, July 3, 2017 at 1:38 AM:
Yes, there is. It’s right there. You claim to be unable to find it. Even when it stares you right in the face. Well, I’m afraid that’s YOUR problem, troll, not mine. The link is there. A ‘tinyurl’ link with a page number following it.
Maybe you should call someone for assistance, because this thread-searching thing clearly isn’t a strength of yours …
Feel free NOT to complain about the imagined absence of links that are present and in plain view for all to see in the future, troll.
Ball4 says, July 3, 2017 at 1:38 AM:
I have already provided a link (just below) where Kipp&Zonen themselves explain how this is in fact exactly how these instruments work. They DETECT the net exchange (the heat) and the temperature and then CALCULATE the assumed DWLWIR and UWLWIR “hemifluxes” based on these detected values.
But I guess you’ll be ‘unable’ to find this comment/link too. Even though you DID see it as it was posted; your response:
“Sorry, Kristian, didn’t read most of that as there are no eqn.s but I did notice the word detector, please note as K&Z write their instrument is a “detector” of bidirectional light DW & UW IR for its measurement (…)”
So you specifically didn’t read what Kipp&Zonen wrote, and now you’re back claiming that I haven’t provided a link saying exactly what that quote said …
Nice troll tactics, troll.
Still no citation to a Josef Stefan publication found; didn’t read the rest as there are no eqn.s. So Kristian’s “theories” remain uncorroborated here.
I did read K&Z eqn.s just not Kristian’s unfounded prose. K&Z and Apogee get their prose correctly consistent with text books explaining how their instruments detect and measure in the wild UW and DW natural light.
Hint: Kristian – all you need to do is go to your tinyurl and post up Stefan title citation edition so forth, how hard can that be?
I will stop feeding this troll now …
It really was too hard (or painful) for Kristian then to provide a traditional cite to the J. Stefan publication.
Too, it is very likely the Stefan cite does not corroborate Kristian; J. Stefan pub. really does corroborate K&Z, Apogee eqn.s & prose, and modern text books.
Tim Folkerts
I do understand what you post. I have read much on these detectors. People in the field also understand what the detectors are reading.
They used to use super cooled instruments to read IR more directly but it is very costly and difficult to maintain. It did turn out that the warmer instruments were fairly close to values (once calibrated properly) given by the cooled sensors.
Would you agree that a sensor in liquid helium will give you very close to an actual measured value of downwelling IR if the instrument was pointed up?
I know Kristian will not answer this question. I do have lots of respect for you knowledge and you have straightened out errors I have made in the past.
A few years ago I was thinking the likes of Claes Johnson and Joe Postma had figured out the science was phony. Then I started to read textbooks.
You will notice all the anti-GHE posters never link to textbook data, they offer endless opinions they got off blogs. Kristian offers his opinion. Ball4 and myself request valid proof of his opinion. I like to link to the most valid sources I can find to show posters the source of my points. It seems only other scientific people do the same. The majority are just voicing opinions and most will not change an opinion even when facts are presented.
That is what Kristian does. I ask him what is the downwelling IR if the sensor is in liquid helium (which would contribute extremely small IR to the sensor). He ignores these posts completely and goes on with his opinions.
Kristian
You make very little sense at all here. Maybe Tim Folkerts can decipher your words. Ball4 could you read Kristian’s words this time and help me to understand his point.
Here are his words: “Well, then it wouldnt be the DWLWIR (the downward hemiflux) from the sky to the ground youre detecting, now would it? It would be the Q/A, the net flux, the radiant heat, from a relatively warm (or cool) sky to an exceedingly cold detector. The colder the detector, the purer the heat flux. The sky would effectively HEAT the detector, in the sense that it transfers heat [Q] to it.
Only fools would seriously believe (and claim) that you had now somehow measured directly the atmospheric back radiation to the surface.”
I can’t unwrap this pretzel of thought. It is directly measuring the net flux (which is the same as the DWLWIR). Yes indeed if the cold sensor measures the flux as a real thing it is definitely back radiation to the surface.
What part of quantum mechanics are you not understanding Kristian. The molecules that are excited enough to emit a specific energy photon will not be the same molecules that will absorb this specific energy of a photon. The excited molecule can absorb other photons at different energy levels (as Tim Folkerts pointed out) but they will not absorb the same photon of an excited state until after it has been emitted.
“Ball4 could you read Kristian’s words this time and help me to understand his point.”
Just ignore or skip Kristian’s mostly meaningless prose, use his eqn.s to understand his point, at least until he can post up a text book upon which his prose is based.
Kristian posted up the eqn.s behind the workings of the pyrgeometer which are easy to understand. It is his prose discussing its operation which has no text book meaning. Not worth reading, read the pyrgeometer manual he posted to get his point not Kristian’s prose.
Or read Kipp&Zonen’s stuff easily found “The CGR3 is a pyrgeometer, designed for meteorological measurements of downward atmospheric long wave radiation.”
Kristian’s prose indicates this is not possible, DW IR can’t be measured or detected per his prose. No text book I have seen claims that.
Skip Kristian’s prose as I do, pay attention to his eqn.s when included to make a point, go to K&Z to understand how DW & UW IR bidirectional light is measured and detected.
Even your eyes detect DW light in certain wavelengths, what does Kristian think his eyes are detecting when they see clouds? DW Visible. We know his eyes can not see (detect) DW IR. We need K&Z pyrgeometers to detect DW IR.
Ball4 says, June 30, 2017 at 8:34 PM:
Funny you should bring up Kipp&Zonen, troll. (Without actually linking to them, of course.) One of the main manufacturers of pyrgeometers, after all. Because they describe the process of ‘finding’ the DWLWIR exactly the way I (and Wikipedia) do – it is ONLY ever a calculated quantity, NOT an actually detected one. And they confirm my “prose” – the net exchange, the radiant heat flux, the Q/A, is what’s actually being physically detected at/by the sensor. As well as the sensor temperature.
http://www.kippzonen.com/Download/36/CGR-Pyrgeometers-Brochure?ShowInfo=true
“A pyrgeometer provides a voltage that is proportional to the radiation exchange between the instrument and the sky (or ground) in its field of view. The detector signal output can be positive or negative.
For example, if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the instrument radiates energy to the sky and the output is negative.
In order to calculate the incoming or outgoing FIR it is necessary to know the temperature of the instrument housing close to the detector and the data must be recorded simultaneously with the detector signal.”
With this, can we now perhaps put this silly ‘discussion’ to rest?
K&Z: “..with the detector signal.”
Sorry, Kristian, didn’t read most of that as there are no eqn.s but I did notice the word detector, please note as K&Z write their instrument is a “detector” of bidirectional light DW & UW IR for its measurement like your eyes detect DW visible from clouds. Their eqn.s are correct so I’ll pay attention to you if you use eqn.s like theirs to make a point, I will not read your inaccurate prose preferring accurate text books.
It is simply your continuing confusion over heat term that causes your prose to be so inaccurate….or link to a text book that you base your prose on. You will always ignore that request because you also know the text books disagree with your prose.
http://www.kippzonen.com/ProductGroup/4/Pyrgeometers
“The CGR3 is a pyrgeometer, designed for meteorological measurements of downward atmospheric long wave radiation.”
https://www.apogeeinstruments.com/pyrgeometers/
“Pyrgeometers Accurate and stable incoming and outgoing longwave radiation measurement.”
https://www.apogeeinstruments.com/pyrgeometers/
Ball4 says, July 1, 2017 at 7:29 AM:
Hahaha! Pure denial in operation! Ball4 essentially tells me: ‘Lalalalala! Sorry, I saw you posted something, but didn’t read what it said, so in my world you still haven’t posted anything to back up your “prose”.’ How ridiculous and sad can a troll truly become …? Can it possibly go even lower than this …?
Kristian 9:29am, I note you once again did not post up any text book confirmation of your “theories”. Both K&Z and Apogee disagree with you. Post up a text book passage that agrees with you and I’ll read it. Until then you have nothing but self cites. And you are the only one writing your “theories”.
Stick to eqn.s Kristian at least those I’ll find worth reading.
Kristian says, July 1, 2017 at 9:29 AM:
Ball4, July 2, 2017 at 10:01 AM.
