Weather.com published an article noting that the two Cat 4 hurricane strikes this year (Harvey and Irma) is a new record. Here’s a nice graphic they used showing both storms at landfall.
But the statistics of rare events (like hurricanes) are not very well behaved. Let’s look at this new record, and compared it to the 11+year period of no major hurricane strikes that ended when Harvey struck Texas.
The Probability of Two Cat 4 Strikes in One Year
By my count, we have had 24 Cat 4 or Cat 5 landfalls in the U.S. between 1851 and 2016. This gives a probability (prior to Harvey and Irma) of one Cat4+ strike every 7 years. It also leads to an average return period of two Cat4+ strikes of about 50 years (maybe one of you statiticians out there can correct me if I’m wrong).
So, since the average return period is once every 50 years, we were overdue for two Cat4+ strikes in the same year over the entire 166 period of record. (Again, for rare events, the statistics aren’t very well behaved.)
The Probability of the 11-Year “Drought” in Major Landfalling Hurricane
In 2015, a NASA study was published which calculated how unlikely the (then) 9-year stretch with no major hurricane landfalls was. They came up with a 177 year return period for such an event.
I used that statistic to estimate what eventually happened, which was 11 years with no major hurricane strikes.
I get a return period of 560 years!
Now, which seems more unusual and potentially due to climate change: something that should happen only once every 50 years, or every 560 years?
Maybe global warming causes fewer landfalling major hurricanes.
Roy,
“Maybe global warming causes fewer landfalling major hurricanes.”
Don’t you know? Global warming only causes bad weather events to increase. Any decrease is ‘bad’ weather events is pure coincidence.
IN bad weather events is pure coincidence.
Of course it causes fewer hurricanes. Storm activity is driven by temperature differentials. Global warming means more uniform global temperatures.
It’s pure scaremongering to sell a product.
But storm intensity is driven by near-surface ocean temperatures. Does it matter if there are fewer storms but of higher size and intensity?
Storms are driven by pressure gradients and the T is just one of many parameters generating strong hurricanes. A 1C warmer surface or atmosphere is able to hold some 6% more water or water vapor, theoretically. This is not the big deal always claimed…
Sure. But it’s SSTs that are getting noticeably larger. And AGW’s sea level rise definitely increases storm surges.
Dave, do you have any actual evidence of this dramatic SLR you keep peddling?
SST’s are not getting dramatically larger. They are warming much less than the atmosphere due to high heat capacity.
DA…”But its SSTs that are getting noticeably larger”.
Only in NOAA fudged data. They had to go back and do it retroactively to create a trend where the IPCC and UAH had found none.
You’re an engineer, Gordon. You aren’t qualified to comment on climate science.
PS: NOAA’s adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend.
It is well established that hurricanes strengthen significantly when, all else being equal, they pass over warmer water. See here:
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/katrina_seaheight.html
MikeN,
SST warming nearly as much as globe
http://tinyurl.com/y92wesl5
NOAA’s adjustments reduce the long term warming trend because they make the late 1800s warmer.
What i showed was not NOaa data…
DA…”NOAAs adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend”.
Just like global warming produces cooling [sarc /off].
David Appell appears to be unduly concerned by SSTs which it is claimed are getting higher (although the North Atlantic has seen no increase in SST these past 20 years, and the South Atlantic has seen no increase in SST these past 30 years).
The surface sea temperature is not the main driver, and it is other factors that determine how much moisture is swept up by a hurricane and how powerful a hurricane is.
Looking at the basic physics (which slightly oversimplifies matters but is illustrative of the fundamental point), it takes 540 calories to evaporate 1 gram of water. If SSTs are 1 degree higher, this has hardly any impact upon the amount of evaporation since it only reduces the required energy by 1 calorie, or by 1 540 ths, or by ~0.18% however one wishes to express it.
DABut its SSTs that are getting noticeably larger.
Only in NOAA fudged data. They had to go back and do it retroactively to create a trend where the IPCC and UAH had found none.
The biggest adjustment to the surface data sets was NOAA’s SST adjustment – that lowered the long-term SST (and global) trend considerably.
David Appell is even dumber than usual. Now he says Gordon Robertson is not qualified to comment on climate science because he is an engineer.
By the same logic Al Gore is not qualified to comment on climate science given that he majored in government. Here is what Wikipedia says about his interest in math and science:
“Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[18] he did not do well in science classes in college and avoided taking math.[17]”
Enough with the ad hominem already. Let’s just stick to facts and figures.
“But storm intensity is driven by near-surface ocean temperatures.
An incomplete statement. It is driven by ocean temperatures relative to atmospheric temperatures. If they both go up, then the potential hasn’t changed.
Atmospheric temperatures are increasing faster than SSTs.
+davi appel really? if so, then hurricane activity should be going down
David Appell, could you at least get your argument straight?
You just said that SSTs are getting noticeably larger.
I think the point you are making is that the number of hurricanes might go down, but individual hurricane can get stronger, because the water is a little warmer than before, producing more water vapor.
Some people do think hurricane frequency will go (slightly) down as a result of AGW.
Right Bart, my car’s hp doubles on a cold day. Not!
The relevant cold temp is in upper troposphere/lower stratosphere at 16 km, where temps can be -70C.
We know that if SST < 26C, hurricanes can not be sustained, regardless of atm temp.
But show me any data on hurricane strength vs. upper atm temp?
Actually Nate, cold air induction is a common way to improve car engine performance. In the 1960’s, this was a big deal with muscle cars. That’s also why some cars with turbochargers (e.g. Volvo) have after-coolers.
Of course, it’s nothing like a doubling, but I assume you weren’t serious about that.
“Atmospheric temperatures are increasing faster than SSTs.”
Over land.
its nothing like a doubling, but I assume you werent serious about that.
Yes.
Correct me if Im wrong, but the effect of the cold air in the car is less about the increased temp differential, and more about increasing oxygen content of air.
In the hurricane, the effect of the warmer SST is more like the effect of pushing down the gas pedal, because it is increasing the fuel flow (water vapor) to the engine.
Is it true that you get paid per blog to support man made global warming positions? How much does it pay and how does one land that gig?
How many professional bloggers are there?
What drives a storm depends on what kind of storm it is. In extratropical cyclones and most tornadoes F2 or greater, the main factor or the most essential factor is horizontal temperature gradient, although tornadoes also need a vertical temperature gradient favorable to thunderstorms. Because the Arctic is warming more than the tropics, a warming world is making extratropical cyclones less windy. The main effect I see for tornadoes is their season (and their secondary season) being slightly shifted to cooler times of the year.
Tropical cyclones work differently, being powered mainly by latent heat in water vapor from large warm bodies of water. Warming of the oceans would make them more favorable to tropical cyclones. This is mitigated by two factors I can think of: 1) Tropical cyclone breeding grounds are warming less than the world as a whole. 2) Warming of tropical areas that convect to the tropical tropopause warms the tropical upper troposphere and raises the tropopause, even though increasing greenhouse gases cools the part (majority) of the lower stratosphere that remains above the tropopause. This means the bar is raised in terms of sea surface temperature necessary to form a tropical cyclone, even though this threshold probably increases less than sea surface temperature does. So, I expect a warming world to produce more and more intense tropical cyclones, but not by much. I expect multidecadal oscillations and the like to affect the number and severity of tropical cyclones more than manmade increase of greenhouse gases, even with an increase of CO2 from 280 to 800 PPMV along with a similar increase of other non-H2O greenhouse gases and water vapor increasing 10-12 percent.
Your comment is meant in jest, but really, the entire ‘field’ of weather event attribution rests on that fallacy.
If something happens, then by definition it must have been affected somehow by global warming. Hell, the very fact that it’s happening in a warmed world may indicate that it’s more likely to happen in a warmed world.
Nobody makes an attribution study of the events that *don’t* happen. There has been a decline in the number of strong tornadoes in the US, for instance – is it because of warming?
Besides, using the number or intensity of extreme weather events to judge which kind of climate is preferable is bizarre; climate is mostly defined by temperature and precipitation, not by one-in-a-decade events. There are no hurricanes in Vladivostok – would Floridans rather have that climate?
Scott Denning of Colorado State University made an interesting tweet, saying something like “Harvey and Irma weren’t caused by climate change, they *are* climate change.”
Denning’s tweet was not caused by climate change.
His tweet *is* climate change.
Dave, if the climate weren’t changing, THAT would be “climate change”.
Yea, yea, yea. Bad weather events are from climate change. Good weather is just weather. A run of hot temperatures is caused by climate change. A run of average or cooler than average temperatures is just weather. Cold weather is weather. Cold weather with a blizzard is a result of climate change caused by global warming. Milder than usual winters are caused by climate change. Droughts are from climate change and so are any drought busting rains that follow them. Declining Arctic sea ice is due to climate. Growing Arctic sea ice is due to weather. Declining Greenland SMB is due to climate. Growing Greenland SMB is due to weather. Declining ice extent, area, or age of ice is always due to climate. Growing ice extent, area, or age of ice is not. And any time glaciers calve it’s a sign of a warming climate. 11 years and 10 months without a CAT III strike on the lower 48 is luck. Two CAT IV strikes in a season is due to climate change. Etc, etc, etc. ad nauseum.
I would believe you had The Guardian not said it is the deniers who attribute weather as cooling climate. /sarc
DA…”Scott Denning of Colorado State University made an interesting tweet, saying something like Harvey and Irma werent caused by climate change, they *are* climate change.”
Scott sounds like a typical alarmist, shooting off his mouth with no proof.
DA…”Scott Denning of Colorado State University made an interesting tweet, saying something like Harvey and Irma werent caused by climate change, they *are* climate change.”
Scott seems to be implying that local weather that produced Harvey and Irma was created by an unspecified global phenomenon. Why did both storms occur in the Caribbean initially as a severe storm? Could that have been local weather?
Or maybe Scott is claiming we have a global climate. But wait…how could that be? How can you have a desert climate, a rain forest climate, an Arctic climate, and so on as one global climate?
Or maybe Scott has proof that anthropogenic CO2 can cause a severe increase in warming. But wait…there has been no warming for close to 20 years. We had a brief spike in Feb 2016 from an El Nino but sense then the trend has been negative.
Doesn’t climate change require significant warming?
No, that wasn’t what Scott Denning meant.
“But waitthere has been no warming for close to 20 years.”
A complete lie from a repeat offender.
DA…”But waitthere has been no warming for close to 20 years.
A complete lie from a repeat offender”.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You quote the IPCC to confirm your alarmist propaganda then deny them when the claim a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012. If the 2016 EN is moderated soon by a La Nina of significance, it will be 20 years with no warming.
No, even those can be spun. Mild winters are now
called “extreme” weather.
Maybe I have my data wrong, but I think that even the claim that this was the first year since records began with 2 Cat 4 landfalls is pure BS ! I looked at the NOAA hurricane date report from 2007.
There were 2 category 4 storms making landfall in 1915 … one in Louisiana and 1 in Texas. At least according to the NOAA hurricane date report.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-5 (see page 39)
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-5.pdf
The Weather Channel story is Fake news.
Jet stream falls far south. Maria has a free rein.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
While Michael Mann said that Harvey stalled because manmade climate change is expanding the subtropical ridge and pushing the jet stream (the northern polar front one) farther north. That seems to be happening slightly on average, but the stalling of Harvey was for close to common-enough American weather causing close to the opposite – a middle/upper trough in the central and eastern US had near-jet-stream mid/upper troposphere winds getting closer to Texas than usual for August and blowing from the northwest, while hurricanes that make landfall onto Texas typically do so from the southeast. Obviously, Michael Mann did not look at a weather map at the relevant time.
Meanwhile, Maria seems to be going on a slow course mostly northwestward and with some tendency to curve northward until it runs into westerly mid/upper troposphere winds getting somewhat strong. The weather forecast models are showing the jet stream in the eastern US and adjacent Atlantic running somewhat more north than usual for the time of year, but westerly winds in the middle/upper troposphere are projected to be strong enough down to 34-35 N latitude to kick Maria out to sea once it gets to about 35 degrees north. The timing of the next cold front affects this, since middle/upper troposphere winds will be somewhat blowing along it, although a little towards a direction from behind to ahead of the advancing front.
donald…”While Michael Mann said that Harvey stalled because manmade climate change is expanding the subtropical ridge and pushing the jet stream (the northern polar front one) farther north…”
Is that the same Michael Mann who claimed unprecedented warming in the 1990s over 1000 years? Seems Mikey got his stats wrong and had to cut declining temps in his tree ring proxies in the 20th century, replacing them with real data.
Isn’t Mikey a geologist? Why would a geologist be explaining climate phenomena?
Oh, I forgot, Mikey and his buddy Stieg claimed Antarctica had warmed since 1950. Apparently, they took slight warming temps near the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula and interpolated it to the entire continent.
Is that the same Michael Mann featured in the Climategate emails trying to pervert peer review through interference?
UAH LT v6.0warming for Antarctica since 1979 = +0.5 C
A skeptic group critiquing Steig et al’s paper published their own and likewise determined that Antarctica was warming.
Is snow in September in Nevada a sign of warming?
There are parts of Nevada that always occasionally got snow in September. There are parts of California that somewhat often get snow from September to May. And Flagstaff AZ (population roughly 71K) usually gets more snow than Buffalo NY and all other cities in the US larger than 200,000 population including Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh.
Those who bring up examples of supposedly extreme American weather as an example or counterexample of manmade global warming generally don’t know what normal American weather really is. Normal American weather (and in much of the adjacent parts of the provinces of Canada and parts of Mexico near the border) is to “act normal” enough to favor an impression that there is such a thing as “normal American weather”. The early April 1974 tornado outbreak set records which mostly still stand and Tropical Storm Agnes set rainfall and flood records some of which still stand, close enough to Philadelphia which was enjoying an unusually prolonged break from snowstorms 12″-plus and temperatures 100-plus or zero-minus. In 1965-1976, Philadelphia had 12 years with temperature confined to 1-99 degrees F and largest snowstorm being 11 inches, along with its least-snowy winter on record, that had snowfall officially having too little accumulation to record a numerical amount of at least .1 inch in each of the two storms where a “trace” of snow accumulation was officially recorded. Although the fall of 1976 brought very chilly conditions to Philadelphia, as well as much of elsewhere in the northeast US and nearby parts of the Midwest, and the coldest December on record in much of this area. In February 1977, warmth, humidity and storminess from the El Nino of that winter came late to Philadelphia, bringing with it a line of severe thunderstorms. Oh I wish that media organizations would hire old farts who remember America’s weather better than the young airheads that they like to hire or have as interns.
Who on TV knows what the worst hurricane of 1954 was, where it made landfall, what category it had at landfall, and how many miles did its center track over land (including after becoming mostly an extratropical-type storm along a distinct front) with production of hurricane-qualifying sustained winds measured on land by anemometers, many wind records still standing, and rainfall and flood records still standing?
TV people can read Wikipedia as well as anyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Atlantic_hurricane_season
One sure couldn’t tell it by some of the falsehoods they “report”. I’m sure they can read. I’m just as sure many of them are more interested in sensationalism than they are checking facts.
donald…”Those who bring up examples of supposedly extreme American weather as an example or counterexample of manmade global warming generally dont know what normal American weather really is”.
Apparently NOAA does. When they slashed 75% of the reporting stations from their global database they seemed to make sure the stations slashed were those like the Sierra Nevadas in California where cooler temps prevail. They left 3 stations along the warmer coast.
But wait…NOAA made sure the Sierra Nevadas were covered by interpolating surrounding warmer temps like the coast of California with warmer temps from the coast of Texas.
Let’s try that out. Hypothetical average on coast of California = 25C. Theoretical temps on coast of Texas = 28C. When interpolated, (25C + 28C)/2 = 26.5C.
OMG…the average on the Sierras used to be +10C. Appears to have warmed there by 16.5C. Proof of man made global warming.
Number of NOAA weather stations in California
as of 9/23/17 = 125
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/coverage/ccov.php?State=CA
No, that was weather radio. There are actually 128 NOAA NWS land stations in California:
http://w1.weather.gov/xml/current_obs/seek.php?state=ca&Find=Find
DA…”Number of NOAA weather stations in California
as of 9/23/17 = 125″
I said ‘reporting’ stations. Remember the 75% they slashed globally?
Remember the 75% they slashed globally?
Liar.
Again.
they seemed to make sure the stations slashed were those like the Sierra Nevadas in California where cooler temps prevail. They left 3 stations along the warmer coast.
Not only are you lying about the stations being slashed, you don’t even realize that it makes no difference if weather stations are in a hot or cold place. The weather data are anomalised monthly, removing any of location or season when establishing a global average or trend.
How can you not know this after all this time?
Is the circulation above the polar circle starting in the stratosphere?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_nh.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.png
ren…”Is the circulation above the polar circle starting in the stratosphere?”
Hey ren…do you know that when the Sun no longer shines in the Arctic during winter that cooler air from above descends and freezes the place?
Don’t tell that to alarmists, they think the Arctic is ice-free all year round.
You are right to point out that stats of rare events are not well behaved.
Therefore using the behavior of rare events to make your point is…rather pointless!
Just trying to show that using the same reasoning as anyone who is worried about 2 Cat 4 hurricanes hitting in the same year means hurricanes are getting worse, I can come up with a statistic that goes in the opposite direction…by a factor of 10x.
Roy…”Just trying to show that using the same reasoning as anyone who is worried about 2 Cat 4 hurricanes hitting in the same year means hurricanes are getting worse….”
Roy, anyone serious about science would get that. Too bad you have to go to all the trouble of pointing it out to alarmists.
Just trying to show that using the same reasoning as anyone who is worried about 2 Cat 4 hurricanes hitting in the same year means hurricanes are getting worse…
Is this a thing? Outside random blogs or a couple of breathless headlines?
Barry
I understand that you don’t like what Dr. Spencer wrote, but I don’t understand your critique. “A thing” “Outside random blogs” and “Breathless headlines”
Hmmmm,
That’s a headline alright. Breathless? Anyone who pays attention to this stuff knows that the United States has had a hurricane drought for over a decade. Is that due to luck or “Climate Change”? Ignoring Climate Change as a possible cause of the lack of large U.S. hurricanes these past ten years and then implying Climate Change as a cause of increased strength of these two is quite selective and doesn’t follow logically.
Best regards
Steve
The Arbitrary Definition of the Current Atlantic Major Hurricane Landfall Drought, Robert E. Hart et al, BAMS (May 2016).
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00185.1
I have seen no chat that “2 Cat 4 hurricanes hitting in the same year means hurricanes are getting worse.”
Roy has invented the claim.
The point about hurricanes and climate change that people are making is that these large flooding events, which seem unsustainable cost wise, MAY be what the future will look like more and more as a result of climate change.
Therefore, they say, climate change ought to be a concern in the present.
I think for the general public, discrete events focus their minds on issues much more than stats, slowly-changing trends or continuous threats. That’s just reality.
I think “global warming” would cause less hurricanes, it also seems if we got a lot more “global warming” we would less tornadoes, but unfortunately we aren’t going to get a lot more “global warming” within a few centuries.
It seems there better than 50% chance, we going to return to the “pause” and could get some glaciers advancing- we always had a few glaciers advancing, I think will get some more of them advancing.
It seems pretty close to impossible that we could get any warming that will resemble the warming projected by IPCC, but still possible to get 1 C warming within century- or roughly in decade or two we don’t lose the warming we had over last 40 to 50 years and continue, the .1 to .2 of warming per decade. And if so, should continue the drought of hurricanes. Which would be good news.
Two problems:
1) “The Arbitrary Definition of the Current Atlantic Major Hurricane Landfall Drought: Although nine years have passed since the last U.S. major hurricane landfall, the existence and relative significance of the current drought are largely artifacts of the chosen metric,” Hart et al, BAMS 2016.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00185.1
2) The Saffir-Simpson category wind speed scale is not a good indicator of potential hurricane damage. Example: Harvey wasn’t even a Cat 1 when it devastated Houston. Example: Katrina was a Cat 3 when it hit Mississippi, yet it did far more damage than 1969’s Camille, a Cat 5.
Several things are important besides wind speed: the size of a storm, storm surge, speed of the storm’s center, and its duration. Saffir-Simpson captures none of these. Nor does ACE.
Well, Saffir-Simpson would be the meterological variable most impacting storm surge, but yeah there is no best, once-size-fits-all metric of storm intensity. So we look at various established metrics that at least mean something.
That’s not my understanding — it’s also the radius of the maximum wind field. Katrina’s was twice as wide as Camille, which brought 2^2 times more water in the storm surge:
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/surge_details.asp
DA…”Thats not my understanding…”
Did anyone tell you Roy has a degree in meteorology? What was your degree in again, was it Home Economics?
Fake news from NOAA, none of the storms were a cat.4 when they made land fall. Cat 1 at best.
Says who?
Says jane.
says NOAA radar. And the small number of dead people.
what is your source, jane? do you have one or not?
Harvey had a 96 knot sustained wind measured by a NOAA buoy, the one near Port Aransas and close enough to land to count as a coastal wind. Especially when it is noted that the strongest wind sustained/averaged anywhere in the storm within that hour as high as 10 meters above the surface is what counts, and analysis as opposed to measurement of that is what counts when anemometer measurements are not available due to such wind breaking anemometers or being localized to where no official ones exist (they are generally at least several miles apart). Same as with the 1935 Labor Day hurricane, and the 1900 and 1914 ones that hit Galveston. Check for how the official sustained wind figures for these old storms was determined, especially the Cat-5 one of these.
What about maria, cat 4 on puerto rico. Irma cat 4 in Keys….
While landfall has great human consequences, it’s not particularly significant meteorologically, and there are MANY years in which there were two, three, or four Cat 4s without landfall.
To be specific, there were, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes,
–2 Cat-5 Atlantic hurricanes in 1932,
–2 in 1933,
–2 in 1961,
–3 in 2005,
–2 in 2007, and
–2 in 2017.
And according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_4_Atlantic_hurricanes, there were
–2 Cat-4 hurricanes in 1880,
–2 in 1915,
–4 in 1926,
–2 in 1932,
–3 in 1933,
–2 in 1935,
–2 in 1944,
–2 in 1948,
–3 in 1950,
–2 in 1951,
–2 in 1955,
–3 in 1958,
–2 in 1961,
–4 in 1964,
–2 in 1978,
–2 in 1988,
–3 in 1995,
–2 in 1996,
–3 in 1999,
–2 in 2000,
–2 in 2001,
–3 in 2004,
–4 in 2008,
–4 in 2010,
–2 in 2011, and (so far)
–2 in 2017.
In other words, Harvey and Irma aren’t novel.
Harvey’s rainfall wasn’t “novel?” Irma’s winds?
“Irma sustained 185-mph winds for 37 hours, the longest any cyclone on the globe has maintained that intensity.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-irma-weather-meteorology-records-2017-9
Irma sustained 185-mph winds for 37 hours, the longest any cyclone on the globe has maintained that intensity.
As measured with modern instrumentation. Selection bias in action.
Sure; why didn’t they include the Silurian and Ordovician Periods??
You have a curious definition of “modern”.
Your complaint was that better measurements have only been made with modern instrumentation. Why don’t you go to the Florida Keys and tell one of the homeowners whose house was destroyed (1 in 4) that, well, we don’t really know about Irma’s rank because of selection bias. See if he or she doesn’t punch you in the nose.
David Appell says
“See if he or she doesnt punch you in the nose.”
Why do alarmists readily advocate violence?
Its so disappointing!
But, oh so convincing, Bryan.
If facts are against you..pound on the nose!
It’s telling to see how deniers have to twist and purposely misinterpret words to try to score points.
This lack of honest is exactly why you gain no ground, and lose some every year.
David, Harvey’s rainfall was not novel. What was novel was a major landfalling hurricane stalling for that length of time. Turn on a sprinkler that does not move and you get some very wet lawn. The same sprinkler at the same flow that disperses the water over a wide area gives the lawn a gentle soaking. Nothing unusual with Harvey except it stalled. Which component of AGW is responsible for that?
Harvey’s rainfall set records. THAT’s novel, regardless of the cause.
Harvey set a 5-day rainfall record for the state of Texas that is about 21% above that state’s 1-day rainfall record that was set in 1979. Texas is a big state that gets big things, including occasional intense rainstorms. It’s normal for Texas to get around 1% of itself getting a 100-year rainstorm roughly every year. As for a 500-year class rainstorm over a few percent of Texas, that should be expected a few times per century. One thing that Dr. Michael Mann got right is that the hurricane-season-time-of-the-year warming of the Gulf from decades before is enough to increase water vapor concentration that feeds rainstorms by about 3%, even though he said that at a time when he obviously didn’t look at a weather map when he stated his explanation of what made Harvey stall.
Unfortunately though the false claim that the rainfall was due to climate was not novel.
Look at cat5s.
33 cat5s since 1924
11 in first 37 y
11 in next 42 y
11 in most recent 15 y.
Would seem to be getting more common.
And the 2 in 1915 both made landfall as Cat 4 storms ….. so much for that being a ‘first’ …..
Ok where is the lack of hurricanes. Just because you randomly chose a location on earth for your data does not mean a thing. Very unscientific
Iris#2001#October 89#145 mph (230 km/h)#948 hPa (27.99 inHg)
Michelle#2001#November 34 #140 mph (220 km/h)#933 hPa (27.55 inHg)
Lili#2002#October 23#145 mph (230 km/h)#938 hPa (27.70 inHg)
Fabian#2003#August 31September 5 #145 mph (230 km/h)#939 hPa (27.73 inHg)
Isabel#2003 #September 1114,#165 mph (270 km/h)#915 hPa (27.02 inHg)
Charley#2004#August 13#150 mph (240 km/h)#941 hPa (27.79 inHg)
Frances#2004#August 28September 2 #145 mph (230 km/h)#935 hPa (27.61 inHg)
Karl#2004#September 2021 #145 mph (230 km/h)#938 hPa (27.70 inHg)
Ivan#2004 #September 914#165 mph (270 km/h)#910 hPa (26.87 inHg)
Dennis#2005#July 810 #150 mph (240 km/h)#930 hPa (27.46 inHg)
Emily#2005#July 16, #160 mph (260 km/h)#929 hPa (27.43 inHg)
Katrina#2005#August 2829#175 mph (280 km/h)#902 hPa (26.64 inHg)
Rita#2005#September 2122,#180 mph (285 km/h)#895 hPa (26.43 inHg)
Wilma#2005#October 19,#185 mph (295 km/h)#882 hPa (26.05 inHg)
Dean#2007 #August 1821,#175 mph (280 km/h)#905 hPa (26.72 inHg)
Felix#2007 #September 34,#175 mph (280 km/h)#929 hPa (27.43 inHg)
Gustav#2008#August 3031#155 mph (250 km/h)#941 hPa (27.79 inHg)
Ike#2008#September 48 #145 mph (230 km/h)#935 hPa (27.61 inHg)
Omar#2008#October 16#130 mph (215 km/h)#958 hPa (28.29 inHg)
Paloma#2008#November 8#145 mph (230 km/h)#944 hPa (27.88 inHg)
Bill#2009#August 1920#130 mph (215 km/h)#943 hPa (27.85 inHg)
Danielle#2010#August 27#130 mph (215 km/h)#942 hPa (27.82 inHg)
Earl#2010#August 30September 2 #145 mph (230 km/h)#927 hPa (27.37 inHg)
Igor#2010#September 1217#155 mph (250 km/h)#924 hPa (27.29 inHg)
Julia#2010#September 15#140 mph (220 km/h)#948 hPa (27.99 inHg)
Katia#2011#September 6#140 mph (220 km/h)#942 hPa (27.82 inHg)
Ophelia#2011#October 2#140 mph (220 km/h)#940 hPa (27.76 inHg)
Gonzalo#2014#October 1517 #145 mph (230 km/h)#940 hPa (27.76 inHg)
Joaquin#2015#October 13 #155 mph (250 km/h)#931 hPa (27.64 inHg)
Nicole#2016#October 1213#140 mph (220 km/h)#950 hPa (28.05 inHg)
Matthew#2016#October 1,#165 mph (270 km/h)#934 hPa (27.58 inHg)
Harvey#2017#August 2526#130 mph (215 km/h)#938 hPa (27.70 inHg)
Jose#2017#September 810#155 mph (250 km/h)#938 hPa (27.70 inHg)
Irma#2017 #September 59,#185 mph (295 km/h)#914 hPa (26.99 inHg)
Maria#2017 #September 1820,#175 mph (280 km/h)#908 hPa (26.81 inHg)
“A hurricane climate shift protecting the U.S. during active years, even while ravaging nearby Caribbean nations, would require creativity to formulate. We conclude instead that the admittedly unusual 9 year U.S. Cat3+ landfall drought is a matter of luck.”
Hall, T., and K. Hereid, 2015: The frequency and duration of U.S. hurricane droughts. Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 34823485, doi:10.1002/2015GL063652.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063652/abstract
SPACECRAFT BUZZES EARTH EN ROUTE TO ASTEROID: NASA’s OSIRIS-REx spacecraft is going to fly past Earth on Sept. 22nd, sling-shotting itself toward a potentially hazardous asteroid named “Bennu.”
…
In 2135, the asteroid may enter a “keyhole” between the Earth and the Moon where the gravitational pull of our own planet will tweak Bennu’s orbit, potentially putting it on course for Earth later that century. Currently, the odds of a collision 150+ years from now are no more than about 1 in 2700–small, but enough to prompt an $800 million space mission.”
http://www.spaceweather.com/
What’s everyone’s take on geo-engineering? There is a lot of buzz today on the internet that geo-engineering is manipulating our weather.
For only a few dollars, anyone can now control the weather.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N7UW8OQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Great!
: – )
If you give me dollars i can mitigate AGw. Trust me
Hi Phil,
are you planning to wear the butterfly wings?
😀
Have a great day.
Massimo
We need to pray for people living in Turks and Caicos Islands.
Now that is a positive comment.
Assuming there is an all Powerful almighty God then he sent the hurricane and therefore praying to Him will have no effect – He sent the destruction for a purpose.
Assuming there is no God then praying to non existent entities will have no effect.
A lot more sensible would be to send aid and assistance. There is no help praying to an entity that kills innocent children
Or they can get smart and move somewhere else
I’m sure the US will accept them with open arms
According to our local sect, prayer is man’s talk to the God, and according to some rabbis, it’s healthy but if God talks to you, you are mad.
Furthermore, the God does not need your talk. So you pray for your own reasons. So they tell us. What I’m to judge.
In a chaotic system with myriads of variables, some of which are probably still unknown, records of all types will continue to be broken. As each record is broken, it it possible but not certain that it will longer before that record will be broken. But broken it will be, until such time as all varaibles have combined at all their own extremes at a given point in time.
That may be well into
Oops, clicked the wrong button.
That point may not be reached during the period of existence of planet earth.
The statistics of random uncorrelated discrete events is described by the Poisson probability distribution. If the mean rate of occurrence of the events is r then in a time t one expects
m = r t
events on average in time t. The probability of observing exactly n events is given by
P(n ,m) = m^n/n! exp(-m)
The average rate for Cat 4+ hurricanes is
r = 1/7 year
so that in t = one year, the mean number of Cat 4+ hurricanes expected is
m =1/7
Using the above formula, the probability in one year of seeing no Cat 4+ hurricanes is
P(0, 1/7) = 0.867
and exactly one is
P(1, 1/7) = 0.124
This means that the probability of seeing at least two hurricanes in one year is
1 – 0.867 – 0.124 = 0.009
about 1%.
Next, how long do you have to wait so that there is a 50% probability of two or more Cat 4+ hurricanes in one year? This is equivalent to asking what is the probability that in k years there is only 0 or 1 hurricane in every year. It is the solution to
(0.867 +0.124)^k = 0.5
or k = 74 years.
The “droughts” of Cat 4+s are not particularly improbable.
The probability of 9 years without a Cat4+ is
P(0, 9/7) = 0.276 = 27.6%
The probability of 11 years without a Cat 4+ is
P(0, 11/7) = 0.208 = 20.8%
Impressive!
David,
I am not at all surprised that you are impressed with the useless and pointless.
The probability of a fair coin toss is 0.5.
What good does it do you?
Foolish Warmists love irrelevant analogies, and love even more, pointless, but seemingly impressive displays of useless statistical calculations.
If you think this worthless nonsense is in some way useful, as you might say – Prove it!
Just more foolish Warmist WOT (Waste Of Time).
Cheers.
I suspected you couldn’t understand this. Clearly I was right.
David,
Prove it!
Cheers.
Are you able to follow Paul’s math?
David,
Paul’s math is about “The statistics of random uncorrelated discrete events”
So the Cat4 hurricanes are random and uncorrelated?
How could they be random and uncorrelated if all they are correlated to global warming?
I mean: if A is correlated to B and B is correlated to C, A must be correlated to C.
Got it?
Have a great day.
Massimo
David Appell,
Understanding nonsense doesn’t make it any less nonsensica, does it?l
If you claim it has any use at all –
“Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.” – David Appell.
What’s it to be David – proof or apology?
Cheers.
I would suggest hurricanes are not random but are, to some extent, predictable.
Why else would we have a hurricane season? They are predicted to be from June through November. etc.
Massimo PORZIO says:
“How could they be random and uncorrelated if all they are correlated to global warming?”
They aren’t all correlated to global warming. So far the frequency doesn’t appear to be changing. That doesn’t mean other characteristics of hurricanes aren’t changing, like storm surge and intensity. Storm surge increases with sea level rise, which is definitely correlated to AGW.
Exactly David,
read my reply to Dr No below.
David,
“Storm surge increases with sea level rise, which is definitely correlated to AGW.”
This was surely right if the temperature of the sea and the one of the atmosphere above were unrelated, but if the less massive atmosphere above the oceans heats up together the sea below it’s no longer surely right.
Let me have doubts about the amplitude of the effect (if it really exists or better if it was measurable).
Have a great day.
Massimo
I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
Here is the sea level rise in the Florida Keys since 1913:
http://tinyurl.com/y78jwcej
SLR = 25 cm
Hi David,
my point is easy.
Maybe I’m not been clear, but storms are “thermal machines” which power is sourced from temperature differentials.
The sea level rise tell us that the sea temperature increased and there is no doubt about that (except that I still have doubts on the quality of the measurements, but I concede you to take those measurements as valid).
But the temperature of the less denser atmosphere above the sea did the same, it increased too.
So your claim that storms strength are increasing because of that is not demonstrated.
In case you use the term “correlated” in the strictly statistician meaning, then I’ve no time to spend on silly statements, because I should be boring repeating that correlation doesn’t imply causation.
Have a great Sunday.
Massimo
Such a nice, logical, expert presentation.
Pity that it will only be appreciated by a small fraction.
dr No,
In the words of David Appell – Prove it!
Cheers.
Easy. Answer me this:
Did you find any fault in the reasoning?
Did you appreciate the post?
dr. No, I found substantial fault in his reasoning. And anybody who claims to be an analyst or follows scientific principles should be embarrassed if they did not see it immediately.
Please, don’t be shy.
Tell us what it is.
dr No,
I assume you are using the foolish Warmist definition of proof.
In your case proofconsists of saying Easy, and asking silly pointless questions.
Convenient, but doesnt fit the definition of proof in any dictionary Ive seen.
Maybe you could indicate the reference which supports your apparent definition? Or is it hidden away with Trenberths missing heat, Michael Manns Nobel Prize, and the disprovable GHE hypothesis?
Maybe, in lieu of proof, it might be easier to show some practical use for the calculations posted? Or maybe not.
Cheers.
Re: Mann’s Nobel Prize
Fred Singer made the same claim about he and John Christy:
“John Christy, my fellow skeptic and fellow co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize (by virtue of having our names listed in IPCC reports) in the WSJ [ITEM #4].”
http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2007/November%203.htm
Here John Christy discusses his Nobel for his contribution to IPCC report.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119387567378878423
RE – David Appell’s – September 28, 2017 at 5:13 PM, below – Attacking John Christy in defense of Michael Mann’s claim of winning a Nobel…
Appell quoted a colleague of Christy’s from the link he gives…
…blissfully unaware that the aside is to indicate that this is sarcasm, a concept David Appell is perpetually unable to grasp. (I’ve had related issues with him on other websites)
But what’s hillarious is that if Appell had only read a bit further, he would have seen this at the same link…
”
In addition to having no sense of humor, they also have no shame.
David, You note the Florida Keys as an example. Did you know that there are at least 3 points in Alaska where MSL has fallen between 4 and 6 feet per 100 years? Elevations are taken from monuments placed by the CGDS in the US. Land rising or subsiding can be generalized by satellite but to my knowledge, they cannot give an elevation focused on one 3 inch circle. The land rises and subsides in unpredictable ways on a global scale. Warmists like to point to far southern Lousiana as an example with MSL rising 3 to 4 feet per hundred years. Land subsidence obviously plays a major role as areas a few miles away feature SLR around 1 to 2 feet per century.
It might be a case of conditional probability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability
If the conditions are right for one hurricane it might be more likely to be followed by another.
I once did a study of all landfalling hurricanes in the US using all the data back to the late 1800s. On average there are about 5 per year. The probabilty distribution matched a Poisson distribution with an average of 5 quite well.
Another property of a Poisson distrubution is that the time between events should be distributed as an exponential. That’s exactly what the data showed. I think that rules out correlation and the resulting conditional probability.
OK, noted!
Cool.
Exactly Svante.
For that reason the Poisson probability distribution shouldn’t never used in this case.
Hurricanes are not “random uncorrelated discrete events” especially if the analysis is performed to demonstrate a correlation between their occurrence and a supposed (or better probable) cause of their origination.
I’m really surprised looking some scientists become excited for that bad application of statistic.
Have a great day.
Massimo
I used the same Poisson to make my calculation. However, the study Roy cites did not do so, since they found much lower chances of a 9 year drought.
Paul, if you did that analysis in my Statistic class, you might get some commendations for being able to use Math, but I would have serious qualms about giving you a passing grade.
The reason is contained in your opening statement: “based on random uncorrelated discrete events.” And then you proceed to do analysis on events that are definitely not random uncorrelated discrete. The meteorological conditions that are favorable for a Category 4 hurricane do not come and go randomly year by year. If the conditions are ripe for a Category 4 event, they tend to be ripe for the whole year.
Your analysis would be like saying we have 20% chance of experiencing a LIA type year next year because 100 of the past 500 years were LIA type. That is not the case. Meteorological conditions are not random year-by-year.
As I pointed out above, the entire population of hurricanes Cat 1 and greater have a probability distribution that is in excellent agreement with being Poisson with a mean of 5 storms per year. I therefore asssumed that the Cat 4+ storms would also have the same distribution but with a mean of 1 per 7 years. It’s not possible to make a meaingful test since they are so rare, about 15 in 100 years, but it’s a good working assumption.
As for the causes of hurricanes, I’m not aware of the various weather services being able to forecast the number and strength of the hurricanes for any given year. I’d certainly like to know since around here we get the occasional hurricane and more commonly, Nor’easters off the North Atlantic in the winter.
Finally, Poisson probabilities only apply to discrete events such as hurricane counts, radioactive decay, and customer arrivals at a gas station. A LIA year doesn’t fit in that category.
Paul, I think AE (and Massimo and Svante) are upset because you applied Poisson in the first place.
They argue that hurricane occurrences are correlated.
Yes they are.
But only within the hurricane season, not from year to year.
They do not understand that hurricane totals are not correlated from year to year.
Secondly, they do not appreciate that, because the Poisson fit did so well, this fact indicates they are uncorrelated.
As I said, your very good analysis will be appreciated (let alone understood, e.g. Mike Flynn) by very few on this site.
I even have my doubts about how well Roy Spencer, PhD understands statistics and probabilities.
I’m not upset, I was just wondering.
Paul has checked so I’ll take his word for it.
The formulas of statistics are great for predicting the past.
Paul, Dave, and Drano might like to try Poisson at a roulette table….
Dr. No,
I’m not upset too, I’m just wondering about people who is excited for a statistical bad application.
Note that if Paul is right (and for the moment, I think he is right) and Poisson distribution give a good match for the past events, then two scenario are possible:
1) the long term correlation is null or almost null, that is climate changes have nothing to do with hurricane statistics in the period.
2) the number of samples in the sampled period are too little to highlight the correlation between the climate changes and the hurricanes occurrence because of other forcing mechanisms (most probable in my point of view)
In both cases one things holds:
Dr. Spencer argument is valid.
Because if that long term correlation one day or another will happen, then long periods of missing hurricanes landfalls will be more significant than a couple of Cat4 hurricanes in one season. It’s the past history that tell that to us. And in that case the Poisson distribution will fail matching the data, its inevitable because the data will be no longer random and uncorrelated.
Have a great day.
Massimo
If hurricanes are correlated within a year, then Poisson is not usable.
Fake news from NOAA, Trump should say to all on them your fired.
Cat. 1 storms being called cat. 4 storms. The people that work at NOAA are terrorists.
What evidence do you have of this? (3rd time I’ve asked.)
David Appell,
Wheres your evidence to the contrary?
Prove it.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You request proof of the power of Irma and Maria.
A Cat 1 hurricane has sustained winds of 74 MPH. I have been in thunderstorms many times with this level of wind intensity. Lots of branches down but no big structural damage to homes, no cars overturned.
Here are some links. Hope you look it is answering your request for proof.
IRMA:
https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+destruction+from+Irma&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGr_XBgLnWAhVnzIMKHcQtDV4QsAQIJQ&biw=1280&bih=907
MARIA:
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=907&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=images+of+destruction+from+Maria&oq=images+of+destruction+from+Maria&gs_l=psy-ab.3…262816.265298.0.265658.9.9.0.0.0.0.74.485.7.7.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..2.0.0….0.XaCRzcy9iBw
View the images posted in links and then see if that is proof that jane does not have a bit of sense. Or is just trying to see how stupid some of the denialists of science are. You are at the top of list for unscientific, brain-dead (unable or unwilling to learn new information even when presented to you) denialists of good science.
Norman,
You claimed that I requested the proof of the power of Irma and Maria.
This possibly happened in your fantasy world, and you have confused it with reality.
Maybe next time you could quote me exactly, rather than just substituting your own imaginings.
At least, if you post what I actually wrote, rather than what you wished I had, people might be able to understand what you are trying to to say. At present, it would be quite understandable if others found your post both incomprehensible and irrelevant. Sad.
Cheers.
“…both incomprehensible and irrelevant.”
AKA, “rambling”.
Rambling? What I see in this exchange is Mike completely forgetting the thread of the conversation, and that he did indeed request evidence (from David) that the hurricanes were Cat 4, not Cat 1.
My daughter and I were discussing the hurricanes and she asked if warmer temperatures would produce more or less. After thinking for awhile I asked her what do we know about hurricanes on the other planets. Jupiter which is colder than the earth has had a sustained hurricane (the red eye) for hundreds of years. I was not sure if Venus has any. Can some one comment on that (does Jupiter have other hurricanes what about the other gas giants)? Perhaps this shows that warmer temperatures will produce fewer and weaker hurricanes and colder temperatures more and stronger ones.
Hurricanes only occur over oceans [they can continue over land- and are weaken by going over land surface]
A wind vortex is needed to form hurricane over water which is about 26 C or warmer. The depth of warm water is also important.
Or a hurricane is vast heat engine requiring a lot of energy and deep and warm water has a lot of energy.
And no land surface can have the amount of energy that tens of meters of warm ocean water can have.
Hurricanes also generate tornadoes.
Tornadoes can form over land area, and they can have much higher wind velocities than a hurricane, but hurricane are much bigger size and involve a lot more energy.
Much the severe wind damage caused by hurricanes is likely related to tornadoes that created by a hurricane.
Hurricane damage is mostly related to flooding, hurricanes can rise sea level, creating a storm surge, and hurricane can cause a lot rainfall that a short period time and over large area.
You could roughly call a hurricane an atmospheric vortex and include other vortexs such tornados, dust devils, and waterspouts.
And both of our polar regions have vortex weather patterns. Venus also has a polar vortex. As far as red spot- it’s a vortex, but I don’t think we know very much about. It lasted for a long time [as long as we had the telescopes to see it and is near the equator of Jupiter.
Anyways there are no other planets with a warm liquid surface ocean of water.
Anyways there are no other planets…
We have seen, yet.
In terms of “global warming” the tropics [where hurricanes form] has always been warm. Or the waters have always been warm enough- but simply having warm water is not enough to cause hurricanes. It’s needed for hurricanes but other factors are involved in creating them.
And tropics isn’t getting warmer- global warmer is about making the rest of the world warm like the tropics. Or making rest of world be closer to being tropical climate.
Or by increasing tropical conditions outside the tropics and making less of difference between the temperate Zone and the tropical Zone.
Which I think will lessen severe weather, including hurricanes.
According to UAH’s data, the lower troposphere over the tropics has warmed by 0.5 C since 1979.
PS: The global LT has also warmed by 0.5 C, according to UAH.
The tropics is about 40% of Earth surface.
And Antarctica is about 4% of Earth surface.
And as I recall you claimed that Antarctica has
warmed by .3 C over same period that you are claiming the tropics has warmed by 0.5 C.
Of the remaining 56% of Earth lower troposphere, one has North and South Temperate Zones and Arctic.
Using the same system that tells you: “the lower troposphere over the tropics has warmed by 0.5 C since 1979”, how much has Arctic warmed during that time period?
On different topic, I noticed interesting post at Watt’s Up With That:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/21/climate-model-projections-significantly-diverge-from-paleoclimate-analogs/
UAH LT NoPol total warming = +0.94 C
DA…”According to UAHs data, the lower troposphere over the tropics has warmed by 0.5 C since 1979″.
Lie!!!
DA claims 0.5C warming for both the Tropics and Antarctica yet UAH reveals little or no warming in the Tropics since 1979. 0.5C warming in Antarctica is clearly absurd.
DA likely has a long nose.
Wrap your mind around this.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster Could be Responsible for Life-Saving Hurricane Drought
http://eaglerising.com/45104/deepwater-horizon-oil-disaster-could-be-responsible-for-life-saving-gulf-hurricane-drought/
Sure, let’s have oil disasters every year!
(Did you actually read that article? A. it isn’t very scientific, and B. it tries to attribute a few years without storms to oil on the surface reducing evaporation. In other words, let’s pollute our way out of dangerous storms. Bah.)
Davie only likes pseudoscience when it fits his agenda.
It might played a part in the rain drought of Texas.
One thing about oil spill is life in the ocean ate it- which was “unexpected” and that life could have lasted longer than oil spill itself, and traveled along the currents.
Animals/plants last longer when they eat oil?? Says what?
Davi Appell,
Where’s your evidence that they don’t? Prove it!
Cheers.
You have rapidly devolved into gadfly status, like a few others here, asking boring & lame questions.
David Appell,
As you said –
Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.
Wheres your proof?
Cheers.
David Appell,
Cutting and pasting your quote loses the punctuation. Of course, it should read –
Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.
I asked again for proof, but of course youre terrified of having to back up your foolish Warmist assertions!
Cheers.
“youre terrified of having to back up your foolish Warmist assertions!”
Prove it!
dr No,
The approved form, per David Appell, seems to be –
“Prove that, smartass. Or apologize!
How stupid. Foolish Warmist demands, backed up by nothing.
Maybe you could toss in a fact or two – just for a change. Do you think it might achieve more than foolish Warmist attempts at being gratuitously offensive?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
The approved form, per David Appell, seems to be
Prove that, smartass. Or apologize!”
I never wrote that.
Manufacturing quotes is dishonest.
Most life on Earth is microbial:
“Microorganisms live in every part of the biosphere, including soil, hot springs, inside rocks at least 19 km (12 mi) deep underground, the deepest parts of the ocean, and at least 64 km (40 mi) high in the atmosphere. Microorganisms, under certain test conditions, have been observed to thrive in the near-weightlessness of space and to survive in the vacuum of outer space. Microorganisms likely far outweigh all other living things combined.” -wiki
Or Life = microbial life.
So didn’t say animals/plants, I said life:
“The microbes did a spectacular job of eating a lot of the natural gas,” says biogeochemist Chris Reddy of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The relatively small hydrocarbon molecules in natural gas are the easiest for microorganisms to eat. “The rate and capacity is a mind-boggling testament to microbes,” he adds.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-microbes-helped-clean-bp-s-oil-spill/
And I would add that microbes are not isolate/separate from other life, but rather an integral part of the network of all life.
What happens if the hurricanes keep coming all winter? Add a monster cinder cone with no summer and I’m starting to get the origin of the mile thick ice sheet.
Wiki:
“In the Northern Atlantic Ocean, a distinct hurricane season occurs from June 1 to November 30, sharply peaking from late August through September; the season’s climatological peak of activity occurs around September 10 each season. This is the norm, but in 1938, the atlantic hurricane season started as early as January 3.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season
Well, 1930’s were warm.
But it seems like we will continue to peak activity in September.
What if climate change was a contributor to recent African droughts and these droughts worsened dust storms, which in turn interfered with hurricane development? You could then say climate change had increased misery in one part of the world, while helping to prevent it elsewhere.
From Accuweather:
“a drought in northwest Africa in recent years probably played a role in the relatively quiet seasons of the recent past. The dust from the drought is picked up by weather systems that roll west over the Atlantic. The dust tends to have a drying effect on developing storms “that leads to weakening,” he said.”
–5/10/2016
(Adds details and background)
By Aziz El Yaakoubi
RABAT, May 10 (Reuters) – Morocco is expected to harvest a
cereal crop of 3.35 million tonnes, down 70 percent from last
season’s record 11 million tonnes, after the worst drought in 30 years, the agriculture ministry said on Tuesday.
…
Rainfall was 43 percent less than an average year and 45.5
percent less than last season, which makes this the worst season in 30 years, with 98 dry days between November and February.–
http://www.agriculture.com/content/update-1-morocco-cereal-crop-to-fall-70-pct-after-worst-drought-in-30-years
So with Morocco there was drought in 2016 [don’t know what it was this year, but there wasn’t drought in 2015 and/or 2016 was worst in 30 years] and dry season not in the hurricane season.
But anyhow since we had some hurricanes this year, I am to assume their wasn’t a drought in Morocoo?
Or is there other countries that you talking about?
I looked:
“Favourable prospects for 2017 winter grain harvest
Harvesting of the 2017 winter grains will start shortly. Unlike in 2016 when only 2.7 million tonnes of wheat and 600 000 tonnes of barley were harvested mainly due to poor and erratic rains, prospects for the 2017 harvest look very promising. While parts of Morocco suffered from autumn drought up to mid-November 2016, which delayed plantings in some areas, good precipitation later in the season replenished soil moisture, improving yield prospects. The total area planted with winter cereals in the current season is 5.11 million hectares, compared to 3.6 million hectares in the previous year.”
http://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=MAR
So, I guess not a drought in 2017.
And that related to why we got some hurricanes this year?
gbaikie
Thanks for looking that up. I was just going by what the guy at Accuweather said. A lot more to NW Africa than just Morocco but likely similar weather patterns.
My comment was mostly just something to think about: how a predicted result of global warming (more droughts) could lead to something unexpected (fewer/weaker hurricanes)
The Caribbean Sea is very warm this year. This may reinforce hurricanes over North America.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anoma.9.21.2017.gif
However, hurricane formation in the Atlantic depends on the range of upper winds from the north.
“My comment was mostly just something to think about: how a predicted result of global warming (more droughts) could lead to something unexpected (fewer/weaker hurricanes)”
Yeah they are a lot factors, and as far as I know the only general specific predictive factors, have to do whether there is a El Nino or not. And that a tendency rather than anything specific.
But I believe that warming should tend to have less severe weather. Or I would expect more severe weather in glacial period [and not just cold weather being severe].
And warmer world will generally be more wet.
Though with significantly warmer world, one will have different weather [different weather patterns] but we aren’t going to get such a “significantly warmer world”, anytime soon- not in century, maybe not in a thousand years.
The 2016 droughts in Morocco and other African and Asian areas near the Tropic of Cancer seem to me as being caused by the El Nino, not global warming.
Donald L. Klipstein on September 23, 2017 at 8:21 AM
… being caused by the El Nino, not global warming.
Are you experienced in the field of regular pattern matching?
If you are: what about searching for similar statements all around the Internet? I guess you would wonder.
But…
– what caused the increase of the collateral El Nino warming since 1950?
– what did these nice La Ninas meanwhile?
The ENSO average level from 1950 till today is near zero.
Now Maria is following Irma’s route exactly.
Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic now gets tremendous amounts of rain.
The hurricane is inhibited by the upper winds. The eye is moving at a speed of just 4 km / h.
It is interesting that I have not viewed any measurements in the keys landfall of sustained Cat 4 winds. Gusts, maybe, sustained, not found. It isnalso interesting that there were many comparisons to Allen, which had 190 mph (892 hPa) sustained winds and Irma 185 mph (921 hPa , or higher, when first designated at that speed I believe), but the pressure difference was almost 30 points? I have also been told we calculate wind speeds differently now days. Is it true in the past they were done at 7 or 10 meters, and now at 100, or is everything simply extrapolated from flight level now days? Where are those sustained 1 minute bouy and land station measurments for Irma anyhow? Just sayin, where?
Let alone the fact we have planes in these things taking reading and dropping sensors 24×7 vs “never” not long ago.
How many Patricia’s happened in the past that we never noticed? Yeah, that’s right, probably hundreds over a millenium.
“Irma then turned north on Sept. 10 and crossed the Florida Keys at Category 4 strength with 130 mph sustained winds.”
http://www.richmond.com/weather/by-the-numbers-hurricane-irma-s-wind-and-water/article_e44fc7b1-0485-5421-a0b0-38772a632cb2.html
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2017/al11/al112017.public_a.045.shtml?
No ground or ocean base devices detected 130 mph sustained winds anywhere in the keys. These numbers must be extrapolated and probably at 100 meters, not the surface.
How do you know there were no ground-based devices?
By the way, 1 in 4 houses in the Keys was destroyed. Do you care?
Every single buoy in the of about a dozen off the south coast of Key West went off line, sending no data long before Irma arrived. I monitered every buoy and land station in S. Florida and not a one showed anything close to even a gust of 130. when Irma came ashore the Weather Channel reported a 136 mph gusts at the airport near Naples, then later had to say that report was in error.
9/12/17: “The NWS uses an array of instruments, also known as the Automated Surface Observing System, to measure climate conditions, especially during a hurricane.”
Wash Post 9/12/17
“In 2015, a NASA study was published which calculated how unlikely the (then) 9-year stretch with no major hurricane landfalls was. They came up with a 177 year return period for such an event. I used that statistic to estimate what eventually happened, which was 11 years with no major hurricane strikes. I get a return period of 560 years!”
Since the return period was just two months short of 12 years, the return period is more like once every 800 years.
I think 11 years is more proper for this calculation. The first several months and most of the last several months in the almost 12 years didn’t have any US-landfalling major hurricanes due to not being in hurricane season. We had 11 hurricane seasons with no US-landfalling major hurricanes between the one of 2005 and the one of 2017.
Mkike Flynn says:
“Understanding nonsense doesnt make it any less nonsensica, does it?”
Prove it!
dr No,
I was asking a question. What do you think?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“The probability of a fair coin toss is 0.5.”
Prove it!
“Foolish Warmists love irrelevant analogies, and love even more, pointless, but seemingly impressive displays of useless statistical calculations.”
Prove it!
“Just more foolish Warmist WOT (Waste Of Time)”
Prove it!
Prove it!
Prove it!
Prove it!
dr No,
I was asking a question. What do you think?
Cheers.
dr No,
If you disagree with something I wrote, it is up to you to show it is incorrect.
Thanks for quoting me directly. What are you disagreeing with?
Foolish Warmists do not seem to accept the scientific process. Real scientists do not prove a theory is correct. It is disprovable for a reason – if somebody shows by experiment that your idea is wrong, it doesn’t how clever you are, or how elegant your theory is, it’s wrong.
Unfortunately, foolish Warmists can’t even propose a disprovable hypothesis, let alone a theory. Stamping your feet, bursting into tears, or running to your Mommy, isn’t nearly as effective as attempting to follow the scientific process.
You can’t even state the nature of the GHE hypothesis in any way that would enable experimental examination. If you claim that it cannot be subjected to experiment by its very nature, it’s not science. More Cargo Cult Scientism – fact by fantasy or faith.
Maybe you could have a tantrum, and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, but who would take any notice? Certainly not me!
Cheers.
Mike,
Let me remind you. Paul Linsey submitted a post on statistics above which DA and I were very appreciative. I wrote: “Such a nice, logical, expert presentation. Pity that it will only be appreciated by a small fraction”
I also asked you : “Did you find any fault in the reasoning? Did you appreciate the post?”
You wrote:
“I am not at all surprised that you are impressed with the useless and pointless. The probability of a fair coin toss is 0.5. What good does it do you? Foolish Warmists love irrelevant analogies, and love even more, pointless, but seemingly impressive displays of useless statistical calculations. If you think this worthless nonsense is in some way useful, as you might say Prove it! Just more foolish Warmist WOT (Waste Of Time).”
I think your response indicates:
(A) did not understand nor appreciate Paul’s post. Thats fine – but it accords with my assertion that very few here did so also.
(B) You don’t understand science, since Paul’s post was purely scientific.
(C) You are increasingly confused, as his response was pointedly relevant to the topic of this thread
(D) Your ignorance must be frustrating, judging by your repetitive and increasingly abusive responses. Please don’t complain if abuse is hurled back. Like they say, “if you can’t stand the heat”
(E) Your repeated claim of “prove it” is just about as useless as me throwing it back at you all the time (as I did above). I could also simply shout at you “disprove it!”.
(F) You have no idea how to argue a case. The correct method is not to behave like an argumentative teenager.
I hope this is useful
Cheers
dr no…”Paul Linsey submitted a post on statistics above which DA and I were very appreciative”.
That’s because catastrophic climate change comes from statistical analysis in a climate model. In real science, climate has nothing to do with statistics.
“You cant even state the nature of the GHE hypothesis in any way that would enable experimental examination. ”
Goodness! What a stupid statement.
I cannot prove that my house will burn down in the future yet I take out building insurance.
I can’t prove that I will get sick yet I take out health insurance.
I can’t prove North Korea will start a war, so let’s ignore it!
etc etc.
You are also wrong.The GHE hypothesis can effectively be proved/disproved by those observing the global climate in 2100 (if not before). If it is proved, well and good, but why would you refuse to take action now to prevent the worst effects till then? That would be stupid. If it is disproven (unlikely), the downside will probably not be much. There is plenty of evidence that the switch to renewables will, in fact, be an economic and health plus in the future.
Cheers
dr No,
The scientific method, whether you like it or not, includes a step which involves proposing a disprovable hypothesis to explain some phenomena which has not been explained using science as currently known.
Unfortunately, the GHE cannot be stated in any meaningful, let alone any disprovable way, involving science rather than magic.
Trying to redefine the scientific method to suit your foolish Warmist purposes is unlikely to succeed, but you are most welcome to try. I wish you well.
You still can’t even state what the GHE hypothesis actually comprises. It’s a little hard to disprove that which doesn’t exist.
You cannot even identify what the “worst effects” might be, in any way that is any better than your unsupported assertions of doom, if we do not bend to your will – or the rest of the ragtag gaggle of foolish Warmists.
Keep trying. Less people appear to be listening. They are probably waiting for the next popular delusion to exercise their imaginations.
Cheers.
Lets keep it simple for you Mike.
The statement of the hypothesis is:
That increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause significant global warming through until the year 2100 and beyond.
Disprovable? Yes:
The test involves continued monitoring of global temperatures.
If there is no significant warming by 2100, the hypothesis fails.
If there is significant warming by 2100, and there is no other plausible cause, then the hypothesis stands.
I think that the state of the hypothesis is looking pretty good right now, and can only improve. By as early as 2030 it could be accepted wisdom almost everywhere.
But I expect you will continue your Black Knight impression to the bitter end.
dr No,
You have presented a bizarre, presumably foolish Warmist, unverifiable assertion, as a scientific hypothesis.
Heres the Wikipedia definition, which seems good enough –
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.
Nobody can be sure what observable phenomenon you are trying to explain, nor which available scientific theories cannot satisfactorily explain this phenomenon which you dont describe. Testing, by reproducible scientific experiment, is therefore impossible. So youve made an assertion, claiming that your indefinable global warmingwill be significant until 2100 and beyond.
You cannot even define your mythical global temperatures, nor do you manage to specify in observable terms, the action of these greenhouse gases. What is the relevance of significant? Does it have a special foolish Warmist meaning? How is it measured – razoos, thingys, Watts per cubic meter when Mars trine Venus?
You think that the state of the hypothesis . . .. The state of the disprovable GHE hypothesis is that none exists. Inconvenient for foolish Warmists, but true. Maybe you might do better to just accept the NOAA idea, and define the Earth as being to raise its own temperature by absorbing more energy than it emits. A magic self heating ball of rock! Heat trappingexplains all!
No science needed! Fact by fiat!
Just more Cargo Cult Scientism, of precisely no demonstrable benefit to man or beast. I suppose next thing youll tell me that Gavin Schmidt is a famous scientist instead of an undistinguished mathematician, or that Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize (even a Nobel Peace Prize!)
All fantasy, just like the amazing mythical GHE.
Cheers.
Darn. Sets of quotes and apostrophes not appearing. Oh well.
Bad luck for me.
Cheers.
“Cutting and pasting your quote loses the punctuation.”
https://tinyurl.com/yawv7w6p
My link was wrong we’re just no good at this.
https://tinyurl.com/y7lqbgo6
Svante,
No help.
Even when not cutting and pasting.
Here is example – heres.
I havent the faintest idea why its happening.
Suggestions welcome.
Cheers.
Perhaps our source/target character sets differ.
dr no…”If it is proved, well and good, but why would you refuse to take action now to prevent the worst effects till then?”
As Mike stated you cannot lay out the GHE in such a way that it can be applied to an experiment. If anyone could, they’d have done it by now. So what do they do, they program a computer (model) with bad physics and arrive at catastrophic warming?
You are proposing we take out insurance based on such pseudo-science??? Fires happen, people have automobile accidents, and also health issues, against which insurance is practical. It’s not practical to base the future on climate models, none of which predicted the warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012.
There is not a shred of real, objective evidence to support anthropogenic warming.
Mike Flynn says:
“You cant even state the nature of the GHE hypothesis in any way that would enable experimental examination.”
Mike Flynn answers:
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
Observers find:
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
“Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)”
Did this paper even get peer reviewed? The paper states:
“In the early 19th century Fourier [1827] found the atmosphere to be acting like a glass of a hothouse, letting through light rays of the sun but retaining the dark rays from the ground.”
No. Fourier did not say that. The above is a quote from Arrhenius (1896, p. 237). And Arrhenius was mistaken, since Fourier did not claim this in his 1827 paper.
I just skipped to the final conclusion:
“The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the theory of greenhouse warming with direct observations.”
Bwahahaha! These clowns do not understand the scientific method. They did not “prove” anything.
Of course it was peer reviewed, and published in a quality journal.
You’re the worst kind of denier — won’t even consider science (done by people much more qualified than you). You denial is so high you will simply dismiss anything you don’t like, that disagrees with your prejudices and extreme denialism.
There’s no reason to take you seriously whatsoever.
SkepticGoneWild on September 23, 2017 at 2:44 PM
As usual, you don’t have half an idea of what you distort and pretend (probably without intention).
Here is a verifiable extract of what Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier wrote in his
‘Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires’ (1824 / 1827 / last reedition 1890)
about experiments made by Horace-Benedict de Saussure decades before:
La theorie de cet instrument est facile a concevoir. Il suffit de remarquer :
que la chaleur acquise se concentre, parce quelle nest point dissipee immediatement par le renouvellement de
lair ;
que la chaleur emanee du Soleil a des proprietes differentes de celles de la chaleur obscure.
Les rayons de cet astre se transmettent en assez grande partie au-dela des verres dans toutes les capacites et jusquau fond de la boite. Ils echauffent lair et les parois qui le contiennent : alors leur chaleur ainsi communiquee cesse detre lumineuse ; elle ne conserve que les proprietes communes de la chaleur rayonnante obscure.
Dans cet etat, elle ne peut traverser librement les plans de verre qui couvrent le vase ; elle saccumule de plus en plus dans une capacite enveloppee dune matiere tres peu conductrice, et la temperature seleve jusqua ce que la chaleur affluente soit exactement compensee par celle qui se dissipe.
{All french spec chars were intentionally dropped before posting the comment.}
If you don’t understand, copy and paste into Google’s translator (it’s sometimes a bit simple-minded, but helps a lot).
Mr Appell is indeed right when he writes about you: ‘Theres no reason to take you seriously whatsoever.’
Il a tout a fait raison!
Of course I forgot this time that the site’s parser removes Winword quote chars as well… that’s life.
Next little problem: the most important part of the citation got lost when transferred from a pdf to Winword! Here it is:
<iC'est ainsi que la temperature est augmentee par l’interposition de l’atmosphere, parce que la chaleur trouve moins d’obstacle pour penetrer l’air, etant a l’etat de lumiere, quelle n’en trouve pour repasser dans l’air
lorsqu’elle est convertie en chaleur obscure.
binny…”Here is a verifiable extract of what Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier…”
Fourier was a brilliant mathematician but he lived 1768 – 1830, before the German scientist Rudolf Clausius wrote the 2nd law and devised entropy. It was Clausius who clarified heat at the atomic level and described its properties.
Clausius also defined U = internal energy. Clausius was miles ahead of Fourier and Carnot on heat and Fourier can be forgiven his amateurish claims in the French you quoted. He has confused IR with heat, something Clausius did not do.
Some modernists are claiming Fourier supported the notion of global warming but he said nothing about that. He was trying to understand why planets had certain atmospheric temperatures.
Unfortunately, Fourier was not privy to the information Clausius had about atoms. Fourier thought greenhouses warmed by trapping IR, which was proved wrong as far back as 1909 by Woods. Greenhouses warm because molecules of air get trapped by the glass and cannot rise as normal warmed air would rise.
Therefore, the quote of yours from Fourier is wrong. making DA wrong as well. Then again, DA is wrong about everything else so what’s new?
binny…”Of course I forgot this time that the sites parser removes Winword quote chars as well thats life”.
Why are you using the poor man’s Microsoft Word? If you are using Windows, try the free Open Office.
https://www.openoffice.org/
Here is a link to the Arrhenius paper:
http://tinyurl.com/8aducs4
In the first paragraph of the Introduction, Arrhenius specifically states:
““Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground.”
What more do you want? Arrhenius stated this, not Fourier, as the author of the stupid paper states.
And DA & Bindidon, you guys have the nerve to call ME a denier when you both got your heads stuck up your @##, and stuck in the sand at the same time.
SkepticGoneWild on September 24, 2017 at 4:11 AM
1. You don’t need to show me any reference to any paper produced by Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius or others.
I have read them all, and possibly with a bit more concentration than you did.
Arrhenius stated this, not Fourier, as the author of the stupid paper states.
You were manifestly unable to read Fourier correctly, or are unexperienced enough to rely on one of these stoopid corners anybody can find on the Web, where important parts of originals are surreptitiously retracted in order to have translations fitting to the sites’ narrative.
*
1. I repeat what I wrote yesterday, SkepticGoneWild:
C’est ainsi que la temperature est augmentee par linterposition de latmosphere, parce que la chaleur trouve moins dobstacle pour penetrer lair, etant a letat de lumiere, quelle nen trouve pour repasser dans lair
lorsquelle est convertie en chaleur obscure.
2. In English this means (a rather free but not incorrect translation):
… and the temperature can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in repassing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat.
English source:
http://fourier1827.geologist-1011.mobi/
Fourier (1827, p. 587)
3. A translation really near to the original would be:
Thus the temperature is increased by the interposition of the atmosphere, because the heat finds less obstacle to penetrate the air, being in the state of light, than it does upon returning into the air when converted into obscure heat.
4. Thus what Arrhenius wrote (after having, unlike you, carefully read the complete memoire of Mr Fourier) is completely correct.
No wonder that such a guy obtained the chemistry Nobel in 1903! He had all the science you seem to thoroughly lack.
And if you read his second paper (published 1901 in ‘Annalen der Physik’) you will understand a bit better what bare nonsense has been produced by Knut Angstroem (the mentally somewhat poorish son of a genius) and his assistant Koch. Incredible.
5. What contemporary authors now deduce out of Fourier’s, Tyndall’s or Arrhenius’ work does not interest me here.
*
6. Jesus what are you moreover an incredibly aggressive, vulgar and impolite character! Pfui Deibel.
Bin,
The author Philipona quoted Arrhenius, not Fourier. I can’t help it if you cannot understand plain English.
Furthermore Fourier did not say the atmosphere “acted like the glass of a hothouse”. If he did, he would have been wrong anyway, since the alleged GHE has nothing to do with real greenhouses. Fourier discussed the experiment by de Saussure, but stated, “that the acquired heat is concentrated, because it is not dissipated immediately by renewing the air”. Unlike you, Fourier was smart enough to realize the “hothouse” limited convective heat transfer.
Immediately after Fourier discussed the de Saussure experiment, he stated the following state of the atmosphere would have to be true in order to behave as a hothouse:
“In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described.”
You seriously need to take off your blinders and quit being a lemming following the orders of the Climatariat.
And YOU were the one that started with the insults, you complete and utter ****-for-brains.
SkepticGoneWild on September 24, 2017 at 1:48 PM
As usual, skeptics – gone wild or not – carefully manage to exactly select out of texts what fit to their narrative.
Moreover, to think I would think Fourier and btw Tyndall and Arrhenius would have confounded the atmosphere with a glass house: that too is too stubborn to be noticed anyway.
*
Did David Appell use your digusting words? Did I?
That is YOUR style, and not mine.
End of the discussion. Keep off my road, I will keep off yours.
I don’t take directions from you.
I’ll point out lies when I see them.
Not only does the author Philipona wrongly attribute a statement of of Arrhenius to Fourier, he mentions the study of Callendar in 1938, “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature”. Poor guy, the Gore effect must have time traveled. So Callendar said earth’s temperature would rise with increasing GHG’s. What happened? LMAO, from 1938 to 1981, global temperatures cooled while CO2 values went up. Over 40 years of cooling.
http://tinyurl.com/yak8ytnk
SkW: Just another analogy.
Give it up. This really is the stupidest argument deniers have ever come up with.
Dear DA (Dumb@**),
No analogy. Just inconvenient data that left Callendar looking real dumb. You too.
DA…”Observers find:
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al…”
In the abstract to the paper they claim the use of a model and relate down-dwelling IR to heat. They clearly are not observing anything, they are projecting and promoting consensus.
The paper has NOT corroborated the GHE. It is sheer conjecture and bad physics. If that’s the best you can do DA, your in deep doo doo.
AGW would have less severe weather because the pole to equator temperature gradient would lessen.
AGW as of now does not exist because this period in time in the climate as far as actual temperatures and the temperature rise is not even close to being unique, if one looks back over the entire Holocene Epic, much less going further back in time.
The temperatures this year according to satellite data which is the ONLY data I use are cooler then last year.
If AGW is real then it should be able to continue without the aid of ENSO being favorable to an El Nino, or an actual El Nino.
I expect the current down trend in temperatures to continue as we move forward and will be watching overall sea surface temperatures. Right now +.317c
Salvatore Del Prete on September 22, 2017 at 3:55 PM
If AGW is real then it should be able to continue without the aid of ENSO being favorable to an El Nino, or an actual El Nino.
Ad you certainly know, Salvatore, the 1997/98 edition of El Nino was a bit stronger than has been 2015/2016:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170923/yw6u2bmd.jpg
(As you don’t trust in ENSO, I made a chart out of Nino.3+4 data.)
Now please compare the three global temperature distributions made by Japan’s JMA, the Globe’s ‘coolest’ temperature measurement agency, for the december months of the three biggest El Ninos having occured during the last 60 years:
1. December 1982
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1982/gridtemp198212e.png
2. December 1997
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1997/gridtemp199712e.png
3. December 2015
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2015/gridtemp201512e.png
(The Ninos peak in december at the surface, while satellite data peaks 4-6 months later).
Maybe you see like me that there is some little temperature increase among the three phases.
If all the increase only results from El Nino: what then do all the La Ninas inbetween?
The average of the Nino.3+4 events between 1950 and 2017 for example is, with 0.02, near zero.
As I told you often enough, I’m no warmista (only the stubborn skeptics considering all people not sharing their ideas to be warmists name me one, so what).
I don’t really know how to interpret this. What do you think about that?
I forgot to add a link to a chart showing a comparison between JMA and UAH without which the JMA world charts won’t tell you much:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170923/wbl8h2ju.jpg
While UAH6.0 shows a linear trend of 0.13 C / decade, JMA shows 0.14 for the same period.
binny…”While UAH6.0 shows a linear trend of 0.13 C / decade, JMA shows 0.14 for the same period”.
What caused the linear trend, exactly?
1. December 1982
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1982/gridtemp198212e.png
2. December 1997
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1997/gridtemp199712e.png
3. December 2015
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2015/gridtemp201512e.png
Think, Robertson, instead of smalltalking.
It might be an experience.
Salvatore…”If AGW is real then it should be able to continue without the aid of ENSO being favorable to an El Nino, or an actual El Nino”.
Trenberth was caught in the Climategate email scandal lamenting that global warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that no one knows why. Later he amended that in a face saving move to him being unable to extract the global warming signal from the ENSO signal.
Doh!!! Alarmists just won’t give up their denial. The IPCC can’t just say it looks like 15 years of no warming kind of disproves the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2, they called it a hiatus. Other’s called it a pause.
Your point is perfectly valid, without ENSO there would be no warming.
If I was betting man I would not make any bets on the over under for the number of cat 5 hurricanes occurring over next 10 years. Simply not enough historical data to make a confident prediction.
Dr. Spencer
Nice to see you agreeing with the consensus.
The modern view among those who study hurricanes is that increasing wind shear will reduce the number of hurricanes, but warmer sea surface temperatures will increase their average intensity.
Mike
Just wondering, do you think it’s possible for someone to be a warmist but not foolish?
Is it possible for somebody named Sir Isaac Snapelton to not be an inbred, degenerate, member of the aristocracy?
dr No
I wasn’t born with that title, I earned it.
You mean “bought it” don’t you?
Rude. Contributions to science.
snake, I don’t know which I like better, your old screen name of “snake”, or your new “Sir Isaac Simpleton”.
g*e*r*a*n
Who is this “snake” you keep talking about?
Sir Isaac
‘snake’ is, if I correctly remember, the surname given by commenter ‘g*e*r*a*n’ to the commenter ‘Snape’.
As usual, a subcutaneous mix of ‘condescending’ and ‘discrediting’. Once you entered such a level you never manage to leave it.
Once when I typed in “snape”, auto-spell came up with “snake”. I didn’t notice, and the name seems to have stuck.
Sir Isaac,
It’s not only possible, it’s an absolute certainty. It depends on your definition of course. My definition of Warmist (not that anybody has actually asked me) is someone who accepts that thermometers react to heat.
That’s why I refer to people who appear to believe that there is some sort of greenhouse effect involving greenhouse gases, which causes thermometers to become hotter or colder due to some as yet unexplained physical reasons, not related to an increase in the amount of heat emitted by the Sun, as foolish Warmists.
The “normal’ definition of Warmist is rather vague, if it refers to the proposition that the climate can change as a result of human activities. Of course it can, as Lorenz pointed out with his “Butterfly” paper. Foolish Warmists go further, making ridiculous and unsupported predictions of doom – based on the ideas of a few self proclaimed “climatologists.”
I assume you’re attempting a “gotcha”, but it seems to be rather well done, if so.
Over to you.
Cheers.
Mike
Sometimes it’s “warmist”, sometimes it’s “foolish warmist”. You must think warmists are the wiser of the two. Not trying for a gotcha.
Sir Isaac,
Telling me what I must think is unlikely to work. I havent the faintest idea what you are you talking about.
You asked me a question. I provided an answer. If you cannot understand what I wrote, please quote the words with which you are having difficulty. Ill try to be clearer. Maybe if I type more slowly? Would that help?
To ask a question, and then seemingly ignore the answer, could be the actions of a foolish person (Warmist or not), or someone with limited comprehension skills – neglecting other options, of course.
Do as you must. I might feel sorry for you, but Im totally devoid of sympathy. Keep trying, Im sure youll get somewhere, sometime.
Cheers.
Sir Isaac, I apologize.
I took your question to be a gotcha at the warmists’ expense.
In the sense of, “it seems unlikely that non-foolish warmists do exist”, rather than a probing of Mike’s over-the-top comments.
dr No
Understood, no need to apologize. I liked your “aristocracy” comment.
“Telling me what I must think is unlikely to work.”
You cannot teach an old engineer new tricks.
” I havent the faintest idea what you are you talking about.”
Very true, you have very poor comprehension skills.
“If you cannot understand what I wrote, please quote the words with which you are having difficulty.”
We understand your misunderstanding and confusion fully.
“Ill try to be clearer.”
Unlikely to be any clearer than mud.
“To ask a question, and then seemingly ignore the answer, could be the actions of a foolish person (Warmist or not), or someone with limited comprehension skills neglecting other options, of course.”
Should read:
To avoid answering simple questions such as posted above (Did you find any fault in the reasoning? Did you appreciate the post?) could be the actions of a foolish person (Warmist or not), or someone with limited comprehension skills neglecting other options, of course.
“Im totally devoid of sympathy.”
And a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.
dr No,
Thank you for your interest, I suppose.
Im not sure what your interest is, however. I note that, amongst other things, you appear to be incapable of accepting what I write, and instead tell me what you think I should have written.
Unfortunately, your fantasy does not supplant the fact that I actually wrote what I wrote. Just as Sir Isaac telling me what I must think, so your telling me what I should write is doomed to the same outcome. I ignore both demands.
As to the rest, I leave it to others to make their own judgement.
In the meantime, if you wish to take offence, take as much as you can handle. I have plenty to spare. You can pass it around to any other foolish Warmists who desire to be offended. It seems a foolish choice to me, but many people obviously enjoy making foolish choices.
Choosing to believe in a non-existent GHE, for one.
Cheers.
Mike,
you would help your case considerably if you answered these two simple questions (posed above):
Did you find any fault in the reasoning?
Did you appreciate the post?
A simple, YES or NO is all that is required.
It won’t hurt, I promise you.
dr No,
You wrote –
“you would help your case considerably if you answered these two simple questions (posed above):”
I don’t have a “case” to “help”. In any case I would think it miraculous that you should be volunteering to “help” me.
So, please feel free to take offence if I refuse to do as you wish.
Your silly attempts at “gotchas” are both pointless and puerile.
You apparently cannot find any facts to challenge anything I wrote. It might help your cause if you did. That’s just my opinion. If you prefer fantasy to fact, I wish you well.
Cheers.
dr No – Mike Flynn is absolutely terrified to address questions. He simply cannot do it.
He’s just a blowhard with no interest at all in discussing science. He’s the kind of blowhard who needs to feel superior. Very similar to Trump, actually.
I think you know this by now. But keep pointing out all his contradictions and keep noticing how afraid he of discussing the science. Any science.
Mike Flynn asks:
“Thats why I refer to people who appear to believe that there is some sort of greenhouse effect involving greenhouse gases, which causes thermometers to become hotter or colder due to some as yet unexplained physical reasons….”
Mike Flynn answers:
September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
“Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263222
Mr Appell, I’m afraid you did not understand Mr Flynn’s position, though formulated unequivocally clear:
‘There is no GHE because CO2 doesn’t heat thermometers more than they would do in its absence’.
Simple, clear, undeniable.
“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
Press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Bindidon,
I find myself in complete agreement with you.
I am chuffed (delighted) that at least one person agrees that I have expressed my position in a way that is perceived as simple, clear, and undeniable.
Consistent, too, I hope.
I may be wrong, of course, but so far I see no new facts that would cause me to change my opinion.
Cheers.
Mr Flynn
The word ‘consistent’ unfortunately did not appear in my comment. There is in my honest opinion no reason to do so.
Mike Flynn says:
September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
“Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263222
Bindidion,
You wrote –
“The word consistent unfortunately did not appear in my comment. There is in my honest opinion no reason to do so.”
I agree with your statement that it is unfortunate that you chose not to include “consistent” along with your support for my other sterling qualities. Unfortunate, but you have the right to your opinion, whether supported by facts or not.
I am of the opinion that I demonstrate at least a small measure of consistency in consistently expressing the belief that the GHE is non-existent, and that there is not even a disprovable GHE hypothesis.
I’m not aware of expressing any contrary belief, but I am sure that you will quote me exactly if I have inadvertently stated such a thing.
There is no GHE. It’s a foolish Warmist fantasy, which even its most devout supporters cannot clearly articulate.
Cheers.
You’ve admitted several times there is a GHE. Were you lying then?
Mike Flynn says:
September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263222
David Appell,
You might like to point out what you are talking about. Are you disagreeing with my statement, or just being silly?
If you disagree, you might like to explain why. I don’t believe you can, but I’m always prepared to change my opinion if you can produce any new facts.
There is no GHE. Fairly simple concept – the non-existent doesn’t exist.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are cheerful. That is good to keep a positive attitude.
Here I tried to help Gordon Robertson understand the GHE.
Maybe you will be able to understand this presentation (though the odds of such an ability from you would be a most welcome dream since it is beyond the laws of probability).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/cracks-in-the-empires-armor-appear/#comment-264461
Since you are lazy you will not have the mental energy to click on the link and read the contents.
The answer to your challenges is there for you to read and understand.
Norman,
You’re right. I didn’t bother wasting my time clicking on the link. If you can’t expend the energy to say what you want, why should I waste any of mine?
I don’t have any challenges that you would be able to help me with, as far as I know.
I am surprised you take such an interest in my thoughts. What difference do my opinions make to you? Are you trying to emulate my obvious intellectual superiority?
Bad luck for you. You’re born with the IQ you’re saddled with. Not my fault, so don’t blame me.
If you need advice on coping with your station in life, let me know. I’m always prepared to help those less fortunate than myself.
Still no GHE, however. Not even an experimentally disprovable GHE hypothesis. That might pose a problem, I suggest.
Cheers.
entropic…”,,,warmer sea surface temperatures will increase their average intensity”.
Hurricane expert Chris Landsea put a number to the increased intensity…about 1 to 2% by 2100 provided the warming from models is correct. The likelihood of the them being right is about 0.00000000000000000001%.
Stats people back me up, but I think if you have a 1 in 7 chance, that is <.01 chance of 2, with 86.7% chance of 0, 12.4% chance of 1.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Sorry.
Now Mary’s direction is northwest.
Yes ren, Florida seems to have quite a bit more luck with Maria than did e.g. Guadeloupe or Puerto Rico.
Frenchies would say: ‘Ce sont toujours les petits qui trinquent’.
not particularly scientific .. however
“There are three kinds of lies:
lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
and really .. counting only Cat 3+ or Cat 4+ hitting US mainland is rather selective .. if you want a measurement of all cyclones .. or better yet total cyclonic energy in relation to “climate change” (a useless term scientifically)
well .. you can’t really see any long term trend
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/04/correlation-of-accumulated-cyclone-energy-and-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillations/
“We Need a Better Way to Measure Hurricanes,” Slate 9/21/17
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/09/a_better_metric_for_measuring_hurricanes.html
Thunderstorms from Puerto Rico will move over the Dominican Republic.
In Puerto Rico deadly danger due to floods. Threatened dam on the lake.
Dam burst
Maria is already in the Bahamas.
http://www.weatherplaza.com/en-US/sat/?region=southeast.ir
Sharply rising ice extent in Canada and Baffin Bay.
http://www.tinypic.pl/ale4toe2cqgj
Meanwhile:
“Hume Highway cut by bushfire, temperature records tumble as east coast swelters
The main highway between Sydney and Canberra was cut by a bushfire and parts of New South Wales reached 40 degrees Celsius in September for the first time on record.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-23/hume-highway-cut-by-out-of-control-bushfire/8978000
Congratulations.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomp.9.21.2017.gif
Can’t believe a thing that the BOM says about temperatures. They are using noise, 1 second readings, to make their claims about high temperatures. And they have been stonewalling for years when questioned and continually deny access to what are supposed to be public records. Bottom line is no transparency = no credibility:
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/poor-bom-dangerous-deniers-amateurs-attacking-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-debilitating-it-by-asking-questions/
Wrong, the records are based on daily min and max temperatures – no different to anywhere else.
You are exploiting an irrelevant issue about automatic weather stations in the mountains.
Don’t start me on Joanne Nova. She is not a climate scientist and has been debunked numerous times by others.
dr No,
Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist, either. Neither is Michael Mann, apparently.
Maybe James Hansen? Nope.
Pretenders all – delusional.
Climate is the average of weather, simply put. Maybe the endless repetition of examining averages in order to discern the future seems more scientific than attempting to peer into the future by reading tea leaves, but is achieves precisely the same result.
No practical benefit to man or beast, apart from that accruing to the fortune seller.
Cheers.
Mike,
tell me about any climate science paper published by Jo.
Tell me who you think qualifies as a climate scientist. To make it easy,name just three.
AND, don’t forget your homework task everyone is waiting for:
Did you find any fault in the reasoning?
Did you appreciate the post?
A simple, YES or NO is all that is required.
Dr No,
What part of “no” do you not understand?
Your requirements appear to be surplus to mine. Yours lose.
Cheers.
dr No on September 23, 2017 at 4:03 PM
Indeed! Everybody has the right to compare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt
But what makes me shuckle a bit is this:
In 2012, she appeared in the ABC Television documentary ‘I Can Change Your Mind About… Climate’ with her partner David Evans, in discussion with Nick Minchin and Anna Rose, in which she stated among other things that:
…carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that adding more to it will warm the planet, yes, absolutely, that’s all well proven solid science known for years, yes. I have no disagreement with any of that.
Ooops?! Interesting. I did not know until now that Mrs. Codling thought that way.
But who wonders? Even WUWT’s Watts means the like (inbetween).
She added:
Disagreement is with how much warming there is. Is it going to be a catastrophe or is it going to be 0.5 degrees and as far as we can see the evidence the empirical evidence, and there’s lots of it, all seems to point to it being around about half a degree to maybe one degree with CO2 doubling which is not the catastrophic projections that are coming out from the climate models.
I fully agree, excepted for her meaning about ‘climate models’ she has no clue about.
Who wouldn’t agree the like?
Bindidon,
Have you bothered to ask Joanne Nova which climate models she refers to?
I appreciate your attempt to claim superior mind reading skills, but I dont believe you have any. Maybe youre making an an assertion based on nothing more than wishful thinking?
Maybe she was referring to –
Model development is an ongoing task. As new physics is introduced, old bugs found and new applications developed, the code is almost continually undergoing minor, and sometimes major, reworking. Thus any fixed description of the model is liable to be out of date the day it is printed
New physics?
The NASA official responsible is one Gavin A Schmidt.
Maybe you would believe the output from an application which doesnt even have a fixed description. I might not be so trusting.
I’ll stick with no GHE – bizarre computer games to the notwithstanding.
Cheers.
BOM is perfectly transparent: I can see that when comparing their data to what they communicate to GHCN.
Recently, a commenter named Crakar24 or the like destillated here a lot of similar rubbish concerning BOM.
He claimed to have requested information from BOM, obtaining no response. No wonder in the case his request had been formulated like his comments at Roy Spencer’s site.
Let me tell you, RAH, that if I was a collaborator there and got such requests, I wouldn’t reply as well.
There are limits we all should manage no to bypass.
+1
Bindidon,
In Australia, the BOM is required by law to respond to an enquiry, acknowledging receipt of same.
There are many ways for the BOM to avoid or delay providing taxpayer funded information from being released. Charges for “finding” the information (sometimes markedly reduced after realising that such charges are subject to independent appeal), reliance on the letter of the law to delay providing requested material, claims of exemption for a number of reasons – national security, commerciality, intellectual property, and so on.
So your statement that you wouldn’t respond either, puts you in the company of scofflaws who are funded by the Government, but do their best to avoid complying with the laws of the Government which employs them!
This approach doesn’t seem terribly logical to me, but you have indicated that flouting the spirit and letter of the law is acceptable, if you don’t like the style of the person seeking information in accordance with the law of the land.
Sad. Looks like the inept machinations of a group of foolish Warmists, doesn’t it? Having abolished all temperature records prior to 1910 on the basis of unreliability, what next?
How about claiming there’s a giant “denialist” conspiracy out to sabotage the Bureau? Then claim that the Bureau should not be subject to Freedom Of Information laws, just because people ask for reasons why the BOM records minimum temperatures higher than maxima, rejects minimum temps because they are “too low” (according to models), and so on.
The BOM is funded for, and employs, officers specifically designated as FOI and Privacy officers. Why would the BOM want to sack them? Beats me! Just let them do what they are paid to do. Where’s the Harm?
Cheers.
Mr Flynn
There are limits we all should manage no to bypass.
Point final.
Bindidon,
Your obvious limit was even attempting to read a single link at the Jo Nova post I provided. If you had you would have seen that time and again requests from the BOM have been ignored. Despite this time and again the BOM has been caught both destroying historical data and failing to meet it’s own stated standards in collecting new data. It’s preferred mechanism for avoiding a truly valid audit of it’s methods and records is to create it’s own internal teams to “investigate” its self. the BOM is anything but transparent.
RAH on September 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM
Such comments, RAH, I have read at WUWT ad nauseam.
Not one of these comments, yours here of course included as you can see, came around with even a shadow of a proof of what was claimed.
And to be clear: under a proof I understand something quite different than a simple JoNova post!
RAH…”Bindidon,…Your obvious limit was even attempting to read a single link at the Jo Nova post I provided”.
binny reads without comprehension. The stuff on Jo Nova’s site is way beyond him and I’m sure he gets a migraine even trying to read one article, never mind understanding it.
binny…”BOM is perfectly transparent: I can see that when comparing their data to what they communicate to GHCN”.
To anyone who has a fetish for authority.
You defend NOAA as well even though they are blatant cheaters.
dr no…”The main highway between Sydney and Canberra was cut by a bushfire and parts of New South Wales reached 40 degrees Celsius in September for the first time on record.
Out of the 5 worst bush fires in Oz, three occurred in 1926, 1939 and 1967.
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2011/11/the-worst-bushfires-in-australias-history/
Guajataca Dam Failing In Puerto Rico, Forcing Extremely Dangerous Situation.
https://youtu.be/uhwUwNKAjvw
“We’re dug in the deep, the price is steep
The auctioneer is such a creep
The lights went out, the oil ran dry
We blamed it on the other guy”
– R.E.M., Bad Day
DA…” R.E.M., Bad Day”
With amateur lyrics like that it’s a surprise they made it.
Focusing only on US landfall reduce the statistic. And you say it yourself :
“Again, for rare events, the statistics arent very well behaved”
Is there any relevant reason to focus only on US landfall ?
The relevant reason is that after hurricane Katrina and the 2005 record Atlantic hurricane season Kerry Emanuel of MIT announced that summer that more frequent and stronger hurricanes were the new normal due to global warming. After that we were inundated with claims from multiple sources that such would be become “the new normal” for the US. We heard the same after extra-tropical “super storm” Sandy came ashore. What has happened is the exact opposite of what was claimed and their claims were absolutely false as conclusively demonstrated by the record major hurricane hiatus in which not a single major hurricane struck the lower 48 for the next 11 years and 10 months. Such bombastic dooms day claims were falsified by the fact that incidence of major hurricanes have declined since the 1950s.
The alarmists set the metric and sane people have been rubbing their noses in it for over a decade now.
RAh…”Kerry Emanuel of MIT announced that summer that more frequent and stronger hurricanes were the new normal due to global warming”.
Emanuel is one of the new breed of climatologists who freely employs obfuscation, hearsay, bombast, and pseudo-science to create illusions about climate.
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Climate_Primer.pdf
In the paper above, he uses the work of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius to build a case for CO2 warming while presenting not a shred of modern evidence that the trace amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can contribute to warming. Emanuel provides no mathematical calculations to prove his point.
It’s unforgivable for a professor at MIT to offer such malarkey without establishing the basic physics underlying his fables.
He uses the work of Milankovitch to establish the cause of ice ages and projects one Milankovitch cycle to the Industrial Era, completely ignoring that the era was in the middle of the Little Ice Age. Emanuel makes the serious mistake of attributing the warming following the Industrial Era to anthropogenic gases rather than the obvious, that the LIA ended in 1850.
Both Emanuel and Richard Lindzen are profs at MIT yet Lindzen uses the theory of atmospheric physics to establish his skeptical views of CAGW while Emanuel creates a sci-fi rendition for his alarmist views.
Seems that’s all alarmists can offer, sci-fi and conjecture.
No, the skeptics set this metric. Some of them like to blame the warmists, but a lot of the guff skeptics moan about has been made up by skeptics.
No ‘alarmist’ posited that US land-falling hurricanes would become more common. But plenty of skeptics have said they did.
barry…”No alarmist posited that US land-falling hurricanes would become more common. But plenty of skeptics have said they did”.
barry has outdone himself with his bafflegab. You’d fit right in at IPCC reviews.
All you had to do was provide a link. You chose bafflegab.
David Appell,
You wrote –
“Hes the kind of blowhard who needs to feel superior. Very similar to Trump, actually.”
I don’t need to feel superior. I am superior, and unless you can provide some facts to the contrary, my statement remains factual.
Your “opinions” are not facts, I point out.
I assume you are not enamoured of the current US President. Who cares? It doesn’t matter what you think, he still seems to be the President.
Maybe you could tell him what to think? He might take as much notice as I do.
Keep the “gotchas” going. You never know, it’s possible that repeating the same action, hoping for a different outcome, is not insanity, as Einstein opined. What do you think?
Cheers.
Your opinions are “facts”, my facts are “opinions”.
The level of debate has reached a new low.
Why can’t you bring yourself to answer these two questions I posed above?
Did you find any fault in the reasoning?
Did you appreciate the post?
A simple, YES or NO is all that is required.
What are you afraid of? The fear of being exposed as ignorant?
Dr No,
If you are convinced my opinions are facts, why do you not accept them as such?
I have no intention of indulging in your fantasy game of “gotchas”. It doesn’t matter whether you think that’s fact or opinion. It doesn’t matter whether you like it or not.
You could always try asking again, if you like. Maybe you could try threatening me with discarding or ignoring my response! Do you think that might have me shaking in my boots?
I dont think so, but that’s just my opinion. You don’t have to accept it, of course. You can always substitute your own, if it makes you happier.
Cheers.
Why is every request to answer a question a “gotcha”?
I am amazed you cannot answer any of them.
Name me a published climate science paper by Jo Nova. You can’t.
Name three climate scientists. You can’t.
Now for some really stressful questions:
What did you have for breakfast?
What is the first letter of the alphabet.
David Appell,
I’m not interested in responding to questions asked in bad faith.
I treat yours as such, as you have failed to provide any information to the contrary.
Take offence, if you wish. Take as much as you like – I can always find more. If my opinions are unimportant to to you, maybe you could conserve your valuable time and effort. Have you tried ignoring me?
Your power to compel me to do anything at all is non-existent – just like the GHE. I care nothing about your opinion of me. I’m surprised you care so much about mine.
Keep going – waste your time asking me pointless and irrelevant “gotchas”, if you wish. I predict I won’t answer any of them, unless you’re prepared to make a large wager with me to that effect. I’ll obviously change my opinion, just to take your money. Wanna bet?
Cheers.
“Have you tried ignoring me?”
Not saying.
“Wanna bet?”
I refuse to answer.
Dr No,
Hes got it! By George, I think hes got it!
Well done.
Cheers.
Bindidon quoted Fourier, in French, without providing a translation. In essence, someone before Fourier’s time noticed that a sealed box placed in the Sun gets hot. It also exhibits a temperature gradient. Not particularly amazing, these days.
I’ll provide a translation of something else Fourier worked out for himself –
“That which penetrates in the equatorial regions is exactly balanced by that which escapes at the parts around the poles. Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
Maybe Bindidon could verify that this translation is reasonable. Fourier calculated the Earth was cooling, figured out a rate, and deduced the age of the Earth. He was as spectacularly wrong as was Lord Kelvin. Neither had the faintest inkling of the radiogenic heat produced within the Earth.
Taking the temperature inside a black bottomed box with some arrangement of glass plates shows that objects placed in the direct rays of the Sun get hotter, and objects with low albedo will attain higher temperatures than those which reflect the Sun’s rays more. At night, the whole contraption cools down, and loses all the heat it gained during the day!
Still no GHE. Fourier commented on an experiment performed by someone else. His speculation was not confirmed by experiment. Providing fantasy in French does not turn it into fact.
Cheers.
Two simple answers, as requested, please.
If you said
NO and
YES
you would considerably enhance your reputation and we could move on.
I suspect you are so stubborn you cannot bring yourself to do even that.
Dr No,
You’re a slow learner, I surmise. Or maybe in the grip of some form of obsessive compulsive disorder?
I have no need to enhance my reputation – in my eyes it’s obviously already reached the pinnacle of enhanceability. You may obviously move along, at your own pace, and at your leisure, any time you wish. I’ll move at my own volition, and if you don’t like it, bad luck for you.
Your suspicions, just like your opinions, are of no concern whatever to me. My care factor remains stubbornly stuck at zero.
I note that you appear to have suggested answers to your silly “gotchas”. I hope you are happy with the answers you have given yourself.
Even a mentally challenged wombat would by now have accepted that I have no intention of providing you with answers of any sort to your foolish Warmist “questions”. You may howl at the moon, dance a jig, or ask yourself questions until you are blue in the face. It won’t change my resolve.
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Mr Flynn
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-264677
Bindidon,
If you can’t be bothered saying what you mean (preferably in English), I can’t be bothered following presumably foolish links.
People who can’t actually communicate their ideas in writing, often attempt to deny, divert, and confuse – posting links is one method employed by foolish Warmists.
If you don’t understand your subject well enough to explain it in less than a page or so, by all means provide a reference to more inclusive material at the end of your explanation.
Not interested in following foolish Warmist links.
Cheers.
It’s a link to Bindidon’s post above, in which he translates Fourier into English.
A ‘warmist’ link to a skeptical website. This one. He’s already “communicated his ideas in writing,” and is linking to it to save repeating himself.
I can only wonder what kind of fool couldn’t see immediately that the link was to this comment thread, not some ‘warmist’ link. It’s got Dr Spencer’s name in it.
barry,
Its a link from a foolish Warmist.
A foolish Warmist link, in other words.
My comment stands. His desire to save repeating himself does not provide any good reason for me to waste my time. Ive seen it once. Seeing it again wont introduce new facts, will it?
Do I care what you think? Not really.
Cheers.
Your deceit here is quite transparent. You didn’t notice the link was to this very comment thread, insisting that Bin explain in his own words, figuring he’d linked to outside material.
Don’t bother pressing on with the lie. It’s pretty stark.
And here is further evidence of your hypocrisy.
You ask me (below) to search the thread and intervene in a net conversation you had with someone else.
But when provided a link where all you have to do is move your hand few centimetres and push a button, you proclaim that this is insufficient.
I can only hope that you do not take yourself seriously. If you’re deliberately playing games, then that is mere fecklessness. However, your dedication here recommends a much less salutary conclusion.
Just as I predicted!
Stubbornness personified!
Can’t answer.
Won’t answer.
Too afraid to answer.
It’s like trying to get a child to eat his/her vegetables!
Dr No,
Make up your mind, laddie.
Which one is it, and why?
Stand up for yourself – make a decision – dont be a girlyman (as Arnie might say)!
Courage, laddie, courage! You can do it!
It still wont make the GHE any less mythical, willit?
Cheers.
Can I help you further?
There are 4 options:
YES YES
YES NO
NO YES
NO NO
What could be simpler?
I can happily answer YES YES.
I also expect that Dr Roy Spencer would do the same, with no qualms whatsoever.
But you cannot bring yourself to make a choice except to obfuscate.
Typical behaviour from a stubborn, ill-informed, old man.
Dr No,
Do you suffer from a mental defect? Are you dyslexic, perhaps?
What part of “No”, as in “No”, do you not understand? I can explain the meaning of “No”, if you are unable to find it out for yourself.
Your mind reading ability is sadly lacking, just in case you wanted some feedback.
Cheers.
“Do you suffer from a mental defect?”
Not saying
“Are you dyslexic, perhaps?”
I refuse to answer
“What part of No, as in No, do you not understand?”
Not telling
Dr No,
Thats the spirit!
Its not that hard, is it?
Cheers.
There are obviously two David Appells (or possibly a whole barrel of them).
David Appell (1) took umbrage with me –
“David Appell says:
September 23, 2017 at 3:57 PM
Mike Flynn says:
The approved form, per David Appell, seems to be
Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.
I never wrote that.
Manufacturing quotes is dishonest.”
It must have therefore been David Appell(2) who wrote “Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.”
“David Appell says:
September 17, 2017 at 7:19 PM
Gordon Robertson says:
Why is it the physics of Pierrehumbert disagrees with basic physics in general?
Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.”
I don’t know whether there are two David Appells, a case of multiple personalities, an evil twin, a super hero secret identity, or possibly an example of multiple universes, populated with equally foolish David Appells.
It might even be a case of very short attention span, where David Appell cannot remember what he wrote 6 days or so before.
Maybe the real David Appell might help to get to the root of this seemingly perplexing dilemma.
And still no GHE, so I suppose it doesn’t really matter how many David Appells can’t remember what they wrote.
Cheers.
And still, no answers.
Dr No,
Im surprised you care so much about me.
I care nothing at all about you. Are you certain youre not in the grip of some compulsive fetish centred on my good self?
Not only will your gotchas go unanswered, but your passion for me will likewise go unrequited.
Still no GHE. Maybe you can fixate it into existence! You could always demand that politicians pass a law creating a GHE. You could also demand that the Government issue a decree to stop the climate from changing, but I feel that your chances of success are slim.
Just a couple of helpful suggestions. You are free to ignore them if you wish, of course.
Cheers.
“Are you certain youre not in the grip of some compulsive fetish centred on my good self?”
Not saying.
Dr No,
Youre learning. Good for you!
Cheers.
Marie’s position forecast for September 28.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/09/28/0000Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/orthographic=-76.76,36.74,1807
The more the jet stream will be meridian in the west (currently very low geomagnetic activity), the closer the east coast will be hurricane Maria.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Roy Spencer (own head post)
Maybe global warming causes fewer landfalling major hurricanes.
Well I really hope you are right. And as a climate specialist, you have the bigger experience on your side.
But what I don’t understand: if this global warming now really becomes actual, would then major hurricanes not increase in power due to the tropical Atlantic ocean surface getting warmer?
Or do you rather mean that land warming (which is stronger than sea surface warming, that is visible even in UAH’s tropospheric data) will make landfall more difficult for hurricanes?
“But what I dont understand: if this global warming now really becomes actual, would then major hurricanes not increase in power due to the tropical Atlantic ocean surface getting warmer?”
“Now” and “actual”.
We recovering from cold period called the Little Ice Age, that is “now”.
We also recovering from glacial period for last +10,000 years, that is “now”.
But I suspect your “now” and “actual” has to do with your belief that CO2 is at some unusual level. And this warming the atmosphere and you could [maybe] think it’s mostly warming the upper atmosphere. If that occurring, that should reduce hurricanes.
Now I have different view of it, but my view also including warming the entire world. Or not go into it much, but I think a warming ocean warms the world. Or there isn’t much disagreement about the necessity of the average temperature needs in increase outside of the tropics in order for there to be an increase in global average temperatures.
And so less hurricanes.
Now, the tropics has highest average temperature [26 C] because it gets the most sunlight and because it does get cold. Deserts and/or high elevation can get cold in the tropics, but most of tropics is ocean. Or the tropical ocean has constant warm ocean which results in a constant warm air above the ocean- it doesn’t get “hot” but rather always stays warm.
And some believer of the church of Greenhouse effect theory, believe global warming is related to idea of Earth getting hotter, despite the lack evidence of air temperature getting hotter.
This is probably the fault of the news talking about hotter days being caused by global warming. But most people know that reporters are idiots- or overly concerned about having an “exciting story”.
What does cause hotter days is the UHI effect- which is unrelated to the greenhouse effect theory.
Or the UHI effect is more related to my idea- which is crudely, the the ocean absorbs heat. Or the UHI effect in related to idea that urban surfaces absorb more heat.
Or in comparison there is inversion layers which cause it to be hotter- and that would be relatable to GHE theory- but that not the factor with UHI effects- or “atmospheric effects” isn’t the issue rather it’s what on the ground which is causing it
gbaikie on September 24, 2017 at 1:20 PM
1. gbaikie, could you please translate the ‘or’ you use back into your native tongue? I don’t understand what exactly you mean with it.
2. Did you ever compare, for the Globe or a region of it, rural, nonrural and urban GHCN station data?
Well as said, I am a lukewarmer.
But that doesn’t mean that I accept the pseudo science of
the greenhouse effect theory.
Some things are correct- that’s true of any pseudo science.
Choose any pseudo science, and I am pretty sure I could find some things which are correct, regarding it.
I
But it doesn’t count for much.
But for example, a thermally conductive ideal black body will be about 5 C at earth distance.
What is obviously wrong is that only greenhouse gases can cause warming. It’s so obviously wrong that no believer can defend the idiocy.
Just as Venezuela’s socialism is not defensible- unless you admit that creating poverty is the correct direction.
Or you have some conspiracy “theories”.
Btw, here is list given by idiot of Pseudoscience:
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-pseudoscience.html
Hardly a full list or anything but does have saving grace to say:
“As you can see, there are pseudoscience examples in a variety of different fields and in a variety of different areas. ”
There are bigger fish, but they are useful examples and easier clues for the clueless.
gbaikie…”here is list given by idiot of Pseudoscience:…”
-Under Space and Astronomy…”Ancient Astronauts – Proposes that aliens have visited the earth in the past and influenced our civilization”
Makes far more sense than evolution.
-Under Psychology…”Hypnosis – A method of deep relaxation where the subject is open to suggestions…”
Hypnosis is not pseudo-science, it is used in lieu of general anaesthesia for people who cannot tolerate anaesthetics. Under deep hypnosis a person can be directed to eliminate pain, or with self-hypnosis, that same person can induce anaesthersia himself/herself.
Furthermore, scientists have measured the change of frequency in brain waves while a person is under a hypnotic state.
Hypnosis is NOT a method of deep relaxation although it can induce deep relaxation. It is a process related to a specific part of the brain and has the opposite effect of an hallucinogen like LSD. Hypnosis is about a finely tuned focus whereas LSD open the brain to all stimulation. That can be quite confusing. Don’t ask me how I know.
Gordon Robertson says:
September 25, 2017 at 12:17 AM
gbaikiehere is list given by idiot of Pseudoscience:
-Under Space and AstronomyAncient Astronauts Proposes that aliens have visited the earth in the past and influenced our civilization
Makes far more sense than evolution.
Which is related to my point- but it’s Pseudoscience.
–Under PsychologyHypnosis A method of deep relaxation where the subject is open to suggestions
Hypnosis is not pseudo-science, it is used in lieu of general anaesthesia for people who cannot tolerate anaesthetics. Under deep hypnosis a person can be directed to eliminate pain, or with self-hypnosis, that same person can induce anaesthersia himself/herself. —
Well Pseudoscience can even work sometime- unlike the Greenhouse Effect theory. Basically the entire field of Psychology is Pseudoscience. This also applies to whole field of Paranormal.
The better example of Pseudoscience is Marxism.
Marxism, Materialism, atheism is under to delusion that science supports these stupid ideas.
“2. Did you ever compare, for the Globe or a region of it, rural, nonrural and urban GHCN station data?”
Why would I do this.
Are denying the UHI effect?
Are unaware that urban areas are a small portion of land area,
and very small and nothing to do with global temperature.
Though UHI effect and/or other rules related to siting requirements for taking air temperature could be related to the measuring global temperatures.
Maybe if I correct important typo, it could be useful. I said:
Now, the tropics has highest average temperature [26 C] because it gets the most sunlight and because it does get cold.
Meant:
..because it gets the most sunlight and because it doesn’t get cold.
Probably others, but that was an obvious one.
binny…”But what I dont understand: if this global warming now really becomes actual, would then major hurricanes not increase in power due to the tropical Atlantic ocean surface getting warmer?”
Chris Landsea, NOAA hurricane expert, claimed if the model projected temps come about by 2100, it will increase storm intensity by 1 to 2%.
I knew this famous statistician who would fly all over the world to give lectures. He was quite in demand for his in depth knowledge and ability to present ideas informatively and simple. But then after compiling data related to the probability of a bomb being on a plane, he decided to forego airplane travel. He simply believed it was unsafe, the probability was a bit too high for his comfort. Needless to say, the number of lectures he gave dropped off.
Years later, he was back on the circuit flying all over the world again. When asked what changed his mind, he replied, I revisited the data and discovered that the probability of 2 bombs being on a plane was nearly zero. So now, I just have to be sure I pack my own bomb when flying around.
Why don’t you tell us who it was?
I’m interested!
Obviously Bin, with all his “wisdom”, does not get it.
Do you?
Obviously Bin, with all his wisdom, does not know that most everyone gets it, except him!
This was a bit of humor my father passed onto me when I was taking a few quantitative methods class. I thought it appropriate given the deep discussion on statistics. Just trying to lighten the conversation.
bilybob,
Mine was about averages.
The contractor who installed 4 toilet cubicles. He installed 4 paper dispensers in the first cubicle to save time.
This ensured that the spec of one dispenser per cubicle was met.
And so on.
Cheers.
The contractor was obviously an engineer.
You can expect strong rainfall throughout the US east. Also in Alabama.
Bindidon wrote –
“Mr Flynn
There are limits we all should manage no to bypass.
Point final.”
Possibly someone could explain what this collection of letters means in English.
Maybe it’s Bindidion attempting to deny, divert and confuse in some novel foolish Warmist manner. Or maybe it’s written in some obscure Warmese dialect.
Still no disprovable GHE hypothesis. How hard can it be?
Cheers.
He’s saying some things should not be tolerated.
You seriously couldn’t make that out? Wow, wait until you read a scientific paper.
barry,
I’m rather curious – as to why he didn’t just write “Some things should not be tolerated.”
As you are so adept at reading Warmese, maybe you could explain what the “things” are, and why they should not be “tolerated”?
If someone “tolerates” these indefinite “things”, what are the consequences?
I may have to depend on your superior understanding, as I couldn’t make head or tail of it. You claim that one thing is equivalent to another, but I see no cogent reason why I should believe you. Have you any logical reason for your assertion, or are you just trying the foolish Warmist ploy of fact through unswerving faith?
You might care to include your translation of “Point final”, as it appears odd. He made no points, just an unsupported apparent opinion about something. Hardly a “final point” – possibly a first one, but obviously it will be simple for you to explain in plain English.
Thanks for your assistance. It’s appreciated. Maybe Bindidon could approach you for help in future. In the meantime, if you feel like helping me, please do. If you don’t, I understand. Foolish Warmists sometimes pretend to help, but are only looking for “gotchas”.
I hope you are genuine.
Cheers.
My reply is straight out of the Mike Flynn playbook:
Show me where I said I was adept at reading ‘warmese’. Until you do so I see no reason to play your silly gotcha games.
Typical contrarian ploy of quoting without references. Perhaps you can pinpoint the discussion in question and we can establish the particular comprehension deficit from which you suffer. It might be useful for times when no one is there to hold your hand.
Still the GHS is real. None of your many excursion into the mysterious realm of ‘words’ has made a dent in that.
I hope you are genuine.
I return what I’m served.
Warm Regards.
barry,
Youre getting there. Im pleased youre working from the Mike Flynn playbook. Its good, isnt it?
Yes, I can pinpoint the discussion. Its as I quoted. You can find the rest of the thread if you are sufficiently interested – just cut and paste the quote, and search, if its important to you.
The GHS (or Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals), to which you refer, certainly appears to be real, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Im not all sure why you would question this, or what the relevance is supposed to be.
The GHE (or Greenhouse Effect), is not real, of course. In scientific terms, there is not even a disprovable GHE hypothesis to be found. This is quite understandable of course, given that to devise a GHE hypothesis would require specifying reproducible observations of a natural phenomena which cannot be explained by current scientific theories.
Unfortunately, foolish Warmists cant even delineate the phenomena in question, as a first step.
Maybe the foolish Warmists are confusing Scientism, or Cargo Cult Science, with real science – which unfortunately for foolish Warmists, requires following the scientific method, and all the rigorous work that is usually entailed.
Unsupported assertions that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize, dont mean that the GHE exists.
That’s clearly a part of the Mike Flynn playbook. If you don’t like it, maybe you could use another playbook, although I’m pleased you’re using mine. I’ve put a lot of work into it.
You have made a good try to return what you were served. You lost the point, unfortunately for you. I wrote the playbook, and you say your reply is straight out of my playbook. Score is 15-love, to me.
Maybe if you give up “gotchas” you might do better.
Cheers.
Happily, you have provided a clues as to the nature of your comprehension deficit.
Where most functioning minds would have instantly recognized a typo and not raised an eyebrow, your attention to it exhibits an overweening pedantry. It also exhibits a combative posture that the false bonhomie and pompous humour fail to disguise.
In your following remarks you arrange words in what are by now familiar patterns, and as usual with no argument or point being made re the GHE.
Immediately afterwards is your rather bland, entirely unoriginal blanket criticism of the conveniently monolithic group (‘Warmists’) you appear to be obsessed with. While the conceptual dross is yawn-inducing, it is of some interest, and particularly revealing, that this constellation of word is a near-universal feature of any post you make of more than one paragraph. The substance of your remarks in this regard are inversely proportional to their ubiquity. This is a strong feature of your comments generally. So too is the reference to “gotchas,” which is not attached to any specific comment or line of argumentation, but is something you regurgitate when someone is disagreeing with you. This is reflex defensiveness, a catch-all phrase that captures nothing.
It is more difficult to determine if you repeat these mantras over and over because you have little else to say, or because you have forgotten that you have already said them scores of times. Either way, it does not bode well. I have set aside the possibility that you actually believe that repeating them ad infinitum is persuasive.
So, it seems your comprehension deficit arises from multiple factors: obsessiveness, pedanticism, combativeness, superciliousness, insincerity, likely a failing memory, and an inability to distinguish between reason and pure assertion. Remediating the latter may or may not ameliorate the rest, but it will furnish you with a useful tool for these discussions.
I appreciate your appreciation. I won’t always be able to help, and am in no way interested in searching for and explaining a conversation that was between you and someone else. Especially so because you have not only never supplied the courtesy yourself, but because you have been too lazy to to re-examine or even remember your own comments when I have referred you to them. I could not allow myself to actualise a double standard on your part.
However, if you wish to gather the relevant comments and put them all in one handy to read post I will consider assisting you. I have decided not to hold my breath while you ruminate on a course of action.
Well put Barry.
I think you have covered all bases.
barry,
You’ve give your opinion. I don’t value it at all.
There is no GHE. You can’t even produce a disprovable GHE hypothesis. This is science?
Cheers.
OT:
Should Scott Pruitt get his Red Team together and they affirm that the greenhouse effect is real, I wonder if some denizens of this blog will write them off as alarmists.
barry,
If they could provide a disprovable GHE hypothesis, I’m sure people would actually do a few experiments. If experiment didn’t accord with the hypothesis, just another failed hypothesis, eh?