It made it!
Kristian
I really do not know what basis you have to make your assertions about me since mine understanding comes from textbooks. I do not know where yours comes from since you never validate it except to go to your own blog.
You completely ignore my point of putting a sensor in a liquid helium bath and pointing it upward to detect IR emitted by the atmosphere. The NET energy in this case would be nearly complete Dwonwelling IR and would be very close to a direct measurement of the macroscopic downwelling flux.
One photon exchanging with a surface is a microscopic exchange. When you have trillions and trillions of photons emitted from a surface and moving away from it you have a macroscopic flux of energy moving away from the surface.
I do not think your lack of communication with me has anything to do with me being a lost cause. The reality is I dared to question your view and ask you to validate it with actual textbook information or valid experiment. You could not and found it much easier to ignore me than actually have to validate your claims (since they do not exist in the literature).
Norman
I sort of thought the two fluxes should be the micro and their sum (the net movement of energy) should be the macro. The “one photon vs. many” is fine as well. It doesn’t really matter, I just wasn’t clear.
BTY, the atmosphere doesn’t slow the overall net rate at which energy leaves the surface. It does, however, slow the overall velocity at which it moves from surface to space. Why do I never see this mentioned?
Kristian
Are you thinking an object just emits the net flux? This makes absolutely no sense to me. The net flux should logically be the calculated difference between incoming and outgoing energy.
Snape says, June 30, 2017 at 5:29 PM:
Of course not. It (microscopically) emits photons according to its temperature. A net (macroscopic) flux, however, is spontaneously transferred unidirectionally from the hot object to the cold object as a result of their temperature difference. That’s the Q/A. The radiant heat.
MICRO vs. MACRO. Quantum vs. thermo. Don’t you ever forget the distinction, Snape!
Indeed. Mathematically. However, it is ALSO what’s actually physically detected macroscopically, that is, in OUR reality. The instantaneous net exchange of photons. You do not ever detect an incoming macroscopic flux separately from an outgoing one at the same surface. Think about it logically. The “dime/penny” analogy.
Kristian
My thoughts on the dime/penny analogy have completely changed, but I’ll get to that later.
Here is something I’m thinking about right now. Place a sensor that picks up IR on the floor of a room. Assume everything in the room is the same temperature. Now, the room will be full of photons moving in myriad directions (emitted from the various objects and surfaces in the room). A certain portion of these will be detected by the sensor at a particular rate. Now introduce an object to the room that is much warmer than anything else and in view of the sensor. The sensor will detect an increase in IR. This change will be coming from the new object. It will also be the *difference* between the rate of IR emitted from the warmer object and the rate of IR emitted from the other stuff in the room.
Bottom line, the sensor is detecting the “net flux” of energy absorbed and emitted from the object. This scenario seems to support your point of view.
Snape
I think the situation depends on the type of sensor you are using. If you use a sensor with a narrow field of view pointed at particular objects it will only detect the IR from the object it is pointed at.
If you have access to an FLIR you can play with it and see this. It can make IR images based upon the IR each individual object in the FOV emits. This would not be possible if each object did not emit its own individual flux toward the FLIR and a lens focuses it into a clear image of the surroundings.
You can use your own eyes with visible light and see that each object is reflecting to your eyes (the portion of visible light not absorbed) a unique and independent flux of energy. If objects did not do this you would just have a blur of fuzzy energy like what happens in a fog where the water droplets redirect the unique flux and scramble the information.
I think vision would strongly demonstrate to you Kristian does not know what he is talking about but he huffs and puffs like he does to baffle those that don’t read textbooks.
Maybe you should wonder why he never links to any valid source of science but acts like he has all the knowledge and only a fool would dare to challenge his authority. Ball4 and I ask him to give valid sources but he refuses to do so and just goes on ignoring the request.
Norman
I admire your knowledge of physics and appreciate that it comes from textbooks and is more than just your opinion, and I do infact wonder where Kristian gets his information.
Also, I am not interested in taking sides on these sorts of issues. The example I described was something I was picturing in my head. It just happened to support Kristian’s idea……or so I thought. Now I think it supports your opinion, but it has nothing to do with a more narrow field of view.
Let’s go back to the example. I wrote,
“Now introduce an object to the room that is much warmer than anything else and in view of the sensor. The sensor will detect an increase in IR.”
This is where I went wrong. Yes, the sensor would display a different value, but I would need to *subtract* the previous reading from the new reading to determine the object’s net flux.
This is a calculation. The instrument is detecting a new incoming flux, but the user must compare this value with the previous to find the object’s *net flux* with the room.
Snape,
So I see you’re letting Norman’s confusion get to you. He has no knowledge of physics, except superficially. He constantly refers to textbooks, but doesn’t understand the fundamentals of the concepts discussed therein. He THINKS they support his viewpoint, when they specifically don’t.
This is all very simple. There’s a difference between perspectives here. The MICROSCOPIC one and the MACROSCOPIC one. However, Earth’s energy budget and it’s temperature is distinctly a THERMODYNAMIC issue, and therefore it demands a MACROscopic approach. That’s the net flux. The Q/A. The heat.
Kristian
In the penny analogy, I thought the back and forth movement of the coins was not visible because they were happening simultaneously (all you would see is the result….a penny dissapears). This was a boneheaded conclusion on my part.
Movement only exists in “time”, and the metaphor was describing a single moment…..a snapshot. Add the element of time to the scenario and the back and forth of coins becomes visible, whether their motion is simultaneous or not.
Snape: “I do in fact wonder where Kristian gets his information.”
Snape joins reality.
Perhaps someday Kristian will actually post up a text that he bases his prose on but I predict he will continue to self cite his inaccurate physics prose because he can’t find one either; Kristian should just stick to eqn.s to make a point. Ignoring his prose, reading his eqn.s & using texts is your best option for reality.
Again, it is mainly Kristian’s confusion over the heat term that I observe causes his prose to be one of a kind, not supported in the literature. Or post up a direct text ref. Kristian.
Ball4
Insulation is such a paradoxical thing to think about. Maybe that’s why there are so many arguments about the GHE.
The atmosphere (an insulator) has always subtracted energy from the Earth. From this, it has a cooling effect, right? So how is it possible that something with a cooling effect can keep the planet warm?
This is a rhetorical question. I understand the basics of what’s going on. Just saying the language is confusing.
Kristian
You attack my character and abilities.
YOU: “So I see youre letting Normans confusion get to you. He has no knowledge of physics, except superficially. He constantly refers to textbooks, but doesnt understand the fundamentals of the concepts discussed therein. He THINKS they support his viewpoint, when they specifically dont.”
If it is such an obvious truth, Kristian, then why don’t you EVER come up with links to textbooks that support you version of reality? You never do but you keep posting I am wrong. Why is this?
Also you seem to think IR is a totally different thing than visible light.
You could take two plates facing each other that are emitting visible light. You could take a light sensor pointed at each surface and get a separate unique flux from each surface. I you lowered one or turned it off, the light sensor pointed to the constant light emitting plate would not change. You can see there is no one way flux with visible light, just individual ones emitted by each surface able to do so, but then with IR the physics has to change. Why is this.
NO TEXTBOOK to date that I have read describes heat transfer like you do. Why is this? If I am an idiot what is wrong with the textbook writers.
Norman
You wrote, “Also you seem to think IR is a totally different thing than visible light.”
There are certainly a lot of similarities, but maybe there’s a crucial difference? An increase in IR received vs. emitted will raise an objects temperature, increasing it’s emission rate. Is there a parallel to this regarding visible light?
Norman
I should clarify I’m not at all objecting to the point you were making. Your comment just led me on a tangent thought.
Snape says, July 1, 2017 at 10:33 AM:
No, it was entirely correct on your part, Snape. Because the analogy was specifically designed to illuminate (no pun intended) the distinction between the MICROscopic (quantum mechanical) and the MACROscopic (thermodynamic) perspectives on the thermal radiative exchange.
If you choose to follow each individual dime/penny taking part in the exchange separately, then you have a MICRO perspective. If, on the other hand, you choose to look at the exchange in its entirety at once, then you have a MACRO perspective. Thermodynamics is about the latter perspective. You cannot conclude on any thermodynamic (thermal) effects with the former perspective, only with the latter one. Quantum vs. thermo.
In the macro/thermodynamic realm, Snape, you only ever see the instantaneous net exchange. There are no individual photons to be seen or followed around. Only a net, the probabilistic average of all microscopic photon interactions at every instant. This is how statistical mechanics works. It bridges the microscopic and the macroscopic realm by the use of statistics. It turns a chaotic swarm of photons into a fuzzy cloud of radiation filling a field of space. And this crossing of the thermodynamic limit enables you to discern a unidirectional flow of thermal energy through the field, down macroscopic radiative/thermal gradients. THAT’S the Q/A, the radiant heat!
I seriously have a hard time seeing why this should be so hard to understand. It is so obvious and so logical.
No. The analogy showed t_i and t_f, the time right before and the time right after the instantaneous exchange. First (t_i) you had two, then (t_f) you had one. There is nothing in between except the instantaneous exchange. You never had zero and you never had three. The photon exchange is always probabilistically (‘on average’) simultaneous. And so, stringing together an ‘endless’ sequence of similar instants will see a continuous flow of energy moving from the hot object to the cold object.
You’re STILL mixing up MICRO processes with MACRO ones, Snape.
Kristian
You are right in that at any given moment two pennies are leaving while simultaneously one is arriving. There is never zero or three…always the result, which is one penny.
Coins are nevertheless moving back and forth. This cannot happen instantaneously. Their movement, which you call the MICRO flux, is very real and completely visible. This is the part I stupidly overlooked.
Snape says, July 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM:
It really isn’t. It just so happens to be a ton of misconceptions regarding insulation circulating out there. But the concept itself really is pretty simple and straightforward.
Exactly. This is what confuses people. Insulation can’t keep ANYTHING warm unless there is a HEAT SOURCE present and in operation at the same time. The atmosphere acts like an insulator on the solar-heated surface simply because it’s warmer than space (and also because it’s heavier/denser/more viscous than space). This reduces surface heat loss (radiative/conductive/evaporative -> convective) at equal surface temperature.
Kristian
We agree on this.
But there is a *reason* the atmosphere is warmer than space, and there is a physical *reason* the atmosphere, being warmer, causes the earth to be warm.
“Heat always moves from warm to cold” isn’t a magical law. It has a mechanical explanation.
A big part of why the atmosphere is warmer than space is that it has impeded the movement of IR emitted from the surface. Originally traveling at the speed of light, the IR now lingers. This slowing results in accumulation.
No matter how great a river’s rate of flow (volume/time), if it’s velocity (distance/time) is fast enough, very little water will ever accumulate. Slow the velocity and the river will widen. Slow it even more and a lake will form. The overall velocity of water moving through the lake can be much, much slower that the velocity of the inflowing river, even though the rate of flow is exactly the same.
Snape says, July 1, 2017 at 1:11 PM:
But, Snape, how many times do I have to repeat this!? That’s the MICRO perspective!!! Yes, of course photons are flying about in all directions all the time. But we are not talking about individual photons. We are talking about a macroscopic (thermodynamic) transfer of radiant energy.
A quantum detector “seeing” individual photons is NOT the same thing as a thermal detector “seeing” a macroscopic net exchange of photons.
Forget about the individual photons! Forget about quantum mechanical processes. It’s the net exchange of photons that matters! Thermodynamic processes.
Snape says, July 1, 2017 at 1:51 PM:
Yes. The reason is that the atmosphere has a MASS. It is made up of matter. It has a thermal capacity. Which means it is able to store energy transferred to it (by way of heating, Q) internally. Warming from it. Space can’t. Because it doesn’t have mass. There is no matter. THAT’S the physical reason, Snape.
Yes, and this is why we have the field of physics called STATISTICAL MECHANICS, to explain the laws and concepts of thermodynamics. Connecting the micro and the macro realms, across the “thermodynamic limit”:
“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? [6.02 x 10^23 is known as ‘Avogadro’s number’.]
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.”
(…)
Why should anyone care about results in the thermodynamic limit, when every real system is finite? Because real bulk systems have so many particles that they can be considered to exist in the thermodynamic limit. As the system size increases, the free energy density f_N = F/N approaches the limiting value f_∞, and typically the difference between f_10^23 and f_∞ is smaller than experimental error.
Undergraduate statistical mechanics texts usually have little to say directly about the thermodynamic limit. Instead of an explicit mention, they vaguely invoke a “large system.” Of the four well-known texts by Reif, Kittel and Kroemer, Baierlein, and Schroeder, only the last one mentions the thermodynamic limit at all. This is a pity, because any student trained to ask questions and to delve into the meanings behind equations will find confusing situations in statistical mechanics, and these confusions will vanish only when the thermodynamic limit is invoked.”
(My boldface.)
http://materias.df.uba.ar/ft3a2014c2/files/2014/10/Styer-What-good-is-the-thermodynamic-limit-2004.pdf
Snape says, July 1, 2017 at 2:45 PM:
The atmosphere’s mass, Snape, impedes ALL energy escaping the surface on its way to space – during the energy build-up phase towards a final steady state of dynamic equilibrium. That’s how the atmosphere ends up having the particular temperature, and the temperature distribution, that it has.
The solar-heated surface heats the atmosphere, meaning, the atmosphere absorbs energy transferred to it as heat [Q] and stores it as internal energy [U]. The atmosphere would’ve done this with or without having the ability to absorb IR from the surface. During the build-up phase. Before a final steady state. Simply because it’s got a thermal mass. However, it COULDN’T have adequately RID ITSELF of the energy transferred to it as heat if it lacked the ability to EMIT it as radiation (IR) to space.
So, no, the surface(and solar)-heated atmosphere isn’t warmer because it is able to absorb and emit IR. It is in fact cooler. The solar-heated surface, however, IS warmer in the steady state with a warm atmosphere that’s radiatively active on top than without.
Only during the build-up phase. NOT in the steady state. In our current state, the atmosphere has a significantly negative overall LW budget, which means that, on balance, it COOLS from IR radiation. On average, it receives 33 W/m^2 worth of IR heat [Q_in(LW)] from the surface. At the same time, though, it sheds an IR flux [Q_out(LW)] equal to 220 W/m^2 to space. 33 W/m^2 IN, 220 W/m^2 OUT. Quite a severe radiative deficit.
Which means that the atmosphere is mainly made and kept warm by the NON-radiative transfers (and the solar flux, of course; the Q_in(SW)):
Q_in(cond) = 24 W/m^2
Q_in(evap) = 88 W/m^2
Q_in(SW) = 75 W/m^2; all in all: 187 W/m^2
Q_out(cond+evap+SW) = 0 W/m^2
We’ve discussed this before, Snape, and I generally agree. The point is, though, that the reason why energy accumulates inside the atmosphere during the build-up phase towards a final steady state, is simply because it is not yet warm enough, and as such, it cannot yet emit enough IR to space from its column to balance the incoming from the surface/Sun.
Snape: “The atmosphere (an insulator) has always subtracted energy from the Earth. From this, it has a cooling effect, right?”
Earth atm. both adds and subtracts energy from Earth surface and top of atm. In the satellite era, observational data confirmed the existing optically thick atm. adds about 33K on global L&O T avg. over Earth with a very optically thin atm.
Snape
Kristian will not defend even one of his assertions with textbook data. Ask him why and he will ignore you.
You can measure a incoming macroscopic flux to a surface (just cool the sensor, the only flux the sensor can then pick up is one that it is pointed at). You can measure the outgoing flux the same way. Point the senor downward.
Snape would you consider the light coming at you from a cloud as a macroscopic flux or a microscopic one (how do you define each).
Here is an visual example. You have a very powerful searchlight (the kind they beam at clouds for shows). If you are under it and the sky is clear you cannot see any light from it at all. All the light is moving upward. All the flux is moving in an upward direction. Zero down, you visual receptors, eyes, do not see any energy. You could not say if the light was on or off from your visual senses. Now a fog rolls in and diffuses the light in all directions. Now some of the light is returning to the source direction and you can see the light. Would you call this light energy reaching your eyes microscopic or is it macroscopic since it can elicit enough optic nerves to be able to see it.