There is no GHE. It doesn’t matter how many teams affirm that it exists – if it can’t be tested, it doesn’t exist.
The laws of gravity seem to work – even though nobody knows why gravity works. The laws can be tested – nobody has managed to show they don’t.
Nobody knows how the GHE is supposed to work – if you remove the CO2 from the air in a sealed room, should the temperature go down, go up, or remain unchanged?
A bit odd, I think you’d agree.
Cheers.
“if you remove the CO2 from the air in a sealed room, should the temperature go down, go up, or remain unchanged?”
Don’t bother us with your “gotcha” questions.
“A bit odd, I think youd agree.”
We are not interested in what you think.
What is odd is the fact that you have never posted a link to a climate science publication.
Now, that is odd.
Dr No,
I’m pleased you don’t care what I think. You’re following the Mike Flynn playbook. It’s catching on. I’m glad you express an aversion to “gotchas”, as do I.
The Mike Flynn playbook generally advises against posting links, so you haven’t adopted the procedures fully yet.
Keep going, you’re trying harder, obviously.
The next step is to ask for a disprovable GHE hypothesis, and watch the askee attempt to furiously deny, divert, and confuse. Then you know you are facing a faith based foolish Warmist, practicing Scientism (Cargo Cult Science), rather than the real thing.
Cheers.
I see now.
The “Mike Flynn” method involves:
(1) not answering legitimate questions
(2) not referring to any published material
(3) demanding that anything that cannot be proved 100% (whatever that means) right now, is not worth considering.
Thank you for an enlightening demonstration of the scientific method.(not)
Dr No,
You have have a long way to go, Grasshopper.
With progress and observation, you may come to understand.
For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Go forward, young Grasshopper. Seek, and ye shall find. Inquire, and it shall be revealed unto you.
Cheers.
What will you say when (not if) the proposed Red Team affirm the GHE is real?
barry, AGW is about a political agenda and/or personal gain—it is NOT about science. There is no need for a “red team”. that’s why the whole exercise is suspicious. The science is ALREADY settled. The laws of physics are well established. Heat energy can NOT be created by magic. “Cold” can NOT warm “hot”. AGW is a hoax.
Fixing:
barry, AGW is about a political agenda and/or personal gain–it is NOT about science. There is no need for a “red team”. that’s why the whole exercise is suspicious. The science is ALREADY settled. The laws of physics are well established. Heat energy can NOT be created by magic. “Cold” can NOT warm “hot”. AGW is a hoax.
And what will you say when the proposed red Team affirm that the GHE is real?
The science is already settled. Agreed.
Its just that a few black knights (aka denialists) keep making a lot of noise.
ba asks: “And what will you say when the proposed red Team affirm that the GHE is real?”
I will say they were deceived. Just as many are deceived, currently .
So a team of contrarians hand-picked by a skeptic to find fault with the mainstream view will be ‘deceived’ when they affirm the GHE?
I have stated a number of times what it would take to make me think AGW was not real or an inconsequential issue.
What would it take to change your mind? It seems that if God himself told you the GHE was real, you would think God had been hoodwinked.
barry, the laws of physics far supercede the comedy of pseudoscience EVERY time.
–barry says:
September 25, 2017 at 9:14 AM
So a team of contrarians hand-picked by a skeptic to find fault with the mainstream view will be deceived when they affirm the GHE?
I have stated a number of times what it would take to make me think AGW was not real or an inconsequential issue.
What would it take to change your mind? It seems that if God himself told you the GHE was real, you would think God had been hoodwinked.–
Or herself.
You are stating that science is based on authority.
God is perfectly capable of lying.
But God saying GHE is not pseudo science, proves that the thing claiming to be God is not God.
Though not really a believer that God talks. And basically why does Good need a spaceship, is a good argument.
cf: Star Trek
And btw, God doesn’t suicide bombers murdering people- if God is loser, it’s not God.
–does Good need a spaceship, is a good argument–
sigh: does God need a spaceship, is a good argument
Anyways the Story of Job illustrates, God could lie.
[If you believe that stuff.]
barry, the laws of physics far supercede the comedy of pseudoscience EVERY time.
I agree.
I will have to agree with Mike about ‘gotchas’. Unfortunately the use of them is not limited to AGW alarmists. They are used by those on the left generally.
Unable to make rational arguments they look for misplaced commas etc., in order to ‘prove’ your position wrong. I ran into this 30+ years ago and continue to see it today.
Unable to make rational arguments they look for misplaced commas etc
Mike focussed on a typo of mine a few posts up, and in this case I’d have to agree with your conclusion about that sort of behaviour.
As for “gotchas,” they seem mythological – the cry of someone who runs out of answers and like a four year-old squawks, “that’s not fair!”
Intellectual laziness and cowardice.
As overall oceanic temperatures go so does the global air temperatures.
What has a major role in determination of oceanic temperatures – the sun not CO2.
I would like to agree, but…
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170925/mocmyl2m.jpg
What is called ‘the second law of Thermodynamics’, has been stated as a principle (but was never proved) by Rudolf Clausius in an article entitled
Ueber eine veraenderte Form des zweiten Hauptsatzes der mechanischen Waermetheorie
i.e.
On a modified form of the second fundamental theorem of the mechanical theory of heat
published 1854 in ‘Annalen der Physik und Chemie’ Band XCIII Nr 12, pp. 481-506.
to be found in e.g.
http://zfbb.thulb.uni-jena.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/jportal_derivate_00140956/18541691202_ftp.pdf
The exact text (in p. 488) is:
Dieser Grundsatz, auf welchem die ganze folgende Entwickelung beruht, lautet: es kann nie Waerme aus einem kaelteren in einen waermeren Koerper uebergehen, wenn nicht gleichzeitig eine andere damit zusammenhaengende Aenderung eintrift.
i.e.
This principle on which the whole following development is based is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.
It should be clear to anybody that a truncation of Clausius’ statement down to e.g.
‘Heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body’
is nothing else than lack of understanding or will to manipulate.
*
Moreover, people always referring to Clausius’ statement mostly ignore his deep knowledge concerning radiation. Here is an example of this knowledge.
I found a document written by german physicist Jochen Ebel from which in turn I was directed to
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
and found therein the following ( 1 on p. 315):
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
…
Braunschweig, 1887
…
ABSCHNITT XII.
Die Concentration von Waerme- und Lichtstrahlen und die Grenzen ihrer Wirkung.
1. Gegenstand der Untersuchung.
…
Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich
bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt.
i.e.
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
…
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
*
Of course, the one or the other stubborn denialist certainly will have no problem in inventing some pseudo-argument against even Clausius’ knowledge!
Clasius is Robertson’s guru, isn’t he? Let’s see that quote again.
it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well
I’ve seen that idea rejected on this board.
barry on September 25, 2017 at 9:19 AM
Ive seen that idea rejected on this board.
Oh it wasn’t only here!
A look at many negative reactions to Roy Spencer’s contributions I mentioned in the comment below should convince you.
barry and Bin, what you may be missing is that “emitting” is different from “absorbing”.
g*e*r*a*n on September 25, 2017 at 9:50 AM
Never heard of Kirchhoff’s law stating that materials that are absorbers at a given wavelength are also emitters at that wavelength?
Exceptionally I’ll paraphrase Mr Flynn:
Deny, divert, confuse!
Foolish skeptics!
Cheers.
I’m not surprised you’ve never heard of Kirchhoffs law.
Heh, right on cue, he…
Deny, divert, confuse!
It may be due to Bin having to communicate in English.
Bindidon,
Many thanks.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Please feel free to refer to the Mike Flynn playbook. Obviously, people are capable of realising when you attempt to pervert the Mike Flynn playbook to your own ends.
Your paraphrasing just doesn’t have the same ring does it?
Maybe you could better apply your efforts to providing a testable and disprovable GHE hypothesis? Or is it somehow more difficult to express than the following –
“In 1905, Albert Einstein published a paper advancing the hypothesis that light energy is carried in discrete quantized packets to explain experimental data from the photoelectric effect.”
Testable, disprovable. Was advanced to a theory, which has not been shown to be false by experiment, so far.
Or is the mysterious GHE hypothesis so arcane that it simply cannot be expressed in a scientific manner? I don’t believe there is even a testable GHE hypothesis, and so far I haven’t been proven wrong.
Still no GHE. If you use the Mike Flynn playbook, you will need to understand it first. If you don’t, you may not get the desired result.
Cheers.
Bindidon
Excellent contributions to the real world of science. Good job.
The Clasius statement may quite Gordon. It will not help anti-science g*e*r*a*n and Mike Flynn. They are too far corrupted in their thought process to be of any use to intelligent people who desire to learn.
I have told g*e*r*a*n about Kirchhoff’s Law many times. I have linked him to textbooks explaining it. He is not able to learn this reality and will continue in his false beliefs and anti-science, he does not desire to learn real science but he does like to belittle people. It is a sign of a low IQ who can’t understand things so rather than appear dumb to his peers he covers his ignorance with ridicule for those able to learn and understand.
He has been the same for years and I do not see the possibility he might open a textbook on heat transfer, read the contents and make an honest effort to learn what is being stated.
“Norm is not able to learn this reality and will continue in his false beliefs and anti-science, he does not desire to learn real science but he does like to belittle people. It is a sign of a low IQ who cant understand things so rather than appear dumb to his peers he covers his ignorance with ridicule for those able to learn and understand.”
(Fixed it for you, Con-man.)
g*e*r*a*n
Unfortunately you fixed nothing and want to remain ignorant of actual science. Why do you want to stay ignorant?
Why do you hate science so much that you have to make up your own untrue version of things?
g*e*r*a*n
I will attempt to get an answer from you. Hopefully you will try to comply.
What is the source of your belief that a hot surface will not absorb energy (IR) from a cooler surface?
All textbooks state a surface will emit and absorb simultaneously. None to date have ever made claims other than that. That is why I am wondering what is your source. You seem convinced it is correct and valid physics, yet nothing in any textbooks make such claims.
Kirchhoff’s Law in general: A good emitter is also a good absorber.
Con-man, you can NOT bake a turkey with ice cubes, but you “believe” you can.
I enjoy your hilarious pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n
I ask and you are unable to deliver. Why is that? If you are so certain of your correct science it should be easy to provide. Why is it so difficult for you to support you belief?
Why do you keep bringing up your turkey and ice cube post? It has nothing at all to do with if a hot surface can absorb IR energy from a colder one. Nothing at all.
Why do you refuse to support your claims?
Con-man, you can try to deny all you want, but the record is clear.
You even believe the Earth is warming the Sun.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You won’t supply supporting evidence for your made up physics then you have to go and lie again and be dishonest. Why do you need to deliberately lie, does being a liar make you a happy man?
YOUR LIES: “Con-man, you can try to deny all you want, but the record is clear.
You even believe the Earth is warming the Sun.”
NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THE EARTH IS WARMING THE SUN! I have stated it many times on various posts. The presence of the Earth in the Solar system will allow the Sun to reach a slightly higher (very slight) equilibrium temperature. It is not the same thing and you deliberately, with intent to deceive, make false and untrue claims.
Support you claim that a heated surface cannot absorb IR energy from a colder surface of just quit posting.
“NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THE EARTH IS WARMING THE SUN!”
“the Earth .. will allow the Sun to reach a slightly higher …. temperature.”
Perfectly clear.
Your con-game is to say one thing, and then say the opposite.
You claim that the Earth is heating the Sun, but then you claim that it is not, but then you claim it is only heating it a little!
You are only fooling yourself.
SkepticGoneWild
It is perfectly clear you do not understand the concept. The Sun’s fusion energy is what is what gives it the energy input. The amount of radiation the Sun can emit will then determine its surface temperature. It the fusion rate is the same and the surface has a reduced rate of radiant energy loss, the surface will warm until the energy input from fusion equals the energy lost by the surface. Simple 1st Law Thermodynamics. Any other idea would have to violate the 1st Law since the energy that is generated would have to disappear.
Your understanding of thermodymanics if limited to one case and that is a case with no energy input.
I know it won’t help you but I can always attempt.
Case 1) No input energy. Hot object near a colder one.
In this case the hot object will cool off and the colder one will warm. This is the only case you are able to understand and refuse to open your mind to other possible conditions.
Case 2) Continuous energy input to the hot object.
With no other objects around it, it will reach an equilibrium temperature where the surface temperature is the result of balancing the input energy to the output energy.
Case 2 is what causes you all the problems. You are unable to think about a thermodynamic system with a continuous heat source.
Take a 1 m^2 object (make is a black-body to simplify the math).
Add 600 watts of continuous energy. The object has two equal sides of 1 m^2. Total emitting surface are is 2 m^2.
Under this condition your surface will be at equilibrium conditions at 269.7 K. Changing nothing else but folding the plate in half so both surfaces touch you have reduced the emitting surface from 2 m^2 to 1 m^2. Your object will heat up until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature of 320.7 K. Just folding the plate in half caused a temperature rise of 51 K.
If you reduce the amount the Sun is emitting by adding a slight amount back from the Earth that energy is not gone. It will cause a temperature increase until the Sun is emitting the same amount is is producing via fusion.
g*e*r*a*n
You are still posting and not supporting you statement and now leading to some other point.
Get support for you statement that a hot object cannot absorb IR from a colder one.
Along with studying physics you should also take some reading comprehension classes. You do have a difficult time understanding concepts created by words.
YOU: “Your con-game is to say one thing, and then say the opposite.
You claim that the Earth is heating the Sun, but then you claim that it is not, but then you claim it is only heating it a little!
You are only fooling yourself.”
I am not claiming the Earth is heating the Sun. You and your twin SkepticGoneWild make this claim. Read what I posted again and try to comprehend it. I doubt you are able, you are a simpleton.
Con-man, now you are trying to deny your own words, again!
“The Sun is getting warmer because less energy is able to leave it than when planets are present.”
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Again even with this quote (not sure where you got it from of the larger context).
Supposed me: The Sun is getting warmer because less energy is able to leave it than when planets are present.
That is not the same as saying the Earth or planets are warming the Sun. You are unable or unwilling to understand the difference. You see a few words and connect them in a fashion that suits your belief but you do not understand the concept.
Again. The Sun is creating a certain amount of energy via fusion (converting some of its mass into energy). If the process is at a constant rate (seems to be for the Sun since if varies very little over time) than anything that limits how much energy can leave the Sun will result in a higher solar surface temperature. Also it is a one time deal from no planets condition to a condition with planets.
The Sun will not continually warm with planets present. It will reach a new equilibrium condition where the energy it creates via fusion will balance the energy it radiates. Simple physics, simple idea.
You have yet to find supporting evidence for your assertion that a hot object cannot absorb IR from a cooler object. I think the way you are wired you will not support your claims even five years from now.
Norm argues with himself, again.
“The Sun is getting warmer because less energy is able to leave it than when planets are present.”
“The Sun will not continually warm with planets present.”
Hilarious.
“The earth heats the sun!”
Soitenly! Woo woo woo woo woo woo woo!
Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck nyuck!
Why I aughta……
Copied from elsewhere and updated:
Using whatever version of physics you believe in please explain how a room temperature thermal imaging camera can take thermographs of objects down to -50C
There are no “cold rays” so how does focusing an object at -40C onto a microbolometer at 25C change its temperature compared to focussing an object at -30C onto microbolometer at 25C?
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GT_Ar-9WWfQ/UNkU2Fb2nBI/AAAAAAAAA1M/NLxj8Rt7yRI/s1600/sky+high+low+cloud.jpg
This shows a thermal image of sky and clouds (in winter). The camera body was approx. 15 to 20C and the sensor was uncooled and therefore at a similar temperature perhaps hotter.
If you are correct and cold objects cannot cause warmer objects to warm then this picture should effectively be an even black (there is no object above the microbolometer temperature and in your view lower temperatures cannot warm hotter objects and remember there are no such things as cold rays). All objects in the field are less warm than the sensor and in your physics cannot change the temperature of the sensor.
However you can see temperatures from -2C to -35C. This is because the cold clouds are providing energy to the sensor changing its temperature.
If the object in the field of view were at abs zero then no heat would be transferred to the sensor and the sensor would be in equilibrium with its camera environment. Above absolute zero heat energy is transferred to the sensor and its temperature increases above the camera background.
At -50C (approx.) the heat from the object adds sufficient energy to the sensor for detection and the sensor warms until the energy OUT to the camera environment equals the energy IN from the camera environment plus the energy in through the lens.
This additional energy changes in microbolometer temperature and hence its resistance.
You should also be aware that the germanium lens used on thermal imaging cameras acts as a bandpass filter. So most radiation from CO2 and water vapour is not passed to the sensor. Hence no back radiation is seen from water vapour or CO2. Clouds of course are not water vapour but a cloud is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets (wiki) and hence thermal radiation is more like a black body allowing the camera to see the cloud.
In general a thermal imaging camera MUST be insensitive to GHG radiation otherwise hot air would fog the image.
Ghalfrunt on September 25, 2017 at 11:10 AM
Sorry, no comment for the moment: I did no want to tell anybody that backradiation occurs.
What I wanted to show is that people pretending backration from cold to warm materials be impossible due to Clausius’ 2LoT are ‘plain wrong’, as Tamino aka Foster loves to write.
Not less, not more.
But what concerns your comment as such: why then do SURFRAD devices record CO2 and H2O specific IR lines?
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php
(I hope you believe that the IR is way above 4 microns, thus excluding solar origin.)
Any idea?
Bindidon 2017 09 25 11:10
Radiation measured by ir non cooled cameras is limited by the lens in the case of the camera used in the cloud photo the camera had a germanium lens limiting the ir pass through to 1 to 14 micrometers. Using this band enables it to be used to see through air. If it included ir gas emissions it would only show the temp of those gasses. Other devices have different bands of recording according to required purpose.
There are more interesting stuff on it cameras here http://bitly/2xCYhsC and look for thermal imaging.
Show boiling water visible but water vapour from boiling water is invisible. Hot air at 450C is invisible.
That should be http://bit.ly/2xCYhsC
I forgot to add a detail.
Two years ago I read Roy Spencer’s excellent contribution:
What Causes the Greenhouse Effect?
June 13th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
to be found in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
This was then reedited with:
The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect, or Atmospheric Pressure?
July 30th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
to be found in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
These two documents helped me in definitely understanding why backradiation is physically possible even from a cooler troposphere down to a warmer surface, and that radiation budgets resulting from their radiation difference are a meaningful, serious matter (and not some ridiculous warmista blah blah).
Roy Spencer’s second head post ended with
Finally, just because the greenhouse effect exists does not mean that global warming in response to increasing carbon dioxide will be a serious problemthat is another issue entirely, and involves things like cloud feedbacks. Im only referring to the existence of the Earths natural greenhouse effect, which to me is largely settled science.
What is today important to me is that now I realise that what Spencer understands under ‘largely settled science’ in fact goes back to even the end of the 19th century, and, somewhat ironically, was known to just the man whose work is permanently invoked as a contradiction to backradiation: Rudolf Clausius in person.
*
Last not least let me end with a jokey moment: the link below points to the definite proof of Earth’s global warming!
https://ann53.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/klimawandel.jpg
I can already tell you what our friends will say:
1. Roy Spencer is a foolish warmist
2. Clausius was in on the conspiracy back then
3. There is no such thing as back radiation – dug kottin said so.
4. German physicist Jochen Ebel was a nincompoop
5. The size of my underpants has grown enormously over the decades, therefore disproving the GHE
Excellent resumee!
Bindidon,
I thought rsum was a French word. Do you mean something different?
Maybe you confused “resumee” with “farrago”?
I presume English is not your mother tongue, so I’m just trying to help.
Cheers.
Bindidon,
Many apologies. My e’s with accents didn’t appear. I’ll try using a different character set.
Rsum. Should be e’s with accents!
Cheers.
Bad luck for me. One last try –
rsum
Cheers.
Now I guess ‘No GHE’-SuperBatman Flynn has understood the accent problem.
Which of course is a subproblem, concerning a small subset of all the special characters accepted but not displayed by this website, like e.g. ‘paragraph’.
Indeed: English is my ‘third’ language. Poor guy, it suffers so terribly from that daily prosecution by German and French.
Welch trauriges Schicksal! Quel triste destin!
Mike Flynn
I’m not quite sure, but maybe the problem we all meet here has to do with the so called ‘7-bit-ASCII’ character set some parts of this site still seem to have in use.
Reminds me these good ol’ IBM card punchers…
“to be found in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/ ”
Problem with pressure is the claim it adds heat. Which basically saying gravity is heat source.
I would say it this way, something higher in gravity well has more potential energy as compared to something of same kinetic energy lower in a gravity well
So have balloon [or greenhouse] at absolute pressure of 15 psi
have sunlight warm gas to 60 C at sea level. And have another balloon at absolute pressure of 15 psi have sunlight warm it to 60 C at 10,000 feet.
burst the balloon when at 60 C and balloon at 10,000 ft has more kinetic energy. It explode more violently, but the point is it warms earth more.
Or if air is heated to same temperature at higher elevation as lower elevation, that air at higher elevation become warmer when goes to lower elevation. It’s called, Anabatic wind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabatic_wind
And related to why Death Valley has the highest recorded air temperature.
Btw, it doesn’t explain why earth has average temperature of 15 C.
Or for me it doesn’t explain why Earth has average temperature 15 C. Because I think most warming is done at sea level- because I think the ocean warms Earth’s atmosphere.
But it does explain why one can have hotter weather. And does explain why Venus is hot, the acid clouds at 50 km elevation warms the air.
gbaikie…”And does explain why Venus is hot, the acid clouds at 50 km elevation warms the air”.
To 462C at the surface???
Presuming those clouds at 50 KM are cooler than the surface, which is likely. How do the clouds transfer heat to the surface?
Has anyone considered Mike’s hypothesis that internal forces on Venus may be contributing to it’s super-hot surface temp hence creating the atmospheric conditions?
It’s hard enough here in Earth to measure the core temp of the Earth, there is no way to calculate internal temps on Venus.
No one considered that the surface of Venus was that hot till a spacecraft (was it Pioneer) measured it sometime in the 1990s.
Here’s an abstract on the problem:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JA085iA13p08219/abstract
“…the second law of thermodynamics requires that the bulk of the lower atmosphere heating must come from a source other than direct sunlight or a thermally driven atmospheric circulation. Neither the so-called greenhouse models nor the mechanical heating models are consistent with this interpretation of the observations…”
” Gordon Robertson says:
September 25, 2017 at 3:57 PM
gbaikieAnd does explain why Venus is hot, the acid clouds at 50 km elevation warms the air.
To 462C at the surface???”
Yes.
Or how a cooler “object” warms a hotter “object”.
Except It’s not a object and it’s not making the gas molecule have higher average velocity.
Or the CO2 molecules near the surface of Venus, do not have a high average velocity- the gas is hot because the gas is a high density because it’s under a lot of pressure.
Or hot gas is not due to high average velocity, but the other part of the kinetic energy of gas- more molecules in a given volume.
Or:
Kinetic energy = mass 1/2 times velocity square.
It’s increase of mass which causes higher temperature.
The gas which warmed must have enough density, and around 1 atm would have enough density.
Or as said before if have big enough pit- like 4 km deep deep on Earth the air at bottom of pit will warmer. It will follow the lapse rate- 6.5 C per km. So it will be about 26 C warmer. Or if air is 30 C at top of pit, it will be 56 C at bottom of pit.
Or Earth had such a pit, when the Mediterranean sea didn’t have any water in it. As wiki says:
“Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 C (50 F) per kilometer, a theoretical temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 C (104 F) warmer than the temperature at sea level. Under this simplistic assumption, theoretical temperature maxima would have been around 80 C (176 F) at the lowest depths of the dry abyssal plain permitting little life other than extremophiles”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
Or 80 C is about 40 C hotter than any current place on Earth. And it’s during a glacial period- not that matters much as it’s fairly close to tropics.
Or the surface of Venus is the cloud tops, and at atm where laspe rate changes, at top of troposphere of earth, it “doesn’t work any more”. So around 50 km elevation on Venus.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JA085iA13p08219/abstract
the second law of thermodynamics requires that the bulk of the lower atmosphere heating must come from a source other than direct sunlight or a thermally driven atmospheric circulation. Neither the so-called greenhouse models nor the mechanical heating models are consistent with this interpretation of the observations
Well, didn’t pay to see whole thing.
But obviously I disagree, I think it’s quite possible for the sunlight to heat Venus.
Oops wrong link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind
“Examples of true katabatic winds include the bora (or bura) in the Adriatic, the Bohemian Wind or Bhmwind in the Ore Mountains, the Santa Ana in southern California,”
Btw, my idea of ocean warming earth would be falsified if the average ocean surface is cooler than average global air temperature.
Oh, if put Earth at Venus distance, would the average ocean temperature be cooler than average global temperature.
If put ocean on Mars [at the equator] would the ocean be cooler than average temperature of Mars.
“Presuming those clouds at 50 KM are cooler than the surface, which is likely. How do the clouds transfer heat to the surface?”
A number of ways, there updrafts and downdrafts and rain in Venus atmosphere [rain of acid]. But conduction of gas molecules works [gas if enough density will average it’s all of the molecules velocities].
“Has anyone considered Mikes hypothesis that internal forces on Venus may be contributing to its super-hot surface temp hence creating the atmospheric conditions?”
Earth has 10 tons per square meter, Venus is less than 100 times the amount: 1000 tons per square meter.
Rock is more than 2 tons per cubic meter, so equal to 500 meter of rock. or 1000 meter of water.
Or talking about insulative atmosphere allows internal heat of Venus not to cool- which one of things I think is possible.
Also Venus is thought to a young surface and has periodic re-surfacing- entire surface of Venus might been lava- something like + 200 million year ago.
But simple answer is, not sure what mike’s hypothesis is
The problem is the GHG effect is a result of the climate /environment not the cause. This is why CO2 always follows the temperature.
salvatore…”The problem is the GHG effect is a result of the climate /environment not the cause. This is why CO2 always follows the temperature”.
I have attacked this problem using very basic science, namely the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures. Either those laws are no longer valid or no one has a come back.
Granted, we must observe the ‘Ideal’ in the Ideal Gas Equation but even with real gases the law gives a ballpark understanding of how gases behave. The reality is not that far removed from ideal conditions.
Furthermore, the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law generally apply to static conditions in a laboratory container. Once you introduce convective forces the dynamics change but does the overall reality?
PV = nRT is the Ideal Gas Equation. Given that our atmosphere is of constant volume and constant mass that equation can be simplified to P = T approx, or T = P. In other words, temperatures varies directly with pressure.
There is a complication in that our atmosphere is stratified into a pressure gradient by gravity. Nevertheless, that pressure gradient complies with the Ideal Gas Equation in that as altitude increases, hence pressure decreases, temperature decreases in step.
That can be explained easily as gas molecule collisions lessening as the mass thins with altitude and a lowered effect of gravity. For example, the atmospheric content of oxygen thins to 1/3 of its density at sea level at 30,000 feet, the altitude of Mount Everest.
There are some people today insisting that atmospheric cooling with altitude has nothing to do with gravity. What else explains that phenomenon?
Therefore, given that our atmosphere obeys the Ideal Gas Equation to a degree and that it is affected by convection currents which operate on top of the pressure/temperature gradient, applying Dalton’s Law should be a no-brainer.
Dalton claimed that in a mixed gas, the pressure of the entire gas can be calculated by summing the partial pressures of all the gases. Since pressure is directly governed by mass, that means the partial masses of each gas sum to the total mass. Most importantly for our purposes, it means the partial temperature contribution of each gas is directly proportional to it’s partial mass.
The partial mass of N2 and O2 is around 99% whereas the partial mass of CO2 is around 0.04%. It doesn’t take rocket science to get it that the temperature contribution of CO2 is measured in 100ths of 1%.
binny…”to be found in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/”
Whereas I have the deepest respect for Roy, I am not about to regard him as an authority on thermodynamics. In fact, I think some of his arguments on the heat transfer are plain wrong.
Here’s an example from the link above:
“Analogous to insulation in a heated home, greenhouse gases reduce the net rate of infrared energy transfer from the surface and lower atmosphere to outer space, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to be warmer, and the upper atmosphere to be colder, than if greenhouse gases did not exist”.
GHGs do not have the ability to reduce the net rate of IR transfer. In fact, the notion of IR transfer in not from physics. Heat transfer comes from physics and IR is not heat.
The net rate of IR emission from the surface is governed only by the temperature difference between the surface and its immediate surroundings. If the temp difference is reduced to zero, no energy will be emitted. If the difference is in favour of the surroundings, the surface will warm.
“Again, temperature is the result of energy gain AND energy loss. If you reduce the rate of energy loss, temperature will riseeven if the energy input is the same”.
Temperature is a measure of the relative intensity of heat. Energy gain and energy loss are related to the gain and loss of thermal energy, not IR.
“Given the same rate of energy input into the home by its heating system, addition of insulation slows the net rate of heat flow from the warmer interior to the cold exterior, causing higher temperatures inside and lower temperatures outside, compared to if the insulation did not exist”.
The rate of thermal energy flow from the home is via conduction through the walls and ceiling and insulation does slow that down since it slows the conduction, not the radiative transfer of heat. Insulation is interfering with the actual molecules of air, not with the infrared emissions.
“…the decrease in temperature with height in the troposphere is ultimately caused by the greenhouse effect itself”.
Impossible. The reduction in temperature with altitude is due to the thinning of the air molecules due to the lowered gravitational effect. GHGs, at a maximal component of the atmosphere typically of 1% could not do that. The overall percent of water vapour in the atmosphere is around 0.3%.
“This is where the Sky Dragon Slayers get tripped up. They claim the colder atmosphere cannot emit IR downward toward a warmer surface below, when in fact all the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would require is that the NET flow of energy in all forms be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is still true in my discussion”.
IMHO, this is where Roy gets tripped up. The 2nd law has nothing whatsoever to do with a NET flow of infrared energy. Such a concept does not exist in physics. The 2nd law is about heat transfer and it is clear that heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Binny has no filter. He just laps up whatever his puppet-masters tell him. Sort of like a UAV. Automated robot.
Gordon Robertson
Again and again I will ask you for any supporting evidence for your opinions.
YOU: “IMHO, this is where Roy gets tripped up. The 2nd law has nothing whatsoever to do with a NET flow of infrared energy. Such a concept does not exist in physics. The 2nd law is about heat transfer and it is clear that heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.”
All the textbooks make the claim that Heat is the NET flow of radiant energy of a surface being examined. The surface is both emitting IR energy (based upon its temperature and emissivity) and absorbing IR from its surroundings based upon the temperature of the surroundings.
So where do you get your claim from. You just make it up. You have no source. I have asked you before but you just ignore the request.
If you want to contribute to a science blog then support you claims with scientific evidence. You just won’t do it though and will probably ignore the request for evidence like you always do.
Have you looked at your own post from another thread?
YOU POSTED THIS: “If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as
q = e s (Th4 Tc4) Ac (3)
where
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ac = area of the object (m2)”
Gordon do you read the word NET in your description? If you look at a textbook they will make the same claim. It is NET energy (emitted minus absorbed). No matter what textbook you choose on the subject of heat transfer, when they describe radiant heat transfer it is always a NET energy transfer of a surface.
Please read some physics, please!
Gordon Robertson
And still another source pointing out that you really do not know REAL physics but peddle your own made up physics. Over and over, thread after thread never having the slightest desire to correct your faulty thinking. Maybe the arrogant SkepticGoneWild can read this. I doubt it will be of value to either of you as you both defend your phony physics with vigor, too bad you don’t learn real physics and defend it with the same intensity.
HERE: “When two radiating bodies interact (body 1 & 2), each will radiate energy to and absorb energy from each other. The net radiant heat transfer between the two objects, q12, is calculated by:
(NOTE equation did not copy/paste)
where F1-2 is the configuration factor that is a function of the shapes, emissivities, and orientation of the two bodies relative to each other. For the limiting case where body 1 is relatively small and completely enclosed by body 2, F1-2 = e1”
From source:
http://tinyurl.com/yao6zctc
Gordon Robertson
More proof you just make up stuff and call it good.
Here: “You will notice that the equation does not include any heat flux term, q.
Instead we have a term the emissive power. The relationship between these
terms is as follows. Consider two infinite plane surfaces, both facing one
another. Both surfaces are ideal surfaces. One surface is found to be at
temperature, T1, the other at temperature, T2. Since both temperatures are
at temperatures above absolute zero, both will radiate energy as described
by the Stefan-Boltzman law. The heat flux will be the net radiant flow as
given by:
q” = Eb1 – Eb2 = T1
4
– T2
4
”
NOTE: “The heat flux will be the net radiant flow as”
Always a NET radiant heat flow.
Source:
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IISc-BANG/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/pdf/M9/Student_Slides_M9.pdf
Gordon Robertson
My goal is to correct your wrong thinking so that you can become a valuable contributor to a science blog.
So again: “Net Radiation Loss Rate
If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as”
Everywhere it is Net radiation. Only in your own confined reality there exists no net IR transfer.
The three stooges of Climate Blogs. g*e*r*a*n, SkepticGoneWild, and Gordon Robertson.
None will read textbooks to correct their flawed thinking. All post the same made up physics and peddle it as if were based upon some real physics. None of the stooges will ever support their made up physics with real physics (because they cannot do so).
For years they have peddled their made up physics on blogs and for many years to come they will continue to do this. Somehow either they know they are wrong and just trolling or they are so blinded by their arrogance they are unwilling to learn and correct the ideas they got wrong.
norman…”All the textbooks make the claim that Heat is the NET flow of radiant energy of a surface being examined”.
And they are all wrong. Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. He said nothing about IR.
You are seriously screwed up because you are using arguments based on textbooks with the wrong information. I hate to say this but engineering books tend to be the worst offenders. Engineers work in a macro world and they have arbitrarily defined heat to fit that macro world. Heat is a property of atoms, in the micro world.
If you read your engineering heat text more closely they admit freely that the radiative laws do not apply till very high temperatures. We’re talking several thousand degrees C. Those laws featuring Boltzmann, Planck et al are pretty useless at atmospheric temperatures.
If engineers want to redefine heat that’s their business but it is not the heat defined by Clausius in the field of thermodynamics. If you buy into that re-definition as gospel it will screw you up big time.
Heat has nothing to do with the net flow of radiant energy. Your understanding of heat at the atomic level is missing therefore you are at the mercy of any textbook that confuses IR with heat. Many of them do it.
Heat is not a flow unless the flow involves atoms as in convection. With two distinct surfaces the atoms are confined to the surfaces. If the atoms are confined, heat can’t flow between the surfaces. IR can flow through space and it can transfer energy between the bodies but in one direction only.
You don’t seem to understand that IR is the messenger only. It contains no heat and no heat is transferred through space. I know this concept is tough to visualize but I have explained it several times using a radio signal analogy.
It’s vital to understand that an electron in an atom, dropping from a higher energy level to a lower energy level, CONVERTS electrical energy to EM as IR. On the receiving end the electron absorbs the EM and converts it back to electrical energy. Since heat is related directly to the energy level of the electron, heat is the property of the electron, not the IR.
norman…part 2
IR is NOT HEAT, repeat 10 times.
IR is EM and EM is trans.mitted from the antenna of a broad.casting station, after being converted from an alter.nating electrical signal, as micro.waves, UHF, VHF, and HF. Those are refer.ences to the wave.length (or frequency) of the EM transmit.ted. When that EM is inter.cepted by a re.ceiving antenna, the EM wave is convert.ed to electrical energy in the antenna. Sound famil.iar?
In the transmit.ting antenna, the electrical signal, a high frequency alternat.ing signal, can be mod.ulated by an audio signal by varying it’s amp.litude at an audio rate. That audio signal orig.inated in the studio at a microphone. The electric.ally modulat.ed signal is convert.ed by the antenna to a modulat.ed EM wave which travels through space to a receiving antenna.
The receiving antenna converts the EM back to an electrical signal and circuits down the line can recover the audio signal from the modulated electrical carrier signal. However the audio arrives piggy-backed on a high frequency signal that cannot be heard. It is NOT audio as defined in the frequency range 20 Hz – 20,000 Hz.
That’s exactly what happens when heat is transferred by EM. In both cases, EM does not take part in the transfer, it is just a messenger. EM has a frequency range and is made up of an electric and magnetic field. Heat has neither.
In one situation, audio from a micro.phone is transfer.red through space without the audio leaving the studio. In the other case, heat is transfer.red from a warmer body to a cooler body without heat leaving the warmer body.
YOU NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THIS. If you don’t, you will never understand heat transfer by radiation. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and it CANNOT leave the warmer body because the atoms are bound to that body. It DECREASES in the warmer body and INCREASES in the cooler body, but no heat is transferred physically.
Energy is transfer.red in one direction but it’s not heat. Heat must obey the 2nd law but IR has nothing to do with the 2nd law. Summing IR exchanges is futile since obviously IR in one direction is not absorbed between a cooler and a warmer body.
norman…”You will notice that the equation does not include any heat flux term, q”.
There’s no such thing as heat flux. Again, you are confusing heat with IR. the symbol q is used to quantify the heat into or out of a body, or through a body from one end to the other.
The symbol q is NEVER used with reference to IR.
You are confusing the radiation from independent radiators at very high temperatures with the relatively very low intensity IR emitted by the surface.
The equations you have cited do not apply in our atmosphere and certainly not with dependent absorbers/emitters like GHGs.
norman…”YOU POSTED THIS: If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as
q = e s (Th4 Tc4) Ac (3)”
Yes. It refers to heat transfer via conduction between the surface and the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is 99%+ nitrogen and oxygen, they are doing the heat transfer. Why do you not consider that when expounding on radiative transfer, which is seriously over-blown.
Woods pointed out circa 1909 that radiation leaving the surface would be seriously attenuated after a few feet due to the inverse square law. I have pointed to an experiment you can do yourself with the 1500 watt ring on an electric stove.
Turn on the ring till it’s cherry red. Now bring your finger to within an inch and feel the intense heat. If you carried on closer to the ring, you’d reach a distance where it would cook the flesh on your finger without touching the ring physically.
Now back off to 1 foot…dramatic drop in intensity. Now do 3 feet…hardly any intensity. Do 5 feet…no detected hotness at all.
That’s with 1500 watts concentrated in a foot diameter. What do you think would happen with 250 W/m^2 at 5 feet?
Let’s face it, radiation is not a good means of heat transfer from the surface. Heat transfer is done with nitrogen and oxygen using conduction and convection, then radiation at high altitudes.
Chapeau Bendidon !
Excellent rappel historique sur Fourier et Clausius
Mais j’espre que vous tes au courant qu’on ne fait pas boire un ne qui n’a pas soif ?
Merci alphagruis
Vous etes manifestement la derniere victime en date de l’outrageuse suppression de nos beaux accents, tremas etc sur ce site.
Ne vous en faites pas, je n’en avais pas l’intention. Les anes, ca me connait comme l’on dit…
Et desole aussi pour avoir ecorche votre pseudo.
Vous les embetez bien quand meme, les bouffons qui postent ici.
Il est tres instructif et amusant de voir comment ils tentent de raccrocher aux branches.
Merci !
With regard to interaction of photons with matter –
“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.”
If you agree with this quote from Richard Feynman, the matter is easily settled. Just come up with an experiment which shows that shows that an hotter object can have its temperature raised by absorbing photons from a colder object.
Of course, this precludes silly attempts to specify internal heat sources and insulators.
All experiments indicate that the temperature of hotter objects cannot be raised by exposing them to the radiation from colder objects.
Before you leap in with poorly considered “thought experiments”, you might consider that you could be asked to explain what you mean by hotter, colder, etc.
My opinion is that it can’t be done, but I’ll obviously change my opinion if I observe new facts.
Computer models, equations, appeals to authority, furious hand waving, and strident assertions are not experiments (except in the pseudo science of climatology).
Any takers?
Cheers.
“Just come up with an experiment which shows that shows that an hotter object can have its temperature raised by absorbing photons from a colder object.”
I was out looking at the stars last night under a clear sky. It was cold.
Then the sky became overcast. I felt warmer.
Yet the clouds were colder than my body temperature.
I’m sure Nature can’t wait to publish this study.
SkepticsGoneWild
The cooler object only and always REMOVES heat from the warmer one. It’s only a matter of faster or slower. The fewer photons the warmer object receives, the faster it cools. The more, the slower it cools.
BTY. Did you ever figure out how clothes can keep us warm without violating the laws of physics?
Sir Isaac,
You wrote BTY. Did you really mean BTW, as in By The Way? Some foolish Warmists complain when I point out their careless typos, so I thought Id better check first.
In any case, your bodys internal heat source and its associated heat regulation mechanism keeps you warm, around 37 C.
Turn off the internal heat source by dying, and clothes wont stop you from reaching ambient temperature. Dont even stop you from cooling (Newtons Law of Cooling allows you to calculate the rate, if youre interested).
On the other hand, clothes assist the living to keep cool. The heavy wool robes of the desert Berbers, the heavy clothes of the fireman exposed to radiant heat, the exhortations of the Government to cover up to prevent the harmful rays of the Sun reaching the skin – all are examples of the physical principles involved.
So your gotchaappears to have gotched its author, rather than the intended recipient!
If you stick with the Mike Flynn playbook, youll likely avoid avoidable embarrassment.
Maybe you could find a copy of the disprovable GHE hypothesis. Without it, even the US Government may assume the GHE doesnt exist, and reject any grant applications referring to climate change! The Government might even remove references to Climate Changefrom Government websites!
Theres obviously no time to lose! Find the hypothesis. Allow it to be tested,
Only joking. Obviously, the GHE doesnt exist, except in the feverish fantasies of the foolish Warmist delusional groupmind.
You may believe as you wish. As Thomas Jefferson said, if your beliefs neither break my leg nor pick my pocket, its no concern of mine.
Cheers.
Space missing between “gotcha” and “appears.”
“Youll” lacking apostrophe.
Space missing between “change and “from.”
Sentence “Allow it to be tested” ends in comma rather than full stop.
Your playbook needs editing.
barry,
Thank you for pointing out my intentional errors.
You pass.
Cheers.
Dr No,
How much did your temperature rise? What did you measure it with? What calibration procedure did you use?
I’ll point out that your body has an internal heat source (otherwise you’d be dead), and a fairly efficient temperature regulating mechanism – you might not have taken that into account.
Not a scientific experiment at all. Rather a foolish Warmist fantasy pretence.
The phenomenon you experienced has been covered at length by John Tyndall, who also conducted detailed and real experiments to see if they backed up his hypothesis. They did.
There is a good article in a Scientific American of 1869 which covers experiments by several different scientists in quite some detail, and shows that colder objects do not raise the temperature of warmer ones.
This explains why you cannot harness the enormous heat energy in the Antarctic ice cap to boil a spoonful of water, or even to warm your hands, fancy speculations and equations to the contrary.
Foolish Warmists don’t seem to accept the concept of the reproducible scientific experiment, in many cases. Some even call the results of computer programs written to ensure predetermined outcomes “experiments”. Of course, and real scientist dismisses such nonsense out of hand.
Still no GHE. Sad, but true.
Cheers.
“Of course, and real scientist dismisses such nonsense out of hand.”
What woeful grammar.
Conjunction and adverb in the wrong order. Either missing an indefinite article before “scientist”, or should use plural noun and verb.
Mike…”…an experiment which shows that shows that an hotter object can have its temperature raised by absorbing photons from a colder object”.
No need for such an experiment, the 2nd law has it covered. If heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object through space that obviously nullifies the notion that IR from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body.
If it was the case that IR from a colder body could be absorbed by a warmer body it would necessitate the electrons in the atoms of a warmer body absorbing the cooler IR and rising to a higher energy level, making the warmer body warmer. Since that clearly does not happen, it is obvious that the atoms in a warmer body don’t absorb the IR from a cooler body.
Gordon Robertson
I have seen you have refused to study even a little physics and go right along peddling your made up physics hoping to sell it to other lazy people who do not want to spend time or effort reading actual physics books.
You still have your ideas of what generates IR wrong and you refuse to correct them. Why? I and others have linked you to the correct physics but you keep peddling your false notions.
Now the statement that is made: “No need for such an experiment, the 2nd law has it covered. If heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object through space that obviously nullifies the notion that IR from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body.”
Made up unsupported physics.
Norman
Here is some of the simple math involved in my “velocity/delay” claims. More to come later:
A group of runners are gathered in one end zone of a football field. One takes off each second and runs the 100 yards in only 10 seconds, so his “velocity” is 10 yards/second.
After 1 second, there is one player on the field (at the 10 yard line). After 2 seconds – 2 players (the 10 and 20 yard lines. After 10 seconds, there will be 10 players on the field, each spaced 10 yards apart.
At this point, an equilibrium has been reached. Runners are entering and leaving the field at the same rate. At any moment from here on out, exactly 10 players will always be on the field. No more, no less.
On the other hand, what happens if it takes each runner 20 seconds to run the 100 yards? Their velocity would now be only 5 yards/second. After the first second, a runner will be on the 5 yard line. After two seconds – the five and 10 yard lines. By the time the first runner has completed the 100 yards, 20 runners will have “accumulated” on the field.
Conclusion: Given a constant rate (1 runner/second), and a constant distance (100 yards), then the velocity of each runner (yards/second) will determine how many players will be able to accumulate on the field at any given moment.
More simply:
Rate: 1 runner/second
Distance: 100 yards
Velocity: 10 yards/second
Max accumulation: 10 runners
Rate: 1 runner/second
Distance: 100 yards
Velocity: 5 yards/second
Max accumulation: 20 runners
DELAY
If a runner, travelling at 10 meters/second, runs to the 50 yard line and back three times before completing the 100 yards to the opposite end zone, he will now have travelled 400 total yards. A person with a stop watch at the far end of the field would “clock” his effort at 40 seconds. Using this metric, the runner’s “overall velocity” is now just 2.5 yards/second.
*The three wind sprints are a DELAY getting to the end zone. If every runner followed suit:*
Rate: 1 “new” runner/second
3 “previous”runners/second
4 “total” runners/second Distance. 100 yards
Overall velocity: 2.5 yards/second
Max. Accumulation: 40 runners
Conclusion: A delay caused each runner’s overall velocity to decrease. This in turn caused more runners to accumulate on the field. Notice that new runners are still entering the field at 1 runner/second, same as runners exiting, but “total runners” now leave the starting line at 4 runners/second.
*This idea corresponds to HIGHER RATE OF ENERGY EMITTED AT THE SURFACE, while rate at TOA is same as before. The starting line is now “absorbing and re-emitting” an additional 3 runners runners/second.*
-The runners are a metaphor for IR emitted from Earth’s surface.
-The field represents the atmosphere
-the far end zone represents space
-runners bump into “CO2” at the 50 yard line and get rerouted back to the surface (wind sprints). This delay results in accumulation.
Now, of the 40 runners on the field at any given moment, 35 are always between the 0 and 50 yard line. This represents the LOWER TROPOSPHER.
Basically, IR is “running back and forth” in the lower troposphere before continuing on to space.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 26, 2017 at 6:41 AM:
*Sigh*
No, Snape. IR is just THERE. In the merged surface-atmosphere photon cloud. Because the atmosphere is thicker and warmer further down, the photon cloud is also “thicker” and “warmer” further down.
There’s no “delay” here. There is just a balance (or imbalance) between energy IN and energy OUT corresponding to TEMPERATURE and temperature differences.
The atmosphere is warmer because it HOLDS more energy (U, “internal energy”), not because more photons are “running back and forth”. More photons are running back and forth because the atmosphere holds more energy, hence is warmer. An atmosphere without a temperature would have no photon cloud, no matter how “IR active” it is.
The internal energy of the atmosphere, just like its photon cloud, is kept in place by temperature gradients. The energy is not so much “trapped” as it is thermally “kept in place”.
Kristian
You: “More photons are running back and forth because the atmosphere holds more energy, hence is warmer.”
Look at my simple math metaphor. You will see it wouldn’t matter WHY photons are running back and forth, just the fact that they are doing so means they are not as quickly exiting to space. And while these photons are running back and forth, new energy is simultaneously entering the system, creating an overlap – hence accumulation. The degree of OVERLAP is dependent on the “overall velocity” term I described in the metaphor.
Runners being delayed getting from one end of the field to the other, for any reason, will result in accumulation, given a constant input of “new runners”.
And again, even after many more runners have accumulated on the field, an equilibrium will be reached where the rate of runners exiting will still match the original rate of “new” runners entering.
You, David Appell and others wanted to see the math to back up my ideas about delay and velocity. It’s very basic stuff, not the least bit confusing.
Wow! Photons have legs and are able to run back and forth. Will the moronic analogies and thought experiments never cease?
SkepticsGoneWild
The runners analogy is used to explain, in common terms, the relationship between rate, distance, delay, velocity and accumulation I’ve noticed in the GHE theory. Like a complete idiot, you poke fun at it by taking it literally.
“The boy hates to clean his room. It looks like a disaster zone”.
Please, Mr. Bonehead, don’t take this analogy literally. FEMA is not needed. The boy’s room didn’t suffer an earthquake or flood or hurricane. It’s just really messy.
SkepticsGoneWild
Here’s an easy experiment. The next time your ears are cold, put on some earmuffs. What do you predict will happen? Will the earmuffs violate the laws of thermodynamics?
Kristian
You: Theres no delay here. There is just a balance (or imbalance) between energy IN and energy OUT corresponding to TEMPERATURE and temperature differences.
From this, I’m wondering if you even understood how “delay” was involved in my “runners” analogy. Could you perhaps explain the idea in your own words to show me you “get it”?
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 26, 2017 at 5:24 PM:
I get it, Snape. The problem is, YOU don’t get it. Your “runners” analogy isn’t an analogy of the Earth system and how it works. That’s the simple point that I’ve been trying to bring home to you through my water tank analogy all this time. But you STILL refuse to understand it.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 26, 2017 at 12:21 PM:
As WHAT!!? The average content of energy held thermally by the atmosphere ISN’T SUPPOSED TO EXIT TO SPACE! If it were, the atmosphere would cool continually until it reached absolute zero.
That is why we are always talking about a simple IMBALANCE between incoming and outgoing energy, NEVER a “delay” in the transfer of energy from the surface to space. There’s no delay, Snape. There is only less energy going out per unit time IF THE ATMOSPHERE IS COLDER THAN IT SHOULD BE.
Kristian
You: “there’s no delay, Snape”
One last time:
– the runners start out running directly towards the other end of the field. No delay. It takes them 10 seconds, and 10 runners accumulate.
– the runners dilly dally, a delay. It now takes them 40 seconds, and 40 runners accumulate.
– At this point, there is NO DELAY in runners exiting. Runners are entering the field at the same rate as leaving. Input = output
– BUT NOTICE: it still takes each runner 40 seconds to get across the field, not 10. Each player still dilly dallys. This amounts to a delay compared to when they had run in a straight line.
– ALSO NOTICE: the entire mass of runners, macroscopically, as a CURRENT, are now moving across the field at only 2.5 yards/second!!!
– previously, this velocity was 10 yards/second!!!
Each runner is consistently DELAYED The CURRENT of runners is permanently SLOWED, and yet
INPUT = OUTPUT
NO CHANGE IN RATE OF RUNNERS ENTERING OR LEAVING
NO DELAY IN RUNNERS EXITING
The same basic math applies to energy moving from surface to space
– Constant rate of input
– Constant distance to travel (surface to space is around 62 miles)
– Energy moving at the speed of light, in a straight line toward space, with nothing to slow it down, equals NO DELAY
– anything causing energy to do otherwise, equals a DELAY
– I could keep going, but the basic math is same as above
norman…”You still have your ideas of what generates IR wrong and you refuse to correct them”.
I don’t see you offering a crit.ique and I presume that’s because you have no idea what you’re talking about or what I’m talking about.
IR like all EM is gen.erated by atoms when electrons in the atoms drop from a higher energy level to a lower energy level. The quanta emitted is the precise difference in energy between the energy levels through which the electron drops.
If you have a better explanation, let’s here it.
My thoughts on the 2nd law come straight from Clausius. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body without compen.sation. The compen.sation required to do that involves external power to drive a compressor, a condenser and an evapour.ator, and a refrig.erant.
Do you see anything like that in the atmosphere to supply the required compen.sation?
Gordon Robertson
Do you have a compulsion to make up ideas? You have been pointed out your flaws so many times and yet you will not correct them.
YOU: “IR like all EM is gen.erated by atoms when electrons in the atoms drop from a higher energy level to a lower energy level. The quanta emitted is the precise difference in energy between the energy levels through which the electron drops.”
NO this is wrong where do you get this from. State your source or quit posting!
YOU: “My thoughts on the 2nd law come straight from Clausius. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body without compen.sation. The compen.sation required to do that involves external power to drive a compressor, a condenser and an evapour.ator, and a refrig.erant.”
Did you look at Bindidon’s post on Clausius own words? No you didn’t. HEAT is NET energy transfer. Energy (IR) can move from a colder object to a warmer one.
FIND a source that supports you. Find a statement my Clausius that supports your opinion or quit posting!
Keep posting, Gordon.
The Con-man is losing it. He probably believes his hairdresser is lying.
Gordon
You, “…….absorbing the cooler IR ….,”
“Are some photons cool and others warm?
Sir Isaac,
Yet another foolish Warmist gotcha?
Do you really know nothing about quantum mechanics, or are you just pretending?
In any case, it doesnt really matter, does it? You cant raise the temperature of a hotter thing by getting it to trap or absorb anything from a colder thing..
Unless you can demonstrate it by experiment, of course. Proper, reproducible, scientific experiment – foolish Warmist hand waving is not recognised as an experiment by real scientists.
Cheers.
Mike
Most of us notice that wearing clothes keep us warmer, even though they are generally at room temperature (70 F.) when we put them on. The human body, if you recall, is somewhere around 98.6 F.
Am I seriously having this debate with a grown man?
Sir Isaac,
Yes you are.
Unfortunately, as people get very old they revert to child-like behaviours.
isaac…”Most of us notice that wearing clothes keep us warmer…”
Not because they slow down IR being emitted by the body. The warming is related to conduction and convection and it involves real molecules of air.
Gordon
Can you figure out how a colder object can increase the temperature of a warmer one – WRT conduction, convection and “real” air molecules”?
Gordon
Or do you think the laws of thermodynamics only apply to radiative heat transfer?
Sir Isaac,
What are you talking about?
Are you claiming that surrounding a corpse with objects at 70 F will raise its temperature to 98.6 F? I don’t believe you!
Is this your best example of a colder body racing the temperature of a hotter?
Even with a living human, with an internal heat source, how high can you get the temperature of the body by surrounding it with bodies at 70 F? Will it burst into flames from absorbing IR from the colder clothes?
Foolish Warmist misdirection, demonstrating the bizarre ability to deny, divert, and confuse.
You not having a debate with anyone except yourself! You may have fallen for your own “gotcha”.
If you feel like it, you could actually address the matter of experimentally verifying that a colder body can be used to raise the temperature of a hotter one, as generally defined. I don’t believe you can, but feel free to try. Telling people how warm or cold you feel is unlikely to be accepted as experimental proof of much at all, except to yourself or another foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Mike
Our ears don’t burst into flames when we put a hat on, Mike, they just get warmer.
No wonder we call you “Simpleton”.
Mike…”Any takers?”
I have noted from the replies received, prior to mine, that no one thus far has the theory to deal with the problem.
Gordon
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/?replytocom=264990#comment-264990
Mike Flynn
Here is the experiment you yourself can perform in your backyard.
It is a modification of Roy Spencer experiment here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
You use a similar cooler as he has done but in this case you will be heating the water to prove that IR from a cooler source can lead to higher temperatures.
You will have to do a series of experiments to verify the results.
You will have to use a very consistent heat source so that each test is run with the same amount of energy input.
What you would look for is similar to the warmth Dr No felt when a cloud went over him while stargazing. But rather than a subjective experience you will get data from actual thermometers and you will prove that IR from a cooler source can lead to a higher reading on a thermometer.
The bulk of the testing would be to get two tests at the same air temperature just one a clear cloudless night (less DWIR in this case) vs a cloudy night. The cloud will be cooler than your heated water.
What you are observing is that under conditions of the same air temperature (to remove any thermal effects from the air around your water tub) the change in DWIR from the cloud will lead to a warmer reading of your thermometer. It will clearly and easily demonstrate that IR from a cooler body can lead to a warmer temperature of a heated object (in this case a tub of water).
Since you requested a test please take the time to perform it, you should be able to achieve results after a couple weeks of testing and then report back your results.
Norman,
I asked –
“Just come up with an experiment which shows that shows that an hotter object can have its temperature raised by absorbing photons from a colder object.”
Of course you can’t! In typical foolish Warmist fashion, you expect me to waste my time doing something which is completely pointless.
Maybe you could try reading what I wrote. Any fool, except maybe a foolish Warmist, realises you can heat water. You can’t heat it with the radiation from a colder body. If your link states this can be done, it is wrong.
If you can’t be bothered coming up with anything better than referring me to a pointless link, then I can’t be bothered reading it.
You can’t even find a disprovable GHE hypothesis, let alone an experimental procedure which would enable the hypothesis to be shown to be false, if such was the case.
It’s part of the scientific method, practiced by real scientists, but usually avoided like the plague by foolish Warmists. Do you think you might find such a hypothesis, and the associated reproducible experiment, in one of those physics texts which you frequently accuse people of refusing to read?
If you can’t, it’s obvious that reading them, looking for a GHE hypothesis would be a waste of time. You might be seen as just another foolish Warmist, purposely trying to bend others to your foolish will, for no useful purpose.
Cheers.
Let me make it even simpler.
Put a glass of water outside on a cold clear night and measure its temperature.
Do the same when the sky becomes overcast.
The temperature will rise.
We are made mostly of water, the same happened to me the other night as I explained.
Yet the clouds were cooler than me!
You have your experiment.
You can repeat it if you wish.