Kristian huffs and puffs but he never validates. Everyone has these opinions of climate and how things work. Very few will validate their opinions with experimental evidence or refer to textbook data.
You will note Kristain has had several posts. He gives his opinions. Do you see him link to a textbook version that ever describes heat transfer as he does. I have not found one and I have looked. If you read my posts it is what the textbooks say. That is why I continue in the debate. I want Climate Science to resemble science and not Climate Opinion. Most posters are climate opinion. They strongly believe one position or another but will not validate the opinion or look at textbooks to see if their opinions are wrong and adjust what they believe to match valid science.
Kristian
Thanks for your interesting comments. Fun reading!
Not sure, but maybe you’re thinking the velocity of water/energy is only slowed during a buildup period?
You wrote, “The atmospheres mass, Snape, impedes ALL energy escaping the surface on its way to space during the energy build-up phase towards a final steady state of dynamic equilibrium. Thats how the atmosphere ends up having the particular temperature, and the temperature distribution, that it has.”
(First, I agree that all energy, not just IR is impeded) When a steady state is reached, this velocity becomes steady as well, but is *forever slower than before*. It is permanently impeded. This is much different than input/output, where during a buildup the output slows, but then increases to eventually match input and a state of equilibrium.
You disputed this by pointing out the atmosphere emits IR at a faster rate than it recieves it. This could be atributed, like you pointed out, to the atmosphere being warmed by other means. Being warmer, it emits IR at a faster rate than the much smaller incoming contribution.
Kristian
Here’s a better way to explain myself:
Energy from sun to Earth is traveling at the speed of light. Energy Emitted from TOA will travel at the speed of light. But overall rate at which energy moves from surface to TOA is much slower. This is like a lake. The slower the water moves through a lake, relative to input, the more water will accumulate.
The slower energy travels (velocity) from surface to TOA, the more energy will accumulate. This is my hypothesis.
Velocity of water through a lake is slowed because it no longer moves in a strait line (input to output). It moves up, down and sideways as it mixes with water in the lake.
Think about the comparisons with energy in the atmosphere.
Snape says, July 1, 2017 at 7:34 PM:
Again, this is something we have already discussed on an earlier thread. In the steady state, the Earth’s global surface and the Earth as a whole (through the ToA) both on average lose energy/heat as fast as it comes in, and so there is no more net accumulation of energy and no more temperature rise. The surface temperature has risen to the point where the rate of energy flowing away from the surface and up through the tropospheric column is such that the system as a whole finally balances the incoming heat from the Sun. The efficiency of this (convective) flow to a large extent determines when this state is achieved. It is evidently reached at a lower average surface temperature whenever and wherever this flow is stronger, and at a higher average surface temperature whenever and wherever it is weaker, assuming equal heat INPUT from the Sun. This takes us back to the comparison between the Congo and the Sahara-Sahel region:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-2/
This all leads us into hypothetical, yet highly interesting, territory.
The claim is made that if you – in the current state – suddenly were to remove the apparent 345 W/m^2 “back radiation flux (DWLWIR)” from the atmosphere to the surface, then the surface radiant heat loss would abruptly soar from 53 W/m^2 to an initial 398 W/m^2 (from having a T=289K), which would hugely cool the surface, because much less than this comes in from the Sun.
But this is starting completely at the wrong end of things; at t_1 rather than at t_0. And thus it proves nothing at all about cause and effect. How did we get to the temps we see in the current state in the first place? And how did we end up at a mean global surface radiative heat loss of a mere 53 W/m^2? Is this somehow directly linked? Is this somehow the cause of the warming? Reducing it from 398 to 53 W/m^2? You see, it’s all totally backwards! We need to start at t_0 …
Let’s have a look at a hypothetical planet.
In the initial steady state, there is no atmosphere on top of its global surface, and so the global surface has simply equilibrated with the average radiative heat input (ASR, net SW) from the planet’s mother star, meaning, its average radiative heat output (OLR, net LW) is equal to it. In our particular case, let’s now say that the average ASR value is 296 W/m^2 (equal to that of the Moon in the current state), and so, in the initial steady state, this is also the average OLR value: 296 W/m^2 IN = 296 W/m^2 OUT. This state is ideally reached when the planet’s global surface T_avg has become ~269 K. (This, of course, relies specifically on two purely hypothetical conditions to abide: The global surface is (i) a blackbody, and (ii) perfectly isothermal in both time and space.)
OK. We now place a massive – and very much radiatively capable! – atmosphere on top of this equilibrated planetary surface. Now, just as the surface before it could be considered starting its original journey toward its original steady state temperature (269 K) from a hypothetical initial temperature around absolute zero (2.7 K), so could the atmosphere. We simply want to see what happens as energy accumulates inside of it, gradually warming it.
So to begin with, before any energy has managed to be transferred as heat from the surface (or from the mother star) to this new (and hypothetical) atmosphere, the surface radiative heat loss is still: Q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4) -> σ(269^4 – 2.7^4) -> 296 W/m^2, IOW just what it was before the atmosphere was placed on top of it. And remember now, this is in theory a fully radiatively active atmosphere – it is fully able to absorb and emit EM radiation. The only problem is that it’s still too cold to significantly emit. It still has the same effective temperature as space.
But what happens as this atmosphere now starts absorbing more and more energy/heat from the surface (and from the local sun), thermalising it and gradually warming from it? Its temperature rises beyond that of space itself. And as a simple consequence of this, the atmosphere is now turned into an insulating layer, basically interposing a ‘thermal barrier’ between the solar-heated surface and the absolute coldness of space.
As the atmosphere continues to warm, its apparent DWLWIR to the surface naturally continues to increase. Because the DWLWIR is simply the radiative EXPRESSION of the effective atmospheric temperature, as ‘seen’ from the surface.
But the atmosphere warms, not from apparent, thermally generated ‘radiant fluxes’ (they are themselves just a result of the warming), but from the absorbed and thermalised energy transferred to it as heat from the surface and directly from the sun. And what happens when the surrounding temperature of a constantly heated object/surface all of a sudden increases? The temperature difference between the object/surface and its thermal surroundings is reduced. And what does this lead to? It leads to a reduction in the rate of energy/heat loss from the object/surface in question. This is true whether the mode of heat transfer happens to be ‘radiative’, ‘conductive’ or ‘convective’. And so, if we assume that the rate of incoming heat to the object/surface remains unchanged, then energy will accumulate, because Q_in > Q_out, and the object/surface will necessarily warm as a result, until its heat balance is restored: Q_in = Q_out.
The thing is, though, that once a massive atmosphere is put on top of a solar-heated planetary surface, then the whole surface situation changes.
Moving towards a new steady state, the atmosphere will (1) make the planet’s albedo increase substantially, and (2) absorb for itself a significant portion of the incoming heat from the sun. This will strongly reduce the average ASR (solar heat input) at the surface, from the original (w/o atm) value of 296 W/m^2 to a final (w atm) value of a mere 165 W/m^2. Which is to say that the global surface is now constantly being deprived of about 44 % (!) of its original solar input, a direct result of the radiatively active presence of the massive atmosphere now resting on top of it, either reflecting it back out to space or absorbing it for itself, before it could ever reach the surface.
This situation alone would reduce the potential (maximum) steady-state surface radiative heat loss (to balance the solar heat input) from 296 to 165 W/m^2. IOW, it could never be 296 W/m^2 in this situation, let alone 398 W/m^2! No matter what. Because 165 W/m^2 is now the target to balance, not 296, not 398.
But is this reduction in the target of maximum radiative heat loss from the surface something that will also necessarily force the surface T_avg UP? No. Because the target is simply lowered as a direct result of a reduction in the heat INPUT to the surface, not from some increase in the atmospheric opacity to outgoing IR.
And it doesn’t end here. You see, more things change at the surface once the massive atmosphere is put on top of the solar-heated surface than just the total heat balance (moving from Q_in(296W/m^2)=Q_out(296W/m^2) to Q_in(165W/m^2)=Q_out(165W/m^2)).
The surface heat budget also stops being a purely radiative one. And this fact is an extremely important one to appreciate, because it has obvious implications for the surface radiative heat loss, which used to make up 100 % of the total. It won’t anymore. No matter how much it ‘wants’ to. It simply can’t. It will naturally have to “make room for”other losses, NON-radiative ones. IOW, it will – by physical necessity – be significantly reduced. Once again, even without any kind of increase in atmospheric IR opacity.
And so this really changes the whole narrative. This further reduction in the potential surface radiative heat loss is the result of there simply being less ‘need’ for it, because other heat loss mechanisms beside the radiative one are now contributing to the (already much lower) total …
So you see, the absolute magnitude of the surface radiative heat loss is thoroughly constrained first by the heat INPUT to the surface (the ASR), then by the (effectiveness of the) other heat loss mechanisms at work. It can’t be determined simply according to some perceived atmospheric level of IR opacity!
In the end, we might have a situation where, after having emplaced a massive atmosphere around our hypothetical planet, the surface steady state corresponds to a Q_in = Q_out of only 165=165 W/m^2 (rather than one of 296=296 W/m^2), and where the radiative part of the Q_out is further reduced to, say, 53 W/m^2, because the NON-radiative mechanisms operating at the same time happen to manage 112 W/m^2 worth of loss between them. Which leaves a mere 53 W/m^2 to be ‘taken care of’.
And so we’re left with the following inescapable apparent DWLWIR-UWLWIR relationship: [398-345=] 53 W/m^2 (net LW), simply because T_sfc just happens to be 289 K (-> 398 W/m^2) in this particular state. And thus the effective downward radiating temperature of the atmosphere APPEARS to be ~279 K (-> [398-53=] 345 W/m^2).
But we still don’t know how we got to that T_sfc of 289 K. Why that particular temperature? And we certainly have no way of knowing whether this temperature is somehow the result of the particular level of atmospheric opacity to outgoing IR or not …
Remember how, when we first placed the atmosphere on top of the solar-heated surface, the heat input to the surface from the sun was 296 W/m^2, and there were no other heat loss mechanisms in operation except the radiative one. Moreover, the no-(or pre-)atmo steady state surface temperature was 269 K (296W/m^2 IN = 296W/m^2 OUT), and this was also the initial situation as the massive, radiatively active atmosphere (at 2.7 K) was placed around the planet – the DWLWIR was practically zero, because the atmosphere was too cold, as cold as space itself. Then several things happened: (i) the atmosphere started warming (from absorbing energy transferred to it as heat), (ii) the heat input from the sun to the surface was significantly reduced (because of atmospheric reflection and absorp*tion of solar radiation), and (iii) other heat loss mechanisms beside the radiative one naturally became available and operative as the solar-heated surface made thermal contact with the massive atmosphere.
And so, from the initial to the final steady state (t_0 to t_1), we went from a surface net LW (radiative heat loss) at 296 W/m^2 to one at a mere 53 W/m^2. Meaning, we went from an effective temperature difference of [269-2.7=] ~266 K between the surface and the APPARENT “atmospheric level of downward radiation” to one of [289-279=] 10 degrees. But did this rather huge reduction coincide with, and result from, some immense increase in atmospheric opacity to outgoing IR, lowering the effective level of “sky radiation” to the surface, somehow occurring during the journey from t_0 to t_1? No, of course it didn’t. The atmosphere had the same composition the entire time. It remained just as IR active, constituent-wise, from start to finish. No more, no less.
Again, there were rather OTHER things that changed along the way instead:
(1) the atmosphere got warmer (from being heated by the surface (and the sun)), meaning, the temperature difference between the surface and the layers of air above it grew steadily smaller; (2) the overall heat input to the surface from the sun, the ASR (net SW), grew steadily smaller, and so the surface target output value naturally decreased with it; (3) the radiative share of the total surface heat output dropped from its initial 100 % to a final 32 %, because of NON-radiative heat loss mechanisms growing to prominence …
An attempt at a conclusion:
The steady-state magnitude of the surface radiative heat loss is to a certain extent simply a function of the steady-state magnitude of the NON-radiative heat losses (conduction and evaporation/convection), which will inevitably start “eating into” the radiant portion of the total as soon as a massive atmosphere is in place on top of a solar-heated planetary surface. At some point along the continuum – from 100 to 0 % – a balance will be struck. It simply depends on how effective the radiative and the non-radiative losses are, relative to each other, at ridding the surface of energy at some particular temperature. This is something that will vary from place to place (and from time to time) on the same planet, as it will from planet to planet.
The relationship between this steady-state ratio of heat losses and the steady-state surface temperature, however, is apparently not a straightforward (as in ‘linear’) one.
And this, Snape, is – most likely – where the mean flow rate of energy up and away from the surface layer, through the tropospheric column, comes in.
An already mentioned, but highly pertinent, case in point, from the real Earth system:
The total heat loss from the surface in the Sahara-Sahel and in the Congo are about the same, but the radiative portion of the total is much larger (in fact, twice as large) in the Sahara-Sahel (103 out of 179 W/m^2 (58%)) than it is in the Congo (51 out of 178 W/m^2 (29%)). This circumstance, however, doesn’t AT ALL translate into a lower surface T_avg in the Sahara-Sahel. IOW, you can’t just assume that a region with a more effective (larger) surface radiative heat loss will necessarily end up having a lower T_avg than one where the radiative heat loss is much smaller. In fact, the surface T_avg is higherby several degrees in the Sahara-Sahel than in the Congo. (See link(s) above.)
So how come the radiative heat loss in the Congo is reduced to a mere 51 W/m^2, only about half that in the Sahara-Sahel? A much more humid and cloudy tropospheric column would seem a likely explanation. But couldn’t it just as well be a result simply of the prodigious effectiveness of evaporation and moist convection in ridding the surface of excess energy in wet climes, making radiative losses much less ‘needed’ at similar temps?
The basic premise of the idea of the “enhanced GHE” is that, as you reduce the radiative heat loss from the surface by making the atmospheric column above more opaque to outgoing IR, while keeping the heat INPUT constant, then you will force the surface to become warmer on average, in order for the radiative heat loss, AND the other heat losses, to grow more effective and thus restore the balance.
But this evidently isn’t what we see in the real world. Places with lower surface radiative heat loss (with the atmospheric column clearly more opaque to outgoing IR), and equal surface heat input from the Sun, plus removed from ocean influence, are invariably associated with a LOWER average T_sfc. This is a pretty consistent pattern …
Kristian
Apologies, It’s taking me awhile to get through your long post.
The last paragraph, and the Congo/Sahara comparisons, are oversimplified and seem rather naive. Mike Flynn has made the same argument.
Water vapor is a GHG, so you think very humid areas should warm the surface more than areas with less GHG’s. So you compare temperatures and conclude this isn’t the case.
There is a big complicating factor. Along with being a GHG, water vapor enhances convection. This means more heat gets moved by wind. The Congo is heating the surface of *other regions* of the world to a greater extent than the Sahara. This difference is not considered in your comparisons.
Something else to think about: water vapor creates clouds which inturn increase albedo. This is not the case with CO2.
Kristian
You wrote,
“but the radiative portion of the total is much larger (in fact, twice as large) in the Sahara-Sahel (103 out of 179 W/m^2 (58%)) than it is in the Congo (51 out of 178 W/m^2 (29%)). This circumstance, however, doesnt AT ALL translate into a lower surface T_avg in the Sahara-Sahel.”
True. The Sahara has greater radiative cooling. This is not reflected in it’s surface temperature because less heat is transported to other locations around the world. More heat “sticks around” because of less convection.
“The basic premise of the idea of the enhanced GHE is that, as you reduce the radiative heat loss from the surface by making the atmospheric column above more opaque to outgoing IR, while keeping the heat INPUT constant, then you will force the surface to become warmer on average, in order for the radiative heat loss, AND the other heat losses, to grow more effective and thus restore the balance.”
I would say the basic premise of the GHE is that you reduce the radiative heat lose FROM THE TOP OF THE ATMOSPHERE by making the atmospheric top more opaque to outgoing IR from below and causing the actual outgoing radiation to come from higher, cooler parts of the atmosphere and hence be weaker. Then you will force the surface to become warmer on average, in order for the radiative heat loss _from the surface to space_ to grow more effective and thus restore the balance of overall incoming energy from the sun with outgoing energy back to space.