The results are unambiguous.
What more do you need?
Dr No,
Maybe a foolish Warmist “experiment”, but not enough for any rational person.
You seem to have omitted any record of temperatures – ground, water, air etc.
Reflection from the underside of clouds is around 90% or more, depending on wavelength. IR is included. Maybe you were unaware of this. What were ground temperatures in the area? What height were the clouds? Total energy reflection index? Composition – water or ice? Temperature? All these things need to be taken into account, for even rough calculations to be made.
As I pointed out previously, John Tyndall addressed this phenomenon at length (with proper experimental records), and a Scientific American issue of 1869 covers results from other experimenters as well. You’re a bit slow. Still no GHE.
No colder bodies raising the temperature of hotter ones. Maybe you have discovered something totally new, but just saying something is “warmer” is meaningless.
You ask what more I “need”. I “need” nothing, and nothing is what you have so generously supplied. Maybe you could supply something of use in future. Judging by past performance, it seems unlikely. I live in hope.
Cheers.
“Reflection from the underside of clouds is around 90% or more, depending on wavelength. IR is included.”
Interesting. It seems as if you are referring to the albedo of clouds. They do reflect about 90% of short wave. I don’t think the same applies to IR.
Mike Flynn
That is why you do not understand the GHE. The Earth’s surface is not just a static warmer surface than the atmosphere above. It is a surface that is heated by solar flux.
In order to set up an experiment to demonstrate the GHE you must have a heated object. You need an object that has a continuous input of energy. I know the day/night cycle totally confuses you and you are unable to wrap your head around the concept but despite night/day the Earth’s surface, as a whole, is constantly receiving input energy. You can’t compute averages and there value to science and you do not understand that even at night, half the Earth’s surface is still receiving energy input.
Your understanding will never be complete until you realize we are all talking about a heated surface. One that is receiving energy.
If you want you can cycle the heater on and off for periods of time. The water will still get warmer on a cloudy night than a clear one.
When Norm gets befuddled, he just starts rambling.
g*e*r*a*n
And when you can’t understand simple English (maybe it is not your primary language) you throw out your standard comment which is pointless.
YOU: “When Norm gets befuddled, he just starts rambling.”
Does posting that comment make you feel intelligent? Smart?
Clever?
You can’t answer simple questions so you launch pointless comments that no one is interested in reading.
See?
Norman says, September 25, 2017 at 9:27 PM:
https://tinyurl.com/aymnmr2
Kristian
Whereas I like your humor, I had lots of hope that you were linking me to an actual physics textbook pointing out the flaws of my ideas. You have yet to prove your one-way flux with a valid scientific document. You have not done so to date and still I see nothing. The skeptics all make the claims but NOT ONE will provide support or evidence of their claims. The foundation of science rests upon supporting evidence.
FLIR testing proves you are wrong and do not know what you are talking about but you have an arrogant personality that cannot be wrong and so you will persist with your opinions long after I tire of posting to people who are unwilling and unable to support their claims.
Make up your physics all day Kristian. Instead of wasting your time here convincing people you are a genius, write a textbook on heat transfer and do something with your life.
The Con-man is now in full meltdown. It’s fun to watch.
In fact, it’s hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Thanks for your series of posts, I had almost forgotten how really boring you are. It was a good reminder.
So boring, so vacuous, so devoid of even original posts. Same material you have posted for years.
At least you win the “most boring unoriginal human” award. Congratulations. You are horrible at science, worse at the branch of science known as physics and not to mention extremely bad at supporting your lame ideas. But at least you are very talented at being boring. Good job!
Yes, you provide the hilarious pseudoscience, and I provide the responsible debunking of such.
Kind of a reverse synergy, if you will.
g*e*r*a*n
At least you gave some effort not to be so boring.
Question for you, what debunking have you done? You give your unqualified opinion. So, who cares. What facts do you bring to the table. None so far. Will you ever.
I would be most amazed if you did! It would certainly not be so boring. Your opinions are very boring as you endlessly repeat them but do not support them.
Just one example, Con-man: “Heat content”.
I had to teach you what about heat content. You had no clue.
Someday I might go back and make a list of all of your pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n
You are not correct so still continue to be a very boring person.
YOU: “I had to teach you what about heat content. You had no clue.”
You are not exactly truthful. It is on the thread for the record.
You were wrong about heat content and still are. Your brain is unable to understand that when heat is added to an object, the heat content is a dependent amount. I wasted much time explaining it in detail but it flew over your head and you still do not understand it.
Waste of time with you. If I want to be bored I will read your posts otherwise you are a complete waste of time.
Con-man, there is a record of your incompetence.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-255255
g*e*r*a*n says, September 26, 2017 at 5:42 PM:
That’s Norman. He mostly doesn’t have a clue about anything. He hears about something he’s never heard of before, or at least doesn’t understand, then seeks out some textbook on the subject, skims through a few pages, finds some words and numbers that he likes, and then suddenly he’s an expert. Just VEEERY recently, he didn’t even understand what “heat” [Q] is in physics. He thought it was simply all the energy perceived to move in the same direction piled into one big heap. In his mind, the solar flux PLUS the atmospheric “back radiation” was the total INCOMING heat flux to the surface of the Earth. I told him how fundamentally wrong that is, but he wouldn’t have it. Then Tim Folkerts had to step in and tell him the same thing. He won’t listen to me, after all. I’m just the guy who “makes up his own physics”. This time around, he reluctantly conceded his mistake. But it didn’t take long. It hadn’t really sunk in. Because shortly thereafter he returned with the same confused idea in his head. For all I know, he might even still believe it to be true …
and so it goes….
OT: The Daily Mail has been censured for hyping the John Bates story and getting the details wrong.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4891046/IPSO-adjudication-upheld-against-MoS-climatesciencearticle.html
barry,
And still no GHE, is there?
Anyone who expects the whole truth on a regular basis from journalists probably has a pronounced bump of gullibility (according to the widely published and respected science of phrenology).
Cheers.
g*e*r*a*n wrote: “Once when I typed in snape”, auto – spell came up with “snake”. I didn’t notice, and the name seems to have stuck.”
Trying to blame auto – spell? Lame. The name is Snapelton. Why would you only type in the first five letters?
Sir Isaac,
You wrote –
Why would you only type in the first five letters?
Do you really care? Would you believe the answer?
Or are you posing another pointless and irrelevant foolish Warmist gotcha?
I would ask you why you choose to hide under the pseudonym Sir Isaac Snapelton, but the Mike Flynn playbook suggests that asking stupid or foolish Warmist gotchas is unlikely to advance the cause of science.
You obviously disagree. I understand why.
Cheers.
barry…”The Daily Mail has been censured for hyping the John Bates story and getting the details wrong”.
More alarmist bs.
Alarmists didn’t censure the Daily Mail.
BS is when you don’t think much about what you’re saying. Gordon.
Where can I find count of atlantic hurricane basin named storms per year?
Here’s a good start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Atlantic_hurricanes
You can get details by going to the wiki pages on each season/yr.
Well in such cases I simply write ‘count of atlantic hurricane basin named storms per year’ into Google’s search window.
First link presented:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
What will Mt. Aguno’s eruption do to ” the pause”? It looks like a cinder cone.
The dependence of air circulation on magnetic fields is visible.
https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/
Apart from some rather stoopid ‘uncontributions’ from this strange SkepticGoneDumb, the hint on Clausius seems to have generated a lot of interesting stuff.
Weiter so / Allez-y / Pretty good
Barry
Did Dr Bates make a complaint
No. So he must have been happy with the article
HC
He contradicted the article. Said there was “no thumb on the scale,” and “no tampering.”
Doesn’t matter who made the complaint. Errors of fact were found, including an incorrectly baselined graph – but not limited to that. Scientists pointed these things out at the time, but the UK media watchdog made their own determination that parts of the article were fact-free.
For those who did not manage to understand: I did NOT write the Clausius message with as intention to add some stuff to the GHE story.
For that job there are enough people running.
‘Commenter’s who stupidly pretend about me
‘He just laps up whatever his puppet-masters tell him.’
are imho exactly those who in fact give a perfect match to
His master’s voice / La voix de son maitre / Die Stimme seines Herren
*
My intention – and interest – solely was to debunk what some trolls repeatedly pretend concerning Clausius’ 2LoT work, e.g.
– that heat never moves from a colder to a warmer body;
– that radiation can’t take place from a colder to a warmer body.
Never and never did Clausius pretend such nonsense. To write he did is simply lying.
What he wrote – I repeat – is THIS AND NOTHING ELSE:
This principle on which the whole following development is based is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.
His statement above all was a principle he formulated, without having ever had the possibility to prove it.
Steps toward a formal proof of 2LoT have been undertaken by Boltzmann and Planck. But a definitive proof still doesn’t exist.
And to the unteachable trolls I repeat Clausius’ sentence concerning radiation:
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
No further comment is needed.
Exactly as we Skeptics have been pointing out for years. The GHE violates the 2LoT.
You are thick if that is your only response.
Dr No,
And why is that, precisely?
And why should anybody give a tinkers curse for your opinion?
You dont need to thank me. My pleasure.
Cheers.
Sorry Mr Flynn: Dr No is here really right.
Simply while commenter g*e*r*a*n always writes such things a la
The GHE violates the 2LoT
without ever giving any valuable reference sustaining what he pretends.
In comparison, I spent hours to collect valuable information concerning Clausius and the recurrent misinterpretations of his work (the one actually in question adds a little stone to the hill), with links pointing to all what I managed to obtain.
This is probably what Dr No means – in somewhat crude words, OK.
But… are you all the time so delicate and tender that it could ever disturb you? Hmmmmh.
Bindidon,
You make an assertion based on belief, it seems. As to your being sorry, feel free to take offence when I say I dont believe you.
I am unsure as to your final sentence. The meaning of Hmmmmh is unclear. I assume you are trying to be gratuitously offensive, but as I have said before, I generally decline to take offence. I have no reason to make an exception in your case.
Amongst my other attributes, I am definitely delicate and tender. It doesnt disturb me at all.
There is not even a disprovable GHE hypothesis, so your hours spent collecting information are worthless. Facts are facts. The laws of thermodynamics remain laws, unless and until someone shows by reproducible experiments that they are wrong.
Still no GHE. Maybe you could try Hmmmmging one into existence. Nothing else seems to have worked so far.
Cheers.
Bin boasts:
“In comparison, I spent hours to collect valuable information concerning Clausius and the recurrent misinterpretations of his work…”
Yes, and we Skeptics are most grateful for your effort.
g*e*r*a*n on September 26, 2017 at 3:59 AM
You are no ‘skeptic’, especially when written with a capital letter ahead.
You are simply a believer and follower of people who stay in more or less qualified contradiction to what think other people. Not less, not more.
The difference between me and you is that I try to provide comments containing references to work I think be correct.
*
Be, at least this time, a bit courageous! And bring some useful links to real science sustaining what you pretend.
Yes, and we Skeptics are most grateful for your effort.
As you yourself wrote a bit below: put up or shut up.
Just come up with some useful links to real science sustaining what you pretend…
But I know you won’t.
Bin, I don’t “pretend” anything, so I have no idea what straws you’re attempting to grasp.
g*e*r*a*n on September 26, 2017 at 8:46 AM
Bin, I dont pretend anything…
Of course you are:
Exactly as we Skeptics have been pointing out for years. The GHE violates the 2LoT.
Bring us science showing that bold typed sentence, g*e*r*a*n.
“it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”
ALWAYS!
g*e*r*a*n on September 26, 2017 at 12:44 PM
Sorry: while your copy & paste of what I wrote is correct, you miss the point.
The point is that many so called ‘skeptics’ deliberately pretend that radiation from cooler objects to warmer ones cannot occur because that would violate the 2LoT.
And that is plain wrong, g*e*r*a*n.
The fact that, in the sum (Clausius’ own words: the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange), the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one, is so evident that it is not worth a mention.
If body A radiates n times more heat than body B, body B will experience n – 1 times more heat radiated by A than it does itself emit.
Bin, you are getting confused.
Just use your own wording: “If body A radiates n times more heat than body B, body B will experience n 1 times more heat radiated by A than it does itself emit.”
Body A is the warmer, so it can heat body B. But, body B can not heat body A.
Does that help?
Bindidon says, September 26, 2017 at 1:39 PM:
Nothing radiates or emits “heat”, Bindion. “Heat” is the net (macroscopic, thermodynamic) movement of energy between two objects or regions at different temperatures. In such a situation, energy MACROSCOPICALLY transfers ONE way only, from hot to cold.
Kristian says: Heat is the net (macroscopic, thermodynamic) movement of energy between two objects or regions at different temperatures. In such a situation, energy MACROSCOPICALLY transfers ONE way only, from hot to cold.
Looks like a good description of heat transfer, not heat.
g*e*r*a*n on September 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM
Sorry, but I did not write that body B heats body A.
I’m not at all confused; you don’t read carefully enough.
Bin prefers confusion over clarity.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 26, 2017 at 9:13 PM:
It’s the description of HEAT [Q]. “Heat” is both the energy transferred as a result of a temperature difference/gradient, AND the thermal transfer process itself.
What is “heat” in you mind, Snape?
Kristian
This is how “Cool Science” describes heat:
“The Universe is made up of matter and energy. Matter is made up of atoms and molecules (groupings of atoms) and energy causes the atoms and molecules to always be in motion – either bumping into each other or vibrating back and forth. The motion of atoms and molecules creates a form of energy called heat or thermal energy which is present in all matter. Even in the coldest voids of space, matter still has a very small but still measurable amount of heat energy.”
They describe “heat transfer” much like you defined heat itself.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 27, 2017 at 10:06 AM:
Yes, that’s because “Cool Science” seems to be just as confused as our own Gordon Robertson on this subject:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
You should read some proper textbooks on thermodynamics rather than your “cool” source of choice to keep yourself updated, Snape.
I described HEAT. In thermodynamics, denoted by Q. Look it up.
Kristian
My bad. The quote I posted was from “cool cosmos”, not “cool science”
Cool cosmos is an educational site provided by CalTech and NASA
“Hyperphysics” is provided by Georgia State University
Looks like a disagreement over proper semantics
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/heat.html
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 27, 2017 at 12:33 PM:
It doesn’t matter if it’s “cool science”, “cool cosmos” or “cool new car”, Snape. They’re wrong. “Heat” [Q] isn’t something that’s contained WITHIN objects. That’s “internal energy” [U]. Everyone with only a tiny bit of physics background knows this. It’s Thermodynamics 101. “Heat” is energy in transit between two regions at different temps, by virtue simply of the temperature difference. Larger temperature difference, more heat.
Kristian
Cool cosmos is designed for kids, so I’m sure you’re right. To me, the definitions for heat and heat transfer look almost identical – probably why I was confused and took issue with your comment yesterday.
Stop your redundant teaching, Okulaer, it’s simply boring.
Bin prefers confusion over clarity.
Yeah, I’m sure knowledge about reality is wasted on you.
If you think an object radiates heat, then that is YOUR problem, not mine.
Clausius also stated:
“heat can never, through conduction or radiation, accumulate itself in the warmer body at the cost of the colder.”
And our resident Drone failed to take note of the last sentence of his quote:
“the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”
Of course the Automated Drone did not provide further comment, because he lacks scientific understanding.
Near the end of his paper, Clausius states:
“If for all such cases, however complicated the processes
may be, it is maintained that without some other permanent
change, which may be looked upon as a compensation, heat
can never pass from a colder to a hotter body, it would seem
that this principle ought not to* be treated as one altogether
self-evident, but rather as a newly-propounded fundamental
principle, on whose acceptance or non-acceptance the vaidity
of the proof depends.”
Now if the Drone could provide a worked out problem from a physics textbook, or from a published experiment which shows a cooler body, say for example, like the earth, transferring heat and raising the temperature of the warmer body (say like the sun) I might listen. The problem would have to indicate initial and final temperatures.
Otherwise it’s a lot of hot air.
Again as the overall oceanic temperatures fall so does the global temperature.
What controls oceanic temperatures the sun not CO2.
The global temperature trend is now down.G
What on Earth are you talking about? The last few days? Weeks? Months?
Here’s HadSST data since 2010.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2010
Poor old Salvatore reminds me of the gambler who bets his last few dollars on a long shot in the last race in order to get back some of his losses.
He has stated that he will admit defeat if the warming trend doesn’t disappear by the end of the year.
He has no choice but to cheer on his horse, even if it is coming last.
You simply don’t understand Salvatore, barry!
He probably means this:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170926/ilbprelf.jpg
Frenchies would say: ‘C’est clair comme de l’eau de roche!’
The problem with you and many others is you do not have the ability to see when a turn in a trend is happening or taking place.
months going back 3 or so.
The problem, Salvatore, is that your comments lack any specifics.
1. You don’t clarify if you’re talking about ocean heat content or sea surface temperatures.
Again as the overall oceanic temperatures fall so does the global temperature.
What controls oceanic temperatures the sun not CO2.
The sun mainly effects SSTs on short time frames of a few hours/days. It affects ocean heat content over longer periods. Months and years, if a change in solar intensity is sustained long enough.
2. You don’t specify which trend is supposedly changing. The most recent 3 year trend? Since 1998? Since 1880?
months going back 3 or so.
We can at least test SSTs. I’ll pick the time frame seeing as you have not. Let’s say since 2010.
http://tinyurl.com/y889jsqd
SSTs are currently higher than they were in 1998, and the last month (August) was an upwards swing.
So what on Earth are you talking about?
OHC data currently only goes up to the 3-month ending in June, so you’re not getting your information from that.
I ask again, what on Earth are you talking about? Which “allover oceanic temperature” data, whatever that means, are you referring to?
Ocean Heat Content to June this year.
http://tinyurl.com/kyuef5q
Barry I did not say June, I said now.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
Barry and guys six months from now let us see where the ocean temperatures stand for the globe.
I say they will be lower then they are today.
My theory low solar equates to lower overall sea surface temperature/higher albedo thus lower global temperatures.
With low solar activity, the temperature of the North Pacific will fall again in winter.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/onlinequery.cgi?station=OULU&startday=26&startmonth=08&startyear=2016&starttime=00%3A00&endday=26&endmonth=09&endyear=2017&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Salvatore
This comment’s permalink I just stored into my link directory with a hint on: ‘Salvatore 26.09.17 08:17 / check SST on 26.03.18’
I won’t forget.
Barry I did not say June, I said now.
SSTs swung up in August, and currently stand higher than they did in 1998. Only the 2016 el Nino SSTs were higher.
What data are you referring to?
Can’t be ocean heat content, because current data only goes up to June.
I think you have just written something while completely unaware of what the facts are. No data? No link?
Barry and guys six months from now let us see where the ocean temperatures stand for the globe.
No, you said “NOW.”
So what actual oceanic data is giving you these ideas about the last 3 months/now, Salvatore?
SSTs “now” are on the right in this line plot of HadSSTs since 2000.
http://tinyurl.com/y889jsqd
I don’t see any “turn” here. The last month (August) was an upswing to quite a high anomaly in the record.
What data are you referring to, Salvatore?
However, La Ninia begins to be visible.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/sstweek_c.gif
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
A test: \
Didn’t work, the paragraph character is eliminated anyway.
But at least we saw a backslash! Pretty good.
I have lots of fun when reading all these disputes about the ability ot unability of colder objects to send photons warming warmer objects even a bit more!
Lots of fun!
The only matter I can understand is that the atmosphere consists
– to 99.9 % of gases
— either scattering Sun’s SW immediately back to space, or
— being absolutely transparent to both Sun’s SW and Earth’s LW radiation (yes yes yes: O2 shows electronic absorp-tion of UV somewhere in the topmost layers of the stratosphere, forget it);
– to 0.1 % of gases absorbing Earth’s LW radiation.
Thus, since reemission of absorbed radiation is performed randomly in all directions, not all LW radiation emitted by Earth reaches outer space.
Wether or not this little amount of backradiation results in anything getting warmer below: about that I don’t care at all.
So what!
Mike Flynn came up wth a nice “put up or shut up” challenge to the cult of pseudoscience.
“Just come up with an experiment which shows that shows that an hotter object can have its temperature raised by absorbing photons from a colder object.”
All the responses perfectly matched the predictions from Mike Flynn’s playbook—deny, divert, confuse.
Mike has been shown plenty of these over the months. There’s no point continuing after umpteen attempts have been met with Mike’s vacuous rejections. He doesn’t even attempt a discussion, just repeats his mantras or doesn’t reply.
I tried a few threads ago. He couldn’t even remember what he’d said, and vigorously denied having said stuff until after I quoted and linked to his own posts. After he could deny no more, he diverted with talk of gotchas and warmists.
There’s just no point. The guy is confused.
barry, did you just manage all three (deny, divert, confuse) in only one comment?
I put them in italics so it would be clear.
barry…”Theres no point continuing after umpteen attempts have been met with Mikes vacuous rejections”.
You’ve got a nerve. When I pointed you to the IPCC admission that no warming had occurred over the 15 years from 1998 – 2012, calling it a warming hiatus, you completely obfuscated your reply, trying to divert the discussion to short term trends.
You were in utter denial of what I had pointed out to you. David Appell went so far as to call me a liar, even though I presented the link to the IPCC admission. Appell claims new studies have revealed warming where the IPCC claim none but thus far he has failed to link to them.
There are none so blind as they who will not see.
barry,
If you can quote my words exactly, I obviously wrote what I wrote. Should you paraphrase me, I might beg to differ with your interpretation.
Providing links is pointless. You might just as well copy and paste my words. How hard could it be?
Whether I am confused or not is irrelevant.
If you cant provide a testable GHE hypothesis, you have a big bag of nothing. Maybe the US Government is of the same view. Maybe you could send a few links to the US President? Or demand answers to some particularly silly gotchas?
Good luck. Let us know how you get on, if you choose.
Cheers.
Salvatore, these are the most recent SSTs, from 1990. HadSST data, to avoid the NOAA stuff skeptics hate.
http://tinyurl.com/y7qr6fuw
Most recent temps are higher than in 1998, and the last month was an upward swing.
Current ocean heat content data is only up to June.
So what “overall oceanic temperatures” are you looking at to claim some kind of change in trend is happening?
barry…”Salvatore, these are the most recent SSTs, from 1990. HadSST data, to avoid the NOAA stuff skeptics hate”.
NOAA…Had.crut….it’s a toss up which is most corrupt. We know about NOAA, here’s some dirt on Had.crut.
The record is kept by Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia. He’s the same Phil Jones caught in the Climategate emails threatening to block skeptical papers to IPCC reviews. In the emails, he boasted about using ‘Mike’s trick’ to hide declining temperatures.
He was asked for the Had.crut record by Steve McIntyre for independent verification. Jones hemmed and hawed about the record not belonging to him and that it was in a mess. Part of the record had been amended and the originals ‘lost’.
McIntyre applied through an FOI to the UK government to have the data released. The UK government was in the midst of an election call and did not process the FOI. Jones was seen in the Climategate emails urging his cronies not to cooperate with the FOI.
Let’s face it, the surface record is corrupt. NOAA has made a laughing stock of science by using a climate model to synthesize 75% of the global data which they slashed. They used less than 15% of the real data they had in hand to synthesize the rest of the slashed data.
How can you, with full knowledge of this chicanery, dare to quote the corrupt Had.crut record, never mind the NOAA record. Let’s not discuss NASA GISS who get fudged data from NOAA and fudge it even further.
Robertson on September 26, 2017 at 12:55 PM
NOAA has made a laughing stock of science by using a climate model to synthesize 75% of the global data which they slashed. They used less than 15% of the real data they had in hand to synthesize the rest of the slashed data.
Robertson, you are a liar and you know that.
Your have been shown months ago in earlier Spencer threads that you intentionally and repeatedly distort the truth.
You perfectly know since then that generating a time series out of even less stations than NOAA actually uses, shows much higher temperatures than NOAA presents. The same holds for GISS and Had.CRUT.
You are thoroughly unable to present any real data scientifically confirming what you pretend.
But you continue to post your lies. Your unfair behavior far below the belt is disgusting.
binny…”Your have been shown months ago in earlier Spencer threads that you intentionally and repeatedly distort the truth”.
Who was showing me…you???
Right from the NOAA site that is now hidden:
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
NOAA admits to slashing 75% of its stations and you are calling me a liar?
That’s why I call you an idiot. You have a fetish for authority figures and even when NOAA tells you themselves that they have cheated, you still believe the authority.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
The lie that you repeat again and again, Robertson, is that NOAA ‘slashed’ – as in deliberately culled – thousands of weather station data.
I have pointed out the truth dozens of times to you, citing the paper over and over that explains what happened.
You mysteriously disappear from the comment thread whenever I have done so, re-emerging to repeat the lie.
Lying liars lie.
barry,
Foolish Warmists cannot even produce a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis. You call this science?
Sad.
Cheers.
Your response here is in the category of “divert.”
barry,
You are correct.
I divert away from irrelevancies, and back to the fact that is not even a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis, let alone a GHE theory!
You can try to deny this if you wish. The best of luck to you. You will need it.
Cheers.
Denial and repeating mantras is about as intellectually moribund as it gets. Starker when chipping in to conversations on other topics.
You’re a broken record.
And your witless intrusion does not change the fact that Gordon Robertson is a serial liar.
barry,
I’m not sure if you think your opinion matters to me.
You may think as you wish.
There is still no testable GHE hypothesis. Ignoring that fact won’t make it any less relevant. I notice you call someone else a “serial liar”, but not myself.
What a surprise! Maybe you can’t refer to me as a liar, because there is no scientifically testable GHE hypothesis? Maybe I’m telling the truth?
Inconvenient and sad.
Cheers.
barry…”And your witless intrusion does not change the fact that Gordon Robertson is a serial liar”.
You’re only feeding my opinion that alarmists have serious problems sorting lies from fact.
You serially lie about NOAA “slashing” thousands of weather station data. They did no such thing.
Here, for the 20th time, is what happened.
You will, as usual, refuse to answer directly to this. you will disappear or deny, divert, confuse.
In the 1990s NOAA undertook to transcribe by hand millions of historical, hand-written records from weather stations around the world. This took many years. Meanwhile, NOAA continued to collect data from 1500 stations that sent the data electronically, in the format that permitted automatic updates.
When the large project finished, NOAA had added several thousand weather stations worth of data. These are stations that do not report to NOAA electronically, and not in the format that allows automation.
NOAA did not “slash”, as in deliberately cull – thousands of weather stations. They added that data in manually in the large project in the 90s.
When the project finished, data from 1500 weather stations continued with the automatic updates.
You have it completely the wrong way around. NOAA slashed no station, they added historical data that was not part of the automated stream.
Here’s the 1997 paper that describes what happened.
http://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
This has been explained to you more than a score of times.
You will not mention the facts here. You will blather while sticking your head in the sand.
And you will continue to lie about this.
I will continue to call you out. I can stand liars.
NOAA… Had.crut… its a toss up which is most corrupt
Whatever.
I am asking Salvatore to substantiate his claim on recent oceanic temperatures turning downwards. He has provided no source. I cannot find one that does.
UAH also has SSTs upswinging last month, so Salvatore is obviously not referring to the skeptics’ gold standard.
You have nothing of value to add here.
barry…”UAH also has SSTs upswinging last month, so Salvatore is obviously not referring to the skeptics gold standard”.
You man that ‘number’ applied to all oceans globally? Just like the number applied to all temperatures globally?
Has it occurred to you that Arctic warming of +5C, in spots, must be offset by nearly that amount of cooling in order for the global average to hover around a degree C or less? Applying an average to global warming or to the SST does not make a lot of sense to me.
You man that number applied to all oceans globally? Just like the number applied to all temperatures globally?
It’s what Salvatore means. Here’s his words:
Again as the overall oceanic temperatures fall so does the global temperature.
What controls oceanic temperatures the sun not CO2.
The global temperature trend is now down.
Bin and I are trying to figure out which data he is referring to. If you have nothing to add on that, why are you saying anything?
And if you think these metrics are nonsense, then you are criticising Salvatore, who initiated this discussion with the above quote.
But you won’t actually do that, because you have no intellectual integrity, just a tribalist mentality.
barry…”But you wont actually do that, because you have no intellectual integrity, just a tribalist mentality”.
Again…look in the mirror. You are the one butt-kissing to NOAA after they admitted slashing 75% of their surface stations and synthesizing the slashed data in a climate model using less than 25% of the stations data.
That’s blatant scientific misconduct, for which they are being investigated, but it’s fine with you as long as it supports your catastrophic pseudo-science.
Then there’s the IPCC. You support their findings for the most part but when they clearly admit global warming stopped for 15 years, between 1998 and 2012, you go into denial, grasping at the scientific misconduct of NOAA as proof there was no warming hiatus.
The fact you think it’s me who is the tribalist suggests strongly you are lost in your denial. There has never been significant warming from CO2 and global warming as we know it ended in 1998.
barry…”The global temperature trend is now down. Bin and I are trying to figure out which data he is referring to.”
It right there on the UAH graph on this blog. Global temps have been cooling since February 2016. Salvatore has made reference to that decline in other posts and I would presume he thinks you know that.
Coupled with the IPCC admission of a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, plus the continuance of the flat trend by UAH till 2015, the negative trend since the peak of the 2016 EN suggests we are headed for 20 years of a flat trend despite 3 major ENs over that range.
Nowhere in the time series since 1998 is catastrophic CO2 warming apparent. If you think so, show it to us. All we’ve seen is cycles of ENSO that ultimately average to a flat trend. If there had been significant CO2 warming it would have been apparent.
That’s all Salvatore is claiming. I cannot speak for his opinion on the SST but it makes eminent sense that a flat atmospheric trend would translate to at least a flat SST trend. Where alarmists are finding SST warming is the mystery when there has been no sign of global warming, other than the transient 2016 EN spike which has been declining steadily since Feb. 2016.
Hence my shot at NOAA who has manufactured a warming trend retroactively by manipulating the surface record and the SST record. Why you two support that chicanery and claim to be students of science is beyond me.
GR says:
“Global temps have been cooling since February 2016.”
It’s the natural cooling associated with the end of any El Nino and the occurrence (2016-2017) of a weak La Nina.
It’s just noise, aided by your cherry picking. Oceanic weather.
NOAA… Had.crut…its a toss up which is most corrupt
UAH SSTs have the same recent upturn as the other SST data sets.
Where is Salvatore getting his information that oceanic temps have turned down in the last few months?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
The most recent data shows overall ocean cooling especially in the tropics.
This turn has just came about(past few month) but I called for this way before it has happened.
What good is calling for something after it happens.
The most recent SST data from UAH shows the last two consecutive months have been upticks.
http://tinyurl.com/y85jwzef
No data set supports what you are saying. None.
barry…”The most recent SST data from UAH shows the last two consecutive months have been upticks.
http://tinyurl.com/y85jwzef”
All I see at your link is a notice to upgrade your account to allow 3rd party hosting.
Besides, I am not interested in your personal interpretation of UAH data. Can you not post a link to UAH SST data?
overall ocean cooling especially in the tropics
You finally found some ocean data with a downturn. The NINO3.4 region.
That is less than 8% of the global ocean. Global SSTs in all data sets show an upswing in the month of August.
You are wrong about “overall ocean cooling” in the last few months.
http://news.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-increased-solar-radiation-1110
Here they go changing the rules because they are desperate to keep their stupid theory going.
Another pillar of this theory not coming to be which was the amounts of out going radiation escaping to space would lessen.
Has not happened just like the other two pillars this theory was based on, which were a lower tropospheric hotspot and an increasingly more positive AO/NAO.
All the basic principles this theory is based on are all failing to materialize.
Now they are saying it is short wave radiation, sure next fallacy.
What happened to substantiating your claim that “oceanic temperatures” have turned down in the last 3 months?
You just wrote those words straight out of your imagination, didn’t you?
I just showed you
As recently as three months ago overall oceanic temperatures were +.385 c or so now they are around +.27c
Salvatore
0.27 C ???
Which temperatures do you mean here?
– he oceans’ surface temperatures
or
– the tropospheric temperatures measured by e.g. UAH 7 km above the oceans?
I ask you because 0.27 C is ‘come per caso’ the UAH global TLT average anomaly for July 2017 above the oceans…
The sea temperatures measured at the surface for Jan till Jul 2017 are
2017 | 1 | 0.31
2017 | 2 | 0.33
2017 | 3 | 0.36
2017 | 4 | 0.36
2017 | 5 | 0.33
2017 | 6 | 0.29
2017 | 7 | 0.32
The mean is 0.33 C.
That of UAH for the same period is 0.27 C.
What you ‘showed’ me has nothing to do with recent “oceanic temperatures.”
Nothing.
Now you’ve given a figure, but not what it represents. SSTs? Ocean heat content? Where did you get it from?
I want to see what you’re seeing, but you don’t want to show it for some reason.
I think you’re hunting down some values post-facto to try and substantiate the claim about recent oceanic temperatures that you invented.
One link will be sufficient – a link to “oceanic temperature” data, not an article about something else.
binny…”The sea temperatures measured at the surface for Jan till Jul 2017 are
2017 | 1 | 0.31
2017 | 2 | 0.33
2017 | 3 | 0.36
2017 | 4 | 0.36
2017 | 5 | 0.33
2017 | 6 | 0.29
2017 | 7 | 0.32″
Which part of the surface? North Pole, South Pole, Equator, Tropic of Cancer, etc., mid-ocean?
What’s the error margin/confidence level if those temperatures are synthesized in a climate model?
You’re missing the point, Robertson.
Salvatore made a claim that “oceanic temperatures” had turned down. I have asked him to point to the data he is referring to, and he refuses to give it. So Bin and I have been looking at various SST data sets to see what he’s talking about.
If you can help discover what Sal’s source is, great. If not, you have nothing of value to add to this particular discussion. Please don’t divert the conversation.
barry…”Youre missing the point, Robertson”.
That would be Mr. Robertson to the likes of you.
“If you can help discover what Sals source is, great. If not, you have nothing of value to add to this particular discussion”.
When I see two alarmist fools trying to obfuscate Salvatore’s argument, it is my concern and my business. Don’t you have some sheep to shear? Or do you prefer the gumboot technique.
GR:
“Whats the error margin/confidence level if those temperatures are synthesized in a climate model?”
?? What are you talking about??
“synthesized in a climate model” ??
You do understand that we are talking about observations here?
You must try to focus.
When I see two alarmist fools trying to obfuscate Salvatores argument, it is my concern and my business.
This is Salvatore’s ‘argument’ that I’ve been querying him on (to no avail), Robertson.
Again as the overall oceanic temperatures fall so does the global temperature.
What controls oceanic temperatures the sun not CO2.
The global temperature trend is now down.
Do you have anything to say about that quote?
dr no…”You do understand that we are talking about observations here?”
You really believe that, don’t you? Have you not clued into the chicanery of NOAA, who have 6000 surface stations available to them globally but insist on using less than 1500 in a climate model to synthesize the 75% they have slashed?
If NOAA admits freely to doing that to surface temps, the mind boggles to think what they have done to the SST.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
You’re eating too much vegemite, mate.
barry…”This is Salvatores argument that Ive been querying him on (to no avail), Robertson”.
And I queried you on the IPCC admission that the world average had not increased for 15 years, sending you the link, and you obfuscated that rather than admit it was true. Why should Salvatore play your games when you refuse to call a spade a spade?
Diversion. Stick to the point.
binny…” the tropospheric temperatures measured by e.g. UAH 7 km above the oceans?
I ask you because 0.27 C is come per caso the UAH global TLT average anomaly for July 2017 above the oceans”
Are you trying to suggest the UAH SST is no good because it’s measured from an altitude of 7 km? You don’t think oxygen microwave radiation can reach that high?
How about the bazillions of data points represented by O2 molecules and picked up on one stationary position of the scanner. No good for an average compared to a thermometer in a little house, 1200 miles from it’s neighbour????
Sats can scan the oceans, surface stations give poor coverage and need to be fudged.
“Are you trying to suggest the UAH SST is no good because its measured from an altitude of 7 km? You dont think oxygen microwave radiation can reach that high?”
Good grief. This is so bad it is ridiculous. Get yourself a good text book.
Preferably one titled “The Dummies Guide to Atmospheric Radiative Transfer”.
The UAH SST record opposes what Salvatore has claimed.
He says temps have begun to trend down in the last 3 months.
UAH SSTs have risen over the last 3 months.
Jun 0.21
Jul 0.29
Aug 0.41
http://tinyurl.com/jrx6wcn
Which data is he referring to?
Apologies – that was global temperature. here’s SSTs:
Jun 0.20
Jul 0.27
Aug 0.43
–barry says:
September 26, 2017 at 11:18 PM
Apologies that was global temperature. heres SSTs:
Jun 0.20
Jul 0.27
Aug 0.43
—
Very close to global temperature.
And I guess it should be, since it’s 70% of the planet.
gbaikie…”Very close to global temperature. And I guess it should be, since its 70% of the planet”.
Good point. I pointed out in a previous post that the global trend was flat between 1998 and 2012 and currently declining. It’s inconceivable that SSTs would be warming while atmospheric temps were not.
dr no…”Good grief. This is so bad it is ridiculous. Get yourself a good text book”.
Seriously, doc, you need to do something about your comprehension, it was the rocket scientists binny who suggested UAH sats from 7 kms up could not render an accurate measurement of surface temps.
When I see you offering science at a depth greater than a junior high schooler I may heed your advice. As the IPCC are fond of saying, it’s not likely.
I don’t need a text book on atomic physics, I have been applying the theory for decades in electronics. An understanding of heat is mandatory. At no time, in the decades I have been studying and applying atomic theory, did I ever confuse infrared energy with heat.
You see, I could tell the difference. When you touch a component heated by electrical current (conduction), which is a movement of electrons and charges through a conductor/device, it can burn your finger…sometimes to the point of a blister. I have never had such an experience with IR (radiation) from the same device although I do understand that high intensity EM from a radar sail can cause a human grievous harm.
If you need a few lessons on understanding electromagnetic energy, as opposed to heat, which is not EM, I’ll be glad to offer assistance.
Salvatore…”Here they go changing the rules because they are desperate to keep their stupid theory going”.
Salvatore…they are desperate since the SST is their last bastion. Don’t you know the heat is hiding in the oceans, as Trenberth claimed? He can’t find it in the atmosphere so he has thrown a bone to alarmists to prop them up.
When the alarmists were getting nowhere with global warming, since it wasn’t warming enough, they turned to climate change. No one knows what it means and there’s no way to argue against it. Now they cannot find the heat in the atmosphere due to CO2 so they have moved it to the oceans where no one can measure it.
NOAA is helping out by fudging the SST as well as the land temps. The IPCC announced no warming between 1998 – 2012, and NOAA agreed. Now they have changed their minds and they are fudging the SST using water intake ports on ships where the water is bound to be warmer.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Was that for Mike Flynn?
Circulation slowed, and Hurricane Lee goes back to the west.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl×pan=72hrs&anim=html5
Lee? That’s Maria you show, isn’t it?
http://www.eldoradocountyweather.com/satellite/ssec/watlantic-color-ir-sat.html
To nie byla odpowiedz na moje pytanie…
Bindidon,
What is your point?
Does your question advance anything?
I dont know about denying, but your comment is certainly diverting, as well as confusing.
My queries are rhetorical of course. No need to answer.
Still no GHE. Being cryptic in Polish does not help. There is no GHE there, either.
Cheers.
Tropical Storm MARIA.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters/15L/flash-vis-long.html
My summary all of the pillars AGW theory is based on have not happened and the ocean are cooling and so does the global temperatures.
Here is the global monthly SST map available at the Japanese Met Agency:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/ocean/sst-ano-global_tcc.html
Move back to May 2016 and forth again to Aug 2017.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
overall cooling everywhere
The most recent month looks warmer than the previous. This matches the other SST data sets.
I don’t see any downturn in trend. You’ve invented it.
Please link to data, Salvatore.
barry…”I dont see any downturn in trend. Youve invented it”.
Schwartz, the more you post the more myopic you become. No downturn in trend??? Have you looked at Feb 2016 compared to Feb 2017? Even if you are looking at a trend from 1979 – 2017, its positive slope has to have decreased due to the cooling between Feb 2016 and Feb 2017.
Slavatore specifically said it was in the last 3 months.
All the comments you’ve made about this have NOT been about the last 3 months. You’ve added nothing to the discussion (just regurgitated your pet interests).
binny…”Move back to May 2016 and forth again to Aug 2017″.
Why don’t you move back and forth from 1999 – 2017? You need to give the ENs in late 1998, 2010, and early 2012 time to settle. So pick month 1 across the board for 2001, 2015,and 2017.
My first observation is that no constant pink colours, suggesting minimal warming, are apparent across the years. Therefore it’s difficult to assess what one is seeing. The hot spots move around year to year.
Between month 1 of 2001 and 2015 there is barely a change. Naturally, there will be warming in May 2016 following a major EN. Between Feb 2016 and Feb 2017, there is a major cooling.
Bindidon wrote –
“Not all LW radiation emitted by Earth reaches outer space.”
The observation that the Earth has cooled since its creation (if, indeed the crust was once molten) shows you are wrong.
Fourier knew as much. So did Tyndall, so did Lord Kelvin . . .
Their calculations of the age of the Earth were based on the observed geothermal gradient, and the estimated rate of cooling both by observation and experiment. No heating due to energy being trapped, just cooling.
Maybe you could find some of this radiation which does not eventually leave the Earth to space. It would be scientific if you could specify the wavelength, and total energy retained within per annum. Where does it hide?
Maybe this is Trenberth’s missing heat? You are delusional if you still believe in caloric. Heat cannot be contained. Atoms “jiggle”, and emit light (or EMR if you prefer). Left to themselves, they will “jiggle” themselves all the way to absolute zero.
No magic, just physics.
No GHE, just physics.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn on September 26, 2017 at 4:39 PM
If the cooling had any influence compared with other factors, this would be visible through the radiation emitted by Earth’s kernel.
1. The average geothermal radiation flux is about 0.1 W/m2.
2. Earths internal heat radiated out at its surface by the kernel therefore represents no more than 0.03 % of the 240 W/m2 of solar flux reaching Earths surface and which must be radiated back to space in order to keep equilibrium.
3. At the end of the 1990s, Evans (Northwest Research Associates, Ontario, CA) and Puckrin (Defense R&D, Quebec, CA) measured (using two FTIR spectrometers with a resolution of 0.25 and 0.02 cm-1 respectively) among other constituents the following average DLWIR fluxes for CO2 (those for H2O are, depending on the season and on the geographic position, of course higher, as we know).
For the location Peterborough, Ontario, CA (44N-78W) their measurements give:
winter: 30 W/m2
summer: 10 W/m2
Even the DLWIR fluxes for CH4 and N2O for example are, with about 1.1 W/m2 each, ten times higher than Earths geothermal flux, which is at best comparable with the DLWIR of all the CFCs together.
*
What you think about all this, Mr Flynn, does not interest me at all.
Answer whatever you want or don’t. It doesn’t matter.
Bindidon,
The Earth managed to cool in spite of all your irrelevancies, did it not?.
You can’t actually identify the nature of this “missing heat” which is prevented from reaching outer space.
As you point out, the rate of the Earth’s cooling is quite small. Geophysicists calculate the rate at between one and three millionths of a Kelvin per annum, currently. The precise amount of radiogenic elements within the interior is unknown, of course.
As Fourier apparently said (you may provide an alternative translation, if you wish), at night the Earth loses all the heat it gained during the day, plus a portion of its own – as evidenced by the existence of the Earth’s geothermal gradient.
I know you don’t care what I think. Others are free to check what I have presented as fact, and make up their own minds.
Still no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Nothing.
Cheers.
And the top few meters of the Earth managed to warm (and cool again) repeatedly in the past million years in spite of all your irrelevancies.
Tim,
Complete nonsense. Even the most ardent foolish Warmist cannot show this supposition to be true.
Rather than arguing about predicting the past, maybe you could come up with something scientific – a testable GHE hypothesis, expressed in scientific terms?
Of course you can’t, possibly explaining your need to present unsubstantiated assertion (at least in the view of geophysicists) forward as fact.
As a matter of curiosity, what is your definition of the top few meters of the Earth? Would it include the top few meters of the oceans (about 70% of the Earths “surface” at present)? Or maybe the top few meters of the crust under the oceans.
Your statement is the usual vague foolish Warmist hand waving, unless you can actually usefully define what it is you are trying to say.
Still no GHE. Not even a testable hypothesis, unless you can miraculously produce one!
Cheers.
“Even the most ardent foolish Warmist cannot show this supposition to be true.”
Clearly you have never heard of “ice ages”. /sarc
Tim,
Yes I have.
What’s your point?
I wrote –
“As a matter of curiosity, what is your definition of the top few meters of the Earth? Would it include the top few meters of the oceans (about 70% of the Earths surface at present)? Or maybe the top few meters of the crust under the oceans.”
You decline to respond, as is your right.
As to your silly assertion that I have never heard of ice ages – you might have bothered to ask, but that might mean that you would have to abandon the usual foolish Warmist mantra of fact through assertion.
Still no testable GHE hypothesis, is there?
Just ridiculous foolish Warmist assertions that a big molten blob of rock (the Earth) 150,000,000 km from the Sun, spontaneously heats up and cools down for no particular reason.
Natural variation, possibly. That’s a good excuse – non-disprovable of course, but shoots your GHE down, I would assume. Not a lot of people around, a million years ago.
No GHE. No GHE hypothesis, no GHE theory, nothing. Inconvenient but true. Maybe a good dose of sarcasm might create a GHE, but I think not.
Cheers.
Bindidon
Also, I imagine the 0.03% is rather constant from decade to decade. If so, what little effect it has on Earth’s temperature, it probably has even less to do with any temperature CHANGE the earth might experience.
A small change in something that’s already very, very small? Not exactly a game changer.
Sir Isaac,
I know you can’t provide a testable GHE hypothesis, but trying to deny that the Earth has cooled (if that is what you are implying), is carrying denial a bit far. As I pointed out, it’s not cooling all that fast. Only a few thousand Kelvins drop over a few billion years, and of course the cooling curve is not linear, due to the varying half lives of the radioaoctice elements involved.
As to the Earth suddenly deciding to heat up, this seems to be as likely as the chance of any other molten ball of rock and iron about 150,000,000 kms from the Sun, spontaneously getting hotter.
It’s a matter of observation that a a red hot billet of iron (not even molten) exposed on the Earth’s surface, to the direct rays of the Sun, cools nicely, as expected. Surrounding it with 100% CO2 doesn’t help. As it does not raise the temperature of the larger object we call the Earth.
Maybe if you could use CO2 to raise the temperature of a thermometer by putting more CO2 between the Sun and the thermometer, the US Government, even the President himself, might be impressed. But you can’t, so all remains well.
Still no GHE. Sad.
Cheers.
Mike
Out of courtesy, I read the first sentence of your reply. And no, that is not what I implied.
Sir Isaac,
I can understand why you aren’t volunteering to say what you were trying to imply.
The usual cryptic foolish Warmist statement –
“A small change in something thats already very, very small? Not exactly a game changer.”
Appearing to sound sciency and profound, I suppose. Devoid of meaning, of course.
Best keep your real intent secret – others might discover it.
Cheers.
isaac…”Out of courtesy, I read the first sentence of your reply”.
If you insist on being courteous around here you’ll be an outlier. In the case of alarmists you’ll be a plain ‘lier’. That might make you an ‘inlier’ with the alarmists.
binny…”1. The average geothermal radiation flux is about 0.1 W/m2″.
How do they separate it from the surface flux due to solar warming? The alarmist claim is that ‘something’ is causing the CALCULATED value of surface radiation to be more than it should be given the amount of solar warming. Naturally, the presumption is that it MUST BE due to trace amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere. No proof offered, just consensus.
How much research has been put into studying heat transfer from core to surface? Naturally, if solar energy is warming a surface already warmed from internal sources the IR emitted from the surface would be higher.
Salvatore,
Here is the UAH version 6 global sea surface temperature time series from 1990:
http://tinyurl.com/y85jwzef
Where is this downturn in trend in ocean temps in the last 3 months?
The last value (August) is an upswing, same as the other SST data sets.
Where are you getting your information?
Barry
Salvatore looks at tropicaltidbits. I checked it out, and according to their source (CDAS), the current global SST anomaly is 0.261 C. This is considerably lower than it had been in early summer.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
More specifically:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Correction. SST’s had been higher throughout most of the summer, and the drop is really only in the past month.
Salvatore said there had been a downturn in global SSTs over the past 3 months.
According to that chart, they’ve remained fairly steady, hovering around 0.3C. There is no indication in a change of trend, as he puts it.
Salvatore wrote:
“As recently as three months ago overall oceanic temperatures were +.385 c or so now they are around +.27c ”
This looks about right according to his source.
Salvatore also wrote:
This turn has just came about(past few month)
The problem with you and many others is you do not have the ability to see when a turn in a trend is happening or taking place.
…months going back 3 or so.
And yet less than a month ago temps were also at about 0.38C.
Salvatore is always vague. So I asked him to be specific. The above is what he came up with. His general contention is still, unfortunately, vague.
Barry
The chart he looks at is a really small window…only about 4 months. I think the short term changes he sees get exaggerated in his mind, so that every few weeks he thinks a major new trend is starting.
I just thought I should show where he gets his numbers.
Yes, thanks for that. And yes, his claim is ridiculous on its face. As if one could pick a change in global climate trend from a few months data.
Bindidon,
From MIT –
“In computer modeling of Earths climate under elevating CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse gas effect does indeed lead to global warming. Yet something puzzling happens: While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise.”, and –
So there are two types of radiation important to climate, and one of them gets affected by CO2, but its the other one thats directly driving global warming thats the surprising thing, says Armour, who is a postdoc in MITs Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.”
So the radiation supposedly affected by CO2 has no effect, but the other one (sunlight) does.
Just change the goalposts, and keep pretending that there is global warming due to CO2, except that there isn’t, and don’t point out that “the other one” is just plain old sunlight. However, in typical foolish Warmist fashion, CO2 is now blamed for the Earth absorbing more sunlight – presumably during the day.
Unfortunately for that scenario, any fool except a foolish Warmist can see that during the night the heat of the day goes away, and the Earth cools more when it is further away from the Sun. That is generally referred to as Winter.
Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Just more and more layers of contrived explanations for inconvenient facts as they arise.
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
Mike
I’m shocked. That was a very interesting quote. If true, it would certainly throw a monkey wrench into the GHE theory. AGW would have a different explanation, wouldn’t it?
Sir Isaac,
There is no GHE theory anyway, but if there was, you’d be right.
As to AGW, maybe you could expand what you mean. Foolish Warmists often use such a term, but of course are unable to usefully define it.
I think people are supposed to believe that AGW is a result of the GHE.
If the GHE does not exist, then AGW needs a definition which doesn’t depend on the GHE.
Maybe you feel like having a stab at the definition – just saying it means Anthropogenic Global Warming is as useful as saying GHE means Green House Effect.
You might like to refer to my previous comments about the difference between Warmists, and foolish Warmists. Or you might not. The choice is yours, of course.
If you were perchance aiming for a “gotcha”, your aim was a bit off. If you weren’t, you have no doubt learnt something.
Cheers.
Mike
I read about some recent work from Kyle Armour, the researcher you quoted. Fascinating. I recommend it to everyone on this thread:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170417114830.htm
More from Mr. Armour. Just as interesting:
http://oceans.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/missing-peice-climate-puzzle
Thanks, Mike
Bindidon, Barry
I just read about a couple of studies from the person Mike quoted. Well worth reading. I posted the links upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/?replytocom=265282#comment-265282
Whoops, that was supposed to go to the bottom, not here!
The first one wasn’t that surprising. The fact of lagged sensitivity response is well-known. The oceans take longer to heat up than the atmosphere (regardless of cause). I prefer to use TCR (transient climate response) sensitivity, which is based on temp change at the time of doubling, with an annual 1% increase in CO2. ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) is the result of an immediate doubling of CO2 and the model running the influence over time. The bulk of the change occurs after 30-40 years, which is the estimated lag time of of oceanic response. The ultimate change has a long ‘tail’ of about a thousand years, which is the time it takes for oceanic turnover. The warming from 30-40 years to 1000 is fairly minimal in model runs.
These numbers are fairly similar for any cause of warming.
Sorry, Barry
I shouldn’t have presumed you and Bin were as uninformed as me. I’ve read a little bit about “lag time” WRT global warming, but mostly forgot all about the idea.
mike…”From MIT In computer modeling of Earths climate…”
I’m surprised they allow climate modelers into the hallowed halls of MIT, which is known as an engineering university. Climate modeling would fit better in the prissy, ivy league settings of Yale’s anthropology department.
Gordon Robertson
I have to take your message down here. It is all I needed to read.
YOU: “normanAll the textbooks make the claim that Heat is the NET flow of radiant energy of a surface being examined.
And they are all wrong. Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. He said nothing about IR.
You are seriously screwed up because you are using arguments based on textbooks with the wrong information. I hate to say this but engineering books tend to be the worst offenders. Engineers work in a macro world and they have arbitrarily defined heat to fit that macro world. Heat is a property of atoms, in the micro world.”
Okay now I see it is hopeless in trying to open you mind. Your made up belief system about physics is your religion. You have faith in it and you have your Prophet that gave you the one and only truth, Prophet Clausius divinely inspired to speak the one and only truth.
I suggested you were a religious preacher on another thread and now it is obvious. The heretics of modern science be damned, only you possess the secret and true knowledge.
You post here not because of interest to learn and grow, but to preach you ideas. That is why you don’t deviate regardless of criticism because you have the Faith, and the truth and feel most compelled to preach endlessly.
Now that I know it is your religion and you don’t believe textbooks (even though they are used in all industry and if the information was not correct you would have a lot of malfunctioning heat transfer devices).
You just make things up. I tell you why they are wrong and give you correct links. Nothing with you changes. Keep the Faith, it seems to give you meaning in life.
I will stick with the science.
Norman,
You wrote –
“I will stick with the science.” Excellent idea.
The first step with developing a GHE theory would be to propose a testable GHE hypothesis. Of course, you have to identify some reproducibly observable natural phenomena which cannot be explained using current scientific theories. That is part of the scientific method, I believe.
So the science to this point, in relation to a GHE hypothesis, seems to be zero.
Scientifically, the GHE is non-existent – a foolish Warmist fantasy.
You don’t have a testable GHE hypothesis, and neither does anyone else!
Inconvenient but true. Sad, as well.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You have a mental glitch that prevents reasonable thought process. You just repeat things without reading. I have given you a simple experiment to do based upon scientific understanding of heat transfer.
You ask for an experiment to prove GHE. I give you an experiment that will demonstrate the effect. Your response is that no one has a test for GHE.
What are you wanting? I have linked you to actual measured downwelling IR that would not exist without the GHE. Here I will do it again.
This is actual energy. I don’t know what you think it is. Gordon Robertson acknowledges it but thinks it can’t be absorbed.
It is actual evidence of GHE. Your claims are very lame and without merit.
Science states this energy will be absorbed and added to the total energy of the Earth’s surface (note I am not talking about the underlying molten Earth which only slightly affects the surface energy balance because of the excellent insulating properties of miles of rock).
Here again for you. Proof of GHE.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59cb83286a188.png
The graph is empirical proof of the GHE if you don’t like evidence than don’t ask for it.
Norman,
You do not even have a testable GHE hypothesis, let alone a GHE theory.
You seem to think that sunlight results in something amazing. Sunlight is wonderful stuff, no doubt. After four and a half billion years of sunlight, the Earth managed to cool. This may have escaped your notice, but the surface is generally not molten any more.
You have not presented a testable GHE hypothesis. Claiming that the presence of sunlight proves the existence of something non-existent might indicate to some that you are suffering from delusional psychosis, or similar.
I would certainly not ask for evidence to support something which you cannot even produce, but if you believe that I have, I am unlikely to convince you that you are delusional.
No GHE. You cant even say what it is supposed to be, even hypothetically!
Must be far too hard.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I am not sure I can even hope to translate the content of your post.
You are talking about sunlight and how wonderful it is. What does that have to do with my post?
I posted a link to downwelling IR. Energy moving from the atmosphere down to a detector pointed upward near the Earth’s surface.
This energy is what makes up the GHE. Remove it and the Earth is cooler. No duh. That is the proof you need, empirical scientific data. You can refuse to accept it, your choice, your claim that there is no evidence is a false one. I have provided you with all the evidence you need of a real and effective GHE.
Gordon, Norman
It is my understanding that all objects emit and receive energy. Energy received causes the molecules they are made of to move faster. This movement produces heat. The energy they emit causes their molecules to move slower, a cooling effect.
Comparing the energy shared between two objects, the one receiving the most energy will warm, the other will cool. You could then say heat is “transferred” from the object emitting the most energy to the other, but this is more a figurative term than literal. Heat is really an internal property of each object. Energy is what is transferred, more or less heat is the result.
The “motion of molecules” may not have been understood by early physicists. Perhaps the laws they described were based on careful observation and experiment, rather than an understanding of the invisible mechanisms involved.
Here is an experiment (from some folks at CalTech) that is meant to help people understand what heat is:
“To do this experiment you will need 2 clear bowls and food color. Fill one clear bowl with hot water and another with the same amount of cold water. When the water is still, put a drop of food color into the center of each bowl. As the water molecules bump into the food color molecules, the food color will move around. Since the hot water molecules are moving faster, they will bump into the food color harder and more frequently causing it to spread more quickly than the food color in the cold water.”
Sir Isaac,
All very interesting, but probably well known.
Most people are probably aware of the concept of heat, without having to be told.
What has any of this to do with the non-existence of a testable GHE hypothesis? Just as a matter of interest, molecules do not bump into each other. That is just a convenient fiction – something like the notion that electrons circle the nucleus of an atom.
By all means keep telling people convenient fictions if it makes you happy.
Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Still no GHR theory. Nothing at all, actually, apart from deluded foolish Warmists claiming that CO2 is evil.
Cheers.
Mike
You: “Most people are probably aware of the concept of heat, without having to be told.”
Everybody knows first hand what heat, or lack of heat feels like, so I wouldn’t call it a concept. What’s happening at a molecular level? Most people are clueless. My understanding is hardly any better.
Sir Isaac,
I made a typo. Enjoy.
Cheers.
Sir Isaac,
You’re correct. Most people are clueless, including all foolish Warmists. If you want to know what happens, you could search the web. There’s plenty of information available, much of it incorrect, unfortunately.
As you wouldn’t call heat a concept, I would not attempt to explain what happens at a molecular level. You have made up your mind, so go with that.
You claim to have hardly any better understanding than a clueless person, but you seem to be telling me I’m wrong. So be it. If you want to boast about your near cluelessness, I would be the last person to interfere.
Cheers.
isaac…”Comparing the energy shared between two objects, the one receiving the most energy will warm, the other will cool. You could then say heat is transferred from the object emitting the most energy to the other…”
That explanation belies basic atomic theory. You must specify what kind of energy is being transferred otherwise you’ll fall into a miasma of confusion.
Heat is thermal energy, a reference to the kinetic energy of atoms. The energy transferred via radiation is electromagnetic energy, which is not thermal energy.
How then can you talk about summing energies when you have two different types of energy with different parameters?
Besides, with heat transfer via radiation, thermal energy is not exchanged physically. Heat does not leave the warmer body, travel through space, and increase the heat in the cooler body. Heat is reduced in the warmer body and increased in the cooler body.
Seems puzzling but exactly the same process takes place when audio energy spoken by a person in a radio station is carried via EM to a distant receiver and is recreated in the receiving environment. Obviously the audio energy spoken at the transmitter is not the same audio energy emitted from speakers at the receiver.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat is thermal energy, a reference to the kinetic energy of atoms. The energy transferred via radiation is electromagnetic energy, which is not thermal energy.”
But they’re both energies, and energy can be transformed from one form to another.
GR wrote:
“Heat does not leave the warmer body, travel through space, and increase the heat in the cooler body. Heat is reduced in the warmer body and increased in the cooler body.”
It’s the same thing.
isaac…”The motion of molecules may not have been understood by early physicists”.
Better to use the word atoms rather than molecules, which are two or more atoms bonded together by electrons or charges. Heat is related to the electrons of atoms, not molecules per se. Electrons and the -ve charges related to electrons bond atoms into molecules.
Clausius had a clear understanding of atoms circa 1850. He talked about the vibration of atoms in solids and compared that motion to work (work = force x distance). Then he gave a clear analogy of the equivalence of heat and work.
Clausius stated clearly that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. He also postulated the internal energy of a mass due to atomic interactions. Clausius coined the symbol U for internal energy and coined the word entropy in relation to heat.
It chagrins me to see modernists stealing his concepts and applying meaning to them that makes no sense. Heat is obviously a phenomenon related to atoms and to have modernists claim it is nothing more than an obfuscation related to heat transfer is plain dumb.
It’s even worse when the arrogant attack Clausius based on abject ignorance of his work. No one criticizes Newton for Newton II, even though certain misguided people insist it has been supplanted by Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Einstein did not disqualify Newton II he merely enlarged it’s scope. NASA, and science in general, still use the basic principles of Newton. If I am trying to calculate my average speed over a distance I will use Newton rather than convoluted relativity equations.
Same with Clausius and heat.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Clausius stated clearly that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.”
Clausius stated that MECHANICAL heat is due to the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules.
“Heat is obviously a phenomenon related to atoms and to have modernists claim it is nothing more than an obfuscation related to heat transfer is plain dumb.”
No, it’s not “obvious” — in fact, it’s wrong. EM radiation carries energy, and can thus transfer heat. That’s how the Sun heats the Earth.
How can you possibly be opposed to that?
“If I am trying to calculate my average speed over a distance I will use Newton rather than convoluted relativity equations.”
Depends whether you are traveling at near the speed of light. There are aspects of the solar system that Newtonian physics can’t explain, such as the perihelion processions of Mercury, Venus and Earth.
Newtonian physics will get you to the moon. But if you apply it to a high energy circulating beam at CERN, you’ll get an explosion. If you apply it to GPS satellites, you get wrong results.
isaac…”It is my understanding that all objects emit and receive energy. Energy received causes the molecules they are made of to move faster”.
To be specific, all mass emits and absorbs electromagnetic energy, which is not heat. The criterion for aborbing/emitting is temperature difference, which is actually a difference in the kinetic energy of electrons surrounding an atomic nucleus and the surroundings of the atoms.
A molecule is a reference to two or more atoms bonded together. Therefore, you need to look at the atom since all the bonds represent shared electrons or charges between the atoms.
It is not the molecule vibrating per se, it’s the bond involving the electrons that vibrates. According to the Bohr model of the atom, electrons reside at quantum levels of energy (around the nucleus) between which they can rise or fall. When an electron falls to a lower energy state it emits a quanta of ‘electromagnetic’ energy which has been named a photon.
In other words, the electron converts the electrical energy it has to electromagnetic energy. Electric fields and magnetic fields go hand in hand. An electrical current running through a conductor generates a magnetic field perpendicular to it’s direction of motion. At the same time it produced an electric field. Same in space. When an electrical field is generated by the electrical charge on an electron, it automatically develops a magnetic field perpendicular to it’s direction of motion. It’s called an electromagnetic field.
Please note, none of this describes heat.
Heat is related to the change in electrical energy not to the emitted EM. If an electron absorbs a photon of the proper frequency and intensity it will jump to a higher energy level and the atom ‘warms’. I am disputing that EM generated by a cooler mass can affect an electron in a warmer mass. The 2nd law corroborates that.
In a mass, of atoms/molecules, it is the average increase in kinetic energy that is called heat. In a conductor, certain electrons are responsible for transferring electrical charge atom to atom. The same electrons are responsible for transferring heat atom to atom in a conductor.
GR wrote:
“I am disputing that EM generated by a cooler mass can affect an electron in a warmer mass.”
What property is carried by the EM wave that tells the absorbing body it is warmer than the emitting body?
For that matter, how does any electron or molecule know the temperature of the object it is part of?
PS: Bonds don’t vibrate — molecules do.
PPS: In GHGs, it is rotational and vibrational quantum states that absorb and emit IR photons, not electrons jumping between Bohr model atomic energy levels.
PPPS: Pauling didn’t “simplify” Schrodinger’s math, he applied Schrodinger’s equation to molecular pairs and other molecular configurations.
PPPPS: Really you must use the Dirac equation, because the Schrodinger equation doesn’t contain spin.
PPPPPS: The house Pauling was born in still stands in Portland, Oregon: https://goo.gl/maps/GfTzGjR2QF52
PPPPPPS: Davie has zero credibility.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “PPPPPPS: Davie has zero credibility.”
Wow, if he has no credibility even though he will link to supporting evidence, what does that lead to your credibility who will do nothing but bore people to death.
Logic:
If Davie has zero credibility (according to you)
And you have less than zero credibility when compared to him.
Then your statement about Davie is invalid and itself has no credibility.
Gordon
I don’t have the “energy” (ha..ha) to figure out what you’re talking about.
Here is something I read yesterday, a little easier to understand:
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/heat.html
DA…”Pauling didnt simplify Schrodingers math, he applied Schrodingers equation to molecular pairs and other molecular configurations”.
More on Pauling and Oregon.
https://paulingblog.wordpress.com/
The article I read on Pauling (which I’ll try to find for you), which was an extensive history of his life, claimed he could not make Schrodinger’s equation work for more complex atoms. It claims he used part of the equation and combined it with what he already knew about atomic structure from chemistry.
The point is, no one else was equipped to do what he did. Schrodinger, Bohr, and the rest were pure theoretical physicists and lacked Pauling’s insight into crystal structure.
The problem was in visualizing atomic shapes. For example, ammonia, NH3, has a 3D structure like a pyramid while water H20 has a linear bent angle shape. The more complex organic molecules could never have been found mathematically without a knowledge of what to expect when different atoms interacted to form the molecule.
Pauling was a genius in chemistry. I went to see him give a talk here in Vancouver, Canada and I was very impressed with him.
ps. I might add that molecular structures are derived from charges in atoms between the -ve charge on the electrons and the positive charge on the nucleus. The attraction and repulsion of the charges determine the shapes of the molecules.
Having worked in electronics for decades I find it all quite fascinating. Of course, it’s all based on models, like the Bohr model, and I’d love to see the reality. I am far from convinced that electrons are tiny particles orbiting a nucleus at different energy levels.
Gordon, you didn’t address this:
What property is carried by the EM wave that tells the absorbing body it is warmer than the emitting body?
Also, how does the sun heat the Earth, if not via EM waves?
Gordon Robertson says:
“The point is, no one else was equipped to do what he did. Schrodinger, Bohr, and the rest were pure theoretical physicists and lacked Paulings insight into crystal structure.”
There’s a saying among physicists about applications of fundamental laws to complex situations: “That’s just chemistry.”
Schrodinger, Bohr, etc worked on the fundamental physics of quantum systems. Beyond some relatively simple examples and applications — not much more complicated than the hydrogen atom — they left the details to other scientists, like chemists, to work out for complex systems. They were interested in the fundamentals.
That’s hardly to say Pauling didn’t do great work. He did. But it wasn’t because theoretical physicists couldn’t do it. They had their eyes on the next fundamental advances.
No, Schrodinger didn’t do crystallography. But Pauling didn’t discover the Schrodinger equation, either.
norman…”Prophet Clausius divinely inspired to speak the one and only truth”.
You are revealing your abject ignorance. Clausius was a highly revered scientist who had an uncanny ability to see what many other scientists missed. He corrected Carnot’s insistence that heat engines had no losses and his 2nd law and theory on entropy stand to this day.
I am surprised binny is not up on Clausius since binny seems to be German, as was Clausius.
Another such guru of mine is Linus Pauling. Back in the 1920’s era, quantum theory was in its infancy and Pauling was right on top of it. Brilliant scientists like Schrodinger had proposed mathematical models for simple atoms like hydrogen but could get no further. Enter Pauling, by then an expert on atomic structure based on in-depth studies of crystals using xray crystalography.
Pauling simplified Schrodinger’s math and applied his extensive understanding of crystal geometry to work out the basics of the covalent bond, which could be applied to all atoms. For his brilliant research he was awarded a Nobel.
There are idiots today who claim Pauling was a quack for going into his theories on vitamin C. Excuse me??? We have one of the foremost researcher of all time in chemistry claiming a chemical can be beneficial to the human body in megadoses and he is a quack???
Let’s see, I’ll take the word of some unknown researcher or some opinionated idiot over Pauling’s level of competence in chemistry.
Same with Clausius, those panning his theories on heat, like you, are raving idiots.
Gordon Robertson
Yes Clausius was a scientist. Someone who would use empirical evidence and try his best to find the underlying science to explain it.
He would easily understand the reason modern physics limited the definition of heat to just energy in transit between hot and cold object and internal energy as the kinetic energy of molecules in motion. Using heat for both is confusing and could make explaining items more difficult. It is highly unlikely Clausius would object to the modern definition of heat.
You are not a scientist or do you possess a scientific thought process. You do not seek evidence for you ideas. You are a religious mind and bring your faith to the table of ideas. You hope the conviction of your beliefs will convince others so you continue to post.
Micky,
barry,
Im not sure if you think your opinion matters to me.
I will be sure that it doesn’t when you cease replying to my posts.
barry,
I’m not sure what strange and bizarre application of foolish Warmist logic you used to arrive at your conclusion.
Suffice it to say, your conclusion is wrong. As far as I am aware, you possess no greater ability to read minds than the average foolish Warmist – that is to say, none at all.
You fail again. Sad.
Cheers.
Gordon,
You serially lie about NOAA “slashing” thousands of weather station data. They did no such thing.
Here, for the 20th time, is what happened.
You will, as usual, refuse to answer directly to this. you will disappear or deny, divert, confuse.
In the 1990s NOAA undertook to transcribe by hand millions of historical, hand-written records from weather stations around the world. This took many years. Meanwhile, NOAA continued to collect data from 1500 stations that sent the data electronically, in the format that permitted automatic updates.
When the large project finished, NOAA had added several thousand weather stations worth of data. These are stations that do not report to NOAA electronically, and not in the format that allows automation.
NOAA did not “slash” – as in deliberately cull thousands of weather stations. They added that data in manually in the large project in the 90s.
When the project finished, data from 1500 weather stations continued with the automatic updates.
You have it completely the wrong way around. NOAA slashed no station, they added historical data that was not part of the automated stream.
Heres the 1997 paper that describes what happened.
http://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
This has been explained to you more than a score of times. You have been supplied this paper at least a dozen times. Each time, you disappear from the conversation.
Should you finally reply to this, you will not discuss the point. You will blather about other stuff while sticking your head in the sand.
And you will continue to lie about this.
I will continue to call you out. I can’t stand liars.
barry,
Maybe you could ask NOAA for a copy of the testable GHE hypothesis?
It would obviously be a massive waste of public money if they were just making handwritten transcriptions of handwritten records, taking many years, for no good purpose.
What would be the point?
Job creation? Sheltered workshop activities for the slow of intellect?
Very strange.
Cheers.
What would be the point?
To increase global coverage of weather data, reducing uncertainty on global averages and trends.
Great reply, barry.
An important related question is how many stations are needed in order to get a global temperature average within the desired error margin. Stations cost money, and someone has to go read them every day, or note their recording, so there’s no reason to have many thousands if less will suffice. I saw in a tweet by Andrew Dessler several months ago that the number is about 100, but I don’t know where that paper or presentation is. I’ll keep looking for it.
BTW, I think BEST used data from about 35,000 stations. Is Gordon satisfied with that?
barry,
Copying data doesn’t seem to do much to increasing coverage. You might be able to point out what a “global average” is. If it is just an average of temperature records, it can be done by a twelve year old child – or a computer makes it even easier.
Trends are pointless. Ask any financial manager, economist, or casino patron.
What you say makes little sense. Did NOAA visit countries to “transcribe” these records, or ask the countries to send the original records to NOAA?
In any case, you may or may not be aware that the Australian BOM declared all temperature records for Australia and its territories (area about that of the contiguous US) unreliable prior to 1910. If NOAA transcribed these records, they definitely wasted time and effort.
Actually, I think you are fantasising. NOAA don’t appear to have done what you describe. I might be wrong, but I think not.
If you believe I am mistaken, maybe you can produce some evidence to back up your claim that – “In the 1990s NOAA undertook to transcribe by hand millions of historical, hand-written records from weather stations around the world. This took many years. ”
In any case, the process, limited though it was, included –
“This required breaking considerable new ground: adjusting the data for inhomogeneities using an approach that did not rely on sparse station history information;”
Adjusting the data? Why am I not surprised?
More foolish Warmist wishful thinking.
No testable GHE hypothesis. Any amount of data is pointless without some use.
Cheers.
The answers to your questions are here.
http://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
This paper that explains the whys and hows of the data gathering project in the mi-90s. Written by one of the compilers.
barry,
If you bothered to read, you would have noticed I directly quoted from the paper. The paper doesn’t support your contention.
The paper is quite meaningless, The authors state they adjusted the data. In some cases, this involved creating (fabricating) data, and rejecting data which appeared to deviate from the results of models.
The paper merely points out the sparseness and inaccuracy of past temperature records. Worthless for any useful purpose. Not worth the effort to write a pointless paper.
Cheers.
I saw that you had quoted it. I cannot help you with your reading comprehension. Your questions are answered there, including why they undertook the project.
Regarding my ‘contention’, consider how weather records written down would be converted to machine-readable in the 1990s.
There are numerous interest groups today that scour old records of various type and manually input data that is not optically scannable even in the 2010s.
Thank you for at least looking at the paper. That’s more than the liar, Robertson has ever done, despite being shown it numerous times. And if you can read well enough, you’ll agree his claim that NOAA ‘slashed’ thousands of weather station data is not only wrong, but that the truth is completely opposite.
barry,
Your original statement was nonsense – maybe unintentional, maybe deliberate.
I’m not interested in considering any weasel words you use to avoid admitting you wrote a deceptive post.
I dont care about your calling someone a liar. That’s your affair. Maybe you could be accused of lying for posting a fabricated version of the truth.
Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Discussion of the merits of non-existent science is unproductive in my view, so I’ll keep pointing it out, just in case someone is tempted to believe you. Their choice, of course.
Cheers.
What was deceptive?
That millions of records were transcribed by hand?
That is completely factual. Even today old weather records that are in handwriting have to be keyed individually. Here are some numbers from a similar project carried out in the 2000s.
With the mass transition of weather observations to digital formats, repositories across the globe are left with aging paper and microfilmed records. Data rescue efforts aim to make more of this historical data readily available. In the U.S., a hugely successful digitization effort known as the Climate Database Modernization Program (CDMP) converted more than fifty million observational records to digital image formats such as PDF, TIFF and JPEG. The program also supported the keying of hundreds of millions of weather elements into digital datasets.
https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/rescue-archival-and-stewardship-of-weather-records-and-data-0
If you’re unfamiliar with the terminology, ‘digitising’ is the conversion of analog records to machine-readable format. ‘Keying’ is basically using a keyboard. Most font-types can be optically scanned and digitised, but a great number of records pre 1980s are hand-written. Here are some examples:
http://tinyurl.com/y7r63lc3
http://tinyurl.com/yck7ygsr
Records from around the world also had to be translated. These ‘data rescue’ projects are laborious in many ways.
By the end of the 1990s data recovery project there were 300 million individual datum, about 5 times as much as when they began.
More info:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/the-quest-to-scan-millions-of-weather-records/378962/
http://nespclimate.com.au/breathing-new-life-into-old-tide-records/
http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/1/10/TomRoss0709.pdf
From the last:
35 coop stations yet to be keyed. Total keying of 13.1 million daily observations (430,000 forms) should be completed by 2012
Keying = by hand.
barry,
“In the 1990s NOAA undertook to transcribe by hand millions of historical, hand-written records from weather stations around the world.”
From around the world? By NOAA?
“In the U.S., a hugely successful digitization effort known as the Climate Database Modernization Program (CDMP) converted more than fifty million observational records to digital image formats such as PDF, TIFF and JPEG. ”
More work creation? Create images from the records, so that you can waste time, instead of digitising the originals (which you must have in order to make them into images)?
Deceptive. I’ve written programs to convert data from one form to another – usually to enable input to another program which carries out calculations on the data. I have air idea of the terminology and the process.
NOAA wasted their time and money if they did as you say. Old data is historical curiosity. Recording of such might best be left to people with experience in the subject. Government archivists might be appropriate. Maybe the US Government doesn’t have any? I don’t know.
Still no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Trying to predict the future by digitising old weather records is a pointless waste of effort, suitable for foolish Warmists. At least it keeps them out of the way of real scientists.
Cheers.
The answers are in the original link. How they got the data. Why they got it. Etc.
Glad you’ve read the paper. I won’t count on you to correct Robertson when he lies again, but I’ll know you know that he is.
It also explains why Robertson is wrong.
barry, you may enjoy this:
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/nick-stokes-busted/
Heller’s stuff is usually turgid and this looks to be no exception. If you can find a link to Nick’s original criticism that Heller’s talking about, I might check out the kerfuffle.
See, I thought you would enjoy it.
Mike Flynn on September 26, 2017 at 7:58 PM
Bindidon,
‘So there are two types of radiation important to climate, and one of them gets affected by CO2, but its the other one thats directly driving global warming thats the surprising thing, says Armour, who is a postdoc in MITs Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.’
This is typical of your way of arguing: picking up one voice in the desert.
If the ocean brings you just one little bottle containing a message fitting to your narrative, we all can be sure you’ll bring it on the table.
You behave here perfectly similar to Salvatore del Prete who all the time looks for little swings in ocean temperature fitting to his cooling dream.
This paper does not interest me until it has been confirmed by at least ten others. Just like many papers containing fuzzy theories wrt warming via CO2’s influence do not interest me as well.
Bindidon,
If you don’t even have testable GHE hypothesis (and I don’t believe you have), then there is no argument. There is no GHE hypothesis, nor any GHE theory.
You may be interested in as many papers as you wish, of course. Of course, any paper claiming the existence of a GHE is rubbish, in a scientific sense, regardless of how many delusional pretend second rate self appointed climatologists participate.
As Einstein said – ‘No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Foolish Warmists don’t even have a testable GHE hypothesis. It’s impossible to disprove the existence of something which hasn’t even been stated in testable form!
Keep believing. The Warmist Church of Latter Day Scientism needs more acolytes. Science it isn’t.
Cheers.
Trying to see a turn coming before it comes is not an easy call.
The trend in global temperatures has turned. The question going forward is how much of a turn?
I am more confident that the down turn will last but not as confident as to what the ultimate decline in global temperatures might be although I think at least down to 30 year means by next summer.
For my thinking it is the sun and how it behaves and just how strong are the associated secondary effects due to very quiet solar conditions.
My whole basis for the call of a down turn in global temperatures is quiet sun equates to lower overall sea surface temperatures /higher albedo.
Salvatore
“As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth’s climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, “..during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Salvatore, another counter argument:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-sun-is-not-responsible-for-recent-climate-change/amp
Here is a recent quote from Kyle Armour (the researcher Mike Flynn so kindly brought to my attention):
“Currently we don’t have any evidence that the models are too sensitive compared to the observations,” Armour said. “The models appear to be in line with the observed range of warming.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170417114830.htm
Sir Isaac,
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
Not having evidence that the non-existent GHE doesn’t exist is meaningless.
You have linked to pointless rubbish, based on a premise that the GHE exists. And of course, not even a testable GHE hypothesis exists.
The models referred to are both pointless and useless. Amateurish hodge-podges, based on non-existent science.
You might be able to make a start by proposing a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis. It seems to have eluded the best and brightest of the self appointed climatologists. Maybe they are not terribly bright?
Cheers.
There are two schools of thought those who say sun no effect, all AGW.
Those who say it is the sun, no AGW effect.
Some half/half.
I believe it is all due to the sun.
–Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 27, 2017 at 5:39 AM
There are two schools of thought those who say sun no effect, all AGW.
Those who say it is the sun, no AGW effect.
Some half/half.
I believe it is all due to the sun.–
Well, there is geothermal heat.
I would say geothermal heat has been and will have more effect than CO2.
Then got impactors, impactors related to releasing geothermal heat. The scale of this could boil Earth’s ocean- something the sun can’t do [at Earth distance].
And in terms of retaining heat- our ocean is biggest player and atmosphere is mostly about transferring the retained heat of the ocean, to outside of the ocean area.
In terms insulative effect water droplets and ice particles of clouds are quite signicant.
And then next in importance one the greenhouse gases with water vapor being the most important.
Solar warming causes stratospheric warming.
Where is it?
Dear DA,
The sun is the ONLY energy source that heats the earth/atmosphere.
No, the atmosphere is not some magic heater.
That is completely false, and according to all of my studies the sun should have ad a warming effect upon the climate until year 2005.
Which it did.
Post 2005 the sun has had a cooling effect upon the climate but lag times have to be considered. At least 10+ years of sub solar activity in general. In addition certain low average value solar parameters have to be met.
Year 2017 is the first year this seems to be finally happening although not all the low average value solar parameters have been met but it is close and the trend is in that direction.
Going forward the sun is going to continue to have a cooling effect upon the climate although up to 2005 the sun had a warming effect upon the climate.
The delay may be due to the fact that during low solar activity a strong La Ninia can not form. This is because the jet stream is meridian.
The explosion stratovolcano can completely change the trend (significant increase in albedo).
Any geomagnetic storm may cause an explosion.
Mount Agung, Bali, Indonesia (Philippa)
Agung volcano has not (yet) erupted. However, there was a slight increase in the number of Long Period (LP) earthquakes detected yesterday (579 compared to 547 the day before), which is indicative of volcanic gases resonating in cracks at depths of less than 1 km below the surface, and as Armand reported yesterday, one of the local tectonic earthquakes, which occur as a result of changes in stresses in the bedrock over a larger area, was felt across the whole of the island of Bali.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00935/b27yaqjlpfid.png
https://earthquake-report.com/2015/04/02/volcano-news-by-volcanologist-janine-krippner/
exactly Ren
A volcanic eruption would be a natural cooling, completely independent of anthropogenic warming.
Salvatore
According to all your studies? Have you been measuring solar activity? What instruments do you use?
I use these parameters which are available on various websites
Solar parameters needed for cooling following 10+ of sub solar activity in general
solar flux sub- 90 on avg attained
solar wind -sub 350km/sec on avg. not attained yet
cosmic ray counts -6500 units or more attained more or less
euv light- less then 100 units attained more or less
uv light- off over 6%
ap index 5 -or lower not attained
imf – 4.2nt not attained
solar irradiance – off .1% or more not attained
Salvatore
And you have records of these parameters going back 50 years or so – to see how they correlate to global temperature?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“That is completely false, and according to all of my studies the sun should have ad a warming effect upon the climate until year 2005.”
ahem….
“…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
Yes Sir Isaac!
Here is a comparison of the Sun Spot Number record and NOAA’s global sea surface anomalies from 1880 till 2017:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170927/6vnufrsr.jpg
The SNNs and the SST anomalies of course you can’t compare, as the former vary between 5 and 400 and the latter do between -0.6 and +0.6.
More interesting is to compare their running means over 10 years.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
This is how you evaluate given solar activity versus global temperatures.
It is the ocean cooling effect tied into solar activity which gives you a given global temperature. CO2 has nothing to do with it.
The GHG effect is a by product of the climate/environment.
We will know much more starting now and going forward but I am confident this correlation will hold up going forward.
Salvatore, before you integrate the Sun Spot Numbers because you detected (probably by accident) that it gives a good fit to other records, you first must explain
– what this SSN integral really means,
and
– why it makes sense to compare it to these other records.
Plenty of people try to explain lots of things with a derivate or an integral of some data, without explaining (sometimes even knowing) what either means.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“It is the ocean cooling effect tied into solar activity which gives you a given global temperature.”
But the ocean has been warming for decades, with no sign of stopping. The data:
http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr
binny…”Plenty of people try to explain lots of things with a derivate or an integral of some data, without explaining (sometimes even knowing) what either means”.
Like you??? When you ram a trend line through data via number crunching and infer it’s a sign of anthropogenic warming.
Like every comment of the Robertson troll: 0 % wisdom, 100% lie and stupidity.
Gordon Robertson says:
“binnyPlenty of people try to explain lots of things with a derivate….”
O.M.G.
And you say you’re an engineer?
And you can’t remember the name ‘derivative?’
OMG, you make some astoundingly stupid mistakes here.
Dear Sal,
Bindumdum is just a poser. No scientific education. Just cut and paste nonsense.
Bindidon says:
September 27, 2017 at 4:18 PM
Salvatore, before you integrate the Sun Spot Numbers because you detected (probably by accident) that it gives a good fit to other records, you first must explain
what this SSN integral really means,
and
why it makes sense to compare it to these other records.
“Analyzing the Sun and its affects on climate, however, is further complicated by the fact that the amount of radiation arriving from the Sun is not constant. It varies from the average value of the TSI1,368 W/m2on a daily basis.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php
Plus:
“Faculae, which appear as bright blotches on the surface of the Sun, put out more radiation than normal and increase the solar irradiance. They too are the result of magnetic storms, and their numbers increase and decrease in concert with sunspots. On the whole, the effects of the faculae tend to beat out those of the sunspots. So that, although solar energy reaching the Earth decreases when the portion of the Suns surface that faces the Earth happens to be rife with spots and faculae, the total energy averaged over a full 30-day solar rotation actually increases.”
So less black spots, less Faculae, and less solar energy output.
Also differences of wavelength could be related- it’s not just a matter of watts but the change of watts in different parts of spectrum.
And difference of solar max and min in terms amount GCR [galactic cosmic rays] which hit Earth [affecting cloud formation].
Bin
Where do you find all those cool graphs? Or are they “homemade” using a software tool?
Bindidon, that was meant as a compliment, but I see how it could be taken the wrong way:
I’m amazed how you find all those neat graphics and statistics. If you create some of them yourself?…. Even more amazed.
I’m a moron when it comes to computers.
Major Geological, tied to low solar activity.
Overall sea surface temperatures last check +.257c trending lower.
You mean “trending lower” over a short period that isn’t statistically significant or indicative of climate.
In other words, a fluctuation, just like all the many others before.
HadSST3 30-year trend = +0.14 C/decade.
Dave lives in the past and makes it a guide to the future.
Except the ocean is warming, not cooling:
http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr
Was warming David was warming, you live in the past.
DA,
The recent ocean warming is tiny in comparison:
http://tinyurl.com/y8g6lwgc
“We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 0.4C and 1.5 0.4C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65 warmer than in recent decades.”
Bummer.
Crickets from DA.
Salvatore, I’m quoting climatologically relevant trends.
You’re getting all excited about… noise in the signal. Nothing more.
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/913038231624716289/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=BigJoeBastardi&utm_content=913038231624716289
no linkage
What I’m seeing now is very similar to what I noticed this time last year:
– weak la nina conditions
– global surface and lower troposphere well
above average
– lots of heat moving into the atmosphere above the Arctic Ocean
If I were an AGW enthusiast I would be praying that it is CO2/GHG effect that determines oceanic temperatures.
I say however it is the sun.
If GW was due to the Sun, the stratosphere would be warming.
Instead it is cooling.
Explain.
That is not how it works David.
It is the relative temperature changes in the stratosphere which matter and when the sun is weak the mid latitudes will cool faster then the poles in the stratosphere giving rise to a more -AO/NAO.
In contrast to AGW theory which called for greater stratospheric cooling near the poles in relation to lower latitudes which was suppose to give rise to a more +AO/NAO .
Which is not happening.
The trend has been toward a greater negative AO/NAO the opposite of what AGW theory has predicted but that is the case with everything this theory has predicted.
Going forward the trend in the AO/NAO will suggest which theory is correct.
No, Salvatore, that *IS* how it works — the Sun would heat the stratosphere just as it would heat the troposphere.
So where is that warming?
PS: AGW predicts the stratosphere will cool. This is observed (and, yes, after factoring out ozone loss.) This is probably the major fingerprint of AGW that has appeared.
No David ,and the test will be on how the AO/NAO trend.
AGW called for an increasingly more positive AO/NAO which is not happening.
Low solar suggest the opposite
Also David different altitudes of the stratosphere react opposite to low solar activity.
I this not as simple as you try to make it.
The fingerprint of AGW is the more +AO/NAO which is not happening.G.
Salvatore: if the Sun heats the troposphere, it will as well heat the stratosphere, by exactly the same mechanism.
Why hasn’t that happened? No excuses….
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“No David ,and the test will be on how the AO/NAO trend.”
Where is the long-term trend due to solar activity, in the stratosphere? Where? Why would it have anything to do with the AO or NAO?
Why isn’t the stratospheric warming in the Southern Hemisphere?
“AGW called for an increasingly more positive AO/NAO which is not happening.”
Where is that written? Citation please.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Also David different altitudes of the stratosphere react opposite to low solar activity.”
Why?
David
This might be a huge oversimplification (not unusual for me), but if a house become warmer as a result of insulation, the attic, (if located above the insulation), would receive less heat and cool.
OTOH, if the house became warmer as a result of higher temperature outdoors, both the home and attic’s temperatures would increase at the same time.
So a cooling attic would be a fingerprint of warming due to insulation.
Do you think this idea is relevant to the cooling in the stratosphere?
Sir Isaac,
Or you could just turn the heater off, I suppose. Or wait for nightfall, or Winter, or something.
The attic would cool. Irrelevant analogies tend to be counter productive.
The is no GHE hypothesis or theory, so even suggesting that an observation supports the existence of something non-existent, is just silly.
Foolish Warmism, writ large.
Cheers.
Mike
A fingerprint for insulation, in my estimation is: house is warming while attic is cooling.
No insulation? BOTH will either warm, cool, or stay the same
Examples with no insulation between house and attic:
turn on heater – both get warmer
turn off heater – both get colder
Nightfall – both get colder
Warm, sunny day – both get warmer
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 27, 2017 at 9:33 PM:
The fingerprint of ENHANCED insulation (like an “enhanced GHE”), is that the “house” (troposphere) is seen warming over time WITHOUT a corresponding increase in the heat loss from the house (total all-sky OLR at the ToA). THAT is how you would positively see the insulation mechanism in effective operation.
Forget about the troposphere vs. stratosphere thing. Those two levels of atmosphere are thermally fundamentally different. The temperature distribution (and temperature state, response, evolution) of the former is governed by convection (“atmospheric circulation”), while the temperature of the latter is governed by radiation. If there is more CO2 (and less O3) in the atmosphere, the stratosphere would thus naturally be expected to cool. But you couldn’t likewise – following the same line of reasoning – expect the opposite to occur in the troposphere. Because the two regions could not be expected to respond similarly to a change in IR activity.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“This might be a huge oversimplification (not unusual for me), but if a house become warmer as a result of insulation, the attic, (if located above the insulation), would receive less heat and cool.”
Yes, that’s a reasonable analogy.
GHGs redirect some upwelling IR downward. So less goes upward. So the upper atmosphere cools.
David Appell says, September 28, 2017 at 3:17 PM:
No, that is NOT why the stratosphere is supposed to cool. It’s supposed to cool as the CO2 concentration rises … IN THE STRATOSPHERE. Because the OLR and the ASR at the ToA are both assumed to remain constant with the increase in CO2_atm.
You continue to show how you don’t really understand the “AGW hypothesis” and how an “enhanced GHE” is supposed to work, David.
I went to the comment archives of Dr. Spencers blog to calculate the probability of the comment stream descending into puerility immediately after David Appell joins in.
Surprise: that probability is 100%.
Sincerely,
Brent
☺
Well Mr Auvermann: I confess I’m not DA’s biggest fan.
But the degree of redundancy of your comment in my opinion is is very, very impressive.
And let me add: what about looking for other ‘commenter’s showing a pretty good level of puerility?
What about a complete scan of just this thread?
The scan-o-meer broke when it hit your comment, Bin.
In Bindumdum’s case the old adage is apt:
“a broken clock is right twice a day”
Bindidon says, September 27, 2017 at 5:03 PM:
Funny how you immediately label any person you disagree with, Bindion, as “redundant” (and/or “boring”). Very open-minded, indeed.
Sorry. “Bindidon”.
Look at the arrogant – and yes: – redundant way you answer to people. Not only here.
Be courageous, Okulaer, and do a complete review of all your posts solely in Roy Spencer’s recent threads.
If you can#t manage to detect what ovwer the long time becomes boring: then all is well for you…
Blah-blah-blah. Sooo boring. Do you know what a mirror is, Bindidon?
OCEAN TID BITS WEB-SITE – this will tell us the story to what the oceans are doing as we move forward.
They were warming until about three months ago.
David calling for a trend change before it happens is what counts .
A quarterly drop in OHC has happened many times before.
So what’s so special about this one?
What makes this one significant is it’s associated with the solar conditions that I have called for unlike the others.
Still will have to see how it unfolds.
The 2Q17 ocean cooling was actually quite small. In the last 12 months, the 0-2000 m region of the ocean has warmed by a huge 2.3 W/m2.
That’s the top half of the ocean.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Still will have to see how it unfolds.”
You’ve been saying this forever. And wrong the entire time.
How do you explain being so often wrong?
Your study, the CO2 man made global warming hoax, don’t mean anything because in the next few years we will know ,who is right and who is wrong.”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Kristian
If you are going to make claims about what I think on physics at least get it right.
You: “Thats Norman. He mostly doesnt have a clue about anything. He hears about something hes never heard of before, or at least doesnt understand, then seeks out some textbook on the subject, skims through a few pages, finds some words and numbers that he likes, and then suddenly hes an expert. Just VEEERY recently, he didnt even understand what heat [Q] is in physics. He thought it was simply all the energy perceived to move in the same direction piled into one big heap. In his mind, the solar flux PLUS the atmospheric back radiation was the total INCOMING heat flux to the surface of the Earth. I told him how fundamentally wrong that is, but he wouldnt have it. Then Tim Folkerts had to step in and tell him the same thing. He wont listen to me, after all. Im just the guy who makes up his own physics. This time around, he reluctantly conceded his mistake. But it didnt take long. It hadnt really sunk in. Because shortly thereafter he returned with the same confused idea in his head. For all I know, he might even still believe it to be true ”
Painful how wrong you are and you still won’t supply any support for you one way radiant energy flow hypothesis. You never support what you state.
So you make the false and incorrect claim that He thought it was simply all the energy perceived to move in the same direction piled into one big heap. When did I think this?
I have stated numerous times that Heat is the NET transfer of energy to a surface. How many times do I state it and then you claim I am saying something else?
HEAT is the (at least radiant heat flow) is the amount of energy a surface emits minus the energy it absorbs. Where do you get the ludicrous ideas you come up with and then claim that is what I believe. I know more physics than you and I do not need to make up what I do not know like you do.
Norm, the Con-man, is in extreme downfall.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
And your boring as ever. Different day, different thread, same post over an over.
Norman says, September 27, 2017 at 4:50 PM:
Exactly. And it’s NOT, Norman.
In your mind, then, what is the average heat input (GAIN) to the global surface of the Earth? And what is its average heat output (LOSS)?
“In [Norman’s] mind, the solar flux PLUS the atmospheric back radiation was the total INCOMING heat flux to the surface of the Earth.”
Are you telling me, Norman, that you haven’t quite recently thought this to be the case? Do you want me to provide the link?
Kristian
No I have already clarified this point many times. The two fluxes are not a total incoming heat flux. They make a total radiant energy flux. Because of different uses of the term heat I am careful how I use it.
The Net energy the surface receives is positive (combined energy of solar and DWIR) it is greater than the energy emitted by the surface. The surface would warm to a higher temperature if other mechanisms did not cool it. Primarily evaporation (large amount) and convection. These two take away the excess energy of the radiant heat and leave the surface at its current equilibrium temperature.
Norman says, September 28, 2017 at 5:00 AM:
Haha, you’re such a poser. This is exactly why you’re on my “do-try-your-utmost-to-ignore” list, Norman.
It seems I will have to quote you verbatim, then. Here you are, responding to David Appell on April 9th this year:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-243135
My reply:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-243140
Folkerts’ reply:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-243156
Kristian
I am happy to be on your list. You provide nothing but your opinions. Tim Folkerts offers valuable information. I read textbooks and learn the science. You have your arrogant opinions that you must force down people’s throats and throw a hissy fit when asked to support your opinions with valid science.
To date you have done nothing but self site to your own blog full of your opinions and very short on actual physics.
Your opinions are of no value. Link to some real science that supports your claims.
Norman says, September 28, 2017 at 8:36 PM:
A happy ignorant. How sweet.
Gordon,
Above I wrote, “This has been explained to you more than a score of times. You have been supplied this paper at least a dozen times. Each time, you disappear from the conversation.”
Seems you’ve done it again. But in case you missed it, check out my post to you. It’s the rebuttal to ‘slashing’ stations that you’ve never replied to after about 20 times of me posting it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265259
I’ve found the same thing with Gordon, many times.
It’s more clear than ever that there are odious trolls here who routinely and serially lie, aren’t interested in a scientific discussion in the least, ignore responses, and whose vapid replies consist of nothing but taunts and misdirection. There is no reply that will make a difference, because they aren’t interested in the science, only in insults. It’s a shame Roy has let his blog devolve into such a swamp, and it’s increasingly a waste of time to try and converse here. What a shame.
David Appell,
If you could inject some science into the discussion, it might help.
For a start, maybe providing a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis could be advantageous.
Endlessly arguing the future, neither provable or disprovable (it hasnt occured yet), might be mightily entertaining, but has no other apparent benefit.
You dont appear to be able to state a testable GHE hypothesis, let alone a theory, so you are left with Cargo Cult Scientism – which consists of fact determined by faith or consensus of opinion by self proclaimed foolish Warmist cult leaders.
Wheres this testable GHE hypothesis? In your febrile imagination?
It seems to be absent in reality, unless you can produce it. How hard can it be? Even the law of universal gravitation can be expressed in one sentence!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are one very very boring human. I think you have repeated yourself 12,000 times now. The race is on to see who the most boring poster on Roy’s blog will be. Mike Flynn or g*e*r*a*n. If you go back two years of posting and copy and paste their comments you would not know the difference.
Flynn it is good to be the master of something. Since you do not possess the rational, logical thought process to comprehend science at even elementary levels, it is good to be one of the most boring humans on the planet. Good job, I can read your posts next time I have insomnia.
Norman,
Thank you for your interest. I do not suffer from insomnia, so I feel sorry for you. I am glad that you are able to cure your condition by relying on something I produced.
Maybe your insomnia is due to lying awake at night wondering why there is no testable GHE hypothesis? Or possibly worrying about you have accurately counted the 12,000 comments you claim that I have repeated? Maybe you could post them, so others might check.
I agree it is good to be master of something, as I am obviously your master, not that I boast about it.
All joking aside, there is no GHE. Not a scientifically testable one, anyway. Just the strident handwaving claims of foolish Warmists – no science involved.
Have you tried not reading my posts? Do you feel you are subject to an irresistible compulsion? What is this mystical power I have over your thought processes?
Keep it up, Norman. Maybe trying the same action over and over will produce different results!
Cheers.
The only thing that keeps Norm awake is his pseudoscience.
The battle is on between the two on who can be the most boring. At this time it looks very even. I wouldn’t put money on anyone yet.
g*e*r*a*n made sure to win some points with his favorite term “pseudoscience”.
But Mike Flynn also made sure to include his pet phrase “foolish Warmists”.
One thing about the battle between the two most boring people alive, it is interesting and reduces the boredom factor of each.
I guess we will have to see which one of the two ends up more boring than the other.
That is one important thing the two of you should consider. One could be President of the US and the other Vice President. With all inflammatory emotion going around two super boring leaders might help mellow things out. Consider the offer. Be the most boring world leaders ever and generate a more peaceful society as all the previous angry mobs are too busy yawning to throw things at each other.
Norman,
All very interesting to you, I’m sure.
Could you provide a copy of a testable GHE hypothesis? Maybe you would sleep more easily.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Yawn. Thank you for your boring post, I will sleep well tonight.
Cheers!
Norman,
Before you go to sleep, do you think you might provide a testable GHE hypothesis?
Or are you asleep and dreaming that you have one?
Only you would know.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson
For you.
“Heat. Heat, like work, is a measure of the amount of energy transfered from one body to another because of the temperature difference between those bodies. Heat is not energy possessed by a body. We should not speak of the “heat in a body.” The energy a body possesses due to its temperature is a different thing, called internal thermal energy. The misuse of this word probably dates back to the 18th century when it was still thought that bodies undergoing thermal processes exchanged a substance, called caloric or phlogiston, a substance later called heat. We now know that heat is not a substance. Reference: Zemansky, Mark W. The Use and Misuse of the Word “Heat” in Physics Teaching” The Physics Teacher, 8, 6 (Sept 1970) p. 295-300. See: work.”
From this source:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm
Norman,
Might it be more useful to cut and paste a testable GHE hypothesis?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I already gave you test but you ignore it. Why do you ask?
I gave you empirical evidence of GHE. You do not accept it. Not sure what you are asking for since you have been provided tons of information and link offering you what you ask. You reject it all and keep asking. Why do you feel the need to do this?
Norman,
You seem to have comprehension difficulties, so I will repeat myself.
I wrote –
“Might it be more useful to cut and paste a testable GHE hypothesis?”
Deny, divert, and confuse all you wish, but hypothesis, there is none.
If you actually provided a testable GHE hypothesis, I would stop asking for it wouldn’t I?
The reason I keep asking is to point out to others, (who might believe that one exists), that there is no such thing. I’ll leave it to you to keep coming up with excuses as to why science is not necessary in relation to the effects of CO2.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
It has been done for you many times by many posters. You ask, you receive and you do not understand and keep posting your nonsense.
Here is a definition of a testable hypothesis.
“A testable hypothesis is a form of a hypothesis that can either be supported or else falsified from data or experience. It’s the type of hypothesis you want to state in order to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method.”
I gave you a test to perform to demonstrate the GHE. At night have a tub of heated water. Take nightly measurements and notice if cloudy night leads to a warmer temperature in your heated water bath.
The hypothesis to test is to see if the increased downwelling IR (you can get a heat gun to get a measurement of the IR coming from the cloud) will make your heated water bath warmer than on nights with less downwelling IR. If the increase in downwelling IR causes the heated water bath to reach a higher temperature than with less downwelling IR, it will prove the GHE. If the water does not get warmer it will falsify the GHE. This experiment makes the GHE a testable hypothesis. I have answered you question. Now will you quit asking?
Norman,
You haven’t mentioned the GHE, not have you proposed what natural phenomena it is supposed to explain.
Your nonsensical test of something you can’t define, demonstrates that more heat makes water hotter. I already knew that, and no doubt so do most people who are not brain dead.
Maybe you could provide a testable GHE hypothesis?
What is the GHE supposed to do, that cannot be satisfactorily explained with current scientifi theories?
From your post –
“Its the type of hypothesis you want to state in order to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method.
Maybe you don’t want to believe what you wrote. You haven’t stated your hypothesis, but I don’t blame you. Trying to state a testable hypothesis for something that doesn’t exist is not easy.
If you put your water in the Sun, it will get even hotter – more IR! Nothing to do with your invisible GHE.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I guess that is the issue. You don’t know how to read and you do not seem to be able to think at all.
YOU: “Your nonsensical test of something you cant define, demonstrates that more heat makes water hotter. I already knew that, and no doubt so do most people who are not brain dead.”
The test is comparing two states. One with greater downwelling IR than the other. It is not a matter that heat makes water hotter, the big issue, which you can’t process or understand, it is a matter that greater downwelling IR will make the heated water hotter than less downwelling IR. That is the GHE.
An atmosphere with downwelling IR will result in a heated surface reaching a higher equilibrium temperature. The experiment will clearly demonstrate this to you if you do it.
Con-man, your proposed “experiment” leaves so many sources of error, you could get almost any result you wanted.
g*e*r*a*n
Then be constructive and state what errors you are thinking the test will have and then each can be controlled and corrected for.
I highly doubt you have the intellect to understand the concept of the test or what it is attempting to demonstrate so you throw out such a general statement to cover your lack of intelligence (I think you are appealing to some invisible posters that might think you have this high level of thought process, most here do not think that is the case, they consider you an annoying troll that makes annoying statements in attempt to get a reaction).
So what are the sources of error? Please be specific and detailed.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “How do they separate it from the surface flux due to solar warming? The alarmist claim is that something is causing the CALCULATED value of surface radiation to be more than it should be given the amount of solar warming. Naturally, the presumption is that it MUST BE due to trace amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere. No proof offered, just consensus.”
Here is the proof and it is not consensus. It is measured reality. Science at its finest. Empirical data that can be replicated by anyone at anytime.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59cc579835250.png
This one shows most the significant radiant energy of the Earth’s surface. You can see the GHG’s are producing a significant IR Downwelling IR of around 280 (or so) W/m^2 even at night. The solar input exceeds the GHG emission for 8 or 9 hours out of 24.
Here is one just of the trace amounts of GHG’s
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59cc58fc1f159.png
Of course since you are not a scientist but a religious preacher, if this information goes outside your faith you will have no other choice than to ignore it and go about your preaching as if nothing was ever said against it.
I think you should give up Climate Science and go to a Seminary and become a Pastor of your local community. I think you would serve a more valuable purpose as a preacher rather than posting your religion on science blogs.
Norman,
Measurements of temperature though the proxy of radiated EMR, or measurements of atmospheric composition are meaningless without context.
In fact your first link shows nothing more or less than the fact that the surface heats up during the day, and cools at night.
Your second link is completely pointless. As an indication, ice can emit more than 300 W/m2. However, without specifying the emissivity of the total atmospheric column, and the density and temperature at every height, there is no way of establishing the surface temperature.
In deserts, surface temperatures can drop well below zero, so graphs showing radiation from the atmosphere without context are just stupid. People who provide links to them are just as stupid.
You might consider adopting the scientific method.
As a first step, you would need to propose a testable GHE hypothesis. How hard can it be?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Sorry you are so stupid. Not much I can do to help your condition.
You do not need to know the emissivity of the total atmospheric column, You have the amount of energy total that is coming from the atmosphere and reaching the Earth’s surface.
Yes ice can emit 300 W/m^2 if warm enough.
If you have a heated object in an ice cave that is emitting 300 W/m^2 toward your heated object, it will reach a higher equilibrium temperature than if the identical object is placed in a much colder cave. The energy of the ice will add to the the heated object making it warmer than if the ice was not present. It is basic and established physics, it is used extensively in heat transfer engineering. The science is well established. It does not fail when used. Why you are so stupid that you cannot comprehend this is up to you to figure out. Did you have a bad accident and hit your head? Or maybe too many drugs in your youth?
The link has all the context and more but you do not have the mental capacity to figure it out. Sorry I can’t help you there.
Norman
I’ve enjoyed pondering this general debate. The crux, in my opinion, is that skeptics have no clue WHY heat always moves from warm to cold. “It just does”, will be their general response.
Sir Isaac,
Your opinion is worthless, in my opinion.
As to skeptics, I must be one, because I doubt the opinion accepted by yourself –
Skeptic – a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.
I would be most interested in hearing from you, as you appear to claim you are a generally clueless and gullible person, your explanation of “WHY heat always moves from warm to cold.”
You might care to offer a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis, while you are in explanation mode.
Cheers.
Mike
Norman, Tim and others have explained the “why” many times.
isaac…”Norman, Tim and others have explained the why many times”.
They explained nothing, they regurgitated pseudo-science.
Sir Isaac,
No they haven’t. Maybe you could paste their explanations for all to see, and probably laugh (or groan) at.
Just like the testable GHE hypothesis, or Rumsfeld’s weapons of mass destruction, you can’t quite find the actual explanations, but you are sure that they are somewhere.
That is often a problem with a faith based belief system.
You obviously have no clue yourself, otherwise you could have provided a cogent explanation. If you have no clue, how can you be so sure that “Norman, Tim and others . . .” have any more of a clue than you?
Possibly because they sound convincing, or possibly because you are gullible enough to believe anything uttered by a member of the faith superior to you.
I prefer facts to faith. You don’t seem to have many of the former, but a surfeit of the latter.
Maybe you could provide a testable GHE hypothesis, and set all the sceptics’ mind at rest for the moment?
Cheers.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 27, 2017 at 8:54 PM:
This is just silly. Why does water always flow from a high gravitational potential to a low one? Why does bulk air always flow (in the form of wind) from a high pressure to a low pressure? Why does an electric current always flow from a high voltage to a low voltage? Why does heat always flow from a high temperature to a low temperature?
Why does heat always flow from hot to cold via convection?
Why does heat always flow from hot to cold via conduction?
Why does heat always flow from hot to cold via radiation?
All of these questions can be answered MACROscopically (differences in potentials), and MICROscopically (statistical mechanics).
So, Snape, how is the direction of heat explained in the field of statistical mechanics? You’re obviously not a sceptic. Yoy’re a believer. So, according to your logic, you SHOULD know.
Kristian
Just to be clear, I was talking about the specific IR debate I’ve been seeing here for months/years. The people who don’t believe IR, emitted from a cooler body, can be absorbed and effect the temperature of a warmer body are what I meant by skeptics – their reasoning being it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The other side, myself included, don’t have any problem with that idea and think it makes perfect sense.
I want to make sure I’m not misrepresenting people’s opinions.
isaac…so isaac is snape…figured.
“Just to be clear, I was talking about the specific IR debate Ive been seeing here for months/years. The people who dont believe IR, emitted from a cooler body, can be absorbed and effect the temperature of a warmer body are what I meant by skeptics their reasoning being it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics”.
The problem is not the IR question it is the confusion between IR and heat. Forget about IR, which in radiative heat transfer is nothing more than a messenger.
Focus on heat transfer, which is governed by the 2nd law, as Kristian claimed for conduction, convection, and radiation. As Kristian also pointed out the direction of heat transfer has already been demonstrated in the macro world. The statistical world is no different, just a way of interpreting phenomena indirectly in the micro world.
If you are going to sum energies to get a net heat transfer then do it with heat, not IR. You cannot claim that the net IR flow represents net heat transfer. If they were the same the 2nd law would not apply.
You would also have perpetual motion if net IR transfer applied. The warmer body would warm the cooler body and it in turn would warm the warmer body. A warmer warm body would further heat the cooler body. The cycle would represent a positive feedback leading to perpetual motion.
Gordon
I need to get to sleep, but one quick comment.
You: “You would also have perpetual motion if net IR transfer applied.”
The warmer object would be on the losing end of the energy exchange and would cool. The cooler object would be on the winning end and warm. Eventually, they would both be the same temperature. Net energy transfer between the two would be zero.
Ok. Because you ARE misrepresenting mine. Just to be clear.
IR does NOT itself affect (that is, change) the internal energy [U] and thus the temperature [T] of an object. Because IR is just a bunch of photons. Only HEAT [Q] (and work [W]) can and will. Back to Thermodynamics 101. 1st Law.
Warmists absolutely do not get this simple point. And that is why they believe they can simply observe an increase in “atmospheric back radiation” and conclude that this increase MUST have led to a higher surface T.
See if you can figure out specifically why you can’t, Snape. I’ve explained it to you perhaps a dozen times in the past.
Kristian
If an object is receiving a constant supply of heat, it’s temperature will be determined by how fast that heat is leaving. So if the rate of leaving slows, the objects temperature can increase.
All sorts of things can change the rate of heat leaving. Put on earmuffs and the rate of heat leaving your ears will slow. The earmuffs don’t add any heat, but your ears will get warmer.
Therefore, the earmuffs DO increase the internal energy of your ears, even though they are NOT a heat source.
A cooler body (earmuffs) cause the warmer body (ears) to get warmer. This does not break any “laws”. The earmuffs are actually removing heat, not adding it.
Kristian
The way I have visualized it, photons from either object will be emitted and indiscriminately absorbed by molecules in the other body. This will increase the temperature of those molecules.
So each body will have billions of molecules getting hotter (by energy added) and billions getting colder (by energy being emitted). If the majority are getting warmer, the object is warming, and visa versa. Between two objects, the math dictates that the colder object would receive more photons than it would emit. So heat would naturally, unavoidably, always move from the warmer to the cooler object.
Early physicists would have had no way to know that photons from a colder body were warming molecules in a warmer hotter body. All they would have observed is the macro effect of these microscopic energy exchanges: heat always flows from warmer to colder.
A body, exposed to space, would have billions of molecules emitting energy, and comparatively few receiving energy. It’s temperature would plummet.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 28, 2017 at 7:59 AM:
Very good, Snape. This is exactly how the fundamentally thermodynamic phenomenon of “insulation” works.
But how exactly do your earmuffs reduce the rate of heat loss from your ears, Snape? By ADDING more energy to them? Or by making the escape of energy (that is, the bulk movement of energy away from them) harder? The first process is what is called HEATING in thermodynamics, while the second one is called … insulation.
snape…”If an object is receiving a constant supply of heat, its temperature will be determined by how fast that heat is leaving. So if the rate of leaving slows, the objects temperature can increase”.
You need to be more precise. Heat can be supplied to an iron bar by a flame that is hotter than the bar. The flame itself is a mass of gas particles in combustion and the heat is tranferred from the gas to the metal by conduction and convection. You would not expect the bar to heat significantly by just holding the flame close to it although it would warm somewhat by radiation.
To get the proper heating effect from an acetylene torch (or a propane torch), you need to hold the tip of the inner blue blame against the metal. That’s where the gas is hottest. You could never weld using the radiation from the flame.
You’re right. If you heat one end of the bar, IR will be emitted from the bar but unless you have the bar touching a heat sink, the IR won’t leave it fast enough to cool it significantly. The bar will continue to heat until it’s the same temp as the flame, at least, at one end.
How do you slow the rate of IR leaving a mass? There’s only one way as far as IR is concerned and that’s to raise the temperature of the air surrounding the bar. IR emission does not care about GHGs in the air, it’s rate of emission is a function of temperature difference and the temperature of the emitting body.
Roy has used the analogy of insulation in the walls of a home, however, that has nothing to do with radiation. The insulation interferes with CONDUCTION through the walls. If you want to stop radiation, you need to install a reflective barrier in the walls/ceilings.
It’s a fallacy that GHGs in the atmosphere slow down surface radiation. Physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, referred to that as a model which at best is a metaphor and at worst, plain silly. He also referred to the back-radiation between atmosphere and surface as a model.
There is no scientific proof that back-radiation warms the surface.
Gordon
You: ” The bar will continue to heat until its the same temp as the flame, at least, at one end.”
The bar will continue to heat until it’s shedding energy as fast as the flame is adding it, but the bar has a large surface area, and wouldn’t need to get nearly as hot as the flame to do this.
Gordon
You: “its rate of emission is a function of temperature difference and the temperature of the emitting body.”
This is of course true, and was described in detail by early physicists. BUT WHY? They didn’t know what was going on at the quantum level. All they could do was theorize and guess. Science has come a long way since then. Norman explains some of our better understanding, and people say, “what, the laws of thermodynamics don’t mention photons or backradiation, must be Pseudoscience!”
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 28, 2017 at 9:25 AM:
And I’ve never claimed it to break any “laws”, Snape. It’s not the physical phenomenon of insulation itself that breaks the Laws of Thermodynamics. That should go without saying. Insulation works.
It is purely the common “back radiation” EXPLANATION of how the atmosphere is supposed to warm the Earth’s surface that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. It is simply profoundly un-physical.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 28, 2017 at 12:49 PM:
No. Molecules have no temperature. Bulk matter has temperature. That’s ONE important distinction between the micro and macro realms. Quantum vs. thermo. Temperature is a MACROscopic quantity.