I equate the “enhanced greenhouse effect “with various feedback that (according to many) enhance the impact of the process described above.
Snape says, July 3, 2017 at 9:50 AM:
Hehe, you seem to read this whole thing backwards, Snape. What I point out isn’t what’s naive and oversimplified here. The idea of somehow raising the average surface temperature of the Earth by simply making the atmospheric column more opaque to outgoing IR (the “enhanced GHE”) is what is naive and oversimplified. I’m just showing, using simple empirical data from the real Earth system, how and why that is …
No. I don’t. The people promoting the idea of an “enhanced GHE” do. Because it is supposed to reduce surface radiative heat loss. As I explained.
Yes.
Exactly. However, this is not a complicating factor to MY analysis. It is a complicating factor to the idea of an “enhanced GHE”. You see? You put this up as an argument against my objection to the idea, when in fact it simply highlights the point I’m making. My objection to the naive idea that you could, by just making the atmospheric column more opaque to outgoing IR, thus reducing the radiative heat loss from the surface below, raise the average temperature of that surface, is just that: When you change the IR opacity of the atmospheric column, you also change OTHER factors at the same time. And these other factors very much need to be … factored in. You can’t just naively assume that the average surface temperature will necessarily become higher whenever you increase the atmospheric opacity to outgoing IR. Because of … OTHER things! THAT’S my point!
You need to actually read what I’m writing before you start criticizing it, Snape:
“The total heat loss from the surface in the Sahara-Sahel and in the Congo are about the same, but the radiative portion of the total is much larger (in fact, twice as large) in the Sahara-Sahel (103 out of 179 W/m^2 (58%)) than it is in the Congo (51 out of 178 W/m^2 (29%)). This circumstance, however, doesn’t AT ALL translate into a lower surface T_avg in the Sahara-Sahel. IOW, you can’t just assume that a region with a more effective (larger) surface radiative heat loss will necessarily end up having a lower T_avg than one where the radiative heat loss is much smaller. In fact, the surface T_avg is higherby several degrees in the Sahara-Sahel than in the Congo. (See link(s) above.)
So how come the radiative heat loss in the Congo is reduced to a mere 51 W/m^2, only about half that in the Sahara-Sahel? A much more humid and cloudy tropospheric column would seem a likely explanation. But couldn’t it just as well be a result simply of the prodigious effectiveness of evaporation and moist convection in ridding the surface of excess energy in wet climes, making radiative losses much less ‘needed’ at similar temps?”
These two paragraphs address EXACTLY what you point to – the convective efficiency.
Again, this isn’t something that I need to ‘think about’. The people promoting the idea of an “enhanced GHE” are the ones who need to think about this. What you’re saying here is after all exactly the point of my objection to the idea.
But this is not an argument, Snape. This is just you assuming that, as soon as it’s CO2 we’re talking about, THEN all of a sudden nothing else will change as you increase the atmospheric concentration. However, as with any such assumption/claim, the onus is on YOU to show that it finds support in the empirical data from the real Earth system. And your problem then is that the empirical data from the real Earth system provides no such support. It shows no sign that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has ANY net effect on either the total all-sky OLR through the ToA or on surface temps over time:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbsceres-vs-uah1.png
THEORETICALLY, you could indeed claim that increasing the IR opacity of an atmosphere should “enhance” a “GHE” and thus raise the surface temperature. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. And I would agree. Theoretically it seems plausible. But all else is NEVER equal, Snape. Which means you will have to GO LOOK, to see if your “theory” works in the real world. It evidently doesn’t …
Snape says, July 3, 2017 at 10:32 AM:
No. More heat does NOT “stick around, Snape. Both the Congo and Sahara-Sahel balance their heat INPUT with their heat OUTPUT. This is always the case whenever you’re in a steady state and the average surface temp is stable over time. So this is NOT the reason why T_sfc is lower in the Congo than in Sahara-Sahel, even with an equal rate of heat INPUT to the surface from the Sun.
Kristian
Instead of saying more heat, “sticks around”, I should have said more heat accumulates. This goes back to my original comment about velocity. The faster energy leaves an area (distance/time), the less will accumulate. Because of an increase in convection, heat leaves the Congo at a faster velocity than it leaves the Sahara. Don’t you get this?
Remember my river analogy? Two rivers can have the exact same rate of flow (volume/time) but the river that moves more slowly (distance/time) will be wider (more accumulation).
Energy is emitted from the Sahara at a certain rate. This energy then leaves the area at a much slower *velocity* than energy leaves the Congo. Slower velocity = more accumulation!
Tim Folkerts says, July 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM:
Same thing. Nice “theory”. It just doesn’t work in the real world.
Snape says, July 4, 2017 at 5:32 PM:
No, it doesn’t, Snape. You keep forgetting we’re in a steady state. WE’RE IN A STEADY STATE! In the steady state there is no more accumulation of energy, no more temperature rise.
The surfaces in the Congo and in the Sahara-Sahel region BOTH on average take up AND cast off 178-179 W/m^2 worth of heat. The net heat is practically ZERO in both regions, with equal amounts in AND out per unit time in both regions.
Because they’re both IN A STEADY STATE! Their average sfc temps remain relatively stable over time.
W/m^2 is a RATE, Snape. Joule per second per square metre. IN and OUT. On average. Diurnally, annually.
Convection is part and parcel of what sets the final balance between the rates. Of in and out. It doesn’t somehow come in addition, as you seem to think.
* * *
So how come the steady-state average annual sfc temp in the Congo is several degrees LOWER than in the Sahara-Sahel region? With an equal input AND total output of heat, but with a MUCH weaker (only half as strong) RADIATIVE heat output …?
Again, it all happens during the BUILD-UP PHASE towards the final steady state. Nothing happens in the steady state itself. It all happens during the build-up …
And THIS is where the convective efficiency comes in.
How much energy/heat is the surface able to shed per unit time at any given surface temperature? THAT is the question. The more energy/heat it manages to shed at a particular T_sfc, the less energy will be able to accumulate at/below the surface per unit time at that particular temperature, assuming the input stays the same.
The surface in the Congo apparently manages – in the steady state – to shed 178-179 W/m^2 at an average T_sfc of 298 K, while in the Sahara-Sahel region, the surface needs to be at 301 K to manage this same rate of output, 178-179 W/m^2. Note, this includes ALL heat loss mechanisms, not just radiation.
You see the difference? The surface in the Congo doesn’t rid itself of MORE heat per unit time than the surface in the Sahara-Sahel. It rids itself of an EQUAL amount of heat per unit time, only AT A LOWER AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE!
The reason for this clearly hasn’t got anything to do with radiation. It’s got to do with convective efficiency. The deep, evaporation/condensation-driven convection in the Congo is so much more powerful at drawing heat out of, up and away from the surface than the shallow dry convection in the Sahara-Sahel, that it MORE than compensates for the much larger RADIATIVE heat loss in the latter region.
Kristian
“You keep forgetting were in a steady state. WERE IN A STEADY STATE! In the steady state there is no more accumulation of energy, no more temperature rise.”
The EARTH is in a steady state, Kristian, the Sahara and Congo are not. Their temperatures are constantly fluctuating. Heat is accumulated every day. Every night it’s lost.
Each morning brings a brand new “build up” of energy. You can’t say the two locations are in a state of equilibrium just because the AVERAGE temperatures are stable.
Imagine this:
The global average rises 5.0 C
in one year. Over the next two years, it plummetes to – 5.0. Then, the following year, it returns to neutral.
Notice the average anomaly for these 4 years is zero. Trend is zero. Average input/output is unchanged.
Would you therefore claim the planet has been in a state of equilibrium? I wouldn’t!
I think of “steady state” as existing in real-time, not the result of averages.
Kristian
“W/m^2 is a RATE, Snape. Joule per second per square metre. IN and OUT. On average. Diurnally, annually.”
That’s a rate all right, just not the one I’ve been talking about!
I’ve been talking about *VELOCITY*(distance/time).