There will be absolutely NO temperature increase (no energy GAIN) in the warmer object resulting specifically from its exchange of energy with the cooler object. Because, on average, statistically, each molecule making up the warmer object would always EMIT more photons per unit time than it would ABSORB, while the opposite would always be true of the molecules making up the cooler object.
No. Statistical mechanics always regards averages. Statistical (probabilistic) averages. That’s part of the deal. Part of the trade-off, so to say. Each average molecule absorbs AND emits photons. There is no “some warming here” and “some cooling there” resulting in a “net result”.
Yes, photons (micro), not fluxes (macro). There’s only ONE separate macroscopic flux: The radiant HEAT. The radiant heat is simply the net (bulk) movement of photons through the thermal radiation field, the statistical average of ALL individual photon movements (paths and frequencies).
Kristian
You: “Because, on average, statistically, each molecule making up the warmer object would always EMIT more photons per unit time than it would ABSORB, while the opposite would always be true of the molecules making up the cooler object.”
This is exactly true……when comparing the exchange of energy between the warmer and cooler bodies! Ear muffs are always gaining energy from the person’s ears. The ears are always on the short end of the exchange….losing energy to the earmuffs.
This is your logic for saying the warmer object’s temperature can’t increase. The problem is, you’ve forgotten the input from the HEAT SOURCE! The ears actually DO get warmer, don’t they?
This is possible, because even though the ears are always losing heat to the earmuffs, this loss is slower than the energy gained from the person’s head (heat source for ears).
Kristian
So the earmuffs trap heat in tiny air pockets and fabric. This is warmer than the previous surroundings had been. A lesser heat difference, and the ears cool at a slower rate. BUT WHY?
The early physicists noticed this was always true, but they had no way to explain it.
There is an invisible, microscopic exchange of energy going on!! Energy from the air and fabric are being absorbed by the ear’s skin.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is no scientific proof that back-radiation warms the surface.”
Radiation carries energy.
Absorbed energy heats an object.
QED
“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
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 28, 2017 at 4:37 PM:
Yes, Snape. Why do you keep feeding me with my own words? As if I’ve never told you this exact thing, over and over. This is what I’ve been telling you all along. There’s a continuous microscopic energy exchange. Of course there is. But this MICROscopic energy EXCHANGE always averages out to one MACROscopic energy TRANSFER, one macroscopic flux (bulk movement) of energy, the HEAT, ultimately determined simply by temperature differences/gradients.
Kristian
” But this MICROscopic energy EXCHANGE always averages out to one MACROscopic energy TRANSFER, one macroscopic flux (bulk movement) of energy, the HEAT, ultimately determined simply by temperature differences/gradients.”
I 100% agree with this, Kristian! It became very clear when I visualized the 40 runners doing wind sprints, before continuing across the field. If you were watching them you would see a cloud of runners, running back and forth, bumping into each other.
Not so apparent, would be their “one-way macro flux” as you like to call it. Do you remember the scenario I described? This “flux of runners” would be travelling at a velocity of 2.5 yards/second, and at a rate of flow of 1 runner/second.
The “two way flux” described by Norman is contained WITHIN the one way, macro flux that you always mention.
Kristian,
If their were 1000 runners on the field, all doing windsprints before moving on, their macro movement might not be visible. But like I said, you could calculate it’s speed and rate of flow (input/output). Which, by the way, would still be 1 runner/second.
Kristian
I’m think the one way flux would be completely hidden. Just a stationary blur of runners.
The same thing happens in a dam. You would measure the rate of inflow and outflow at each end. Their would a be current (one way, macro flux) of water, but it wouldn’t be visible. If you look at dam’s lake, the water looks like it’s not moving.
Kristian
The “delay” I was always talking about? Simple. A portion of the sun’s energy runs into Earth and gets absorbed in the atmosphere. This energy will eventually reach the TOA and continue on it’s way through space, but it was definitely delayed a little.
The enhanced GHE? That equates to a further delay.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 29, 2017 at 2:10 PM:
That’s exactly what it is.* But HE doesn’t get that. He still doesn’t get the “contained WITHIN the one way, macro flux” part.
*In reality, there is of course no “two way flux“. The radiative FLUX is the NET movement of radiant energy (all photons). And so there can’t be TWO net movements inside ONE integrated photon cloud/radiation field. There can only be ONE. Which is something that quite frankly SHOULD go without saying.
What you CAN do – in your mind and out of mathematical convenience – is to conceptually divide the photon cloud/radiation field into two directional “hemispheres”, sort of split it down the middle by inserting an imaginary two-dimensional plane between the two thermally radiating objects or regions. Or you can imagine the plane to be coincident with either of the two real surfaces (if such exist) on opposite ends of the radiation field. This way, by greatly simplifying the process of energy exchange, geometrically limiting the possible directions in which individual packets of energy can travel through the field to two only, back or forth along one single axis, running perpendicularly through your imaginary two-dimensional plane, either from object/region A in a straight line to object/region B, or from object/region B in a straight line to object/region A, you have made the problem a much easier one to handle mathematically.
This is the working principle of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. But DO note how real physicists, when applying the S-B equation, are extremely careful to ensure that the two thermal “hemifluxes” on the righthand side are always kept strictly “contained WITHIN the one way, macro flux”, which is the Q, the radiative heat flux.
It is “Climate Science” that has corrupted the use of the S-B equation and the “two-way model” of radiative transfer, not physics itself. In “Climate Science”, the two thermal “hemifluxes” are specifically NOT kept “contained WITHIN the one way, macro flux”. In “Climate Science”, they are rather deliberately separated, as if they were physically separable, and placed on opposite sides of the surface energy budget, in the process turning the one (the downward “hemiflux”) into a distinct thermodynamic CAUSE of surface temperature.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 29, 2017 at 4:20 PM:
Yes, I see you’re still not getting it. There’s no delay. Energy escapes at the same instant as it enters. Two different processes. The one from the Sun shining down on us, the other from Earth’s own temperature.
Kristian
Interesting comments, except for the very last: “Yes, I see youre still not getting it. Theres no delay. Energy escapes at the same instant as it enters.”
OMG! For every “packet” of solar energy that collides with Earth and joins the atmosphere, another equal packet is leaving at the TOA. Duh. That’s totally obvious. But the packet arriving is about to have his journey through space delayed (slowed down, as in, “delayed in traffic.”).
The packet that is simultaneously leaving Earth’s atmosphere, had just BEEN delayed, and is now free to continue on its way.
You could have a 10 mile long traffic jam, where it’s “stop and go” for two hours. One car is leaving for every new car entering. So what? That doesn’t mean they weren’t delayed!
Kristian
From what little I know about atmospheric science, this much is clear:
There is a steady current of energy leaving Earth’s surface and making its way to space. That’s the macro viewpoint. From a micro perspective, we know this energy is moving up, down and sideways….. while on it’s way out. A portion of that energy returns to the surface (temporarily) as backradiation. It’s a smaller, but distinct movement within the larger one, and can easily be detected with instruments on the ground. The same instruments on the moon would detect very little backradiation coming from space.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 30, 2017 at 7:48 AM:
There’s simply no way of getting through to you on this issue, Snape. You are totally wedded to your conviction that this is a neat way of explaining “greenhouse warming”, so you’re unable to see the central flaw in it, no matter how many times it’s pointed out to you. I’m sorry, but a facepalm is all I’ve got left …
What about this is it that you don’t get? “Energy escapes at the same instant as it enters. Two different processes. The one from the Sun shining down on us, the other from Earth’s own temperature.”
Earth’s energy budget is NOT equivalent to a “10 mile long traffic jam”. The IN and OUT are two different</strong processes!
The IN and OUT are two different processes!
Yes, Kristian, entering is a different process than leaving. While cars at either end of a traffic jam are entering and leaving, the cars within are moving slower than they had been.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM:
No. By “different processes” I mean “completely different kinds of processes”:
Q_in (Earth’s average all-sky ASR at the ToA) is determined by the average solar radiation flux density (TSI) at 1AU and how much of the incoming solar radiation is reflected back out by Earth’s atmosphere and surface on average (albedo). Nothing else.
Q_out (Earth’s average all-sky OLR at the ToA) is determined (as in caused) simply by the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and surface (primarily its troposphere).
These are only INdirectly connected. But both occur continuously and simultaneously. There is no “traffic jam”, no interconnected chain of “cars” from entry to exit.
Kristian
There is. A constant stream of energy moves from the sun to earth’s surface and then continues back out to space. Between the sun and earth it moves at the speed of light. An individual parcel, carried on this stream, would take about 8 hours, 20 seconds to make the trip. The stream slows down as it travels the 62 miles from the surface back to space. Leaving at the TOA, it again moves at the speed of light.
Your description is from the point of view of an energy budget, which is the BEST and MOST USEFUL way to study the situation, but not the ONLY way.
Whoops!!! Meant to write, “8 minutes, 20 seconds”
I need to have a talk with my editor.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 30, 2017 at 3:42 PM:
No, it doesn’t. It’s NOT THE SAME ENERGY. Some energy enters, some OTHER energy exits. Via an entirely DIFFERENT PROCESS. Simultaneously. Continuously.
I’m done, Snape. You need to rethink. I get what you’re trying to say. It’s just wrong. It is NOT how the Earth system works.
Kristian
The cars leaving a traffic jam are not the same as the ones entering………and this is your argument for no slowing? I think I need a different sparring partner.
You always need to keep your concepts straight.
Micro vs. macro.
Quantum vs. thermo.
isaac…”The crux, in my opinion, is that skeptics have no clue WHY heat always moves from warm to cold. It just does, will be their general response”.
I have offered my views on it. You did not understand what I was saying, claiming it was over your head.
A simple assertion is based on an electrical analogy. Electrical current will flow from a region of higher potential energy to a region of lower potential energy. Same with heat. The reverse is not possible under normal conditions.
In a nutshell, the IR from a cooler body does not meet the requirements to be absorbed by a warmer body. The electrons in a warmer body are at a higher state of energy and the cooler IR lacks the frequency and intensity to be absorbed.
In order to warm, an atom needs it’s electrons to reside at higher energy states. If the difference in energy states in 10eV, the absorbed photon must have exactly 10 EV in order to be absorbed. All other photons with different energies will be ignored.
There is an error in the thinking of alarmists on this blog. They think all IR must be absorbed by a mass and that is not true.
The energy between electron states is E = hf, therefore the energy absorbed to cause an electron to reach a higher energy state is dependent on the frequency/wavelength of the absorbed EM.
I am theorizing that the energy available in a cooler body does not meet the requirements of an electron in a warmer mass to jump to the next higher energy state. In a cooler mass, it’s electron states will be lower than those in a warmer body therefore the frequencies will be lower.
Some alarmists have claimed that a mass cannot tell whether a photon came from a warmer source or a cooler source. It can!! All photons have different frequency/wavelengths depending on their energy level.
Gordon
I was definitely wrong about one thing: your response was a lot more than “it just does”!
About 90% of the time I have no idea what you’re talking about, so I couldn’t say if I agree or not. The problem is, the 10% I DO understand is complete rubbish (i.e. perpetual motion?), which doesn’t make me too confident about the rest.
Gordon
Please answer to question posed above.
Using whatever version of physics you believe in please explain how a room temperature thermal imaging camera can take thermographs of objects down to -50C
There are no cold rays so how does focusing an object at -40C onto a microbolometer at 25C change its temperature compared to focussing an object at -30C onto microbolometer at 25C?
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GT_Ar-9WWfQ/UNkU2Fb2nBI/AAAAAAAAA1M/NLxj8Rt7yRI/s1600/sky+high+low+cloud.jpg
This shows a thermal image of sky and clouds (in winter). The camera body was approx. 15 to 20C and the sensor was uncooled and therefore at a similar temperature perhaps hotter.
If you are correct and cold objects cannot cause warmer objects to warm then this picture should effectively be an even black (there is no object above the microbolometer temperature and in your view lower temperatures cannot warm hotter objects and remember there are no such things as cold rays). All objects in the field are less warm than the sensor and in your physics cannot change the temperature of the sensor.
However you can see temperatures from -2C to -35C. This is because the cold clouds are providing energy to the sensor changing its temperature.
If the object in the field of view were at abs zero then no heat would be transferred to the sensor and the sensor would be in equilibrium with its camera environment. Above absolute zero heat energy is transferred to the sensor and its temperature increases above the camera background.
At -50C (approx.) the heat from the object adds sufficient energy to the sensor for detection and the sensor warms until the energy OUT to the camera environment equals the energy IN from the camera environment plus the energy in through the lens.
This additional energy changes in microbolometer temperature and hence its resistance.
……….
In my book that is the energy radiated from a cold object warming a hot object. Remember no cold rays
“Using whatever version of physics you believe in please explain how a room temperature thermal imaging camera can take thermographs of objects down to -50C”
Ghalfrunt, turn off the power to your camera and see how well it does. (The camera requires energy, to satisfy the Laws of Thermodynamics.)
German
Turn off the power… You are kidding are you not
If one pixel of the sensor has -30C and another pixel has -40C objects focussed on them and the pixel array is not cooled i.e it could be at 24C. In your p hysics both pixels woulbe at 24c. However uncooled thermal imaging camera work so -30C pixel will be warmer than the pixel with -40c focussed on it. How can this be so in your world
Ghalfrunt
Yes. I love this argument!
ghalfront…”If you are correct and cold objects cannot cause warmer objects to warm then this picture should effectively be an even black…”
You are confusing thermal energy with electromagnetic energy. I have never implied that EM cannot be detected, my eyes do it all the time. My skin detects IR, absorbs it, and converts it to heat. My skins even detects UV, and if I don’t use a sunscreen, or get out of the sun, it will burn my skin when the UV is converted in my skin to heat.
The source of solar energy is a boiling cauldron of hydrogen and helium nucleii/electrons at a temperature in excess of a million C in spots. I have no problem with heat transfer between the Sun and the Earth. In fact, the 2nd law supports that heat transfer.
I have a big problem with gases at -20C heating the surface at an average temperature of +15C. In order for GHGs to add heat to the surface their temps would have to exceed +15C on average.
That’s basic physics/thermodynamics, so where is the opposition basing their assertions? Mainly on thought experiments from what I have gathered.
Even at -20C, I have no problem with infrared scanners detecting IR. The egregious error being made by alarmists is that the colour temperature of the IR is heat. It’s NOT heat, it’s electromagnetic energy.
Craig Bohrem, who wrote a book on atmospheric radiation, cites an example wherein he pointed an infrared scanner at clear blue sky. The temperature detected was -50C. When he moved the scanner to point at a cloud, it measured -3C. Neither of those sources has the capability of transferring heat to the surface at an average of +15C.
Gordon Roberston
Thermal energy is ill defined according to wiki. It is therefore not often used in thermodynamics. Thermal energy is usually considered to be internal or vibrational energy.
This form of energy obviously cannot cross space since there is nothing to vibrate. It obviously cannot cross the atmosphere in a manner in which it could instantly (a few msec) change the temperature of a single pixel – random air movements and competing vibrational sources would blur (totally) the possible image. The only way the heat of an object could get from a heat source at any temperature other than absolute zero to a pixel on a sensor, in a way that can be focussed bya suitable lens, is by photons.
At low temp the photons are IR (low energy per photon) and at high temperature they are visible light (higher energy per photon) etc. If it is a blackbody radiator then a spread of frequencies would be generated
A cool object will emit photons at 10μm (plus many other wavelengths) a hot object will emit more photons of 10μm (plus many other wavelengths)
The energy of a photon and the rate of reception of photons determine their heating effect. Photons with an equivalent short wavelength will have a greater energy than long wavelength.
[consider a simple laser cutter. It emits photons centred on 10.6μm. equivalent to a BB temperature of around 300K(?) ie not hot enough to cut wood. But increase the rate of emission of photons and the energy at the focussed point is enough to cut wood and more, but the photons still have the same wavelength and so the same per photon energy. Please explain, for as I see it you would suggest that 10.6μm has an equivalent temperature too low to add to the temperature generated by a single photon]
Photons from an object at -40C still carry a small amount of energy only 0K objects emit no photons). When these photons are focussed on a pixel at whatever temperature they add this energy to the pixel whatever its temperature. There is no way a 10μm photon can decide to not hit an object because it is hotter than the thing it was emitted from if it were capable it would have memory the temperature where it came from, and, perhaps, the ability to predict the temperature of the object is was about to land on. I do not think photons are that clever.
A photons energy is fixed by its equivalent wavelength. A photon hitting an object where it is absorbed transfers this energy to the object as heat.
Please note that there is no thought experiment needed to use a thermal imaging camera you can buy one for a few hundred .
You cite an experiment of pointing a camera at sky reading -50C (likely limited by the camera not actual temp) and pointing it at a cloud at -3C and claiming without reference that these cannot transfer heat to the surface at +15C. But of course you have yourself just proved this false since the experimenters scanner was at approx. 15C (I assume it was not cooled to below -50C that would be an expensive scanner!!) but temperatures of -50C changed its output compared to -3C. HOW please answer this I would like to know.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have no problem with heat transfer between the Sun and the Earth.”
And how does that heat transfer occur?
norman…”Here is the proof and it is not consensus. It is measured reality”.
From NOAA??? The graphic says nothing about how the data was measured. Knowing NOAA, it was contrived in a climate model.
Again, how do you separate radiation at the surface due to interior warming from the warming due to solar energy?
Davies, J. H., & Davies, D. R. (2010). “Earth’s surface heat flux,” Solid Earth, 1(1), 524.
https://www.solid-earth.net/1/5/2010/
Gordon Robertson
It is part of your religious mentality. Anything that might upset your religion is a conspiracy created to attack your faith.
The way the data was collected is contained in the webpage. Will you research it?
It gives detailed information on all the data collected and instrumentation used.
Sorry textbook physics works, you need to find a new bible of truth.
Here you go pal. Read up.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/instruments.html
Norman ,
Nope. No testable GHE hypothesis there.
Cheers.
norman…”It is part of your religious mentality. Anything that might upset your religion is a conspiracy created to attack your faith”.
You are raving like a religious zealot, usually a sign that a person has no answers.
I have never claimed there is no such thing as down-dwelling radiation, all I have claimed is that down-dwelling IR does nothing since most of it comes from cooler regions of the atmosphere.
Quoting NOAA to me after their scientific chicanery is meaningless. I don’t trust them.
Gordon Robertson
You have a religious mentality and provide no answers.
You make claims and statements that people who read your posts are just supposed to accept as fact because you stated them.
You give two examples in your latest post of your religious nonscientific thought process.
You claim DWIR from a cooler atmosphere does nothing but you have zero evidence to support your claims and this claim goes against accepted and established science so it it pretty big deal to make such claims with zero evidence to support them. That is not the scientific process.
Your last line really indicates religious intensity. I did not quote NOAA, I linked you to graphs measuring radiant energies at Earth’s surface by various instruments. Who cares if you trust them or not. That is an opinion of yours. Science requires supporting evidence. Do you own one of the instruments you use and are finding data that differs from what they publish? That would be scientific. You just preach your faith and hope people will believe you.
Have you ever supported any of your statements with some valid source of information. At this point of interacting with you i do not believe you have.
Your motto: “Read my words and believe!”
By the way children- Mike and Gordon in particular – it so happens that:
“NSW has broken the record for the highest September temperature for the second time in a week.
The mercury reached 40.8C in Bourke in the state’s northwest on Wednesday, making it the hottest September day on record in NSW.
It beat the previous record of 40.5C set last Saturday in Wanaaring.
“We have broken the all-time state record for maximum temperatures in September twice in a week,” Bureau of Meteorology senior meteorologist Andrew Haigh told AAP.
“That’s something that has not happened before.”
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/09/27/nsw-september-heat-record-broken-again
Cease your petty arguing and go and play outside. But remember to put on a hat plus sunscreen – otherwise you may get heat stroke and addle your brains.
Wait. I forgot it is too late for you two.
Let’s not forget that a few weeks weather is not a climate conclusion, hot or cold.
Dr No,
Now you see why the BOM declared all official temperature records prior to 1910 unreliable. The heat wave of 1896 had a death toll in the hundreds.
Apart from that, the “hottest September day on record in NSW” is pointless. Is it supposed to have something to do with the non-existent GHE?
What about the world’s coldest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica a couple of years ago? In summer, to boot!
Maybe you hav found a testable GHE hypothesis, but I doubt it. Just more foolish Warmist deny, divert, and confuse, tactics.
No GHE.
Cheers.
What, then, is your explanation for the ever increasing ratio of hot versus cold temperature records observed across the globe each year?
I really am interested in your alternative “testable” hypothesis.
The problem with the high temperature records being set today is that they look at all sites including those that only have a few decades of data. I looked at a sample of max temperature records selecting only rural areas (to remove Heat Island effect) with records going back 100 years and approximately 90% of them still had pre-1960 high temperature maximums. It should be no surprise that sites with only a 50 year history or less will have max records now, given they are starting in a cooler time period. And given they out number the 100+ year sites they will dominate today’s statistic.
I do not have access to a complete data set on this, it should be something easy for someone to verify with the complete record. My sample was on about 100 random sites in North America/Europe/Australia that was readily available to me. I would appreciate if anyone has a study/data set that is more complete to verify.
Dr No,
I am unaware of the ever increasing ratio of hot versus cold temperature records observed across the globe each year, but I am sure you can provide details for the last 150 years or so.
But first, if you provide details of a testable GHE hypothesis, it would be of assistance – if only to verify its existence. If you cant even do that, asking for an alternative to something which doesnt exist is pointless, isnt it?
If your information is correct, I can think of several different explanations. Please provide the observations for which you are unable to provide any explanation. I am surprised you cannot think of any logical reasons for thermometers recording high temperatures.
No GHE. Even you cannot supply a testable hypothesis for such a silly idea.
Cheers.
“I am unaware of the ever increasing ratio of hot versus cold temperature records observed across the globe each year, but I am sure you can provide details for the last 150 years or so.”
Am I surprised at this admission? No.
Will I provide details? No. I don’t waste time on lazy students.
Can you provide an alternative explanation? No.
Perhaps an example may help explain why the hot/cold temperature records ratio has very little meaning. Set out 10 temperature sensors in June year 0 for a hypothetical region in North America and record maximum daily temperatures for 6 months. In November of year 0, add 90 temperature sensors so you have better coverage (100). The following September year 1 you find that 90 of the temperature sensors set records in year 1 from those set out in November. The original 10 show that year 0 had the extreme heat records.
If the original 10 are warmer in year 0, then we may conclude it was warmer. Regardless of the max records from the 90 set up in November.
This is the problem with using temperature records that only go back 50 years. Not many dispute it was a cooler period mid 1900’s. There were some saying we were heading for an ice age back then.
Please note, I am not implying anything other than the following: Using max records has little meaning unless they are continuous to early 1900’s.
Dr NO:
BOM has yet to wake up; perhaps you should . They have tried twice to fix their ACORN system and it is still running like a model T Ford. Last I heard it had Albany as having the highest T in Oz record. For those not familiar with Albany it is at the bottom most tip of West Oz. It melds into the Roaring 40’s with only the ocean, whales and Emperor penguins separating it from Antarctica. Hardly a candidate for Oz max T; go look at Marble Bar as a contrast (49.2C set in 1922) for West Oz or national record at 50.7C, which was set at Oodnadatta in South Australia in January 1960.
BOM in one swoop has the magic to turn stations from century long cooling to long term warming viz Rutherglen, Alice Springs. Mandrake, eat your heart out!
No-one quite knows what BOM Max T or Min T mean anymore as a comparison. It measures to the max in any one second with sensitive modern instruments. Try that trick with the old mercury bulbs and compare. It also has limited how low the T can be read in at least two stations.
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/poor-bom-dangerous-deniers-amateurs-attacking-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-debilitating-it-by-asking-questions/
It has a neat list with :
THE BOM LIST grows Scandal after scandal
Now in contrast to Dr NO’s Bourke observations, Perth today had a max T of just over 15C for about an hour with the rest of the day below 14C. Unusual for Perth, as normally one can bask in the warm sun by now, but so what? There was also unexpected snow (that’s the news; I would call it hail. We never get snow here).
Last year Sept, Perth was the coldest in over 120 years. Again, so what but no doubt Dr NO would recommend we buy snow shoes or cross country skis for this Mediterranean climate.
Dr No can’t seem to reconcile weather events involving blocking phenomena much like what happened with Hurricane Harvey. For Bourke the max dropped to under 25C for the daytime today which was below the T at 4am. But be prepared says Dr NO; wear hats and sunscreen, hint hint, the CO2 is gonna get ya!! If it doesn’t, BOM will!
dr no…”The mercury reached 40.8C in Bourke in the states northwest on Wednesday, making it the hottest September day on record in NSW”.
Here’s a record of NSW all time daily records, from:
http://www.eldersweather.com.au/climate.jsp
Jan 18,2013 45.8
Feb 08,1926 42.1
Mar 09,1983 39.8
Apr 06,2016 34.2
May 01,1919 30.0
Jun 11,1931 26.9
Jul 24,1990 25.9
Aug 26,1995 31.3
Sep 26,1965 34.6
Oct 13,2004 38.3
Nov 25,1982 41.8
Dec 02,1957 42.2
You have quoted record temps for specific cities, how about the average across NSW for a particular day?
Also, prove the abnormal warming in those cities is due to anthropogenic warming. If AGW was an issue, why are their records in 1919, 1926, 1957 and 1965. In fact half the records are pre 1983.
Gordon Gordon Gordon, you foolish student.
The numbers you provide refer to Sydney daily maximum temperatures, not NSW!
No wonder you are hav’nt a clue.
Mike
A fingerprint for insulation, in my estimation is: house is warming while attic is cooling.
No insulation? BOTH will either warm, cool, or stay the same
On the other, with insulation, both will either warm, cool, or stay the same. Or maybe not. Or if you put your heater in your attic, maybe it will heat up, while the outside doesnt. Or maybe not. It depends, doesnt it?
You are right. You are clueless, or close to it. Fingerprints are for finger print experts, or foolish Warmists.
Not so much use for real physicists studying insulation qualities.
Still no GHE theory to be found! Is there?
Cheers.
You keep asking for evidence of the GHE. It’s been supplied numerously in many different ways, not least by the atmospheric expert who hosts this blog. But I (and I suppose others) have given up as you just hand-wave and waffle in reply. Ironic, as you call for science but engage in pure rhetoric.
barry,
The reason you can’t quote where I asked for evidence of the GHE, is simple – I have never asked for such a ridiculous thing.
You just make stuff up, and hope no-one will notice, it seems.
Until you can at least provide a testable GHE hypothesis, you are just talking about the non-existent. Until you can describe the nature of this supposed GHE – where it may be reproducibly observed, why it cannot be explained by current scientific theories – you are fantasising, pure and simple.
There is no GHE.
Pointing out that days are warmer than nights, that Winter is colder than Summer, that surface temperatures are higher in hot places, does not require a GHE. If you believe that, you are deluded.
If you believe that the climate can be prevented from changing – you are deluded.
If you believe the Gavin Schmidt is a scientist – you are deluded.
If you believe Michael Mann was aware a Nobel Prize – you are deluded.
If you believe that a testable GHE hypothesis exists – you are deluded.
What do you believe?
Cheers.
If you can’t name 3 climate scientists – you are deluded.
If you can’t point to a published climate science paper by Jo Nova – you are deluded
If you cannot say if you understood or appreciated a bit of mathematics – you are deluded
If you will not read the scientific links posted here – you are deluded.
If you can’t supply any scientific links of your own – you are deluded.
If you don’t believe the temperature record – you are deluded.
If your name is Mike Flynn – you are deluded.
Cheers.
Hypothesis:
If the GHE is real, then regions with high atmospheric water vapour concentrations (ie, lush tropical areas) should have a higher average nighttime air temperatures than regions with low atmospheric water vapour concentrations (ie tropical deserts) at the same latitude and time of year.
This is testable and falsifiable.
Assess nighttime air temperatures to remove the effect of the sun, isolating purely atmospheric influence.
Comparisons should be of the same periods (ie, matching season/calendar year).
Null hypothesis:
Nighttime air temps in lush regions are on average warmer than nighttime temps in arid regions at the same latitude.
Disprove the null and you’ve disproved the GHE.
We have data available to run this test.
barry, neither proves anything about the GHE. Both are basically demonstrating the heat capacity of water vapor.
Water vapour is a GHG. The comparisons are made at night to remove the influence of solar heating. Measurements are of surface air temperature.
But you are only demonstrating the heat capacity of water vapor, not the GHE.
Then factor the heat capacity of water vapour, and after deducting that see if there is still a temperature difference. If there is a GHE, then WV heat capacity will not alone account for the difference.
barry,
Again. The “GHE” is not about elevating average nighttime temps. It’s about elevating average temps, period. The average annual T_s.
So, no, that’s not the relevant test. Humid land areas removed from ocean influences are consistently cooler than arid land areas with the same average heat input to the surface.
You are NOT isolating the atmospheric effect by excluding daytime. The atmosphere also affects the warming rate during the day.
Yes, humid regions cool more slowly during the night, but they ALSO warm more slowly during the day. And the NET effect is a LOWER average T_s. In other words, the daytime effect easily outdoes the nighttime effect …
You are NOT isolating the atmospheric effect by excluding daytime. The atmosphere also affects the warming rate during the day.
So does the sun, and we want to see what the atmosphere does to surface temps, not the sun.
I know your view hinges on solar influence. So let’s remove that influence and see if your view holds.
barry says, September 28, 2017 at 4:20 PM:
But then you’re not getting the point. Daytime warming rates are NOT about solar influence. They’re strictly about atmospheric influence.
It’s the ATMOSPHERE that reduces the warming rates during the day, not the Sun. The Sun is doing its best to heat the surface. The rate at which it is able to do that, however, is strongly influenced by the atmosphere on top of the solar-heated surface. And so you can’t ignore that effect. Are you telling me this is something you don’t understand, barry?
Also, once again: The “GHE” isn’t supposed to make T_night higher. It’s supposed to make T_night+day higher. And so, if it can’t make T_night+day higher, then it’s of no use reducing nighttime cooling rates. The daytime effect is stronger.
Looks to me like you don’t want to accept a perfectly reasonable proposition. Are you so wedded to promulgating your ASR obsession? Loosen your grip.
If we want to isolate the GHE as much as possible, we remove what we can. During the daytime we have incoming SWR and albedo effects.
At nighttime these effects disappear and we have a more focused view of atmospheric-only effects.
We could go even further and exclude periods with cloud cover – the clear-sky observations. At night.
Flynn asked for a testable hypothesis for GHE. This is testable. He did not ask for a hypothesis of ASR.
barry says, September 29, 2017 at 4:11:
It’s not a perfectly reasonable proposition, barry. THAT’S what I’m trying to tell you. You are NOT testing the “GHE”, because the “GHE” isn’t about reducing nighttime cooling, it’s about raising the average annual surface temperature.
You’re the one obviously wedded to a conviction. You’re so bent on “proving” the existence of a “GHE”, that you willfully ignore its actual definition, in the process throwing away half the data in order to “isolate” only that part which comports with your desired conclusion.
But you’re misrepresenting the “GHE”, barry. You’ve created your own personal definition of what the “GHE” is. It is NOT about reducing nighttime cooling. You have not “found” a “GHE” by simply showing that nighttime cooling rates are reduced in humid climes.
The “GHE” is rather un-found by showing that the T_s in humid regions is consistently LOWER than the T_s in arid regions with equal heat input to the surface. The nighttime cooling rates in the former will always be much lower than in the latter, but that doesn’t thereby produce a “greenhouse EFFECT”, that is, a permanent elevation of the humid T_s over the arid T_s. Quite the contrary.
THAT’S a “perfectly reasonable” test, barry. But I’m not so sure you’re ready to accept it …
Yes. MY test. Not yours. You’re not testing the “GHE”. You need to include the entire picture, not just the half that suits your purpose best.
Hypothesis:
A volume of air receiving LW emissions will become warmer if more CO2 is introduced while the air pressure remains the same.
Hypothesis:
Of two volumes of atmosphere at the same pressure, but one with more GHGs than the other, the GHG-enriched atmosphere will warm more quickly than the other when being heated by equal amounts of long wave electromagnetic radiation.
Hypothesis:
A planetary body without an Earth atmosphere will cool at a faster rate at night than a planetary body with an Earth atmosphere the same distance from the sun.
Hypothesis:
Venus should have comparable or higher average surface temperature than Mercury owing to high GHGs concentration, despite Venus having a higher albedo and being twice the distance of Mercury from the sun.
The first two violate the 1LoT.
The second two are not falsifiable.
They are testable hypotheses. They have, in fact, been tested.
The second 2 are falsifiable.
The planetary bodies with and without atmospheres to measure rate of cooling after sundown are the Earth and the moon.
If Venus has a cooler average surface temperature than Mercury, then the second hypothesis is falsified.
See here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263253
barry says, September 28, 2017 at 8:28 AM:
Earth’s atmosphere indeed insulates our solar-heated global surface, and is thus the reason why Earth’s T_s is so much higher than the Moon’s. This is NOT to say, however, that what CAUSES its insulation effect is its “GHG” content.
True, an atmosphere’s IR activity basically sees to it that the “blanket” is put in place and kept there (that is, it makes sure that the bulk atmosphere and the solar-heated surface are thermodynamically (thermally) connected even after a steady state of dynamic equilibrium is reached). However, it is NOT what actually causes the “blanket” – once its there – to insulate the surface, ultimately – in tandem with a relatively constant heat input from the Sun – forcing it to become warmer on average. Its MASS does that …
I’m not sure if this hypothetical is for you, Kristian. It seems you are not so foolish to believe there is no GHE.
Kristian says:
“However, it is NOT what actually causes the blanket once its there to insulate the surface, ultimately in tandem with a relatively constant heat input from the Sun forcing it to become warmer on average. Its MASS does that ”
How does mass per se block radiation?
David Appell says, September 28, 2017 at 4:57 PM:
It doesn’t. Read what I write. ALL of it:
“True, an atmosphere’s IR activity basically sees to it that the “blanket” is put in place and kept there (that is, it makes sure that the bulk atmosphere and the solar-heated surface are thermodynamically (thermally) connected even after a steady state of dynamic equilibrium is reached).”
See here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263253
Not falsifiable.
Hypothesis:
A century of non-negligible CO2 rise should cause the global surface temperature to warm.
(The seed of this hypothesis was given in the 1890s)
Anyone who thinks science was not science before Popper came up with the concept of falsifiability should have their brain retooled. Falsification is part of the toolkit, not the end.
Nevertheless, all the above hypotheses are falsifiable.
Hypothesis:
Increased GHGs will warm the surface while cooling the lower stratosphere over the long term.
(This ‘hypothesis’ was made before observations of the lower strat were good enough to check)
Hypothesis:
If CO2 is re-emitting infrared radiation back to Earth, we should see an increase over time in LW radiation in the wavelengths specifically CO2 absorbs and re-emits heading to the surface if atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase.
That’s been observed:
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
Ways to falsify the GHE.
Demonstrate that GHG molecules behave differently in the lab than they do in the wild.
Demonstrate major errors in the instruments that discern longwave radiance flux in the wavelength bands associated with CO2, methane and water vapour.
Ways to falsify the enhanced GHE from increasing atmopheric conc of GHGs.
A drop in global temperatures to levels of 40 years ago for a sustained period of 30 years, with no obvious cause (such as a series of eruptions of super volcanoes).
The lower stratosphere warms along with the lower troposphere for 30 years.
No, barry. All we need to check is whether the evolution in total all-sky OLR at the ToA corresponds with the evolution in tropospheric temps (like TLT) over time. It is very distinctly supposed to stay flat over multi-decades (as Earth’s hypothetical “effective radiating level” is pushed ever higher) while T_tropo at the same time rises fairly steadily and significantly. According to the idea of the “enhanced GHE”.
We have observed no such thing in the real Earth system over the last 32+ years. What we HAVE observed (and DO observe) is rather how the total all-sky OLR at the ToA has simply tracked T_tropo (TLT) pretty much to a tee over the last few decades. While at the same time, the solar heat input to the Earth (the ASR, net SW, TSI minus albedo, at the ToA) has clearly gone up since the first half of the 80s.
It should therefore be quite obvious what has actually caused ‘global warming’ … It is NOT some “enhanced GHE”. It’s the Sun.
It’s in the data.
Nope. If warming was due to the sun, the upper atmosphere would be warming. Instead it’s cooling (a prediction of AGW theory):
Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling, By Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc.
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp
“What we HAVE observed (and DO observe) is rather how the total all-sky OLR at the ToA has simply tracked T_tropo (TLT) pretty much to a tee over the last few decades.”
Pretty much, huh?
Actually there is no such meaningful observation from the CERES Team Kristian, as I have pointed out to you, repeatedly. The longest available CERES record calibrated with meaningful CI shows earth observed LW TOA flux (OLR) has been decreasing (thru 12/2014 ref. Loeb et. al. 2016 Table 4.)
Ball4 says, September 28, 2017 at 5:01 PM:
Yes, there is:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/gl-olr-vs-gl-tlt.png
David Appell says, September 28, 2017 at 4:56 PM:
No, it wouldn’t. That is a typical AGW myth.
1) CO2 doesn’t meaningfully absorb solar radiation, whether incoming or reflected, so an increase in stratospheric carbon dioxide wouldn’t absorb more SW. What’s more, the stratospheric content of the gas that does meaningfully absorb solar radiation, ozone (O3), has been distinctly reduced, so would also not absorb more SW.
2) The increase in solar heat input to the Earth (+ASR) hasn’t got anything to do with how much SW is coming IN (TSI), but rather everything to do with how much SW is reflected back OUT (albedo). This all happens below the tropopause, below the stratosphere.
There is no solar increase in the stratosphere. There is a solar increase from the tropopause down. Less SW is simply reflected back OUT, and so more of the incoming (which itself hasn’t increased) ends up being absorbed by the Earth system (below the tropopause, not above).
The stratosphere cools because its CO2 concentration has gone up (and so radiates IR more effectively to space) AND because its O3 concentration has gone down (and so absorbs less SW).
The surface and the troposphere warm because the solar heat input has increased.
We’re looking for a falsifiable GHE hypothesis – the one the Flynn keeps asking for. You are not providing that.
Global surface temps are nearly 1C warmer than they were a century ago. GHE theory can account for that, because we have the data. You don’t have enough data to scotch the the hypothesis on centennial scale.
As an aside, your view would have it that ASR has increased over the last 100 years.
barry says, September 29, 2017 at 4:17 AM:
That might be true. However, that’s mostly because it isn’t really possible. You can “prove” that an atmosphere insulates a solar-heated planetary surface, thus forcing its T_s to be higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there. But you CAN’T ever “prove” – or fully “disprove” – that it is the atmosphere’s radiative properties specifically that ultimately CAUSES that thermal effect.
What I have provided, is a simple falsification test of the “enhanced GHE” (the “AGW hypothesis”). Most recently here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265477
“The fingerprint of ENHANCED insulation (like an “enhanced GHE”), is that the “house” (troposphere) is seen warming over time WITHOUT a corresponding increase in the heat loss from the house (total all-sky OLR at the ToA). THAT is how you would positively see the insulation mechanism in effective operation.”
“Yes, there is:”
No there there since your self-cite work is not meaningful, Kristian, as no proper CIs are shown or can be shown.
CERES Team publications using only surface thermometer properly calibratable CERES data w/CIs do not confirm Kristian’s conclusions. Actually, CERES Team Table 4 shows earth system OLR has been meaningfully decreasing in the longest properly calibrated CERES data thru 12/2014.
barry says, September 29, 2017 at 4:17 AM:
Only on paper. Global temps as officially presented have been systematically adjusted to be “nearly 1C warmer [today] than they were a century ago”. That doesn’t mean they actually are.
That’s laughable! The “data” has been adjusted specifically to fit with “GHE theory” (i.e., the models). No, we do NOT “have the data”. The global mean is mostly made up prior to about 1970.
That’s a bit like when a creationist tries to debunk the theory of evolution by arguing that it can’t explain the origin of life itself.
I’m not discussing Earth’s climate evolution “on centennial scale”, barry. I’m simply pointing out what’s in the available data. And we have relevant data available for the last 32+ years only.
However, during that time, most of the overall “greenhouse enhancement” is supposed to have happened, and the Earth has also warmed considerably. So if there is no sign whatsoever in the data of any “strengthened greenhouse mechanism” (atmospheric radiative insulation) as a systematic driver of ‘global warming’ over this most recent period, and if the data instead unambiguously shows that an increase in ASR (solar heat input) is the sole culprit, then WHY would things be any different before this period, when our CO2 emissions were allegedly much LESS impactful. If you don’t mind my asking …
Ball4 says, September 29, 2017 at 10:10 AM:
There’s no “self-cite”. The data is downloaded straight from the CERES team’s own data page. Latest EBAF Edition 4. Easily available for everyone. Even you’re free to go see. There’s a data quality summary there as well. But I’ve provided you with a link to that one several times before, so I guess you know about it already …
Bye.
Kristian 10:37am, the CERES Team tells you (and everyone) in their publications which of their data is not calibratable to surface thermometers within proper CI.
You continue to use that data w/o CI thus you draw the wrong conclusions. This is why self citing is useless.
To get the CERES OLR conclusions, you must post a cite to actual CERES Team publications. Their 2016 Table 4 is also freely available for everyone to see and cite. OLR is shown to be decreasing thru 12/2014.
If you could replicate that & calculates CIs and then extend their work up to latest available, your comments would then have credibility. You might even find latest meaningful OLR curve approaching equilibrium supporting your conclusions about the eGHE. Or maybe not. CERES Team has not published on the subject again after early 2016 afaik.
Its the Sun.
Can’t be. Solar intensity has declined slightly since the 1960s.
http://tinyurl.com/y7tpdf3j
And from the mid-80s.
http://tinyurl.com/ydd5q958
It has, barry, but you have to be careful drawing the best straight line though a regularly oscillating curve. Unless the data include an integer number of cycles, you are going to catch the first and last cycles only part way through, and that can significantly impact the trend.
barry, those graphs are sun spots, not solar “intensity”.
They’re highly correlated. Faculae are hot, so the sun gets more intense during high sunspot activity.
But here is total solar irradiance, if you prefer. Same story.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1985/plot/pmod/from:1985/trend
That’s right, David, but the story is the same when you phase-match. Solar intensity can’t account for warming from the 1960s or 1980s.
barry says, September 28, 2017 at 4:28 PM:
Did you notice what I wrote? “While at the same time, the solar heat input to the Earth (the ASR, net SW, TSI minus albedo, at the ToA) has clearly gone up since the first half of the 80s.”
The solar heat input to the Earth isn’t TSI (“solar intensity”), barry. It’s ASR (net SW, TSI minus albedo). TSI hasn’t gone up. ASR has. And ASR is the relevant solar parameter, not TSI.
How many times has this been explained to you?
You’ve explained it many times. But you still insist on signing off with “It’s the Sun.” It isn’t the sun, it’s other components (by your calculation) affecting solar input.
Better would be to name those components.
barry says, September 29, 2017 at 3:57 AM:
It’s the Sun, barry. We know it’s the Sun from simply reading the available data. ASR [Q_in] has gone up, OLR [Q_out] hasn’t gone down.
Yes, a reduction in (mostly cloud) albedo is the reason behind the increase in average solar heat input. But the warming is caused by the Sun, barry, not by clouds. The extra energy accumulating inside the Earth system, making it gradually warmer is coming from the Sun. Not because less goes OUT, but because more comes IN. Stronger HEATING, not stronger insulation.
In reality, Earth’s own internal variability (the coupled oceanic-tropospheric circulation) is responsible for the changes in cloud cover and wind patterns that allow more solar heat IN and/or less heat to escape back OUT, from year to year, from decade to decade, and even between phases each spanning multiple decades. But the Sun is always the provider of energy/heat. Yes, I can agree that you might argue that the “cause” of the rise in ASR over the last few decades isn’t to be found in the solar output per se, but rather within the climate system itself.
The point is, whenever I try to point out how global warming since the late 70s is really caused by the ENSO process, then everyone is quick to remind me that the ENSO process can’t produce energy/heat on its own. Therefore “it can’t be ENSO”. Which always forces me to take a deep incredulous breath. Because they clearly cannot be serious. They KNOW that the energy comes from the Sun, that no one’s actually suggesting that energy is spontaneously created out of nothing inside Earth’s oceans or troposphere. And so I have to explain them, each and every time, that, no, the energy comes from the Sun; the ENSO process simply allows more solar heat to come in over decades than what goes back out, by strongly influencing pressure gradients (winds) and cloud cover (and many other important climate parameters) globally, whenever Earth’s climate variability is in a warming phase.
And so, when I choose to go straight to the source, the Sun, to explain the warming, THAT’S apparently wrong as well! Because now I’m all of a sudden “neglecting” the “other components” causing the solar input to change …
Let’s call it a grand-scale collaboration, then. The Sun and Earth’s own climate system work together to produce a significant change over decades in Earth’s energy balance.
Happy?
“OLR [Q_out] hasnt gone down…Happy?”
Not happy with Kristian’s nonmeaningful self-cites.
Try citing CERES Team, Kristian. Actually, CERES Team 2016 Table 4 shows earth system OLR meaningfully has gone down in the longest available properly calibrated CERES data thru 12/2014. That will meaningfully change when system equilibrium is re-established. Properly calibrated CERES data will demonstrate a clue to that change.
Yes, a reduction in (mostly cloud) albedo is the reason behind the increase in average solar heat input.
That’s the right way to put your opinion.
barry…”You keep asking for evidence of the GHE. Its been supplied numerously in many different ways, not least by the atmospheric expert who hosts this blog”.
Evidence based on thought experiments and innuendo is not scientific. As Mike claims, there is no scientific evidence to support either the GHE or AGW. That was an opinion expressed by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
Here is their exhaustive study of why the GHE does not exist.
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
It’s simple barry, the GHE theory is based on the assumptions of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. All were under the mistaken assumption that a real greenhouse warms by trapping IR. In 1909, Woods proved that a real greenhouse warms by trapping molecules of heated air and that the heating is due to a lack of convection.
The atmosphere has scads of convection, there is nothing in it to interfere with the warming of air by the surface DIRECTLY or to interfere with that air rising. As it rises, cooler air rushes in to replace it by convection.
I have just described what a greenhouse DOES NOT do and why the atmosphere cannot replicate a greenhouse.
Ah yes, the much maligned paper by G and T.
Here is a sample comment on it:
“Gerlich and Tscheuschner have published a polemic, full of error, irrelevancy, fulmination and accusation, in the International Journal of Modern Physics B. Long known from its arXiv versions, and well refuted, it is difficult to understand how their paper could appear, however, recent history has shown that such papers are occasionally published where editors and referees are not familiar with the underlying science, or themselves are outliers with respect to the field in which the paper lies. This is often the case where expertise in one area is generalized to arrogance about another.”
That paper is ridiculous. It spends a whole section explaining why the Earth is not an actual greenhouse.
Gerlich & Tscheuschner has been debunked to the max.
For example:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/
Evidence based on thought experiments and innuendo is not scientific
You’re kidding, right? There are fields of science that use a little data and much pure math. The theory of relativity is mainly “thought experiments.”
But I am referring also to observational evidence, which has been supplied numerously and variously.
Mike
I think that only with/because of insulation is it possible for the house to be warming while the attic is cooling. That’s what would make this particular situation a fingerprint…there would be no other natural explanation.
A couple months ago skeptics were showing Arctic temps North of 80 degrees. Bart was telling us to watch what happens next.
So here’s the latest.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Was it what you expected, Bart?
Looks like a warmer winter and cooler summer to me.
You could say that 2017 is shaping up to be rather mild.
Compared to what? 2016?
Looks like a warmer winter and cooler summer to me.
In that chart? It’s the opposite. Summer temps hover just above 0C that high in the Arctic, because the surface air temp is restrained by the virtually perennial sea ice that far North. Last Summer (the hump) saw temps just a bit under average, while Winter temps were 3-10C warmer than average (Check Winter late 2016).
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
This is the latest Barry ,which shows the oceans are cooling everywhere.
This is what is you are showing what was.
Barry look at Antarctica.
The warmth in the Arctic is not present in summer and is likely due to the below average ice coverage which is temporary.
Low ice coverage due to polar vortex/oceanic circulations
Antarctic sea ice is currently at record lows, Sal, and have been so for the last year.
Look at the temperatures in Antarctica of late. It suggest the low ice coverage there can not be due to temperature.
It is oceanic currents and the Antarctic polar vortex.
I tend to agree – Antarctic sea ice appears to be driven more strongly by factors other than temperature.
barry…”Antarctic sea ice is currently at record lows, Sal, and have been so for the last year”.
Sea ice around Antarctica is highly dependent on ocean and wind currents. Ice floes tend to protect the ice shelves from high seas but every so often the ice moves off and exposes the shelves to the full force of the ocean.
It’s the same in the Arctic actually. There are established ocean and wind currents that move the ice around regularly but unpredictably.
Sea ice melting has occurred at both poles — especially in the Arctic.
The long-term trend (since 1979) of Antarctic sea ice is still slightly upwards (increased coverage), even with the lows of the last year.
I’m looking at the Arctic North of 80 degrees, Salvatore. It was of some interest to skeptics a few months ago.
I know what you are referring to.
There is no global warming due to CO2/GHG effect. So what the models are or not doing amounts to nothing but noise because all the pillars AGW is based on have not come to be.
They are the lower tropospheric hot spot, a call for the evolution of a more +AO/NAO , and the call for a decrease in OLR.
It can be shown that it is given solar activity tied into oceanic temperatures which govern the global temperatures. Not to mention the likelihood of an increasing albedo during very low solar periods of time due to an increase in clouds, snow cover and major volcanic activity.
I have said year 2017 is the year things change, because it is the first year which my two qualifiers have come into play for solar to have a cooling effect upon the climate.
Those being 10 + years of sub- solar activity in general followed by low average value solar parameters which I have listed many times as to what they are.
The data and climatic history does not support AGW. I will send a graph which shows what correlates and will continue to correlate to global temperatures.
If one is following overall global oceanic temperatures the trend over the last few months has been down and without the aid of favorable oceanic temperatures kiss AGW goodbye.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
This is how you evaluate given solar activity versus global temperatures.
It is the ocean cooling effect tied into solar activity which gives you a given global temperature. CO2 has nothing to do with it.
The GHG effect is a by product of the climate/environment.
We will know much more starting now and going forward but I am confident this correlation will hold up going forward.
Salvatore,
prepare to meet your moment of truth.
The next few months will decide you and your theory’s fate, once and for all.
No ifs and buts – agreed?
I have said year 2017 is the year things change
3 months of data is premature.
What you have said repeatedly is that summertime temps in 2018 will be at or below the 30-year baseline (UAH).
Let’s see if you’re right. I think it’s just possible, even with ‘greenhouse’ warming, but unlikely.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“I have said year 2017 is the year things change, because it is the first year which my two qualifiers have come into play for solar to have a cooling effect upon the climate.”
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
Yes, going forward from here will decide it. Will know by summer of 2018.
But you said global cooling started in 2002.
And again then in 2010.
one but- The sun must remain very quiet on balance.
Salvatore
I knew this was coming…..Lol!
“one but- The sun must remain very quiet on balance.”
Lol !
Its like me proclaiming that I will make a lot of money at the races tomorrow.
(but only if the horses I bet on win their races)
Dr No
+1
dr no…”Its like me proclaiming that I will make a lot of money at the races tomorrow. (but only if the horses I bet on win their races)”
There are major differences. The sun is predictable and we have already seen the effect of low solar activity with the Little Ice Age. The global average only dropped 1 to 2C but it was enough to cause havoc in certain parts of the world.
On the upside, it got so cold in Holland that all the surface water froze. An enterprising Dutchman invented ice skating.
On the downside, in England the Thames froze all the way to London and in the French Alps, a glacier grew across a valley and wiped out a village.
I have been reading books on explorers from the 1600s and beyond who sailed to the Canadian Arctic to explore. One of them mentioned the inordinate cold in Europe during that era.
Gordon Gordon Gordon, wrong again!
“The Little Ice Age was caused by the cooling effect of massive volcanic eruptions, and sustained by changes in Arctic ice cover, scientists conclude.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075
Dr No is right — the LIA was caused by a string of volanic eruptions early on, augmented by an ice-albedo feedback.
The climate simply isn’t sensitive enough to the Sun to have cause 1-2 C cooling.
Solar sensitivity ~ 0.1 C/(W/m2).
dr no…”The Little Ice Age was caused by the cooling effect of massive volcanic eruptions…”
For 400 years???? Where were those massive volcanic eruptions?
dr no…if the Arctic ice sheets(???) expanded, how were Arctic explorers between the 1600s and 1800s able to sail so freely through Arctic waters? They sailed right up the Lancaster Sound north of Baffin Island to within sight of Banks Island, about half way through the Northwest Passage. They also sailed the waters leading south from Lancaster Sound.
How was all that possible with the mythical advancing Arctic ice sheets?
Seriously, you need to be more skeptical of the trash studies you are citing.
Gordon Robertson says:
“For 400 years???? Where were those massive volcanic eruptions?”
…and the ice-albedo feedback that was created.
DA…”The climate simply isnt sensitive enough to the Sun to have cause 1-2 C cooling”.
Not interested in mathematical equations. Obviously something cooled the planet and volcanic activity cannot explain it over a 400 year period.
During the LIA there were two Sun spot minima, the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum, corresponding to two of the coldest parts of the LIA.
Coincidence???
https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/
dr noGordon Robertson says:
“Not interested in mathematical equations.”
Then you’re not interested in physics, or in climate science.
Math is the language of science.
dr noGordon Robertson says:
“During the LIA there were two Sun spot minima, the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum, corresponding to two of the coldest parts of the LIA.”
No. Just wholly insufficient to explain the cooling seen of the LIA.
Of course that what it is based on. My whole theory is based on very low solar conditions. It is not going to cool because of THAT reason in my opinion.
Just like AGW is based on increasing CO2 concentrations.
MY THEROY IN A SENTENCE.
Very low solar parameters following 10+years of sub solar activity in general (since 2005) should equate to lower overall sea surface temperatures(less UV light) and a slight increase in albedo , due to more cloud coverage, snow coverage, a more N.H meridional atmospheric circulation and increasing major geological activity.
All the above TIED into very low solar parameters.
I meant to say it will not cool in any meaningful way if very low solar conditions are not present.
A strong geomagnetic storm may accelerate the volcanic eruption in Bali. Observations indicate an increase in lava levels in volcanoes during geomagnetic storms. For example, in the Kilauea volcano.
https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/
Aha. That begins to sound a little bit better, Salvatore!
Mike Flynn says:
“No GHE. Even you cannot supply a testable hypothesis for such a silly idea.”
You keep asking, yet every time someone presents you with one, and with data and evidence, you either ignore it completely or whine about “gotchas.” Then you stomp around saying you don’t care about anyone’s opinion.
Whatever your weird game is, you’re not commenting in good faith.
DA…”You keep asking, yet every time someone presents you with one, and with data and evidence, you either ignore it completely or whine about gotchas.”
The key word is testable, as in the scientific method.
All of them are testable.
I think we need some little bit of fun here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Bmn-Iie8c
More fun!
http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2green/home.htm
Still more fun!
http://www.beyondbenign.org/bbdocs/curriculum/higher-ed/Global_Warming.pdf
And now the inverse step, ladies and gentlemen!
Who is able to scientifically falsify Nasif Nahle’s replication of Wood’s 1909 experiment?
http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html
and therein
http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf
I lack the proper education in physics to do that.
Anybody out there?
“Anybody out there?”
Sure. Here’s a post & 437 comments proving it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/does-a-greenhouse-operate-through-the-greenhouse-effect/
As for the Nahle experiment, in the first segment, you might wonder why Nahle surrounded box 4 with the glass wool insulation (no wool in the experiment by Wood). Box 4 is the setup that would show a lower box temperature (without the wool insulation) as Wood reported.
I wonder if it was to get a higher box temperature than Nahle had found during test runs without wool (overturning the conclusion he wanted) & before recording the final T results including the wool to obtain the conclusion Nahle wanted.
ball4…”As for the Nahle experiment, in the first segment, you might wonder why Nahle surrounded box 4 with the glass wool insulation (no wool in the experiment by Wood). Box 4 is the setup that would show a lower box temperature (without the wool insulation) as Wood reported”.
Why don’t you try reading Nahle’s writeup? He explains later about the wool and he removes it in a later stage of the experiment with no difference in temperature.
Gordon 4:02pm, in segment 1, do you predict Box 4 will run cooler or warmer without the white glass wool as shown in the picture? Explain. Prof. Wood showed Box 4 ran much cooler w/o the wool.
In segment 2, Nahle does remove the wool: I removed the White Glass Wool from the walls of the fourth box and uses the same materials “except for the double sheet of polyethylene film, which was substituted with a single sheet of polyethylene film, 0.051 mm thick.”
Surprisingly, Nahle gives us the SW transmissivity difference in the sheet of 0.3mm thick (0.89) used double in segment 1 and the 0.051mm thick (0.98) single sheet used in segment 2. When Nahle removed the wool he of course had to let in (transmit) more sunlight in order to compensate for the loss of warmth from the departed wool in order to obtain the conclusion Nahle wanted. The LW transmissivity is similar.
Perhaps you should try reading the Nahle experimental description.
Nahle’s Abstract says:
“Through this controlled experiment, I demonstrate that the warming effect in a real greenhouse is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the building, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings, as proven by Professor Wood in his 1909 experiment.”
So what?
Everyone knows this. The atmospheric greenhouse effect isn’t *literally and exactly* the same as a plant greenhouse. The latter just serves as an analogy, of something that blocks heat from escaping to space.