Snape says, July 6, 2017 at 1:32 AM
Come on, Snape. Don’t be a fool. Of course they’re in a steady state! I’m not talking about night vs. day or December vs. June, and you know that, because I’ve been very clear on this from the beginning. I’m talking annual averages. We’re talking about the ANNUAL AVERAGE T_sfc here …
You say the Earth as a whole is in a steady state, but not its subdivisions. Because their temps fluctuate from night to day and between parts of the year. Well, here are the GLOBAL fluctuations:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/gl-sfc-lw-up.png
This exact same pattern is what you will see with ANY region of the world. Larger or smaller fluctuations through the year, but relative STABILITY over time … THAT’S the steady state. The red line in the figure above. The AVERAGE state. It’s a DYNAMIC equilibrium, Snape. Not a STATIC one.
If these areas didn’t each balance their heat input with their heat output, their average T_sfc would either continuously rise or continuously fall over time, from year to year. But their average T_sfc is relatively stable over time, just like in any region of the world. Just like with Earth as a whole.
Yes, they’re in a state of DYNAMIC equilibrium. What does AVERAGE T_sfc mean to you, I wonder? It’s the AVERAGE T_sfc that’s lower in the Congo than in Sahara-Sahel, NOT its T_max and T_min. The Sahara-Sahel both goes higher AND lower during the year, but the AVERAGE is considerably higher in Sahara-Sahel than in the Congo.
Well, if T_avg at the sfc remains relatively constant from year to year over time, the that sfc is in a relative steady state (of DYNAMIC equilibrium). Which means that the total heat input to the sfc over a year is relatively equal to the total heat output from that same sfc over the same year.
The “GHE” is all about T_avg, Snape. So THAT is what we’re discussing. I will not discuss your personal interpretations of commonly agreed-upon thermodynamic concepts.
Snape says, July 6, 2017 at 1:43 AM:
Yes. And the “velocity” is relevant to the final steady state T_avg DURING THE BUILD-UP PHASE towards the steady state, NOT in the steady state itself!
Kristian
We were discussing heating/cooling at two specific locations. If the temperature’s there were constant, at any given time, I would call that an equilibrium. If temperatures fluctuated day to night, but the AVERAGE remained constant, then this is a different situation and would require a different name.
Dynamic equilibrium works for me!
Kristian
“The surface in the Congo doesnt rid itself of MORE heat per unit time than the surface in the Sahara-Sahel. It rids itself of an EQUAL amount of heat per unit time, only AT A LOWER AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE!”
This is exactly right and I never claimed otherwise!
Earth vs moon is an exaggerated example of this:
Earth and moon receive about the same rate of input from the sun. Both are in an equilibrium, and therefore have about the same total output to space. They rid themselves of an equal amount of heat per unit time, only the moon has a much lower average surface temperature.
Now notice something, Kristian. Energy moves away from the moon’s surface at the speed of light. This is a very fast velocity (distance/time). It’s why the moon is so cold.
Because of the various impediments accociated with our atmosphere, the overall velocity at which energy travels from the Earth’s surface to space is much slower than the speed of light. This is not just true during a build-up period, it’s true in the steady state as well.
-Right now, energy IS moving away from the moon at the speed of light.
-Right now, energy IS NOT moving away from Earth’s surface at the speed of light
Comparing Earth’s surface to moon:
Volume of heat that is shed per unit time EQUAL
Velocity of heat being shed is NOT EQUAL!
A lake, where water is moving at one MPH, can rid itself of water at the same volume/time as a river which is traveling at 20 MPH
Kristian
Where on the moon does energy linger, that is, where is it’s velocity less than the speed of light?
Beneath the moon’s surface! And where has heat accumulated? Beneath the moon’s surface.
On the moon, input and output are equal, but energy travels at a slower VELOCITY thru the subsurface than it travels thru the vacuum of space.
This is Always true.
Snape says, July 6, 2017 at 11:31 AM:
No. I was comparing the average T_sfc, the average solar heat input [Q_in(SW), net SW] and the average radiative heat output [Q_out(LW), net LW] of two specific regions of tropical Africa: the Congo (5N-6S, 10-27E), humid; and Sahara-Sahel (20-14N, 15W-36E), semi-arid. ‘Average’ in all three cases meaning the ‘annual mean’ value.
I then noted how the idea of an “enhanced GHE” postulates that its surface warming mechanism works by specifically reducing the RADIATIVE heat loss [Q_out(LW), net LW] of the surface. Which is naively based on an ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL premise. Without this stipulation being fulfilled, there is no way anyone can say whether simply reducing the net LW from a surface will force the average temperature of that surface to rise or not. Because of … OTHER THINGS! All else!
Then you started arguing somehow against my analysis in the strangest way possible – by simply underlining and reinforcing my very point.
I think you need to reread my original post on this subthread, Snape, because we simply do not seem to be on the same page here …
Good!
Snape says, July 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM:
And yet the global lunar surface on average emits the exact same amount of heat (to space) as it absorbs (from the Sun). There is no slowing down of the heat LOSS rate from the surface relative to the heat GAIN rate at the same surface. In the steady state (dynamic equilibrium). But the time it takes the solar heat to penetrate the subsurface and the time it takes it to work its way back out again will affect the surface T_avg once this steady state is reached, because it affects the rate of total heat loss at any given surface temperature, and therefore the amount of energy that will accumulate at/below the surface during the build-up phase up to the steady state of dynamic equilibrium where heat OUT finally balances heat IN. The relevant question is: At what sfc T_avg is this balance struck?
Kristian
“There is no slowing down of the heat LOSS rate from the surface relative to the heat GAIN rate at the same surface. In the steady state (dynamic equilibrium). ”
Exactly. During a build-up, VELOCITY of energy will be slowed as moves through the surface, creating a “back up” of energy, like cars slowing through a construction zone. Heat gain will become greater than heat loss. It will accumulate, and the temperature of the surface will rise. As it does, difference in temperature between surface and space will become greater, increasing the surface’s emission rate. An equilibrium will be reached when rate of heat loss equals rate of heat gained.
In this situation, however, the VELOCITY of energy moving above the surface versus through the subsurface will NEVER be equal, even after a steady state is reached.
Snape says, July 6, 2017 at 12:19 PM:
Yes, you did! You specifically said that “more heat sticks around” (and “more heat accumulates”) in the Sahara-Sahel, when in fact it evidently doesn’t.
But if you now agree with my above statement, that’s great!
Of course it is. But this fact is no longer relevant in the steady state. Because then it no longer slows the heat loss from the surface, and it therefore no longer affects the surface T_avg. There is no further accumulation of energy and no further rise in temperature once the steady state is reached, Snape.
The atmospheric ‘impediment’ on Earth’s heat loss to space is no longer there at the point where the effective radiative temperature of Earth has become high enough for it to emit the required amount of heat to space per unit time via LW radiation, balancing the incoming from the Sun …
Yes, it is. In the steady state, it is. Earth’s average heat loss is immediate. Just as its average heat GAIN. You’re forgetting one crucial point: The heat that Earth at any given time sheds to space is NOT the same as the heat simultaneously passing from Earth’s surface to Earth’s atmosphere. It’s not like Earth has to wait for the surface heat to travel through the troposphere before it can release it from the system. The Earth already has energy elsewhere ready for departure. Recall my original analogy with the water tank where you fill new water in from the bottom, but where, as an immediate response to this, water from the TOP spills over and out of the tank. It’s not the same water entering and exiting, but the net result is an immediate response – we didn’t have to wait for the specific volume of water introduced at the bottom itself to travel all the way up to the top of the tank in order for the tank to adjust its total volume accordingly.
Kristian
Energy is not moving from surface to space at the speed of light, which is the situation on the moon. But you are correct when you say the earth doesn’t have to wait.
“The Earth already has energy elsewhere ready for departure”
Exactly so! In a steady state, water will be travelling through a lake at a much slower velocity than it’s source (a raging river, for example). This doesn’t mean it has to wait for water to reach the outlet. Water has already accumulated there, ready for departure!
How is all this relevant? CO2, being added to the atmosphere by human activity, is creating more of an impediment to energy traveling to space. First, energy is absorbed by CO2 molecules, then much of it gets spit out downwards or sideways, Thus, it takes longer for energy to reach space. This results in more accumulation…..and so on, eventually resulting in a higher surface equilibrium temperature.
Well, that’s my hypothesis, anyway. It’s not something I’ve found on the internet…just my own thought experiment.