The next little stone
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
Please compare this with Nasif Nahle’s replication!
DA…”Everyone knows this. The atmospheric greenhouse effect isnt *literally and exactly* the same as a plant greenhouse. The latter just serves as an analogy, of something that blocks heat from escaping to space”.
How does the atmosphere prevent hot air from rising as air molecules and ultimately radiating to space? Neither you nor any other alarmist in this blog has demonstrated how GHGs in the atmosphere trap ‘heat’, or slow it down, whatever that means.
None of you seem to get it that heat is a property of atoms and that IR is not. To move heat you must move atoms, or mass. Heat cannot be transferred without mass. IR is not mass.
The concept of heat escaping to space is unscientific. No heat can escape to space from the surface for the simple reason that heat is a phenomenon related to the mass making up the surface.
The surface mass radiates IR, which is electromagnet energy, and the IR represents a reduction of heat in the mass, but it is not heat. EM can escape to space but EM is not heat, it’s radiation with an electrical field and a magnetic field.
You can’t even slow it down. There’s nothing there to slow the overall massive IR flux from the surface. It can be scattered by ALL air molecules. If anything is going to increase the mean free path of IR through the atmosphere it must be related to ALL air molecules.
Gordon Robertson says:
“None of you seem to get it that heat is a property of atoms and that IR is not. To move heat you must move atoms, or mass. Heat cannot be transferred without mass. IR is not mass.”
Wrong.
How does the Sun heat the Earth, with a vacuum in between?
2/3rds of the heat received at the surface comes from IR emitted by the atmosphere, only 1/3rd from sunlight:
https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200904/images/trenberth-fig1.gif
Binny…”The next little stone”
Here’s the final and conclusive stone:
http://principia-scientific.org/the-famous-wood-s-experiment-fully-explained/
“As such, we may come to the conclusion that both Woods and Nahles experiments have proved that infra red radiation is not trapped by glass, or by polyethylene molecules”.
In other words, Nahle and Woods are right and Pratt is wrong.
Actually Wood and Pratt did the simple experiment without the wool insulation as used by Nahle in order to achieve the conclusion Nahle wanted.
The statement Gordon clips in quotes is ok as IR radiation cannot be trapped, there is no trapissivity; IR radiation can be absorbed (annihilated), emitted (birthed), transmitted (live on) and scattered or reflected if in direction of the observer (live on). IR radiation can also can be diffracted but under Planck’s rules of the game, diffraction is made negligible by the size of the objects we are dealing with, those that are of importance in the Earth system.
What is most important is it CO2 increasing which controls the oceanic temperatures or is it solar activity ?
Because the oceans will determine what the global temperatures will be doing as we move forward.
Up until very recently the oceans were favorable for a global warming scenario. I think this is now changing , it is still early but it is looking that way.
Now the question is how much cooler will oceanic temperatures be as we go forward?
You’re looking at noise. Most of us are interested in the signal.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“What is most important is it CO2 increasing which controls the oceanic temperatures or is it solar activity ?”
Again, if it was the Sun controlling temperatures, the upper atmosphere would would be warming.
Instead, it is cooling. The stratosphere is cooling. A 2006 study of the mesosphere found it had cooled by 5-10 degrees C. The upper atmosphere at 350 km is shrinking so much — its density is reducing by 2-3% per decade — it’s starting to affect the orbits of satellites.
You can read (but not ignore):
“Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling,”
By Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc.
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp
DAVID ,I am looking at current data.
We will see.
You are not looking at data on upper atmospheric temperatures. You’re ignoring that science completely.
Volcanic activity has much to do with stratospheric temperatures.
Not over more than a few years, and then only for the largest volcanic eruptions.
And they warm the stratosphere, not cool it.
How to cool Earth:
Cover the entire Ocean from lass than 40 degree latitude [north and south] with black plastic.
Or in terms of something practical, cover 90% 0f the ocean area with PV panels. Or have a vast amount of floating platforms which shaded 90% of the ocean.
This will result in less ocean evaporation and less clouds [making is better to harvest sunlight with all these the PV panels].
The immediate result would be to increase day time air temperature in this tropics, but such warmer air temperatures in the tropical zone would not warm the rest of the world. And the immediate result would be to cool the rest of the world.
Over time, decades, the tropical ocean will lose heat and rest of world will become even cooler, and start cooling the tropics. And after centuries the tropics at sea level could freeze at night and rest of the world is quite cold.
gbaikie…”Cover the entire Ocean from lass than 40 degree latitude [north and south] with black plastic”.
Would it not be more effective to cover the same ocean surface with a reflective material?
— Gordon Robertson says:
September 28, 2017 at 5:25 PM
gbaikieCover the entire Ocean from less than 40 degree latitude [north and south] with black plastic.
Would it not be more effective to cover the same ocean surface with a reflective material?–
Perhaps, but it would be blindly shiny, and how cold do you want to make to make Earth?
I think if cover the 40 degree S to 40 degree N section of Earth with black plastic which had close to perfect blackbody surface, it decrease global average temperature to about 0 C. Which I believe is the coldest that Earth has ever been.
I would also add that if you put the plastic all over the land surfaces [instead of about 1/2 of the ocean surface] that it would have little effect upon global temperature.
And I think if instead you put reflective surface, over all of Earth land surface, it could have some global cooling effect.
https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2014/13743-stratospheric-temperature-trends-our-evolving-understanding-and-applications-gnss-ro.pdf
LOOKS LIKE THE COOLING TREND HAS STALLED.
Also water vapor plays a role, as well as volcanic activity..
Page 7 of that presentation shows a negative stratospheric temperature trend since 1979.
It has been neutral since 1995.
David, it also said little change since 1995 on page 7
Salvatore, UAH’s measurement for the global lower stratosphere shows the last 120 months has been -0.09 C cooler than the previous 120 months.
RSS’s number is -0.08 C.
I would call that pretty much neutral.
I wouldn’t.
I’d call “0” neutral.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have no problem with heat transfer between the Sun and the Earth.”
How does that heat transfer occur?
DA…”How does that heat transfer occur?”
Elementary my dear DA. The Sun cools and the Earth warms.
There is a solar wind blowing from the Sun, made up of electrons and protons but our magnetic field fortunately diverts much of it. However, some of the ‘wind’ manages to convert to electrical energy in our atmosphere, surface, and oceans. I am wondering how much that heats the planet and if a quieter Sun produces less of a solar wind hence less heating.
About how the heat gets here, it doesn’t. It’s done by remote conversion of EM to thermal energy in the electrons of the atomic mass in the surface. The thermal energy at the Sun is CONVERTED to EM and that travels through space. At the Earth side it is converted back to thermal energy.
There is no heat (thermal energy) traveling between the Sun and the Earth. The only way heat could be transferred directly is through the mass in the solar wind.
Salvatore…am I onto something here?
Gordon Robertson says:
“About how the heat gets here, it doesnt. Its done by remote conversion of EM to thermal energy in the electrons of the atomic mass in the surface.”
So it gets here via electromagnetic waves.
Correct.
DA,
It appears that you thought you knew the answer – you said “Correct”.
Why ask a question when you are sure you know the answer? Wasting peoples’ time with a puerile “gotcha”?
In any case, maybe you could perform a miracle, and provide a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis. It might be a better use of your valuable time than posing an interminable stream of pointless “gotchas”.
I dont believe you can provide a testable GHE hypothesis, any more than can any other foolish Warmist, so you should be enormously grateful to me for allowing you to prove me wrong.
Still no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis! Just a lot of mindless assertions of “evidence” for something you can’t even describe!
Cheers.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265568
DA…”So it gets here via electromagnetic waves”.
Can’t agree with that, it makes it sound like thermal energy is being transported through space. It’s not thermal energy, it’s EM.
I realize it sounds as if I’m being picky but this is the basis of the argument that IR is not heat. Granted, the EM from the Sun is converted to heat by electrons when they absorb it. What you’re claiming in effect is that gasoline injected into the cylinder of an engine is the same as the mechanical energy it produces to drive the rear wheels.
The explosion of gasoline in the cylinder due to the spark is not the energy that drives the rear wheels. That explosive energy is converted to mechanical energy by the pistons, the crankshaft, the transmission, the driveshaft, then the axles, via the differential.
It seems picky but when considering radiation between a hotter and a colder body, one cannot sum the IR and claim it as heat. They simply don’t add up the same therefore the NET energy of IR is not the NET energy of heat.
Heat must obey the 2nd law and can only be transferred from hot to cold. That rules out the transfer of HEAT from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
I am fine with the heat transfer from the much hotter Sun to the cooler Earth but not from the cooler Earth atmosphere to the warmer surface.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Cant agree with that, it makes it sound like thermal energy is being transported through space. Its not thermal energy, its EM.”
That’s exactly your mistake, thinking there are separate kinds of energy. Actually there is only energy, and one form of it can be converted into other forms of it. This, of course, happens constantly all around us.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I realize it sounds as if Im being picky but this is the basis of the argument that IR is not heat.”
Sure. And that argument is wrong. Just wrong.
GR wrote:
“It seems picky but when considering radiation between a hotter and a colder body, one cannot sum the IR and claim it as heat.”
Why not?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat must obey the 2nd law and can only be transferred from hot to cold.”
You have been consistently wrong on this point.
Here is Clausius’s statement of the 2nd law:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Clausius#Work
Notice the difference.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I am fine with the heat transfer from the much hotter Sun to the cooler Earth but not from the cooler Earth atmosphere to the warmer surface.”
That’s because you don’t understand the second law.
The statement you think applies ONLY APPLIES TO ADIABATIC SYSTEMS.
The Earth is not an adiabatic system.
Know why not?
PS: An “adiabatic system” is one that his thermally isolated, not exchanging energy with its surroundings.
The Earth is constantly being fed energy by the Sun.
PPS: You still haven’t explained how the Sun heats the Earth (since we know it’s not via the solar wind.)
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is a solar wind blowing from the Sun, made up of electrons and protons but our magnetic field fortunately diverts much of it. However, some of the wind manages to convert to electrical energy in our atmosphere, surface, and oceans. I am wondering how much that heats the planet and if a quieter Sun produces less of a solar wind hence less heating.”
The solar wind energy flux is only a couple of milliwatts per square meter; see Figure 1c here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1316.pdf
By contrast, sunlight’s energy flux is, at Earth, 1365 W/m2.
DA,
You wrote –
“By contrast, sunlights energy flux is, at Earth, 1365 W/m2.”
Completely irrelevant. At night, for example.
When the surface temperature has dropped to -85 C, the solar insolation is demonstrably less than that resulting in temperatures of 90 C in a solar pond in the tropics.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, it appears.
No GHE. You can’t even produce a testable GHE hypothesis. Just mad irrelevant assertions and silly “gotchas”.
Cheers.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265568
But of course, you can repeat an irrelevant link to something or other.
Cheers.
DA…”The solar wind energy flux is only a couple of milliwatts per square meter;”
It’s enough to induce a EMFs of thousands of volts into our atmosphere. The EMFs drive current through the atmosphere, surface and oceans, according to Akasofu.
So what?
The Solar Wind energy flux is too small, by a factor of over 100,000, to account for anything close to Earth’s observed temperature.
GR wrote:
“There is no heat (thermal energy) traveling between the Sun and the Earth. The only way heat could be transferred directly is through the mass in the solar wind.”
As I showed, there isn’t nearly enough energy flux in the solar wind — by a factor of over 1/2 million — for the solar wind to create Earth’s observed temperature.
Try again.
Yes.
But I think what is more important is how much of the heat that reaches the earth is reflected back into space.
Albedo.
I am thinking this will increase a little due to very weak solar conditions.
If the Sun’s energy delivery changes by -1 W/m2, how much cooling do you think that means for the surface?
David,
Still infatuated with “gotchas”, I see!
I suppose if you cant provide a testable GHE hypothesis, you might try for the worn-out foolish Warmist tactic or trying to deny, divert, and confuse.
What is the point of your foolish Warmist “gotcha”? What ‘surface”? Where? What season? What’s the point?
Where’s your disprovable GHE hypothesis? No “gotcha” there, you haven’t got one at all!
Cheers.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265568
David Appell,
Still posting links, I see. Is it supposed to mean something? Should I look at it, do you think?
Have you found a copy of the disprovable GHE hypothesis there? Or maybe the secret of the Universe?
Cheers.
It is secondary effects those being an increase in cloud cover, snow cover, major volcanic activity ,a more meridional atmospheric circulation which will increase the albedo.
It is not the decrease in solar irradiance although that adds maybe a .1 to .2c cooling effect.
One of the solar parameters that will cause the above to occur is a very weak solar wind.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“It is secondary effects those being an increase in cloud cover, snow cover, major volcanic activity ,a more meridional atmospheric circulation which will increase the albedo.”
Volcanoes aren’t due to the sun.
The climate’s sensitivity to solar irradiance is about 0.1 W/m2.
What is it for other solar parameters?
What about the sun causes increase in cloud cover?
Bindidon didn’t mention a couple of points about Vaghan Pratt’s failure to show that R W Wood’s experimental results were wrong.
First, Pratt decided that rather than attempt to duplicate Wood’s setup, he would alter it, dismissing Wood’s setup as silly. Wood placed glass plates over both boxes for good reason, which he explained. Pratt, not being a physicist, but rather a computer “scientist”, made other changes as well.
As it turned out, Pratt subsequently admitted he was unable to replicate his initial results. Some experimenter!
Bindidon also asks “Who is able to scientifically falsify Nasif Nahles replication of Woods 1909 experiment?”
He then writes –
“I lack the proper education in physics to do that.
Anybody out there?”
Typical foolish Warmist. Boasts, or at least admits, he doesn’t actually know what he is talking about, can’t provide a testable GHE hypothesis, but implies that anybody who doesn’t believe in the invisible GHE is stupid! Why? Because the physics education lacking Bindidon said so!
Just like another commenter who boasts of being just above clueless, but is sure that any GHE non-believer must be wrong.
And so it goes.
No foolish Warmist can even provide a testable GHE hypothesis. “Ah,” they say, “but it must exist. The Cult leaders, Hansen, Mann and Schmidt say it is so!”
Really? None of them can state a testable GHE hypothesis. Nor can the IPCC, or the WMO.
Nobody at all.
All the so-called “evidence” produced by foolish Warmists suffers from a major defect. Whatever it is evidence of, it is most certainly not evidence to support something that doesn’t actually exist – to wit, a disprovable GHE hypothesis.
That’s the nature of cults – faith and fantasy over fact.
Cheers.
mike…”First, Pratt decided that rather than attempt to duplicate Woods setup, he would alter it….”
Another major error in the Pratt experiment was failing to account for humidity. Nahle ensured that water vapour was not an issue. Pratt’s differences in temperatures were likely related to humidity within the boxes.
GHE 0 vs. no GHE 2.
Woods also claimed the losses in IR radiated from the surface due to the inverse square law would render it useless within a few feet.
I have offered my experiment but no one has rebutted it. When you place your hand near a 1500 watt electric stove glowing cherry red the IR is apparent as it strikes your skin and gets converted to heat by the molecules in your skin. Put your hand close enough and the IR will cook it medium rare if that suits you.
Pull it away 5 feet and you feel nothing. The IR is ineffective at 5 feet from a 1500 watt source. BTW…you would see the IR fine at 5 feet on an IR detector, it’s weak and you just can’t detect it with your skin. How effective would it be from a source at 150 watts/m^2?
Who ever proved that IR in a cooler atmosphere could raise the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy? Especially when the main driver is ACO2 at roughly 1/1000nds of 1% of the atmosphere based on 390 ppmv.
Gordon Robertson says:
“When you place your hand near a 1500 watt electric stove glowing cherry red the IR is apparent as it strikes your skin and gets converted to heat by the molecules in your skin”
You just admitted IR is a mechanism of heat exchange!
—
“Pull it away 5 feet and you feel nothing.”
That’s a statement about your ability to sense heat, not about the presence and mechanism of IR or heat.
GR wrote:
“Especially when the main driver is ACO2 at roughly 1/1000nds of 1% of the atmosphere based on 390 ppmv.”
That’s a scientific critic. That requires a scientific argument.
Show the physics and math of your calculation of CO2’s effect on surface temperatures at (now) 405 ppm.
Go ahead…..
David Appell,
I appreciate your own sense of importance, but maybe you could let others know why they should obey your commands. You wrote –
“Show the physics and math of your calculation of CO2s effect on surface temperatures at (now) 405 ppm.
Go ahead..”
Why should anyone leap to obey?
Maybe you could show evidence that you are not a foolish Warmist of the Raving Looney variety?
Or maybe not?
You definitely can’t produce a testable GHE hypothesis. It’s an absurdity. Pretending that CO2 can make thermometers hotter is just a deluded foolish Warmist fantasy.
Cheers
Computer are ENTIRELY accurate.
THEY DO NOT PREDICT MORE HURRICANES!
But this wonderful research and graphical explains just DARN accurate they really are…….
https://youtu.be/_0TCrGtTEQM
Roy Spencer your barking up the wrong tree. Just who do you listen to to produce such ridiculous lengths in false and misleading statements and accusation against your good research fellows in science?
Should read Computer Models are entirely accurate.
Ross,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the IPCC relies on the results from more than 100 computer models, all of which provide different results.
Which one is entirely accurate, or are they all entirely accurate at producing unusable and useless results?
Maybe you are dreaming?
Cheers.
Ross,
You apparently know crap concerning scientific concept of falsifiability. How can anyone in our lifetime prove the models false, models that predict what will happen by the year 2100? That’s voodoo science. Might as well get the Ouija board out.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“How can anyone in our lifetime prove the models false, models that predict what will happen by the year 2100?”
By choosing a point in the past, running the models forward with known forcings and known volcanic eruptions, etc, and seeing how well the models reconstruct the known climate evolution.
In fact, models do this quite well:
http://tinyurl.com/ybqttdle
PS: Models cannot “predict” except in retrospect — they can only project into the future.
Ross…”Computer are ENTIRELY accurate”.
Computers are only as accurate as the programs they run. Faulty programming = faulty output….or as we say in the computer field: GIGO = garbage in, garbage out.
Humans program the computers and humans make mistakes. The climate models use presumptions that are not backed by physics. One is the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere which has been given an arbitrary warming effect of 9% to 25% by modelers even though CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Another major issue is claiming a positive feedback exists between the back-radiation of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the surface. It is claimed in AGW theory that back-radiation from anthrophenic CO2 can warm the surface to a higher temperature than it is warmed by solar energy. Therefore more surface water is vapourized. The extra water vapour allegedly increases atmospheric temperature.
That theory is simply bad science but it is programmed into climate models. No such positive feedback exists in the atmosphere. Take it out of the models and global temperatures fall back to trivial values.
The IPCC is a political organization who has no interest in mainstream science. All they care about is finding evidence, no matter how silly, that anthropogenic gases are warming the atmosphere.
“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
David Appell,
Completely irrelevant. There is not even a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis to be found.
For example, from one of the foolish Warmist papers –
“The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, . . .”
There is no quantifiable “climatic impact”. There is no scientifically testable GHE hypothesis. Nobody has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter with a supposed “greenhouse gas”. “Radiative forcing” is a nonsense concept, used by the deluded pseudo scientists claiming to be climatologists.
At least one of your linked papers is evidence , therefore, of nothing more than the delusional thinking of a gullible academic, it would seem.
The fact that you would post it, is evidence the standard of your knowledge.
Cheers.
David Appell wrote –
“All of them are testable.”
Whatever “they” are, none of them purports to be a GHE hypothesis. It doesn’t exist.
Typical foolish Warmist attempt to muddy the waters, or in other words – deny, divert and confuse.
No testable GHE hypothesis – just faith based Cargo Cult Scientism.
Maybe you can produce what doesn’t exist – or maybe not?
Cheers.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265568
David Appell,
If you think that repeatedly posting irrelevant links will magically create a testable GHE hypothesis, I suspect you are deluded.
Einstein was of the opinion that repeating the same action, while hoping for a different outcome, was a sign of insanity. Do you think he was right?
Try pasting the same link 50 or 100 times – maybe reciting a sacred Manntra at the same time. Do you think a testable GHE hypothesis will miraculously appear? Good luck.
Cheers.
Sir Isaac wrote -“Mike
I think that only with/because of insulation is it possible for the house to be warming while the attic is cooling. Thats what would make this particular situation a fingerprintthere would be no other natural explanation.”
My house is insulated.
At the moment, the “attic” (roof space) is getting hotter, whilst the “house” is cooling.
At other times, the situation is reversed. No “fingerprint” here!
It is entirely possible, with foolish Warmist use of the word “warming”, for the ground to warm, while the air above cools. It’s called a low level inversion, and often occurs on dry, cold, still nights.
Likewise, a “house” can and does warm while the attic cools, without “insulation” separating the two. Maybe your fingerprint is confused, or the tip of your finger fell off due to over-vigorous handwaving.
Maybe you could find a testable GHE hypothesis, and post it here. It might save all this irrelevant “thinking” that foolish Warmists waste their time trying to do.
Cheers.
Mike
Using a house to demonstrate the “insulation fingerprint” was a bad idea. To many complicating variables. I’ll work on something better.
BTW, you got the inversion thing backwards. It’s quite NORMAL for air near the ground to be warmer than air higher up. A temperature inversion is the other way around. Cold, dense air has settled to the surface and warmer air is aloft.
Sir Isaac,
I apologise. You are correct. An inversion indeed results in an inversion of the normal cooling with altitude. Proof that IR escapes the ground to space, faster then the atmosphere above. Hence the ground cools faster than the air above.
I accept your implied apology for using a confusing foolish Warmist analogy.
Instead of trying to work out a better analogy, have you considered understanding physics?
A start would be to try to find a testable GHE hypothesis. If one cannot be found, then it might be logical to proceed as if the GHE does not exist. Obviously, what cannot even be described is probably unimportant in comparison to those things that can – such as real scientific hypotheses, theories, principles, laws, etc.
The alternative is to give more weight to faith based fantasy, rather than fact. That way, you could live your life in a state of perpetual terror, subject to the malign influences of goblins, demons, ghosts, evil witches and warlocks. Or you could just be terrified of CO2 and H2O, if you wished.
Why waste a good worry?
Cheers.
High pressure and dry air in eastern Europe is currently the cause of morning frosts. All heat at night escapes into space.
“Where skies become clear and winds diminish, temperatures will dip to frosty levels over the Upper Midwest and part of northern New England beginning Friday night.”
https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/23bd0c0/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2F70%2F25%2F206283a44b138b5bc7a5908d7f91%2Fne-frost-sat-night-929-am.jpg
What determines the amount of water vapor in the mid-latitudes? The season and the wind direction.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
As oceanic temperatures go so does the global temperature.
This recent fall off is an excellent example of how it is the oceans not CO2 which governs global temperatures.
What governs the overall oceanic temperatures? Energy from the sun. UV light.
CO2 does not.
Solar parameters still have a ways to go down, and I think they will as we move forward with this solar minimum not expected until year 2019 or 2020.
Salvatore: Repeating yourself endlessly doesn’t convey proof — you get that, right?
Dear DA,
Backradiation can only penetrate the ocean about 50 micrometers, not enough to provide any warming since evaporation overwhelms it. While solar radiation penetrates the ocean for 10’s of meters and provides warming.
DA so ignorant.
Is the ocean surface perfectly flat and smooth like glass?
Of course not. The topmost layers are constantly mixed by waves and turbulence.
Once the SST warms, it mixes with lower layers and, via the global circulation, even the deep layers eventually.
David Appell,
You are talking rubbish, unless you have discovered new physical principles. In the real world, less dense water is more buoyant than denser water.
Maybe you can use climatological magic to get warmer water to sink and displace colder water beneath it, but I doubt it.
In your world, maybe cold air balloons ascend. In mine, hot air balloons ascend.
I have noticed that NASA and NOAA have brightly coloured graphics showing the same type of nonsense. Just because you can imagine it thus, does not mean it is real. NASA also has pictures of the Earth depicted as a flat circle, where all continents are equally illuminated by the Sun at all times. Everlasting day – no night.
Do you believe such nonsense – figuring it must be true, because it was apparently the imaginings of a climatologist?
You can’t even provide a testable GHE hypothesis, let alone one which explains denser water floating on less dense.
Cheers.
AGW has been hiding behind favorable overall sea surface temperatures to promote there wayward wrong theory.
Let’s see how much AGW comes when sea surface temperatures are not favorable. My prediction is none.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“AGW has been hiding behind favorable overall sea surface temperatures to promote there wayward wrong theory.”
By “favorable,” I assume you mean has a strong long-term upward trend, right?
—
Tell me, Salvatore, do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think that CO2 doesn’t absorb it?
No answer, Salvatore? That’s telling….
So the climate test is on.
“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
What is the warming effect of the tilt of the axis of rotation?
Uranus is weird planet in that it’s tilt is 82.23 degrees whereas Earth’s is 23.44 [or roughly 23.5].
What would it be like in Earth’s tilt was increased by 66.5
degrees?
In the “summer” the sun would be directly overhead [be at Zenith] at the southern pole and circle the Zenith. Over a year period it would spiral towards Zenith and then away from Zenith.
At equinox the Sun would be at Zenith at the equator and be disappearing in the southern polar skies and be appearing in the northern polar skies [and then, spiral towards the Zenith].
So we would still get 6 months of summer and winter in the polar regions as we do with our axis tilt of 23.5 degrees.
But the sun would be a completely different beast- it would warm the polar regions rather than merely have the light of the sunlight during the 6 month period of daylight.
Our tropics would also change dramatically if we had an 90 degrees tilt of our axis. The tropics would then have seasons- it would have two winters at both of the poles’ winter solstices and have two summer solstices when at equinox.
So question is, would having a 90 degrees tilt of axis of Earth have a warming effect or cooling effect? Would it change Earth’s average temperature?
It should noted that Earth’s axis does wobble and does change in terms it’s tilt of the degrees of angle.
These two of three changes of Milankovitch cycles:
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
“Axial tilt, the second of the three Milankovitch Cycles, is the inclination of the Earth’s axis in relation to its plane of orbit around the Sun. Oscillations in the degree of Earth’s axial tilt occur on a periodicity of 41,000 years from 21.5 to 24.5 degrees.” And:
“The third and final of the Milankovitch Cycles is Earth’s precession. Precession is the Earth’s slow wobble as it spins on axis. This wobbling of the Earth on its axis can be likened to a top running down, and beginning to wobble back and forth on its axis. The precession of Earth wobbles from pointing at Polaris (North Star) to pointing at the star Vega. When this shift to the axis pointing at Vega occurs, Vega would then be considered the North Star. This top-like wobble, or precession, has a periodicity of 23,000 years.”
Anyhow by changing the tilt by a lot, I thought it might useful to help understand the effects of Milankovitch Cycles
which are considered to have something to do with causing interglacial and glacier periods on Earth.
So in terms of thousands of years would having Earth tilt at 90 degree, cause any difference in global average temperature? And how much?
Now like used car salesmen, I am going sell the idea of a 90 degrees tilt.
A 90 degrees tilt is a more equal world.
Everyone still gets there fair share of an average of 12 hours of sunlight per year.
There is no longer a distinct region called the tropics- or tropics is marked by the tilt of axis of 23.5 degree. With 90 degrees the tropics would extend to the poles- so it would include everyone.
Germany’s idea of being the solar capital of world, would genius rather than dead stupid. Though polar regions could or should become the best place to harvest solar energy- as one has months of constant and intense sunlight. And then 6 months of vacation time.
Earth would a viable place for solar energy- or you solving at least 1/2 of problem of electrical power storage. Or if using coal power, one reduce the use of coal for solid 6 months of a year- and half the coal emissions from coal powerplants. And coal producers could have long summer vacation.
Not only do you an equal amount of daylight but you get a more equal amount solar energy. And since climate models assume that Earth’s gets an equal amount of sunlight, it might make the models closer to being accurate. Or at least make it easier.
One question might focus on, is there any location on Earth with less or more than equal amount of solar power.
One important factor is the weather.
Or Germany at the moment might not be as bad as it is if it’s summer didn’t have cloudy periods. Or clouds in a darkness of winters aren’t going to affect the amount of solar energy you can get. But during the prime time of solar energy harvest it would better not to have clouds during these peak solar hours.
But since weather hard to predict, let’s ignore weather, and if you ignore weather is there any amount of inequality of solar power in different regions of the world- if the earth’s axis is at 90 degrees?
I was planning on giving people more time, but it seems I have made a gross error. Because equator at winter would be like ours the polar region at equinox. Or sun shines in winter.
So there is inequality of daylight. Or at or near equator one gets more daylight than anywhere else.
Right now equator gets a near constant 12 hours of daylight, but as it goes towards winter with 90 degree tilt, the sunlight will be lower in the sky, but you have longer days of sunlight, so sun could circle near horizon for 24 hours. As it would do at north or south pole at equinox.
So tropics would have an unfair amount of sunlight, and more equality occurs only in the sense of the amount of solar flux reaching a level surface and/or the amount reaching solar panels pointed at the sun
Or one have a rule, roughly the equator always gets more sunlight. If planet is spherical [not to mention the bulge at the equator] and if the sun is large and have an atmosphere that bends the light.
Oh, gravity also bends the light- more gravity, more bending.
Btw, Equatorial bulge, wiki:
“An often-cited result of Earth’s equatorial bulge is that the highest point on Earth, measured from the center outwards, is the peak of Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador, rather than Mount Everest. But since the ocean also bulges, like the Earth and the atmosphere, Chimborazo is not as high above sea level as Everest is.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge
Interesting….
gbaikie…”What is the warming effect of the tilt of the axis of rotation?”
Tilted with respect to what??? Where is up and down in the universe?
I got your point about having the Earth tilt more to get more sunlight. In another comment you mentioned gravity bending light. Where is the proof for that other than in the mathematics of theoretical physics?
You are talking about space-time curvature not real gravity, which no one understands wrt it’s source. Light is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field which propagates as a wavefront, like waves on a pond when a stone is thrown into it. Bending it requires an electric field that would interfere with it to bend it.
No one knows if real gravity has electrical properties although that assumption would seem reasonable. What you are inferring, based on space-time curvature, is that time exists as a 4th dimension and the 4 dimensions have some kind of property that bends light.
Utter rubbish. Time does not exist, other than in the minds of humans. Neither does the 3-D dimensional space we have imposed on it. Space, exists, not the Cartesian/polar coordinates we have imposed on it hence your tilts wrt to some imaginary vertical/horizontal axis.
There are two basic types of reality, what is actually out there and what the human mind sees as being out there, the latter being an illusion. We humans tend to see the universe as a representation of time where light reaching us from the distant universe represents the past.
Nonsense!! It’s only the past in the illusions of the human mind. What illusions you might ask? Let’s begin with our penchant for seeing the Sun ‘rise’ in the morning and ‘set’ in the evening. Then you might move on to time as a real, physical dimension that can dilate.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Tilted with respect to what??? Where is up and down in the universe?”
With respect to the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
“In another comment you mentioned gravity bending light. Where is the proof for that other than in the mathematics of theoretical physics?”
Eddington’s famous eclipse measurement in 1919. It made Einstein a rock star.
Light bending has been measured many times since. Einstein has always been right. In fact, general relativity has never made a prediction that has been found to be wrong.
GR wrote:
“Space, exists, not the Cartesian/polar coordinates we have imposed on it hence your tilts wrt to some imaginary vertical/horizontal axis.”
Those are just arbitrary coordinate systems. There are many others. The laws of physics are independent of the coordinate system chosen.
If time doesn’t exist, why is your comment marked “11:33 am?”
David, that one’s petty. He already stated ‘in the minds of men’ and I have to agree with him. Time is a measurement, just as feet, meters, wavelength etc. It does not exist except in the minds and machines of men.
You, like Gordon, are confusing arbitrary coordinate systems and arbitrary unit choices with actual distances and time periods.
One “second” is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
You can call that a million xxyyzzs if you want, but the duration will always remain the same. And your life will last a certain number of such periods, which is an inescapable fact.
David Appell,
You wouldn’t be using an arbitrary numbering system to define this “time” would you? Only joking, of course you are.
How do you explain your totally artificial and arbitrary counting to an intelligent tribesman whose system is based around “one, two, many” (and they do exist).
As to your attempting to measure “time”, it depends on your frame of reference, and seems a bit rubbery. For example, time counted on your atomic clock on Earth, differs from that from an equivalent clock on a satellite, or sent and returned on a space shuttle.
Which clock is “correct”? Did the numbering system develop shorter integers, or did the vibration rate change, or did the “time”change?
I dont expect answers. My questions are rhetorical, of course.
Your “inescapable fact” is quite escapable. Which clock are you using?
All part of the rich tapestry of life!
Cheers.
GR wrote:
“Then you might move on to time as a real, physical dimension that can dilate.”
What’s your problem with that?
BTW, in my opinion (and many others), is that it’s not that time “dilates,” or length “contracts,” it’s that the Newtonian equations of motion are wrong at very high speeds. Saying time “dilates” is the easy, freshman point of view, but really it’s that we live in spacetime, not in space+time. Once you realize that point of view, time is as natural as space, and, at high speeds, neither behaves like we assume from our experience in the classical world.
PS: What do you tell people is your birthday, if not a point in time?
My birthday is celebrated on a scale which measures how many times the earth has revolved around the sun and how many times the earth has revolved on its on axis.
Each is a measurement made up by man, unless, perhaps, you know of some abacus in the sky which keeps up otherwise.
Light, matter, voids exist. They move and interact, for those in proximity, relative to each other. We, being somewhat sentient, measure those and say we have distances and times and sizes. But those measurements don’t exist beyond our minds.
You will not find a marker at the edge of the earth’s atmosphere saying 93,000,000 miles from the sun, unless, of course, mankind put it there.
If time doesn’t exist, how do radioactive atoms know when to decay? Why does effect follow cause, and not the other way around? Why does light reach us after it was emitted, and not before?
David Appell,
More silly “gotchas”?
If you think someone is wrong, would it not be better to quote their words, and then provide facts to contradict them?
Your questions are not terribly well posed, as they depend on facts not in evidence.
Spontaneous atomic decay occurs. The atoms know nothing.
In some quantum mechanical experiments, the principle of retrocausality seems to be shown. Effect before cause, so to speak.
From “Nature”, I believe –
“Causality, clearly, is a quaint, irrelevant concept.”
As to light, at the quantum level, the only possible explanation explanation for certain photon behaviour, is that photons travel back in “time”. Received before emission. I know, you don’t believe it! Your choice.
You may disagree, but experiment seems to bear me out.
Until one defines “time”, it is difficult to say whether such a thing exists. In the absence of any matter at all, anywhere, is “time” a valid concept?
I’m just suggesting that asking “gotchas” is a bit pointless, if your “gotchas” are irrelevant.
Cheers.
DA…”If time doesnt exist, how do radioactive atoms know when to decay? Why does effect follow cause, and not the other way around? Why does light reach us after it was emitted, and not before?”
What does time have to do with any of that?
Radioactive decay is a phenomenon that does not require time. If we want to track it or measure it we humans need time, that’s why we invented it based on one rotation of the planet.
What is effect/cause?? More human vagueness.
Light reaches us when it reaches us. It is emitted by electrons when they drop from a higher energy level to a lower energy level.
Electrons don’t have watches, they just emit when it is right to do so. The little buggers also don’t care about in-between energy states. They appear at one state, then poof, they are at another state. No time involved.
DA…I advise you to get into this, fascinating stuff when human logic and reasoning stops and one simply observes without a centre.
Gr says:
“What is effect/cause??”
Seriously?????????
How can you not know about cause and effect? They must teach that even to engineers….
GR wrote:
“Light reaches us when it reaches us. It is emitted by electrons when they drop from a higher energy level to a lower energy level.”
In fact, light can be generated anytime any particle or quantum state changes its state — your notion is far too narrow.
Light can even be emitted by light. In fact, electrons can be emitted by the collision of light. Light can create matter.
Light does just “reach us when it reaches us.” It travels on a geodesic through spacetime, and the time along that path can be defined and it can measured.
The idea that time doesn’t exist is another of your completely whacked misunderstandings of physics, which by now included almost any and every topic is the field.
(As they say, time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.)
lewis…”But those measurements dont exist beyond our minds”.
That would not be a problem in itself if we humans did not base our psychological selves on time. Our minds flip back and forth between past/future (daydreaming) and now (reality) and in doing so we can create now emotions based on an imaginary past/future.
Of course, past and future are imaginary therefore we tend to create now emotions based on imaginary pasts and futures. I am not claiming the past we fear and project as a future did not exist, it did, just not in a different physical space.
The past events we turn into imaginary memories existed in the same physical space as now, which our minds turned into a linear past, thus separating us mentally from now.
Unfortunately, many scientists don’t get that and insist on creating time-based universes that have no existence. Space-time is an imaginary universe that exists only between human ears.
In psychology, neurosis, or neurotic behavior, is a conflict between the imaginary reality in which we live and the real world of now. We mess ourselves up royally by insisting on trying to make the real now fit our imagined should, could, or ought to be world.
The human foibles of fear, expectation, anxiety, stress, panic, pursuit of desire, violence, etc., are all related to our invention of time.
If spacetime is “imaginary” — what are we looking at when we view a particle collision at CERN? At distant black hole mergers, now being detected by gravitational waves? At your last bowel movement?
Where did these things take place if not in spacetime, Gordon?
DR…”GR wrote:
Then you might move on to time as a real, physical dimension that can dilate.
Whats your problem with that?”
You mentioned Newton. Newton would apply at atomic sizes if we humans had the instruments to measure the motion of atomic particles. It’s the lack of human ingenuity that is the limiting factor, not Newtonian mechanics. If we try to measure the position of an electron, or its angular velocity, or mass, we draw energy from the particle and change its properties.
Consider f = ma. The only real phenomena there are f = force and m = mass. The a = acceleration can be observed as a phenomenon since a force applied to a mass under certain conditions causes the mass to change visually somehow in a non-linear manner.
To quantify that mysterious change in the mass we needed a way to measure the change. Until the advent of a relatively accurate clock we had no means of measuring it. The invention of a clock was not helpful unless we had a definition of what it was measuring.
We settled on the standard of measurement as a sub-division of one rotation of the Earth. The ultimate basis of that measurement was the second and we called it time. We called one rotation a day and we subdivided the day into 24 hours. We subdivided that into 60 minutes and the minute into 60 seconds.
Acceleration is measured in meters/sec^2. If we take ‘a’ to the LHS of the equation, the equation becomes a = f/m. However, ‘a’ is defined by time (seconds) and distance (metres) in the human system of measurement. Humans invented seconds as described earlier and the metre as a fraction of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.
How does that second change to become dilated if it is already defined as the static value of a small fraction of the time we defined for the Earth to turn through one rotation? Obviously, some mad mathematician has been at work here, transposing an equation that makes no sense when it is transposed.
If ‘a’ can change (dilate) on the LHS of an equation, it means force and mass on the RHS are variable when you change their speeds. I think that is a fallacy introduced by distortion in the human mind.
With the twin paradox, it was presumed one twin leaving Earth to travel through space at the speed of light would return to find his twin much older. Can no one see the obvious dilemma here? Humans don’t age based on time, they age based on biological processes in their cells. Both twins would be the same age biologically upon meeting again, the traveler likely less healthy than the twin who remained on Earth.
No, Gordon, Newton certainly does not apply at quantum scales. Do they honestly not teach that to engineers? They should.
The twin paradox is real. The biological process in cells that run at particular rates depending on one’s motion relative to another. This physics has been confirmed repeatedly since Einstein, and it clearly governs the world. That’s what special relativity means — different clocks run at different rates, depending on their motion. There is no “absolute time,” only relative time.
The twins in the twin paradox will not be the same ages upon return. That’s how the universe works.
BTW, Gordon, you should read about how atmospheric muon decay confirms the predictions of time dilation in special relativity. Good stuff.
Just Google “muon decay special relativity”
There seems to be some discussion regarding the minds of humans. In the universe of minds of humans, if Earth had 90 degree tilt, would Earth average temperature seem to increase or decrease? And how much are you imagining?
How much are you imagining?
Might get into some crazy stuff.
Instead how many degrees of Celsius, do you think it could increase or decrease in terms of average global temperature?
This down turn in oceanic temperatures is fast not gradual thus far.
“Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939
DAVID- the two solar conditions did not materialize then, which were 10+ years of sub solar activity in general followed by very low average value solar parameters.
This year it seems to be happening.
David my climate prediction is predicated on very low long duration solar activity.
If that does not happen my prediction does not happen.
If it does happen AGW will be history although I am sure the solar /climate connection question will still be debated.
I am looking for two items to accompany the cooling which are OVERALL cooler sea surface temperatures and a higher albedo.
HIGHER ALBEDO DUE TO THE FOLLOWING:
increasing major geological activity
increase in global cloud coverage
increase in global snow coverage
a trend toward -AO/-NAO
If all this occurs then I think my solar climate connection case will be quite strong.
Here you said all of your criteria were met:
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
Exactly David, but at the time I did not know solar activity was going to remain high.
David is not interested in anything except his personally aggrandizing snark. For him to dig up or maintain records of what you said these many days previously tells us a great deal of David.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Exactly David, but at the time I did not know solar activity was going to remain high.”
So you were wrong — you jumped the gun.
Why is this time any different? Why should anyone believe you now?
Salvatore…”…the two solar conditions did not materialize then…”
We are being watched. There is something ‘out there’ which monitors us, and when we make a prediction, ‘it’ adjusts the parameters of the universe to mess us up. ☺
Mind you, it works both ways. Sometimes our minds predict gloom and doom, and ‘it’ arranges the parameters to give us what we need. I think we call them miracles.
In Zen parlance it’s called the cosmic joke. As I understand the joke, we were given minds that don’t work, but we think they do. At least our ego minds think they do.
All alarmists suffer from the cosmic joke.
Fortunately we were given ‘awareness’ to offset the joke but often as not we allow the ego to override the intelligence of awareness.
Not to worry, you are trying and you have the guts to put your predictions out there. All the more power to you.
My whole climate theory again is based on very low solar activity.
Now I it looks like it is happening in the years following 2010 it did not happen and not enough time of sub- solar activity in general had past.
salvatore…”My whole climate theory again is based on very low solar activity”.
There could be mitigating factors. Tsonis et al discovered a relationship between ocean oscillations like the AMO, PDO, ENSO, the AO, etc. The PDO affects ENSO.
Tsonis found that the phase relationsips between the oscillations were in sync with warming/cooling over the 20th century. Even if your solar activity is affecting the atmospheric temperature the oceans could be offsetting it.
The PDO was not discovered as a phenomenon till 1977, when global temps suddenly rose 0.2C. We had another mysterious 0.2C increase circa 2001. One would think that 0.4C has to be paid back at some point because there is no way to produce such warming of itself. I cannot accept it came from anthropogenic sources.
GR wrote:
“I cannot accept it came from anthropogenic sources.”
Why?
My criteria had never been met. This year is the first year it is getting close and looking forward it looks good.
We will see.
AGW has been high jacking favorable oceanic temperatures to try to say it was AGW that caused the warming.
Let’s see how well AGW does without favorable oceanic temperatures.
Salvatore,
Making predictions can be fraught with difficulty – particularly where the future is involved, I’m told.
Possibly you could follow climatological best practice, as I understand it.
Make 10,000 incorrect projections (by making 10,001, all different). Call them scenarios or projections. Take the average. Use this to predict a vague outcome in 2100. Possibilities include stating that it is likely hurricanes will be more, or less frequent, and that their intensity will be greater, or lesser.
Make sure you don’t specify a definite time, place, or anything that is actually measurable.
Meaningless terms like “increased frequency”, “more intense”, and so on, will mean you can never be shown to be wrong.
You might find foolish Warmists complaining that your predictions are wrong. Just change the goal posts, or explain that your model needs recalibrating, after re-examining the past.
Eventually one of many predictions will come to pass. You can use this for many years, as an example of your predictive abilities. Good luck, and keep up the good work.
Cheers.
Thanks
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“My criteria had never been met.”
Salvatore, you said here that your criteria had been met:
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
It has never been met. This year should be the first time.
Salvatore, stop lying. You SAID all the criteria had been met.
Or were you lying then?
David Appell wrote –
“Tell me, Salvatore, do you think the Earth doesnt emit infrared radiation, or do you think that CO2 doesnt absorb it?”
This is a stupid , irrelevant, foolish Warmist attempt at a “gotcha’, unless David can provide evidence to the contrary.
If David knows the answers, he has posed a puerile “gotcha”. In any case, neither “question” has anything at all to do with the other.
Neither “question” has anything to do with the non-existent GHE, and is therefore quite pointless. There is not even a testable GHE hypothesis, let alone a scientifically expressed GHE theory.
Did David really not know that all matter with a temperature above absolute zero emits radiation? If that radiation has lower frequencies than the visible spectrum, by definition it must be “infrared”.
I’m surprised that David didn’t know that CO2 can indeed be raised to temperatures above absolute zero. If exposed to an ambient temperature of say 20 K, the CO2 will achieve that temperature, at which point it will radiate IR at precisely the same frequencies as that of the surrounding environment.
This should set David’s mind at rest. I’m surprised that a man claiming to have a PhD in a scientific area would not understand basic physics.
Please excuse me if I have “dumbed down” the answer to help David Appell understand. If I have erred in any major ways, I would appreciate correction.
Cheers.
mike…”If that radiation has lower frequencies than the visible spectrum, by definition it must be infrared…”
You could be trying to be facetious but there is other EM below the infrared, like microwaves and radio waves. The UAH data comes from AMSU units on satellites that detect natural oxygen emissions in the microwave range.
Radio waves as low as 1 KHz have been detected from space. All microwaves and radio waves are known to emanate from natural sources.
Gordon Robertson says:
“All microwaves and radio waves are known to emanate from natural sources.”
Ever hear of a microwave oven? A radio station?
Gordon,
I wasn’t being facetious, just pointing out that light is light. Any light, comprised of wavelengths longer than those of visible red light, is by definitiion infra red.
One such definition –
“1 :situated outside the visible spectrum at its red end”
Foolish Warmists get hung up on silliness such as LWDWIR, the GHE, GHGs, forcing, infrared in general, CO2, H2O, and all the rest of the foolish Warmist nonsense.
Little science, much scientism. Complete waste of time, effort and money, if measured against benefit to humanity in general – which, up to now, appears to be a quantity indistinguishable form zero!
I agree with you though. The wavelength emitted by a body at 0.0000001 K is very long indeed, and still natural. Infinite frequencies. All “light”.
Cheers.
If exposed to an ambient temperature of say 20 K, the CO2 will achieve that temperature, at which point it will radiate IR at precisely the same frequencies as that of the surrounding environment.
The atomic structure of gas molecules is such that they can only vibrate and emit at certain frequencies, just as they can absorb radiation only at certain frequencies. Each molecule type has a characteristic emission spectrum.
This knowledge is what allows us to reckon the age of distant stars and the chemical make-up of solar system planets and satellites and the chemical composition of exosystem stars and other bodies. We would not be able to do this if molecules did not have discrete emissions profiles.
barry,
Are you disagreeing with what I said?
Or are you trying to say that a mixture of CO2 and O2 cannot have the same temperature – say 20 K?
Maybe you are confused – matter can be any temperature above 0 K. For example, a sample of CO2 warmed by friction to 100 C is exactly the same temperature as a sample of any other gas warmed by friction to the same temperature. Or heat by compression, or by surrounding by anything with a higher temperature.
Maybe you could explain what is being measured when a climatologist claims the air temperature is say 25 C, even when the CO2 and H2O concentrations are varied.
Cheers.
Or are you trying to say that a mixture of CO2 and O2 cannot have the same temperature say 20 K?
Mixture? This is what you said.
If exposed to an ambient temperature of say 20 K, the CO2 will achieve that temperature, at which point it will radiate IR at precisely the same frequencies as that of the surrounding environment.
Just to clarify, are you saying that CO2 will radiate at any frequency, matching with its environment? Or do you agree CO2 can only emit at certain wavelengths?
barry,
Yes.
Inconvenient, but factual.
No GHE.
Cheers.
Which option are you saying yes to?
You agree that CO2 molecules only emits radiation at certain frequencies?
Because if you believe CO2 can emit radiation at any frequency, you are very much mistaken. And this is not hypothesis, this is verified with 70 years of applied spectroscopy.
barry 6:46am, you are attempting to debate atm. physics with a commenter who tries to “humbly” (/sarc) inform readers that in his command of physics the night stars do not actually appear to twinkle looking up from sea level; the day sky is not blue at sea level; Prof. Tyndall’s thermometers did not indicate a rise in temperature with added CO2 et. al. olefiant gas; IR (et. al.) astronomers have never needed to build their instruments in desperately remote high places to reduce atm. attenuation; that ground communications with satellites above 3Ghz band are not problematic; that there is no rain attenuation even at view angles to the horizon below 5 degrees; that ground IR thermometers do not read different T pointed at cloud and clear sky so that GHCN thermometers do not read on avg. about 33K warmer on earth surface than without the GHE; all due to Mike Flynn maintaining there is no GHE.
“…(CO2) will radiate IR at precisely the same frequencies as that of the surrounding environment.”
Strictly that is true, at all temperatures. And CO2 gas does emit radiation at any frequency, at any temperature as the Planck curve intensity is never identically zero.
All objects (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) radiate at all frequencies, at all temperatures, all the time. Certain gaseous objects however radiate at increased intensities at certain frequencies. Take a look at any spectrophotometer output, the intensity measured in its view will be nonzero at every frequency & every temperature in its operating bands. The intensity of the emitted radiation may fall below the spectrophotometer sensitivity in certain operating bands but tomorrow’s instrument? – who knows.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Exactly David, but at the time I did not know solar activity was going to remain high.
So you were wrong you jumped the gun.
Why is this time any different? Why should anyone believe you now?
YES DAVID I JUMPED THE GUN EXACTLY CORRECT.
Salvatore,
If you don’t see a reply button under Davids message you need to update your web client.
Sal – Last look showed water vapor still increasing 1.5% per decade and none of the monthly reporting average global temperature were significantly down.
Weekly el Nino shows down.
http://i67.tinypic.com/2mq80tz.jpg
The very latest data shows a nice drop in overall sea surface temperatures and global temperatures.
The last 2 or 3 weeks especially.
Sal – Can you provide a link to very latest SST? Dr Roy gives UAH within a day or two of month end but I have failed to find any other.
Positive feedback (engineering definition of feedback) will make a temperature downtrend steeper.
I suspect that low-altitude cloud cover has been increasing but have found no supporting data. A simple calculation shows an increase of only about 1.7% in average cloud cover will result in an eventual average global temperature decline of 0.5 K.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
LATEST SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE INFO.
I SEE MUCH COOLING OF LATE.
I wish there was better cloud coverage data.
Dan…”Positive feedback (engineering definition of feedback) will make a temperature downtrend steeper”.
The engineering definition of PF refers to a feedback signal within an amplifier (gain) circuit. PF is not a driver, the amplifier is the driver. There is no amplifier in the atmosphere therefore all feedback in the atmosphere must be negative feedback.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is no amplifier in the atmosphere therefore all feedback in the atmosphere must be negative feedback.”
Plum stupid.
Just a few positive feedbacks:
1) Water vapor feedback
2) ice-albedo feedback
3) temperature-CO2 feedback
“Causal feedbacks in climate change” Nature Climate Change 2015. Egbert H. van Nes, Marten Scheffer, Victor Brovkin, Timothy M. Lenton, Hao Ye, Ethan Deyle and George Sugihara dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2568
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-03-evidence-positive-feedback-climate.html
Salvatore, your graph shows a SST rise of about 0.4 C in just three weeks.
Strong warming, huh?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“LATEST SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE INFO.”
It’s only the average SST for a quite small region of the ocean. And one with a great deal of natural variation (by that region’s definition).
In fact, the global average SST increased by +0.07 C from July to August:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
DA…”Plum stupid.
Just a few positive feedbacks:
1) Water vapor feedback
2) ice-albedo feedback
3) temperature-CO2 feedback”
You’re in good company there, DA, even Gavin Schmidt cannot explain positive feedback.
The three you have listen are negative feedbacks but in climate science they call a not-so-negative negative feedback a positive feedback.
See my comment later for today…Oct 1st.
Sal – Thanks for the link. Do you know what CDAS stands for?
I have been getting el Nino anomalies from here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst8110.for
I have been graphing it for a while as shown here:
http://i67.tinypic.com/2mq80tz.jpg
The plots for Nino 3.4 appear to be different. ??
Gor – The engineering use of feedback is not limited to electronics. It applies to any process.
It means that the output has an influence on the input.
If the input causes the output to increase, positive feedback means the increase will be greater than if there was no feedback. If the input causes the output to decrease, positive feedback means the decrease will be greater than if there was no feedback.
In engineering use, feedback is dimensionless.
In use by climate science, feedback has units W/m^2. This allows climate science to use feedback which is impossibly large from a stability standpoint.
Dav – Apparently you are using the climate science ‘definition’ of feedback.
Eventually it should become apparent to everyone that there is no significant feedback (either engineering or CS definition) from CO2.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“The last 2 or 3 weeks especially.”
This happens ALL THE TIME.
It’s just noise in the system.
Why is this time so special compared to all the hundreds of other times it’s happened in recent decades??
Not this time David.
DAVID ,global sea surface temperatures have fallen from around +.38c to +.24c in the past month.
Not to mention La Nina looking likely as equatorial sea surface temperatures have also fallen.
Why not this time? Because you don’t want it to be?
Global SSTs rose last month, according to Hadley.
Why not this time because the solar criteria I called for to promote cooling is now coming into play.
David the sea surface temperatures are falling and why should you care since it is AGW which causes warming.
Salvatore, I just gave you the link that showed HadSST3 global SSTs rose last month.
Can you not read??
Salvatore, HadSST3 global SST for August was the highest value in 2017.
So where is all this supposed cooling? What the data show are WARMING…..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
It has to start at some time some place and I like what I see in the recent data.
It is early and let’s see by the end of this year where everything stands.
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_globe_t2m_week_anom.png
This is an eyeopening animation which helps explain the fluctuation in reported SST. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ir1w3OrR4U
I only trust a trend, the longer the better. A long term trend for average global temperature shows 1 s.d. variation of about +/- 0.09 K with respect to the trend (my calcs).
Dan …”I only trust a trend, the longer the better”.
A trend is meaningless if the underlying variables (contexts) are not explained. Plugging numbers into an algorithm to obtain a trend is pretty meaningless in itself if one has no idea how the data was obtained.
The concept of a global temperature, SST, or climate is just as meaningless.
“This is an eyeopening animation ….”
I don’t see why. It includes the note:
“This video illustrates [OI.v2] Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly data for the Global Oceans from January 1996 through July 1, 2009.The contour level of the maps were set at 0.2 deg C to bring out the lower-intensity SST anomalies. ”
Generally I don’t find Anomaly data particularly useful and can’t say why a 0.2 resolution would make it more useful.
I think temperature is more interesting, something like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTig9gKegQk
or a shorter time period:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNHRLgjLjA
Gordon Robertson says:
“A trend is meaningless if the underlying variables (contexts) are not explained.”
Not true, of course.
“Plugging numbers into an algorithm to obtain a trend is pretty meaningless in itself if one has no idea how the data was obtained.”
There have been many many papers written about how SSTs are determined, and surface temperatures, and ocean heat content, and atmospheric temperatures.
Of course, since you don’t read those papers, you have no idea what’s in them.
David Appell,
Trends are no better than anything else for peering into the future.
In other words, not much use at all.
The longer a trend has continued, the closer it is to changing. Based on the trend to date, I should live forever. I choose to assume differently – silly me, you might say.
The papers to which you refer are obviously nonsense – unless you would like to justify their conclusions using science. Foolish Warmism, in action.
Maybe you could try finding a testable hypothesis for the fabled GHE, for starters.Trying to predict the future by examination of the past has not worked terribly well to date, has it?
As to trend following, play the stock market – follow the trends. Go to a casino – try and get rich following a trend!
Cheers.
Gor – Apparently with a little effort, anything can be misinterpreted. A trend is a better indicator of what is really going on instead of individual measurements or cherry picking.
As to temperature measurements, what is important is change which can be meaningless or even misleading if the measuring procedure or interpretation are also changed.
Gba – Nice links, and I also find them interesting. But they are not very good at showing what I was trying to get across: That there is a lot of rapid fluctuation in surface temperature which comes across in global temperature reporting as ‘noise’. 5-year smoothing does a pretty good job of determining the trend of what is really going on.
Regarding:
How to cool Earth:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265612
Problem with pressure is the claim it adds heat.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-264939
Or as said before if have big enough pit- like 4 km deep deep on Earth the air at bottom of pit will warmer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265029
I was thinking, how can you make tropical ocean warmer than it, is.
Or review the basics:
Tropical ocean is about 27 C and all oceans average temperature is 17 C.
And tropical ocean warm the rest of world and the oceans warm land areas [which have a lower average temperature than the oceans].
Anyhow, so naturally I thought one could add a big deep pit to the oceans, but from engineering point of view it is challenging. And what would easier is draining the Mediterranean sea. So lower the ocean level of Mediterranean sea by a mile or so, or about 2 km.
And then I thought this could be way to warm Earth- but I was wrong. Instead it would be a way to increase average global temperature, but not a way to warm earth.
Or it would not affect the air temperature at sea level.
Or you measure the air temperature of ocean 2 km below sea level and it would give a higher temperature and if add this temperature to average global temperature it would increase the average temperature. But the air 2 km above the deep pit is not warmer than the sea level temperature.
So it doesn’t warm Earth.
Or as rule if want to warm earth, one must increase the air temperature at certain elevation- sea level being the most common level could be that level of elevation.
The equatorial bulge, is an interesting complication to issue of what is sea level. Roughly does the equatorial bulge not increase temperature but does cause warming of Earth. Or one could say, is it the opposite of a big deep pit?