I’m not sure why you say the GHE doesn’t work in the real world.
CO2 absorbs IR in the real world.
Theory says CO2 should raise temperatures in the real world.
Temperatures are indeed elevated above BB temperatures in the real world.
Perhaps you are claiming that only the first 300 ppm matter, and that increasing CO2 above 300 ppm “doesn’t work” to raise temperatures. However … 1) there is no theory that would agree and 2) the real world has indeed warmed in the past 100 years and CO2 has increased. It would take an extraordinarily strong counterargument to show that CO2 was not even a part of that warming.
His former employers having already deployed Ultraviolet and Infrared Teams to no aviail , in failed efforts to blame AGW on everything from solar variability to underwater volcanoes, it is unsurprising that EPA Administrator & former state Attorney General Pruitt now wants to put the Red & Blue Team game in the hands of those who share his view that the Law is the Queen of the sciences.
Attorneys are, after all , used to choosing their own paid witnesses, and have learned to their grief what can happen when corporate clients wander off and start talking to scientists instead of members of the bar:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/07/what-color-is-yourred-team.html
Link exchange is nothing else except it is only placing the other person’s blog link
on your page at suitable place and other person will also do similar
in support of you.
wonderful issues altogether, you simply won a emblem new reader.
What might you suggest about your submit that you made some days ago?
Any sure?
Can I simply say what a comfort to find someone who truly understands what
they’re talking about on the internet. You certainly realize
how to bring a problem to light and make it important.
More and more people ought to check this out and understand this side of your story.
I was surprised that you’re not more popular given that you certainly possess the gift.
I was suggested this blog by means of my cousin. I am now not positive
whether or not this put up is written through him as nobody else understand such targeted approximately my trouble.
You’re amazing! Thank you!
It’s nearly impossible to find educated people Fresh Prime Keto Diet – The #1 Pills For Burning Fat Fast! |Review
this subject, but you sound like you know what you’re talking about!
Thanks
You can you call yahoo to reset my password? have wonderful content, great products, along with a beautiful layout.
Even if it’s inside a topic that a person else
started, merely by giving free quality information will create your
reputation. It is with this environment thatt
Bing has put their hands up, and lots of have the search algorithms will be more devote to content than many of thhe other engines like google. http://yahoomailsupportphonenumber.com/
What’s Going down i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I have discovered It positively helpful and it has aided me out loads.
I am hoping to contribute & help different users like its
helped me. Great job.
Thanks , I have recently been looking for information about this subject for a long time and yours is the best I’ve found out
till now. However, what concerning the bottom line? Are you sure about the source?
Also visit my page :: Keto XP – Boost Your Weight Loss Today! | SpecialOffer!
Hello Dear, are you really visiting this website regularly, if so afterward you will absolutely take pleasant know-how.
I think this is among the most vital information for me.
And i’m glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, The web site style is
great, the articles is really excellent : D.
Good job, cheers
Thank you for another informative blog. Where else may just I am getting that type of information written in such a perfect way?
I’ve a challenge that I am just now working on, and I’ve been at
the look out for such info.
Hi there, this weekend is pleasant designed for me, for the reason that this point in time i am reading this enormous educational post
here at my home.
Currently it appears like Drupal is the preferred blogging
platform available right now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you are using on your blog?
The very next time I read a blog, I hope that it does not fail
me as much as this one. I mean, Yes, it was my choice to read
through, but I actually thought you’d have something interesting to say.
All I hear is a bunch of whining about something you could fix if you
weren’t too busy seeking attention.
Spot on with this write-up, I truly think this site needs far more attention. I_ll probably be back again to read more, thanks for the
info!
It_s yes hm nearly impossible to fibnd educated people about this topic, but you seem like you knosw
what you_re talking a about! Thanks
You really make it seem really easy along with your presentation however I
in finding this topic to be actually one thing that I believe I might by no
means understand. It kind of feels too complex and extremely wide for
me. I am having a look forward for your next post, I’ll try to get
the hold of it!
Your style is really unique compared to other folks I have read stuff from.
Thank you for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I will just bookmark this page.
What’s up to all, how is the whole thing, I think every one is getting more from this web site, and your views are nice for new users.
You need to take part in a contest for one of the most useful websites on the web.
I will recommend this website! https://school.mosreg.ru/soc/moderation/abuse.aspx?link=https://trmedya.co/
I’m really enjoying the design and layout of your blog.
It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much
more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out
a designer to create your theme? Fantastic work!
I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you create this website
yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you?
Plz respond as I’m looking to construct my own blog and would like
to find out where u got this from. appreciate it
Trkiyenin en kaliteli takipi sitesinden sen de takipi almak istemezmisin?
O halde hi bekleme hemen takipi sat_n al ve fenomen ol,
gerek i_ gerek real hayat_nda bir ad_m nde olmak iin bekleme.
https://school.mosreg.ru/soc/moderation/abuse.aspx?link=https://www.takip2018.com/
What’s up, after reading this remarkable piece of
writing i am too glad to share my knowledge here
with colleagues.
Hi, I do think this is an excellent blog. I stumbledupon it 😉 I’m going to revisit yet again since i have book-marked
it. Money and freedom is the greatest way to change, may you be rich and continue to help other people.
Very nice blog post. I certainly appreciate this website.
Keep it up!
Having read this I thought it was rather informative. I appreciate you
taking the time and effort to put this short article together.
I once again find myself personally spending way too much time
both reading and posting comments. But so what, it was still worth it! https://bit.ly/instagram-takipci-satin-al-tr
Hi there, just wanted to mention, I liked this article.
It was inspiring. Keep on posting!
I used to be able to find good info from your blog posts.
It’s the best time to make some plans for the future and it’s time to be happy.
I’ve read this post and if I could I want to suggest you
some interesting things or advice. Perhaps you could write next
articles referring to this article. I desire to read
even more things about it!
Yes! Finally something about instagram takipi sat_n al.
Asking questions are really pleasant thing if you are not understanding something completely, however this paragraph offers good understanding even.
I am truly thankful to the owner of this site who has shared this
impressive piece of writing at here.
Hmm it looks like your site ate my first comment (it was extremely
long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I wrote and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your
blog. I as well am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to
everything. Do you have any helpful hints for novice
blog writers? I’d genuinely appreciate it.
Hello! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone 4!
Just wanted to say I love reading your blog and look forward to all your
posts! Keep up the great work!
Nice respond in return of this issue with firm arguments and telling all about that.
They also don’t charge charges on deposits
or cashouts, whereas most other offshore US-casinos like to nickel and
dime their customers with nominal banking fees.
An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a co-worker who
had been doing a little homework on this. And he
in fact ordered me lunch due to the fact that I stumbled upon it for him…
lol. So let me reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!!
But yeah, thanks for spending some time to discuss this subject here on your
web page.
Hi there mates, nice paragraph and fastidious urging commented
at this place, I am actually enjoying by these.
Can I simply just say what a relief to discover
somebody that genuinely understands what they are discussing on the net.
You actually understand how to bring a problem to light and make it important.
More people need to look at this and understand this side of the story.
I was surprised that you’re not more popular given that you certainly have the
gift.
Hi there colleagues, how is the whole thing, and what you would like to say concerning this paragraph, in my view its
truly awesome in support of me.
What’s up to every one, the contents present at this website are actually remarkable for people experience, well, keep up the nice work fellows.
Finally found an article like this !
슬롯사이트
Your article has answered the
question I was wondering about!
온라인바카라
Also I would like to recommend you to check out this
검증카지노
I know this web site presents quality based posts
온라인카지노
Thank you for making something worth reading.
블랙잭사이트
Thank you for making something worth reading.
블랙잭사이트
What’s up everyone, it’s my first pay a quick visit
온라인바카라
I am regular visitor, how are you everybody?
홀덤사이트
Helpful info. Lucky me I discovered your website unintentionally, and I’m surprised why
this accident didn’t took place earlier! I bookmarked it.
I believe this is among the most vital info for me.
And i am satisfied studying your article. But should commentary on few common issues, The site taste is
ideal, the articles is truly great : D. Just right job, cheers
This is a topic that’s near to my heart… Take care!
Where are your contact details though?