And it’s quite a big anti-pit. Or in a word, symmetry.
Or if big deep pit cause air temperatures to be higher at bottom of pit, but don’t increase global temperature, then does a bulge increase global temperature and not increase the surface temperature.
I was planning saying other stuff, but the equatorial bulge
is big, and it is often ignored.
gbaikie…”Or as said before if have big enough pit- like 4 km deep deep on Earth the air at bottom of pit will warmer”.
You have w-a-a-y-y-y-y too much time on your hands.
☺ ☺ ☺
Gordon,
Oh well, we all have both too much, and too little time on our hands. Depends on circumstances, I suppose.
His figure of 4 km is interesting, though.
The worlds deepest mine is around 3.9 km. deep. The mine’s rock face at that depth is around 60 C – relatively cool for the depth.
At that depth in the ocean, the temperature will be about 3 C.
It’s a funny old world we occupy, isn’t it?
Cheers.
I tend to think more about space exploration.
Basically I think we need to explore lunar polar regions and then NASA should explore Mars.
Related to Mars exploration and then future Mars settlement, I think terraforming Mars should mostly about making lakes on Mars and living within the lakes. My idea is roughly, it could be cheap to terraform Mars.
Or need a trillion or so tonnes of water rather than many tens of trillions tonnes of atmosphere.
Also the teraforming could start at much smaller scale- a billion tonnes of water is enough for small city, or a very small settlement of a hundred people which grow into small city. Or easy access to a billion tonnes of water at some location “makes” a settlement. In comparison with the Moon, 10,000 tons of easy to access water makes rocket fuel company.
Anyhow recently I have spent more time on topic of “global warming”. Or I am hearing [vaguely] Trump wants to explore the Moon- which should be exciting, but I will wait and see. And as said before, it also seems Musk is paying more attention to the Moon, but I have had the time/interest in spending much time on the details of it.
Actually, even though “global warming” is a somewhat dull topic, generally, I find that at the moment it more interesting.
Oh, that reminds me of other crazy ideas, so I googled it [I haven’t done that for awhile]:getting icebergs for water supply:
“Iceberg water already is a small-scale resource in the Northern Hemisphere in some drinks alcoholic and otherwise. Iceberg utilization has begun. The first major international conference addressing the issue was held in 1977 (Balaban 1979: Husseiny 1978). Schwerdtfeger (1981) provided a very useful review of the status of the concept, and advances in relevant science to that time, and Schwerdtfeger (1982) expanded a little on the topic. His studies were based on the assumption of towing icebergs and he found that it was not likely to be viable because of the high cost of fuel. Since then, another possibility has emerged and the relative cost of fuel has fallen. In this paper I wish to explore the idea a little further ‘flying a kite’ as it were.”
And etc:
http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water_quality/quality1/13-08-icebergs-for-drinking-water.htm
Anyhow, bad idea to use chemical fuel- it would be better to use nuclear powered tugs.
My idea was to make snow resort in the tropics- which would require lots of ice. And using ice to make real estate. And secondary related thing to it, would using the ice for stuff
like drinking water or irrigation needs.
Or the ice per tonne would more valuable for entertainment and real estate value and way to start the entire business of towing more ice for other needs.
Or a problem with towing ice for drinking, is not towing, it’s the infrastructure needed at the place it’s towed to.
Or once you making snow resorts in tropics, then investment in the infrastructure needed to distribute the water could done.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/icebergs-as-water.htm
Main problem is thinking about towing small iceberg- I would want island size burgs.
Problem is more like the tow rope you need. And finding [or making] an iceburg a some general characteristic of a ship- long and less wide. Say 2 km by 8 km.
which is 16 square km- and say 100 meter thick- it’s roughly 1.5 billion tonnes. That would not melt quickly and will cool tropical water around it
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/can-we-use-icebergs-as-a-source-of-water.html
And about same thing here- want .1 to .2 million tonnes. Wrong scale.
A cubic meter of water is worth about 50 cents.
Or million tonnes roughly is 1/2 million dollars. Whereas billion tonnes is 500 million dollars.
Or roughly the amount paid to tow it would be 10 to 100 million dollar per year
and how fast can it be towed is important- you pay more for it.
Or could start small- million tonnes per year, but for towing to be profitable one wants to be towing billions of tonnes per year within say 10 year time frame. It’s a lot of risk and needs a lot capital
Oh here something:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uae-icebergs-drinking-water-from-antarctica-towed-united-arab-emirates-a7715561.html
“Mr Al Shehi said his company’s simulations predict it will take up to one year to tow an iceberg to the UAE and said the project will start in early 2018.
He also said the sight of icebergs floating along the coast could become another tourist attraction.”
Do you think the tourists might have the wild idea wanting to get on one of these icebergs?
“It does appear that the stratospheric polar vortex is playing a role in the upcoming frigid conditions. The polar vortex is basically a closed circulation surrounding the polar regions in the upper atmosphere, and when it becomes weakened or elongated, a piece of it can surge farther south. The result is arctic cold reaching into parts of Canada.”
https://www.wunderground.com/news/arctic-blasts-midwest-northeast-south-west-mid-december
https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/
David Appell, trying to back up some of his silly foolish Warmist “gotchas”, apparently, wrote –
“Light does just reach us when it reaches us. It travels on a geodesic through spacetime, and the time along that path can be defined and it can measured.”
Very sciency. Vague enough, and devoid of detail. One could almost believe that David Appell knew what he was talking about. He doesn’t seem to, though.
The following gives some flavour of the nature of the “light path” to which David refers –
“In fact, what photons do when they are travelling is to take every path possible. If a photon has to travel from point A to point B it will travel in a straight line and loop the loop and go via Alpha Centauri and take every other possible path. This is the photon’s so-called ‘quantum state’. It is spread out across all space. ”
If this means the the photon has to “go back in time” to achieve its final outcome, so be it. Experiment seems to to support the rather counterintuitive conclusion quoted. It doesn’t really matter, I suppose, but it probably doesn’t hurt to be aware that things like “atoms colliding”, and time being “unchanging” are convenient for day to day use, even if not strictly and demonstrably incorrect.
The facts are different. GPS satellites, for example, need to account for the fact that their clocks run slower than the same clock on the Earth’s surface.
I’m rather pleased that David Appell is not employed as a scientist. Even more pleased that he is not employed as an engineer. He might declare that the tunnel diode does not work, in spite of the fact that it does. Understanding why involves the acceptance of such things as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which means that the future state of weather (and hence climate), can never be determined.
Cheers.
David Appell wrote –
“Gordon Robertson says:
There is no amplifier in the atmosphere therefore all feedback in the atmosphere must be negative feedback.
Plum stupid.
Just a few positive feedbacks:
1) Water vapor feedback
2) ice-albedo feedback
3) temperature-CO2 feedback . . . “,
and attempted to justify his statement with a reference to a nonsensical foolish Warmist paper.
Just the climatological Greenhouse effect has no effect, and is nothing to do with greenhouses, the climatological feedback is nothing to do with the actual scientific definition of feedback.
There is not even a testable GHE hypothesis, so any and all references to the GHE in the real world are complete fabrication and wishful thinking.
David Appell seems to be promoting fantasy as fact, to what end I am not sure.
Cheers.
There is not even a testable GHE hypothesis
I wrote several above.
Hypothesis:
A volume of air receiving LW emissions will become warmer if more CO2 is introduced while the air pressure remains the same.
Hypothesis:
Of two volumes of atmosphere at the same pressure, but one with more GHGs than the other, the GHG-enriched atmosphere will warm more quickly than the other when being heated by equal amounts of long wave electromagnetic radiation.
Hypothesis:
A planetary body without an Earth atmosphere will cool at a faster rate at night than a planetary body with an Earth atmosphere the same distance from the sun.
Hypothesis:
Venus should have comparable or higher average surface temperature than Mercury owing to high GHGs concentration, despite Venus having a higher albedo and being twice the distance of Mercury from the sun.
Hypothesis:
If CO2 is re-emitting infrared radiation back to Earth, we should see an increase over time in LW radiation in the wavelengths specifically CO2 absorbs and re-emits heading to the surface if atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase.
Hypothesis:
A century of non-negligible CO2 rise should cause the global surface temperature to warm.
(The seed of this hypothesis was given in the 1890s)
Anyone who thinks science was not science before Popper came up with the concept of falsifiability should have their brain retooled. Falsification is part of the toolkit, not the end.
Nevertheless, all the above hypotheses are falsifiable.
Ways to falsify the GHE.
Demonstrate that GHG molecules behave differently in the lab than they do in the wild.
Demonstrate major errors in the instruments that discern longwave radiance flux in the wavelength bands associated with CO2, methane and water vapour.
Ways to falsify the enhanced GHE from increasing atmopheric conc of GHGs.
A drop in global temperatures to levels of 40 years ago for a sustained period of 30 years, with no obvious cause (such as a series of eruptions of super volcanoes).
The lower stratosphere warms along with the lower troposphere for 30 years.
barry says, October 1, 2017 at 6:42 AM:
This is indeed testable. But is it a “GHE hypothesis”? No.
This is also testable. But, again, is it a “GHE hypothesis”? No.
Testable. But, barry, NOT a “GHE hypothesis”.
Testable, yes. But is it specifically a “GHE hypothesis”? No, it’s an “atmospheric insulation effect hypothesis”. Whether this effect is specifically caused by “high GHGs concentration” or not is, however, unresolved by just comparing the T_s of Venus and Mercury.
Testable. But is it a “GHE hypothesis”? No.
Sort of testable, but not reliably so. Either way, this is DEFINITELY NOT a “GHE hypothesis”.
Straw man. No one’s suggesting CO2 and other IR-active molecules aren’t absorbing (and emitting) IR within certain bands of the EM spectrum. So no one in their right mind would try to “falsify the GHE” by showing that they don’t. They do. That’s not the issue.
Also not the issue. People are simply mixing up “cause” and “effect”.
Nope, wrong. I’ve already on multiple occasions, most recently on this very comment thread, just a few days back, given you the only proper method of falsifying or verifying the “enhanced GHE”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265578
“All we need to check is whether the evolution in total all-sky OLR at the ToA corresponds with the evolution in tropospheric temps (like TLT) over time. It is very distinctly supposed to stay flat over multi-decades (as Earth’s hypothetical “effective radiating level” is pushed ever higher) while T_tropo at the same time rises fairly steadily and significantly. According to the idea of the “enhanced GHE”.
We have observed no such thing in the real Earth system over the last 32+ years. What we HAVE observed (and DO observe) is rather how the total all-sky OLR at the ToA has simply tracked T_tropo (TLT) pretty much to a tee over the last few decades.”
–Nope, wrong. Ive already on multiple occasions, most recently on this very comment thread, just a few days back, given you the only proper method of falsifying or verifying the enhanced GHE:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265578 —
So do you think this can measure well enough to prove that doubling Co2 causes no warming. Or no measurable warming- not enough warming which can be measured.
Or I think if there enough CO2 added and/or one can measure more precisely, CO2 could be warming by some small amount. Or what tend to think, is, a doubling of CO2 will cause less than 1 C increase in global temperature [and I also assume this is currently not measurable].
gbaikie says, October 1, 2017 at 11:37 AM:
gbaikie,
It’s not about whether or not anyone can “prove” that doubling CO2 causes no warming. The burden of proof isn’t on us. It is not up to us to prove a negative. THEY present a positive claim, that doubling (or just increasing) the content of CO2 in the atmosphere WILL cause warming. That means the onus is on THEM to show that this is in fact true, and they need to show it using relevant empirical observations from the real Earth system. The null hypothesis of the positive claim above is that increasing the content of CO2 in the atmosphere will NOT cause any warming. In order to substantiate their claim, they will somehow have to falsify this null hypothesis. Otherwise all they’ve got is … their claim. And the only way to falsify the null hypothesis is to actually show emirically that an increase in CO2 has indeed caused (and is causing) warming within the Earth system.
And the way to do this is to point out the particular fingerprint, the distinctive signal of the “greenhouse warming mechanism“. Just pointing to rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures aren’t enough. You need to specifically show the causal connection between the two. That the former actually CAUSES the latter. Which is why you need the mechanism behind.
Where is it? Where is the signal? Where do we see the postulated mechanism in effective operation?
Where is the evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere CAUSES warming??
– – –
People have this bizarre tendency to assume that if you can’t “disprove” the AGW claim, then somehow it’s automatically to be considered correct. It is just “True” until anyone can show beyond any doubt that it’s false. As if it were itself the null hypothesis … And so all you have to spend your time doing is warding all attempts at refuting it off, and you’ll be fine. You yourself don’t ever have to show or prove a thing.
This is the truly confused mindset of the CO2 warmists.
–People have this bizarre tendency to assume that if you cant disprove the AGW claim, then somehow its automatically to be considered correct. It is just True until anyone can show beyond any doubt that its false. As if it were itself the null hypothesis And so all you have to spend your time doing is warding all attempts at refuting it off, and youll be fine. You yourself dont ever have to show or prove a thing.
This is the truly confused mindset of the CO2 warmists.–
Ok but I said a number of times that Greenhouse Effect theory is pseudoscience. And I am not merely being insultive, or something. Or even if CO2 causes say 2 C of warming per doubling of ppm, Greenhouse Effect theory is still pseudoscience.
Marxism is pseudoscience if ever there is nation state which is socialist and doesn’t murder people and basically doesn’t treat it’s citizens as animals, it does not make Marxism not pseudoscience.
The ideology of Racism is pseudoscience, and doesn’t matter if some Neo-Nazis are nice people or vaguely intelligent- it’s still and will remain forever, pseudoscience.
Or quite simply, you don’t have argument to disprove- it’s merely idiocy.
And Marxism is less pseudoscience than GHE, at least there is an known author of the idea. Carl Marxism isn’t a father of Marxism, rather he is the idiotic author.
Or I was lukerwarmer when I thought CO2 might warm as much as 3 C [maybe if higher]. All that can be said about GHE in terms of the greenhouse gas CO2, is it was supposed to have been what caused glacial and interglacial periods. And CO2 explains why Venus is hotter than it “should be”.
Venus is not vaguely hotter than is “should be” and CO2 has nothing to do with glacial and interglacial periods.
And then we have all the other stuff which is also dead wrong about GHE theory.
I should add that I believe Earth is warmed by it’s oceans and I am not aware of any mechanism of how CO2 has much or any effect on ocean temperatures.
Or Earth’s average temperature depends upon the amount of sunlight absorbed by the ocean.
And then you got the out going energy- which largely how much does the ocean evaporate.
Putting plastic over tropical ocean prevents evaporation and can interfere with amount sunlight absorbed by ocean. Could increase surface temperature and surface air temperature- but that’s a local effect and results in more energy radiated into space. Rest of world cools. and then rest world cools tropics.
Or tropics due to it’s location is still fairly warm, but it can then freeze at night. Or simply, the ocean if covered with plastic becomes like a land surface.
So, CO2 might keep land warmer. Though lots of things can make land warmer.
Warmer land air temperature doesn’t mean much in terms of the average global temperature. Though humans living on land surface can regard the land surface air temperature to be the major thing which is important.
I would guess it’s more likely one could measure warming effect of CO2 if measuring land air surface. And pick a land surface which is the least warmed by the ocean.
barry…”A volume of air receiving LW emissions will become warmer if more CO2 is introduced while the air pressure remains the same”.
Do you understand that introducing CO2 into an existing gas at constant volume must increase the pressure? The only way to maintain a constant pressure is to increase the volume.
How much the constant volume warms is dependent on Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures. With a constant volume and constant mass, where two of the gases represent nearly 99% of the mass and CO2 represents 0.04% of the mass, how much do you think the volume will warm due to adding ‘some’ CO2?
Remember, mass causes pressure in a constant volume, therefore partial pressure is directly related to partial mass.
barry…”Of two volumes of atmosphere at the same pressure, but one with more GHGs than the other, the GHG-enriched atmosphere will warm more quickly than the other when being heated by equal amounts of long wave electromagnetic radiation”.
barry…you need a refresher in basic chemistry. Presuming you are talking about volumes of air with 99% nitrogen and oxygen, what possible difference could the existing amount of CO2 have at 0.04%?
So, you increase it to 0.05%. You might increase the temperature in that column by a tiny fraction of a degree C. However, increasing the current CO2 density of 0.04% to 0.05% would take a massive amount of CO2, far more than we currently contribute.
Do you have any idea as to the volume of our atmosphere?
barry…”A planetary body without an Earth atmosphere will cool at a faster rate at night than a planetary body with an Earth atmosphere the same distance from the sun”.
The rate of emission from the surface is determined by the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere, which is usually pretty close to surface temperatures. Remove the atmosphere and you have cold space at nearly -273C next to the surface. At night, the temperature difference is bound to drop the surface temp very quickly.
barry…”If CO2 is re-emitting infrared radiation back to Earth, we should see an increase over time in LW radiation in the wavelengths specifically CO2 absorbs and re-emits heading to the surface if atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase”.
So what??? You seem to be insinuating the radiation will be absorbed by the surface and warm it.
barry…”Demonstrate that GHG molecules behave differently in the lab than they do in the wild”.
There’s no reason to think they do. What we are concerned with at the skeptical level is how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. Based on Dalton’s Law there should be negligible warming contributed to the atmosphere by CO2.
In Tyndall’s experiment he failed to measure for reflection. He presumed IR missing at the output of his tube was absorbed.
I don’t recall in Tyndall’s experiment if he measured pure air, and if so, how much the absorbed CO2 warmed the air.
barry…”Ways to falsify the enhanced GHE from increasing atmopheric conc of GHGs. A drop in global temperatures to levels of 40 years ago for a sustained period of 30 years, with no obvious cause (such as a series of eruptions of super volcanoes)”.
You have failed to explain why the warming you mention comes from CO2/GHG warming. Akasofu has pointed out the obvious, the Earth was 1 to 2C cooler for the better part of 400 years till 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended. Why are you not factoring in the natural re-warming that has surely occurred since 1850?
https://www.iceagenow.info/dont-let-con-cooling-8000-years/
My response to the above correct article.
Exactly and the cooling trend is still intact. The latest relative warmth being one of the weakest spikes in an otherwise overall cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum.
The big climatic picture which is land /ocean arrangements as well as Milankovitch Cycles(obliquity decrease, aphelion coming during N.H. summer) / weakening geo magnetic field strength have all favored cooling since the Holocene Optimum.
In the intermediate climatic picture we have solar activity which from 1840-2005 favored warming. Post 2005 it has favored cooling . The spikes in warmth over a few centuries since the Holocene Optimum or so in an other wise cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum correlate to strong solar activity during those periods of time. Example would be the Medieval Warm Period 1050-1250 approx. A.D.
Superimposed on the entire trend are items that influence the climate in the short term over years/decades ,those being volcanic activity , ENSO, and overall oceanic temperatures.
Oceanic temperatures lagging solar activity changes by at least a decade.
Everything is in place in year 2017 and moving forward from here for cooling.
DA commented that my claim on positive feedback, that it requires an amplifier, is wrong. Even Gavin Schmist of NASA GISS apparently does not understand positive feedback.
There is a commentary on PF in the following article by engineer Jeffrey Glassman, who corrected Gavin Schmidt on positive feedback.
See about 1/4 way down page to ‘GAVIN SCHMIDT ON POSITIVE FEEDBACK’.
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
Quote from Schmidt in article: “A positive feedback occurs when a change in one component of the climate occurs, leading to other changes that eventually ‘feeds back’ on the original change to amplify it”.
This is incredibly vague for someone who is now head of NASA GISS. For one, the positive feedback is related to heat, not climate. ‘Something’ needs to amplify the heat, but what? He offers the vague statement, ‘…leading to other changes’. Schmidt’s description of positive feedback suggest he does not grasp what it is.
Allow me to present an explanation of feedback based on decades of experience using it in electronics, both in amplifiers that use negative feedback and in oscillators that use PF directly.
In electronics the term positive feedback has two derivations. There is the PF of servo systems in which PF refers only to the sign of the feedback, either +ve or -ve. The sign is compared to a reference voltage and the difference is amplified and applied to a correction device. That is NOT the PF we are talking about in the atmosphere since there is no amplification is servo systems.
The other positive feedback in electronics is the signal in one branch of an amplifier that carries a small sample of the output signal from the output of the amplifier back to the input of the amp so that the sampled signal is in phase with the input signal and adds to its amplitude.
The combined input + feedback signal becomes larger during each cycle of amplification and the output signal becomes exponentially larger. There is no mechanism in the atmosphere to bring that about since there is no amplifier.
If you break the circuit carrying the feedback the amplifier will still operate as a normal amplifier. However, if you turn off the amplifier the positive feedback ceases to exist.
That is perfectly obvious with a PA system when it begins to squeal due to the microphone receiving acoustical power from the speaker. The mic feeds the incidental audio power into the amplifier where it goes back to the speaker. The circuitous summation of audio power causes an exponential gain in the circuit due to positive feedback.
If you turn off the amplifier, the feedback squeal stops immediately. The only way positive feedback can exist in nature is through a phenomenon like the natural resonance in the support cables of suspension bridges. There is no such naturally resonant system in the atmosphere nor does the atmosphere have an amplifier that can amplify heat.
Let’s make one thing clear right now, without amplification the latter type of positive feedback cannot exist. Schmidt even admits that amplification is involved, even in climate. Something has to amplify the heat because positive feedback is only part of an amplifier, not the amplifier itself.
Positive feedback cannot amplify heat, a separate amplifier is required. That is where so many people trying to explain PF go astray. They assume positive feedback can act magically alone as an amplifier and it can’t.
In the atmosphere, GHGs are warmed (allegedly) by a portion of the tremendous IR flux emitted by the surface. The GHG molecules then allegedly radiate isotropically with a fraction of their radiation returning to the surface. That fraction of 0.04% of the atmospheric gases representing CO2 is claimed to be enough to make up for the tremendous losses at the surface represented by the entire IR flux field emitted.
There is no way such a tiny back-radiation can produce positive feedback. Such a notion contradicts the 2nd law for one and there is simply not enough back-radiation to make up for surface losses, even if it could be absorbed, which it can’t. The back-radiation lacks the frequency and intensity to be absorbed by the surface since it came from a cooler source.
Schmidt is an example of climate modelers who are including +ve feedback in a model without understanding the physical meaning of PF. The PF should be removed from the models because it cannot exist in the atmosphere as it stands. Removing the PF would return model predictions to a normal temperature range.
ps. with the natural resonance in suspension bridge support cables, a sustained wind of a certain intensity is required to keep the cables vibrating. Also, the structure of the suspended load has to be such that the vibrations can spread to the deck.
Natural resonance is a recognized phenomenon in nature and it can result in natural amplification. There is no such mechanism in the atmosphere to support such a positive feedback.
The albedo effect is not a natural positive feedback. If it was, we’d have a runaway problem. All atmospheric processes are negative feedbacks, some not so negative as others.
Gor – I cant think of any positive feedbacks in the atmosphere either.
I am here only using the engineering ‘definition’ of feedback.
The positive feedback in nature that is important in temperature is with liquid water. Liquid water has a vapor pressure as a function of its temperature. The atmosphere has a partial pressure of water vapor which is usually much less than the vapor pressure of the liquid water (e.g. 50% RH). Water vapor is IR active i.e. it is a so called ghg. Radiation from the water vapor counters some of the radiation from the liquid water. This combined with the SW radiation from the sun and cooling from evaporation results in the water being at some temperature. Assume the evaporating water is swept away by wind to keep the atmospheric water vapor constant.
Now if there is a change in the forcing, say the sun gets a bit brighter, the liquid water will warm up. As the liquid water warms up, its vapor pressure increases and the rate of evaporation increases which increases the partial pressure of the WV in the atmosphere. More WV increases the countering of the radiation from the liquid water so the liquid water temperature increases further, further increasing the vapor pressure, which further increases the partial pressure of the water and so on in a diminishing loop. That the temperature increase in the liquid water leads to further increase in the liquid water is the positive feedback. The liquid water temperature increases more with positive feedback than it would if there were no feedback.
Likewise, if the sun gets a bit less bright, the same positive feedback from liquid water results in the temperature decline being steeper than it would be if there were no feedback.
Increasing WV leads to more clouds which is a negative feedback making temperature increase from any cause self limiting.
Well it’s the “feedback” regarding water vapor, which the believers of global warming are talking about.
Or when crazies talk about CO2 causing the entire +33 C of warming of greenhouse gases, it’s related to water vapor feedback.
The problem is the tropics would be warm, *even* if earth average temperature were somehow -18 C.
Or one can actually make Earth have such a low average temperature, by having Earth further from the sun. Or the somehow of being -18 C is possible.
Or the number of -18 C average temperature without greenhouse gases is wrong. But by having earth further from the Sun, one could have at distance where Earth had such an average temperature [with greenhouse gases or not] and at that distance the equator would still be above freezing and one would still have quite a bit of water vapor in the tropics.
That distance further from the Sun is somewhere between Earth and Mars distance. And because every 100,000 years earth orbit become more and less eccentric, perhaps Earth has been at such distance when at aphelion of it’s orbit [but average distance remains the same.
But rather distance, currently earth get about 1000 watts of direct sunlight at noon with clear skies and sun near Zenith. If Earth were far enough from the sun, it could instead be about 600 watts of direct sunlight. Or at the top of atmosphere somewhere around 900 watts per square meter.
Or Mars gets average of 600 watts, but Earth has thick atmosphere which results losses. And on Mars with it’s 600 watts of sunlight it warms the surface to over 20 C and has average temperature of about -50 to -60 C.
So at closer distance than Mars Perihelion distance or have earth orbit about 20 million km further from the sun with TOA sunlight around 900 watt per square meter, one get a bit more sunlight at noon at zenith and clear as Mars does. Which means dry sand on clear sky and at zenith would warm as much as 30 C and have air temperature just above freezing. But earth ocean at tropics would warm to say 20 C and air temperature above it at 20 C. But outside the tropic, unless during summer will be cold. Or average global temperature of -20 C or colder.
Or half of world near tropics would have average temperature of around 5 C or less and other half cooler than -40 C.
Or habitable for life and humans if within tropical zone.
Though terrible weather.
“Now if there is a change in the forcing, say the sun gets a bit brighter, the liquid water will warm up. As the liquid water warms up, its vapor pressure increases and the rate of evaporation increases which increases the partial pressure of the WV in the atmosphere. More WV increases the countering of the radiation from the liquid water so the liquid water temperature increases further, further increasing the vapor pressure, which further increases the partial pressure of the water and so on in a diminishing loop. That the temperature increase in the liquid water leads to further increase in the liquid water is the positive feedback. The liquid water temperature increases more with positive feedback than it would if there were no feedback.
Likewise, if the sun gets a bit less bright, the same positive feedback from liquid water results in the temperature decline being steeper than it would be if there were no feedback.
Increasing WV leads to more clouds which is a negative feedback making temperature increase from any cause self limiting.”
Well the sun is “brighter” in the sense that it is more intense per 24 hour period, in the tropics.
The sun is also “brighter” in the sense that ocean absorb both direct and indirect sunlight- a land surface [and maybe a “perfect blackbody surface”] doesn’t absorb indirect sunlight. Or at noon clear sky and at zenith the sunlight is about 1050 watts of direct sunlight, but if include indirect sunlight it is 1120 watts [according to wiki, Sunlight].
Or for ocean the sun is 1120 watts rather than 1050 watts.
Or one has geometry of sphere which spins, plus water absorbs 1020 rather than 1050 watts which sort of acts like brighter sunlight. Also when sun move away from zenith and one get less direct sunlight, one get less diminishing of indirect light. Plus when have clouds, ones gets dramatic reduction in direct sunlight and can have “more” indirect sunlight.
And outside the tropics the angle of sun reaching level surface is less. Or less sunlight gets thru atmosphere and plus factor of less sunlight per square meter reach a level surface.
Or tropics loosely speaking has much brighter sun reaching the ocean- or why tropics is so much warmer than the rest of the planet.
Which basically mean the ocean has to warm enough so that it can warm the higher latitudes of the planet, and therefore allow Earth to have higher average temperature and increased water vapor so it can be than 20 C.
But we have a cold average temperature of the entire ocean- which prevents such “feedback effect”. Or tropics is maxed out in terms water vapor, especially when you include: “Increasing WV leads to more clouds which is a negative feedback making temperature increase from any cause self limiting.”
Or I would say earth doesn’t have such water vapor forcing- or water vapor is the effect of geometry, and outside of tropics, increased water vapor is the effect of having higher average ocean temperatures.
And question isn’t what causes the ocean to get warmer, rather what is causing the ocean to be cold.
Or what are factors which are making earth be in an icebox climate for the last few million of years- or what cools the ocean.
I will add, quoting wiki, sunlight:
“…If the extraterrestrial solar radiation is 1367 watts per square meter (the value when the EarthSun distance is 1 astronomical unit), then the direct sunlight at Earth’s surface when the Sun is at the zenith is about 1050 W/m2, but the total amount (direct and indirect from the atmosphere) hitting the ground is around 1120 W/m2…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
dan…”That the temperature increase in the liquid water leads to further increase in the liquid water is the positive feedback”.
The feedback to which I refer is defined mathematically as:
G = A/(1-AB) where G = overall gain, A = amplification without feedback, B = feedback.
If B = 0, the denominator becomes 1 and the amplification overall is the amplification in whatever system you are using. It should be noted that most real world systems have no amplification hence positive feedback does not apply.
Many people have taken to using the term feedback with a +ve and -ve sign to indicate polarity only. There is no amplification in such a system. In the atmosphere, the kind of runaway greenhouse amplification require an amplifier and many are mistaken that positive feedback can produce that amplification.
In the feedback equation above the feedback comes down to
1 – AB. If the feedback is positive the negative sign remains but if it is negative the -ve sign changes to a +ve sign.
With -ve feedback, the denominator is always > 1, therefore the overall gain is attenuated. That is a typical scenario in the atmosphere. In electronic amplifiers the attenuation can be frequency dependent, as in an audio amplifier.
If feedback is positive then 1 – AB comes down to the AB term. Ideally, we want 1 – AB to be < 1. Therefore B = positive feedback must be a small fraction of A, so that 1 – AB < 1.
When 1 – AB < 1, then G increases exponentially. In an electronic amplifier, the feedback signal is from the output to the input and in phase with the input signal. Therefore the feedback signal adds to the input signal.
That summed signal is amplified, producing a larger output signal. The feedback signal, at a percentage of the output, is fed back and increases the input signal more. That summed signal is amplified and the output increases again.
There is no other way in nature to increase a signal (heat) using feedback because the amplifier is required. If the input signal is not amplified, there is no gain in the heat.
It is not possible to do that with CO2 and water vapour. Back-radiation from CO2 would have to warm the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy. That cannot happen…think losses, amount of CO2, and the size of the IR flux from the surface.
Finally, think 2nd law. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that supplied the heat for the GHGs in the first place according to AGW. Think perpetual motion.
Since you believe that no energy can be transferred from cold to hot. :
I posed this question above. Can you answer it please.
Using whatever version of physics you believe in please explain how a room temperature thermal imaging camera can take thermographs of objects down to -50C
There are no cold rays so how does focusing an object at -40C onto a microbolometer at 25C change its temperature compared to focussing an object at -30C onto microbolometer at 25C?
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GT_Ar-9WWfQ/UNkU2Fb2nBI/AAAAAAAAA1M/NLxj8Rt7yRI/s1600/sky+high+low+cloud.jpg
This shows a thermal image of sky and clouds (in winter). The camera body was approx. 15 to 20C and the sensor was uncooled and therefore at a similar temperature perhaps hotter.
If you are correct and cold objects cannot cause warmer objects to warm then this picture should effectively be an even black (there is no object above the microbolometer temperature and in your view lower temperatures cannot warm hotter objects and remember there are no such things as cold rays). All objects in the field are less warm than the sensor and in your physics cannot change the temperature of the sensor.
However you can see temperatures from -2C to -35C. This is because the cold clouds are providing energy to the sensor changing its temperature.
If the object in the field of view were at abs zero then no heat would be transferred to the sensor and the sensor would be in equilibrium with its camera environment. Above absolute zero heat energy is transferred to the sensor and its temperature increases above the camera background.
At -50C (approx.) the heat from the object adds sufficient energy to the sensor for detection and the sensor warms until the energy OUT to the camera environment equals the energy IN from the camera environment plus the energy in through the lens.
This additional energy changes in microbolometer temperature and hence its resistance.
You should also be aware that the germanium lens used on thermal imaging cameras acts as a bandpass filter. So most radiation from CO2 and water vapour is not passed to the sensor. Hence no back radiation is seen from water vapour or CO2. Clouds of course are not water vapour but a cloud is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets (wiki) and hence thermal radiation is more like a black body allowing the camera to see the cloud.
In general a thermal imaging camera MUST be insensitive to GHG radiation otherwise hot air would fog the image.
ghalfrunt…”There are no cold rays so how does focusing an object at -40C onto a microbolometer at 25C…”
You seem confused about the difference between heat (thermal energy) and electromagnetic energy.
Detecting IR on an infrared camera has nothing to do with heat transfer per se. I am not denying that bodies emit electromagnetic energy, of which IR is part of the EM spectrum, I am claiming that not all IR is capable of heating an atom, or an aggregation of atoms as a mass.
The 2nd law certainly suggests that to be the case. If heat is restricted to being transferred between bodies from a warmer body to a cooler body, under normal circumstances, with radiative heat transfer that suggests IR from a cooler body is not absorbed by the warmer body.
Atoms can only warm when the electrons of the atom absorb EM, or when the atom collides with another atoms and thermal energy is transferred atom to atom. In either case, the energy absorbed to warm the atom must meet strict criteria in order to be absorbed.
In a conductive solid, heat is transferred atom to atom by valence electrons, just as electric current is transferred. As the atoms heat, they vibrate harder in their bonds, which also involved electrons. Whether it’s a covalent bond where the electrons are shared or an ionic bond where the charges determine the bond, electrons are a crucial part of the bond.
You seem to think that any IR that contacts a mass will be absorbed and that is not the case.
ghalfrunt…”At -50C (approx.) the heat from the object adds sufficient energy to the sensor for detection and the sensor warms until the energy OUT to the camera environment equals the energy IN from the camera environment plus the energy in through the lens”.
You need to be more specific with your energies. How does ‘the heat from the body’ add ‘energy’ to the sensor? Are you talking IR energy? IR is not heat, IR is electromagnetic energy and EM is very different than thermal energy in its properties.
The body at -50C will not transfer heat to the sensor, it will radiate EM as IR to the sensor, unless of course the sensor is below -50C. The detection of IR is not the same as the detection of heat. The sensors in an IR detector are not reacting to heat, they are reacting to light at the frequency of IR. It’s a form of photoelectric effect.
You need to understand that the IR being detected by the detector heats the detector to a temperature higher than a reference, which needs to be lower than the source of the radiation body temperature. Alternately, in a laboratory setting, the detector could be calibrated to sense temperatures at a lower temperature even though the IR is not heating the detector.
For example, in a lab setting, the detector sensitivity could be measured down to certain temperature and the current out of the detector could be calibrated to the expected current.
I have no idea how they work but bolometers (detectors) used in astronomy have a reservoir cooled to -273 C.
Gor – The initial ‘input signal’ is the solar input combined with the initial countering of radiation from the liquid water by the initial WV.
This is what results in the initial ‘input signal’ being ‘amplified’ “More WV increases the countering of the radiation from the liquid water”. The energy (temperature) of the liquid water is increased.
The ‘generic’ math is the same as what you are used to using in EE.
dan…”Gor The initial input signal is the solar input combined with the initial countering of radiation from the liquid water by the initial WV”.
Dan…you need to think this one through. The radiation from the water is supposedly a re-radiation of energy received from the surface. You cannot re-use energy from the surface by re-radiating it and adding it to solar energy.
That’s a form of perpetual motion.
You are referring to recycled energy that was produced by the Sun first time around when it heated the surface. You seem to be claiming that same energy can be recycled after somehow being stored without losses.
If you have such a lossless heat engine you should patent it.
If you look at this problem closely there are immense losses in the system that cannot be re-gained and called positive feedback. If you had an amplifier you could compensate for the losses but you’d need to supply the compensated power externally, as from the power supply of an electronic amplifier.
Amplification in an amplifier alone seems magical till you examine it closely. A transistor does not magically increase the power between its input and output, it controls a larger, externally supplied current with a small input signal and the amplification comes from larger scale variations in the supplied current.
In electronics theory we learned early that you can’t get something for nothing. That applies equally to the atmosphere and physicists like Stephan Rahmstorf who claim back-radiation can be added to solar energy have obviously not learned that lesson.
Gor – I have thought it through. I can explain it to you but I cant understand it for you.
Did you really mean to say this: “The radiation from the water is supposedly a re-radiation of energy received from the surface.”?
I know how this stuff works. Years ago I wrote a general purpose 3-D transient and steady state heat transfer program to run on a PC. It is similar to SINDA which runs on a mainframe. (I believe there is now a version of SINDA which will run on a PC). I used the program for years successfully and correctly analyzing everything from electronics to satellite stuff.
dan…” The radiation from the water is supposedly a re-radiation of energy received from the surface.?”
dan…I am quoting AGW theory in the above, it’s not my opinion.
However, the water is being heated from somewhere and I think it likely gets it’s heat directly from solar energy or from direct contact with the surface or oceans. Or even from colliding with nitrogen and oxygen molecules.
The theory of positive feedback I quoted to you is the official AGW version of how a trace gas like CO2 warms the surface via back-radiation. It’s wrong.
If you believe that, then it doesn’t matter how high a level you program at. There are high level climate model programmers who are wrong.
How about trying to explain it so I don’t misunderstand you? I am not claiming you are wrong I am only claiming the AGW theory is wrong.
If water is back-radiating energy to the surface it must transfer heat according to the 2nd law, that means no heat transfer from a cooler object to a warmer object. Same with positive feedback. No amplifier, no positive feedback.
A while back, Roy explained that positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback, which is not positive feedback.
— Gordon Robertson says:
October 2, 2017 at 4:58 PM
dan The radiation from the water is supposedly a re-radiation of energy received from the surface.?
danI am quoting AGW theory in the above, its not my opinion.
However, the water is being heated from somewhere and I think it likely gets its heat directly from solar energy or from direct contact with the surface or oceans. Or even from colliding with nitrogen and oxygen molecules.–
The N2 and O2 are colliding with the evaporated water vapor, and interacting the marine environment near the surface.
But generally unless N2 and O2 are inhibiting evaporation [and 10 tens per square meter of all the N2 and O2 of course, does this] I don’t see how these or any other gases warm the ocean surface.
gbaikie…”I dont see how these or any other gases warm the ocean surface”.
Don’t know if we’re talking about the same water. I took Dan to mean water in the atmosphere.
Clouds are sometimes modeled as small lakes since the water droplets are very large compared to water vapour. That’s the water I am referring to when I claim collisions between N2/O2 and water molecules.
Gor – By ‘liquid water’ I mean in an ocean or lake or river or puddle, etc. at ground altitude.
As to the validity of my HT program, perhaps you missed this I used the program for years successfully and correctly analyzing everything from electronics to satellite stuff. The fact that measured temperatures checked and the stuff worked demonstrates the validity of the program. It also showed some designs on paper would not work. I recall a military defense idea that was abandoned because the program showed that a cryogenic sensor could not be cooled down fast enough.
I dont blame the programmers for the bad GCMs. I expect they did a good job of programming what they were told by the climate scientists. The problem is climate scientists made a wrong assumption (CO2 causes water vapor) and exacerbated their instructions with some ignorance and perhaps other not-valid assumptions. In addition, some things had to be parameterized which, of course, meant the things were forced to comply with some persons perception of how they should work.
The correct handling of radiation heat transfer (yes it is OK to call energy exchange by radiation, heat transfer. One of my textbooks is titled Radiation Heat Transfer) between surfaces that can be adequately approximated as being gray, is by using F*A*s* (Tm^4 Tn^4) where Tm and Tn are the absolute temperatures of the two surfaces, F is the gray body shape factor calculated on the basis of area A, the view factor and the gray body emissivities of the two surfaces. The S-B constant is s. The direction that the net energy flows is determined by which is larger Tm or Tn. The same rules apply if one of the surfaces is a gas.
This accounts for the fact that all bodies above 0 K radiate and that the net exchange depends on Tm^4 Tn^4. The direction depends on which is warmer and its OK with the second law.
The statements CO2 warms the surface via back-radiation and back-radiating energy to the surface are IMO poor ways to perceive it and can be misleading. They cause some people to think, well, that cant be because it violates the second law. It might be less confusing to say that the radiation from the IR-active gas COUNTERS some of the radiation emitted by the puddle. The energy flows from warm to cool and the second law is happy.
We agree, AGW theory is wrong. Part of the reason is that CO2 molecules dont have enough time to emit photons at ground level by a factor of about 30,000 to 1. And, WV has 170+ absorb/emit bands at lower energy level than the single CO2 absorb/emit band in the IR range of earth temperatures. Also, at ground level, WV molecules outnumber CO2 molecules about 35 to one on average.
I explained how the amplification takes place: The initial input signal is the solar input combined with the initial countering of radiation from the liquid water [puddle] by the initial WV.
This is what results in the initial input signal being amplified More WV increases the countering of the radiation from the liquid water. The energy (temperature) of the liquid water is increased.
A separate device, called an amplifier is not required. Amplification is intrinsic. Perhaps your extensive EE training and experience have constricted your perception of what constitutes amplification in the rest of the world.
In Dr. Roys book, The Great Global Warming Blunder he recognizes the difference between how engineers use feedback and how climate scientists use feedback. I expect he was using the climate science definition.
ghalfrunt…found this pdf on bolo.meters, the de.tectors used in many IR detectors.
See page 3 of 7 for details.
http://ftp.iss.ibern.ch/forads/sr-009-29.pdf
“As can be seen from Equation 29.3, it is desirable that the de.tector be colder than the scene temperature…”
I am sure they have ways of detecting -50C without the de.tector being colder than the scene temperature but as I have explained that can be done by pre-cal.ibration in a lab.
I think it’s important to understand that heat is not being transfer.red from a colder object to a warmer detector on the IR scanner.
There are other ways of detecting IR besides observing the warming it can produce in a target. The wave.lengths of IR emissions increase with temperature. If you had a de.tector sen.sitive to the IR radiation band of wavelengths that should work. That has nothing to do with heat.ing of the detector since frequency is not a property of heat.
ghalfrunt…sorry, the URL is wrong. We are having issues with the host of this blog as far as simple words being rejected. Sometimes they reject URls for no apparent reason.
I put a dot in iss.ibern of the URl I posted to test it and that’s why it would not post with the normal URL.
Copy url to your browser, remove dot, and try it. Or paste it in a Google search and it should lead you to the site in Google results.
Sir Isaac Snapelton on September 27, 2017 at 5:46 PM
Bin
Where do you find all those cool graphs? Or are they homemade using a software tool?
Sorry Sir Isaac, I was on the road for a few days.
What a fun to discover the same stuff produced by the same people all the time.
Sir Isaac, Excel is a wonderful help in time series management, by
– showing you linear estimates it computes for you out of them;
– showing you graphs out of one or more time series with, as little extra, various trend curves (linear, running mean over n units, polynomial etc).
So if you download e.g. a time series for ocean heat contents and one for the sun spot numbers, you may, if they rely on the same time unit (months, years), superpose them in an Excel graph and compare their running means over the same period, e.g. 60 months.
The Excel graph you then may print into a pdf file which can be converted into a picture and finally uploaded by using Internet tools free of charge.
Of course, many data sets are too huge to be processed by Excel.
Having a software engineering past helps you in such a case, if you can manage to verify and validate your software for example by using… Excel again.
binny…”So if you download e.g. a time series for ocean heat contents and one for the sun spot numbers, you may, if they rely on the same time unit (months, years), superpose them in an Excel graph and compare their running means over the same period, e.g. 60 months”.
Exactly what does that tell you if you download the series for UAH from 1979 – 2017? You get a positive trend, but what does it mean?
It in no way implies that the positive trend is due to anthropogenic warming. Plugging numbers into Excel, and presuming that, is the mark of someone unfamiliar with statistical analysis.
Excel is a tool, it requires further scientific analysis to understand the output given a certain input.
I have seen alarmist after alarmist in this blog fail to understand that the 0.13C/decade trend given for UAH data represents anthropogenic warming.
There manifestly still is need to debunk what some trolls repeatedly pretend concerning Clausius 2LoT work, e.g.
that heat never moves from a colder to a warmer body
or
that radiation cant take place from a colder to a warmer body.
Never did Clausius pretend such nonsense. To pretend he did is simply lying.
What Rudolf Clausius wrote is THIS AND NOTHING ELSE:
This principle on which the whole following development is based is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.
Clausius never specified what had to be understood with ‘another change’.
*
And to these unteachable trolls I repeat Clausius sentence concerning radiation:
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
binidiot…”it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one…”
It just dawned on me that your quote is not from Clausius at all. It’s you expounding as if you are Clausius. He did refer to heat transfer via radiation but it’s in an earlier book than the book from which I am quoting, maybe 25 years earlier.
You are still confused about the difference between radiation and heat. Atoms do NOT radiate heat, they radiate electromagnetic energy. The bodies are not radiating specifically to each other they are radiating isotropically. If atoms could think, they would not care about the other body, they are just doing what they do naturally, radiating EM to space.
A heat exchange between adjacent bodies of different temperature is not done physically, through space. The heat decreases in the warmer body as it emits and increases in the cooler body as it absorbs energy from the warmer body. The reverse process is not true. The 2nd law says so.
binny…”What Rudolf Clausius wrote is THIS AND NOTHING ELSE:
This principle on which the whole following development is based is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.
Clausius never specified what had to be understood with another change”.
I have to reply in sections because the idiots at WordPress have filters on innocuous words like Had.crut and absorp.tion. Hence the dots in the words. It would help if anyone encountering this idiocy would post the words they encounter as being filtered.
Part 1 – He most certainly did specify what he meant. Clausius stated that heat would have to be transferred to the cooler body, or work done on it, at the same time it transferred heat to the warmer body. He called it compensation.
part 2 …
He was referring obviously to the case with an electrically-operated refrigerator or air conditioner (although neither was available at the time), where heat is transferred from a cooler area inside the device to the warmer atmosphere.
this is getting seriously ridiculous when the idiots at WordPress cannot configure a server to allow blogs without filtering perfectly normal words.
part 3…
The process of air conditioning involves a complex compression of a gas using a compressor driven by an electric motor. The gas is compressed from a low pressure gas to a high pressure liquid. The liquid moves through a condenser where it is exposed to warmer atmospheric air. In the condenser the high pressure liquid re.frig.erant transfers heat to the atmosphere.
ta da…and the idiot of the year prize for ridiculous filters on common words goes to WordPress…for their blockage of the word re.frig.erant. WordPress has gone to the unusual length of blocking two parts in the same word.
Excellent work WordPress.
part 3…
Following the condenser, the HP liquid goes through a valve that atomizes the liquid before it is fed to an evapourator. In the evapourator the pressure is reduced and the unit absorbs warm air from an area that is to be cooled. As a low pressure gas it returns to the compressor to be converted back to a HP liquid.
That’s what is involved in transferring heat from a cooler region to a warmer region. Clausius called it compensation, since as you can see, the re.frig.erant transfers heat to the atmosphere due to the compression of the gas. Work is required to compress the re.frig.erant and work is the equivalent of heat, another finding of Clausius.
By doing work on the gas (re.frig.erant) you change its pressure and allow it to transfer heat to the environment. In the evapourator, you allow the gas to receive heat from a warmer source.
You MUST supply external work as heat to transfer heat from a cooler source to a warmer target. That compensation is not available in the atmosphere.
binny…”What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”.
You will note this part of the Clausius statement…”…the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one…”. He did not state that the cold one radiates HEAT to the warm one. Clausius was known for precision in his wording and it is telling that he omitted to claim heat is transferred from the cold body.
There are cases in high temperature physics where bodies that are independent heat sources can radiate against each other. In such cases, Boltzmann, Planck and Kircheoff’s equations come into play. Such absorp.tion/emission does not apply in our atmosphere where GHGs represent dependent radiators.
I am sure that’s all Clausius meant. If you take the time to read the rest of his words around those statements you took out of context that will become abundantly clear.
In another part, “…the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”. This is a clear statement of fact, that the heat increases in one body and decreases in the other.
In Bindiot’s recent cherry picking escapade, in which he took words from Clausius out of context, her over-looked the following:
From page 78 of “On the Mechanical Theory of Heat’, by Clausius, is stated:
“.. Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body.”
” A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation.”
Same book, bottom of page 21:
“We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of this motion”
In those days, kinetic energy was known as Vis Viva and potential energy as Ergal.
In other words, Clausius claimed heat is the kinetic energy of the motion of atoms. In another part of the book, he claims that atomic motion is not required to calculate heat transfer between external bodies (macro world). All that’s required is the work done, or the degree of change of heat.
It’s plain from that definition that modern scientists have taken liberties and defined heat on external phenomena rather than the atom. That may serve them well in the macro world but it obscures the true nature of heat which is the kinetic energy of atomic motion.
Clausius on the equivalence of heat and work:
“In all cases where work is produced by heat, a quantity of heat is consumed proportional to the work done; and inversely, by the expenditure of the same amount of work the same quantity of heat may be produced.
Please note…atomic vibration produces work, hence heat.
What is definitely incredible is that this Robertson troll pretends to know everything better about Clausius, though he is only able to refer to free, inexact english translations, and of course not to carefully read the original documents published by Clausius himself in German!
For this troll calling me an idiot, I therefore repeat my comment posted on Sep 25.
Bindidon says:
September 25, 2017 at 8:41 AM
What is called ‘the second law of Thermodynamics’, has been stated as a principle (but was never proved) by Rudolf Clausius in an article entitled
Ueber eine veraenderte Form des zweiten Hauptsatzes der mechanischen Waermetheorie
i.e.
On a modified form of the second fundamental theorem of the mechanical theory of heat
published 1854 in ‘Annalen der Physik und Chemie’ Band XCIII Nr 12, pp. 481-506.
to be found in e.g.
http://zfbb.thulb.uni-jena.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/jportal_derivate_00140956/18541691202_ftp.pdf
The exact text (in p. 488) is:
Dieser Grundsatz, auf welchem die ganze folgende Entwickelung beruht, lautet: es kann nie Waerme aus einem kaelteren in einen waermeren Koerper uebergehen, wenn nicht gleichzeitig eine andere damit zusammenhaengende Aenderung eintrift.
i.e.
This principle on which the whole following development is based is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.
It should be clear to anybody that a truncation of Clausius’ statement down to e.g.
‘Heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body’
is nothing else than lack of understanding or will to manipulate.
*
Moreover, people always referring to Clausius’ statement mostly ignore his deep knowledge concerning radiation. Here is an example of this knowledge.
I found a document written by german physicist Jochen Ebel from which in turn I was directed to
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
and found therein the following (paragraph 1 on p. 315):
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
Braunschweig, 1887
ABSCHNITT XII.
Die Concentration von Waerme- und Lichtstrahlen und die Grenzen ihrer Wirkung.
1. Gegenstand der Untersuchung.
Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt.
i.e.
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
*
Of course, the one or the other stubborn denialist certainly will have no problem in inventing some pseudo-argument against even Clausius knowledge!
*
Nun halten Sie doch endlich die Klappe, Robertson!
And for the same troll I add this comment I published a bit later.
Bindidon says:
September 25, 2017 at 9:19 AM
Two years ago I read Roy Spencer’s excellent contribution:
What Causes the Greenhouse Effect?
June 13th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
to be found in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
This was then reedited with:
The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect, or Atmospheric Pressure?
July 30th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
to be found in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
These two documents helped me in definitely understanding why backradiation is physically possible even from a cooler troposphere down to a warmer surface, and that radiation budgets resulting from their radiation difference are a meaningful, serious matter (and not some ridiculous warmista blah blah).
Roy Spencer’s second head post ended with
Finally, just because the greenhouse effect exists does not mean that global warming in response to increasing carbon dioxide will be a serious problemthat is another issue entirely, and involves things like cloud feedbacks. Im only referring to the existence of the Earths natural greenhouse effect, which to me is largely settled science.
What is today important to me is that now I realise that what Spencer understands under ‘largely settled science’ in fact goes back to even the end of the 19th century, and, somewhat ironically, was known to just the man whose work is permanently invoked as a contradiction to backradiation: Rudolf Clausius in person.
*
And this troll really thinks he can set his poorish knowledge above that of a renowned scientist like Spencer…
Gordon Robertson
I really hope that what you write is just a joke. You surely cannot be talking of physics that exist in this universe.
Your physics just does not work and certainly does not allow room temperature thermal imaging cameras to work. Nor does it allow CO2 lasers to cut wood. I do not even think it would allow humanity to exist.
Gordon Robertson says: October 2, 2017 at 3:29 PM
ghalfruntThere are no cold rays so how does focusing an object at -40C onto a microbolometer at 25C
You seem confused about the difference between heat (thermal energy) and electromagnetic energy.
Detecting IR on an infrared camera has nothing to do with heat transfer per se. I am not denying that bodies emit electromagnetic energy, of which IR is part of the EM spectrum, I am claiming that not all IR is capable of heating an atom, or an aggregation of atoms as a mass
The 2nd law certainly suggests that to be the case. If heat is restricted to being transferred between bodies from a warmer body to a cooler body, under normal circumstances, with radiative heat transfer that suggests IR from a cooler body is not absorbed by the warmer body.
================
GH
So here you are saying that some IR CANNOT heat objects
====================
Gordon Robertson says: October 2, 2017 at 3:46 PM
ghalfruntAt -50C (approx.) the heat from the object adds sufficient energy to the sensor for detection and the sensor warms until the energy OUT to the camera environment equals the energy IN from the camera environment plus the energy in through the lens.
You need to be more specific with your energies. How does the heat from the body add energy to the sensor? Are you talking IR energy? IR is not heat, IR is electromagnetic energy and EM is very different than thermal energy in its properties.
============
GH
The sensor has to be in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. The lens itself emits IR since it is not cold to the sensor. The electronics in the bolometer emit IR to the sensor element. The electronics in the bolometer conducts heat to the sensor via its (minimal) mechanical linkages. The general enclosure (camera body) emits IR to the sensor.
The sensor also emits photons to the surroundings mentioned. The relative loss of heat and gain of heat has to be balanced for the system to work as a thermometer. (there is a calibration shutter which periodically obscures the output of the lens and presents a known temperature to the sensor which can then be calibrated)
Each photon carries an amount of energy which when the photon is absorbed by the sensor gets converted to heat. The sensor is a simple resistive plate a few microns square which can only convert photons to heat. The change in the sensor element RESISTANCE is detected by the electronics. there is no quantum effect with a bolometer.
================
GR
The body at -50C will not transfer heat to the sensor, it will radiate EM as IR to the sensor, unless of course the sensor is below -50C. The detection of IR is not the same as the detection of heat. The sensors in an IR detector are not reacting to heat, they are reacting to light at the frequency of IR. Its a form of photoelectric effect.
===========
GH
NO IT IS NOT it is a simple heat to resistance change that is detected nothing to do with IR frequency
===========
GR
You need to understand that the IR being detected by the detector heats the detector to a temperature higher than a reference, which needs to be lower than the source of the radiation body temperature.
=============
GH
This is garbage.
==============
GR
Alternately, in a laboratory setting, the detector could be calibrated to sense temperatures at a lower temperature even though the IR is not heating the detector.
For example, in a lab setting, the detector sensitivity could be measured down to certain temperature and the current out of the detector could be calibrated to the expected current.
==============
GH
How can it do this if IR causes no change to the sensor. The sensor does NOT work by magic!! It simply measures the temperature of the sensor element. THAT IS ALL IT CAN DO
=============
GR
I have no idea how they work but bolometers (detectors) used in astronomy have a reservoir cooled to -273 C.
=============
GH
Yes cooling the sensor enables it to work at lower temperatures with less noise. This should be obvious. Many astronomical sensors use quantum sensors which operate over very narrow frequency band and do not use a microbolometer.
You STILL HAVE NOT used your physics to tell me how a room temperature microbolometer camera can measure temperatures down to -50C. Remember no negative photons, and a sensor only sensitive to temperature change NOT wavelength.
If you search for the ultimate infrared handbook by FLIR a company that exists by selling both quantum and microbolometer cameras based on real physics, the operation of thermal cameras should become clear.
You must also be able to explain how a CO2 laser can cut wood by burning when the wavelength of its output is a mere 10.6um by using your new physics.
It is interesting to also have a look at fifteen terawatt picosecond co2 laser from OSA. How can a cool 10.6um beam carry so much power?!
Weinstein law gives 10.6um as peak BB temp of 0C 273K.
So now let’s use a laser power meter e.g. B01LL7YZ38 to measure the output power of a co2 laser. According to your physics if the sensor (aluminium block and thermocouple is warmer than 273K the laser will not heat the block. How do you explain the fact it does?
The block is not particularly sensitive to frequency of radiation 10um to 1um so it is definitely not a quantum device!
In normal physics each photon of 10.6um laser output carries 1.87joules. and assuming these mainly get absorbed by the black aluminium block each will impart 1.87 joules to the block causing it to warm
Of course the block will also be loosing heat. If the laser power is 60 watts then it will be generating 3x10e21 photons per second into the Bloch. The block will get hot just as it does in reality.
Now of course if your physics is correct then a 60 watt laser could not damage your hand if placed in the beam – your hand is much hotter than the 0C of the beam and so the photons would not touch you body!!! PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS.
Wein of course – dammed spel chucker and predictive text
1.87joules should of course be 1.87×10^-20joules.
We are due another solar storm, will probably trigger Bali or some other volcano and create some significant cooling.